User:Ciste/Talk:BPFK Section: gadri: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " Re: BPFK Section: gadri user9|[[File:temp/public//...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


----


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=455&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[user9|[[File:temp/public//avatar_arj.jpg|arj]]]]  Posted by [[user9|arj]] on Wed 19 of May, 2004 10:33 GMT  posts: 953         
[[user9|[[User:arj|arj]]]]  Posted by [[user9|arj]] on Wed 19 of May, 2004 10:33 GMT  posts: 953         


I dislike the new semantics of the {lo} article. Quite a lot, actually.
I dislike the new semantics of the {lo} article. Quite a lot, actually.
Line 11: Line 12:
Mightn't Nick's gadri solution be the way to go?
Mightn't Nick's gadri solution be the way to go?


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=456&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 14:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 14:33 GMT         


arj:
arj:
Line 79: Line 82:
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=457&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 16:39 GMT  posts: 14214         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 16:39 GMT  posts: 14214         


> arj:
> arj:
Line 91: Line 98:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=458&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 18:03 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 18:03 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 129: Line 138:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=459&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:05 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 215: Line 226:
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=460&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:30 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:30 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 253: Line 266:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=461&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 289: Line 304:
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=462&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 20:29 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 20:29 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 339: Line 356:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=463&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 21:18 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 21:18 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 395: Line 414:
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=464&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:23 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:23 GMT  posts: 14214         


> Anonymous:
> Anonymous:
Line 425: Line 448:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=465&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:27 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:27 GMT  posts: 14214         


I'd like to see fewer examples of bare lo, and more of quantified lo please. Specificially, examples with just inner quantifiers and other examples with just outer quantifiers.
I'd like to see fewer examples of bare lo, and more of quantified lo please. Specificially, examples with just inner quantifiers and other examples with just outer quantifiers.
Line 433: Line 460:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=466&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 00:22 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 00:22 GMT         


Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:
Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:
Line 531: Line 560:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=467&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 559: Line 590:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=468&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 629: Line 662:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=469&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 687: Line 722:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=470&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:29 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:29 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:47:14PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:47:14PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 761: Line 798:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=471&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:31 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 843: Line 882:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=472&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:33 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 879: Line 920:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=473&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:35 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 893: Line 936:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=474&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:39 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:39 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 911: Line 956:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=475&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 02:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 02:01 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 967: Line 1,014:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=476&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:23:12PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:23:12PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 1,015: Line 1,064:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=477&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT         


On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:23:03AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:23:03AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 1,087: Line 1,138:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=478&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 05:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 05:20 GMT         


On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:35:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:35:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 1,131: Line 1,184:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=479&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 09:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 09:47 GMT         


On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:02:49AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:02:49AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 1,209: Line 1,264:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=480&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 13:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 13:05 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 1,261: Line 1,318:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=487&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


[[user1|[[File:img/avatars/539.gif|45x45px|admin]]]]  Posted by [[user1|admin]] on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:09 GMT  posts: 208         
[[user1|[[File:img/avatars/539.gif|45x45px|admin]]]]  Posted by [[user1|admin]] on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:09 GMT  posts: 208         
Line 1,303: Line 1,364:
pc
pc


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=488&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:48 GMT         


(Repeating my answer due to accidental removal.)
(Repeating my answer due to accidental removal.)
Line 1,359: Line 1,422:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=489&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 21 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 21 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 1,407: Line 1,472:
--Susan McCarthy (adapted) [email protected]
--Susan McCarthy (adapted) [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=490&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:21 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:21 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 1,431: Line 1,500:
mu'o mi'e xod
mu'o mi'e xod


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=491&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:43 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:43 GMT         


On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:21:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:21:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 1,461: Line 1,532:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=494&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:20 GMT         


> doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le selsni
> doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le selsni
Line 1,527: Line 1,600:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=498&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:57 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:57 GMT  posts: 1912         


> i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe
> i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe
Line 1,537: Line 1,614:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=506&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 03:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 03:35 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 1,659: Line 1,738:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=507&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 17:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 17:18 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 1,715: Line 1,796:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=508&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 1,851: Line 1,934:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=509&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 1,879: Line 1,964:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=510&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 1,911: Line 1,998:
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=511&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 1,933: Line 2,022:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=512&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 1,999: Line 2,090:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=513&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 2,049: Line 2,142:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=514&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 2,091: Line 2,186:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=515&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         


I'm going to go through and turn these into English. If this bothers
I'm going to go through and turn these into English. If this bothers
Line 2,287: Line 2,384:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=516&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         


More translation.
More translation.
Line 2,415: Line 2,514:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=517&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:02:21PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:02:21PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 2,553: Line 2,654:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=518&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:53:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:53:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 2,607: Line 2,710:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=519&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:19:31PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:19:31PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 2,707: Line 2,812:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=520&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:17:45PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:17:45PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 2,751: Line 2,858:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=521&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:08:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:08:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 2,791: Line 2,900:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=522&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:25:11PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:25:11PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 2,845: Line 2,956:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=523&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT         


On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:57:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:57:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 2,915: Line 3,028:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=524&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT         


On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 3,017: Line 3,132:
Americans will kill you in public."
Americans will kill you in public."


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=525&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT         


On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 3,077: Line 3,194:
Americans will kill you in public."
Americans will kill you in public."


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=526&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT         


Let me stress that my comments were directed at the use of {nitcu lo} and {djica lo} in place of {nitcu tu'a lo} and {djica tu'a lo} as stock examples, not at other problems with the new {lo}. As a solution to the opaque context "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names. It is ineffective because the problem persists: the inference from the new {lo bridi} in situ to {su'o da poi (bridi) go'i ... da...} works with the new {lo} as well as with the old — lacking the blocking action of {tu'a}.
Let me stress that my comments were directed at the use of {nitcu lo} and {djica lo} in place of {nitcu tu'a lo} and {djica tu'a lo} as stock examples, not at other problems with the new {lo}. As a solution to the opaque context "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names. It is ineffective because the problem persists: the inference from the new {lo bridi} in situ to {su'o da poi (bridi) go'i ... da...} works with the new {lo} as well as with the old — lacking the blocking action of {tu'a}.
Line 3,101: Line 3,220:
pc
pc


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=527&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 3,137: Line 3,258:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=528&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 3,171: Line 3,294:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=529&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 3,193: Line 3,318:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=530&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT         


These usages seem entirely non-problematic and, except possibly for the question of where the quantifiers go, don't obviously require the new {lo} (I suppose the scope rules are a bit vague here, but that seems to be mainly because no one has bothered to work them up)
These usages seem entirely non-problematic and, except possibly for the question of where the quantifiers go, don't obviously require the new {lo} (I suppose the scope rules are a bit vague here, but that seems to be mainly because no one has bothered to work them up)
Line 3,233: Line 3,360:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=531&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT         


(Many of pc's points refer to quantified terms. I agree with most of
(Many of pc's points refer to quantified terms. I agree with most of
Line 3,333: Line 3,462:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=532&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT         


By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal
By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal
Line 3,377: Line 3,508:
n
n


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=533&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT         


Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Line 3,459: Line 3,592:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=534&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 25 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 25 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).
BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).
Line 3,475: Line 3,612:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=535&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         


Line 3,544: Line 3,683:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=536&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 3,600: Line 3,741:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=537&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 3,666: Line 3,809:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=538&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         


On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:20:16PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:20:16PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Line 3,722: Line 3,867:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=539&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         


On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 3,744: Line 3,891:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=540&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 3,788: Line 3,937:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=541&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


pc adds caps to indicate where replies fit.
pc adds caps to indicate where replies fit.
Line 3,906: Line 4,057:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=542&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


Careful. English "any" fluctuates (in fairly contoleed ways — but you need to supply more context) between universal and particlar. I take it this means particular "some unspecifed one(s)."
Careful. English "any" fluctuates (in fairly contoleed ways — but you need to supply more context) between universal and particlar. I take it this means particular "some unspecifed one(s)."
Line 3,942: Line 4,095:
That's right. Not a particular chunk.
That's right. Not a particular chunk.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=543&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


I can't find xod's claim (but I know that some things never get to me — and some of mine don't get to some other people). It is however pretty certainly false for almost any reading of {lo}: {lo broda poi brode} is only marginally more specific than {lo broda} — and maybe not at all if all or even most broda are also brode: Any old broda poi brode is not a specified one except accidentally.
I can't find xod's claim (but I know that some things never get to me — and some of mine don't get to some other people). It is however pretty certainly false for almost any reading of {lo}: {lo broda poi brode} is only marginally more specific than {lo broda} — and maybe not at all if all or even most broda are also brode: Any old broda poi brode is not a specified one except accidentally.
Line 3,966: Line 4,121:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=544&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 4,026: Line 4,183:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=545&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


I don't quite see how this distinction fits the extension-intension distinction and even less what that distinction has to do with the {lo}-{le} contrast. Both {lo broda} and {le broda} pick out things with reference to the (probably very vague) property of being a broda. In one case, the speaker is apparently indifferent to or ignorant of which broda satisfies the rest of the sentence. In the other case, the speaker knows and wishes to let the hearer know which one it is and uses the predication to aid that task. Both are extensional (refer to things, not concepts). The distinction given here does seem to bear on the difference between {le} and {lo}, though the connection bertween these and {la'e} and {lu'e} is forced at best.
I don't quite see how this distinction fits the extension-intension distinction and even less what that distinction has to do with the {lo}-{le} contrast. Both {lo broda} and {le broda} pick out things with reference to the (probably very vague) property of being a broda. In one case, the speaker is apparently indifferent to or ignorant of which broda satisfies the rest of the sentence. In the other case, the speaker knows and wishes to let the hearer know which one it is and uses the predication to aid that task. Both are extensional (refer to things, not concepts). The distinction given here does seem to bear on the difference between {le} and {lo}, though the connection bertween these and {la'e} and {lu'e} is forced at best.
Line 4,103: Line 4,262:
't
't


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=546&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


There is of course a particular period of six years that you are younger than I but that is probably not what is meant here and so anyold period will do. I agree it would be nicer if we had a unit concept, but the way that "younger by six years " has developed makes that difficult ({lo nanca xamei} is weird in other ways, as is {lo xavnanca}).
There is of course a particular period of six years that you are younger than I but that is probably not what is meant here and so anyold period will do. I agree it would be nicer if we had a unit concept, but the way that "younger by six years " has developed makes that difficult ({lo nanca xamei} is weird in other ways, as is {lo xavnanca}).
Line 4,141: Line 4,302:
in our ages is the single entity "6 years".
in our ages is the single entity "6 years".


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le xamoi [[archon|archon]]} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned cirumvention.
E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le xamoi [[archon|archon]]} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned cirumvention.
Line 4,207: Line 4,370:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=548&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT         


On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:05:13PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:05:13PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 4,225: Line 4,390:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=549&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT         


On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:42:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:42:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 4,251: Line 4,418:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=550&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT         


On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:09:34PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:09:34PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 4,283: Line 4,452:
-Coffee
-Coffee


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=551&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 4,333: Line 4,504:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=552&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 04:43 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 04:43 GMT         


F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless?? But, of course, we often want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is not in the given cases.
F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless?? But, of course, we often want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is not in the given cases.
Line 4,395: Line 4,568:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=555&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 12:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 12:34 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 4,469: Line 4,644:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=556&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT         


H: xorxes said <can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le}
H: xorxes said <can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le}
Line 4,555: Line 4,732:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=557&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 4,645: Line 4,824:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=558&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT         


L: It is becoming about as clear as anything in all this, but what is not clear is what <s>if anything</s> it does refer to. It is in a place where the norm (I would think) is for reference to individuals, as {le ractu} and {la meripapnz} seem clearly to be, but 9it is not to an individual in any functional sense, apparently, but to an abstraction which then is taken to function as a concrete individual. I think there is some confusion in this notion, so I suppose I do not yet have it right, but nothing said so far has clarified it. Until that is done, I have to say that this section is not yet adequately dealt with, even if the usages are clear (which they are not, for just this reason).
L: It is becoming about as clear as anything in all this, but what is not clear is what <s>if anything</s> it does refer to. It is in a place where the norm (I would think) is for reference to individuals, as {le ractu} and {la meripapnz} seem clearly to be, but 9it is not to an individual in any functional sense, apparently, but to an abstraction which then is taken to function as a concrete individual. I think there is some confusion in this notion, so I suppose I do not yet have it right, but nothing said so far has clarified it. Until that is done, I have to say that this section is not yet adequately dealt with, even if the usages are clear (which they are not, for just this reason).
Line 4,751: Line 4,932:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=559&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT         


An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo}
An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo}
Line 4,807: Line 4,990:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=563&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


A brief general discussion to make some context here. One thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect and at the same time. So, when we seem to have a case that contradicts that we have to make a distinction, either in the subject or in the predicate. So, given that John was here yesterday and is not today, we can avoid problems ether by saying &quot;John is here yesterday and is not here today&quot; (taking &quot;John&quot; as a constant directly involved in the situation) or by saying &quot;The yesterday slice of John is here but the today slice is not&quot; (taking John as involved only through his parts, not as a whole. We might of course say &quot;John is such that his yesteday slice is here and his today slice is not&quot; leaving &quot;John&quot; a constant but only his slices doing the work.) The corresponding situations for Mr. Rabbit eating and not are &quot;Mr. Rabbit is a-eating and not b-eating&quot; (or some such thing) and &quot;The a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit is eating but the b-manifestation is not.&quot; We can, of
A brief general discussion to make some context here. One thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect and at the same time. So, when we seem to have a case that contradicts that we have to make a distinction, either in the subject or in the predicate. So, given that John was here yesterday and is not today, we can avoid problems ether by saying &quot;John is here yesterday and is not here today&quot; (taking &quot;John&quot; as a constant directly involved in the situation) or by saying &quot;The yesterday slice of John is here but the today slice is not&quot; (taking John as involved only through his parts, not as a whole. We might of course say &quot;John is such that his yesteday slice is here and his today slice is not&quot; leaving &quot;John&quot; a constant but only his slices doing the work.) The corresponding situations for Mr. Rabbit eating and not are &quot;Mr. Rabbit is a-eating and not b-eating&quot; (or some such thing) and &quot;The a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit is eating but the b-manifestation is not.&quot; We can, of
Line 4,871: Line 5,056:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=564&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 5,003: Line 5,190:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=565&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 5,037: Line 5,226:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=566&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 5,087: Line 5,278:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=571&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do. Unless, of course, {zasti} has an implicit reference to an instance in it as well or — as now seems likely — all predicates have manifestation references built in. Saying it that way does prejudice the issue a bit, for we could construct a language where the relations with abstractions were primary and either concreta were never mentioned or the predicates with concreta had implicit reduction devices . Depending on the details, these languages are rarely or not at all different from concrete-based languages which raises the question of why bothering to create this elaborate metaphysics . For Lojban, that is; it is perfectly clear Nyaya or Madhyamika might do it, since they need the metaphysics already.
U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do. Unless, of course, {zasti} has an implicit reference to an instance in it as well or — as now seems likely — all predicates have manifestation references built in. Saying it that way does prejudice the issue a bit, for we could construct a language where the relations with abstractions were primary and either concreta were never mentioned or the predicates with concreta had implicit reduction devices . Depending on the details, these languages are rarely or not at all different from concrete-based languages which raises the question of why bothering to create this elaborate metaphysics . For Lojban, that is; it is perfectly clear Nyaya or Madhyamika might do it, since they need the metaphysics already.
Line 5,235: Line 5,428:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=572&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that &quot;I want a rabbit&quot; is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.
Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that &quot;I want a rabbit&quot; is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.
Line 5,271: Line 5,466:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=573&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT         


Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that &quot;I want a rabbit&quot; is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.
Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that &quot;I want a rabbit&quot; is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.
Line 5,307: Line 5,504:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=574&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:28 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:28 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 5,349: Line 5,548:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=575&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 23:36 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 23:36 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 5,435: Line 5,636:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=576&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         


Well, there are no manifestations of Mr. Unicorn, but Mr. Unicorn exists like all kinds. You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or, I suspect, get better about saying what that is. If Mr. Unicorn does not exist, then he is only a disguised way of talking about his instances and so in practice not different from &quot;some unicorn.&quot; The juggling to get something externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri there is otiose, even odious).
Well, there are no manifestations of Mr. Unicorn, but Mr. Unicorn exists like all kinds. You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or, I suspect, get better about saying what that is. If Mr. Unicorn does not exist, then he is only a disguised way of talking about his instances and so in practice not different from &quot;some unicorn.&quot; The juggling to get something externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri there is otiose, even odious).
Line 5,483: Line 5,686:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=577&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         


But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.
But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.
Line 5,575: Line 5,780:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=578&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 5,683: Line 5,890:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=579&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT         


pc (to xod):
pc (to xod):
Line 5,713: Line 5,922:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=584&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT         


A': I get that it is a constant term, i.e., refers to the same thing in all contexts. The issue is what that thing is. Apparently it is a concretum and so the talk about it as an abstractum is wrong, in spite of its making sense of the constancy, which seems to be lacking in the concrete sense.
A': I get that it is a constant term, i.e., refers to the same thing in all contexts. The issue is what that thing is. Apparently it is a concretum and so the talk about it as an abstractum is wrong, in spite of its making sense of the constancy, which seems to be lacking in the concrete sense.
Line 5,839: Line 6,050:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=585&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT         


F: Frinstance again? Are these things that old {lo} should do, rather than some other (perhaps new) gadri or other device. Were you supplementing {lo} rather than replacing it, there would probably be no problems here, but replacing it wihtout ground or reason seem hubristic as well as unnecessary.
F: Frinstance again? Are these things that old {lo} should do, rather than some other (perhaps new) gadri or other device. Were you supplementing {lo} rather than replacing it, there would probably be no problems here, but replacing it wihtout ground or reason seem hubristic as well as unnecessary.
Line 5,873: Line 6,086:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=586&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 6,017: Line 6,232:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=587&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT         


F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.
F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.
Line 6,183: Line 6,400:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=588&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 6,263: Line 6,482:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=589&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 6,363: Line 6,584:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=590&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT         


* Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.
* Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.
Line 6,457: Line 6,680:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=591&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 6,749: Line 6,974:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=592&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 00:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 00:11 GMT         


1. How Whorfian! To me it is a matter of expreience: I have met rabbits and myself. I can extract stages from myself (or a rabbit) by analysis though not experience them as such (I've tried for half my life as a student of Buddhism but no go — fortunately the Buddhists I know admit they cqan't either or not for more than a flash). I cannot at all, by synthesis, get Mr. Rabbit from rabbits. So, I have some doubts about stages, none about people or rabbits, and quite a few about Mr. Rabbit, however defined or described.
1. How Whorfian! To me it is a matter of expreience: I have met rabbits and myself. I can extract stages from myself (or a rabbit) by analysis though not experience them as such (I've tried for half my life as a student of Buddhism but no go — fortunately the Buddhists I know admit they cqan't either or not for more than a flash). I cannot at all, by synthesis, get Mr. Rabbit from rabbits. So, I have some doubts about stages, none about people or rabbits, and quite a few about Mr. Rabbit, however defined or described.
Line 6,863: Line 7,090:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=593&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT         


1. Assuming the differences you talk about are those for {le} and {lo}, this looks approximately right: for {le} the existence is implicit as a [recondition for using the form, for {lo} existence is actually part of what is said.
1. Assuming the differences you talk about are those for {le} and {lo}, this looks approximately right: for {le} the existence is implicit as a [recondition for using the form, for {lo} existence is actually part of what is said.
Line 7,179: Line 7,408:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=594&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 7,325: Line 7,556:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=595&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 02:17 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 02:17 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 7,361: Line 7,594:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=597&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT         


7. Probably, though at least (old) {lo} might take a slight change, playing off its relation to {su'o}
7. Probably, though at least (old) {lo} might take a slight change, playing off its relation to {su'o}
Line 7,535: Line 7,770:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=598&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT         


19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for quantification over non-existents. That is a perfectly good way to go and, once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often important to know that something really exists. The old rules for quantifiers (for the zastis) are then applied only to this restricted set and the unbounded set covers everything and always applies. I was attributing to you a less drastic change, taking {lo zasti} to apply to a kind, an abstract entity, which by convention would therefore exist, and then (mistakenly) saying that it did not exist since it had no instances. And indeed that is closer to what you now claim, since Mr.Unicorn is said not to exist in this world but to be nonetheless. I'm not sure what that does to the problem inference, but I think it still makes the start {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} false, like the fronted version.
19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for quantification over non-existents. That is a perfectly good way to go and, once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often important to know that something really exists. The old rules for quantifiers (for the zastis) are then applied only to this restricted set and the unbounded set covers everything and always applies. I was attributing to you a less drastic change, taking {lo zasti} to apply to a kind, an abstract entity, which by convention would therefore exist, and then (mistakenly) saying that it did not exist since it had no instances. And indeed that is closer to what you now claim, since Mr.Unicorn is said not to exist in this world but to be nonetheless. I'm not sure what that does to the problem inference, but I think it still makes the start {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} false, like the fronted version.
Line 7,579: Line 7,816:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=599&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 7,709: Line 7,948:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=600&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:32 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:32 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 7,763: Line 8,004:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=601&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:29 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:29 GMT         


1. To be sure, since your proposal was at least conservative enough to preserve the core cases of old {lo}. The differences would come only in the new uses, which I simply would not take to be cases of {lo} (I have fleshed out these suggestion a bit on a comment to the gadri page.)
1. To be sure, since your proposal was at least conservative enough to preserve the core cases of old {lo}. The differences would come only in the new uses, which I simply would not take to be cases of {lo} (I have fleshed out these suggestion a bit on a comment to the gadri page.)
Line 7,911: Line 8,154:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=602&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:51 GMT         


1. I don't think so. Once you do it you seem to be committing the language. To be sure, you could contextualize (put the scope in an opaque clause) and go on from there. This is one standard work-around logicians use for English, which is very sloppy about this. Lojban ought to do better, not leaving it to context. And just how would those contexts be described? What separates {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn} from {la tonibler xabju la lndn} so that we can sort out what is real from what is not. (By the way, I would kee the current quantifiers for existents and add the outer domain one on, just as a practical matter.)
1. I don't think so. Once you do it you seem to be committing the language. To be sure, you could contextualize (put the scope in an opaque clause) and go on from there. This is one standard work-around logicians use for English, which is very sloppy about this. Lojban ought to do better, not leaving it to context. And just how would those contexts be described? What separates {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn} from {la tonibler xabju la lndn} so that we can sort out what is real from what is not. (By the way, I would kee the current quantifiers for existents and add the outer domain one on, just as a practical matter.)
Line 7,973: Line 8,218:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=603&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 8,169: Line 8,416:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=604&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 8,221: Line 8,470:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=605&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


Just for the record, one of the current No votes is from PC, who is not a member of the BPFK, and as such should be considered as being for informational purposes only.
Just for the record, one of the current No votes is from PC, who is not a member of the BPFK, and as such should be considered as being for informational purposes only.
Line 8,229: Line 8,482:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=606&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT         


One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either
One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either
Line 8,301: Line 8,556:
001
001


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=607&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 8,393: Line 8,650:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=608&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 23:55 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 23:55 GMT         


About the {lo} examples:
About the {lo} examples:
Line 8,519: Line 8,778:
Species or set (probably the latter). “the severalth” is nice, though not a clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me “one of several” or just “pretty far along in the set ordered by … (date?)”
Species or set (probably the latter). “the severalth” is nice, though not a clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me “one of several” or just “pretty far along in the set ordered by … (date?)”


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=610&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT         


I agree with the opening remark here, though for somewhat different reasons. The problem that arj is dealing with arises from the fact that one (or maybe the only) &quot;meaning&quot; assigned to {lo} is essentially vague. Trying to apply recise tests to discover the truth of a sentence in this case is bound to fail. Looking at the examples on the wiki sheet I found that most of them fluctuated (when applying precise tests) between &quot;all&quot; and &quot;some&quot; but with conditions. Thus, if read as &quot;some,&quot; it often turned out that one or two — or any fixed number of — cases were not enought; if read as &quot;all&quot; then any number of exceptions had to be allowed without affecting truth. Nor would any of &quot;may&quot;, &quot;most,&quot; or such intermediate — and already rather vague — quantifiers work. This is out of the range of quantifers and into operators like &quot;generally,&quot; &quot;as a rule&quot; and so on, applied at the argument level rather than the sentential. This seems to be one thing that xorxes means when he says that
I agree with the opening remark here, though for somewhat different reasons. The problem that arj is dealing with arises from the fact that one (or maybe the only) &quot;meaning&quot; assigned to {lo} is essentially vague. Trying to apply recise tests to discover the truth of a sentence in this case is bound to fail. Looking at the examples on the wiki sheet I found that most of them fluctuated (when applying precise tests) between &quot;all&quot; and &quot;some&quot; but with conditions. Thus, if read as &quot;some,&quot; it often turned out that one or two — or any fixed number of — cases were not enought; if read as &quot;all&quot; then any number of exceptions had to be allowed without affecting truth. Nor would any of &quot;may&quot;, &quot;most,&quot; or such intermediate — and already rather vague — quantifiers work. This is out of the range of quantifers and into operators like &quot;generally,&quot; &quot;as a rule&quot; and so on, applied at the argument level rather than the sentential. This seems to be one thing that xorxes means when he says that
Line 8,599: Line 8,860:
001
001


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=611&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT         


1. Not even that, since his examination is largely irrelevant to the issue: all the doctors he needs may be none of the ones there are.
1. Not even that, since his examination is largely irrelevant to the issue: all the doctors he needs may be none of the ones there are.
Line 8,703: Line 8,966:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=612&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 9,071: Line 9,336:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=613&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:57 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:57 GMT  posts: 1912         


(Please everybody, use the 'discuss' button and not the
(Please everybody, use the 'discuss' button and not the
Line 9,123: Line 9,392:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=614&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 19:14 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 19:14 GMT         


1. Quite true and Lojban needs to have ways to say them,. The question is whether thye are proper for the historical continuity of {lo} and whether one concept can cover them all. I think that the answer is at least doubtful on the first and even more so one the second. They are peculiar only against standard {lo} and thus as generalization away from that. As for there being something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times. There have been many good ideas about how to do it, but no set of them (no one suggestion has solved all — or even most — of the problems) has been accepted and what seems to gain ocasional favor is a good partial solution pushed to absurdity. Until it collapses and we go back to nearly square one with all the intervening suggestions (and even what was good in the popular suggestion) lost.
1. Quite true and Lojban needs to have ways to say them,. The question is whether thye are proper for the historical continuity of {lo} and whether one concept can cover them all. I think that the answer is at least doubtful on the first and even more so one the second. They are peculiar only against standard {lo} and thus as generalization away from that. As for there being something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times. There have been many good ideas about how to do it, but no set of them (no one suggestion has solved all — or even most — of the problems) has been accepted and what seems to gain ocasional favor is a good partial solution pushed to absurdity. Until it collapses and we go back to nearly square one with all the intervening suggestions (and even what was good in the popular suggestion) lost.
Line 9,527: Line 9,798:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=615&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         


1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.
1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.
Line 9,587: Line 9,860:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=616&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 9,639: Line 9,914:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=617&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 9,739: Line 10,016:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=618&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT         


1. Oops! Thinking &quot;lujvo&quot; when reading &quot;tanru.&quot;
1. Oops! Thinking &quot;lujvo&quot; when reading &quot;tanru.&quot;
Line 9,797: Line 10,076:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=619&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         


Judging from what Nick wrote at
Judging from what Nick wrote at
Line 10,259: Line 10,540:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=620&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         


Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Line 10,295: Line 10,578:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=621&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         


1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something they want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almost everyone additions.
1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something they want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almost everyone additions.
Line 10,411: Line 10,696:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=622&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 10,517: Line 10,804:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=623&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 10,549: Line 10,838:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=624&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 10,641: Line 10,932:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=625&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive discourse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw notes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics.
1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive discourse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw notes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics.
Line 11,113: Line 11,406:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=626&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 11,217: Line 11,512:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=627&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 11,361: Line 11,658:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=628&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 11,657: Line 11,956:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=629&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 11,723: Line 12,024:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=630&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 11,885: Line 12,188:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=631&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 11,923: Line 12,228:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=632&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT         


A: Phooey!. The Books description of {lo} has nothing to do with intensionality and indeed the idea of an intensional gadri barely makes sense: it could not be used in transparent context and would be unnecessary in opaque one. What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that wondrously vague sense of English plurals, &quot;the&quot; generic expressions and the like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the language: that is they talk about the members of a class but without an specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree — closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just
A: Phooey!. The Books description of {lo} has nothing to do with intensionality and indeed the idea of an intensional gadri barely makes sense: it could not be used in transparent context and would be unnecessary in opaque one. What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that wondrously vague sense of English plurals, &quot;the&quot; generic expressions and the like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the language: that is they talk about the members of a class but without an specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree — closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just
Line 12,035: Line 12,342:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=633&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT         


A: Actually, &quot;don't worry about instances&quot; is more or less a rule in normative discouse. At least the apparent counterinstances are dismissed with some small argument — ax murderers are adults to be forgiven by any one. Not counting doctors in the &quot;need&quot; case is just a feature of opaque context: the relevant doctors are not arounf to be counted. Maxims, however are not numeric generalizations — if they are generalizations; they are weighted, generic, rules about classes (or perhaps laying obs on such genric claims about classes).
A: Actually, &quot;don't worry about instances&quot; is more or less a rule in normative discouse. At least the apparent counterinstances are dismissed with some small argument — ax murderers are adults to be forgiven by any one. Not counting doctors in the &quot;need&quot; case is just a feature of opaque context: the relevant doctors are not arounf to be counted. Maxims, however are not numeric generalizations — if they are generalizations; they are weighted, generic, rules about classes (or perhaps laying obs on such genric claims about classes).
Line 12,103: Line 12,412:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=634&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT         


A: Well, of course no child (or anyone else) has to forgive someone he never heard of, nor (more significantly) are they bound to forgive the unforgivable. On the first issue, it seems fair to understand the claim (as I did-- misrecalling the actual example — when I said that old {lo} seemed right for the case) as &quot;if a child (x) is crossed by an adult (y), x should forgive y&quot; The protasis here is lost in conversational implicature (presupposition), leaving only a stripped down version of the apodasis, where the {lo}s ought logically be connverted to {ro}s. But you can't depend on grammar to be logical all the time, even in Lojban. In this case, the maxim can be taken as obligating a generic claim — which is probablty not true, else why oblicate it — to the effect that children forgive adults. I think that the {ro} reading is more comfortable to most moralists, but the generic one is not impossible.
A: Well, of course no child (or anyone else) has to forgive someone he never heard of, nor (more significantly) are they bound to forgive the unforgivable. On the first issue, it seems fair to understand the claim (as I did-- misrecalling the actual example — when I said that old {lo} seemed right for the case) as &quot;if a child (x) is crossed by an adult (y), x should forgive y&quot; The protasis here is lost in conversational implicature (presupposition), leaving only a stripped down version of the apodasis, where the {lo}s ought logically be connverted to {ro}s. But you can't depend on grammar to be logical all the time, even in Lojban. In this case, the maxim can be taken as obligating a generic claim — which is probablty not true, else why oblicate it — to the effect that children forgive adults. I think that the {ro} reading is more comfortable to most moralists, but the generic one is not impossible.
Line 12,271: Line 12,582:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=635&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 12,381: Line 12,694:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=636&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 20:52 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 20:52 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 12,755: Line 13,070:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=640&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 22:02 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 22:02 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 12,859: Line 13,176:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=643&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 05:25 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 05:25 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 12,999: Line 13,318:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=644&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 13,091: Line 13,412:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=645&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT         


1. sometimes &quot;the brodas&quot; too, though that seems more likely to be about species.
1. sometimes &quot;the brodas&quot; too, though that seems more likely to be about species.
Line 13,215: Line 13,538:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=646&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:12 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:12 GMT         


1. I think the mess comes out of its deep history, whihc may well have started with (the roots of) &quot;if a child (x) is harmed by an adult (y), x ought to forgive y. This would become a universal conditional by one line of transformations, but the present sentence but another, which puts the condition into presupposition (how can anyone forgive anyone if not harmed by them?) aand carry the forms forward from the old condition to their consequent-anaphor. Messy, but plausible, since it works and gives the right result: this really is a maxim (we could, for comfort, get the {ro}'s by much the same process).
1. I think the mess comes out of its deep history, whihc may well have started with (the roots of) &quot;if a child (x) is harmed by an adult (y), x ought to forgive y. This would become a universal conditional by one line of transformations, but the present sentence but another, which puts the condition into presupposition (how can anyone forgive anyone if not harmed by them?) aand carry the forms forward from the old condition to their consequent-anaphor. Messy, but plausible, since it works and gives the right result: this really is a maxim (we could, for comfort, get the {ro}'s by much the same process).
Line 13,599: Line 13,924:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=649&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT         


1. Of course, just what THAT means is a large part of the issue here. That aside, what follows is right as I understand it (and I think I am now close to xorxes except on the issues of whether the gadri should be {lo} and whether all this has anything to do with xorxes' {lo} reported elsewhere.).
1. Of course, just what THAT means is a large part of the issue here. That aside, what follows is right as I understand it (and I think I am now close to xorxes except on the issues of whether the gadri should be {lo} and whether all this has anything to do with xorxes' {lo} reported elsewhere.).
Line 13,707: Line 14,034:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=651&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT         


1. Maxims are a bad place to fight this fight sincew maxims tend to talk about aall, but also always have unmentioned exceptions, i.e., are not really about all at all. On the other hand, generic {lo} does seem to miss some of the apparent moral force of a maxim by being honest about what is covered (though possibly allowing too much).
1. Maxims are a bad place to fight this fight sincew maxims tend to talk about aall, but also always have unmentioned exceptions, i.e., are not really about all at all. On the other hand, generic {lo} does seem to miss some of the apparent moral force of a maxim by being honest about what is covered (though possibly allowing too much).
Line 13,855: Line 14,184:
Maxims are a bad plce to fight this fight
Maxims are a bad plce to fight this fight


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=652&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT         


1. Even generic {lo} seems to require that there are some of the things to keep from meaninglessness. But otherwise yes.
1. Even generic {lo} seems to require that there are some of the things to keep from meaninglessness. But otherwise yes.
Line 13,951: Line 14,282:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=658&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT         


A summary of where I think we are on the first step in dealing with gadri.
A summary of where I think we are on the first step in dealing with gadri.
Line 13,989: Line 14,322:
Notice in passing that all of these are presented as observable real world notions, not – in any troublesome way “intensional.”
Notice in passing that all of these are presented as observable real world notions, not – in any troublesome way “intensional.”


