Rosetta Project: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


poi'i [[jbocre: NU|NU]] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds ke'a within the abstraction.
The Rosetta Project: [http://www.rosettaproject.org:8080/


Replaces ''[[jbocre: kai'i|kai'i]]''.
A] project sponsered by the Long Now Foundation to produce a microetched nickel disk which will describe 1000 of the world's major languages, containing significant amounts of text duplicated in each language. (Thus acting as a futuristic Rosetta stone).


'''But see [[jbocre: SE ka|SE ka]] for a nicer but non-baseline-conformant alternative.'''
The [http://www.rosettaproject.org:8080/live/search/addresourceform?ethnocode=XLOJ&langname=Lojban osetta Project's Lojban page].


From Lojban List:
* Edward Cherlin sent in the Swadesh wordlist in May 2001
* Jay Kominek sent in the basic color terms in June 2002.


----
* Someone else sends in something in July 2003? :)


>>> John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> 08/22/01 05:10pm >>>
The next things it would be nicest to contribute would be the detailed description and the Genesis texts. Here is a description of what the detailed description ought to consist of, taken from [http://www.rosettaproject.org:8080/live/search/showpages?ethnocode=XONO&doctype=detail&version=0&scale=six  comment on the Old Norse detailed description]:


And Rosta wrote:
''What is required is the name of the language (with appropriate variants, if any), a detailed statement of the areas where this language is/was spoken, when the language was spoken, by approximately how many people (if possible), the languages families to which this language belongs (including the subgroupings), plus any additional information deemed relevant.''


[[jbocre: ...|...]]
Lots of that is probably not applicable to Lojban, and maybe should be replaced with a discussion of the design criteria.
 
>> poi'i [[jbocre: NU|NU]] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds
 
>> ke'a within the abstraction.
 
>
 
>Can you provide a concrete example of such an abstraction, and an
 
>x1 that would make it true?  I don't understand this.
 
It's a utility.
 
1. It allows de facto prenexes without need for goi:
 
mi viska la djan
 
= la djan goi ko'a zo'u mi viska ko'a
 
= la djan poi'i mi viska ke'a
 
2. It allows for reflexives:
 
mi poi'i ke'a viska ke'a
 
"I see myself"
 
mi poi'i ke'a jinvi tu'o du'u ke'a melbi
 
"I believe myself to be beautiful"
 
3. It allows sumti tail formation in cases that can otherwise
 
be difficult to handle:
 
le poi'i la djan jinvi tu'o du'u ke'a melbi
 
"certain ones who John believes to be beautiful"
 
le poi'i ke'a viska ke'a
 
"certain ones who see themselves"
 
The basic idea is a NOI converted into a NU.
 
--And.
 
---------
 
I had trouble understanding at first because I missed that its
 
selma'o is NU and not NOI.  Maybe it should use a different cmavo
 
than ke'a so you don't confuse those used to poi?  (zo ke'ai zo'o)
 
(For the record I don't like or advocate this cmavo) --mi'e [[jbocre: .djorden.|.djorden.]]
 
* Such ambiguities already arise with NOI within NOI, and the official solution to that problem, viz ''xi''-subscripting, could be used here, without having to create yet another cmavo. Indeed, when ''ce'u'' was created I was opposed to it, advocating the use of ''ke'a'' instead, and I hold to that view still. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
 
** I agree that ''ke'a''/''ce'u'' are essentially the same thing. I used ''ke'u'' with ''ka'' before ''ce'u'' was created. I like the flexibility that ''poi'i'' affords, but I prefer ''seka'' for that meaning. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]
***Ummh, can someone explain to me what similarities there are between {ke'a}, a restricted anaphora, and {ce'u} a bound variable in abstractions? pycyn
 
****One way to see the similarity is to replace {poi} with {pe sekai le ka} (or {noi} with {ne sekai le ka}), so for example {le broda poi ke'a brode} is {le broda pe sekai le ka ce'u brode}. In both cases, relative-clause = NOI subsentence /KUhO/, tanru-unit = NU subsentence /KEI/, the respective KOhA keeps a slot in the subsentence open. One important difference is that multiple uses of {ke'a} collapse to a single slot, while multiple uses of ce'u correspond to different slots.
**** Ahah! When spun out in certain contexts they give the same resultant claim, not that they are conceptually at all similar.  Sorta like {ka} and {du'u}, without the grammatical similarities.
 
** I agree. I think I must have proposed ''poi'i'' because ''ka'' has no x2 (and IMO nor should it). But that leaves ''se ka'' meaningless, and a reasonable interpretation it to take ''se ka'' as forcing a predicate that is is a verion of ''ka'' with an x2. Okay, then -- see [[jbocre: SE + x2-less brivla]]. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
 
Is there any circumstance in which {poi'i} can't be replaced by {du DA poi} (or {du lo du poi}), being only one or two syllables longer and non-experimental?
 
{mi du da poi ke'a viska ke'a}
 
"I am one who sees themself"
 
{le du be da poi ke'a viska ke'a}
 
"Certain ones which equal something which sees itself"
 
mi'e [[jbocre: MartinBays aten.|MartinBays aten.]]
 
* Yes, {poi'i} is approximately {du (be) da poi}, therefrom its form, but it doesn't use up a variable. Many cmavo can be paraphrased in terms of other cmavo, but it is still convenient to have the compact forms. In your example, a difference would appear if you were to write the sumti after the selbri: Compare {poi'i ke'a broda kei fa ro de} with {du su'o da poi ke'a broda ku'o fa ro de}. In the second case, ro de is within the scope of su'o da. ({poi'i} is probably fully equivalent to {du (be) tu'o da poi}.) --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]

Revision as of 17:12, 4 November 2013

The Rosetta Project: [http://www.rosettaproject.org:8080/

A] project sponsered by the Long Now Foundation to produce a microetched nickel disk which will describe 1000 of the world's major languages, containing significant amounts of text duplicated in each language. (Thus acting as a futuristic Rosetta stone).

The osetta Project's Lojban page.

  • Edward Cherlin sent in the Swadesh wordlist in May 2001
  • Jay Kominek sent in the basic color terms in June 2002.
  • Someone else sends in something in July 2003? :)

The next things it would be nicest to contribute would be the detailed description and the Genesis texts. Here is a description of what the detailed description ought to consist of, taken from comment on the Old Norse detailed description:

What is required is the name of the language (with appropriate variants, if any), a detailed statement of the areas where this language is/was spoken, when the language was spoken, by approximately how many people (if possible), the languages families to which this language belongs (including the subgroupings), plus any additional information deemed relevant.

Lots of that is probably not applicable to Lojban, and maybe should be replaced with a discussion of the design criteria.

Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Rosetta_Project&oldid=76026"