krtisfranks wrote:
> 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? This case is
> less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not mean
> anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification as SE
> provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check.

This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't merge/remove
any places.

Comment #4: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives

gleki (Wed Dec 24 09:38:08 2014)

gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? This case is > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not mean > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification as SE > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't merge/remove > any places. su'ei explained here:http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27812;commentid=1512; definition=0 Now "su'ai JA": "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo citka" = We three eat only and only if we three all eat.

Comment #5: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives Alex Burka (Wed Dec 24 15:12:39 2014) gleki wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? This case > is > > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not mean > > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification as > SE > > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't > merge/remove > > any places. > > su'ei explained > here:http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27812;commentid=1512; > definition=0 > > Now "su'ai JA": > "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo citka" = We three eat only and only if we three > all eat. Er, what? That doesn't make any sense, and "SE JA BRIVLA" does not parse. Comment #6: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Wed Dec 24 15:56:06 2014) > > Er, what? That doesn't make any sense, and "SE JA BRIVLA" does not parse. oops, i just looked at what i wrote. su'ei explanation still stands imo. but pls, ignore the rest. what i actually mean, if su'ai deletes first two places then su'ai jo probably means that it's jo and sejo with their meanings merged. Since connective take only two arguments it shouldn't have any pragmatic usage compared to su'ei jo. Comment #9: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Sat Dec 27 06:55:32 2014) durka42 wrote: > gleki wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? > This case > > is > > > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not mean > > > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification as > > SE > > > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > > > > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't > > merge/remove > > > any places. > > > > su'ei explained > > > here:http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27812;commentid=1512; > > definition=0 > > > > Now "su'ai JA": > > "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo citka" = We three eat only and only if we > three > > all eat. > > Er, what? That doesn't make any sense, and "SE JA BRIVLA" does not parse. An issue added to ilmentufa: https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/issues/78 It's "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo" that does't parse, not "su'ai jo broda". Also ce lists objects to be put into "su'ai jo" function, an evidence that JA connectives should have been rather prepositions in this language rather than something similar to ce/ce'o. Comment #10: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives Alex Burka (Sat Dec 27 07:00:48 2014) gleki wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? > > This case > > > is > > > > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not > mean > > > > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification > as > > > SE > > > > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > > > > > > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't > > > merge/remove > > > > any places. > > > > > > su'ei explained > > > > > > here:http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27812;commentid=1512; > > > definition=0 > > > > > > Now "su'ai JA": > > > "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo citka" = We three eat only and only if we > > three > > > all eat. > > > > Er, what? That doesn't make any sense, and "SE JA BRIVLA" does not > parse. > > An issue added to ilmentufa: > https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/issues/78 > > It's "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo" that does't parse, not "su'ai jo broda". > > Also ce lists objects to be put into "su'ai jo" function, an evidence > that JA connectives should have been rather prepositions in this language > rather than something similar to ce/ce'o. It's not an issue with SE+JA -- mi ja broda doesn't work, neither does mi se ju broda. To use a tanru-internal connective, you need two tanru units. And I don't see how you get meaning out of mi ce do su'ai jo citka in your example -- can you show some intermediate steps, maybe? Comment #11: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives Alex Burka (Sat Dec 27 07:02:31 2014) durka42 wrote: > gleki wrote: > > durka42 wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? > > > This case > > > > is > > > > > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not > > mean > > > > > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its > classification > > as > > > > SE > > > > > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > > > > > > > > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't > > > > merge/remove > > > > > any places. > > > > > > > > su'ei explained > > > > > > > > > > here:http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27812;commentid=1512; > > > > definition=0 > > > > > > > > Now "su'ai JA": > > > > "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo citka" = We three eat only and only if we > > > three > > > > all eat. > > > > > > Er, what? That doesn't make any sense, and "SE JA BRIVLA" does not > > parse. > > > > An issue added to ilmentufa: > > https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/issues/78 > > > > It's "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo" that does't parse, not "su'ai jo broda". > > > > Also ce lists objects to be put into "su'ai jo" function, an evidence > > that JA connectives should have been rather prepositions in this > language > > rather than something similar to ce/ce'o. > > It's not an issue with SE+JA -- mi ja broda doesn't work, neither does > mi se ju broda. To use a tanru-internal connective, you need two tanru > units. And I don't see how you get meaning out of mi ce do su'ai jo > citka in your example -- can you show some intermediate steps, maybe? Duplicate post due to braindead formatting. It's not an issue with SE+JA -- Word mi ja broda not found in database. doesn't work, neither does "mi se ju broda". To use a tanru-internal connective, you need two tanru units. And I don't see how you get meaning out of "mi ce do su'ai jo citka" in your example -- can you show some intermediate steps, maybe? Comment #12: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Sat Dec 27 08:43:19 2014) durka42 wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > durka42 wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? > > > > This case > > > > > is > > > > > > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not > > > mean > > > > > > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its > > classification > > > as > > > > > SE > > > > > > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > > > > > > > > > > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't > > > > > merge/remove > > > > > > any places. > > > > > > > > > > su'ei explained > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here:http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27812;commentid=1512; > > > > > definition=0 > > > > > > > > > > Now "su'ai JA": > > > > > "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo citka" = We three eat only and only if > we > > > > three > > > > > all eat. > > > > > > > > Er, what? That doesn't make any sense, and "SE JA BRIVLA" does not > > > parse. > > > > > > An issue added to ilmentufa: > > > https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/issues/78 > > > > > > It's "mi ce do ce abu su'ai jo" that does't parse, not "su'ai jo > broda". > > > > > > Also ce lists objects to be put into "su'ai jo" function, an > evidence > > > that JA connectives should have been rather prepositions in this > > language > > > rather than something similar to ce/ce'o. > > > > It's not an issue with SE+JA -- mi ja broda doesn't work, neither does > > mi se ju broda. To use a tanru-internal connective, you need two tanru > > units. And I don't see how you get meaning out of mi ce do su'ai jo > > citka in your example -- can you show some intermediate steps, maybe? > > Duplicate post due to braindead formatting. > > It's not an issue with SE+JA -- Word mi ja broda not found in database. > doesn't work, neither does "mi se ju broda". To use a tanru-internal > connective, you need two tanru units. > > And I don't see how you get meaning out of "mi ce do su'ai jo citka" in > your example -- can you show some intermediate steps, maybe? Oh, I thought i explained earlier in this thread. Let's use official grammar then. ".o" connects two sumti. However, "su'ai .o" puts sumti from the left and sumti from the right into one left sumti with the right sumti zi'o-fied. That's why "mi .o do" is the same as "mi ce do su'ai .o" "mi ce do su'ai .o broda" would show this example better. Comment #13: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives Alex Burka (Sat Dec 27 18:30:38 2014) Oh yes, I see. Still I'm not sure it would be worth it to change the grammar to make this work. For example "broda be mi je brode" would change from "(broda be mi) je (brode)" to "broda be (mi je broda)" (in experimental grmmar) and that would be weird. Comment #14: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Sun Dec 28 06:50:01 2014) durka42 wrote: > Oh yes, I see. Still I'm not sure it would be worth it to change the > grammar to make this work. For example > > "broda be mi je brode" would change from "(broda be mi) je (brode)" to > "broda be (mi je broda)" > > (in experimental grmmar) and that would be weird. It won't change since there is no zi'o generator there. su'ai is one. Comment #15: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives Alex Burka (Mon Dec 29 04:45:59 2014) > It won't change since there is no zi'o generator there. su'ai is one. Hmm so su'ai modifies the behavior of the following connective so that it no longer connects things but just attaches to the sumti before it. But if su'ai has that power it can't be in SE, since the grammar will treat ``su'ai jo the same way as ``se ju. Comment #16: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives Alex Burka (Mon Dec 29 04:47:51 2014) durka42 wrote: > > It won't change since there is no zi'o generator there. su'ai is > one. > > Hmm so su'ai modifies the behavior of the following connective so that > it no longer connects things but just attaches to the sumti before it. But > if su'ai has that power it can't be in SE, since the grammar will treat > "su'ai jo" the same way as "se ju". There's no winning when working with undocumented wiki syntax, is there. See above quote for corrected version. Comment #17: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Mon Dec 29 06:53:43 2014) durka42 wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > > It won't change since there is no zi'o generator there. su'ai is > > one. > > > > Hmm so su'ai modifies the behavior of the following connective so that > > it no longer connects things but just attaches to the sumti before it. > But > > if su'ai has that power it can't be in SE, since the grammar will > treat > > "su'ai jo" the same way as "se ju". > > There's no winning when working with undocumented wiki syntax, is there. > See above quote for corrected version. su'ai deletes x2 in selbri and moves its value into a unified x1 where former x1 and x2 are connected using ce or jo'u depending on your dialect. It works exactly the same with connectives: x2 is deleted. SE changes selbri and that's what is needed here: a new selbri with a new place structure appears. If it can't be in SE then okay. Neither it put syntactically a zi'o into x2 since zi'o can be reached with fe but in "su'ai broda" former x2 can never be reached again. So su'ai is rather similar to "zil-" but not zi'o. Comment #18: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Mon Feb 16 16:42:35 2015) gleki wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > > Hmm so su'ai modifies the behavior of the following connective so > that > > > it no longer connects things but just attaches to the sumti before it. > > But > > > if su'ai has that power it can't be in SE, since the grammar will > > treat > > > "su'ai jo" the same way as "se ju". > > > > SE changes selbri and that's what is needed here: a new selbri with a new > place structure appears. > > If it can't be in SE then okay. Neither it put syntactically a zi'o into > x2 since zi'o can be reached with fe but in "su'ai broda" former x2 can > never be reached again. > > So su'ai is rather similar to "zil-" but not zi'o. xorxes thinks that it's okay to be in SE since e.g. zo'e and zi'o are both in SE. Not even a subselmaho since zi'o and zo'e are both in koha7. Thus somewhere in subsubselmaho. And of course in su'ai jo the word su'ai modifies jo.