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=659&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT         


Some corrections.
Some corrections.
Line 14,003: Line 14,338:
I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates, probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for &quot;median&quot; and maybe {fadni} or a compound for &quot;mode.&quot;
I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates, probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for &quot;median&quot; and maybe {fadni} or a compound for &quot;mode.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=660&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 14,081: Line 14,418:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=661&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user47|PierreAbbat]] on Wed 02 of June, 2004 04:29 GMT  posts: 324         
Posted by [[user47|PierreAbbat]] on Wed 02 of June, 2004 04:29 GMT  posts: 324         


MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.
MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.
Line 14,093: Line 14,434:
2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.
2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=662&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 09:44 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 09:44 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 14,135: Line 14,478:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=663&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         


pier:
pier:
Line 14,199: Line 14,544:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=664&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         


Rob Speer:
Rob Speer:
Line 14,265: Line 14,612:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=665&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         


A&gt; Fib\ne, but I think that the discussion (current and past) demonstrates the need for at least {lo2} and {lo3} somehow. Suggestions?
A&gt; Fib\ne, but I think that the discussion (current and past) demonstrates the need for at least {lo2} and {lo3} somehow. Suggestions?
Line 14,287: Line 14,636:
C&gt;2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.
C&gt;2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=666&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT         


A&gt; But the discussion around the paper clearly shows that Mr. Rabbit is lurking. I agree that virtually the same results can be obtained without at leaast that bit of metaphysical argle-bargle. I do think that laying the real story out would be useful somewhere.
A&gt; But the discussion around the paper clearly shows that Mr. Rabbit is lurking. I agree that virtually the same results can be obtained without at leaast that bit of metaphysical argle-bargle. I do think that laying the real story out would be useful somewhere.
Line 14,337: Line 14,688:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=667&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         


A&gt; I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are there stats on this? But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I just don't see it off hand).
A&gt; I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are there stats on this? But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I just don't see it off hand).
Line 14,407: Line 14,760:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=668&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         


A&gt; Nice to see CLL doing something right in anticipation of needs.
A&gt; Nice to see CLL doing something right in anticipation of needs.
Line 14,479: Line 14,834:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=669&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         


A&gt; Use of the statistical notions presuppose that there are statistics to cover the case (at least informal one), so we can assume whatever is needed to make this meaningful. In this case, some sort of ordering. The {sepo'i} is a good idea — or something to indicate the property involved (with an implicit ordering, e.g, salary by amount, height by height, and so on).
A&gt; Use of the statistical notions presuppose that there are statistics to cover the case (at least informal one), so we can assume whatever is needed to make this meaningful. In this case, some sort of ordering. The {sepo'i} is a good idea — or something to indicate the property involved (with an implicit ordering, e.g, salary by amount, height by height, and so on).
Line 14,563: Line 14,920:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=670&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 14,637: Line 14,996:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=671&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:54 GMT         


1&gt; I doubt that the most common group is a singleton; the most common is surely no group at all but just and individual. But then I suppose that is what you meant; quantifying into a singleton would make sense, though on with {pa} — and fractionals. I again would say that the most common thing would be to count individuals, which I assume is what you mean. But it does not seem to me that that helps at all with the question of internal quantifiers as group sizes, since the analogy is not very good.
1&gt; I doubt that the most common group is a singleton; the most common is surely no group at all but just and individual. But then I suppose that is what you meant; quantifying into a singleton would make sense, though on with {pa} — and fractionals. I again would say that the most common thing would be to count individuals, which I assume is what you mean. But it does not seem to me that that helps at all with the question of internal quantifiers as group sizes, since the analogy is not very good.
Line 14,719: Line 15,080:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=672&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:54 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 14,803: Line 15,166:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=673&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


Test post; Pierre is apparently having problems.
Test post; Pierre is apparently having problems.
Line 14,813: Line 15,180:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=674&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 17:39 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 17:39 GMT         


A&gt; This doesn't help me much, since I have understood {lo pa broda} to be, like the other {lo PA broda}, about a group with PA members (as your expansion suggests). {PA1 lo PA2 broda} is then PA1 distinct (not necessary separate) groups with PA2 members, eqquivalent to your {PA1 mupli be lo PA2 broda} (stretching {mupli} somewhat perhaps). To refer to, say, two of these guys requires something like {refe'iPA2 lo PA2 broda}, or — if their being in this group is not important — just {re broda} (but not, obviously, {re lo broda}), equivalent to your {re cmima be be lo PA2 broda}. So, to talk about a single individual, one has to say {pa broda}. You suggest that pierre is OK with your use of internal quantifers but wants the external to be used in the {cmima} sense. Presumably your external quantifer sense ({mupli}) would, for him be covered by {PA1lo broda PA2mei} — or maybe without the {lo}. Sounds like a Zipfean question; any ideas how to sort matters out?
A&gt; This doesn't help me much, since I have understood {lo pa broda} to be, like the other {lo PA broda}, about a group with PA members (as your expansion suggests). {PA1 lo PA2 broda} is then PA1 distinct (not necessary separate) groups with PA2 members, eqquivalent to your {PA1 mupli be lo PA2 broda} (stretching {mupli} somewhat perhaps). To refer to, say, two of these guys requires something like {refe'iPA2 lo PA2 broda}, or — if their being in this group is not important — just {re broda} (but not, obviously, {re lo broda}), equivalent to your {re cmima be be lo PA2 broda}. So, to talk about a single individual, one has to say {pa broda}. You suggest that pierre is OK with your use of internal quantifers but wants the external to be used in the {cmima} sense. Presumably your external quantifer sense ({mupli}) would, for him be covered by {PA1lo broda PA2mei} — or maybe without the {lo}. Sounds like a Zipfean question; any ideas how to sort matters out?
Line 14,911: Line 15,280:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=675&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 17:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 17:55 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:43:14AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:43:14AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 14,945: Line 15,316:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=676&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user47|PierreAbbat]] on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:06 GMT  posts: 324         
Posted by [[user47|PierreAbbat]] on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:06 GMT  posts: 324         


MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.
MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.
Line 14,957: Line 15,332:
2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.
2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=677&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:21 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:21 GMT         


pier:
pier:
Line 14,981: Line 15,358:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=678&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:55 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 15,009: Line 15,388:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=679&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:55 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:30:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:30:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 15,023: Line 15,404:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=680&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:22 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:22 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell:
Robin Lee Powell:
Line 15,065: Line 15,448:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=682&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell:
Robin Lee Powell:
Line 15,099: Line 15,484:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=683&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT         


How do you say these sentences in XS-Lojban?
How do you say these sentences in XS-Lojban?
Line 15,117: Line 15,504:
Tusener p=E5 tusener av nydelige l=F8penoter - og hvilenoter!
Tusener p=E5 tusener av nydelige l=F8penoter - og hvilenoter!


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=684&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 15,151: Line 15,540:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=685&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:20 GMT         


On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 15,213: Line 15,604:
--Ian Bush
--Ian Bush


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=686&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:20 GMT         


On Wednesday 02 June 2004 15:33, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
On Wednesday 02 June 2004 15:33, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 15,263: Line 15,656:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=687&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:29 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:29 GMT         


Arnt Richard Johansen:
Arnt Richard Johansen:
Line 15,301: Line 15,696:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=688&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Pierre:
Pierre:
Line 15,329: Line 15,726:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=689&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         


Ah so. I guess I was thinking of having hit upon a group of five broda and then taaking three out of that. If we keep the {lo mu broda} as &quot;any group of five broda&quot; rather than &quot;a group of five broda, then it seems there is no use for the partitive sense. I suppose that the second sense (&quot;a group&quot;) is to be {su'o lo mu broda} or some such and the partitive gotten at using {lu'a} (or something like it for the right sort of entity).
Ah so. I guess I was thinking of having hit upon a group of five broda and then taaking three out of that. If we keep the {lo mu broda} as &quot;any group of five broda&quot; rather than &quot;a group of five broda, then it seems there is no use for the partitive sense. I suppose that the second sense (&quot;a group&quot;) is to be {su'o lo mu broda} or some such and the partitive gotten at using {lu'a} (or something like it for the right sort of entity).
Line 15,345: Line 15,744:
it might be. I already gave some examples of the first case.
it might be. I already gave some examples of the first case.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=690&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         


A&gt; This looks like {lo2}; I thought you were after {lo3}
A&gt; This looks like {lo2}; I thought you were after {lo3}
Line 15,383: Line 15,784:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=691&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 15,407: Line 15,810:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=692&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         


At some point I gathered (I thought you said it in fact) that {PA broda} was about instances, not generalities. So these critters look like some 3/5 of some doctor.
At some point I gathered (I thought you said it in fact) that {PA broda} was about instances, not generalities. So these critters look like some 3/5 of some doctor.
Line 15,435: Line 15,840:
of five doctors.
of five doctors.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=693&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT         


OK but pointless, assuming we have a way to refer to substances at all, Is there one in your system at this time?
OK but pointless, assuming we have a way to refer to substances at all, Is there one in your system at this time?
Line 15,453: Line 15,860:
applies there.
applies there.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=694&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:17 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 15,493: Line 15,902:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=695&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:17 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 15,525: Line 15,936:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=696&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:00 GMT         


This will be nice if it works, but several attempts to reduce {lo4} to {lo3} or {lo2} crahed and burnt. I don't remember details, but it seems plausible to me at least in the case of {lo2}, which is inherently quantificational. With {lo3} I haven't thought through (or remembered) how thespecies is related to its embodiment. It may be that {tu'o} is enough of a distinction. External quantifiers are then on globs? (I think BTW that something has to be said about quantifiers in the gadri section, though maybe not at this time).
This will be nice if it works, but several attempts to reduce {lo4} to {lo3} or {lo2} crahed and burnt. I don't remember details, but it seems plausible to me at least in the case of {lo2}, which is inherently quantificational. With {lo3} I haven't thought through (or remembered) how thespecies is related to its embodiment. It may be that {tu'o} is enough of a distinction. External quantifiers are then on globs? (I think BTW that something has to be said about quantifiers in the gadri section, though maybe not at this time).
Line 15,561: Line 15,974:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=697&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:01 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:28:33PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:28:33PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 15,587: Line 16,002:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=698&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:01 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:01:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:01:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 15,623: Line 16,040:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=699&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell:
Robin Lee Powell:
Line 15,661: Line 16,080:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=700&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         


Withdrawn (or resolved) objections to the current proposal on {lo}:
Withdrawn (or resolved) objections to the current proposal on {lo}:
Line 15,723: Line 16,144:
--attributed to Winston Churchill
--attributed to Winston Churchill


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=701&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 21:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 21:11 GMT         


Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Line 15,753: Line 16,176:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=702&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 21:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 21:35 GMT         


arj:
arj:
Line 15,829: Line 16,254:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=703&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:15 GMT         


As I understand it working within the system, since {tu'o} is the null quantifiers it indicates that NO Quantifier applies and this seems to be the case only with substances. Anything else justifies {pa} or som other number or at least {su'o} or {ro}. Now, of course, that does not work as well with the new interpretation of internal quantifiers, since they are about the size of selected groups not about the whole of the class (and so more like quantifiers with {le}), but it is still the case that only with substance do (whole-number, cardinal) quantifiers make no sense. I am not sure whether this line of reasoning is sufficient, but it is a cheap way to get substances without a new gadri.
As I understand it working within the system, since {tu'o} is the null quantifiers it indicates that NO Quantifier applies and this seems to be the case only with substances. Anything else justifies {pa} or som other number or at least {su'o} or {ro}. Now, of course, that does not work as well with the new interpretation of internal quantifiers, since they are about the size of selected groups not about the whole of the class (and so more like quantifiers with {le}), but it is still the case that only with substance do (whole-number, cardinal) quantifiers make no sense. I am not sure whether this line of reasoning is sufficient, but it is a cheap way to get substances without a new gadri.
Line 15,861: Line 16,288:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=704&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT         


A&gt; But unquantified {lo broda} is precisely not about instances (in one fairly frequent version of this tale), so the meaning DOES change when quantifiers are added. I am not sure that this is an objection; it is certainly a mild one compared with other problems with this tale (if we are still on the old Mr line).
A&gt; But unquantified {lo broda} is precisely not about instances (in one fairly frequent version of this tale), so the meaning DOES change when quantifiers are added. I am not sure that this is an objection; it is certainly a mild one compared with other problems with this tale (if we are still on the old Mr line).
Line 15,943: Line 16,372:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=705&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 15,971: Line 16,402:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=723&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:58 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:58 GMT         


Well, if what I eat is a (part of a) cow then this is not problematic, but I don't see it as meaning what I eat is cow. I suspect that the lack of quantifiers (i.e., bare {lo}) here covers the possibility of fractional ones as well as integral and indefinites. That would seem to be the natural understanding of indefiniteness.
Well, if what I eat is a (part of a) cow then this is not problematic, but I don't see it as meaning what I eat is cow. I suspect that the lack of quantifiers (i.e., bare {lo}) here covers the possibility of fractional ones as well as integral and indefinites. That would seem to be the natural understanding of indefiniteness.
Line 16,003: Line 16,436:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=727&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:59 GMT         


On Thursday 03 June 2004 20:30, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
On Thursday 03 June 2004 20:30, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 16,043: Line 16,478:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=729&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:59 GMT         


pier:
pier:
Line 16,095: Line 16,532:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=731&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT         


Pierre Abbat wrote:
Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 16,155: Line 16,594:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=732&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT         


A&gt;Well, it is about {cu}, too: am I now eating a cow, could I eat a cow, did I get through a cow over a period of time, and so on, just like the issue of whether it is one cow or several or bits and pieces of perhaps several cows.
A&gt;Well, it is about {cu}, too: am I now eating a cow, could I eat a cow, did I get through a cow over a period of time, and so on, just like the issue of whether it is one cow or several or bits and pieces of perhaps several cows.
Line 16,213: Line 16,654:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=733&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT         


* {me'andi}? Apparently not a lujvo.
* {me'andi}? Apparently not a lujvo.
Line 16,254: Line 16,697:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=735&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:53 GMT         


On Friday 04 June 2004 12:49, John E Clifford wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 12:49, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 16,270: Line 16,715:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=736&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:53 GMT         


On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:
Line 16,308: Line 16,755:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=738&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:17 GMT         


Pierre Abbat wrote:
Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 16,404: Line 16,853:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=739&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:24 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:24 GMT         


Pierre Abbat:
Pierre Abbat:
Line 16,454: Line 16,905:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=740&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:38 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:38 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 16,490: Line 16,943:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=741&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:15:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:15:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 16,524: Line 16,979:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=742&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 16,558: Line 17,015:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=743&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 16,592: Line 17,051:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=744&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 16,616: Line 17,077:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=745&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         


Z&gt; Seems to follow from some readings of {lo}:the most generic absence of unique quantifier would cover the {piPA}s as well as the PAs.
Z&gt; Seems to follow from some readings of {lo}:the most generic absence of unique quantifier would cover the {piPA}s as well as the PAs.
Line 16,659: Line 17,122:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=747&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         


T&gt; Can individual cows mill around and block a road? Sounds like a herd to me.
T&gt; Can individual cows mill around and block a road? Sounds like a herd to me.
Line 16,761: Line 17,226:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=748&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         


On Friday 04 June 2004 16:31, John E Clifford wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 16:31, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 16,785: Line 17,252:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=749&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         


Using xorxes' internal quantifiers here (which maybe does away with {loi}).
Using xorxes' internal quantifiers here (which maybe does away with {loi}).
Line 16,825: Line 17,294:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=750&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT         


The examples make {me} seem like a waste of a good and useful; bit of wordspace. I asssume there are examples that makt this word useful enough to justify using up a CV. Where is this meaning spelled out — not on my wordlist.
The examples make {me} seem like a waste of a good and useful; bit of wordspace. I asssume there are examples that makt this word useful enough to justify using up a CV. Where is this meaning spelled out — not on my wordlist.
Line 16,853: Line 17,324:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=751&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:05 GMT         


Sorry, I never can tell in advance who is operating at what level of precision.
Sorry, I never can tell in advance who is operating at what level of precision.
Line 16,882: Line 17,355:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=752&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:15 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:15 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:03:19PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:03:19PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 16,902: Line 17,377:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=753&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:15 GMT         


On Friday 04 June 2004 16:54, John E Clifford wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 16:54, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 16,934: Line 17,411:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=755&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 22:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 22:16 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 16,966: Line 17,445:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=766&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Too much nesting.]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 02:32 GMT  posts: 14214         
Too much nesting.
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 02:32 GMT  posts: 14214         


I'm with Pierre WRT the fact that lo quantifiers are different from all the others, actually. I don't think it's a good idea.
I'm with Pierre WRT the fact that lo quantifiers are different from all the others, actually. I don't think it's a good idea.
Line 16,986: Line 17,469:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=768&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         


On Friday 04 June 2004 22:32, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 22:32, [email protected] wrote:
Line 17,036: Line 17,521:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=769&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 17,106: Line 17,593:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=770&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:58PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:58PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 17,132: Line 17,621:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=771&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 08:10:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 08:10:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 17,266: Line 17,757:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=772&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Robin's Long Post]]
----
 
Robin's Long Post
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


(Dammit, I just lost everything I had done. Grr. [[File:img/smiles/icon_mad.gif|mad]] Restarting).
(Dammit, I just lost everything I had done. Grr. [[File:img/smiles/icon_mad.gif|mad]] Restarting).
Line 17,440: Line 17,935:
* &quot;so'omoi&quot; — probably meant to be mei.
* &quot;so'omoi&quot; — probably meant to be mei.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=773&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Translations.]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 07:10 GMT  posts: 14214         
Translations.
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 07:10 GMT  posts: 14214         


Every time I go through a section, I translate all the Lojban independently of the English, to check for errors. Just for giggles, here's what I got this time. These are (deliberately) very literalistic.
Every time I go through a section, I translate all the Lojban independently of the English, to check for errors. Just for giggles, here's what I got this time. These are (deliberately) very literalistic.
Line 17,624: Line 18,123:
imaginary-universe storiies during the previous century.
imaginary-universe storiies during the previous century.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=774&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT         


Line 17,646: Line 18,147:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=775&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:28:45AM -0400, xod wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:28:45AM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 17,670: Line 18,173:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=776&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT         


On Saturday 05 June 2004 02:55, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2004 02:55, [email protected] wrote:
Line 17,690: Line 18,195:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=777&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 14:22 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 14:22 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell:
Robin Lee Powell:
Line 17,768: Line 18,275:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=778&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 14:22 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 14:22 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 17,994: Line 18,503:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=782&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 16:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 16:53 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 18,050: Line 18,561:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=783&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:11 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:33:49AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:33:49AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 18,072: Line 18,585:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=787&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:16 GMT         


&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK
Line 18,144: Line 18,659:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=789&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:35 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:13:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:13:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 18,310: Line 18,827:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=794&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:11 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:11 GMT         


J&gt; I would argue that {ci lo broda mumei} is better, we want a brodaish fivesome, not a fivesomeish broda. As xorxes notes, all of these are tanru and so open to other interpretations — so go for a lujvo.
J&gt; I would argue that {ci lo broda mumei} is better, we want a brodaish fivesome, not a fivesomeish broda. As xorxes notes, all of these are tanru and so open to other interpretations — so go for a lujvo.
Line 18,334: Line 18,853:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=795&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:11 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:11 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 18,626: Line 19,147:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=796&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Attempting to increase clarity.]]
----
 
Attempting to increase clarity.
 
----


[[user1|[[File:img/avatars/539.gif|45x45px|admin]]]]  Posted by [[user1|admin]] on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:15 GMT  posts: 208         
[[user1|[[File:img/avatars/539.gif|45x45px|admin]]]]  Posted by [[user1|admin]] on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:15 GMT  posts: 208         
Line 18,642: Line 19,167:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=797&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         


L&gt; A clear variation on the famouse &quot;Juno was a man.&quot;
L&gt; A clear variation on the famouse &quot;Juno was a man.&quot;
Line 18,714: Line 19,241:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=798&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         


If you don't start trimming your replies, I'm going to lock you out of
If you don't start trimming your replies, I'm going to lock you out of
Line 18,736: Line 19,265:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=799&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 18,896: Line 19,427:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=800&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 21:00 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 21:00 GMT         


&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; * &quot;lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni&quot; . the first two
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; * &quot;lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni&quot; . the first two
Line 19,034: Line 19,567:
-Robni
-Robni


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=801&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         


&gt; &gt; &quot;typically satisfy also the predicate&quot;: swap &quot;satisfy&quot; and &quot;also&quot;.
&gt; &gt; &quot;typically satisfy also the predicate&quot;: swap &quot;satisfy&quot; and &quot;also&quot;.
Line 19,050: Line 19,585:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=802&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 19,090: Line 19,627:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=803&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:11:25PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:11:25PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 19,130: Line 19,669:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=804&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 19,286: Line 19,827:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=805&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 19,344: Line 19,887:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=806&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:34 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 19,390: Line 19,935:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=807&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:34 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 19,466: Line 20,013:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=808&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Votes]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:39 GMT  posts: 1912         
Votes
 
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:39 GMT  posts: 1912         


Can we know who is voting against the proposal at this point, and what their objections are? I know pc is one, but there are two others.
Can we know who is voting against the proposal at this point, and what their objections are? I know pc is one, but there are two others.
Line 19,474: Line 20,025:
ki'e mi'e xorxes
ki'e mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=811&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:39:27PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:39:27PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 19,494: Line 20,047:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=813&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         


I think the point is that if what comes after {lo} is {broda} the quantifiers on {lo broda} are just quantifiers on {broda}, while if what follows is {PA broda} then quantifers on {lo pa broda} are quantifiers on groups of {PA broda}, which cannot be be written without the {lo}. In other words, with {lo} you are talking about the whole phrase that follows in the sumti and what satisfies it, while with {le} you are talking about just what is said to satisfy the brivla that follows in the sumti (and then you are told how many there are. The external quantifiers work the same in each case; it is the internal ones that play different roles.
I think the point is that if what comes after {lo} is {broda} the quantifiers on {lo broda} are just quantifiers on {broda}, while if what follows is {PA broda} then quantifers on {lo pa broda} are quantifiers on groups of {PA broda}, which cannot be be written without the {lo}. In other words, with {lo} you are talking about the whole phrase that follows in the sumti and what satisfies it, while with {le} you are talking about just what is said to satisfy the brivla that follows in the sumti (and then you are told how many there are. The external quantifiers work the same in each case; it is the internal ones that play different roles.
Line 19,568: Line 20,123:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=814&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         


H&gt;This is useless unless ione has been indoctrinated into the incoherent notion of a generic individual (contradictory already) and its instances. Quantification is over brodas or groups of brodas.
H&gt;This is useless unless ione has been indoctrinated into the incoherent notion of a generic individual (contradictory already) and its instances. Quantification is over brodas or groups of brodas.
Line 19,630: Line 20,187:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=816&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         


I&gt; And what distinguishes the two — very different — cases?
I&gt; And what distinguishes the two — very different — cases?
Line 19,684: Line 20,243:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=817&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         


E&gt; It depends (as all references do to a greater or lesser extent) on context. It is easy to imagine cases where {lo brazo} does refer to Brazilain sausages, but in contextless cases, Brazilian people are clearly the most likely (unmarked, not needed special context).
E&gt; It depends (as all references do to a greater or lesser extent) on context. It is easy to imagine cases where {lo brazo} does refer to Brazilain sausages, but in contextless cases, Brazilian people are clearly the most likely (unmarked, not needed special context).
Line 19,728: Line 20,289:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=818&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT         


E&gt; It depends (as all references do to a greater or lesser extent) on context. It is easy to imagine cases where {lo brazo} does refer to Brazilain sausages, but in contextless cases, Brazilian people are clearly the most likely (unmarked, not needed special context).
E&gt; It depends (as all references do to a greater or lesser extent) on context. It is easy to imagine cases where {lo brazo} does refer to Brazilain sausages, but in contextless cases, Brazilian people are clearly the most likely (unmarked, not needed special context).
Line 19,772: Line 20,335:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=819&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:30:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:30:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 19,870: Line 20,435:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=820&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:07:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:07:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 19,900: Line 20,467:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=821&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 19,942: Line 20,511:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=823&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 20,058: Line 20,629:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=825&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


I'm inclined to say that the inner quantifier is always
I'm inclined to say that the inner quantifier is always
Line 20,092: Line 20,665:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=826&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 20,134: Line 20,709:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=828&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 20,158: Line 20,735:
it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=832&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 16:29 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 16:29 GMT         


A Gedankenexperiment:
A Gedankenexperiment:
Line 20,168: Line 20,747:
and turns out to be aproperty whose apllication depends upon that individuation. That is, it is a complex way of separating lo jvugi into these (pointed at) and those (not). It has to be reinvented everytime we shift which jvugi are in and which out. So the properties are always isomorphic to the individuation of the jvugi. In short, the unitary lo jvugi plays not significant role in all this, only the individual jvugi. And that means that, so far as practical concerns go, {lo jvugi} behaves exactly like {su'o jvugi} — just as CLL says. And wirthout the mumbling metaphysics.
and turns out to be aproperty whose apllication depends upon that individuation. That is, it is a complex way of separating lo jvugi into these (pointed at) and those (not). It has to be reinvented everytime we shift which jvugi are in and which out. So the properties are always isomorphic to the individuation of the jvugi. In short, the unitary lo jvugi plays not significant role in all this, only the individual jvugi. And that means that, so far as practical concerns go, {lo jvugi} behaves exactly like {su'o jvugi} — just as CLL says. And wirthout the mumbling metaphysics.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=833&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 19:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 19:47 GMT         


All right. I'm about to do something incredibly rude.
All right. I'm about to do something incredibly rude.
Line 20,244: Line 20,825:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=834&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:02 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:02 GMT         


~mark:
~mark:
Line 20,332: Line 20,915:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=835&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


Jorge &quot;Llamb����������������������������������&quot; wrote:
Jorge &quot;Llamb����������������������������������&quot; wrote:
Line 20,480: Line 21,065:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=836&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 20,558: Line 21,145:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=837&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 20,640: Line 21,229:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=838&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:44:23PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:44:23PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 20,784: Line 21,375:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=839&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 20,910: Line 21,503:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=840&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 20,950: Line 21,545:
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. [email protected]
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=841&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT         


~mark:
~mark:
Line 21,072: Line 21,669:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=842&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 21,192: Line 21,791:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;=20


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=843&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         


A&gt; Spatial tenses be damned! These are true in a thoroughly untenseeed way. Nor is there anyway to rectify matters with spatial tenses other than to say &quot;where the in-box jvugi are&quot; and &quot;where the out-box jvugi are&quot;.
A&gt; Spatial tenses be damned! These are true in a thoroughly untenseeed way. Nor is there anyway to rectify matters with spatial tenses other than to say &quot;where the in-box jvugi are&quot; and &quot;where the out-box jvugi are&quot;.
Line 21,284: Line 21,885:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=844&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         


My point is that the opposit is true as well: if {lo jvugi} applies, so does {su'o jvugi}.
My point is that the opposit is true as well: if {lo jvugi} applies, so does {su'o jvugi}.
Line 21,306: Line 21,909:
le &gt; lei
le &gt; lei


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=845&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 21,332: Line 21,937:
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=846&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 21,380: Line 21,987:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=847&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 21,434: Line 22,043:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=848&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         


Hey, if it can't include {no broda} then it must include {su'o broda}, those are the choices. And then, of course, it is not a new definition but just the old one in weird clothes.
Hey, if it can't include {no broda} then it must include {su'o broda}, those are the choices. And then, of course, it is not a new definition but just the old one in weird clothes.
Line 21,462: Line 22,073:
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=849&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 21,490: Line 22,103:
putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee
putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=850&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         


A&gt; Now, yesterday, tonorrow, etc. none of which make reference to la jvugis.
A&gt; Now, yesterday, tonorrow, etc. none of which make reference to la jvugis.
Line 21,538: Line 22,153:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=851&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT         


Jorge Llambías wrote:
Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 21,588: Line 22,205:
Aside from not being clear about what is the difference between 1 and 2, this seems sensible and coherent — if we have shifted the meaning of the internal quantifiers
Aside from not being clear about what is the difference between 1 and 2, this seems sensible and coherent — if we have shifted the meaning of the internal quantifiers


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=852&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:38:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:38:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 21,628: Line 22,247:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=853&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 21,656: Line 22,277:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=854&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 21,708: Line 22,331:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=855&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:04:25PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:04:25PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 21,758: Line 22,383:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=856&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:09 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:09 GMT         


A&gt; There all deictic and, if they are going to do the work wanted, what is pointed at has to be various instnaces of lo jvugi. Otherwise, {lo jvugi [[here,%20etc.|here, etc.]] naku nenri le tanxe} will generally be false, while {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe} is true, yet is said to be explained by the other. And, of course, when we take the case over a period of time, none of the locations will work.
A&gt; There all deictic and, if they are going to do the work wanted, what is pointed at has to be various instnaces of lo jvugi. Otherwise, {lo jvugi [[here,%20etc.|here, etc.]] naku nenri le tanxe} will generally be false, while {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe} is true, yet is said to be explained by the other. And, of course, when we take the case over a period of time, none of the locations will work.
Line 21,808: Line 22,435:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=857&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:27 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 21,886: Line 22,515:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=858&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Voting]]
----


  Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:27 GMT  posts: 23         
Voting
 
----
 
Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:27 GMT  posts: 23         


I am voting &quot;no&quot; at this point. This does not mean I am unalterably opposed. The volume of traffic has been too much for me to keep up with to be able to make a real decision.
I am voting &quot;no&quot; at this point. This does not mean I am unalterably opposed. The volume of traffic has been too much for me to keep up with to be able to make a real decision.
Line 21,894: Line 22,527:
I think that the original 2-week time-period was unrealistic, especially for this controversial a topic. In addition, after any changes or significant volume of discussion, there should be at least 2 weeks to re-review everthing; this will also give some leeway for people, like me, who don't spend all day every day reading e-mail or the tiki. There have been 28 messages since Robin posted the latest extension.
I think that the original 2-week time-period was unrealistic, especially for this controversial a topic. In addition, after any changes or significant volume of discussion, there should be at least 2 weeks to re-review everthing; this will also give some leeway for people, like me, who don't spend all day every day reading e-mail or the tiki. There have been 28 messages since Robin posted the latest extension.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=859&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:49 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 21,938: Line 22,573:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=860&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 01:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 01:35 GMT         


xod scripsit:
xod scripsit:
Line 22,004: Line 22,641:
is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus
is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=861&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 01:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 01:35 GMT         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 22,048: Line 22,687:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=862&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 22,084: Line 22,725:
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=863&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         


John Cowan wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Line 22,192: Line 22,835:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=864&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         


xod scripsit:
xod scripsit:
Line 22,222: Line 22,867:
One day when the Borg go belly-up / Guess who wind up on the street.
One day when the Borg go belly-up / Guess who wind up on the street.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=865&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         


John Cowan wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Line 22,268: Line 22,915:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=866&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT         


xod scripsit:
xod scripsit:
Line 22,294: Line 22,943:
I don't.&quot; --Thiagi http://www.reutershealth.com
I don't.&quot; --Thiagi http://www.reutershealth.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=868&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 12:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 12:16 GMT         


On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:26:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:26:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 22,330: Line 22,981:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=869&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 12:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 12:16 GMT         


On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 05:27:36PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 05:27:36PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 22,366: Line 23,019:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=870&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:27 GMT         


I apologize for getting sidetracked on xorxes' red herring here. The point is that {lo jvugi} (and {la jvugis} for that matter) is not transparent to conjunction. The need to go herring off to find another argument that seems not to be problematic in this way merely emphasizes the basic point: {lo jvugi} in any sense is not transparent to logical operations (we have not looked at quantifiers yet but the same non-transparency applies — that is, as with &quot;and.&quot; it works in the one direction it does for &quot;some&quot; but not in the other).
I apologize for getting sidetracked on xorxes' red herring here. The point is that {lo jvugi} (and {la jvugis} for that matter) is not transparent to conjunction. The need to go herring off to find another argument that seems not to be problematic in this way merely emphasizes the basic point: {lo jvugi} in any sense is not transparent to logical operations (we have not looked at quantifiers yet but the same non-transparency applies — that is, as with &quot;and.&quot; it works in the one direction it does for &quot;some&quot; but not in the other).
Line 22,416: Line 23,071:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=871&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:59 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 22,452: Line 23,109:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=872&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:59 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 22,496: Line 23,155:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=873&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 15:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 15:40 GMT         


But of course these &quot;hidden assumptions&quot; are just what a generic usage — which is what we purport yo be dealing with — drop out (or, better, explicitly refuse to raise). If we have to bring them back in to make some (unused) rule work, then we have failed to cover the case at hand. we don't need transparency and normal languages (including logic) don't have it, so why go through all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to get it in (especially since even with it the trick doesn't solve the &quot;problems&quot;).
But of course these &quot;hidden assumptions&quot; are just what a generic usage — which is what we purport yo be dealing with — drop out (or, better, explicitly refuse to raise). If we have to bring them back in to make some (unused) rule work, then we have failed to cover the case at hand. we don't need transparency and normal languages (including logic) don't have it, so why go through all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to get it in (especially since even with it the trick doesn't solve the &quot;problems&quot;).
Line 22,544: Line 23,205:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=874&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 15:57 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 15:57 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 22,574: Line 23,237:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=877&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:36 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:36 GMT         


A&gt; And your point is? There are some things which Lojban does not say very precisely and it would be nice to have devices for dealing with them. A new {lo} is not on that list however.
A&gt; And your point is? There are some things which Lojban does not say very precisely and it would be nice to have devices for dealing with them. A new {lo} is not on that list however.
Line 22,610: Line 23,275:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=881&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:45 GMT         


Here's my longer response to Nora's No-vote post.
Here's my longer response to Nora's No-vote post.
Line 22,700: Line 23,367:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=883&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Constants, quantifiers]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:45 GMT  posts: 152         
Constants, quantifiers
 
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:45 GMT  posts: 152         


I hadn't noticed that the thing about constants was part of the proposal.
I hadn't noticed that the thing about constants was part of the proposal.
Line 22,722: Line 23,393:
- Rob
- Rob


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=887&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 22,804: Line 23,477:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=888&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:45:13AM -0700, Rob Speer? wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:45:13AM -0700, Rob Speer? wrote:
Line 22,900: Line 23,575:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=889&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 22,918: Line 23,595:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=891&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


IMNSHO, the last part of the definition for lo'e, starting at &quot;It has been
IMNSHO, the last part of the definition for lo'e, starting at &quot;It has been
Line 22,938: Line 23,617:
call sign. -John F. Lindholm, QST vol. 66 no. 3 p. 83
call sign. -John F. Lindholm, QST vol. 66 no. 3 p. 83


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=892&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:30:56PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:30:56PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
Line 22,954: Line 23,635:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=893&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 22,988: Line 23,671:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=894&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:40:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:40:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 23,022: Line 23,707:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=895&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 09:56:56PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 09:56:56PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Line 23,054: Line 23,741:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=896&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 23,104: Line 23,793:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=897&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 23,146: Line 23,837:
--Murray Gell-Mann
--Murray Gell-Mann


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=898&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 23,172: Line 23,865:
Egyptians worshiped an insect. --Benjamin Disraeli
Egyptians worshiped an insect. --Benjamin Disraeli


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=899&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


A&gt;But it isn't. The second denies {lo broda cu brode} so is true even if there are no broda, while {lo broda naku brode} is not.
A&gt;But it isn't. The second denies {lo broda cu brode} so is true even if there are no broda, while {lo broda naku brode} is not.
Line 23,262: Line 23,957:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=900&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 23,290: Line 23,987:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=901&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         


A&gt; But {lo broda naku brode} implies {su'o broda naku brode}, while {naku lo broda cu brode} does not.
A&gt; But {lo broda naku brode} implies {su'o broda naku brode}, while {naku lo broda cu brode} does not.
Line 23,322: Line 24,021:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=902&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:17:46PM -0400, [email protected]
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:17:46PM -0400, [email protected]
Line 23,382: Line 24,083:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=903&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 23,404: Line 24,107:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=904&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 23,490: Line 24,195:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=905&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:22:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:22:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 23,562: Line 24,269:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=906&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT         


Oops! Rather {su'o broda naku brode} implies a&gt; {lo broda naku brode}, but not b&gt; {naku lo broda cu brode}, since the a may be true together with {lo broda cu brode}.
Oops! Rather {su'o broda naku brode} implies a&gt; {lo broda naku brode}, but not b&gt; {naku lo broda cu brode}, since the a may be true together with {lo broda cu brode}.
Line 23,588: Line 24,297:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=907&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 23,636: Line 24,347:
--Thomas Henry Huxley
--Thomas Henry Huxley


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=908&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 23,724: Line 24,437:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=909&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 23,796: Line 24,511:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=910&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 23,828: Line 24,545:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=911&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:40 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:02:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:02:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 23,910: Line 24,629:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=912&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:40 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 23,970: Line 24,691:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=913&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:58 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:58 GMT         


Oh, give it a rest. The point is that the inference you claim holds does not in fact hold. The reason why it does not hold is that the particular quantifier — which regardless of how often you yack on the contrary is all that {lo} is or ever was — does not distribute the way you want it to. The whole point of generic claims is precisely that they do not involve particular times and places etc,.so, whatever may be true about claims that do involve particular times and places is not relevant. To be sure, finding out about the truth of these claims may involve looking at some particular times and places, but they are not part of the claim. The spurious analogy with individuals fails because of the larger disanalogy — there is the individual in the world and there is not Mr. Rabbit.
Oh, give it a rest. The point is that the inference you claim holds does not in fact hold. The reason why it does not hold is that the particular quantifier — which regardless of how often you yack on the contrary is all that {lo} is or ever was — does not distribute the way you want it to. The whole point of generic claims is precisely that they do not involve particular times and places etc,.so, whatever may be true about claims that do involve particular times and places is not relevant. To be sure, finding out about the truth of these claims may involve looking at some particular times and places, but they are not part of the claim. The spurious analogy with individuals fails because of the larger disanalogy — there is the individual in the world and there is not Mr. Rabbit.
Line 24,006: Line 24,729:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=914&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:58 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:58 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:54:52PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:54:52PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 24,018: Line 24,743:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=916&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:58:35PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:58:35PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 24,062: Line 24,789:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=917&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 24,104: Line 24,833:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=918&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         


And the phrases for lo'e and le'e:
And the phrases for lo'e and le'e:
Line 24,124: Line 24,855:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=919&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT         


I personally made all the jvugi. There are exactly 12 of them, some of them are inside my box, some of them are outside. So, {lo jvugi cu nenri le tanxe} is true as is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}, at the same time and in the same place and so (as long as they are outside the box it doesn't matter, they are not at the only relevant place, inside the box). But I {lo jvugi cu jvugi} is true, so one of these jvugi must be both inside and outside the box, which it clearly is not. But these are all the jvugi. So, at least one of the lojban sentences above is false, if {lo jvugi} is a constant (as it is not as already noted). Which will you give up — the ones which are there in front of you or one of the ones that is supported only by a (to be generous) dubious metaphysics.
I personally made all the jvugi. There are exactly 12 of them, some of them are inside my box, some of them are outside. So, {lo jvugi cu nenri le tanxe} is true as is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}, at the same time and in the same place and so (as long as they are outside the box it doesn't matter, they are not at the only relevant place, inside the box). But I {lo jvugi cu jvugi} is true, so one of these jvugi must be both inside and outside the box, which it clearly is not. But these are all the jvugi. So, at least one of the lojban sentences above is false, if {lo jvugi} is a constant (as it is not as already noted). Which will you give up — the ones which are there in front of you or one of the ones that is supported only by a (to be generous) dubious metaphysics.
Line 24,160: Line 24,893:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=920&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,200: Line 24,935:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=921&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


This is getting really boring., I point out a simple logical truth to you about an argument and you tell me something about another argument. The you take a dubious claim about space and support it with a slightly less dubious claim about time, as though they were somehow the same. The only thing that differentiates the subjects in the various sentences is that, as different occurrences of the particular quantifier, they may — and in this case do — point to different jvugi. Since no place or time or anything else is mentioned here, only the separate quantifiers, what do place and time (just what &quot;generic&quot; is all about ignoring) have to do with the issue?
This is getting really boring., I point out a simple logical truth to you about an argument and you tell me something about another argument. The you take a dubious claim about space and support it with a slightly less dubious claim about time, as though they were somehow the same. The only thing that differentiates the subjects in the various sentences is that, as different occurrences of the particular quantifier, they may — and in this case do — point to different jvugi. Since no place or time or anything else is mentioned here, only the separate quantifiers, what do place and time (just what &quot;generic&quot; is all about ignoring) have to do with the issue?
Line 24,256: Line 24,993:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=922&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe}.
Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe}.
Line 24,300: Line 25,039:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=923&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,342: Line 25,083:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=924&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


The point is, of course, that, ex hypothesi, la jvugis is an individual and so cannot be both emitting and not emitting light here and now (which may — to make you happy — require defining here and now rather narrowly, to be sure). As for the latter point, note where the negation is in my example — already outside the tense place. Again I have made a point about one argument and you have countered with a point about another — irrelevant — argument. Trying to defend an obvious lunacy does that to one eventually.
The point is, of course, that, ex hypothesi, la jvugis is an individual and so cannot be both emitting and not emitting light here and now (which may — to make you happy — require defining here and now rather narrowly, to be sure). As for the latter point, note where the negation is in my example — already outside the tense place. Again I have made a point about one argument and you have countered with a point about another — irrelevant — argument. Trying to defend an obvious lunacy does that to one eventually.
Line 24,388: Line 25,131:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=925&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 24,420: Line 25,165:
not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirkey
not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirkey


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=926&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,456: Line 25,203:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=927&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 14:24 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 14:24 GMT         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 24,520: Line 25,269:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=928&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 14:25 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 14:25 GMT         


A&gt; How do you do that? There are clearly jvugi that are not here and now inside the box: thye are not here and they are not inside the box, although they are now, but 2 out of 3 (indeed 1 out of 3) is enough to decide the negation. Do you understand your own idea of what {lo jvigu} means? Or {naku}?
A&gt; How do you do that? There are clearly jvugi that are not here and now inside the box: thye are not here and they are not inside the box, although they are now, but 2 out of 3 (indeed 1 out of 3) is enough to decide the negation. Do you understand your own idea of what {lo jvigu} means? Or {naku}?
Line 24,564: Line 25,315:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=929&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,614: Line 25,367:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=930&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         


Or{la jvugis} fails to be a constant to the extent that {lo jvugi} does. But you seem to want to say that {lo jvugi} is more of a constant that {la jvugis}, since you seem to want to say tha there is some sense in which {lo jvugi} collects over conjunction and passes unscathed through negation in a way that {la jvugis} does not. The most that can be said accurately about la jvugis in a collective way is that some part of it shines and some (other, of course) part of it does not. {la jvugis zu'o ge pisu'o jy te gusni gi pisu'o jy naku te gusni}, but you deny the corresponding form for {lo jvugi}. And well you should, because the it has to admit quantifers over {lo jvugi} which gets back the old meaning of {lo} and explains at least this case in terms of them ({lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni} — unlless instances are parts too, in which case I suppose the exact parallel would work). To which the immediate rhetorical reply would be, if you need them
Or{la jvugis} fails to be a constant to the extent that {lo jvugi} does. But you seem to want to say that {lo jvugi} is more of a constant that {la jvugis}, since you seem to want to say tha there is some sense in which {lo jvugi} collects over conjunction and passes unscathed through negation in a way that {la jvugis} does not. The most that can be said accurately about la jvugis in a collective way is that some part of it shines and some (other, of course) part of it does not. {la jvugis zu'o ge pisu'o jy te gusni gi pisu'o jy naku te gusni}, but you deny the corresponding form for {lo jvugi}. And well you should, because the it has to admit quantifers over {lo jvugi} which gets back the old meaning of {lo} and explains at least this case in terms of them ({lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni} — unlless instances are parts too, in which case I suppose the exact parallel would work). To which the immediate rhetorical reply would be, if you need them
Line 24,674: Line 25,429:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=931&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,696: Line 25,453:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=932&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 24,728: Line 25,487:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=933&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         


Well, why not? To be sure, just what {su'o su'o jvugi} means is probably unclear and (alternately) what requantifying variables means is controversial. Or is your point just that it is stylistically inelegant? Perhaps; I never said there were no differences between {su'o} and {lo} ({lo PA brode} for one simple case). But to say that it makes *no* sense is just false.
Well, why not? To be sure, just what {su'o su'o jvugi} means is probably unclear and (alternately) what requantifying variables means is controversial. Or is your point just that it is stylistically inelegant? Perhaps; I never said there were no differences between {su'o} and {lo} ({lo PA brode} for one simple case). But to say that it makes *no* sense is just false.
Line 24,754: Line 25,515:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=934&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         


Presumably in the {la jvugis} case too. {boi} is one of those patches that I have never quite figued out how it works nor why it is there in the first place, but I'll take your word that it is needed here.
Presumably in the {la jvugis} case too. {boi} is one of those patches that I have never quite figued out how it works nor why it is there in the first place, but I'll take your word that it is needed here.
Line 24,790: Line 25,553:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=935&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT         


It had better mean something (and something like {su'o jvigu cu nenri le tanxe ije su'o broda naku nenri le tanxe} because it follows from the sentence given, which is then senseless if the {suo} for {lo} replacement is. The alternative is that your {lo jvigu} can't do the job it is designed to do, say what jvigu do.
It had better mean something (and something like {su'o jvigu cu nenri le tanxe ije su'o broda naku nenri le tanxe} because it follows from the sentence given, which is then senseless if the {suo} for {lo} replacement is. The alternative is that your {lo jvigu} can't do the job it is designed to do, say what jvigu do.
Line 24,814: Line 25,579:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=936&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,844: Line 25,611:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=937&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         


Another example:
Another example:
Line 24,870: Line 25,639:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=938&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         


Good!
Good!
Line 24,904: Line 25,675:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=939&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         


I am sure you wouldn't and I wouldn't either, but for stylistic-- maybe even grammatical — reasons. As I said before, requantifying is a controversy, but suely {ro lo jvigu} or {ro jvigu} (whichever {jy} stands for here). The initial {lo jvigu} is vacuous, of course, or downright misleading, but not wrong.
I am sure you wouldn't and I wouldn't either, but for stylistic-- maybe even grammatical — reasons. As I said before, requantifying is a controversy, but suely {ro lo jvigu} or {ro jvigu} (whichever {jy} stands for here). The initial {lo jvigu} is vacuous, of course, or downright misleading, but not wrong.
Line 24,934: Line 25,707:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=940&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 24,976: Line 25,751:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=941&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT         


Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent sentences only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of them of course, so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact, not logic). As far as I can tell, {nelci} does not create opaque places, so the pronouns work just fine. The questions about {jy} and requantification do keep coming back, but — without deciding those issues completely — this seems to be right. I am not sure just what this has to do with {lo}, but I can't complain about the sentences.
Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent sentences only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of them of course, so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact, not logic). As far as I can tell, {nelci} does not create opaque places, so the pronouns work just fine. The questions about {jy} and requantification do keep coming back, but — without deciding those issues completely — this seems to be right. I am not sure just what this has to do with {lo}, but I can't complain about the sentences.
Line 25,022: Line 25,799:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=942&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT         


But on second thought — this one devoted to anaphora, but not requantification (for which I am at least temporarily assuming that the each subsequent quantifier subdivides the original one — not the latest one and not back to scratch either) — I want the anaphora after the first sentence to be referential, not literal. But I have (not quite arbitrarily) said that the letterals are literal, so I would use other pronouns here. Unfortunately, once we get rid of the letterals, Lojban — for all it has reams of sheets of pronouns — does not have any that relaibly pick out something already mentioned or pick it out again after one shot. so, for the nonce, I'll let {jy} be as ambiguous as the English cases.
But on second thought — this one devoted to anaphora, but not requantification (for which I am at least temporarily assuming that the each subsequent quantifier subdivides the original one — not the latest one and not back to scratch either) — I want the anaphora after the first sentence to be referential, not literal. But I have (not quite arbitrarily) said that the letterals are literal, so I would use other pronouns here. Unfortunately, once we get rid of the letterals, Lojban — for all it has reams of sheets of pronouns — does not have any that relaibly pick out something already mentioned or pick it out again after one shot. so, for the nonce, I'll let {jy} be as ambiguous as the English cases.
Line 25,070: Line 25,849:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=943&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 25,110: Line 25,891:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=944&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT         


Jorge &quot;Llamb����������������������������������&quot; wrote:
Jorge &quot;Llamb����������������������������������&quot; wrote:
Line 25,170: Line 25,953:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=945&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT         


Mark E. Shoulson:
Mark E. Shoulson:
Line 25,224: Line 26,009:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=946&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 01:28 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 01:28 GMT         


On Tuesday 08 June 2004 18:59, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 18:59, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 25,264: Line 26,051:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=947&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 01:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 01:59 GMT         


Pierre Abbat:
Pierre Abbat:
Line 25,302: Line 26,091:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=948&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Minor re-wording.]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:00 GMT  posts: 14214         
Minor re-wording.
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:00 GMT  posts: 14214         


In loi and lei:
In loi and lei:
Line 25,316: Line 26,109:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=949&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:09 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:09 GMT         


I haven't been following this (I stopped getting mail about bpfk
I haven't been following this (I stopped getting mail about bpfk
Line 25,498: Line 26,293:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=950&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:35 GMT         


On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:51, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:51, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 25,566: Line 26,363:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=951&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:35 GMT         


&gt; should be
&gt; should be
Line 25,590: Line 26,389:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=952&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:43 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:43 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 25,646: Line 26,447:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=953&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:02 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:02 GMT         


Looks fine to me; all the {jy} are functioning as literal anaphora, though I suppose we disagree on that. We agree both on what the grammar is and what it means but not how it means that. And, of course, both of our understandings are in their own ways non-standard.
Looks fine to me; all the {jy} are functioning as literal anaphora, though I suppose we disagree on that. We agree both on what the grammar is and what it means but not how it means that. And, of course, both of our understandings are in their own ways non-standard.
Line 25,690: Line 26,493:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=954&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Nitpicky errors]]
----
 
Nitpicky errors


  Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:02 GMT  posts: 23         
----
 
Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:02 GMT  posts: 23         


A couple of nit-picky errors (corrections welcome if I am mistaken):
A couple of nit-picky errors (corrections welcome if I am mistaken):
Line 25,716: Line 26,523:
These are not all my comments. I am working on the rest.
These are not all my comments. I am working on the rest.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=955&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:14 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:14 GMT         


It is not the plurality of {lo jvugi} but its variability that is the problem. Or more exactly that it is a number things being treated simultaneously as though they were just one. The {la jvugis} case is actually made easier by plurality, but then it is even more obviously not a constant.
It is not the plurality of {lo jvugi} but its variability that is the problem. Or more exactly that it is a number things being treated simultaneously as though they were just one. The {la jvugis} case is actually made easier by plurality, but then it is even more obviously not a constant.
Line 25,778: Line 26,587:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=956&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:14 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:14 GMT         


A&gt; Well, I do think it is easier to stick with jvugis rather than singleytons of jvugi, but the problem turns up either way. If there were-- overtly — only one jvugi, of course, the situation would be somewhat simpler
A&gt; Well, I do think it is easier to stick with jvugis rather than singleytons of jvugi, but the problem turns up either way. If there were-- overtly — only one jvugi, of course, the situation would be somewhat simpler
Line 25,838: Line 26,649:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=957&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:45 GMT         


I haven't gotten this one from xorxes yet; but I haven't anything to add to our comments.
I haven't gotten this one from xorxes yet; but I haven't anything to add to our comments.
Line 25,879: Line 26,692:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=958&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:45 GMT         


coi fi'i ui doi jordan
coi fi'i ui doi jordan
Line 25,981: Line 26,796:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=959&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:46 GMT         


A&gt; True but not relevant to the question at issue, namely whether we could get Pierre's false claim from the true {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri ije lo jvugi le tanxe naku nenri}
A&gt; True but not relevant to the question at issue, namely whether we could get Pierre's false claim from the true {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri ije lo jvugi le tanxe naku nenri}
Line 26,025: Line 26,842:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=960&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:48 GMT         


noras:
noras:
Line 26,085: Line 26,904:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=961&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:49 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:11:46PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:11:46PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 26,117: Line 26,938:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=962&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:49 GMT         


On Wednesday 09 June 2004 01:15, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 01:15, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 26,141: Line 26,964:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=963&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 12:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 12:49 GMT         


Pierre Abbat:
Pierre Abbat:
Line 26,173: Line 26,998:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=964&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Constants]]
----
 
Constants
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 09 of June, 2004 14:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 09 of June, 2004 14:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


Some comments on constant terms.
Some comments on constant terms.
Line 26,221: Line 27,050:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=965&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:12 GMT         


Line 26,261: Line 27,092:
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=966&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:12 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:42:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:42:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 26,285: Line 27,118:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=967&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


The official usage has its problems, too. {lo} is used too often on the assumption that just one thing is intended, where as it says that any number from one on is involved. So, where singularity is an issue, it is misleading. On the other hand, the new {lo} goes to the other extreme, getting away from single cases and single situations, while still (unremarked — even denied — by xorxes) staying within the scope of the particular quantifier. It is unclear to me whether this is a semantic issue or merely a pragmatic one: where do we place the (vague) limits on what counts as validating a claim? At the moment, I think it is pragmatic: the range is the same but we take it in one sense or the other: general or singular. Along that line, I have suggested (or was about to; I can't remember whether I have already said this in print) that we reserve {lo} henceforth for one of these assumptions and use {su'o} or a more exact number for the others. But I think that either of these will
The official usage has its problems, too. {lo} is used too often on the assumption that just one thing is intended, where as it says that any number from one on is involved. So, where singularity is an issue, it is misleading. On the other hand, the new {lo} goes to the other extreme, getting away from single cases and single situations, while still (unremarked — even denied — by xorxes) staying within the scope of the particular quantifier. It is unclear to me whether this is a semantic issue or merely a pragmatic one: where do we place the (vague) limits on what counts as validating a claim? At the moment, I think it is pragmatic: the range is the same but we take it in one sense or the other: general or singular. Along that line, I have suggested (or was about to; I can't remember whether I have already said this in print) that we reserve {lo} henceforth for one of these assumptions and use {su'o} or a more exact number for the others. But I think that either of these will
Line 26,501: Line 27,336:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=968&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 26,553: Line 27,390:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=969&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


A&gt;But it implies (and is implied by {su'o jvugi} and so is false if the corresponding {su'o jvugi} is false.
A&gt;But it implies (and is implied by {su'o jvugi} and so is false if the corresponding {su'o jvugi} is false.
Line 26,619: Line 27,458:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=970&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 26,659: Line 27,500:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=971&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


D&gt; See earlier.
D&gt; See earlier.
Line 26,695: Line 27,538:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=972&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


D&gt; See earlier.
D&gt; See earlier.
Line 26,731: Line 27,576:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=973&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:17:45PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:17:45PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 26,893: Line 27,740:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=974&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


A&gt;As xorxes as demonstrated (though I don't think he thinks this is what he has demonstrated) none of these equations work for any sumti expression in Lojban. That is, lojban sumti of whatever sort are not logical constant. What we can do in some case — maybe in all — is rewrite some parts of these expressions to make the pattern go through — either divide the subject or precide the the predicate to avoid problems. The negation problems seem the hardest to deal with, but even there we can usually manage to rewrite what we say to achieve the shift for what we mean.
A&gt;As xorxes as demonstrated (though I don't think he thinks this is what he has demonstrated) none of these equations work for any sumti expression in Lojban. That is, lojban sumti of whatever sort are not logical constant. What we can do in some case — maybe in all — is rewrite some parts of these expressions to make the pattern go through — either divide the subject or precide the the predicate to avoid problems. The negation problems seem the hardest to deal with, but even there we can usually manage to rewrite what we say to achieve the shift for what we mean.
Line 26,949: Line 27,798:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=975&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


Rob Speer:
Rob Speer:
Line 27,013: Line 27,864:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=976&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


A&gt; Hell, under the present proposal, we just have that dog threesomes (in general) bite the one bone (which apparently moves around a lot to be available to dog threesomes wherever they are). The question of whether each member of every such threesome has to get its teeth around the bone seems relatively insignificant at this point.
A&gt; Hell, under the present proposal, we just have that dog threesomes (in general) bite the one bone (which apparently moves around a lot to be available to dog threesomes wherever they are). The question of whether each member of every such threesome has to get its teeth around the bone seems relatively insignificant at this point.
Line 27,055: Line 27,908:
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=977&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT         


Amen (except to note that this proposal has been around for several years in nearly this form, so it is a long time since it was close to being right).
Amen (except to note that this proposal has been around for several years in nearly this form, so it is a long time since it was close to being right).
Line 27,109: Line 27,964:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=978&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         


E&gt; See earlier
E&gt; See earlier
Line 27,179: Line 28,036:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=979&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 27,281: Line 28,140:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=980&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 27,301: Line 28,162:
and man and metre. [email protected]
and man and metre. [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=981&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 27,387: Line 28,250:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=982&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


G&gt; Well, xorxes occasionally talks as though it did not, but it has to for what he wants it to do (but which it can't do anyhow as presently constituted).
G&gt; Well, xorxes occasionally talks as though it did not, but it has to for what he wants it to do (but which it can't do anyhow as presently constituted).
Line 27,493: Line 28,358:


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=983&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


Lord, I hope not: singletons don't bite bones (I am not sure about triads, but probably not). I suspect this is just a terminological problems, though working out the logic is a bitch — because of the quantifiers, as usual.
Lord, I hope not: singletons don't bite bones (I am not sure about triads, but probably not). I suspect this is just a terminological problems, though working out the logic is a bitch — because of the quantifiers, as usual.
Line 27,515: Line 28,382:
and man and metre. [email protected]
and man and metre. [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=984&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


H&gt; That is exactly what the quantifier is.
H&gt; That is exactly what the quantifier is.
Line 27,607: Line 28,476:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=985&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 27,653: Line 28,524:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=986&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 27,733: Line 28,606:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=987&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 27,857: Line 28,732:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=988&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 27,905: Line 28,782:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=989&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


Rob Speer wrote:
Rob Speer wrote:
Line 27,997: Line 28,876:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=990&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 28,023: Line 28,904:
--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You
--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=991&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:11:26AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:11:26AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 28,055: Line 28,938:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=992&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         


The new notation here (OK, so I've seen it once before today) suggests that {lo broda} is now being taken as a species or a property or a set or some such abstract thing. This makes perfectly good sense and fits more of xorxes tales than Mr. Rabbit, a &quot;concrete object.&quot; But it does raise another set of problems: how to tell the difference between what is said about the abstract in the web of abstractions from what is said of it in the web of facts, for example, how to tell whether nenri(curnu, plise) merely says that worms are the sort of things that might be inside apples or says that worms actually are inside apples from time to time and place to place. Tenseless Lojban sentences have the same problem (officially) and it is resolved (offically and actually) by context. But, just in case, we need also an offical way (as we do with vague tenses like {su'oroi}) to disambiguate without losing too much of the original intent. Such ways exist, and, if we decide to use {lo} in this
The new notation here (OK, so I've seen it once before today) suggests that {lo broda} is now being taken as a species or a property or a set or some such abstract thing. This makes perfectly good sense and fits more of xorxes tales than Mr. Rabbit, a &quot;concrete object.&quot; But it does raise another set of problems: how to tell the difference between what is said about the abstract in the web of abstractions from what is said of it in the web of facts, for example, how to tell whether nenri(curnu, plise) merely says that worms are the sort of things that might be inside apples or says that worms actually are inside apples from time to time and place to place. Tenseless Lojban sentences have the same problem (officially) and it is resolved (offically and actually) by context. But, just in case, we need also an offical way (as we do with vague tenses like {su'oroi}) to disambiguate without losing too much of the original intent. Such ways exist, and, if we decide to use {lo} in this
Line 28,107: Line 28,992:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=993&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:19:29PM -0400, [email protected]
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:19:29PM -0400, [email protected]
Line 28,169: Line 29,056:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=994&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         


Well, suppose that we intend to keep all the preverb the same in both cases, whatever it unspecifiedly is. That is, suppose that the {naku} sentence is meant to be exactly the denial of the unnegated form. This is, after all, what the question was.
Well, suppose that we intend to keep all the preverb the same in both cases, whatever it unspecifiedly is. That is, suppose that the {naku} sentence is meant to be exactly the denial of the unnegated form. This is, after all, what the question was.
Line 28,221: Line 29,110:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=995&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         


