Nick tries valiantly to save face (His first sentence)

[cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn]

Message-Id: <9104191412.AA05304@its.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Your first sentence 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Apr 91 13:10:25 EDT."
             <m0jTcV2-0001r5C@snark.thyrsus.com> 
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 91 10:11:36 -0400
From: Arthur Hyun <ash@rpi.edu>

>Folk--
>  First off, I'd like to say that I think it's precisely this
>sort of conversation that aids in everyone's (particularly beginners
>like myself) understanding and ability.

In which case, let's have more of them, and more people flaming in response %^)

>> dei pamoi le'i mi lojbo jufra
>> This-utterance is-first-in the-set-of my Lojbanic sentences.

>This may seem like a nit, but I'd like to ask nevetheless.  Is
>"le'i" necessary here?  I find in my cmavo lists that the place
>structre for "pamoi" includes a place: "among set/list/group x[2]".
>Thus: "dei pamoi le mi lojbo jufra".
>  An argument:  If one should use "le'i" to make explicit the second
>  place as a set, then why define place structures?  Would it not also
>  be best to make *every* place explicit as such?

Once more, this is a question best answered by someone in the inner sanctum
(why oh why do I keep sticking my head out), but what you're saying is that
the semantics of a place can define the LE word of its sumti, which I find
very iffy. As I see it, {le} is not a superset of {le'i}, nor should be treated
as such. Furthermore, pamoi is surely not limited to 'sets'; I don't see why
it should not also hold for other analogous MEX constructs. It probably doesn't
hold for masses though. In lojban, in any case, I find it unwise to make
asumptions: if the jufra are a set, denote them explicitly as such. Your
phrase is saying (to me): first of my the lojban sentence[s], which could
very well be a falsity if the sentences are unordered, and thus not amenable
to verification ("but obviously sentences are uttered as an ordered set!"
No sir; such assumptions are unjustifiable in lojban; you can assume nothing
but what is in the place structure, and you can't do all that much extra-
polating on the place structure.)

>Can we not say, then, that:
>  "This utterance is first among the set of my sentences such that they 
>   regard lojban", or
>  "dei pamoi le mi jufra ku la lojban" or

Yes, though very vague. The {ku} is elidable. In fact, I haven't used a {ku}
yet (but that's because I've just read Leson 6).

>  "This-utterence is-first (in-the-set-of) my (sentences (in-language)
>   lojban)", or
>  "dei pamoi le mi jufra fi la lojban"

Um... you mean {be fi}. Check your bracketing: the default assumption is
place structure of the outer bracket.

>My sentence (although I don't know if it is correct or not) has one
>extra syllable than Mr. Cowan's, 
>Any comments on which is preferable?  

Now it's two syllables %^). The debate between tanru and non-tanru is likely
to be interesting. Read lojbab's Kuwait essay in JL14 WITH THE ABSOLUTELY
UNFORGIVABLE TRANSLATION OF "what do you mean" BY "do smuni ma" (something
he, interestingly enough, pointed out in the Vega song translation, but which
I'd avoided by using 'express', whose place structure is vaguer in the NLs
and ALs I know), to see how enthused he is about tanru. Apparently Nora
doesn't like them, and John used to not like them. Is THIS were distinctive
stylistics start entering the language then? %^)


Good onya Arthur. Keep up the good work, son. %^) %^) %^)

co'omi'e nitcion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nicxjo (Nick) Nicholas					nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.AU
Fakoj de Komputscienco kaj Elektronika Ingxenieriko
Universitato de Melburno, Auxstralio.			"Dirlididi!" - piv