[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
la lojbab cusku di'e
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:55:03 -0500
> From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
> Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
> To make for example, the NOI proposal general enough, as in Veijo's last
> version, you have a relative clause, and nothing is all that clear as to
> where the "ke'a" is in the relative clause, OR what the ke'a stands for.
> Thus "za noi nanca lipimu ..." you could not put any of the standard
> KOhA in the x1 of nanca, and have it be clear. You have to deduce or declare
> a convention that a time interval there is a time interval distance. There
> is no way to make thius precisely clear.
The convention would be that ke'a refers to the tense property described
by the preceding mod_head, i.e. time interval distance in the case of ZI
and time interval duration in the case of ZEhA etc. Everything is already
based on conventions, so one new convention...
> And unfortunately, I can easily
> envision that a construct like Veijo's latest version (was it mod_head+
> relative clause?) is so potentially flexible that people will invariably find
> all sorts of interesting things to put in that relative clause, with some
> inevitable semantic collision.
I just made a technical feasibility study. Having 'mod_head +
relative_clause' in the model which passes YACC means that all
more restricted models will also pass YACC - no extra testing is
Having thought of the matter, I actually see no reason to restrict
a potential actual implementation - the ability to generate an immense
variety of semantic crap is nothing new as far as the Lojban YACC
grammar is concerned :-) The full model offers some really interesting
possibilities if you start thinking about it with an open mind, and
there might be much less pressure for amendments in the future if it
were adopted instead of some limited form.
co'o mi'e veion
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.