&quot;Past usage&quot; is a generic term — it does not require that *all* past usage be covered, nor even that most of it be. In the case of Lojban, we actually have a normative description of what past usage *should* be, against which we may discover that much actual past usage fails. But what remains, even if it is only one passage, has a special claim on being supported by any change. Actually, it seems that most past usage is pretty much OK, although the pragmatics of the situations have not been explored or exploited. the criticisms have generally been from that part of the issue — and have generally been as misleading andd misled as the examples criticized.
&quot;Past usage&quot; is a generic term — it does not require that *all* past usage be covered, nor even that most of it be. In the case of Lojban, we actually have a normative description of what past usage *should* be, against which we may discover that much actual past usage fails. But what remains, even if it is only one passage, has a special claim on being supported by any change. Actually, it seems that most past usage is pretty much OK, although the pragmatics of the situations have not been explored or exploited. the criticisms have generally been from that part of the issue — and have generally been as misleading andd misled as the examples criticized.
Line 28,251: Line 29,142:
fact that su'oda is available for your logical precision pleasure.
fact that su'oda is available for your logical precision pleasure.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=996&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:04:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:04:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 28,287: Line 29,180:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=997&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 28,339: Line 29,234:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=998&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:28:28AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:28:28AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 28,383: Line 29,280:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=999&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 28,419: Line 29,318:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1000&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 28,455: Line 29,356:
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1001&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 28,503: Line 29,406:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1002&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 28,557: Line 29,462:
&quot;Well, I'm back.&quot; --Sam John Cowan
&quot;Well, I'm back.&quot; --Sam John Cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1003&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:45 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:54:51PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:54:51PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
Line 28,595: Line 29,502:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1004&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


jcowan:
jcowan:
Line 28,643: Line 29,552:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1005&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 28,667: Line 29,578:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1006&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 28,695: Line 29,608:
El Auruns's reply: &quot;Many happy returns of the day!&quot;
El Auruns's reply: &quot;Many happy returns of the day!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1007&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


On Wednesday 09 June 2004 15:40, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 15:40, [email protected] wrote:
Line 28,723: Line 29,638:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1008&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:56:19PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:56:19PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 28,751: Line 29,668:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1009&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 28,795: Line 29,714:
in flame.&quot; --&quot;The Pyre of Denethor&quot;
in flame.&quot; --&quot;The Pyre of Denethor&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1010&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


On Wednesday 09 June 2004 16:13, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 16:13, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 28,829: Line 29,750:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1011&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:19:29PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:19:29PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
Line 28,891: Line 29,814:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1012&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:52:25AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:52:25AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 28,917: Line 29,842:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1013&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 29,005: Line 29,932:
--Albert Einstein
--Albert Einstein


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1014&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:58:52PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:58:52PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
Line 29,079: Line 30,008:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1015&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:32:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:32:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 29,137: Line 30,068:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1016&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 29,167: Line 30,100:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1017&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 29,195: Line 30,130:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1018&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 29,217: Line 30,154:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1019&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 29,253: Line 30,192:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1020&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 29,285: Line 30,226:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1021&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|I disagree]]
----


  Posted by [[user47|PierreAbbat]] on Wed 09 of June, 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 324         
I disagree
 
----
 
Posted by [[user47|PierreAbbat]] on Wed 09 of June, 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 324         


I am changing my vote to &quot;no&quot;. I understand why we need an article for things that really broda but may not exist, such as unicorns, CCJ's fingernail, and the doctor I need. But if when applied to things that do exist, it violates the law of inverting the quantifier when {naku} passes through it, and something can be both inside and outside the box, I don't accept that.
I am changing my vote to &quot;no&quot;. I understand why we need an article for things that really broda but may not exist, such as unicorns, CCJ's fingernail, and the doctor I need. But if when applied to things that do exist, it violates the law of inverting the quantifier when {naku} passes through it, and something can be both inside and outside the box, I don't accept that.
Line 29,293: Line 30,238:
phma
phma


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1022&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:53 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 29,335: Line 30,282:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1023&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:53 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:05:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:05:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 29,369: Line 30,318:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1024&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 29,441: Line 30,392:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1025&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:57:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:57:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 29,489: Line 30,442:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1026&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 29,539: Line 30,494:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1027&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:07:47PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:07:47PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 29,599: Line 30,556:
-Rboin
-Rboin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1028&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 29,637: Line 30,596:
&gt;
&gt;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1029&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:17:15PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:17:15PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 29,665: Line 30,626:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1030&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:38:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:38:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 29,737: Line 30,700:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1031&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:52:10PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:52:10PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 29,769: Line 30,734:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1032&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:05:47AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:05:47AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 29,841: Line 30,808:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1033&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:46:00AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:46:00AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 29,923: Line 30,892:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1034&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wednesday 09 June 2004 18:16, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 18:16, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 29,979: Line 30,950:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1035&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:30, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:30, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 30,029: Line 31,002:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1036&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 30,085: Line 31,060:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1037&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|A few more items]]
----


  Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:59 GMT  posts: 23         
A few more items
 
----
 
Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:59 GMT  posts: 23         


1. Three things on &quot;la&quot; example:
1. Three things on &quot;la&quot; example:
Line 30,113: Line 31,092:
mi'e noras.
mi'e noras.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1038&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 04:09 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 04:09 GMT         


At 01:38 PM 6/9/04 -0700, Robin wrote:
At 01:38 PM 6/9/04 -0700, Robin wrote:
Line 30,197: Line 31,178:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1039&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:14:50PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:14:50PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 30,221: Line 31,204:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1040&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:28:53AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:28:53AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 30,251: Line 31,236:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1041&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 30,283: Line 31,270:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1042&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


Rob Speer scripsit:
Rob Speer scripsit:
Line 30,329: Line 31,318:
cooks with butter. — David Chessler [email protected]
cooks with butter. — David Chessler [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1043&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


John Cowan wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Line 30,401: Line 31,392:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1044&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


xod scripsit:
xod scripsit:
Line 30,427: Line 31,420:
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1045&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT         


John Cowan wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Line 30,469: Line 31,464:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1046&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 30,491: Line 31,488:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1047&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 30,517: Line 31,516:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1048&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         


noras:
noras:
Line 30,649: Line 31,650:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1049&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         


The token-type distinction is a very different critter from whatever it is that you are working with. I am not sure it is even analogous. To be sure, Lojban doesn't deal with it at all (not merely not well) and to that extent, it may be like your problem (what is that by the way?).
The token-type distinction is a very different critter from whatever it is that you are working with. I am not sure it is even analogous. To be sure, Lojban doesn't deal with it at all (not merely not well) and to that extent, it may be like your problem (what is that by the way?).
Line 30,689: Line 31,692:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1050&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT         


I am unclear about which feature you consider necessary and which a wart. They are different things for me. That external quantifiers quantify over individuals seems necessary, but (therefore, in fact) not a wart. That internal quantifiers set up -ads rather than just so-and-so mmany individuals seems a wart and not at all necessary (as witness the several other ways that it has been done or have been proposed).
I am unclear about which feature you consider necessary and which a wart. They are different things for me. That external quantifiers quantify over individuals seems necessary, but (therefore, in fact) not a wart. That internal quantifiers set up -ads rather than just so-and-so mmany individuals seems a wart and not at all necessary (as witness the several other ways that it has been done or have been proposed).
Line 30,727: Line 31,732:
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1051&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:38:34PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:38:34PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 30,809: Line 31,816:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1052&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


I think that masses (at least in the {loi} sense) have a different set of rules nowadays and a more useful one. This is getting on toward the species sense (without using {lo}!). and there, at at least one level, the claim {broda gi'enai broda} holds. But, like all claims at this level, it is merely an idiom, a convenient way to say a rather complicated thing, in this case that the node in question spans the break between broda and naku broda.
I think that masses (at least in the {loi} sense) have a different set of rules nowadays and a more useful one. This is getting on toward the species sense (without using {lo}!). and there, at at least one level, the claim {broda gi'enai broda} holds. But, like all claims at this level, it is merely an idiom, a convenient way to say a rather complicated thing, in this case that the node in question spans the break between broda and naku broda.
Line 30,839: Line 31,848:
El Auruns's reply: &quot;Many happy returns of the day!&quot;
El Auruns's reply: &quot;Many happy returns of the day!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1053&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


I've decided to vote &quot;no&quot;.
I've decided to vote &quot;no&quot;.
Line 30,869: Line 31,880:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1054&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


If there are quantifiers in the offing at all, whether unsated or inspecific or whateve, then not e that all of them except {no} and {me'i} entail {su'o} . (I hope old {su'o [[lo|lo]]} is not proposed {su'o lo pa}; I want to quantify over things, not sets or groups or,,, of them.
If there are quantifiers in the offing at all, whether unsated or inspecific or whateve, then not e that all of them except {no} and {me'i} entail {su'o} . (I hope old {su'o [[lo|lo]]} is not proposed {su'o lo pa}; I want to quantify over things, not sets or groups or,,, of them.
Line 30,903: Line 31,916:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1055&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


Wrong. In spite of where it appears in the sentence (next to the predicate), {na} negates the whole sentence, i.e., is equivalent to {naku} at the very front. On the other hand, repalacing the {na} with {naku} right before the predicate means that negation has moved from the front to this internal location and so all intervening quantifiers change. I gather that it is this fact — and the comnfusion it engenders among the careless — that has led to the proposal to make {lo} — unlike anything else in the language — negation-transparent. It doesn't work.
Wrong. In spite of where it appears in the sentence (next to the predicate), {na} negates the whole sentence, i.e., is equivalent to {naku} at the very front. On the other hand, repalacing the {na} with {naku} right before the predicate means that negation has moved from the front to this internal location and so all intervening quantifiers change. I gather that it is this fact — and the comnfusion it engenders among the careless — that has led to the proposal to make {lo} — unlike anything else in the language — negation-transparent. It doesn't work.
Line 30,955: Line 31,970:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1056&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 30,997: Line 32,014:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1057&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


A&gt; But it does entail it (and is entailed by it, so is materially equivalent to it). It is not just that they both happen to be true; their cotruth (or cofalsehood) is necessary. In the John case, the implication only goes one way — at most (since we need to know that John is a prenu). And, of course, {naku la djan...} does not even entail {la djan naku...}, so they are certainly not equal.
A&gt; But it does entail it (and is entailed by it, so is materially equivalent to it). It is not just that they both happen to be true; their cotruth (or cofalsehood) is necessary. In the John case, the implication only goes one way — at most (since we need to know that John is a prenu). And, of course, {naku la djan...} does not even entail {la djan naku...}, so they are certainly not equal.
Line 31,059: Line 32,078:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1058&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


Conversion does not make {nitcu2} (that is {se nitcu 1}) less opaque, In the realm of of my needs doctors and some doctors amount to the same thing, even if no current doctor matters.
Conversion does not make {nitcu2} (that is {se nitcu 1}) less opaque, In the realm of of my needs doctors and some doctors amount to the same thing, even if no current doctor matters.
Line 31,085: Line 32,106:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1059&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


What, aside from {no} and {mi'e} does {su'o lo} not cover?
What, aside from {no} and {mi'e} does {su'o lo} not cover?
Line 31,115: Line 32,138:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1060&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


As I said, Lojaban (nor English, for that matter) doesn't do tokens and types. They tend to be species (and so to have tokens of a type which are in turn types to other tokens and so on down — for letters — to the particular mark at a particular place in a particular copy of a particular book--- which is another similar problem).
As I said, Lojaban (nor English, for that matter) doesn't do tokens and types. They tend to be species (and so to have tokens of a type which are in turn types to other tokens and so on down — for letters — to the particular mark at a particular place in a particular copy of a particular book--- which is another similar problem).
Line 31,199: Line 32,224:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1061&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 31,233: Line 32,260:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1062&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 31,257: Line 32,286:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1063&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


Token-type, and just a whiff of use-mention.
Token-type, and just a whiff of use-mention.
Line 31,303: Line 32,334:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1064&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


And that is true not because {lo} does not imply {su'o} (it does) but because you cannot validly move a quantifier out of an opaque context.
And that is true not because {lo} does not imply {su'o} (it does) but because you cannot validly move a quantifier out of an opaque context.
Line 31,341: Line 32,374:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1065&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT         


I would say that is what it does best. Cases are never irrelevant, though which cases or how many may well be. And that is just what {su'o} does.
I would say that is what it does best. Cases are never irrelevant, though which cases or how many may well be. And that is just what {su'o} does.
Line 31,369: Line 32,404:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1066&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 31,407: Line 32,444:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1067&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


Rob Speer wrote:
Rob Speer wrote:
Line 31,475: Line 32,514:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1068&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:17:17AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:17:17AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 31,497: Line 32,538:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1069&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


Line 31,525: Line 32,568:
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1070&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


xod scripsit:
xod scripsit:
Line 31,553: Line 32,598:
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1071&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


Line 31,597: Line 32,644:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1072&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 31,621: Line 32,670:
BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1073&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:15, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:15, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 31,645: Line 32,696:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1074&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 31,679: Line 32,732:
misconception.&quot; --Mike to Peter
misconception.&quot; --Mike to Peter


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1075&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


Pierre:
Pierre:
Line 31,701: Line 32,756:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1076&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 31,737: Line 32,794:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1077&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT         


There is no easy way in English (and no obvious way at all in Lojban) to distinguish among: the archetypal letter a, the archetypal letter italic a, the archetypal New Times Roman a, (and so on through any number of other archetypes — all of these are [[relative|relative]] tokens of the type a and some of the of others of them), the tokens of a on a given page of a given book type, the tokens of that in a particular copy of that book type, the particular token of a at a certain place on that page in that copy of the book. This is not a job for gadri but for relational predicates and,while we can press some into use here ({mupli} for at least some cases of &quot;token&quot;), no consistent pattern seems possible with the current vocabulary. But maybe only lujvo are needed.
There is no easy way in English (and no obvious way at all in Lojban) to distinguish among: the archetypal letter a, the archetypal letter italic a, the archetypal New Times Roman a, (and so on through any number of other archetypes — all of these are [[relative|relative]] tokens of the type a and some of the of others of them), the tokens of a on a given page of a given book type, the tokens of that in a particular copy of that book type, the particular token of a at a certain place on that page in that copy of the book. This is not a job for gadri but for relational predicates and,while we can press some into use here ({mupli} for at least some cases of &quot;token&quot;), no consistent pattern seems possible with the current vocabulary. But maybe only lujvo are needed.
Line 31,779: Line 32,838:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1078&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:50 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:50 GMT         


So far as he presentes a coherent theory, the one he usually presents is of a {lo} that is indeed materially equivalent to {su'o}. As one would expect for something that is the least marked thing one can say about a bunch of things.
So far as he presentes a coherent theory, the one he usually presents is of a {lo} that is indeed materially equivalent to {su'o}. As one would expect for something that is the least marked thing one can say about a bunch of things.
Line 31,849: Line 32,910:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1079&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


But vagueness has its limits, and within those limits the negation rules for quantifiers apply. Minimally, the duality between {su'o} and {ro} plays its role.
But vagueness has its limits, and within those limits the negation rules for quantifiers apply. Minimally, the duality between {su'o} and {ro} plays its role.
Line 31,879: Line 32,942:
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1080&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


Because you either 1) answer the question within the context where Pegasus exists or 2) allow that names (and their ilk) refer to the outer domain. Either way has its problems but on the wehole I think 1 has fewer.
Because you either 1) answer the question within the context where Pegasus exists or 2) allow that names (and their ilk) refer to the outer domain. Either way has its problems but on the wehole I think 1 has fewer.
Line 31,909: Line 32,974:
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1081&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


No and No, regardless of what ontological position you take.
No and No, regardless of what ontological position you take.
Line 31,955: Line 33,022:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1082&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


Amen to that. Anything Quine is brief — and not even apppearing to offer anauthoritative solution must be hard indeed. But still someday we must deal with it-- to translate Quine if nothing else.
Amen to that. Anything Quine is brief — and not even apppearing to offer anauthoritative solution must be hard indeed. But still someday we must deal with it-- to translate Quine if nothing else.
Line 31,981: Line 33,050:
BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1083&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 32,071: Line 33,142:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1084&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


Gee, I hope there is a mieux. But that is not clearly what xorxes has maintained. {ci lo mu broda cu brode} does not seem to say that 15 broda each brode (by the way, they presnt themselves in three groups of five) but that each of three groups of five brode, a rather different claim (and a more useful one — replacing {ci broda mumei} or so).
Gee, I hope there is a mieux. But that is not clearly what xorxes has maintained. {ci lo mu broda cu brode} does not seem to say that 15 broda each brode (by the way, they presnt themselves in three groups of five) but that each of three groups of five brode, a rather different claim (and a more useful one — replacing {ci broda mumei} or so).
Line 32,109: Line 33,182:
misconception.&quot; --Mike to Peter
misconception.&quot; --Mike to Peter


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1085&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT         


And that, Lord knoes, is hard enough. I suppose the added problem Lojban has is the cultural need to be precise and to have clear translations into recise langauge. So far this need has gone almost completely unfulfilled (old {lo} to the contrary notwithstanding).
And that, Lord knoes, is hard enough. I suppose the added problem Lojban has is the cultural need to be precise and to have clear translations into recise langauge. So far this need has gone almost completely unfulfilled (old {lo} to the contrary notwithstanding).
Line 32,149: Line 33,224:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1086&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT         


Actually {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.
Actually {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.
Line 32,241: Line 33,318:
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1087&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 32,261: Line 33,340:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1088&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 32,319: Line 33,400:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1089&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:41 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:41 GMT         


xod wrote:
xod wrote:
Line 32,361: Line 33,444:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1090&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:41 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:41 GMT         


lo pavyseljirna noi se ranmi gi'e na zasti le fatci munje
lo pavyseljirna noi se ranmi gi'e na zasti le fatci munje
Line 32,379: Line 33,464:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1093&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|About lo'e]]
----
 
About lo'e
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 10 of June, 2004 19:13 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 10 of June, 2004 19:13 GMT  posts: 1912         


While everybody seems to be happy with the definition of lo'e,
While everybody seems to be happy with the definition of lo'e,
Line 32,429: Line 33,518:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1094&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


xod scripsit:
xod scripsit:
Line 32,453: Line 33,544:
Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie
Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1096&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


No argument; just noting that this one is not resistant to negation (well, maybe in new {lo}).
No argument; just noting that this one is not resistant to negation (well, maybe in new {lo}).
Line 32,475: Line 33,568:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1097&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


Fine. I assume that you mean 20 lowest tokens of the high type {lo}. But, of course — depending on how our conventions — you might mean that you wrote 1oo of those things, 5 each in 20 different styles. And so on. So the question is: given that we can one of these things easily, how do we say the others. {zo lo} is typically about the highest level word, so quantifying it seems very odd.
Fine. I assume that you mean 20 lowest tokens of the high type {lo}. But, of course — depending on how our conventions — you might mean that you wrote 1oo of those things, 5 each in 20 different styles. And so on. So the question is: given that we can one of these things easily, how do we say the others. {zo lo} is typically about the highest level word, so quantifying it seems very odd.
Line 32,537: Line 33,632:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1098&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


That'll work, too, but the {zasti} part is unnecessary.
That'll work, too, but the {zasti} part is unnecessary.
Line 32,581: Line 33,678:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1099&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


I think that {lo'e} is more complicated than can be translated by any quantifier — it is again a weighted survey; not all whatsis have the same effect on the notion. For that reason, among others, I think that questions about quantifier flow are premature; we need to pin the basic notion down a bit more. To question 1, for example, we need to sort some stuff out: {ka} sets up an opaque context, out of which you cannot normally move quantifiers, but OTOH this is a quantifier over properties which always exist and are the same in all worlds. As for tense, I suppose thatthat that can be handled from inside and outside the sumti: The typical (time unspecified) lion was a cub v. the formerly typical lion used to roam the savannah. But those are guesses.
I think that {lo'e} is more complicated than can be translated by any quantifier — it is again a weighted survey; not all whatsis have the same effect on the notion. For that reason, among others, I think that questions about quantifier flow are premature; we need to pin the basic notion down a bit more. To question 1, for example, we need to sort some stuff out: {ka} sets up an opaque context, out of which you cannot normally move quantifiers, but OTOH this is a quantifier over properties which always exist and are the same in all worlds. As for tense, I suppose thatthat that can be handled from inside and outside the sumti: The typical (time unspecified) lion was a cub v. the formerly typical lion used to roam the savannah. But those are guesses.
Line 32,637: Line 33,736:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1100&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 32,721: Line 33,822:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1101&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 32,763: Line 33,866:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1102&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 32,795: Line 33,900:
or graphics.&quot; [email protected]
or graphics.&quot; [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1103&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


(Apologies for responding here, I accidentally deleted the message I really
(Apologies for responding here, I accidentally deleted the message I really
Line 32,849: Line 33,956:
-- Rich Jeni
-- Rich Jeni


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1104&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 32,897: Line 34,006:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1105&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


Both I think. At least as a certainty. The logicians who have dabbled with this have gone quite a ways beyond such simple formulae. But admittedly have not reached definite conclusions.
Both I think. At least as a certainty. The logicians who have dabbled with this have gone quite a ways beyond such simple formulae. But admittedly have not reached definite conclusions.
Line 32,987: Line 34,098:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1106&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT         


I smell an analogy coming on: {zo lo} refers by itself to the highest significant type, {PA zo lo} to instances of that type — at whatever level, When the levels are important we can press any number of predicates into service to mark (relative) subtypes/ instances.
I smell an analogy coming on: {zo lo} refers by itself to the highest significant type, {PA zo lo} to instances of that type — at whatever level, When the levels are important we can press any number of predicates into service to mark (relative) subtypes/ instances.
Line 33,037: Line 34,150:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1107&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 33,069: Line 34,184:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1108&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 33,099: Line 34,216:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1109&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 33,143: Line 34,262:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1110&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         


At 06:00 AM 6/10/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:
At 06:00 AM 6/10/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:
Line 33,309: Line 34,430:
Nora LeChevalier
Nora LeChevalier


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1111&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT         


noras:
noras:
Line 33,347: Line 34,470:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1112&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 01:21 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 01:21 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:27PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:27PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 33,373: Line 34,498:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1113&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:16:49PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:16:49PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 33,425: Line 34,552:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1114&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 33,513: Line 34,642:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1115&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 33,547: Line 34,678:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1116&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         


Jordan DeLong wrote:
Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 33,587: Line 34,720:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1117&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT         


On Thursday 10 June 2004 14:18, xod wrote:
On Thursday 10 June 2004 14:18, xod wrote:
Line 33,621: Line 34,756:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1118&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:59 GMT         


On Thursday 10 June 2004 15:13, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday 10 June 2004 15:13, [email protected] wrote:
Line 33,655: Line 34,792:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1119&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 33,703: Line 34,842:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1120&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT         


Rob Speer:
Rob Speer:
Line 33,747: Line 34,888:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1121&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 33,797: Line 34,940:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1122&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|A completely different directions]]
----
 
A completely different directions
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:38 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:38 GMT  posts: 14214         


What does:
What does:
Line 33,823: Line 34,970:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1123&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 12:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 12:03 GMT         


On Friday 11 June 2004 03:38, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday 11 June 2004 03:38, [email protected] wrote:
Line 33,869: Line 35,018:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1124&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:03 GMT         


A&gt; In English at least we tend not to notice what level we are wworking at unless a serious problem arises. Will Lojbanfollow this pattern or build the levels in at the start (at least in some crude initial way)?
A&gt; In English at least we tend not to notice what level we are wworking at unless a serious problem arises. Will Lojbanfollow this pattern or build the levels in at the start (at least in some crude initial way)?
Line 33,921: Line 35,072:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1125&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:03 GMT         


A&gt; I can't find that carved anywhere. CLL has the opposite.
A&gt; I can't find that carved anywhere. CLL has the opposite.
Line 34,015: Line 35,168:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1126&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


&quot;Fixing {lo}&quot; won't solve all — or even a major — gadri problems. The argument below is one for finding a useful distinction between the uses of {lo} and {su'o}, not for breaking the equivalence. Several such proposals are around.
&quot;Fixing {lo}&quot; won't solve all — or even a major — gadri problems. The argument below is one for finding a useful distinction between the uses of {lo} and {su'o}, not for breaking the equivalence. Several such proposals are around.
Line 34,067: Line 35,222:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1127&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


Well, assuming John is a person, then {la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}, so I suppose we can safely assume {lo broda} implies {su'o broda}. If there is a differnce then, it must be that {su'o broda} does not imply {lo broda}. That is to say, there are properties which some broda have but which lo broda does not. This is a defensible position, namely that {lo broda} is from the upper end of &quot;some,&quot; one or two cases don't make it for &quot;in general&quot; or whatever. There is a vagueness about how many do make it, but that can safely (pretty safely) be left to convention.
Well, assuming John is a person, then {la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}, so I suppose we can safely assume {lo broda} implies {su'o broda}. If there is a differnce then, it must be that {su'o broda} does not imply {lo broda}. That is to say, there are properties which some broda have but which lo broda does not. This is a defensible position, namely that {lo broda} is from the upper end of &quot;some,&quot; one or two cases don't make it for &quot;in general&quot; or whatever. There is a vagueness about how many do make it, but that can safely (pretty safely) be left to convention.
Line 34,113: Line 35,270:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1128&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


So, {lo da'i pavyseljirna cu blabi} is non-problematically true (barring some discussion about the color of unicorns) and {mi nitcu lo da'i mikce} is at least possibly true even if all doctors die. And so on. Since the doctor caase is not really a problem in Lojban, it dsoes not contribute much here, The unicorn case has its attractions and the overall plan would cover in one stroke the problem of floating opaque contexts ({kalte2} {xanri1} and so on). At first it looks like the {da'i} is misplaced; it might better be a modal &quot;in an imaginary world&quot; but then it is apparent that , though this works for the unicorn case, it does not for the {kalte} one, where the activity is real, only the object is not. (And, of course, {da'i} is a modal anyhow, just on the sumti bridi, not the whole sentence). Hmmm.
So, {lo da'i pavyseljirna cu blabi} is non-problematically true (barring some discussion about the color of unicorns) and {mi nitcu lo da'i mikce} is at least possibly true even if all doctors die. And so on. Since the doctor caase is not really a problem in Lojban, it dsoes not contribute much here, The unicorn case has its attractions and the overall plan would cover in one stroke the problem of floating opaque contexts ({kalte2} {xanri1} and so on). At first it looks like the {da'i} is misplaced; it might better be a modal &quot;in an imaginary world&quot; but then it is apparent that , though this works for the unicorn case, it does not for the {kalte} one, where the activity is real, only the object is not. (And, of course, {da'i} is a modal anyhow, just on the sumti bridi, not the whole sentence). Hmmm.
Line 34,143: Line 35,302:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1129&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 34,183: Line 35,344:
--Specht v. Netscape
--Specht v. Netscape


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1130&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 34,251: Line 35,414:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1131&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 34,317: Line 35,482:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1132&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:22:27PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:22:27PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 34,381: Line 35,548:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1133&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 34,529: Line 35,698:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1134&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:59:58PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:59:58PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 34,573: Line 35,744:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1135&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:38:47AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:38:47AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 34,627: Line 35,800:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1136&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:12:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:12:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 34,651: Line 35,826:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1137&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 34,675: Line 35,852:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1138&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


A&gt; Misleading; I take it the intent is &quot;I hunt unicorns, whether or not they exist.&quot;
A&gt; Misleading; I take it the intent is &quot;I hunt unicorns, whether or not they exist.&quot;
Line 34,753: Line 35,932:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1139&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


A&gt; It is not a replacement, it is an entailment. The opposite implcation does not hold, so they cannot replace one another in all environments. In particular, because of the {la djan} entailment, we have a {naku su'o} to {naku la djan} entailment as well (but not, of course, the reverse).
A&gt; It is not a replacement, it is an entailment. The opposite implcation does not hold, so they cannot replace one another in all environments. In particular, because of the {la djan} entailment, we have a {naku su'o} to {naku la djan} entailment as well (but not, of course, the reverse).
Line 34,829: Line 36,010:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1140&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:53:45AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:53:45AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 34,873: Line 36,056:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1141&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:06:38AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:06:38AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 35,051: Line 36,236:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1142&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         


A&gt; I can't find what in the {naku} rules implies non-importing {ro}, citation please.
A&gt; I can't find what in the {naku} rules implies non-importing {ro}, citation please.
Line 35,207: Line 36,394:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1143&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:19:15AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:19:15AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 35,247: Line 36,436:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1144&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 35,271: Line 36,462:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1145&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 35,341: Line 36,534:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1146&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         


I'll be away for 2 weeks. Robin knows how to reach me in case of revolt,
I'll be away for 2 weeks. Robin knows how to reach me in case of revolt,
Line 35,355: Line 36,550:
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. &quot;The GC is nothing,&quot; one man shouted. &quot;They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1147&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         


Well, if you think that {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, then the two ARE materially equivalent and can replace one another salve veritatem. The intensional contexts drop out of consideration because the replacement there is also in a single world, just not this one. Which brings me back to upper/lower fragment pragmatics to explain the difference between them. I think it is a reasonable one but is clearly not at all what you have had in mind.
Well, if you think that {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, then the two ARE materially equivalent and can replace one another salve veritatem. The intensional contexts drop out of consideration because the replacement there is also in a single world, just not this one. Which brings me back to upper/lower fragment pragmatics to explain the difference between them. I think it is a reasonable one but is clearly not at all what you have had in mind.
Line 35,429: Line 36,626:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1148&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:02:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:02:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 35,731: Line 36,930:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1149&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 35,785: Line 36,986:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1150&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:03:15AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:03:15AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 35,867: Line 37,070:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1151&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT         


A&gt; Well, I meant nothing by &quot;...&quot; than you do by: some appropriate context.
A&gt; Well, I meant nothing by &quot;...&quot; than you do by: some appropriate context.
Line 35,931: Line 37,136:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1152&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:06:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:06:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 35,981: Line 37,188:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1153&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT         


A&gt; My memory is rather different: several people found the systems I mentioned, but all had to admit that (x)Fx entails (Ex)Fx, which is all that importing means. It certainly does not mean that (x)(Fx =&gt; Gx) entails (Ex)Fx. But the reason for that is not that the universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the inference suggested.
A&gt; My memory is rather different: several people found the systems I mentioned, but all had to admit that (x)Fx entails (Ex)Fx, which is all that importing means. It certainly does not mean that (x)(Fx =&gt; Gx) entails (Ex)Fx. But the reason for that is not that the universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the inference suggested.
Line 36,073: Line 37,282:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1154&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         


I admit I have lost trak of who is saying what here. But..
I admit I have lost trak of who is saying what here. But..
Line 36,233: Line 37,444:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1155&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 36,287: Line 37,500:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1156&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 36,349: Line 37,564:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1157&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 36,405: Line 37,622:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1158&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         


Notice that the reasoning here applies equally well to {su'o} which is about as unspecified as you can get.
Notice that the reasoning here applies equally well to {su'o} which is about as unspecified as you can get.
Line 36,465: Line 37,684:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1159&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         


A&gt; Sorry, it wasn't clear what your point was. However, no one I know of is suggesting that you can always replace one term by another if the use of one only implies that of the other. But in the cae of {lo} and {su'o} there seems to be an equivalence — and a necessary one at that.
A&gt; Sorry, it wasn't clear what your point was. However, no one I know of is suggesting that you can always replace one term by another if the use of one only implies that of the other. But in the cae of {lo} and {su'o} there seems to be an equivalence — and a necessary one at that.
Line 36,537: Line 37,758:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1160&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 36,561: Line 37,784:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1161&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 36,601: Line 37,826:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1162&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         


