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 "i'au"
[parent] [root]
Comment #2: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Curtis W Franks (Thu Jul 16 21:01:29 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> i'au is not a true famyma'o at all. All it does, is two things:
>
> 1. Automatically insert all famyma'o required to return to the top level
of
> the sentence. In other words, everything .i will add except the last
> vau. (It's not meant to be more powerful than .i; in other words, it
> will not close lu...li'u, to...toi, tu'e...tu'u, or fu'e...fu'o, and
> perhaps others I'm not aware of)
>
> 2. Any attitudinal-groups (UI/NAI/CAI) that attach to it scope over the
> entire sentence. Thus, it does behave much like that last vau with
> respect to them, even though it doesn't actually add it.
>
> One interesting result is that mi broda do i'au i'au i'au i'au zo'o is
> grammatical. i'au works even when there isn't actually any famyma'o for

> it to add.

I agree with (1) and the later observation but I kind of disagree with how
(2) should work. If .i'au really just takes the bridi level back to that
of the original bridi, then it just closes all of the most recent nesting.
Any UI immediately following it should apply to the last full structure in
the original bridi (at level 0), which is what would happen if all of the
necessary famyma'o had been inserted. The only way to apply the scope to
the whole bridi is via vau or putting UI immediately after .i.

For example, "lo broda be lo brode be lo brodi .i'au .ui" has ".ui" apply
to all of the "lo broda" construct (rather than just lo brodi).

Comment #3: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Jonathan (Fri Jul 17 05:57:11 2015)

Well, part of the problem with that is that the original purpose of i'au
was indeed meant to also represent that final vau (It could even have
been a true famyma'o, closing the "sentence" construct), for the purposes
of attaching an attitudinal to the entire sentence as an afterthought. That
is still its most common usage, and I wish to preserve that meaning in the
use-case represented by do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu i'au ui.

Perhaps though, it could just have the attitudinals scope over everything
*previous* to it in the sentence.

Comment #5: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jul 18 06:07:44 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> Well, part of the problem with that is that the original purpose of
i'au
> was indeed meant to also represent that final vau (It could even have
> been a true famyma'o, closing the "sentence" construct), for the purposes

> of attaching an attitudinal to the entire sentence as an afterthought.
That
> is still its most common usage, and I wish to preserve that meaning in
the
> use-case represented by do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu i'au ui.
>
> Perhaps though, it could just have the attitudinals scope over everything

> *previous* to it in the sentence.


Sure, it can function howsoever we (as a community) desire (with you, as
the creator wielding considerable power in the process, at least
initially). But, morally, I feel like (1) and (2) are in conflict, which is
why I said "should" instead of "could". I just do not see how, if I were
to have a whole bunch of nested bridi levels and if I then closed them all
and followed that closure with .ui, that that .ui would apply to
anything other than the last whole structure uttered- that is how UI
normally works- all that happened is that we jumped back to the a main
bridi level. But I guess that this word could also start a metalinguistic
comment for UI which says "hey, if any UI immediately follow this word,
apply them to the whole bridi; otherwise, get on with your life".


Concerning your last point: The other day, while showering, I realized the
desirability of having a universal UI terminator that would wrap up the
scope of any open UI's. Basically, UI would apply to the last whole
construct mentioned as usual and, if that construct were still open, then
their scope would continue until the terminator, thus not applying to the
remainder of the construct (and the terminator would kill all UI, not just
the most recently mentioned one). I think that your idea is a specific case
of this one, wherein the construct is the whole bridi itself (so the word
preceding the UI would be either .i or vau). I could not quite word
it/make it work technically, but I still think that it could be useful.

Comment #6: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 12:22:46 2015)

Actually I'm beginning to think you may have a point. Consider

lo nu ko'a broda ko'e lo nu ko'i ko'o brode i'au po'o broda brode

po'o would be more naturally interpreted to attach to that last
construct, so why should it work if that nested-NU occurs at the end?

This does complicate things somewhat. Both these usages want something
short (hence my booking of the precious, and atypical, monosyllabic cmavo
iau for this), but cmavo space is an issue.

Comment #9: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Curtis W Franks (Sun Jul 19 17:54:32 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> Actually I'm beginning to think you may have a point. Consider
>
> lo nu ko'a broda ko'e lo nu ko'i ko'o brode i'au po'o broda brode
>
> po'o would be more naturally interpreter to attach to that last
> construct, so why should it work if that nested-NU occurs at the end?
>
> This does complicate things somewhat. Both these usages want something
> short (hence my booking of the precious, and atypical, monosyllabic cmavo

> iau for this)

.i'au and .iau can be different but closely related.

Comment #7: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 12:25:06 2015)

s/ should it work / should it work differently

Comment #8: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Jonathan (Sun Jul 19 14:34:28 2015)

This brings us to the problem of attaching a UI to a sumti (especially
important with po'o and ji'a, as the meaning of a sentence can change a
lot depending on what they're attached to)

"fa po'o lo broda cu brode" is commonly used to mean "lo broda ku po'o
brode", but may be somewhat problematic... the "correct" meaning is
probably "fa, and no other places". This meaning may be awkward (fi'a
is hardly used), but replace fa with a sumtcita and the problem becomes
clear: "ca po'o lo broda cu brode"... "only when broda did brode happen".
However, the ku version is often inconvenient, especially if the sumti
has several nestings.

There is actually a solution we found. "ke po'o lo broda cu brode" fronts
the UI without needing to attach to the sumti place. This is an extension
of ke useful to do complex things with connectives like "ke ko'a ce ko'e
ke'e ce ko'i". Unfortunately, the camxes parser has a bug, and doesn't
parse it correctly. (The more-experimental zantufa and alta parsers do
parse them, however.)

Comment #4: Re: Current (and hopefully final) understanding of the grammar of i'au
Jonathan (Fri Jul 17 06:20:27 2015)

Well, in other words, i'au is *not* cu'au xi da'a. It grammatically
acts *like* cu'au xi da'a, but treats attitudinal scope differently.

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?