TECH: magnitudes

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

Veijo wrote:
>mi pu cusku di'e
>
>>> Date:         Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:10:14 -0500
>>> From: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
>>> Subject:      TECH: magnitude
>>>
>>> I have been kicking around the idea of a new cmavo of selma'o KI,
>>> "ki'i'i" temporarily.  A sumti tcita involving this will be a specific
>>> magnitude, thus:
>>>
>>> 1)      mi dansu le bisli ve'a ki'i'i lo mitre be li pa
>>>        I dance on the ice over-interval one-meter.
>>
>>  I'd prefer a separate selma'o NEhE which would allow a slightly more
>>  concise expression:
>--More--
>>
>>          mi dansu le bisli ve'a ne'e mitre li pa
>>
>>  This would require a one-line addition to 'modifier_84':
>>
>>          | mod_head_490 NEhE_nnn selbri_130 tail_terms_71
>
>   Both of the above schemes have the shortcoming that a reference point
>   cannot be expressed. The following modification makes this possible:
>
>         | mod_head_490 NEhE_nnn selbri_130 tail_terms_71 gap_450
>         | mod_head_490 NEhE_nnn selbri_130 tail_terms_71
>               TEhI_mmm sumti_90
>
>   {ne'e} and {te'i} would fit the already assigned cmavo quite well
>   as {ne'a} = 'next to', {ne'i} = 'within' and {te'e} = 'bordering'
>
>
>
>
>  co'o mi'e veion


The problem with NEhE as you propose it, is that it will usually require
a terminator except before CU or end of sentence.  Using the selbri grammar
rather than the bridi grammar as you have,  thus has the same problem
that SEI had.  The verbosity of requiring the terminator is comparable to
that of requiring the sumti and linkarg markers.  Note that you can
cut the latter by saying lo mitre pamei.

As Cowan explained this proposal to me, you would not need the reference
point grammar.  If you wanted to specify the reference point, it would be:
mi dansu le bisli ve'a le manri ki'i'i lo mitre be li pa
I dance on the ice over-interval at the reference point of one-meter.

If the ki'i'i is ambiguous as to what the quantity is quantifying you would
repeat the ve'a OR attach the ki'i'i phrase using an afterthought termset.
The attempt at afterthought termsets, which evolved from your own work on
that grammar problem, stemmed from the desire to accomodate just this kind
of linking.

Of course this means that you need to be able to have afterthought termsets
with only singular sumti, and no logical connective, as the grammar you
orginally proposed for such offset termsets provided.

Cowan seems to prefer the repeated tense to remove ambiguity when necessary,
whereas I like the afterthought termset link (other tense elements having been
set off with "ku").  So the combination of the new cmavo and the afterthought
termsets allows a bit of playing around to find the optimal solution, while
making sure that we HAVE a solution, as I promised Goran.

As to the termset grammar requiring either two terms or NUhU before the
connective, the needed contrast is with the sumti grammar connectives.

Jorge:
>>   1 shift/reduce conflict
>
>Is it possible to identify when this happens? When a {gi} is found,
>the only possibility is that it is closing the latest open gek,
>isn't it? In other words, under what circumstances would the first
>nu'u not be elidable?

The relevant grammar is:>term_set_83             :  NUhI_587  GEK_807  terms_80
 NUhU_gap_460
>                                GIK_816  terms_80  NUhU_gap_460
>                        |  NUhI_587  terms_80  NUhU_gap_460
>                                JOIK_EK_421  terms_80  NUhU_gap_460
>

>sumti_C_93              :  sumti_D_94
>                        |  GEK_807  sumti_90  GIK_816  sumti_C_93
>                        ;

It can be seen that without the NUhU_gap, any single term in the first terms_80
will make the GEK term GIK look like sumti_93, i.e. a sumti rather than a
complex structure - it will then slop up the 1st sumti after the GIk and
the effective grammar is NUhI sumti_93 and the parser sits therew waiting for
the rest of the termset, considering any other sumti that follow as part
of the first half of the termset.

With afterthought termsets not marked with NUhI, I think the NUhU is likely to
 be never elidable, because the "term JOIK_EK term is again a sumti_93, and
added terms remain part of the incomplete termset.

The bottom line is that NUhU was added when I created the termset grammar
as an alternative to a full set of connective designed specifically for
termsets - not a wise investment when termsets were seen as a rather uncommon
construct in the language.  NUhU may this be seen as parallelling the fronting
consonants on the various connectives to keep them unambiguous, though
taking an extra syllable, and often a pause: gi'V vs. nu'u.V vs. jV.
though NUhU can also be used with JOIks as the connective.

Given that we are trying in one fell swoop to allow afterthought termsets
AND to allow termsets with no connective (to solve the ki'i'i problem and
to allow added places to be expressed on BAI tags by an as yet undefined
convention), we have a pretty limnited flexibility in how we play with the
grammar.

lojbab