[[I'm%20assuming%20since%20you%20did%20not%20address%20it%20that%20you%20agree%20now%20that%20CLL%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eis%20contradictory%20on%20this%20topic|I'm assuming since you did not address it that you agree now that CLL
[[I'm%20assuming%20since%20you%20did%20not%20address%20it%20that%20you%20agree%20now%20that%20CLL%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eis%20contradictory%20on%20this%20topic|I'm assuming since you did not address it that you agree now that CLL
Line 36,741: Line 37,968:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1163&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 36,795: Line 38,024:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1164&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         


What claims do not pertain to instances?
What claims do not pertain to instances?
Line 36,823: Line 38,054:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1165&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         


A&gt; Well, that does seem to follow, but is admittedly unappetizing. I don't know what the deep structure of {claxu} is, so working it to come out right is hard to do, since I get pulled various ways by examples (and by which English reading of {claxu} happens to be in the front of my mid at the moment, I'm afraid). It may be that {claxu2} really is opaque, even (if the need component is present — as clearly fits the plant example). Of the two counterexamples you give, the second seems to me almost right but weak: I would take {mi claxu noda} to mena &quot;I have everything.&quot; (maybe &quot;that I need&quot;). The first just leaves me flip-flopping right now.
A&gt; Well, that does seem to follow, but is admittedly unappetizing. I don't know what the deep structure of {claxu} is, so working it to come out right is hard to do, since I get pulled various ways by examples (and by which English reading of {claxu} happens to be in the front of my mid at the moment, I'm afraid). It may be that {claxu2} really is opaque, even (if the need component is present — as clearly fits the plant example). Of the two counterexamples you give, the second seems to me almost right but weak: I would take {mi claxu noda} to mena &quot;I have everything.&quot; (maybe &quot;that I need&quot;). The first just leaves me flip-flopping right now.
Line 36,867: Line 38,100:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1166&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         


A&gt; Actually, I think I asked for citations. I remember the importing point pretty clearly, though I haven't found it again. I don't remeber a case for non-importing.
A&gt; Actually, I think I asked for citations. I remember the importing point pretty clearly, though I haven't found it again. I don't remeber a case for non-importing.
Line 37,019: Line 38,254:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1167&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT         


A&gt; An iffy case. Presumably the only event of vomiting that interests me in this case is me a reasonable time after this eating. There are a lot of other vomiting events I am not concerned with, including many which I don't even go without (me at that party five years ago, George just last night, and so on). So, whatever happens at {claxu2} - negation effect or not — {le} seems more nearly correct. In this case.
A&gt; An iffy case. Presumably the only event of vomiting that interests me in this case is me a reasonable time after this eating. There are a lot of other vomiting events I am not concerned with, including many which I don't even go without (me at that party five years ago, George just last night, and so on). So, whatever happens at {claxu2} - negation effect or not — {le} seems more nearly correct. In this case.
Line 37,075: Line 38,312:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1168&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Formal definitions?]]
----
 
Formal definitions?
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 12 of June, 2004 17:26 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 12 of June, 2004 17:26 GMT  posts: 1912         


This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.
This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.
Line 37,165: Line 38,406:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1169&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 18:10 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 18:10 GMT         


Corrections:
Corrections:
Line 37,197: Line 38,440:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1170&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 18:10 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 18:10 GMT         


More corrections (I forgot these had changed):
More corrections (I forgot these had changed):
Line 37,229: Line 38,474:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1171&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 22:52 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 22:52 GMT         


Basically this looks OK as far as it goes. I would question the {noi} in the first set, since what follows is essential and restricting information (for that matter mixing {noi} with {zo'e} seems incongruous). And, of course, that {zo'e} is, for most practical purposes interchangeable with {su'o da} seems to make these definitions ill-advised for you to offer.
Basically this looks OK as far as it goes. I would question the {noi} in the first set, since what follows is essential and restricting information (for that matter mixing {noi} with {zo'e} seems incongruous). And, of course, that {zo'e} is, for most practical purposes interchangeable with {su'o da} seems to make these definitions ill-advised for you to offer.
Line 37,323: Line 38,570:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1172&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 22:52 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 22:52 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 37,363: Line 38,612:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1176&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 04:14 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 04:14 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:11:12AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:11:12AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 37,409: Line 38,660:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1177&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 04:14 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 04:14 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:04:26AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:04:26AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 37,445: Line 38,698:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1178&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 14:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 14:45 GMT         


For a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with their use as subordinate clauses, abstracts have to exist whther or not they occur. Otherwise, I could in Lojban only fear misfortunes that were actually to befall me, could only dream about real events, and so on. It makes for a slightly overcrowded ontology, but the alternative is not to be able to talk about many things we want to talk about. As is so often the case (with the property of being a unicorn, for example) we have to distinguish between what is and what occurs.
For a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with their use as subordinate clauses, abstracts have to exist whther or not they occur. Otherwise, I could in Lojban only fear misfortunes that were actually to befall me, could only dream about real events, and so on. It makes for a slightly overcrowded ontology, but the alternative is not to be able to talk about many things we want to talk about. As is so often the case (with the property of being a unicorn, for example) we have to distinguish between what is and what occurs.
Line 37,493: Line 38,748:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1179&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 14:45 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 14:45 GMT         


I did, of course, and pointed out the muddle in it. My memory and a skim of the relevant sections tell me that all the examples there are of {su'o da} and {ro da}, that is, the unrestricted quantifiers. For them the all-some duality works just fine. It does not for the restricted quantifiers {su'o broda} and {ro broda} (and {no broda} and {me'i broda}). And so naturally if you try to treat (AxFx)Gx as though it were (Ax)(Fx =&gt; Gx) you get the wrong results. The universal in each case implies the particular, but only in the first does that say anything about Fs: (ExFx)Gx but (Ex)(Fx =&gt; Gx), which latter is satisfied by anything that is NOT an F.
I did, of course, and pointed out the muddle in it. My memory and a skim of the relevant sections tell me that all the examples there are of {su'o da} and {ro da}, that is, the unrestricted quantifiers. For them the all-some duality works just fine. It does not for the restricted quantifiers {su'o broda} and {ro broda} (and {no broda} and {me'i broda}). And so naturally if you try to treat (AxFx)Gx as though it were (Ax)(Fx =&gt; Gx) you get the wrong results. The universal in each case implies the particular, but only in the first does that say anything about Fs: (ExFx)Gx but (Ex)(Fx =&gt; Gx), which latter is satisfied by anything that is NOT an F.
Line 37,531: Line 38,788:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1180&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 23:42 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 23:42 GMT         


A&gt;Right, it is not in Lojban. The point is that it should be since it describes what sort of thing the heretofore unspecified thing (zo'e) is in this case. Thi is not incidental information but the whole point of the phrase. {poi} seems to do the job more accurately.
A&gt;Right, it is not in Lojban. The point is that it should be since it describes what sort of thing the heretofore unspecified thing (zo'e) is in this case. Thi is not incidental information but the whole point of the phrase. {poi} seems to do the job more accurately.
Line 37,579: Line 38,838:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1181&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 23:42 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 23:42 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 37,621: Line 38,882:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1182&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Outer and inner quantifiers]]
----
 
Outer and inner quantifiers


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT  posts: 1912         


Inner quanifiers give the cardinality of the referent of a sumti. We don't need to know what the matrix bridi is in order to understand the inner quantifier. It has an internal function with respect to its sumti.
Inner quanifiers give the cardinality of the referent of a sumti. We don't need to know what the matrix bridi is in order to understand the inner quantifier. It has an internal function with respect to its sumti.
Line 37,637: Line 38,902:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1183&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         


A&gt; My point is that, in your formulation, we do not even know that the object is being indicated because it satisfies {broda}, that is incidental to its role here, which is (at best) to satisfy the more nearly main-clause predicate to which it is an argument. Then we are told that it also, incidentally satisfies {broda}. I would have though that its satisfying {broda} was its first feature and its satisfying the main clause secondary (an maybe not even true).
A&gt; My point is that, in your formulation, we do not even know that the object is being indicated because it satisfies {broda}, that is incidental to its role here, which is (at best) to satisfy the more nearly main-clause predicate to which it is an argument. Then we are told that it also, incidentally satisfies {broda}. I would have though that its satisfying {broda} was its first feature and its satisfying the main clause secondary (an maybe not even true).
Line 37,685: Line 38,952:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1184&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         


&gt; And similarly {lo pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members
&gt; And similarly {lo pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members
Line 37,705: Line 38,974:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1185&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         


Is it still the case that the internal quantifiers on the collective and set gadri tell the size of the collective or set?
Is it still the case that the internal quantifiers on the collective and set gadri tell the size of the collective or set?
Line 37,733: Line 39,004:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1186&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 37,811: Line 39,084:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1187&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         


This actually makes matters less clear. {lo pimu le'i prenu} was &quot;some set(s) of half the whole set of people&quot; which is clear if awkward. But now it is to be [[a|a]] collective[[s|s]] of half the set of people or just a collective of half persons (which)? I am not even sure what you are shooting for, let alone what you have actually proposed.
This actually makes matters less clear. {lo pimu le'i prenu} was &quot;some set(s) of half the whole set of people&quot; which is clear if awkward. But now it is to be [[a|a]] collective[[s|s]] of half the set of people or just a collective of half persons (which)? I am not even sure what you are shooting for, let alone what you have actually proposed.
Line 37,835: Line 39,110:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1188&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT         


A&gt;I don't read {poi} that way and can't find any reason to do so in a quick search. Citation?
A&gt;I don't read {poi} that way and can't find any reason to do so in a quick search. Citation?
Line 37,921: Line 39,198:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1189&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 38,061: Line 39,340:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1190&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 38,115: Line 39,396:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1191&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 38,167: Line 39,450:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1192&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 09:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 09:35 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 38,201: Line 39,486:
--Arthur C. Clarke, &quot;The Wall of Darkness&quot;
--Arthur C. Clarke, &quot;The Wall of Darkness&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1193&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 09:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 09:35 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:14:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:14:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 38,213: Line 39,500:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1194&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 38,245: Line 39,534:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1195&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT         


While it's possible that Lojban has the restrictive -non-restrictive distinction upside down and backwards (it would not be the first time in the last half century), I don't see any reason to think it does. {poi}, as a restrictive relative clause, is a part of the sumti, effectively another predicate in the sumti predicate. As such it is unaffected by negation passage, etc. {noi}, as a non-restrictive relative clause, is essentially another sentence added to the one in which the sumti occurs. As such, it might reasonably be expected to be affected by negation passage and the like. I do not think it is, however, since I think it is a context-leaper, an expression which comes out of its context to the higher level without being affected by its context (&quot;any&quot; and &quot;a certain&quot;, the leaping universal and particular quantifiers are the usual examples). In short, both of them meet your unaffectedness requirement, but your characterization is otherwise incorrect (or Lojban's names are).
While it's possible that Lojban has the restrictive -non-restrictive distinction upside down and backwards (it would not be the first time in the last half century), I don't see any reason to think it does. {poi}, as a restrictive relative clause, is a part of the sumti, effectively another predicate in the sumti predicate. As such it is unaffected by negation passage, etc. {noi}, as a non-restrictive relative clause, is essentially another sentence added to the one in which the sumti occurs. As such, it might reasonably be expected to be affected by negation passage and the like. I do not think it is, however, since I think it is a context-leaper, an expression which comes out of its context to the higher level without being affected by its context (&quot;any&quot; and &quot;a certain&quot;, the leaping universal and particular quantifiers are the usual examples). In short, both of them meet your unaffectedness requirement, but your characterization is otherwise incorrect (or Lojban's names are).
Line 38,305: Line 39,596:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1196&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT         


None that I can see; especially not in {casnu2} and the like.
None that I can see; especially not in {casnu2} and the like.
Line 38,341: Line 39,634:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1197&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 13:48 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 13:48 GMT         


A&gt; Duh! What group? {la/le} is about individuals, not groups and I see no reason to change. It does occur to me that we may be just arguing about words: whjen I say &quot;two of the dogs&quot;, I mean two of the things I have identified as &quot;the dogs&quot; and you mean two member of the group I have identified as &quot;the dogs&quot; but we get down to the same things. I still see your approach as unnecessarily complex, to the point of being misleading. The distinction between instances and members seems to be based not on anyreal distinction but merely on your weird metaphysics about what {lo} refers to. Since that is such a loser, perhaps we can bring about some further simplification here. But that requires reworking the internal quantifiers and so we are off on another round of variant meaning for identical structures.
A&gt; Duh! What group? {la/le} is about individuals, not groups and I see no reason to change. It does occur to me that we may be just arguing about words: whjen I say &quot;two of the dogs&quot;, I mean two of the things I have identified as &quot;the dogs&quot; and you mean two member of the group I have identified as &quot;the dogs&quot; but we get down to the same things. I still see your approach as unnecessarily complex, to the point of being misleading. The distinction between instances and members seems to be based not on anyreal distinction but merely on your weird metaphysics about what {lo} refers to. Since that is such a loser, perhaps we can bring about some further simplification here. But that requires reworking the internal quantifiers and so we are off on another round of variant meaning for identical structures.
Line 38,493: Line 39,788:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1198&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 13:48 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 13:48 GMT         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 38,517: Line 39,814:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1199&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 38,601: Line 39,900:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1200&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         


[bau la lojban ma'a so'iroi casnu lo pavyseljirna i ma nabmi]
[bau la lojban ma'a so'iroi casnu lo pavyseljirna i ma nabmi]
Line 38,627: Line 39,928:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1201&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         


On Monday 14 June 2004 09:08, John E Clifford wrote:
On Monday 14 June 2004 09:08, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 38,655: Line 39,958:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1202&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 38,777: Line 40,082:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1203&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:52:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:52:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 38,829: Line 40,136:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1204&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Pierre:
Pierre:
Line 38,859: Line 40,168:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1205&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 38,905: Line 40,216:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1206&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:41:49AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:41:49AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 38,955: Line 40,268:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1207&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 38,987: Line 40,302:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1208&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:
Line 39,023: Line 40,340:
take considerable time to dry.
take considerable time to dry.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1209&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:
Line 39,069: Line 40,388:
--Jamin Gray
--Jamin Gray


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1210&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Adam:
Adam:
Line 39,109: Line 40,430:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1211&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Adam:
Adam:
Line 39,165: Line 40,488:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1212&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Despite the accidental grammatical fact that {zo'e} is in KOhA and so takes only &quot;outer {poi}, &quot; that is exactly what you want and {noi} still does not work. But I don't see how the distinction applies to KOhA at all. The outer relative is used to note some feature of the currently interesting critters out of the larger bunch that the basic sumti refers to. I can't see why this distinction does not apply to {noi} as well as {poi}. And for {poi} it is even more important (and what you want in this case) since it specifies at least a part of the selection from the larger bunch. In this sense, I don't quite see how it is that KOhA allows only this kind of {poi} (and presumably {noi}) since it never involves a second selection.
Despite the accidental grammatical fact that {zo'e} is in KOhA and so takes only &quot;outer {poi}, &quot; that is exactly what you want and {noi} still does not work. But I don't see how the distinction applies to KOhA at all. The outer relative is used to note some feature of the currently interesting critters out of the larger bunch that the basic sumti refers to. I can't see why this distinction does not apply to {noi} as well as {poi}. And for {poi} it is even more important (and what you want in this case) since it specifies at least a part of the selection from the larger bunch. In this sense, I don't quite see how it is that KOhA allows only this kind of {poi} (and presumably {noi}) since it never involves a second selection.
Line 39,255: Line 40,580:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1213&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Why I pointed to the place — an opaque one, somehow. We must get around to dealing with opaque contexts in some uniform way or ways sometime.
Why I pointed to the place — an opaque one, somehow. We must get around to dealing with opaque contexts in some uniform way or ways sometime.
Line 39,285: Line 40,612:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1214&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Why not? le selcmi be no da
Why not? le selcmi be no da
Line 39,314: Line 40,643:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1215&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


A&gt; If there is no difference, why bring the set into it at all?
A&gt; If there is no difference, why bring the set into it at all?
Line 39,450: Line 40,781:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1216&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


Why not? The empty set is a proper subset of the set of all broda (and, indeed, of every non-empty subset of that set).
Why not? The empty set is a proper subset of the set of all broda (and, indeed, of every non-empty subset of that set).
Line 39,484: Line 40,817:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1217&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:19:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:19:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 39,498: Line 40,833:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1218&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


A&gt; Why? {ku} is elidable with certain followers, one of which — in unquantified sumti — is sure {poi brode}. I think it is right that the quantifier makes a difference, since there are now two possible sumti for {poi} to attach to and {ko} disambiguates (poi attaches to the closest complete term. I thought you said there was no inner-outer distinction for {noi}, so why insist there must be one?
A&gt; Why? {ku} is elidable with certain followers, one of which — in unquantified sumti — is sure {poi brode}. I think it is right that the quantifier makes a difference, since there are now two possible sumti for {poi} to attach to and {ko} disambiguates (poi attaches to the closest complete term. I thought you said there was no inner-outer distinction for {noi}, so why insist there must be one?
Line 39,548: Line 40,885:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1219&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT         


Hmmm. I am not sure that either of these quite gets at the point of {lo'e} and {le'e}. {le'e broda cu brode} doesn't even require that any broda is brode, let alone that it is common. {lo'e brode cu brode} does not require that it is common, let alone very common, among broda — &quot;typical&quot; is usually weighed not counted (of course, maybe {kampu} is weighed, too). I think simple definitons like this one are bound to fail, but these at least have the right fundamental form, just the level of complexity may be too low.
Hmmm. I am not sure that either of these quite gets at the point of {lo'e} and {le'e}. {le'e broda cu brode} doesn't even require that any broda is brode, let alone that it is common. {lo'e brode cu brode} does not require that it is common, let alone very common, among broda — &quot;typical&quot; is usually weighed not counted (of course, maybe {kampu} is weighed, too). I think simple definitons like this one are bound to fail, but these at least have the right fundamental form, just the level of complexity may be too low.
Line 39,586: Line 40,925:
take considerable time to dry.
take considerable time to dry.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1220&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 39,648: Line 40,989:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1221&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 39,702: Line 41,045:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1222&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 04:15:33PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 04:15:33PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 39,922: Line 41,267:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1223&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 39,938: Line 41,285:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1224&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:15:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:15:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 39,986: Line 41,335:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1225&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 01:05:05PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 01:05:05PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Line 40,050: Line 41,401:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1226&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:19:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:19:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 40,078: Line 41,431:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1227&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


&gt; &gt; lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda
&gt; &gt; lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda
Line 40,128: Line 41,483:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1228&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 40,172: Line 41,529:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1229&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT         


A&gt;Well, analogy works both ways. On the one hand, the shortest sumti is {do}, so it would be modified by the following relative. On the other hand, {do} is already classified {zo'e [[n/p|n/p]]oi mi tavla ke'a}, so , since there is a requantification, it modifies that sumti and not the original one. Can one use {ku} with {do}? If not, this seems to be an irresolvable problem (well we could use the internal placement of the relative {re poi nanmu ko'u do cu klama} if that is legal).
A&gt;Well, analogy works both ways. On the one hand, the shortest sumti is {do}, so it would be modified by the following relative. On the other hand, {do} is already classified {zo'e [[n/p|n/p]]oi mi tavla ke'a}, so , since there is a requantification, it modifies that sumti and not the original one. Can one use {ku} with {do}? If not, this seems to be an irresolvable problem (well we could use the internal placement of the relative {re poi nanmu ko'u do cu klama} if that is legal).
Line 40,248: Line 41,607:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1230&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 40,302: Line 41,663:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1231&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


I am pretty sure that is wrong. A stereotype of broda is not a description of &quot;typical&quot; members a class subjectively described as broda, but a subjectively validated description of &quot;typical&quot; members of the real class of broda. That is, the target has to be {lo'i broda} in both cases. The description may be wrong, but it is not about the wrong class.
I am pretty sure that is wrong. A stereotype of broda is not a description of &quot;typical&quot; members a class subjectively described as broda, but a subjectively validated description of &quot;typical&quot; members of the real class of broda. That is, the target has to be {lo'i broda} in both cases. The description may be wrong, but it is not about the wrong class.
Line 40,360: Line 41,723:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1232&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:31:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:31:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 40,418: Line 41,783:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1233&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


A&gt;Fech! there has to be a prettier way. Though this does do the trick, attaching {poi} before or after {ku} disambiguates (when there is a quantifer there certainly, maybe even without).
A&gt;Fech! there has to be a prettier way. Though this does do the trick, attaching {poi} before or after {ku} disambiguates (when there is a quantifer there certainly, maybe even without).
Line 40,478: Line 41,845:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1234&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 40,578: Line 41,947:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1235&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 40,698: Line 42,069:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1236&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 40,754: Line 42,127:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1237&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 40,828: Line 42,203:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1238&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT         


A&gt; I may be taking &quot;sterotypical&quot; too seriously here. It is the one that makes sense. Since a {le} grouping is always something thrown together by my decision (or someone's or..) the notion of &quot;typical&quot; does not generally apply.
A&gt; I may be taking &quot;sterotypical&quot; too seriously here. It is the one that makes sense. Since a {le} grouping is always something thrown together by my decision (or someone's or..) the notion of &quot;typical&quot; does not generally apply.
Line 40,890: Line 42,267:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1239&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT         


Just my usual note to pooh-pooh your notion of kind (pending some coherent explanation). That aside, this seems about right, but I haven't though through all the details.
Just my usual note to pooh-pooh your notion of kind (pending some coherent explanation). That aside, this seems about right, but I haven't though through all the details.
Line 40,968: Line 42,347:
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1240&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|su'o da worries]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT  posts: 14214         
su'o da worries
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT  posts: 14214         


I'm worried about the su'o da issue.
I'm worried about the su'o da issue.
Line 40,994: Line 42,377:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1241&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 41,022: Line 42,407:
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1242&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 41,050: Line 42,437:
--blazoning the U.S. flag http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--blazoning the U.S. flag http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1243&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 41,080: Line 42,469:
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1244&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         


As it stands now, can {lo} be used for instances, generalities, and
As it stands now, can {lo} be used for instances, generalities, and
Line 41,138: Line 42,529:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1245&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:30:29PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:30:29PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 41,190: Line 42,583:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1246&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT         


Pierre:
Pierre:
Line 41,264: Line 42,659:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1247&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 41,340: Line 42,737:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1248&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 41,390: Line 42,789:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1249&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:13:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:13:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 41,460: Line 42,861:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1250&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:03:16PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:03:16PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 41,568: Line 42,971:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1251&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 41,608: Line 43,013:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1252&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:06 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:06 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 41,642: Line 43,049:
--Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1254&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 41,736: Line 43,145:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1255&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         


Cowan:
Cowan:
Line 41,746: Line 43,157:
I guess I misunderstood the significance of the 1+ yout previous message gave my earlier characterization of {le'e}, which was essentially that of &quot;stereotype.&quot;
I guess I misunderstood the significance of the 1+ yout previous message gave my earlier characterization of {le'e}, which was essentially that of &quot;stereotype.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1256&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 41,794: Line 43,207:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1257&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 41,856: Line 43,271:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1259&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:11:08PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:11:08PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Line 41,900: Line 43,317:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1260&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:31 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 41,938: Line 43,357:
--Judge Blagden http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Judge Blagden http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1261&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:31 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:31 GMT         


-----
-----
Line 41,976: Line 43,397:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1263&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:04 GMT         


Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the rest? Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others to some sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?
Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the rest? Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others to some sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?
Line 42,000: Line 43,423:
-Roibn
-Roibn


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1264&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:04 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:04 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:35:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:35:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 42,020: Line 43,445:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1265&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|PA broda != PA lo broda?]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:07 GMT  posts: 152         
PA broda != PA lo broda?
 
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:07 GMT  posts: 152         


Why does the table have different meanings for &quot;PA broda&quot; and &quot;PA lo broda&quot;? Aren't these defined to be the same thing?
Why does the table have different meanings for &quot;PA broda&quot; and &quot;PA lo broda&quot;? Aren't these defined to be the same thing?
Line 42,028: Line 43,457:
-- Rob
-- Rob


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1266&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:07:28PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:07:28PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 42,060: Line 43,491:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1267&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         


&gt; PA broda != PA lo broda?
&gt; PA broda != PA lo broda?
Line 42,090: Line 43,523:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1268&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 42,110: Line 43,545:
El Auruns's reply: &quot;Many happy returns of the day!&quot;
El Auruns's reply: &quot;Many happy returns of the day!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1269&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         


On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 42,168: Line 43,605:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1270&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:49:48AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:49:48AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 42,262: Line 43,701:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1271&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 42,300: Line 43,741:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1272&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 02:50 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 02:50 GMT         


This only applies if you can say what you want without quantifiers. Are there such cases? Your apparent instance is not one, of course.
This only applies if you can say what you want without quantifiers. Are there such cases? Your apparent instance is not one, of course.
Line 42,332: Line 43,775:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1273&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 02:50 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 02:50 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 42,406: Line 43,851:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1274&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 03:03 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 03:03 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:43:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:43:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 42,472: Line 43,919:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1275&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 42,538: Line 43,987:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1276&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         


Thanx. I asked the question without really thinking about the answer, but, as you point out, {da'i} allows us to postulate even impossible things and certainly thing not in alternate (accessible possible) worlds, so that {da'i} something is not the same as saying it is possible nor obviously useful in getting to that. I don't see how it will work for other kinds of modalities than alethic (necessary-possible), although we have devices for some of them: temporal and deontic (obligatory-permitted) in at least a crude form. I think that, with some adjustments — mainly involving scope, {da'i} can be made to work for counterfactuals. Especially if we also get generality dealt with successfully.
Thanx. I asked the question without really thinking about the answer, but, as you point out, {da'i} allows us to postulate even impossible things and certainly thing not in alternate (accessible possible) worlds, so that {da'i} something is not the same as saying it is possible nor obviously useful in getting to that. I don't see how it will work for other kinds of modalities than alethic (necessary-possible), although we have devices for some of them: temporal and deontic (obligatory-permitted) in at least a crude form. I think that, with some adjustments — mainly involving scope, {da'i} can be made to work for counterfactuals. Especially if we also get generality dealt with successfully.
Line 42,610: Line 44,061:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1277&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         


But surely saying what a sentence means involves minimally saying how to determine whether it is true (in theory at least), so the questions about the referents or lack of them is not irrelevant. To find whether rabbits are white, I look at as many rabbits as I can (and maybe read up on rabbit genetics and the like). What do I do for the same question about unicorns?
But surely saying what a sentence means involves minimally saying how to determine whether it is true (in theory at least), so the questions about the referents or lack of them is not irrelevant. To find whether rabbits are white, I look at as many rabbits as I can (and maybe read up on rabbit genetics and the like). What do I do for the same question about unicorns?
Line 42,678: Line 44,131:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1278&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 42,708: Line 44,163:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1279&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 05:51:23AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 05:51:23AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Line 42,794: Line 44,251:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1280&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Jordan:
Jordan:
Line 42,868: Line 44,327:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1281&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:58:58PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:58:58PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 42,906: Line 44,367:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1282&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:07:44PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:07:44PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 42,962: Line 44,425:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1283&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Check out also:
Check out also:
Line 42,986: Line 44,451:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1284&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


Stable authoritative lists of new cmavo are a bit hard to come by. {ka'e} is still given as &quot;can, be able to&quot; in the old one and so needs a subject; that is, it is a mistake for {kakne}. It is about ability, not possibility. Whether {bu'ai} corresponds I am not sure-- indeed, I am not sure just what would play necessity to {ka'e} sense of possibility: &quot;do compulsively?&quot; The compounds on {mu'ei} quantify over possible worlds and so work at least in S5 systems (with an accessibility relation both transitive and symmetric) and maybe for more if we restrict worlds to the accessible ones. There also the strange &quot;modal tenses&quot;: &quot;can but hasn't&quot; &quot;can and has&quot; (redundant), and &quot;hasn't and maybe can't&quot; (the {na'e} of the preceding) and I don't know what to do with those, except to note that they are based on ability again (so predicates), not on possibility per se. We also have in UI words for permission and obligation, but those are operational — used to give permission or impose
Stable authoritative lists of new cmavo are a bit hard to come by. {ka'e} is still given as &quot;can, be able to&quot; in the old one and so needs a subject; that is, it is a mistake for {kakne}. It is about ability, not possibility. Whether {bu'ai} corresponds I am not sure-- indeed, I am not sure just what would play necessity to {ka'e} sense of possibility: &quot;do compulsively?&quot; The compounds on {mu'ei} quantify over possible worlds and so work at least in S5 systems (with an accessibility relation both transitive and symmetric) and maybe for more if we restrict worlds to the accessible ones. There also the strange &quot;modal tenses&quot;: &quot;can but hasn't&quot; &quot;can and has&quot; (redundant), and &quot;hasn't and maybe can't&quot; (the {na'e} of the preceding) and I don't know what to do with those, except to note that they are based on ability again (so predicates), not on possibility per se. We also have in UI words for permission and obligation, but those are operational — used to give permission or impose
Line 43,016: Line 44,483:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1285&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 43,128: Line 44,597:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1286&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 00:06 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 00:06 GMT         


A&gt; Yes, that is more like what is needed, but the examples I have seen pretty clearly put it as the agent-ability kind of usage ({kakne} in short). So, I have elcted to ignore {ka'e} and go for a possibility proper de novo. &amp;'s &quot;compatible with the laws of nature&quot; is, of course a more restricted sense of &quot;possible&quot; than the full logical form. It is a useful one, maybe enough so to rate a separate modality.
A&gt; Yes, that is more like what is needed, but the examples I have seen pretty clearly put it as the agent-ability kind of usage ({kakne} in short). So, I have elcted to ignore {ka'e} and go for a possibility proper de novo. &amp;'s &quot;compatible with the laws of nature&quot; is, of course a more restricted sense of &quot;possible&quot; than the full logical form. It is a useful one, maybe enough so to rate a separate modality.
Line 43,248: Line 44,719:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1287&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 00:07 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 00:07 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 43,320: Line 44,793:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1288&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 01:37 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 01:37 GMT         


A&gt; Yes, that is a less judgmental reading.
A&gt; Yes, that is a less judgmental reading.
Line 43,400: Line 44,875:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1289&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 10:07 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 10:07 GMT         


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:26:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:26:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 43,452: Line 44,929:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1290&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 43,520: Line 44,999:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1291&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 43,554: Line 45,035:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1292&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


Again, I wouldn't use {noi} since this is not incidental but the pattern is right. I'd also use {ro le} reather than {ro} since the intention is surely (well, as surely as can be without context) not to feed the world but rather some in-mind (and probably in-context) group.
Again, I wouldn't use {noi} since this is not incidental but the pattern is right. I'd also use {ro le} reather than {ro} since the intention is surely (well, as surely as can be without context) not to feed the world but rather some in-mind (and probably in-context) group.
Line 43,590: Line 45,073:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1293&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 43,632: Line 45,117:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1294&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


I think the rpurpose applies to the quantifier, not the group: it is &quot;enough-to-feed-everyone apples&quot; not &quot;enough apples-to-feed-everyone,&quot; though — now that I look at it — the other is not too bad. I should think that the tag is the same through all the examples — it is the purpose not the upshot that counts here, so no negation is needed in the added clause. I think all this may well mean we need a new NOI since the others attach too much to the sumti as a whole.
I think the rpurpose applies to the quantifier, not the group: it is &quot;enough-to-feed-everyone apples&quot; not &quot;enough apples-to-feed-everyone,&quot; though — now that I look at it — the other is not too bad. I should think that the tag is the same through all the examples — it is the purpose not the upshot that counts here, so no negation is needed in the added clause. I think all this may well mean we need a new NOI since the others attach too much to the sumti as a whole.
Line 43,676: Line 45,163:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1295&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such proposals.
What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such proposals.
Line 43,718: Line 45,207:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1296&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


pc:
pc:
Line 43,774: Line 45,265:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1297&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT         


So we need not only a new NOI but one with a special rule for interpreting it, regardless of how the grammar happens to group it (something along this line may help with the other NOI, too. To-Do List!) for what is wanted is clearly &quot;enough/too little/too much for ...&quot;. not what you — quite correctly — offer under the present regime.
So we need not only a new NOI but one with a special rule for interpreting it, regardless of how the grammar happens to group it (something along this line may help with the other NOI, too. To-Do List!) for what is wanted is clearly &quot;enough/too little/too much for ...&quot;. not what you — quite correctly — offer under the present regime.
Line 43,832: Line 45,325:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1298&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|More things to fix]]
----


  Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 23         
More things to fix
 
----
 
Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 23         


I support xorxes effort (especially after discussions with John Cowan). I am really close to a &quot;yes&quot; on the ideas. The wording has me concerned.
I support xorxes effort (especially after discussions with John Cowan). I am really close to a &quot;yes&quot; on the ideas. The wording has me concerned.
Line 43,874: Line 45,371:
mi'e noras
mi'e noras


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1299&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:29:30PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:29:30PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 43,954: Line 45,453:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1300&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT         


At 05:37 PM 6/17/04 -0700, Robin wrote:
At 05:37 PM 6/17/04 -0700, Robin wrote:
Line 44,046: Line 45,547:
Nora LeChevalier
Nora LeChevalier


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1301&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 03:09 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 03:09 GMT         


noras:
noras:
Line 44,244: Line 45,747:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1302&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 03:09 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 03:09 GMT         


noras:
noras:
Line 44,294: Line 45,799:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1303&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|ru'a vs. da'i]]
----
 
ru'a vs. da'i
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 44,302: Line 45,811:
mu'o mi'e xod
mu'o mi'e xod


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1304&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         


Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Line 44,356: Line 45,867:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1305&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         


Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Line 44,408: Line 45,921:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1306&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         


xod:
xod:
Line 44,450: Line 45,965:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1307&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         


I don't get this one at all: &quot;supposing&quot; means &quot;no&quot; and &quot;I postulate&quot; means &quot;yes&quot;? {da'i} introduces conditions possibly contrary to fact, so using it means that the item in view is probably not true? But {ru'a} is almost as contrary to fact; it requires at least that I am unsure and so am making an assumptiion or a postulation to get on with whatever is at ahnd.
I don't get this one at all: &quot;supposing&quot; means &quot;no&quot; and &quot;I postulate&quot; means &quot;yes&quot;? {da'i} introduces conditions possibly contrary to fact, so using it means that the item in view is probably not true? But {ru'a} is almost as contrary to fact; it requires at least that I am unsure and so am making an assumptiion or a postulation to get on with whatever is at ahnd.
Line 44,462: Line 45,979:
mu'o mi'e xod
mu'o mi'e xod


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1308&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT         


Right, except that I think it is worthwhile trying to find a way to attach the purpose even to sumti (or the quantifier, rather).
Right, except that I think it is worthwhile trying to find a way to attach the purpose even to sumti (or the quantifier, rather).
Line 44,518: Line 46,037:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1309&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         


~mark:
~mark:
Line 44,570: Line 46,091:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1310&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         


Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Line 44,594: Line 46,117:
~mark
~mark


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1311&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         


~mark:
~mark:
Line 44,654: Line 46,179:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1312&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         


~mark:
~mark:
Line 44,684: Line 46,211:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1313&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         


Nicely put. Didn't we have a &quot;Let it be so&quot; performative a while back? Apply now.
Nicely put. Didn't we have a &quot;Let it be so&quot; performative a while back? Apply now.
Line 44,738: Line 46,267:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1314&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT         


For Vermonters and the like, what is concluded from the observation is that it has just been raining and that conclusion underlies the assumption that it still is.
For Vermonters and the like, what is concluded from the observation is that it has just been raining and that conclusion underlies the assumption that it still is.
Line 44,770: Line 46,301:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1315&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:59 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:59 GMT         


On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:26:25AM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:26:25AM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Line 44,790: Line 46,323:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1316&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|About the default quantifiers]]
----
 
About the default quantifiers
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 18:29 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 18:29 GMT  posts: 14214         


I just want to point something out about the default quantifiers: they didn't actually work.
I just want to point something out about the default quantifiers: they didn't actually work.
Line 44,844: Line 46,381:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1317&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 44,892: Line 46,431:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1318&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT         


Robin Powell scripsit:
Robin Powell scripsit:
Line 44,954: Line 46,495:
--Specht v. Netscape
--Specht v. Netscape


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1319&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 2388         


Huh?
Huh?
Line 45,030: Line 46,573:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1323&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:32PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:32PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 45,048: Line 46,593:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1326&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 03:28:25PM -0400, [email protected]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 03:28:25PM -0400, [email protected]
Line 45,142: Line 46,689:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1327&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:02:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:02:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 45,200: Line 46,749:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1329&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 45,230: Line 46,781:
service. --Gandalf John Cowan
service. --Gandalf John Cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1330&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:15:59PM -0400, [email protected]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:15:59PM -0400, [email protected]
Line 45,284: Line 46,837:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1331&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT         


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
Line 45,310: Line 46,865:
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1332&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:27:16PM -0400, [email protected]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:27:16PM -0400, [email protected]
Line 45,350: Line 46,907:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1335&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
Line 45,406: Line 46,965:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1336&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
Line 45,426: Line 46,987:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1337&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:45:02PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:45:02PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 45,458: Line 47,021:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1348&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Because I Hate Myself]]
----
 
Because I Hate Myself
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 20 of June, 2004 09:00 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 20 of June, 2004 09:00 GMT  posts: 14214         


Just for interest's sake, here's a *complete* decomposition according to the current xorlo rules.
Just for interest's sake, here's a *complete* decomposition according to the current xorlo rules.
Line 45,498: Line 47,065:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1349&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 20 of June, 2004 09:19 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 20 of June, 2004 09:19 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:00:52AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:00:52AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 45,572: Line 47,141:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1350&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sun 20 of June, 2004 15:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sun 20 of June, 2004 15:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 45,616: Line 47,187:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1351&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:30:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:30:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 45,680: Line 47,253:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1352&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 06:11:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 06:11:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 45,736: Line 47,311:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1353&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 45,796: Line 47,373:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1354&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:11:04PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:11:04PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 45,890: Line 47,469:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1355&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:13:00PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:13:00PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 46,000: Line 47,581:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1356&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
Line 46,042: Line 47,625:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1357&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 46,112: Line 47,697:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1358&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:09 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:09 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 46,174: Line 47,761:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1362&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user82|djorden]] on Tue 22 of June, 2004 02:20 GMT  posts: 17         
----
 
Posted by [[user82|djorden]] on Tue 22 of June, 2004 02:20 GMT  posts: 17         


I'm withdrawing my vote due to lack of time to think about this
I'm withdrawing my vote due to lack of time to think about this
Line 46,206: Line 47,795:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1392&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Wed 23 of June, 2004 02:09 GMT  posts: 23         
Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Wed 23 of June, 2004 02:09 GMT  posts: 23         


At 06:45 PM 6/20/04 -0700, Robin wrote:
At 06:45 PM 6/20/04 -0700, Robin wrote:
Line 46,312: Line 47,903:
Nora LeChevalier
Nora LeChevalier


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1397&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 1912         


I changed the lo'e/le'e formal definitions to:
I changed the lo'e/le'e formal definitions to:
Line 46,340: Line 47,933:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1398&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 152         


On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 46,378: Line 47,973:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1399&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 2388         


Well, typicality is even less than generality a matter of counting. So many brodas are untypical in one way or another that there relation to brodes doesn't count for much. Further, spreading it over the subsets and demanding universality in each subset tends to increase the significance of the nonbrodes: in a set of four items, for example, if only one fails to be a brode, then almost half the subset fail to be pure brode (7/15 — assume we can ignore the null set). Of course, four is too small a group to have a typical member, probably, but the pattern continues: in a set of 5 members, 16 of the 31 subsets fail this condition with a single nonbroda in the set; two brings it up to 24 out of 31. And so on.
Well, typicality is even less than generality a matter of counting. So many brodas are untypical in one way or another that there relation to brodes doesn't count for much. Further, spreading it over the subsets and demanding universality in each subset tends to increase the significance of the nonbrodes: in a set of four items, for example, if only one fails to be a brode, then almost half the subset fail to be pure brode (7/15 — assume we can ignore the null set). Of course, four is too small a group to have a typical member, probably, but the pattern continues: in a set of 5 members, 16 of the 31 subsets fail this condition with a single nonbroda in the set; two brings it up to 24 out of 31. And so on.
Line 46,412: Line 48,009:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1400&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT  posts: 2388         


This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition, with 2, 15.
This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition, with 2, 15.
Line 46,452: Line 48,051:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1401&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 1912         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 46,486: Line 48,087:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1402&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 46,514: Line 48,117:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1403&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 2388         


{su'o} is redundant in {su'o so'e} since {so'e}, like {su'o} sets a lower limit.
{su'o} is redundant in {su'o so'e} since {so'e}, like {su'o} sets a lower limit.
Line 46,554: Line 48,159:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1404&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 2388         


See the second revision of my definition of &quot;intersection&gt;&quot; It is not right, of course, but it indicates the kinds of factors that go into such questions — if we are going to be precise and not just &quot;generally&quot; or &quot;typically&quot; and let our illformed intuitions carry over from English.
See the second revision of my definition of &quot;intersection&gt;&quot; It is not right, of course, but it indicates the kinds of factors that go into such questions — if we are going to be precise and not just &quot;generally&quot; or &quot;typically&quot; and let our illformed intuitions carry over from English.
Line 46,584: Line 48,191:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1405&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:12:20PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:12:20PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
Line 46,816: Line 48,425:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1406&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 46,858: Line 48,469:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1407&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 2388         


Hell, writing any of this in Lojban is a real miracle. I am amazed at how much you have managed to transfer (this does not mean that I think you have it right, mind) and congratulate you on your efforts and your results. As for the formula, it has so much wiggle room in it that you can defend a case with just about any data (but you do need more than, say, three — happenstance, coincidence, trend — cases). The point is in the factors involved, not in the actual numbers.
Hell, writing any of this in Lojban is a real miracle. I am amazed at how much you have managed to transfer (this does not mean that I think you have it right, mind) and congratulate you on your efforts and your results. As for the formula, it has so much wiggle room in it that you can defend a case with just about any data (but you do need more than, say, three — happenstance, coincidence, trend — cases). The point is in the factors involved, not in the actual numbers.
Line 46,902: Line 48,515:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1408&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 46,966: Line 48,581:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1409&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:53:32PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:53:32PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 46,986: Line 48,603:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1411&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 24 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT  posts: 2388         


Oops! I either missed or forgot page 440 of CLL, which does give the fivefold division of the space from 1 to all. It does say that it *allows up to* five divisions, so the pattern is not compulsory. I expect that {so'e} is the most used and is used for ordinary &quot;most&quot; as per the wordlists. I haven't seen enough cases of {so'e} to check and the others are used even less. If we take the Englsih — the key words — somewhat seriously — but CLL says explicitly not to (a piece of advise that would be useful more often, since it seems to apply more often than listed) — then we get a somewhat different ordering: a few generally includes several (though may not if the class is small enough to make several be a relatively clear number (8 is traditional), &quot;many&quot; is the complement of &quot;a few&quot; (actually6, of few, that is, many takes in all just as few take in none), most goes from squeakily over one half up to an including all, and, as you note, &quot;almost all&quot; comes from all but 1 down to
Oops! I either missed or forgot page 440 of CLL, which does give the fivefold division of the space from 1 to all. It does say that it *allows up to* five divisions, so the pattern is not compulsory. I expect that {so'e} is the most used and is used for ordinary &quot;most&quot; as per the wordlists. I haven't seen enough cases of {so'e} to check and the others are used even less. If we take the Englsih — the key words — somewhat seriously — but CLL says explicitly not to (a piece of advise that would be useful more often, since it seems to apply more often than listed) — then we get a somewhat different ordering: a few generally includes several (though may not if the class is small enough to make several be a relatively clear number (8 is traditional), &quot;many&quot; is the complement of &quot;a few&quot; (actually6, of few, that is, many takes in all just as few take in none), most goes from squeakily over one half up to an including all, and, as you note, &quot;almost all&quot; comes from all but 1 down to
Line 47,060: Line 48,679:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1454&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:39 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:39 GMT  posts: 152         


On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:00:00PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:00:00PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 47,076: Line 48,697:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1456&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:43:04AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:43:04AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 47,170: Line 48,793:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1458&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 2388         


But this is a remarkably weak condition. It comes down to &quot;most of the things have the property&quot; which why not say rather than going through subsets and the like?
But this is a remarkably weak condition. It comes down to &quot;most of the things have the property&quot; which why not say rather than going through subsets and the like?
Line 47,188: Line 48,813:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1460&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:06:16AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:06:16AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 47,228: Line 48,855:
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1462&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 04:18 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 04:18 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 47,396: Line 49,025:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1480&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:18 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:18 GMT  posts: 152         


On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:12:37PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:12:37PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 47,416: Line 49,047:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1485&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 2388         


Well, as you know if you have been following all this, I don't think it is a counting matter at all. But if it were, I suppose it would be just {so'o broda cu brode}, however that then would expand in something like xorxes' system. The bare statement of this sort makes its inadequacy very clear.
Well, as you know if you have been following all this, I don't think it is a counting matter at all. But if it were, I suppose it would be just {so'o broda cu brode}, however that then would expand in something like xorxes' system. The bare statement of this sort makes its inadequacy very clear.
Line 47,438: Line 49,071:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1488&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 162         


At 02:06 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
At 02:06 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 47,506: Line 49,141:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1489&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 162         


At 02:30 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 02:30 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 47,702: Line 49,339:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1490&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab:
lojbab:
Line 47,778: Line 49,417:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1494&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab:
lojbab:
Line 47,820: Line 49,461:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1496&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 47,846: Line 49,489:
(see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)
(see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1497&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 47,892: Line 49,537:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1498&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 2388         


As we used to say in Philosophy of Science classes (quoting I know not whom) &quot;Science is not concerned with three-legged dogs&gt;&quot;
As we used to say in Philosophy of Science classes (quoting I know not whom) &quot;Science is not concerned with three-legged dogs&gt;&quot;
Line 47,914: Line 49,561:
No idea if these help, since I cannot follow the argument.
No idea if these help, since I cannot follow the argument.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1500&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; We may have to rewrite a little — it is not the preoerty per se that occurs but the event of some object of the class having that property (there is only one ka broda — maybe,, but say so for now — but it is frequently locused. I suspect this goes back in part to an old {ka} {du'u} distinction.).
A&gt; We may have to rewrite a little — it is not the preoerty per se that occurs but the event of some object of the class having that property (there is only one ka broda — maybe,, but say so for now — but it is frequently locused. I suspect this goes back in part to an old {ka} {du'u} distinction.).
Line 48,000: Line 49,649:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1503&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Probably not quite enough; that's just mingling: all Persian cats are in the set of cats, but they are in it because they are cats, not because they are Persian cats (clearer examples would require thought - sorry)
A&gt; Probably not quite enough; that's just mingling: all Persian cats are in the set of cats, but they are in it because they are cats, not because they are Persian cats (clearer examples would require thought - sorry)
Line 48,048: Line 49,699:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1505&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 48,080: Line 49,733:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1509&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 27 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 27 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT  posts: 2388         


2 other, closely related, standard ways of dealing with denotationless sumti, embarassingly left out of an earlier list. The Lojban way (at least semi-official): use of a denotationless sumti (at least recto — under an even number of negations) takes the conversation into talking about a world in which the sumti is not denotationless. The other explains this: every denotationless sumti occurs in an (implicit or explicit) opaque context, &quot;Common lore has it that&quot; (or something like that) uif nothing else.As noted the last has the virtue of explaining the one before and brings denotationless sumti under an existing problem, opaque contexts, where they can be dealt with like everything els, in terms of intensions rather than extensions. And it is even usually plausible. But the implausible cases are the hardest, those involving {zasti} and {xanri} and the like.
2 other, closely related, standard ways of dealing with denotationless sumti, embarassingly left out of an earlier list. The Lojban way (at least semi-official): use of a denotationless sumti (at least recto — under an even number of negations) takes the conversation into talking about a world in which the sumti is not denotationless. The other explains this: every denotationless sumti occurs in an (implicit or explicit) opaque context, &quot;Common lore has it that&quot; (or something like that) uif nothing else.As noted the last has the virtue of explaining the one before and brings denotationless sumti under an existing problem, opaque contexts, where they can be dealt with like everything els, in terms of intensions rather than extensions. And it is even usually plausible. But the implausible cases are the hardest, those involving {zasti} and {xanri} and the like.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1511&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:14 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:14 GMT  posts: 2388         


Elaboration and combination of earlier proposals:
Elaboration and combination of earlier proposals:
Line 48,122: Line 49,779:
The {so'V} series are precisings of the {ro}-{su'o} axis, general, occasional or literal as the case may be (some of unrestricted literals are virtually useless, of course). {so'e} stands out in this list as having a precise lower bound — 50%, though not an upper. {so'u} starts from 1 and runs to {so'i}, {so'o} overlaps {so'u} and {so'i} — not going as far down as the former nor as far up as the latter (probably not even as fara as {so'e}). {so'a} is basically {da'a so'u}. But in the first two patterns each is taken generally or occasionally. [[%7Bso'u%7D%20and%20%7Bso'e%7D%20are%20almost%20duals:%20The%20real%20dual%20of%20%7Bso'e%7D%20allows%20the%20zero%20case%20(|{so'u} and {so'e} are almost duals: The real dual of {so'e} allows the zero case (&quot;few&quot; rather than &quot;a few&quot; in english), so is {na'e so'e naku} rather than {naku so'u naku}.]]
The {so'V} series are precisings of the {ro}-{su'o} axis, general, occasional or literal as the case may be (some of unrestricted literals are virtually useless, of course). {so'e} stands out in this list as having a precise lower bound — 50%, though not an upper. {so'u} starts from 1 and runs to {so'i}, {so'o} overlaps {so'u} and {so'i} — not going as far down as the former nor as far up as the latter (probably not even as fara as {so'e}). {so'a} is basically {da'a so'u}. But in the first two patterns each is taken generally or occasionally. [[%7Bso'u%7D%20and%20%7Bso'e%7D%20are%20almost%20duals:%20The%20real%20dual%20of%20%7Bso'e%7D%20allows%20the%20zero%20case%20(|{so'u} and {so'e} are almost duals: The real dual of {so'e} allows the zero case (&quot;few&quot; rather than &quot;a few&quot; in english), so is {na'e so'e naku} rather than {naku so'u naku}.]]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1512&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:14 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:14 GMT  posts: 2388         


My head having reemerged into daylight, I correct this to:
My head having reemerged into daylight, I correct this to:
Line 48,132: Line 49,791:
{so'u} and {so'e} are almost duals: The real dual of {so'e} allows the zero case (&quot;few&quot; rather than &quot;a few&quot; in english), so is {na'e so'e naku} rather than {naku so'u naku}.]
{so'u} and {so'e} are almost duals: The real dual of {so'e} allows the zero case (&quot;few&quot; rather than &quot;a few&quot; in english), so is {na'e so'e naku} rather than {naku so'u naku}.]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1513&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:26 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:26 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 48,164: Line 49,825:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1516&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 19:23 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 19:23 GMT  posts: 1912         


An interesting analysis can be made if we first write the
An interesting analysis can be made if we first write the
Line 48,344: Line 50,007:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1517&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 19:23 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 19:23 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; In this case, &quot;complement&quot; seems to mean &quot;polar opposite,&quot; as far down from all as X is up from 0 (or the opposite)
A&gt; In this case, &quot;complement&quot; seems to mean &quot;polar opposite,&quot; as far down from all as X is up from 0 (or the opposite)
Line 48,534: Line 50,199:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1519&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 48,610: Line 50,277:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1520&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT  posts: 2388         


A'&gt; That does clear that up; thanks. I assume this is going to flow through the rest of the cases:X' is the number of things that don't when X of them do. This added infornation makes the list more coherent. It makes me wonder if there are trivial details of this sort missing from other expositions that did not quite jell. But for now, this seems to work out all right, though a little more step by step on the last runs, when negation actually does appear, would sirely not be out of place.
A'&gt; That does clear that up; thanks. I assume this is going to flow through the rest of the cases:X' is the number of things that don't when X of them do. This added infornation makes the list more coherent. It makes me wonder if there are trivial details of this sort missing from other expositions that did not quite jell. But for now, this seems to work out all right, though a little more step by step on the last runs, when negation actually does appear, would sirely not be out of place.
Line 48,690: Line 50,359:
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1521&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 48,754: Line 50,425:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1522&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:49 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:49 GMT  posts: 1912         


Jorge Llambías:
Jorge Llambías:
Line 48,786: Line 50,459:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1525&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 2388         


A &quot;contradictory of the complement&quot; I'm not sure what a contrary would be; I guess the &quot;greater than&quot; and &quot;less than&quot; without the &quot;or equal&quot; (and the subcontraries would be when both have the equality included).
A &quot;contradictory of the complement&quot; I'm not sure what a contrary would be; I guess the &quot;greater than&quot; and &quot;less than&quot; without the &quot;or equal&quot; (and the subcontraries would be when both have the equality included).
Line 48,852: Line 50,527:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1526&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 23         
----
 
Posted by [[user14|noras]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT  posts: 23         


At 07:30 PM 6/17/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:
At 07:30 PM 6/17/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:
Line 49,166: Line 50,843:


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1528&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 1912         


Nora:
Nora:
Line 49,318: Line 50,997:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1529&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 2388         


xorxes' proposal, which previously seemed to me to be merely inept — often not quite saying what he meant to say — now appears to me to be thoroughly destructive. That it begins with the unsupported claim that the gadri system as it stands is in need of total overhaul we are used to — and apparently accept for the most part. That the fundamental distinctions of the system — distributive group, collective group, and set — are fundamentally wrongheaded and to be done away with — or at least suppressed — is an aspect that had not been so apparent before. To be sure, those distinctions have caused many people many problems, but there is no evi9dence presented that this is for reasons other than mis (or inadequate) understanding. And what is suggested is not another (arguably better) way of dealing with the differences involved, but simply ignoring them in many cases. To do so, of course, leaves the meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into the (still
xorxes' proposal, which previously seemed to me to be merely inept — often not quite saying what he meant to say — now appears to me to be thoroughly destructive. That it begins with the unsupported claim that the gadri system as it stands is in need of total overhaul we are used to — and apparently accept for the most part. That the fundamental distinctions of the system — distributive group, collective group, and set — are fundamentally wrongheaded and to be done away with — or at least suppressed — is an aspect that had not been so apparent before. To be sure, those distinctions have caused many people many problems, but there is no evi9dence presented that this is for reasons other than mis (or inadequate) understanding. And what is suggested is not another (arguably better) way of dealing with the differences involved, but simply ignoring them in many cases. To do so, of course, leaves the meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into the (still
Line 49,330: Line 51,011:
This &quot;process&quot; has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a realistic Square One&gt; I strongly recommend against any vote until the case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last however many years.
This &quot;process&quot; has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a realistic Square One&gt; I strongly recommend against any vote until the case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last however many years.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1531&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 49,382: Line 51,065:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1532&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Vagueness is always a problem if it prevents you from knowing how to evaluate a claim. Assuming that we do allow the sort of vagueness (virtually total) that you suggest, either the bare forms will rarely if ever be used — making the change both pointless and difficulty-making (how do we now say what the simple forms used to mean?) — or they will be used for some particular purpose rather than the intended vagueness — meaning that the change has not been effected at all (but rather some other, uncontrolled change — which has already happened after all).
A&gt; Vagueness is always a problem if it prevents you from knowing how to evaluate a claim. Assuming that we do allow the sort of vagueness (virtually total) that you suggest, either the bare forms will rarely if ever be used — making the change both pointless and difficulty-making (how do we now say what the simple forms used to mean?) — or they will be used for some particular purpose rather than the intended vagueness — meaning that the change has not been effected at all (but rather some other, uncontrolled change — which has already happened after all).
Line 49,442: Line 51,127:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1533&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 49,482: Line 51,169:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1534&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 49,518: Line 51,207:
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1535&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Hey, I am not proposing changes. It is your job to show that the changes don't ruin things already taken care of, and that they solve other problems. Since I don't yet see the boundaries of the vagueness permitted (I am not sure there won't be news in the next mailing) it is hard to find a case. but imagine that the time is come to pay some men for their work and that they are to be paid in some proportionate way for piecework. What then does {lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} mean? (one man? one pipe?, several men separately? several pieces of pipe? seveeral men together? a load of pipes? ....).
A&gt; Hey, I am not proposing changes. It is your job to show that the changes don't ruin things already taken care of, and that they solve other problems. Since I don't yet see the boundaries of the vagueness permitted (I am not sure there won't be news in the next mailing) it is hard to find a case. but imagine that the time is come to pay some men for their work and that they are to be paid in some proportionate way for piecework. What then does {lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} mean? (one man? one pipe?, several men separately? several pieces of pipe? seveeral men together? a load of pipes? ....).
Line 49,566: Line 51,257:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1536&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; You might as well ask if it 1998. The questions have been around since at least then and are still unanswered. Every supposed problem has been shown not to be one or to have a simpler solution, every proposed solution has been shown not to solve its propblem or to do so in a way that creates new problems or to be incoherent (so that the other questions cannot be answered definitively). And yet we are still where we were then. the hope is that if we start from scratch (again, if you will), this time we will get somewhere on a solid footing.
A&gt; You might as well ask if it 1998. The questions have been around since at least then and are still unanswered. Every supposed problem has been shown not to be one or to have a simpler solution, every proposed solution has been shown not to solve its propblem or to do so in a way that creates new problems or to be incoherent (so that the other questions cannot be answered definitively). And yet we are still where we were then. the hope is that if we start from scratch (again, if you will), this time we will get somewhere on a solid footing.
Line 49,606: Line 51,299:
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1537&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 49,658: Line 51,353:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1538&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; But hardly of problems solved, since half the cases weren't problems and the other half did not solve the ones there were. I think a list might be in order here: this problem reputed to be solved by this change.
A&gt; But hardly of problems solved, since half the cases weren't problems and the other half did not solve the ones there were. I think a list might be in order here: this problem reputed to be solved by this change.
Line 49,714: Line 51,411:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1539&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:21 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 49,774: Line 51,473:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1540&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:22 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:22 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; The problem of generic claims has not been solved by your proposal, since there would then be a definition of that claim that made sense and none has appeared. On the other hand, the problem did not really arise, since — by your own claim — the simple answer was just to use {lo} for the general case and {su'o} for the other (no changes needed, just a usage note).
A&gt; The problem of generic claims has not been solved by your proposal, since there would then be a definition of that claim that made sense and none has appeared. On the other hand, the problem did not really arise, since — by your own claim — the simple answer was just to use {lo} for the general case and {su'o} for the other (no changes needed, just a usage note).
Line 49,846: Line 51,547:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1541&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 2388         


Remind me why this was a gadri problem in the first place. English, for example, does not use special gadri here but only those (almost all of them) that it uses for other cases as well. The clear marks of generality in other languages seem more often to be predicative or adverbial (&quot;generally,&quot; tanru with {kampu} perhaps) or tense/modal (somewhere in the history of Loglan-Lojban there was a cmavo meaning &quot;in general,&quot;
Remind me why this was a gadri problem in the first place. English, for example, does not use special gadri here but only those (almost all of them) that it uses for other cases as well. The clear marks of generality in other languages seem more often to be predicative or adverbial (&quot;generally,&quot; tanru with {kampu} perhaps) or tense/modal (somewhere in the history of Loglan-Lojban there was a cmavo meaning &quot;in general,&quot;
Line 49,858: Line 51,561:
A&gt; The problem of generic claims has not been solved by your proposal, since there would then be a definition of that claim that made sense and none has appeared. On the other hand, the problem did not really arise, since — by your own claim — the simple answer was just to use {lo} for the general case and {su'o} for the other (no changes needed, just a usage note).
A&gt; The problem of generic claims has not been solved by your proposal, since there would then be a definition of that claim that made sense and none has appeared. On the other hand, the problem did not really arise, since — by your own claim — the simple answer was just to use {lo} for the general case and {su'o} for the other (no changes needed, just a usage note).


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1542&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 1912         


I am not proposing a special gadri for general claims. {lo} can
I am not proposing a special gadri for general claims. {lo} can
Line 49,906: Line 51,611:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1543&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 2388         


As usual, I do wish you would decide what you are doing — or be clearer about it. OK, {lo} is not always a general claim and we can make general claims using other gadri. so, in what sense does your proposal &quot;solve&quot; the general claims &quot;problem,&quot; as claimed for it?
As usual, I do wish you would decide what you are doing — or be clearer about it. OK, {lo} is not always a general claim and we can make general claims using other gadri. so, in what sense does your proposal &quot;solve&quot; the general claims &quot;problem,&quot; as claimed for it?
Line 49,966: Line 51,673:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1544&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:22:27AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:22:27AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 49,980: Line 51,689:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1545&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 162         


At 07:03 AM 6/30/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
At 07:03 AM 6/30/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 50,214: Line 51,925:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1546&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:28:07PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:28:07PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 50,240: Line 51,953:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 162         


At 12:44 PM 6/30/04 -0400, xod wrote:
At 12:44 PM 6/30/04 -0400, xod wrote:
Line 50,308: Line 52,023:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1548&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:12:11AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:12:11AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 50,344: Line 52,061:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1549&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:35:29PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:35:29PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 50,436: Line 52,155:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1550&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:52:44AM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:52:44AM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 50,486: Line 52,207:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1551&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 50,536: Line 52,259:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1552&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:40:11PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:40:11PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
Line 50,680: Line 52,405:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1553&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|And now for something completely different...]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:53 GMT  posts: 14214         
And now for something completely different...
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:53 GMT  posts: 14214         


After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:
After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:
Line 50,698: Line 52,427:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1554&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 13:12 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 13:12 GMT  posts: 2388         


&quot;I read almost all damned e-mail about the BPFK changing the articles and alas I got the only shirt/harvest such that it is the medium for saying this sentence.&quot;
&quot;I read almost all damned e-mail about the BPFK changing the articles and alas I got the only shirt/harvest such that it is the medium for saying this sentence.&quot;
Line 50,726: Line 52,457:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1555&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 13:12 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 13:12 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab:
lojbab:
Line 50,766: Line 52,499:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1556&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 2388         


Aside from (or because of) the incoherence of {zo'e noi}, I don't see what the change amounts to. I guess the idea is that {zo'e} is not a quantified variable — or is one who quantifier is out of the frame — and so behaves like a logical proper name. But, of course, that is not the {zo'e} of CLL and the new one has not yet been specified. Thus the new definition starts a stage late in the game. How is {zo'e} defined? Then we can see what the new definitions for the gadri mean. I suspect that the definition of {zo'e} will make the use of {noi} — in the present sense — solecistic as well, so maybe a definition of it is called for too. And, as noted often before, I don't see how any of this gets us further toward any of the purported goals of this proposal — generality, opacity, or ease of usage around quantifiers and negations — without violating things which are presumably meant not to change, like obedience to standard logic or the ordinary meanings of words.
Aside from (or because of) the incoherence of {zo'e noi}, I don't see what the change amounts to. I guess the idea is that {zo'e} is not a quantified variable — or is one who quantifier is out of the frame — and so behaves like a logical proper name. But, of course, that is not the {zo'e} of CLL and the new one has not yet been specified. Thus the new definition starts a stage late in the game. How is {zo'e} defined? Then we can see what the new definitions for the gadri mean. I suspect that the definition of {zo'e} will make the use of {noi} — in the present sense — solecistic as well, so maybe a definition of it is called for too. And, as noted often before, I don't see how any of this gets us further toward any of the purported goals of this proposal — generality, opacity, or ease of usage around quantifiers and negations — without violating things which are presumably meant not to change, like obedience to standard logic or the ordinary meanings of words.
Line 50,810: Line 52,545:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1557&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 2388         


So, if we go back half a decade or so, we will find that at that time we all (I suppose roughly a dozen people actively involved) agreed that the language as then constituted needed revision in its gadri structure (to stick to the present point). But since then so many proposals and so much discussion has gone on that it is no longer clear that the language we are talking about now is the same as the one back then nor is it clear that the problems back then have not been dealt with one way or another since (I take the &quot;generality&quot; issue as a prime case, since xorxes — inter alia perhaps — seems to have dealt with that at the usage level quite throroughly, leaving only the explanations to catch up).
So, if we go back half a decade or so, we will find that at that time we all (I suppose roughly a dozen people actively involved) agreed that the language as then constituted needed revision in its gadri structure (to stick to the present point). But since then so many proposals and so much discussion has gone on that it is no longer clear that the language we are talking about now is the same as the one back then nor is it clear that the problems back then have not been dealt with one way or another since (I take the &quot;generality&quot; issue as a prime case, since xorxes — inter alia perhaps — seems to have dealt with that at the usage level quite throroughly, leaving only the explanations to catch up).
Line 51,060: Line 52,797:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1558&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 51,110: Line 52,849:
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1559&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 2388         


1 shares with my suggestion (and perhaps the original) the feature of being true even if I get NOTHING. 2 seems to say that there is only one such shirt (although it might only be that there is only one relevant to this shirt, which would be OK).
1 shares with my suggestion (and perhaps the original) the feature of being true even if I get NOTHING. 2 seems to say that there is only one such shirt (although it might only be that there is only one relevant to this shirt, which would be OK).
Line 51,160: Line 52,901:
&lt;&gt;
&lt;&gt;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1560&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 51,260: Line 53,003:
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1561&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 1912         


&gt; mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri
&gt; mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri
Line 51,286: Line 53,031:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1562&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 51,336: Line 53,083:
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1563&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


Sorry, you still haven't learned how to quote properly, so I still won't
Sorry, you still haven't learned how to quote properly, so I still won't
Line 51,350: Line 53,099:
[[some%20top-posted%20crap|some top-posted crap]]
[[some%20top-posted%20crap|some top-posted crap]]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1564&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:02:06AM -0400, xod wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:02:06AM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 51,402: Line 53,153:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1565&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:23:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:23:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 51,438: Line 53,191:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1566&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:00:45AM -0400, xod wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:00:45AM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 51,482: Line 53,237:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1567&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 2388         


1 says &quot;not gain something other than the shirt&quot; — it does NOT say &quot;gain the shirt&quot; He might have not gained anything at all.
1 says &quot;not gain something other than the shirt&quot; — it does NOT say &quot;gain the shirt&quot; He might have not gained anything at all.
Line 51,588: Line 53,345:
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1568&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 2388         


xod wrote:
xod wrote:
Line 51,630: Line 53,389:
?? &quot;Lo, the poor guy, reasonably afraid of articles??
?? &quot;Lo, the poor guy, reasonably afraid of articles??


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1569&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 51,804: Line 53,565:
Though the tomb itself will be off-limits, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and a bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former president and petition his intervention in prayer.
Though the tomb itself will be off-limits, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and a bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former president and petition his intervention in prayer.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1570&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 51,886: Line 53,649:
Though the tomb itself will be off-limits, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and a bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former president and petition his intervention in prayer.
Though the tomb itself will be off-limits, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and a bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former president and petition his intervention in prayer.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1571&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:38:28PM -0400, xod wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:38:28PM -0400, xod wrote:
Line 51,946: Line 53,711:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1572&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT         


&gt; &gt;2 misses the mark completely then saying the only thing was gaining the shirt, not the only gain was the shirt (though I suppose, depending on what the affect is, the otehr is at least possible).
&gt; &gt;2 misses the mark completely then saying the only thing was gaining the shirt, not the only gain was the shirt (though I suppose, depending on what the affect is, the otehr is at least possible).
Line 51,988: Line 53,755:
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1573&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Line 52,014: Line 53,783:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1574&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:11 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:11 GMT  posts: 2388         


This makes sense; someone should write it up formally (along with the uses of {po'o} in other contexts).
This makes sense; someone should write it up formally (along with the uses of {po'o} in other contexts).
Line 52,026: Line 53,797:
only relevant case of prali was what is listed; the shirt.
only relevant case of prali was what is listed; the shirt.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1575&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 19:36 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 19:36 GMT  posts: 2388         


xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:
xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:
Line 52,048: Line 53,821:
Yes it does, though, as noted, the idea of gadri (or any other kind of ) goo is unlojbanic.
Yes it does, though, as noted, the idea of gadri (or any other kind of ) goo is unlojbanic.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1576&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 19:36 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 02 of July, 2004 19:36 GMT  posts: 2388         


Your second version is more what I would have expected. But, note, I have a several decade stand disapproving of {po'o} in favor of the usual logic form (at least until {po'o} gets explicitly defined from that form — or otherwise explained than by vague appeals to English usage).
Your second version is more what I would have expected. But, note, I have a several decade stand disapproving of {po'o} in favor of the usual logic form (at least until {po'o} gets explicitly defined from that form — or otherwise explained than by vague appeals to English usage).
Line 52,092: Line 53,867:
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1577&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 152         


On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 52,171: Line 53,948:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1578&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 152         


On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 52,233: Line 54,012:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1579&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:08:13PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:08:13PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 52,441: Line 54,222:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1580&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 52,563: Line 54,346:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1581&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 2388         


Well, not necessarily only six bites but only six bitings (biter-bit pairs). A real dog would chew a bit, getting several bites on each man. What is more unclear is how many men there have to be: are the men picked out before the dogs — as it were — and so each bitten by all of the dogs or does each dog get a (possibly overlapping with other dogs') pair? That probably needs some sorting out (a convention in all likelihood) but not a total rehash of {le}.
Well, not necessarily only six bites but only six bitings (biter-bit pairs). A real dog would chew a bit, getting several bites on each man. What is more unclear is how many men there have to be: are the men picked out before the dogs — as it were — and so each bitten by all of the dogs or does each dog get a (possibly overlapping with other dogs') pair? That probably needs some sorting out (a convention in all likelihood) but not a total rehash of {le}.
Line 52,627: Line 54,412:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1582&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 152         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 52,673: Line 54,460:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1583&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user16|JohnCowan]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 149         
Posted by [[user16|JohnCowan]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 149         


Rob Speer scripsit:
Rob Speer scripsit:
Line 52,701: Line 54,490:
--Rufus T. Firefly www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Rufus T. Firefly www.ccil.org/~cowan


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1584&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:48:10PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:48:10PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Line 52,739: Line 54,530:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1585&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:39:04PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:39:04PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 52,779: Line 54,572:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1586&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; How about (parallelling {le}) &quot;all the members of some PA-membered group of broda&quot;? Or just &quot;some PA-membered group of broda&quot; (I'm not sure what kind of group is meant)? Anything — I take it — but &quot;some members of the group of all broda, which has PA members&quot;
A&gt; How about (parallelling {le}) &quot;all the members of some PA-membered group of broda&quot;? Or just &quot;some PA-membered group of broda&quot; (I'm not sure what kind of group is meant)? Anything — I take it — but &quot;some members of the group of all broda, which has PA members&quot;
Line 52,883: Line 54,678:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1587&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; I miss getting this back channel. The rigorous definitions don't work because they are incoherent and inadequate — and often just plain wrong.
A&gt; I miss getting this back channel. The rigorous definitions don't work because they are incoherent and inadequate — and often just plain wrong.
Line 52,935: Line 54,732:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1588&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 162         
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 162         


At 04:59 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 04:59 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 53,055: Line 54,854:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1589&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 162         


At 05:06 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 05:06 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 53,087: Line 54,888:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1590&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:47:32PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:47:32PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 53,133: Line 54,936:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1591&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 53,157: Line 54,962:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1592&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT  posts: 162         


At 01:41 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 01:41 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 53,379: Line 55,186:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1593&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 162         


At 02:01 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 02:01 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 53,435: Line 55,244:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1594&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:45:00PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:45:00PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 53,473: Line 55,284:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1595&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 162         


At 02:48 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 02:48 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 53,501: Line 55,314:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1596&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:51:30PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:51:30PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 53,527: Line 55,342:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1597&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:33 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:33 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:41:38PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:41:38PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 53,799: Line 55,616:
whatever. Until someone does, I'd call that comment a straw-man.
whatever. Until someone does, I'd call that comment a straw-man.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1598&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT  posts: 2388         


In the interest of trying to become intelligible to Robin and so, eventually, to ordinary people (though why we would want ordinary people to vote on these matters — or why they would want to — escapes me), I send for this piece of xorxean analysis.
In the interest of trying to become intelligible to Robin and so, eventually, to ordinary people (though why we would want ordinary people to vote on these matters — or why they would want to — escapes me), I send for this piece of xorxean analysis.
Line 53,837: Line 55,656:
This is a significant part of what I mean by saying that the aproposal is incoherent, doesn't do what it sets out to do and is just plain wrong.
This is a significant part of what I mean by saying that the aproposal is incoherent, doesn't do what it sets out to do and is just plain wrong.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1599&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user82|djorden]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT  posts: 17         
Posted by [[user82|djorden]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT  posts: 17         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:01:02PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:01:02PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 53,923: Line 55,744:
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---
<s>---END PGP SIGNATURE</s>---


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1600&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT         


On Friday 02 July 2004 20:43, John E Clifford wrote:
On Friday 02 July 2004 20:43, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 53,953: Line 55,776:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1601&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:05:19PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:05:19PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
Line 54,037: Line 55,862:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1602&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


Hmmm, Goat-horse. Not too bad for antelope generally but I never would have thought of horses in connection with the relatively plodding gnu. Maybe I should have thought of elands instead. But then, I suppose that the names don't have much evolutionary significance.
Hmmm, Goat-horse. Not too bad for antelope generally but I never would have thought of horses in connection with the relatively plodding gnu. Maybe I should have thought of elands instead. But then, I suppose that the names don't have much evolutionary significance.
Line 54,068: Line 55,895:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1603&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


John E Clifford wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
Line 54,080: Line 55,909:
OK, so this is a little unfair. the {zo'e} here is probably forced bu {mupli} to be a property. But then saying that it is not a lion seems otiose, since lions aren't properties nor properties lions — even incidentally.
OK, so this is a little unfair. the {zo'e} here is probably forced bu {mupli} to be a property. But then saying that it is not a lion seems otiose, since lions aren't properties nor properties lions — even incidentally.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1604&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         


Rob Speer:
Rob Speer:
Line 54,156: Line 55,987:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1605&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 54,236: Line 56,069:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1606&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Remember that in Lojban, sets, collectives and abstractions are also individuals. In this case, zo'e must be a fundamental individual because it is (even incidentally) a gnu, and gnus are not collectives, sets, abstractions, etc. zo'e is always the approipriate sort of thing for its environment (which leads later to problems when the environment makes differing demands on it). Later in this sentence, zo'e will be a property, aas I note, and elsewhere a set. This is about this one case only.
A&gt; Remember that in Lojban, sets, collectives and abstractions are also individuals. In this case, zo'e must be a fundamental individual because it is (even incidentally) a gnu, and gnus are not collectives, sets, abstractions, etc. zo'e is always the approipriate sort of thing for its environment (which leads later to problems when the environment makes differing demands on it). Later in this sentence, zo'e will be a property, aas I note, and elsewhere a set. This is about this one case only.
Line 54,326: Line 56,161:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1607&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


Jorge Llambías wrote:Rob Speer:
Jorge Llambías wrote:Rob Speer:
Line 54,400: Line 56,237:
C&gt; I can see that the claims are different, but how is one simpler than the other (neither of them ultimately make sense under your understanding)? One is about members of a mass drawn from (I'm sure you intend) a set of things called..., the other a number of loci of (I suppose) the property of being a ... The look to be about the same in complexity. The third {le ci gerku} case is a little simpler; it is about the mass itself, so we skip the members (it does not in fact talk about dogs and men, but about masses of such — admittedly probably chosen because of their members).
C&gt; I can see that the claims are different, but how is one simpler than the other (neither of them ultimately make sense under your understanding)? One is about members of a mass drawn from (I'm sure you intend) a set of things called..., the other a number of loci of (I suppose) the property of being a ... The look to be about the same in complexity. The third {le ci gerku} case is a little simpler; it is about the mass itself, so we skip the members (it does not in fact talk about dogs and men, but about masses of such — admittedly probably chosen because of their members).


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1608&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 54,480: Line 56,319:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1609&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 54,526: Line 56,367:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1610&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 162         
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT  posts: 162         


At 05:15 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 05:15 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 54,902: Line 56,745:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1611&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 2388         


E&gt; Metaphysical claim: individuals that are not either collectives of other individuals nor abstractions from their preoperties and actions. To be sure, we can analyze even these to be collections, but I am here using an obvious albeit informal sense. They are things like lions and gnus and people.
E&gt; Metaphysical claim: individuals that are not either collectives of other individuals nor abstractions from their preoperties and actions. To be sure, we can analyze even these to be collections, but I am here using an obvious albeit informal sense. They are things like lions and gnus and people.
Line 54,994: Line 56,839:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1612&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 2388         


D&gt; How incompatible? These just talk about other events — as I took your comment to be. These are all particular quantifiers at the end of it all and so different at each occurrence. We can't say of exactly the same event that it is three on two and also four on three, but we can certainly say those of two different events. I guess I don't get your point. Mine was just that *in the event described* there are six bitings, whatever happens around it.
D&gt; How incompatible? These just talk about other events — as I took your comment to be. These are all particular quantifiers at the end of it all and so different at each occurrence. We can't say of exactly the same event that it is three on two and also four on three, but we can certainly say those of two different events. I guess I don't get your point. Mine was just that *in the event described* there are six bitings, whatever happens around it.
Line 55,046: Line 56,893:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1613&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 04:30:18PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 04:30:18PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 55,198: Line 57,047:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1614&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT  posts: 2388         


So, this time not trying to be fancy and go for the big absurdity, let me stick to the small stuff:
So, this time not trying to be fancy and go for the big absurdity, let me stick to the small stuff:
Line 55,218: Line 57,069:
for expressing surprise that a piece of the last analysis worked out right. It was, of course, merely something borrowed whole hog from CLL Lojban, which ain't broke.)
for expressing surprise that a piece of the last analysis worked out right. It was, of course, merely something borrowed whole hog from CLL Lojban, which ain't broke.)


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1615&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT  posts: 162         


At 03:56 PM 7/3/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
At 03:56 PM 7/3/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 55,332: Line 57,185:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1616&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT  posts: 152         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:48:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:48:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 55,390: Line 57,245:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1617&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT  posts: 152         


On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 55,462: Line 57,319:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1618&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Sun 04 of July, 2004 18:32 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 04 of July, 2004 18:32 GMT         


On Saturday 03 July 2004 10:11, John E Clifford wrote:
On Saturday 03 July 2004 10:11, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 55,488: Line 57,347:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1619&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 14:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 14:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 55,568: Line 57,431:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1620&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 18:38 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 18:38 GMT  posts: 1912         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 55,658: Line 57,523:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1621&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; In what way? not To what extent? But if they are this badly off then how it is accomplished does not matter. I still don't see it, however.
A&gt; In what way? not To what extent? But if they are this badly off then how it is accomplished does not matter. I still don't see it, however.
Line 55,758: Line 57,625:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1622&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 2388         


Since XS — insofar as it is repesented in last Saturday's version on the wiki — is seriously defective at even the simplest level and has at least some problems at level thereafeter (except when it simply is the old usage — occasionally murked up to look new), claiming greater expressibility (indeed, any expressibility at all other than what it borrows from the old stuff) seems beside the point (which is more polite than saying &quot;is clearly false.&quot;)
Since XS — insofar as it is repesented in last Saturday's version on the wiki — is seriously defective at even the simplest level and has at least some problems at level thereafeter (except when it simply is the old usage — occasionally murked up to look new), claiming greater expressibility (indeed, any expressibility at all other than what it borrows from the old stuff) seems beside the point (which is more polite than saying &quot;is clearly false.&quot;)
Line 55,860: Line 57,729:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1623&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT         


Line 55,884: Line 57,755:
in any language. --Allen Brown [email protected]
in any language. --Allen Brown [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1624&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 56,018: Line 57,891:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1625&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT  posts: 1912         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 56,064: Line 57,939:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1626&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT         


On Tuesday 06 July 2004 12:32, John Cowan wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 12:32, John Cowan wrote:
Line 56,102: Line 57,979:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1627&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


pier:
pier:
Line 56,138: Line 58,017:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1628&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 2388         


It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a different way:
It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a different way:
Line 56,176: Line 58,057:
in any language. --Allen Brown [email protected]
in any language. --Allen Brown [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1629&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; I agree; that is , not at all. See comments to Cowan just sent.
A&gt; I agree; that is , not at all. See comments to Cowan just sent.
Line 56,324: Line 58,207:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1630&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 2388         


On the 2 reading, we have dogs A, B, C: A bites man D and A bites man E, B bites man F and B bites man G. C bites man H and C bites manI. Some of themen bitten by different dogs may be the same, but that doesn't affect the overall biting count, which looks like 6 to me. What ones have I missed?
On the 2 reading, we have dogs A, B, C: A bites man D and A bites man E, B bites man F and B bites man G. C bites man H and C bites manI. Some of themen bitten by different dogs may be the same, but that doesn't affect the overall biting count, which looks like 6 to me. What ones have I missed?
Line 56,372: Line 58,257:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1631&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT         


On Tuesday 06 July 2004 17:06, John E Clifford wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 17:06, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 56,416: Line 58,303:
..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco
..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1632&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 152         


On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:17:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:17:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 56,464: Line 58,353:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1633&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 56,548: Line 58,439:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1634&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 56,594: Line 58,487:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1635&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 56,626: Line 58,521:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1636&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 162         


At 11:17 AM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
At 11:17 AM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 56,740: Line 58,637:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1637&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


pier:
pier:
Line 56,770: Line 58,669:
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1638&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT         


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
Line 56,796: Line 58,697:
All &quot;isms&quot; should be &quot;wasms&quot;. --Abbie
All &quot;isms&quot; should be &quot;wasms&quot;. --Abbie


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1639&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


John Cowan:
John Cowan:
Line 56,848: Line 58,751:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1640&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 56,902: Line 58,807:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1641&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT  posts: 162         


At 02:21 PM 7/6/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
At 02:21 PM 7/6/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 56,972: Line 58,879:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1642&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab:
lojbab:
Line 57,030: Line 58,939:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1643&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         


Yeah, the &quot;on this occasion&quot; - &quot;altogether ever&quot; bit just tried to express my sense of particulariyt — generality. I think what it really is is that 3 and 4 have uniqueness conditions: &quot;and every dog that bit two men is one of thesse three and every man bitten by two dogs is one of these (or every man bitten by one of these dogs is one of these)&quot; but this is not really one-time — general, since the whole might be tensed in just about any way.
Yeah, the &quot;on this occasion&quot; - &quot;altogether ever&quot; bit just tried to express my sense of particulariyt — generality. I think what it really is is that 3 and 4 have uniqueness conditions: &quot;and every dog that bit two men is one of thesse three and every man bitten by two dogs is one of these (or every man bitten by one of these dogs is one of these)&quot; but this is not really one-time — general, since the whole might be tensed in just about any way.
Line 57,081: Line 58,992:
..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco
..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1644&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         


Thanks.
Thanks.
Line 57,173: Line 59,086:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1645&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt;Not quite equivalent in my view, since if there are no dogs, the first is false and the second true. But that is hairsplitting.
A&gt;Not quite equivalent in my view, since if there are no dogs, the first is false and the second true. But that is hairsplitting.
Line 57,229: Line 59,144:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1646&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 05:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 07 of July, 2004 05:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


And now I see another aspect of this, roughly our old friends the two kinds of quantifiers <s>though it can't be exactly the same. My first response is to say that dog J isn't in this event so what he does does not change this one. He can even bite two men and it doesn't change this case, only moves to another case. But I see that the consensus is that the Lojban does not mean this. It is not too clear what does mean this nor quie how the Lojban comes to mean what i does mean (apparently rules about what is the predicate - these seeming SisP format</s> and in what order things are added. A good mark for the different possibilities is needed and the variants so far don't cut it).
And now I see another aspect of this, roughly our old friends the two kinds of quantifiers <s>though it can't be exactly the same. My first response is to say that dog J isn't in this event so what he does does not change this one. He can even bite two men and it doesn't change this case, only moves to another case. But I see that the consensus is that the Lojban does not mean this. It is not too clear what does mean this nor quie how the Lojban comes to mean what i does mean (apparently rules about what is the predicate - these seeming SisP format</s> and in what order things are added. A good mark for the different possibilities is needed and the variants so far don't cut it).
Line 57,263: Line 59,180:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1647&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 162         


At 04:46 PM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
At 04:46 PM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llamb=EDas&quot; wrote:
Line 57,333: Line 59,252:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1648&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:49:17PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:49:17PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 57,393: Line 59,314:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1649&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab:
lojbab:
Line 57,423: Line 59,346:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1681&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 13 of July, 2004 14:23 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 13 of July, 2004 14:23 GMT  posts: 2388         


My internet access for the next while will be intermittent and sporadic. I leave you with the following bits of advice:
My internet access for the next while will be intermittent and sporadic. I leave you with the following bits of advice:
Line 57,537: Line 59,462:
Xorxes {lo’e} and {le’e} look about as good as we can get without a better treatment of the notions involved – not gadri at a safe bet. I might prefer {lo ro broda} for the range of the commonality. And, of course, there is something with “probably” that might work.
Xorxes {lo’e} and {le’e} look about as good as we can get without a better treatment of the notions involved – not gadri at a safe bet. I might prefer {lo ro broda} for the range of the commonality. And, of course, there is something with “probably” that might work.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1699&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 12:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 12:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 57,569: Line 59,496:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1700&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 14:49 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 14:49 GMT  posts: 2388         


Gee, I don't think so. Let's see. {lo n broda cu brode} says that all the members (of which there are n) of some set of broda brode. {n lo broda cu brode} says that some n members of some set of brodas brode. Each of these does imply that n brodas brode (I am less sure about the {su'o ci}; that depends upon just how you read 'n x' and I am still playing with that, though coming around to the exclusivist point of view (with limited classes, to be sure — not all the brodas in the whole world, but all the relevant ones for now: the class x in the {n lo} case)). I see that, taken in isolation, one version does imply the other (take the given set just to be the set of those brodas who brode). However, when the scope grows — as it likely will in real discourse — they ought to be different: in one case, x can contain nonbrodeing broda, but not in the other, for example, or just more than n zs altogether (important for the {m lo n broda cu brode} cases). In general, notice, I tend
Gee, I don't think so. Let's see. {lo n broda cu brode} says that all the members (of which there are n) of some set of broda brode. {n lo broda cu brode} says that some n members of some set of brodas brode. Each of these does imply that n brodas brode (I am less sure about the {su'o ci}; that depends upon just how you read 'n x' and I am still playing with that, though coming around to the exclusivist point of view (with limited classes, to be sure — not all the brodas in the whole world, but all the relevant ones for now: the class x in the {n lo} case)). I see that, taken in isolation, one version does imply the other (take the given set just to be the set of those brodas who brode). However, when the scope grows — as it likely will in real discourse — they ought to be different: in one case, x can contain nonbrodeing broda, but not in the other, for example, or just more than n zs altogether (important for the {m lo n broda cu brode} cases). In general, notice, I tend
Line 57,609: Line 59,538:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1701&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 14:49 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 14:49 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 57,675: Line 59,606:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1702&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 2388         


Without further context, yes (with caveats about {su'oci}. they will differ, I think, in longer contexts where the sumti continue to play a role and in negations. But I have only done rough checks on this, so I am expecting surprises.
Without further context, yes (with caveats about {su'oci}. they will differ, I think, in longer contexts where the sumti continue to play a role and in negations. But I have only done rough checks on this, so I am expecting surprises.
Line 57,743: Line 59,676:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1703&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 20:36 GMT  posts: 1912         


&gt; {lo n broda cu brode} means:
&gt; {lo n broda cu brode} means:
Line 57,829: Line 59,764:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1706&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 23:22 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 23:22 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt;The caveats are because I had not really worked out the details and am still unsure about what all these quantifiers (they are not quite the ones of logic, after all) commit me to. Since you have interpreted them for me, I have to withdraw the caveat; things work as you suggest.
A&gt;The caveats are because I had not really worked out the details and am still unsure about what all these quantifiers (they are not quite the ones of logic, after all) commit me to. Since you have interpreted them for me, I have to withdraw the caveat; things work as you suggest.
Line 57,927: Line 59,864:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1707&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 23:22 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 14 of July, 2004 23:22 GMT  posts: 2388         


E&gt;Oops! Delete the negation sign:
E&gt;Oops! Delete the negation sign:
Line 58,031: Line 59,970:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1708&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 15 of July, 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 15 of July, 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 1912         


All right, then except for the candidates for anaphorization
All right, then except for the candidates for anaphorization
Line 58,083: Line 60,024:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1709&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 15 of July, 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 15 of July, 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Well, it is the anaphorization and the pragmatic patterns of usage that distinguish them even now, so that doesn't bother me much.
A&gt; Well, it is the anaphorization and the pragmatic patterns of usage that distinguish them even now, so that doesn't bother me much.
Line 58,145: Line 60,088:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1714&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 19 of July, 2004 17:56 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 19 of July, 2004 17:56 GMT  posts: 2388         


The problem with {no lo broda cu brode} is that {no} is a different kind of number (more so even than {so'V}). Most numbers begin in full logical form with a series of particular quantifiers but {no} begins with a negation. I think that that negation has to be taken into account, so that {no lo broda cu brode} must be treated as {naku su'o lo broda cu brode} and thus ultimately [[Ax%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ax x inc* {y: y broda}]][[Az%20z%20in%20x|Az z in x]]( ~z brode) v ~(Sw) w in {y: y broda} but it is hard to see exactly how to get there. So, another revision of the definitions (as it stands, we have either the vacuous '&amp; (Sw) w in x' or the impossible (so droppable 'v ~(Sw) w in x') . This will however restore the equivalence between this form and {no broda cu brode}.
The problem with {no lo broda cu brode} is that {no} is a different kind of number (more so even than {so'V}). Most numbers begin in full logical form with a series of particular quantifiers but {no} begins with a negation. I think that that negation has to be taken into account, so that {no lo broda cu brode} must be treated as {naku su'o lo broda cu brode} and thus ultimately [[Ax%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ax x inc* {y: y broda}]][[Az%20z%20in%20x|Az z in x]]( ~z brode) v ~(Sw) w in {y: y broda} but it is hard to see exactly how to get there. So, another revision of the definitions (as it stands, we have either the vacuous '&amp; (Sw) w in x' or the impossible (so droppable 'v ~(Sw) w in x') . This will however restore the equivalence between this form and {no broda cu brode}.
Line 58,181: Line 60,126:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1719&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Specific, in-mind, veridical?]]
----
 
Specific, in-mind, veridical?


