[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 06:09 PM 1/10/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >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 We need to distinguish two types. One where an elliptized zo'e adds information and an overt zi'o would cancel that addition, and one where an elliptized zo'e adds no information and an overt zi'o subtractively changes the meaning. Zi'o as a sumti is of the latter type, and given the other facts of Lojban, here I would favour a variety of zo'e that takes zi'o as a possible value. As for the former type, I'm not sure how many examples of these there are. One that got abolished was the tense equivalent of zo'e, and if that had been the prescribed default tense then one would have had to insert a zi'o tense in order to state atemporal propositions. In such cases it is better to have no default, which is equivalent to having a zi'o tense: the sentence is not making a claim about tense, and if tense is relevant then it must be glorked. > Furthermore, I don't believe that it is possible to constrain > ellipsis. People will ellipsize when they think pragmatics will fill in > the place That's not a problem. As long as we all know what sentences mean, it doesn't matter what we try to communicate with them. > >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) The closest that English has to overt zi'o is dummy-it or dummy-there that is used as a subject (It's raining, There's a problem). English has two kinds of ellipsis, one definite and the other indefinite. But if we were to analyse English as having elliptized zi'o then it would perhaps be rife. Basically, overt zi'o is pretty unnatural or marked, but what could be analysied as covert zi'o is so natural that it wouldn't occur to anyone to analyse it is covert zi'o. One would analyse it as there being nothing there, not a covert zi'o. > > > 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" I am all in favour of having abbreviations. If you want to sign up to a campaign for abbreviations, let me know. I opine that abbreviations should be applied to maximize brevity in actual text, with abbreviations being targeted at the most frequent words and phrases. > Jorge seems to detest converter cmavo as much as anything else I'm fond of them. > > > 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'd like to speak a Lojban where it was possible to encode the distinction, since to me it is clear. > > > 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 My suggestion would apply to the first of the two types, i.e. where the ellipsis omits information that you might not otherwise know had been omitted. E.g. something to mark a tense ellipsis would mean "I am making a temporal claim, but not actually explicitly specifying the tense". Without the ellipsis marker, it has to be glorked whether the claim is temporal or atemporal. I think the way Lojban handles tense sets a Good Example for other areas of grammar. --And.