Re: TECH: new cmavo "ju'e"

mi joi la xorxes. cusku be di'e casnu

> > Using this cmavo solves two problems: it eliminates the need for Jorge's
> > proposed change X1,
> 
> It makes much more verbose what could be made simple. I don't understand
> why that would be preferrable.

Not that much more, only two syllables:  ju'e+BAI+bo for BAI+bo.

> > However, Lojban Central feels that having compounder selma'o
> > involving "stag" is dangerous unless there is both a beginning and an
> > as in "I stag BO", "ek stag BO", "gihek stag BO", and the like; there
> > might be a hidden ambiguity involving a stag followed by a non-compounded
> > BO, and nothing except experimentation (thought or computer) can pick
> > up such ambiguities.
> 
> Are Lojban Central's feelings really a good reason to oppose "stag BO"?
> Why not do the experimentation? I don't see what the hidden ambiguity
> could be.

I don't see it either, but notoriously experimentation is good for finding
bugs, not for assuring oneself that none are present.  The
bug expressed by "re su'i {jebo pi'i}/{je bopi'i} re" was only spotted
by the fact that I happened to "see" it while thinking about "bo"; it's
been in the grammar for at least 2.5 years.

The compounder mechanism is very powerful: it completely defeats Yacc's
defenses, telling it "Take it on faith that this construct is safe".
Every time a proposal is made for complicating compounder constructs
(and I've made plenty of them myself), I fear that something like this
will slip through.  (The last one of this sort was an ambiguity between
numbers and subscripts.)

la xorxes. joi la lojbab. cusku di'e

> > The proposed usage of stag or stag-BO as a connective, without a preposed
> > connective scope marker, would add an infinite set of cmavo-compounds to JOI,
> 
> Not infinite, unless you mean use of subscripts.

Yes, infinite: there are unbounded iterations in the tense grammar:  e.g.
"pupupupupupupupupupupupu ...".

> > and they would be difficult to resolve on the fly since they make use of
> > the BAI words that already have two other usages with different scopes
> > (sumti tcita and selbri inflection).
> 
> How do you explain then that nobody has had any trouble understanding me
> when I use them? And why are they easier to resolve when compounded with
> a JOI, given that the other usages are still there?

Because the JOI gives warning that a stag+BO may follow.

> > Just as Jorge's proposal to allow JE the full range of usage of JOI is
> > unacceptable then, so is a major increase of JOI-scoped connectives,
> 
> But why is it unacceptable? You take it as a given that it is unacceptable
> but you haven't explained why. You say it would be dangerous and confusing
> but you don't give an example of how it could cause danger or confusion.
> Why not let usage decide. If people are confused they will not use them.
> If they find it natural (as I do) then they will use them.

Grammatical extensions are always possible; it is a question of what we
will put in the parser and the reference grammar.  The judgment of Lojban
Central (with which I concur) is that explaining the existing uses of "je"
is hard enough, without adding new optional uses.

> > especially since there already IS a means to connect using causals or other
> > BAIs in after thought:  we insert the BAI/stag in between a connective
> > of the right scope and BO/KE.
> 
> Which connective do you use for {ba'ibo}?

I don't see that this one makes sense:  ba'i/basti doesn't take event
(or other abstract) arguments.  To say "I, replaced by you, am going",
use "mi ne ba'i do", which is "mi noi do basti ke'a".

This is not the same as "My going replaces your going" which would be
"lenu mi klama cu basti lenu do klama" or "mi ju'eba'ibo do klama";
but does this case really mean anything at all?  It doesn't convey much to me.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.