Comment #7: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives

Curtis W Franks (Wed Dec 24 18:56:57 2014)

gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? This case is > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not mean > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification as SE > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't merge/remove > any places. Well, what does «zi'o» do with «.e»?

Comment #8: Re: Interaction with Modals and Connectives gleki (Wed Dec 24 19:28:47 2014) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > 2) What does «su'ai JE» (for example) mean, if anything? This case > is > > > less obvious to me in general. It is possible that it does not mean > > > anything, despite the syntactic allowance that its classification as > SE > > > provides (confer «by te .e cy»), but I again want to check. > > > > This question would be rather applied to su'ei that doesn't > merge/remove > > any places. > > Well, what does «zi'o» do with «.e»? you mean what is that in JA that gets deleted (zi'o-fied) with su'ai? It should result from "i broda jo brode vau" to "i broda su'ai jo vau" since jo can't have any third place since connectives can take two and only two arguments. Here both of them are merged into one, the second argument is zi'ofied. Still, it's understandable: "It brodas only and only if all members broda". Still I don't think it can have any reasonable usage except artistic one. su'ai is primarily necessary for simxu-relations where the number of participants >=3. For simxu itself, tavysi'u it's useless. For "uinai they it is not reciprocal" brivla like tavla and jikca the sibling particle su'ei is to be used (saves one syllable compared to su'ai).