In (iuro'o toi'e uinai), does toi'e attach to just (ro'o) or (iuro'o)?\%\%\%

Comment #2: Re: Question

Curtis W Franks (Fri May 22 04:37:06 2015)

spheniscine wrote:\%\%\%> In (iuro'o toi'e uinai), does toi'e attach to just (ro'o) or (iuro'o)?\%\%\%\%\%\%Hmmm... I am not sure. I suppose that it is a matter of what we \%\%\%want/practicality. Tell me what you think of this: It is my opinion that it\%\%\%should apply to only ro'o since it is the single immediately previous UI \%\%\%cmavo and the definition does not mention clusters; this has a practical \%\%\%side to it as well: if you want it to apply to a cluster, under this \%\%\%interpretation, you can always force them into one unit via use of fu'e \%\%\%and fu'o, whereas if it automatically applied to the entirety of the \%\%\%immediately previous cluster, then there would be no easy way (aside from \%\%\%bracketing just one individual cmavo in the cluster with it via fu'e and \%\%\%fu'o) to make it apply to just one part of the cluster, which is \%\%\%potentially desirable. I also prefer to bracket longer units, rather than \%\%\%smaller ones.\%\%\%

Comment #4: Re: Question Jonathan (Fri May 22 06:49:37 2015) krtisfranks wrote:\%\%\%> spheniscine wrote:\%\%\%> > In (iuro'o toi'e uinai), does toi'e attach to just (ro'o) or (iuro'o)?\%\%\%> \%\%\%> Hmmm... I am not sure. I suppose that it is a matter of what we \%\%\%> want/practicality. Tell me what you think of this: It is my opinion that \%\%\%it\%\%\%> should apply to only ro'o since it is the single immediately previous \%\%\%UI \%\%\%> cmavo and the definition does not mention clusters; this has a practical \%\%\%> side to it as well: if you want it to apply to a cluster, under this \%\%\%> interpretation, you can always force them into one unit via use of fu'e\%\%\%\%\%\%> and fu'o, whereas if it automatically applied to the entirety of the \%\%\%> immediately previous cluster, then there would be no easy way (aside from\%\%\%\%\%\%> bracketing just one individual cmavo in the cluster with it via fu'e \%\%\%and \%\%\%> fu'o) to make it apply to just one part of the cluster, which is \%\%\%> potentially desirable. I also prefer to bracket longer units, rather than\%\%\%\%\%\%> smaller ones.\%\%\%\%\%\%I think that might be potentially problematic. What of modifiers like nai\%\%\%and cai then? In my understanding, UI-cmavo groups naturally stick \%\%\%together like rice; by default, they clump together and all simultaneously \%\%\%apply to the last lexical item.\%\%\%\%\%\%Additionally, I don't think fu'e / fu'o is an adequate solution, as in \%\%\%my understanding fu'e / fu'o act as anchors for UI-cmavo to attach to \%\%\%(similar to how a UI-cmavo attaching to a le or ku would affect the \%\%\%entire construct. For example, if I wanted to give a long speech about the \%\%\%things I hope (a'o) for, I might use group the entire thing under a \%\%\%fu'e ... fu'o, and attach a'o either to fu'e or fu'o. \%\%\%\%\%\%Thus, trying to use fu'e / fu'o to apply UI-cmavo to other UI-cmavo may\%\%\%cause ambiguity or undefined behavior, since which are the UI-cmavo that \%\%\%attach and which are the UI-cmavo that are attached to? Additionally, \%\%\%fu'e / fu'o requires forethought and is thus difficult in practical \%\%\%usage.\%\%\%\%\%\%Perhaps a solution is to create yet another TOIhE cmavo, that acts as a \%\%\%"null" parenthesis (similar to how ke works for tanru) to separate UI \%\%\%cmavo. For example, in (au *koi'e ui toi'e iu), iu would apply to ui and \%\%\%not au, while without koi'e, it'd apply to both.\%\%\% Comment #5: Re: Question Curtis W Franks (Fri May 22 07:51:15 2015) spheniscine wrote:\%\%\%> krtisfranks wrote:\%\%\%> > spheniscine wrote:\%\%\%> > > In (iuro'o toi'e uinai), does toi'e attach to just (ro'o) or \%\%\%(iuro'o)?