From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dei zo'u ra'u ge no'e se ganzu gi liste lo poi'i kanpe lo du'u li'ai BPFK ca su'o balvi cu ei se cuntu ke'a. I e'e do jmina fi ku.

Ni'o lo cmeta

  • I mi'e la Gleki:
    • I dei noi papri cu kalsa.
    • I ei gau ku lo nu casnu do'e lo drata me BPFK papri co'a pagbu.

Ni'o lo gerna srana poi ei jai se jdice


  • lu {ti citka be mi} li'u
  • lu {lo nu brode ba brodo} li'u
  • lu {fi do vecnu ti} li'u
  • lu {jai frili fai ma} li'u
  • lu {mi broda fa do} li'u

Ni'o lo srana be lo vlaste

  • I ei lo gimste zo'u xagzengau tu'a lo valsi se cuxna pe lo velcki gi'e va'o zengau lo sranysi'u lo ka manfo. I ei zukte tu'a lo gismu cfiste.
    • (to sa'a lo gismu cfiste ma zvati mi'e la Cirko toi)
  • I ei ro lo cmavo cu se vlavelcki su'o uenzi be lo lojbo
  • I ei ro lo cipra gismu zo'u jdice lo du'u xu kau co'a catni se zanru
  • I ei ro lo cnino cmavo se stidi zo'u jdice lo du'u xu kau inda tu'a su'o ca'irselzau tarmi

Ni'o lo srana be lo sumti klesi

  • I ei casnu lo si'o sumti klesi. I mu'a lo si'o mo'e ce'u da ka'e sumti ce'u noi zilkai.
  • I ei ciksi tu'a lo te sumti lu'u poi mo'a va'e lo ka se ciksi je pe mu'u lo re moi pe zo "skari".

Ni'o lo srana be lo te sumti stura

  • I lo du'u lo bridi je lo zilkai vu'o poi lu'e ke'a se pagbu zo "kau" cu turbaro ma kau
  • I so'i gismu zo'u lo sumti poi se zvati su'o lo drata sumti zo'u simlu co mulno co srana be na bei lo smuni. I ei pei gau co'u sumti?
  • I ei jdice lo du'u ma kau smuni zoi gy "by standard" gy pe lo gismu vlavelcki

Predicate interactions issues

Includes sumtcita (since they are compressed predicates)

  • Formalize fi'o and BAI. Currently they are all broken and terrible. Some BAI might need to be killed or heavily redefined to make sense / be useful. for fi'o there are two options... there are infinitely many predicates, so it's simply not possible to define interaction of fi'o with every predicate seperately. therefore i propose to use a single formula that works for all fi'o clauses. BAI can be considered special in that they are more precisely defined and don't need this general solution. (bau = fi'o se baupli). this means that the fi'o transformation of tags is but an approximation, not a full equivalence. co'e only word that is general enough

Mekso issues

  • Improve the BPFK definition for {ji'i} (see this related discussion)
  • Deciding upon the meaning of {ni}, and how to express amounts (zenba2, barda2, cnano2…)
  • – sei la Zipcpi do'e lo CLL cfiste cu cusku – ju'u is in VUhU. It should be of the type PA. Notice how {pi} and {ni'u} and {ka'o} and {ci'i} and {fi'u} are all of type {pa}, so they can go in a numerical literal between digits. especially {ka'o}, which can separate the real part and imaginary part to make a complex literal, and similarly {su'o} and {su'e} can separate numbers to make intervals.
  • I ei lanli lo ro mekso nu sampygau kei gi'e jdice lo du'u ma kau noi gunma cu ro pa mei lo prane [1] [2]

Unsorted issues

  • Formalize the tense system (?)
  • CAhA as sumtcita
  • scope weirdness in ZAhO definitions ("broda ba'o lo nu brode ~= ba'o broda ca lo nu brode"??)
  • subjunctivity formalization
  • position ne inner rel is outer with LE, but inner (part of name) with LA. is this desirable? (what if LE-LA merge goes through, still desirable?)
  • scope of NA
  • scope of ko, UI, ma
  • tu'a lo jei lu na'e gerku li'u smudra va'o lo nu lu to'e gerku li'u na smudra cu .e'u poi'i jdice ke'a gi'a jai gau zilzena fai lo ni ke'a jmifrili
  • na'e ko'a
  • make the PEG the official grammar.
  • add uy and iy as BY
  • add a new FAhA that means "along a path". I suggest {pu'a} from {pluta} (ditch the {pluka} BAI). {mi cadzu pu'a lo rirxe}. {pu'a} has almost no usage (8 times and only on IRC)
  • define {lo >1 da} with unbound da
  • discuss the jvojva
  • Have a discussion about the status of dialects.
  • Xu zo zo'e ka'e sinxa lo na'e konstanta? I mu'a lu "Mi na citka" li'u zo'u: xu ei da se pensi gi'e poi'i xusra lo du'u na citka ke'a? I ji ka'e smuni fa lo du'u lo cusku cu citka no da?
    • I ji'a zo zi'o zo'u: ei pei ri se smuni su'o satcymau? I lo nu da'i ge lo CLL smuni gi lo cnino cu poi'i jinvi lo du'u ke'a inda lo ka se valsi zo'u: zo zi'i za'o na se smudu'a.
  • Discuss logical connection of sentences with different illocutionay force
xorxes This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different views when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentences with different illocutionary force to be logically connected. For me logical connection only applies to bare propositions, and not to propositions-in-use.
And My palpably deteriorating memory isn't pinging, so even if you recall correctly, I still don't. I do think that illocutionary operators can themselves be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for I'm hungry") tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predicates it follows that in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to be logically connected. I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussion, tho.
xorxes Yes, that was a good example. My view was that the underlying logic for that is:
  1. I (hereby) ask whether it is dinner time yet.
  2. The reason for my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hungry.

1 and 2 are different propositions, but 2 happens to contain 1. Since both illocutionary acts make use of the same proposition, it is convenient to utter the sentence expressing that proposition only once, but that doesn't make the first illocutionary act (as opposed to just its propositional content) an argument of the predicate used in the second act.

  • lu jai nandu fai lo ka broda li'u zo'u xu lo nu pilno zo se cu sarcu .i lu fai lo ka broda li'u ji lu fai lo ka se broda li'u drani

Review change proposals