What is Lojban?
{CODE(wrap="1]]jbocre: 13:17 <vensa> {le'ai} alone means "I made an error, you should know what it is"
jbocre: 13:17 <vensa> {le'aidai} means "I believe *you* made an error"
jbocre: 13:18 <donri> valsi: le'ai (class)
jbocre: 13:18 <valsi> le'ai (class) = LEhAI
jbocre: 13:18 <donri> No it doesn't.
jbocre: 13:18 <donri> It means {le'ai ge'edai}
jbocre: 13:18 <vensa> http://vlasisku.lojban.org/le'ai
jbocre: 13:18 <donri> I made an error and I sense you emote something.
jbocre: 13:18 <donri> valsi: le'ai (notes)
jbocre: 13:18 <valsi> le'ai (notes) = The {lo'ai} ... {sa'ai} ... {le'ai} replacement construct asks the listener to replace the text after {lo'ai} with the text after {sa'ai}.; The order {sa'ai} ... {lo'ai} ... {le'ai} is also allowed, and either or both parts can be omitted and thus left up to context. When both parts are omitted, the word {le'ai} on its own indicates that a mistake was made while leaving all the details up to context.; It is also possible to attach SAI to a le'a
jbocre: 13:19 <vensa> dbrock seemed to think otherwise when he coined it
jbocre: 13:19 <vensa> maybe his def shouldnt be gramatical
jbocre: 13:19 <donri> Yea but dbrock is confused about the grammar. :)
jbocre: 13:20 <donri> valsi: dai (class)
jbocre: 13:20 <valsi> dai (class) = UI5
jbocre: 13:20 <vensa> but thats a whole discussion topic about wether CAI can be attached to non-ui and what does that mean
jbocre: 13:20 <ksion> It is also possible to attach SAI to a le'ai -- This is pretty clear.
jbocre: 13:20 <donri> Hm, maybe I'm confused about the grammar.
jbocre: 13:20 <donri> I thought dai was a CAI and CAI only attach to UI otherwise an implicit ge'e
jbocre: 13:20 <ksion> Oh, {dai} is UI5.
jbocre: 13:20 <dbrock-> I use {le’ai dai}
jbocre: 13:20 <ksion> mabla selma'o
jbocre: 13:20 <vensa> ksion: it's very clear. except there is no SAI. it's CAI
jbocre: 13:21 <donri> But UI attachment is ambiguous, so it could ambigously be used that way maybe.
jbocre: 13:21 <donri> Ambigous because UI normally do not attach to UI but UI4 does. Crazy shit.
jbocre: 13:21 <vensa> yes. unless it was explicitly defined in the def of {lo'ai}, which it has
jbocre: 13:21 <vensa> so no ambiguity :)
jbocre: 13:22 <kucli> each time i write something, everybody is waking up and write something
jbocre: 13:22 <kucli> u'i
jbocre: 13:22 <donri> vensa: It's not clear if notes are authoritative.
jbocre: 13:23 <kucli> each time i write something, everybody here wakes up and write something *
jbocre: 13:23 <vensa> UI attaching to UI is specifically left ambiguos in CLL
jbocre: 13:23 <donri> Also, I don't like the idea that definitions can contradict grammar.
jbocre: 13:23 <vensa> donri: I agree
jbocre: 13:23 <donri> Some defined cmavo clusters might already, and it's not clear if that's authoritative or suggestive.
jbocre: 13:23 <vensa> but, having a UI (dai) attach to {le'ai} doesnt seem to defy the grammar in this case
jbocre: 13:24 <vensa> I think the notes are part of the def
jbocre: 13:24 <donri> UI4 should probably move to CAI (maybe dai too)
jbocre: 13:24 <vensa> maybe
jbocre: 13:24 <vensa> but take UI5 with you :)
jbocre: 13:25 <donri> Maybe all of UI5 should be CAI.
jbocre: 13:25 <donri> "Modifiers" by definition.
jbocre: 13:27 <donri> vensa: It doesn't defy the grammar because the grammar is unclear.
jbocre: 13:27 <vensa> true. like i said. there is some debate on the subject of CAI and UI
jbocre: 13:28 <donri> UI should not attach to UI and CAI should only attach to UI (or implicit ge'e) and UI modifiers (UI4 and UI5) should as modifiers attach to UI like CAI.
jbocre: 13:28 <vensa> says you :)
jbocre: 13:28 <vensa> maybe I agree
jbocre: 13:28 <donri> {iu ui} is two emotions, not {ui} modifying {iu}
jbocre: 13:28 <vensa> I forget the "for" and "against" statement
jbocre: 13:29 <donri> {iu ro'u} though suddenly is {ro'u} modifying {iu}
jbocre: 13:29 <donri> {ie nai}?
jbocre: 13:29 <vensa> donri: imo {iu ui} is also {ui} modifying {iu}
jbocre: 13:29 <donri> No it isn't.
jbocre: 13:29 <vensa> the CLL is unclear on this point
jbocre: 13:30 <vensa> and I support that it is. becuz otherwise you have less options to construct interesting UIs
jbocre: 13:30 <donri> No you don't.
jbocre: 13:30 <vensa> in your description: {iu ui} is the same as {ui iu} - shame
jbocre: 13:30 <donri> It's two separate but concurrent emotions. Effectively they might affect each other but not grammatically.
jbocre: 13:31 <donri> If they do modify you can't say it without modifying.
jbocre: 13:31 <donri> And then the order becomes relevant too.
jbocre: 13:31 <vensa> you can IMO: {iu fu'e ui}
jbocre: 13:31 <vensa> or. {iu .i ui}
jbocre: 13:31 <donri> That's the same thing
jbocre: 13:31 <donri> And .i changes everything
jbocre: 13:31 <donri> Can't put that mid sentence.
jbocre: 13:32 <vensa> well, I'm sure we could define a way
jbocre: 13:32 <vensa> maybe even introduce a new cmavo for that
jbocre: 13:32 <vensa> the whole point is that "as of CLL" it is purposely unclear
jbocre: 13:32 <donri> Or let UI not explicitly modify each other and just accept that they tend to in reality.
jbocre: 13:32 <vensa> so if we want to go one way or the toher, of course we need to revise the def
jbocre: 13:33 <vensa> maybe
jbocre: 13:33 <donri> Maybe could allow {bo} to bind UI or something
jbocre: 13:33 <vensa> I might go either way
jbocre: 13:33 <donri> iu bo ui
jbocre: 13:33 <vensa> it's open to discussion
jbocre: 13:33 <vensa> but right now:
jbocre: 13:33 <vensa> {de'a jundi}
jbocre: 13:33 <donri> The main point is that the current situation is ambiguous.{CODE}