\%\%\%> > \%\%\%> > Hmmm... I am not sure. I suppose that it is a matter of what we \%\%\%> > want/practicality. Tell me what you think of this: It is my opinion \%\%\%that \%\%\%> it\%\%\%> > should apply to only ro'o since it is the single immediately previous\%\%\%\%\%\%> UI \%\%\%> > cmavo and the definition does not mention clusters; this has a \%\%\%practical \%\%\%> > side to it as well: if you want it to apply to a cluster, under this \%\%\%> > interpretation, you can always force them into one unit via use of \%\%\%fu'e\%\%\%> \%\%\%> > and fu'o, whereas if it automatically applied to the entirety of the \%\%\%> > immediately previous cluster, then there would be no easy way (aside \%\%\%from\%\%\%> \%\%\%> > bracketing just one individual cmavo in the cluster with it via fu'e \%\%\%> and \%\%\%> > fu'o) to make it apply to just one part of the cluster, which is \%\%\%> > potentially desirable. I also prefer to bracket longer units, rather \%\%\%than\%\%\%> \%\%\%> > smaller ones.\%\%\%> \%\%\%> I think that might be potentially problematic. What of modifiers like \%\%\%nai\%\%\%> and cai then? In my understanding, UI-cmavo groups naturally stick \%\%\%> together like rice; by default, they clump together and all \%\%\%simultaneously \%\%\%> apply to the last lexical item.\%\%\%> \%\%\%> Additionally, I don't think fu'e / fu'o is an adequate solution, as \%\%\%in \%\%\%> my understanding fu'e / fu'o act as anchors for UI-cmavo to attach to\%\%\%\%\%\%> (similar to how a UI-cmavo attaching to a le or ku would affect the \%\%\%> entire construct. For example, if I wanted to give a long speech about \%\%\%the \%\%\%> things I hope (a'o) for, I might use group the entire thing under a \%\%\%> fu'e ... fu'o, and attach a'o either to fu'e or fu'o. \%\%\%> \%\%\%> Thus, trying to use fu'e / fu'o to apply UI-cmavo to other UI-cmavo \%\%\%may\%\%\%> cause ambiguity or undefined behavior, since which are the UI-cmavo that \%\%\%> attach and which are the UI-cmavo that are attached to? Additionally, \%\%\%> fu'e / fu'o requires forethought and is thus difficult in practical \%\%\%> usage.\%\%\%> \%\%\%> Perhaps a solution is to create yet another TOIhE cmavo, that acts as a \%\%\%> "null" parenthesis (similar to how ke works for tanru) to separate UI \%\%\%> cmavo. For example, in (au *koi'e ui toi'e iu), iu would apply to ui and \%\%\%> not au, while without koi'e, it'd apply to both.\%\%\%\%\%\%Write up that definition. I will support it. Even if other solutions work \%\%\%with already-present words and modifications/additions to the existing \%\%\%grammar, an explicit unambiguous and clearly-functioning mechanism could be\%\%\%helpful, at least in the experimental stage.\%\%\%

Comment #3: Re: Question

Curtis W Franks (Fri May 22 04:37:08 2015)

spheniscine wrote:\%\%\%> In (iuro'o toi'e uinai), does toi'e attach to just (ro'o) or (iuro'o)?\%\%\%\%\%\%Hmmm... I am not sure. I suppose that it is a matter of what we \%\%\%want/practicality. Tell me what you think of this: It is my opinion that it\%\%\%should apply to only ro'o since it is the single immediately previous UI \%\%\%cmavo and the definition does not mention clusters; this has a practical \%\%\%side to it as well: if you want it to apply to a cluster, under this \%\%\%interpretation, you can always force them into one unit via use of fu'e \%\%\%and fu'o, whereas if it automatically applied to the entirety of the \%\%\%immediately previous cluster, then there would be no easy way (aside from \%\%\%bracketing just one individual cmavo in the cluster with it via fu'e and \%\%\%fu'o) to make it apply to just one part of the cluster, which is \%\%\%potentially desirable. I also prefer to bracket longer units, rather than \%\%\%smaller ones.\%\%\%