Proposal: C-Glide-V

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

la .and. cusku di'e
 > A proposal:
 >
 > Lojban allows the following syllables (cmavo in UI):
 >
 > .ua .ue .ui .uo .uu  [?wa ?we ?wi ?wo ?wu]
 > .ia .ie .ii .io .iu  [?ja ?je ?ji ?jo ?ju]
 >
 > I would like to propose that the following syllables be
 > made available as cmavo:
 >
 > bua  bue  bui  buo (buu)  [bwa  bwe  bwi  bwo (bwu)]
 > ...

I'll support this, if only because it will force And to stick in
apostrophes (or at least 'h's) when writing cmavo.  :-)

(Seriously, no position.)

--Dylan




Message  3:
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:06:01 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Subject: Dylan on ri - late response

mi cusku di'e
 > >Actually, I'd recommend changing the behaviour of {ri}.  From the
 > >history I know, it seems like the current behaviour was necessary when
 > >it was the only form of pronoun; but now {ko'a}, {ra}, etc.  (not to
 > >mention lerfu) cover pronouns quite sufficiently.  Specifically, the
 > >antecedent of {ri} should be the sumti whose termination is closest on
 > >the left.

la lojbab. cusku di'e
 > ...
 > But wait - what means termination closest?  Do you count elided
 > terminators or not?

Yes.  Isn't this the current behaviour (modulo KOhAs)?  "Last complete
sumti" implies that to me.  If not, someone should clarify.

What does
        le la alis. tamne cu prami ri
mean?

 > lojbab

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.


Message  4:
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:39:01 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Subject: quantifiers on sumti - late response

la lojbab cusku di'e
 > ... (lots of stuff, including) ...
 > The relevant grammar portion is thus:
 >  
 > < ... 
 > <sumti_tail_111          :  sumti_tail_A_112
 > <                           /* inner-quantified sumti relative clause */
 > <                        |  relative_clauses_121  sumti_tail_A_112
 > < ...

Wow, the YACC grammar has comments!  I should take to reading that
instead of the BNF.

...  (lots more, including the "three men in the room stuff".  I get so
embarrassed every time someone else points out my really stupid grammar
mistakes.)  ...

 > The specific historical reason is the "SE SORME" = ze mensi issue that I
 > described the other day.  JCB thought it loose and illogical to allow
 > the construction at all,

I agree, but since

 > ...it kept creeping back into actual usage
 > (i.e. the little Loglanders in his head always used it %^),

I'll bow to the forces of usage.  (Was he the only one using the
language at the time?)

 > ...
 > There are some limits to what you can put before the bare selbri in a
 > simple description.  We have expanded this to allow for preposed
 > relative clauses after the Finnish model, and this took considerable
 > work and debate.  A recent proposal to allow preposed "be/bei"
 > constructs was embedded in last week's discussion - it might work, and
 > might be useful, to people with a preposed grammar native structure.
 > Veijo???  But no guarantees we could make it grammatical, and it is not
 > importnat enough to justify a change if it causes anything more than a
 > trivial expansion rule (if even then).

Just to support this: since I thought (incorrectly) that, e.g.,
        le mi do se cusku
used this preposed grammar, I guess I find it natural too.  (This
would be written
        le be mi bei do se cusku
with the current proposal.)

 > ... <more than I have time to respond to right now> ...
 > lojbab

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.