[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> > They don't have to have identical grammar to be analogous. If they did,
> > we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> That definition is too broad, as you well know, otherwise "fa" and
> "ma" are "analagous" simply because they're both cmavo and they
> both end in the letter 'a'.
They are analogous to that extent, yes. But being analogous in that
they can both be a simple-tense-modal is stronger than that they are
both cmavo. It is not unreasonable to generalize from seeing that
you can nai a simple-tense-modal to all simple-tense-modals. It goes
against the grammar, I know, but for people who learn by imitation
and generalization that doesn't count. And it is not unreasonable
to expect that restrictions in Lojban are based on something more
than "that's the way it is".
> [...]
> > > I think you mentioned {mi pu na'eka'e broda}. This doesn't make
> > > sense either, since either the whole tense should be negated or
> > > not.
> >
> > It makes perfect sense: impossible in the past. This is different
> > from possible in the non-past.
>
> I thought "na'e pu ka'e" is other than (possible in the past).
>
> Doesn't the na'e scope over the whole tense unit?
I have no idea. Since it makes perfect sense with short scope,
and na'e has short scope in tanru, for example, I expect short
scope here as well. But tenses are fairly wacky, so you may
very well be right. In which case, how do you do short scope
na'e on tenses?
> > No, it is not a matter of saving syllables. It is a question of not
> > forbidding sensible strings just for the sake of forbidding them.
> [...]
>
> It's not a matter of forbidding strings.
>
> The grammar specifies the list of allowed strings. If it's not
> broad enough for you I think the burden of proof is on you to show
> that it is worthwhile for it to be broader in a particular area.
Different philosophies, I guess. I don't want arbitrary restrictions,
you don't mind them.
> One possible argument is that it would allow saying things with
> less syllables. Another is that it would remove reduce/reduce or
> shift/reduce conflicts and/or simplify the grammar.
Another is that if it makes sense, and it causes no problems,
there is no reason not to allow it.
> But increasing the number of allowed strings simply for that purpose
> alone is not a valid argument. (At least not to me).
To me, forbidding strings just for the heck of it is not acceptable,
even if there are other ways to get to the meaning that the forbidden
string would naturally have.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com