# Talk:BPFK Section: Numeric selbri

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Posted by pycyn on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 21:39 GMT posts: 2388

Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on? While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 23:33 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) > opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member > of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on?

Good point, thank you. The reason for the somewhat opaque definitions is that I want them to apply not just to the {number MOI} construct but also to the {ME sumti MOI} one. But I can give both the restricted definition for numbers as well as the general one for any sumti.

> While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."

Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like that into {djica} territory either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by rab.spir on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 23:33 GMT posts: 152

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:32:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope." > > Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. > In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also > means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought > that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have > used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful > to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't > make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like > that into {djica} territory either.

I think that the probability place of {pacna} is useful, and that the fault is in "hope" being the keyword. There are other cases of misleading keywords in the gismu list. -- Rob Speer

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 03:06 GMT posts: 1912

Rob Speer: > I think that the probability place of {pacna} is useful, and that the fault > is > in "hope" being the keyword. There are other cases of misleading keywords in > the gismu list.

I would agree, except that "hope" is not just the keyword, but the whole definition as it is: "x1 hopes/wishes for/desires x2" when it should be "x1 expects x2".

One problem with "fixing" this might be Nick's translation of MLK's "I have a dream" speech, that uses {mi pacna} all over the place.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 03:06 GMT posts: 2388

Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) > opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member > of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on?

Good point, thank you. The reason for the somewhat opaque definitions is that I want them to apply not just to the {number MOI} construct but also to the {ME sumti MOI} one. But I can give both the restricted definition for numbers as well as the general one for any sumti.

> While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."

Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like that into {djica} territory either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 03:06 GMT posts: 2388
Well, I think we need
hope
as a gismu since sorting it out as an analytic lujvo (about the only kind we see) is going to be a pain. I am not clear what notion vaguely in the
hope
-
want
space has a reasonable use for probability. It can be added to stress the forlornness of the hope, perhaps, but it really is an addition.

Rob Speer wrote:On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:32:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope." > > Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. > In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also > means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought > that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have > used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful > to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't > make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like > that into {djica} territory either.

I think that the probability place of {pacna} is useful, and that the fault is in "hope" being the keyword. There are other cases of misleading keywords in the gismu list. -- Rob Speer

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 03:07 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps > not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.

{me mi moi} for example is "x1 is/are the one(s) among x2 that correspond(s) to me by rule x3", in other words "x1 is/are my x2's by rule x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 16:58 GMT posts: 2388

?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?

Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps > not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.

{me mi moi} for example is "x1 is/are the one(s) among x2 that correspond(s) to me by rule x3", in other words "x1 is/are my x2's by rule x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 16:58 GMT posts: 1912

> ?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work > through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?

There need not be any numbers involved. The rule might be "is the one wearing it", then {ta memimoi lo mapku lo ka makau dasni ce'u} "That's mine among hats by rule who's wearing it".

Of course in general the rule won't be given explicitly, and also maybe not the x2: {ta medomoi}, "that's yours".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 16:58 GMT posts: 2388

Can {moi} really do this? It is, of course, the original {me} (a baby's first Loglan was {memi}) and so a needed device, but it is hard to see it as an ordering. I gather though that the ordering part has here been reduce merely to a correlation with something or other, not necessarily an ordinal. I'm not convinced an the example given is so weird (unintelligible) that it doesn't help me out much.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

> ?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work > through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?

There need not be any numbers involved. The rule might be "is the one wearing it", then {ta memimoi lo mapku lo ka makau dasni ce'u} "That's mine among hats by rule who's wearing it".

Of course in general the rule won't be given explicitly, and also maybe not the x2: {ta medomoi}, "that's yours".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:08 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: Numeric selbri Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on? While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:09 GMT posts: 2388

Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc: > Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) > opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member > of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on?

Good point, thank you. The reason for the somewhat opaque definitions is that I want them to apply not just to the {number MOI} construct but also to the {ME sumti MOI} one. But I can give both the restricted definition for numbers as well as the general one for any sumti.

> While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."

Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like that into {djica} territory either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:09 GMT posts: 2388

?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?

Jorge Llambías wrote: pc: > Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps > not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.

{me mi moi} for example is "x1 is/are the one(s) among x2 that correspond(s) to me by rule x3", in other words "x1 is/are my x2's by rule x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:09 GMT posts: 2388

Can {moi} really do this? It is, of course, the original {me} (a baby's first Loglan was {memi}) and so a needed device, but it is hard to see it as an ordering. I gather though that the ordering part has here been reduce merely to a correlation with something or other, not necessarily an ordinal. I'm not convinced an the example given is so weird (unintelligible) that it doesn't help me out much.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> ?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work > through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?

There need not be any numbers involved. The rule might be "is the one wearing it", then {ta memimoi lo mapku lo ka makau dasni ce'u} "That's mine among hats by rule who's wearing it".

Of course in general the rule won't be given explicitly, and also maybe not the x2: {ta medomoi}, "that's yours".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail