[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 06:09 PM 1/10/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
Lojbab: > At 12:18 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > If it is agreed that tu'o cannot overlap both zi'o and zo'e (I remain > > > unconvinced of this) > > > >I don't find such an ambiguity acceptable at all > > That is a plausible argument, but if it is valid then it then suggests that > ALL places where we have a zo'e-like elliptical word, we need a zi'o > equivalent as well (co'e, do'e, do'i, fu'u, ge'e (the zi'o is the computer > attitudinal %^), and ju'a, with others possibly not noticed). A better solution is not to allow ellipsis when a zi'o value is possible,
I don't think we agree as to when "a zi'o value is possible". You just gave two sentences with zi'o in various places of catra, when I do not recognize any meaning in either. If zi'o is possible there, it is possible everywhere.
In particular zi'o is always possible in the final place of a sumti, so you would never be able to ellipsize any sumti value.
Furthermore, I don't believe that it is possible to constrain ellipsis. People will ellipsize when they think pragmatics will fill in the place.
so that zero = zi'o. Zi'o itself is a kludge universally detested, but the notion that what is not said aloud is not said at all is much more palatable.
Maybe to you, but not to people who speak natural language. (humorous implication intended).
> And why not have a zu'i for each of these as well? Or have fewer selmaho and more converter cmavo.
So much for your "abbreviations". Jorge seems to detest converter cmavo as much as anything else.
> mo'ezo'e actually. The usage in question was tu'o as an elliptical digit > value, as in pasosotu'o (1990's), or retu'o (20-something). pasosotu'o would be nineteen-ninety-something, not 1990s,
Same difference to me; it would depend how it was used which interpretation I understood.
> I'm not pushing for any change at all of course - but if I have to accept > that a fix is needed, let us make sure it is the right one I'd prefer changing the rules for construing ellipsis, and possibly adding UI to mark ellipsis -- you'd just add it where the unelliptized word would occur.
I cannot imagine that being acceptable; it sounds counter to the whole concept of ellipsis that it would have to be marked.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org