- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "toi'e"
[parent]
[root]
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.
|
-
|
|
|