- 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 "sei'au"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #3:
Re: Notes on the Notes
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 9 02:37:39 2018)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > "Module" has approximately the same meaning as it does in Mathematica. > > The requirement that the sumti that fills sei'au1 begin with li is an > artifact of mau'au (which produces a mekso operand) and not really of > this word. In a sense, this word takes (a series of) mekso expression(s) > and applies them to the linguistic structure of the bridi at a semantic > level. > > This word is its own terminator and the terminator is mandatory. This is > rather odd in Lojban but I made this requirement for practical > considerations. Firstly, I did not want to use up another cmavo for the > terminator but it seemed advisable to me to have one, since the next sumti > can be anything and its typing will not necessarily be enough to > distinguish it. Second, realistically, this word will not be used to edit
> the semantics of a structure multiple times in a row (but if the utterer > wishes to do so, this is still possible). Note that pi'u can reduce the
> usage of this word as well. Thirdly, since this word is so clunky, it is > good to have multiple arguments within it, as defined, that way it need not > be used too often; however, this further motivates the need for a > terminator. > > The language used for levels of syntactic nesting used in the notes is > rather metaphorical. I was unsure of how to be clear without being verbose. > In particular, "open selbri" are those which have not been terminated. > > The afterthought (so long as the selbri is still open) capability is > useful. But this does mean garden-pathing/reinterpretation can be required > of the audience. Also, it complicates this word's usage (one has to be > careful with the arguments supplied). Additionally, the utility of > afterthought editing being supported further promotes the existence of a > terminator for this word. > > If goi is used on the sumti of sei'au2, then the referent updates with > every new occurrence of the selbri (technically, after the occurrence of > the terbri) to which this word applies. Thus, this value is > context-dependent if used later in the discourse. This property is useful
> for overriding one sei'au application for another or for referencing how > long one application has to remain active. This value decreases strictly > monotonically until it reaches 0, where it remains until the variable is > redefined. > > This word really defines a new terbri which is
newbrodam = f(brodam) > and replaces every occurrence of brodam in the possibly zmico-affected > definition of the currently open selbri with
newbrodam for the next n > uses of the terbri (after which time, the definition reverts to it previous > (possibly zmico-affected) form). Any sumti which fills this slot fills in
>
newbrodam. In order to be clear: It is not 'f(sumti)' that fills > brodam; it is 'sumti' which fills
newbrodam. > > I was not sure that zi'a'o was the best way to manually revert > (temporarily) to the possibly zmico-affected definition. However, since f
> may not have an inverse (and may not even be properly defined, depending on > how the influence of sei'au constructs overlap), it was best to define a > specific safety-word for this meaning. If you squint hard enough, this > choice even makes a lot of sense; on the other hand, it can be problematic > if one actually wants an empty function.
Why are (by far most of) the comments not displaying? They appear when I go to respond to this thread, just not when I am reading it.
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Notes on the Notes
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 9 02:38:47 2018)
|
Why are (by far most of) the comments not displaying? They appear when I go > to respond to this thread, just not when I am reading it.
krtisfranks wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > "Module" has approximately the same meaning as it does in Mathematica. > > > > The requirement that the sumti that fills sei'au1 begin with li is an
> > artifact of mau'au (which produces a mekso operand) and not really of
> > this word. In a sense, this word takes (a series of) mekso expression(s) > > and applies them to the linguistic structure of the bridi at a semantic
> > level. > > > > This word is its own terminator and the terminator is mandatory. This is > > rather odd in Lojban but I made this requirement for practical > > considerations. Firstly, I did not want to use up another cmavo for the
> > terminator but it seemed advisable to me to have one, since the next > sumti > > can be anything and its typing will not necessarily be enough to > > distinguish it. Second, realistically, this word will not be used to edit > > > the semantics of a structure multiple times in a row (but if the utterer > > wishes to do so, this is still possible). Note that pi'u can reduce the > > > usage of this word as well. Thirdly, since this word is so clunky, it is > > good to have multiple arguments within it, as defined, that way it need
> not > > be used too often; however, this further motivates the need for a > > terminator. > > > > The language used for levels of syntactic nesting used in the notes is > > rather metaphorical. I was unsure of how to be clear without being > verbose. > > In particular, "open selbri" are those which have not been terminated. > > > > The afterthought (so long as the selbri is still open) capability is > > useful. But this does mean garden-pathing/reinterpretation can be > required > > of the audience. Also, it complicates this word's usage (one has to be > > careful with the arguments supplied). Additionally, the utility of > > afterthought editing being supported further promotes the existence of a > > terminator for this word. > > > > If goi is used on the sumti of sei'au2, then the referent updates with > > every new occurrence of the selbri (technically, after the occurrence of > > the terbri) to which this word applies. Thus, this value is > > context-dependent if used later in the discourse. This property is useful > > > for overriding one sei'au application for another or for referencing how > > long one application has to remain active. This value decreases strictly > > monotonically until it reaches 0, where it remains until the variable is > > redefined. > > > > This word really defines a new terbri which is
newbrodam = > f(brodam) > > and replaces every occurrence of brodam in the possibly > zmico-affected > > definition of the currently open selbri with
newbrodam for the next > n > > uses of the terbri (after which time, the definition reverts to it > previous > > (possibly zmico-affected) form). Any sumti which fills this slot fills in > > >
newbrodam. In order to be clear: It is not 'f(sumti)' that fills > > brodam; it is 'sumti' which fills
newbrodam. > > > > I was not sure that zi'a'o was the best way to manually revert > > (temporarily) to the possibly zmico-affected definition. However, since f > > > may not have an inverse (and may not even be properly defined, depending > on > > how the influence of sei'au constructs overlap), it was best to define a > > specific safety-word for this meaning. If you squint hard enough, this > > choice even makes a lot of sense; on the other hand, it can be > problematic > > if one actually wants an empty function. > > > Why are (by far most of) the comments not displaying? They appear when I go > to respond to this thread, just not when I am reading it.
|
-
|
|
|