Re: TECH: grammar updates

[John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>]

la kolin. cusku di'e

> As I understand it, the SE that precedes BAI is not the same as other SE
> anyway. As you say, BAI are 1-place, and the relationship between BAI and
> SE BAI is:
>
> if
>         do'e            represents      fi'o broda
> then
>         se do'e         represents      fi'o se broda
>         te do'e         represents      fi'o te broda

Correct.

> > We still have the (pure) forethought connectives like "semaugi...gi" and the
> > mixed logical/modal afterthought connectives like ".esemaubo", and these
> > should suffice for the cases, if any there be, where such constructs must
> > exist.  It will always be rather indeterminate, however, what is to go into
> > the second position of such connectives, because of the inherent one-place
> > nature of BAIs.
> >
> I think it is a mistake to think of these as connectives. I think it is more
> productive to think of them as connectives plus tcita on the second
 connectand.
> This is easy to see for sentence connectives:
>
>         .ijeseri'abo co'e = .ije (bo) seri'a co'e
> just as
>         .ijebabo co'e   = .ije(bo) ba co'e

I'm fairly sure this is wrong, because I know that BAI and tenses are
not parallel, but I don't have a firm grasp on what's wrong with it, for
two reasons:  1) I haven't yet written the paper on place structures, 2)
I slept very badly last night.

> so I suggest
>         .ijesemaubo co'e = .ije(bo) semau co'e (whatever that means)
> and
>         xy. .esemaubo .y'y = nu'i xy. nu'u .e semau .y'y
>
> Thus the BAI remains 1-place.

Your account also fails to explain the "BAI gi ... gi" construction, which
works well for tenses (which do have an implicit 2nd place, viz. the
space-time origin), but may be very shaky for BAIs.

> > The Nick/Lojbab experimental cmavo "xo'e", which eradicates a place
> > (so that "da klama xo'e xo'e de di" means the same as "da litru de di"),
> > has been assigned the cmavo "ne'e" and placed in selma'o KOhA.
>
> I'm dubious that this is either necessary (has anybody ever used iFrom @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar 27 03:01:18 1993
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 27 Mar 1993 03:01:18 -0500
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 9487; Sat, 27 Mar 93 02:59:59 EST
Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP  id 2656; Sat, 27 Mar 93 01:36:29 EST
Date:         Sat, 27 Mar 1993 16:34:08 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: grammar updates
X-To:         C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK
X-Cc:         Lojban Mailing List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id> from "C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK" at Mar 26, 93 03:35:10 pm

C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK spoke thus:

}It seems to me then that
}        da jai broda
}is equivalent to
}        tu'a da broda
}je'upei

Yes. The main point of {jai} is that you can use it inside sumti as well.
{le jai broda} is, in {tu'a} terms, only {da poi tu'a da broda}.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick S. Nicholas,                      "Rode like foam on the river of pity
Depts. of CompSci & ElecEng,            Turned its tide to strength
University of Melbourne, Australia.     Healed the hole that ripped in living"
nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au           - Suzanne Vega, Book Of Dreams
______________________________________________________________________________