jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

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 #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.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?