[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
> >lo ci (ko'a .e ko'e)
> >lo ciboi re broda
> >
> >I could make some sense of {lo ciboi re broda} interpreting it
> >as {lo ci lo re broda},
>
> I won't guess what you interpret the latter to be. The former under the
> version of the language I know would mean "at least some of the 3 pairs of
> broda in the universe", which I would loosely equate to "lo ciboi re lo
> [xa] broda, since there would have to be exactly 6 for there to be 3 pairs
> of broda in the universe.
I was thinking "Mr Three Pairs of Broda". In any case, if we consider
the specific version, {ro le ciboi re broda} it would seem we will get
the same meaning: "each of the three pairs of broda that I have in mind".
> The former is difficult because the prosumti are undefined. It might
> expand out into logically connected sumti, in which case ko'a might mean re
> broda and ko'e might mean re brode, and you have two claims parallel to the
> one you can grasp.
{.e} having scope over {lo} in that construction seems odd, but everything
is possible.
> But a corresponding *intended* usage might be "lo
> so'eboi pa tarci joi so'u plini" (the many planetary systems).
Yes, that one does make some sense. (Except perhaps for {so'e}. If
so'e really is unrelated to "most" it should loose that keyword once
and for all. With your reading of inner quantifiers as "all",
saying that most is all is odd. With XS reading it is fine, though,
as "Mr Most One-Star-and-A-Few-Planets".)
> > but what is {lo ci (ko'a e ko'e)}?
>
> (The real answer is that we tried to make the grammar as unrestricted as
> possible, while still being able to resolve the structure unambigously per
> YACC.
Not always, though. {ka'enai} is an example where you didn't follow
that rule.
> There is all kinds of nonsense possible in number strings too, so we should
> expect some amount of nonsense to be grammatical in Lojban sumti structures.
I would expect that every structure makes sense at least in some cases,
otherwise what's the point of having the structure at all? It may be that
with some content the structure gives nonsense, but if the structure
itself is nonsensical, it shouldn't be there. I'm not saying this is the
case here, as we have been able to find some possible uses after all.
> At one time I was one of those fighting to find interpretations for as many
> possible strings, but Cowan convinced me that this was a waste of time.)
Structures we don't find an interpretation for won't get used, and so will
at least de facto drop out of the language.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com