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 20 of July, 2004 23:01 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 20 of July, 2004 23:01 GMT  posts: 14214         


Something I've often felt the lack of was an article that was both veridical and referred to something in particular that I have in mind.
Something I've often felt the lack of was an article that was both veridical and referred to something in particular that I have in mind.
Line 58,195: Line 60,144:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1721&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


Going through old mail. Very late. I'm mostly going to only respond to
Going through old mail. Very late. I'm mostly going to only respond to
Line 58,293: Line 60,244:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1722&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 58,319: Line 60,272:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1723&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:30:42PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:30:42PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 58,371: Line 60,326:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1724&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 58,423: Line 60,380:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1725&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user82|djorden]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:03 GMT  posts: 17         
Posted by [[user82|djorden]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:03 GMT  posts: 17         


On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:16:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:16:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 58,501: Line 60,460:


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1728&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 15:38 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 15:38 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 58,529: Line 60,492:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1729&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 22:52 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 21 of July, 2004 22:52 GMT  posts: 2388         


Yes, so I have noticed. while playing around with the definitions to see what I could change from restricted to non-restricted quantifiers (and thus get rid of redundant clauses), I came upon the anomaly of {ro lo} and {su'o lo). Again they make a difference in larger contexts but seem odd here. Perhaps the definitions of {lo} tout court should use {su'o} rather than {ro} at that point. One of the places that restricted quantifiers annot generally be eliminated is in the specification of the n in {n lo}, since, for {ro} and the {su'V} (and arguably the {so'V}) series the sizes are relative to the set (and so are the members that fulfill the size). I am not sure what additional problems you have in mind for {su'e} and {me'i}. They permit but do not require the value 0, which conflicts with the import of the restricted quantifier, thus making the sentence containing the expression contradictory in that case, even though it is in fact possible. This is a classic forked stick and,
Yes, so I have noticed. while playing around with the definitions to see what I could change from restricted to non-restricted quantifiers (and thus get rid of redundant clauses), I came upon the anomaly of {ro lo} and {su'o lo). Again they make a difference in larger contexts but seem odd here. Perhaps the definitions of {lo} tout court should use {su'o} rather than {ro} at that point. One of the places that restricted quantifiers annot generally be eliminated is in the specification of the n in {n lo}, since, for {ro} and the {su'V} (and arguably the {so'V}) series the sizes are relative to the set (and so are the members that fulfill the size). I am not sure what additional problems you have in mind for {su'e} and {me'i}. They permit but do not require the value 0, which conflicts with the import of the restricted quantifier, thus making the sentence containing the expression contradictory in that case, even though it is in fact possible. This is a classic forked stick and,
Line 58,563: Line 60,528:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1730&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 58,679: Line 60,646:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1731&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


Well, that is the way that Lojban is set up (and Loglan before it): primary reference is to pluralities, which means roughly sets given the equipment we have (there is no Lojban notion of a plurality as such, only collectives and sets). So, we always do start off with a(n unspecified in the case of {lo}) set and then deal with its members. So {ro lo broda} does not mean the same as {ro broda] but is merely all of some non-empty subset of brodas. Not tidy but do we really want to go the other way. To be sure, the CLL {lo} does take {ro} as the assumed internal quantifier and so the subset is always the whole set unless otherwise specified. and we could go back to that, though it is markedy less useful — in longer contexts — than this one which makes such a muck in short contexts. the same sorts of remarks apply to the other quantifiers as well — everything else is parasitic on the original {lo broda} which is (now — as generally agreed) an unspecified plurality of broda,
Well, that is the way that Lojban is set up (and Loglan before it): primary reference is to pluralities, which means roughly sets given the equipment we have (there is no Lojban notion of a plurality as such, only collectives and sets). So, we always do start off with a(n unspecified in the case of {lo}) set and then deal with its members. So {ro lo broda} does not mean the same as {ro broda] but is merely all of some non-empty subset of brodas. Not tidy but do we really want to go the other way. To be sure, the CLL {lo} does take {ro} as the assumed internal quantifier and so the subset is always the whole set unless otherwise specified. and we could go back to that, though it is markedy less useful — in longer contexts — than this one which makes such a muck in short contexts. the same sorts of remarks apply to the other quantifiers as well — everything else is parasitic on the original {lo broda} which is (now — as generally agreed) an unspecified plurality of broda,
Line 58,809: Line 60,778:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1732&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 2388         


Thank you. It seems that the division into two types of quantifiers, or rather quantifiers and their negations, does solve the problem about {me'i} and the like, just as it did that for {no}. The details that xorxes give are not yet quite right, being based on a misreading of what I said before, I think. Now that leaves just the issue of {ro lo} and {su'o lo} amounting to the same thing in the short course and I think the best thing to say there is: in the short course all manner of unseemly things can happen, as witness the collapse of {lo broda} to {su'o broda} in the short scope. It does seem, however, that things would look better if {lo broda} were defined with some member of the set brodeing rather than with all, saving that for {ro lo broda}. The problem in the short scope remains but things are clearer further along .
Thank you. It seems that the division into two types of quantifiers, or rather quantifiers and their negations, does solve the problem about {me'i} and the like, just as it did that for {no}. The details that xorxes give are not yet quite right, being based on a misreading of what I said before, I think. Now that leaves just the issue of {ro lo} and {su'o lo} amounting to the same thing in the short course and I think the best thing to say there is: in the short course all manner of unseemly things can happen, as witness the collapse of {lo broda} to {su'o broda} in the short scope. It does seem, however, that things would look better if {lo broda} were defined with some member of the set brodeing rather than with all, saving that for {ro lo broda}. The problem in the short scope remains but things are clearer further along .
Line 58,927: Line 60,898:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1733&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT  posts: 14214         


I herewith explicate my gadri requirements (because that was a good
I herewith explicate my gadri requirements (because that was a good
Line 59,044: Line 61,017:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1738&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 15:44 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 15:44 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 59,110: Line 61,085:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1739&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 15:44 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 15:44 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; You seem to be saying that I had changed the quantifier at the beginning from &quot;some&quot; to &quot;all,&quot; whereas I had merely passed the negation through. So, the plan works only for negative cases (of course, anything can be negative with the right primitives, but I think I was clear about what was primitive — {su'o} in the exemplary case).
A&gt; You seem to be saying that I had changed the quantifier at the beginning from &quot;some&quot; to &quot;all,&quot; whereas I had merely passed the negation through. So, the plan works only for negative cases (of course, anything can be negative with the right primitives, but I think I was clear about what was primitive — {su'o} in the exemplary case).
Line 59,184: Line 61,161:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1740&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:03 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:03 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 59,260: Line 61,239:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1741&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:24 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:24 GMT  posts: 2388         


Boy, I wish I had gotten Robin's note; I have been trying to track down this book for a couple of years — since I first heard that it was in prep. Based on the early reports (I don't have time to read it just now — nor prolonged acess to a computer, nor any to a printer), we have done fairly well in Lojban, but there are some refinements that might prove useful (the questions about gadri being prominent). As for the matter of sets; it was not a mistake in its context; it was rather an attempt to bring some system the the muddle Loglan contained, wherein we could never tell from one occurrence to the next what sort of entity we were dealing with (or, rather, in which JCB took the properties of various types of entities and used whichever one was handiest for the object he had in mind — even though they did not always fit together coherently). Hopefully this text lives up to its promise to provide a better answer — essentially a way to deal with pluralities both distributively
Boy, I wish I had gotten Robin's note; I have been trying to track down this book for a couple of years — since I first heard that it was in prep. Based on the early reports (I don't have time to read it just now — nor prolonged acess to a computer, nor any to a printer), we have done fairly well in Lojban, but there are some refinements that might prove useful (the questions about gadri being prominent). As for the matter of sets; it was not a mistake in its context; it was rather an attempt to bring some system the the muddle Loglan contained, wherein we could never tell from one occurrence to the next what sort of entity we were dealing with (or, rather, in which JCB took the properties of various types of entities and used whichever one was handiest for the object he had in mind — even though they did not always fit together coherently). Hopefully this text lives up to its promise to provide a better answer — essentially a way to deal with pluralities both distributively
Line 59,344: Line 61,325:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1742&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:32 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:32 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:13:47AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:13:47AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 59,380: Line 61,363:
2004-07-21 21:02:30 1BnUmX-0007KU-ON =&gt; [email protected] R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=sbcmx1.prodigy.net [[207.115.63.75|207.115.63.75]]
2004-07-21 21:02:30 1BnUmX-0007KU-ON =&gt; [email protected] R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=sbcmx1.prodigy.net [[207.115.63.75|207.115.63.75]]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1743&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:57 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:57 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:49:11AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:49:11AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 59,464: Line 61,449:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1744&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 17:40 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 17:40 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 59,560: Line 61,547:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1745&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 17:40 GMT  posts: 143         
[[user19|[[File:img/avatars/203.gif|45x45px|xod]]]]  Posted by [[user19|xod]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 17:40 GMT  posts: 143         
Line 59,590: Line 61,579:
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism czar under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, says the Iraq war &quot;accelerated terrorism&quot; by &quot;metastasizing&quot; Al Qaeda.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism czar under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, says the Iraq war &quot;accelerated terrorism&quot; by &quot;metastasizing&quot; Al Qaeda.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1746&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 18:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 18:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 59,690: Line 61,681:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1747&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:25 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:25 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 59,821: Line 61,814:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1748&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:25 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:25 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 59,877: Line 61,872:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1749&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:26 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:26 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 59,915: Line 61,912:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1750&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:54 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:54 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss list.
A&gt; Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss list.
Line 59,965: Line 61,964:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1751&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 20:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 20:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:50:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:50:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 59,999: Line 62,000:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1752&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 20:08 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 20:08 GMT  posts: 2388         


Oops! Being used to xorxes getting it right, I did not check carefully his attacks on some of my cases and so came to think that they were problematic. In fact, they are not:
Oops! Being used to xorxes getting it right, I did not check carefully his attacks on some of my cases and so came to think that they were problematic. In fact, they are not:
Line 60,105: Line 62,108:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1753&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 22:02 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 22:02 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 60,177: Line 62,182:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1754&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 22:51 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 22 of July, 2004 22:51 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 60,273: Line 62,280:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1755&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:06 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:06 GMT  posts: 2388         


Interesting! I get a fair sample of Robin's mails but clearly miss some — I see the replies but not the originals. I have nothing in my kill file so far as the report on it goes. But then Yahoo has demonstrated recently — one of the reasons I am off just now is that I am having my computer worked on to get around some Yahoo peculiarities — oddities and an indifference to correcting them.
Interesting! I get a fair sample of Robin's mails but clearly miss some — I see the replies but not the originals. I have nothing in my kill file so far as the report on it goes. But then Yahoo has demonstrated recently — one of the reasons I am off just now is that I am having my computer worked on to get around some Yahoo peculiarities — oddities and an indifference to correcting them.
Line 60,347: Line 62,356:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1756&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:38 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:38 GMT  posts: 2388         


One of the reasons why I don't put it on the wiki page is that the wiki page regularly eats up established terminology to do relatively useless things (that countless other markup languages manage to do without messing with the standard stuff). When I have something comfortable enough to let stand for a while, I'll take the trouble to conform it to the peculiar wiki rules, but until then the translation problem is more trouble than it is worth.
One of the reasons why I don't put it on the wiki page is that the wiki page regularly eats up established terminology to do relatively useless things (that countless other markup languages manage to do without messing with the standard stuff). When I have something comfortable enough to let stand for a while, I'll take the trouble to conform it to the peculiar wiki rules, but until then the translation problem is more trouble than it is worth.
Line 60,455: Line 62,466:
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1757&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:44 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:44 GMT  posts: 2388         


In an amzingly fast reply (roughly24 hours better than its prvious record) Yahoo is given me a correction for this problem (without, of course, explaining what the problem is or why it is there). Hopefully, I'll see all of Robin's pieces (but why did I get some and not others) and maybe some other folks for whom I have spotty records.
In an amzingly fast reply (roughly24 hours better than its prvious record) Yahoo is given me a correction for this problem (without, of course, explaining what the problem is or why it is there). Hopefully, I'll see all of Robin's pieces (but why did I get some and not others) and maybe some other folks for whom I have spotty records.
Line 60,531: Line 62,544:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1760&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 25 of July, 2004 06:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sun 25 of July, 2004 06:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:09PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:09PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 60,557: Line 62,572:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1761&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 25 of July, 2004 21:14 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Sun 25 of July, 2004 21:14 GMT  posts: 2388         


I think the idea of sorting out the various factors involved is a good one – the ongoing struggles with {le} show what happens when unrelated notions (well, historically related but not conceptually) get jumbled together — and Robin’s sketch is a good start. Within that general approbation, however, some specific points call for comment. There is also a general question about whether gadri is the right place to deal with some of these notions.
I think the idea of sorting out the various factors involved is a good one – the ongoing struggles with {le} show what happens when unrelated notions (well, historically related but not conceptually) get jumbled together — and Robin’s sketch is a good start. Within that general approbation, however, some specific points call for comment. There is also a general question about whether gadri is the right place to deal with some of these notions.
Line 60,589: Line 62,606:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal
http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1826&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 30 of July, 2004 06:59 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 30 of July, 2004 06:59 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin wrote:
Robin wrote:
Line 60,705: Line 62,724:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1846&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 11:26 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 11:26 GMT  posts: 2388         


But some of the later chapters are more relevant to the present section, since they deal inter alia with gadri. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how little needs to be changed to accommodate plurality in place of sets and groups. JCB and the creators of Lojban disagree (except in details &quot;is among&quot; rather than &quot;is a member of,&quot; for example) only in placing the distributive-or-not distinction in the term rather than in the predicate and in handling plurality with sets and selike things, rather than just several whatsises.
But some of the later chapters are more relevant to the present section, since they deal inter alia with gadri. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how little needs to be changed to accommodate plurality in place of sets and groups. JCB and the creators of Lojban disagree (except in details &quot;is among&quot; rather than &quot;is a member of,&quot; for example) only in placing the distributive-or-not distinction in the term rather than in the predicate and in handling plurality with sets and selike things, rather than just several whatsises.
Line 60,829: Line 62,850:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1910&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 15:07 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 15:07 GMT  posts: 2388         


I always look forward to the next revision of the Gadri page, in the hope that it will clean up the earlier mess and, this time, that it will show some use of the book by McKay to which we have all been directed. Alas, none of this has happened in the latest (as of Aug 7) version. If anything the muck has gotten deeper and thicker and the clarifying power of McKay’s logic has been put to little fruitful use.
I always look forward to the next revision of the Gadri page, in the hope that it will clean up the earlier mess and, this time, that it will show some use of the book by McKay to which we have all been directed. Alas, none of this has happened in the latest (as of Aug 7) version. If anything the muck has gotten deeper and thicker and the clarifying power of McKay’s logic has been put to little fruitful use.
Line 60,895: Line 62,918:
These definitions incorporate several suggestions from the other proposals running around, those that seem fruitful. One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode} is “[[Ix:%20x%20are%20called%20“q%20brod”|Ix: x are called “q brod”]] x brode” so there is no way to insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}. We need a mark to indicate that what follows it, insofar as it is a quantifier (and this can be defined lexically, I think), is a cardinal for the plurality. Since this mark needs to be something that cannot be absorbed into a name, this involves recycling {doi} after {la}, where it cannot otherwise occur.
These definitions incorporate several suggestions from the other proposals running around, those that seem fruitful. One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode} is “[[Ix:%20x%20are%20called%20“q%20brod”|Ix: x are called “q brod”]] x brode” so there is no way to insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}. We need a mark to indicate that what follows it, insofar as it is a quantifier (and this can be defined lexically, I think), is a cardinal for the plurality. Since this mark needs to be something that cannot be absorbed into a name, this involves recycling {doi} after {la}, where it cannot otherwise occur.


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 20:32 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 20:32 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 60,973: Line 62,996:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 21:40 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 21:40 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode} cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly its most basic.
A&gt; Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode} cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly its most basic.
Line 61,061: Line 63,084:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 21:41 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 21:41 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 61,151: Line 63,174:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 22:41 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 22:41 GMT  posts: 2388         


1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of context would make some of the current examples clearer.
1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of context would make some of the current examples clearer.
Line 61,253: Line 63,276:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 23:28 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 23:28 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 61,305: Line 63,328:
http://messenger.yahoo.com
http://messenger.yahoo.com


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 00:44 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 00:44 GMT  posts: 2388         


A. &quot;Roses are red&quot; is a good place to start; &quot;Students surround the building&quot; (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.
A. &quot;Roses are red&quot; is a good place to start; &quot;Students surround the building&quot; (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.
Line 61,365: Line 63,388:
http://messenger.yahoo.com
http://messenger.yahoo.com


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 01:09 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 01:09 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 61,413: Line 63,436:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 03:09 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 03:09 GMT  posts: 2388         


A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal and neither has Lojban characteristically (in the explanations, not in the text, of course, since it did not have the wherewithal before).This is a nice case: I would have said {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e [[D|D]] krixa}, where [[D|D]] is the yet unlexed distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that is messier).
A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal and neither has Lojban characteristically (in the explanations, not in the text, of course, since it did not have the wherewithal before).This is a nice case: I would have said {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e [[D|D]] krixa}, where [[D|D]] is the yet unlexed distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that is messier).
Line 61,469: Line 63,492:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 03:13 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 03:13 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 61,479: Line 63,502:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1956&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 12:40 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 12:40 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 61,539: Line 63,564:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1957&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 12:40 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 12:40 GMT  posts: 2388         


Well, it's nice to know someone has figured out the point of xorlo, but, since the issue of distributivity could only have been raised in the last month or so, I doubt it is the point. The point seems (as far as it has stood still long enough to register) to get something that is indefinite without using quantifiers — not a very likely project to succeed (and it hasn't).
Well, it's nice to know someone has figured out the point of xorlo, but, since the issue of distributivity could only have been raised in the last month or so, I doubt it is the point. The point seems (as far as it has stood still long enough to register) to get something that is indefinite without using quantifiers — not a very likely project to succeed (and it hasn't).
Line 61,553: Line 63,580:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1959&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:40 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:40 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 61,595: Line 63,624:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1960&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:40 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:40 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt;Well, {lo} v {loi} carries the first clue, but D goes between the sumti and the selbri to mark the relevant item (details need some work, to be sure).
A&gt;Well, {lo} v {loi} carries the first clue, but D goes between the sumti and the selbri to mark the relevant item (details need some work, to be sure).
Line 61,665: Line 63,696:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1961&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:41 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:41 GMT  posts: 2388         


CLL by implication, at lerast, makes {lo} distributive (the only mode we had then) and {loi} collective by a devious mechanism that took groups (or masses or whatefver we called them in a given week) as peculiar individuals (not real individuals but not sets either), somehow related to their members to collect their activities into a single focus. I suppose that the more accurate way of putting this is that Lojban was naturally singularist and that {lo} went with what each of its members did and {loi} went with what the collective did, but each with what a single thing did. So, the distributive did not arise as such and the collective arose in a very different way. My suggestion merely carries that pattern over to an improved theory. In a word, {lo} was not neutral but merely default, which was distributive (as we would say now). I suppose that the issue of distributivity came down then — as now — to whether to use {lo} or {loi} and the answer was simply to use {loi} if it was
CLL by implication, at lerast, makes {lo} distributive (the only mode we had then) and {loi} collective by a devious mechanism that took groups (or masses or whatefver we called them in a given week) as peculiar individuals (not real individuals but not sets either), somehow related to their members to collect their activities into a single focus. I suppose that the more accurate way of putting this is that Lojban was naturally singularist and that {lo} went with what each of its members did and {loi} went with what the collective did, but each with what a single thing did. So, the distributive did not arise as such and the collective arose in a very different way. My suggestion merely carries that pattern over to an improved theory. In a word, {lo} was not neutral but merely default, which was distributive (as we would say now). I suppose that the issue of distributivity came down then — as now — to whether to use {lo} or {loi} and the answer was simply to use {loi} if it was
Line 61,713: Line 63,746:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1962&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:40 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:40 GMT  posts: 2388         


{ko'a lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi}
{ko'a lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi}
Line 61,805: Line 63,840:
{lo rozgu cu xunre}, &quot;Roses are red.&quot;
{lo rozgu cu xunre}, &quot;Roses are red.&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1963&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:41 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:41 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 61,875: Line 63,912:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1964&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:41 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:41 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Well, for most of the people using this now, {ciboi} is surprising enough to cause a pause. But that is because most people can't even do basic Lojban.
A&gt; Well, for most of the people using this now, {ciboi} is surprising enough to cause a pause. But that is because most people can't even do basic Lojban.
Line 61,953: Line 63,992:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1966&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 20:02 GMT  posts: 1912         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 20:02 GMT  posts: 1912         


I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.
I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.
Line 61,987: Line 64,030:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1967&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT  posts: 2388         


Thank you; that helps. Now, about generic reference and generic individuals...
Thank you; that helps. Now, about generic reference and generic individuals...
Line 62,025: Line 64,070:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1969&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:31:43AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:31:43AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 62,059: Line 64,106:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1979&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:02:44PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:02:44PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 62,085: Line 64,134:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1980&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 2388         


&quot;Gave back&quot; as &quot;covered it nicely&quot; or as &quot;opened it up to new — or more clearly old — uses?&quot; the alst gadri proposal doesn't obviously do either.
&quot;Gave back&quot; as &quot;covered it nicely&quot; or as &quot;opened it up to new — or more clearly old — uses?&quot; the alst gadri proposal doesn't obviously do either.
Line 62,113: Line 64,164:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1981&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin Lee Powell:
Robin Lee Powell:
Line 62,161: Line 64,214:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1982&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 2388         


Unless {PA me lo broda} is already explained separately, the string of identities at the bottom is circular, since {PA me lo broda} is otherwise a case of {PA broda}.
Unless {PA me lo broda} is already explained separately, the string of identities at the bottom is circular, since {PA me lo broda} is otherwise a case of {PA broda}.
Line 62,215: Line 64,270:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1983&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:56:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:56:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 62,259: Line 64,316:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1984&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:23:42PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:23:42PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 62,293: Line 64,352:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1985&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 62,341: Line 64,402:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1986&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 62,381: Line 64,444:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1987&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:38:35PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:38:35PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 62,421: Line 64,486:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1988&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:06 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:06 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin Lee Powell:
Robin Lee Powell:
Line 62,459: Line 64,526:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1989&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:06 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:06 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:12:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:12:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 62,483: Line 64,552:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1990&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 62,517: Line 64,588:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1991&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT  posts: 2388         


Although my English-flavored intuitions clearly see {lo} as being natural for making general comments, McKay points out that from the logical point of view, it is the quantifier expressions {Q da poi} that moore naturally perform this role. Or more accuarately, he goes to some length to show that descriptions (definite in his case, but the arguments expands easily) are more context sensitive that quantifiers are — and that insofar as descriptions are defined in terms of quantifiers the domain of the quantifiers has to be significantly restricted for each description. Even the initial expression, e.g., &quot;a man walked into a bar&quot; is already restricting the domain to that man and that bar and, as such, would more logically be involve {lo nanmu} and {lo barja} rather than {da poi nanmu} and {da poi barja} although those would be correct as well. Later in the story, the range of quantifiers would have to be taken in everchanging ways, which does not happen in generalities.
Although my English-flavored intuitions clearly see {lo} as being natural for making general comments, McKay points out that from the logical point of view, it is the quantifier expressions {Q da poi} that moore naturally perform this role. Or more accuarately, he goes to some length to show that descriptions (definite in his case, but the arguments expands easily) are more context sensitive that quantifiers are — and that insofar as descriptions are defined in terms of quantifiers the domain of the quantifiers has to be significantly restricted for each description. Even the initial expression, e.g., &quot;a man walked into a bar&quot; is already restricting the domain to that man and that bar and, as such, would more logically be involve {lo nanmu} and {lo barja} rather than {da poi nanmu} and {da poi barja} although those would be correct as well. Later in the story, the range of quantifiers would have to be taken in everchanging ways, which does not happen in generalities.
Line 62,525: Line 64,598:
I 'm sure the opposite position is now too firmly entrenched in Lojban, so I'll set this aside for LoCCan III.
I 'm sure the opposite position is now too firmly entrenched in Lojban, so I'll set this aside for LoCCan III.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1997&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 62,619: Line 64,694:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1999&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; The discussion runs — with asides-- through chapters 8 -10 (well, in 10 the asides predominate). Of course, he only treats descriptions that can be wholy treated in terms of quantifiers, but what he says clearly applies (and more so) to {le} and {lo}, which involve some pragmatic factors as well (indeed, his remarks suggest that all descriptors in natural languages contain such pragmatic factors).
A&gt; The discussion runs — with asides-- through chapters 8 -10 (well, in 10 the asides predominate). Of course, he only treats descriptions that can be wholy treated in terms of quantifiers, but what he says clearly applies (and more so) to {le} and {lo}, which involve some pragmatic factors as well (indeed, his remarks suggest that all descriptors in natural languages contain such pragmatic factors).
Line 62,729: Line 64,806:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2001&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 62,799: Line 64,878:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2002&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 23:36 GMT  posts: 14214         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 23:36 GMT  posts: 14214         


I've proposed zilfadni for a common property, and clarified the definition of kampu.
I've proposed zilfadni for a common property, and clarified the definition of kampu.
Line 62,811: Line 64,894:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2003&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 2388         


A. I don't suppose that the gadri controls the distributivity; that is, in McKay anyhow, a feature of predicate places. Now, I was suggesting a set of codings that would reduce the need to keep saying D or C for every place, and I said let {lo} default to D, but in a C place it would be C (place trumps code).
A. I don't suppose that the gadri controls the distributivity; that is, in McKay anyhow, a feature of predicate places. Now, I was suggesting a set of codings that would reduce the need to keep saying D or C for every place, and I said let {lo} default to D, but in a C place it would be C (place trumps code).
Line 62,895: Line 64,980:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2004&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 2388         


Another step toward dealing with the pseudogadri, but still a long way from home. I doubt that a definition is really possible and we will eventually fall back on an essay on the appropriate occasions for use.
Another step toward dealing with the pseudogadri, but still a long way from home. I doubt that a definition is really possible and we will eventually fall back on an essay on the appropriate occasions for use.
Line 62,913: Line 65,000:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2013&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 15:51 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 15:51 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 62,963: Line 65,052:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2019&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT  posts: 2388         


1&gt; the separate notation is explicitly just a shorthand; it call always be rewritten in plural quantifier form. The number of occasions where it makes a difference are very few and we could always deal with them, probably — this being language not logic — more briefly than McKay's formulae (I haven't thought about how exactly to do this in detail, since there are some more interesting and central questions to work through).
1&gt; the separate notation is explicitly just a shorthand; it call always be rewritten in plural quantifier form. The number of occasions where it makes a difference are very few and we could always deal with them, probably — this being language not logic — more briefly than McKay's formulae (I haven't thought about how exactly to do this in detail, since there are some more interesting and central questions to work through).
Line 63,023: Line 65,114:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2022&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 63,091: Line 65,184:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2137&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Wed 18 of Aug., 2004 04:35 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Wed 18 of Aug., 2004 04:35 GMT  posts: 152         


The one issue I have left with this proposal is the use of &quot;mi&quot; in definitions.
The one issue I have left with this proposal is the use of &quot;mi&quot; in definitions.
Line 63,107: Line 65,204:
- Rob
- Rob


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2151&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 31 of Aug., 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 31 of Aug., 2004 00:20 GMT  posts: 14214         


Something that just came up talking to clsn. He wanted a way to say &quot;leave it open so birds can eat the grain&quot; without the fuzziness of xorlo.
Something that just came up talking to clsn. He wanted a way to say &quot;leave it open so birds can eat the grain&quot; without the fuzziness of xorlo.
Line 63,121: Line 65,222:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2153&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 11 of Sep., 2004 17:58 GMT  posts: 14214         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Sat 11 of Sep., 2004 17:58 GMT  posts: 14214         


Been going over the examples under &quot;lo&quot;, because I've heard a number of people asking how to do the more specific, less general versions of various xorlo things. Here's my re-do of all of them. The goal was to use something other than non-outer-quantified &quot;lo&quot; in all cases. It might be worthwile, xorxes, to stick some of these, possible with modifications (some of my changes are a bit silly) into the other sections; le and lo'e in particular.
Been going over the examples under &quot;lo&quot;, because I've heard a number of people asking how to do the more specific, less general versions of various xorlo things. Here's my re-do of all of them. The goal was to use something other than non-outer-quantified &quot;lo&quot; in all cases. It might be worthwile, xorxes, to stick some of these, possible with modifications (some of my changes are a bit silly) into the other sections; le and lo'e in particular.
Line 63,209: Line 65,314:
* &quot;le'e&quot; would do just as well, IMO. &quot;ro lo nu&quot; is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.
* &quot;le'e&quot; would do just as well, IMO. &quot;ro lo nu&quot; is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2156&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 25 of Sep., 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Sat 25 of Sep., 2004 16:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


{lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja} can be translated into English
{lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja} can be translated into English
Line 63,305: Line 65,414:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2158&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 08 of Oct., 2004 16:09 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Fri 08 of Oct., 2004 16:09 GMT  posts: 1912         


I entered this definition for {selcmi} in jbovlaste:
I entered this definition for {selcmi} in jbovlaste:
Line 63,345: Line 65,458:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2187&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT  posts: 1912         


Rob:
Rob:
Line 63,395: Line 65,510:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2194&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:35:05PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:35:05PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 63,449: Line 65,566:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2416&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT  posts: 14214         


Why is this here?
Why is this here?
Line 63,481: Line 65,600:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2428&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 63,539: Line 65,660:
http://messenger.yahoo.com
http://messenger.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2439&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:45:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:45:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 63,567: Line 65,690:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2468&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 63,623: Line 65,748:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2486&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 63,639: Line 65,766:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2487&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 63,672: Line 65,801:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2488&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:27:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:27:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 63,708: Line 65,839:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2489&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 12:09:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 12:09:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 63,755: Line 65,888:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2490&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT  posts: 14214         


As may be obvious, I'm re-reviewing gadri with my usual fine-toothed
As may be obvious, I'm re-reviewing gadri with my usual fine-toothed
Line 63,902: Line 66,037:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2491&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 2388         


The recent spate of activity suggests that it is
The recent spate of activity suggests that it is
Line 63,920: Line 66,057:
seems to be using.
seems to be using.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2492&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 64,066: Line 66,205:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2493&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 152         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Line 64,102: Line 66,243:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2494&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 64,369: Line 66,512:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2495&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 64,411: Line 66,556:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2496&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:02:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:02:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 64,439: Line 66,586:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2497&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:54:40PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:54:40PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 64,782: Line 66,931:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2498&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:09:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:09:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 64,984: Line 67,135:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2499&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 65,232: Line 67,385:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2500&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 65,580: Line 67,735:
through the gap.
through the gap.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2501&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:25:18AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:25:18AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 65,866: Line 68,023:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2502&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 66,008: Line 68,167:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2503&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 66,088: Line 68,249:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2504&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:31:36AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:31:36AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 66,144: Line 68,307:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2505&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:09:15AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:09:15AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 66,322: Line 68,487:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2506&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 66,406: Line 68,573:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2507&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 66,664: Line 68,833:
But for now ...
But for now ...


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2508&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 66,766: Line 68,937:
of the adults&quot; selected.
of the adults&quot; selected.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2509&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 66,832: Line 69,005:
broda}.
broda}.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2510&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:11PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:11PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 66,846: Line 69,021:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2511&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:09 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:09 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 67,048: Line 69,225:
with plurals.
with plurals.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2512&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:09 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:09 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 67,078: Line 69,257:
parallelling form would be.
parallelling form would be.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2517&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 67,126: Line 69,307:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2519&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 67,156: Line 69,339:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2520&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:45:34AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:45:34AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 67,218: Line 69,403:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2521&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


Robin:
Robin:
Line 67,252: Line 69,439:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2522&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 67,358: Line 69,547:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2523&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 152         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 67,434: Line 69,625:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2524&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 152         


On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 67,466: Line 69,659:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2525&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 152         


On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:02:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:02:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 67,498: Line 69,693:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2526&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 67,540: Line 69,737:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2527&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:36:04AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:36:04AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 67,598: Line 69,797:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2528&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:38:33AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:38:33AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 67,662: Line 69,863:
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: &quot;Homonyms: Their Grate!&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2529&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user16|JohnCowan]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT  posts: 149         
----
 
Posted by [[user16|JohnCowan]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT  posts: 149         


Rob Speer scripsit:
Rob Speer scripsit:
Line 67,718: Line 69,921:
to drop their job when they damn-well choose. &quot;The Sons of Martha&quot;
to drop their job when they damn-well choose. &quot;The Sons of Martha&quot;


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2530&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:10:09PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:10:09PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Line 67,742: Line 69,947:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2533&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:13 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:13 GMT  posts: 162         


Drop in comments without reading the thread first
Drop in comments without reading the thread first
Line 67,908: Line 70,115:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2535&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:13 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:13 GMT  posts: 162         


At 10:36 AM 9/15/04 -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
At 10:36 AM 9/15/04 -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 68,038: Line 70,247:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2536&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:14 GMT  posts: 162         
----
 
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:14 GMT  posts: 162         


At 09:09 AM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
At 09:09 AM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Line 68,086: Line 70,297:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2537&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:14 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:14 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab wrote:
lojbab wrote:
Line 68,198: Line 70,411:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2539&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:15 GMT  posts: 162         
Posted by [[user15|lojbab]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:15 GMT  posts: 162         


At 03:05 PM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
At 03:05 PM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge &quot;Llambías&quot; wrote:
Line 68,362: Line 70,577:
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2540&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:15 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:15 GMT  posts: 1912         


lojbab:
lojbab:
Line 68,404: Line 70,621:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2543&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT  posts: 152         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:42:32AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:42:32AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 68,428: Line 70,647:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2544&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT  posts: 152         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:12:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:12:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 68,452: Line 70,673:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2546&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT         


Rob Speer scripsit:
Rob Speer scripsit:
Line 68,494: Line 70,717:
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT         


On Wednesday 15 September 2004 17:52, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 17:52, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Line 68,524: Line 70,749:
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2548&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:03:58PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:03:58PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 68,552: Line 70,779:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2549&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:08:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:08:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
Line 68,624: Line 70,853:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2555&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:18 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:18 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 68,740: Line 70,971:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2557&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:19 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:19 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 68,808: Line 71,041:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2560&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:19 GMT  posts: 152         
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:19 GMT  posts: 152         


On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:26:25PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:26:25PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
Line 68,824: Line 71,059:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2598&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:28 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:28 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 68,898: Line 71,135:
non-fractional outer quantifiers, but I can live with that.
non-fractional outer quantifiers, but I can live with that.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2600&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 69,102: Line 71,341:
discontinuity is annoying.
discontinuity is annoying.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2601&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 69,196: Line 71,437:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2602&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 69,300: Line 71,543:
there with {le}.
there with {le}.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2604&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:30 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:30 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 69,348: Line 71,593:
is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus
is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2606&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:30 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:30 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 69,454: Line 71,701:
often functions in this way, though it may.)
often functions in this way, though it may.)


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2607&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 69,696: Line 71,945:
the easy case, with all singular terms.
the easy case, with all singular terms.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2608&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 69,816: Line 72,067:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2609&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 70,098: Line 72,351:
loopholes might yet emerge.
loopholes might yet emerge.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2610&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 70,218: Line 72,473:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2611&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 70,436: Line 72,693:
a descriptor intervenes.
a descriptor intervenes.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2612&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 70,556: Line 72,815:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2613&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:33 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:33 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 70,826: Line 73,087:
functions pairwise (opposite of &quot;surrounds&quot;).
functions pairwise (opposite of &quot;surrounds&quot;).


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2614&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:33 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:33 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 71,080: Line 73,343:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2615&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:34 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:34 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 71,574: Line 73,839:
the same.
the same.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2616&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:34 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:34 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 71,758: Line 74,025:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2617&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:35 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:35 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 72,116: Line 74,385:
involved.
involved.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2618&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:35 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:35 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 72,352: Line 74,623:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2619&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:36 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:36 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 72,824: Line 75,097:
-- so?
-- so?


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2620&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:36 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:36 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 72,926: Line 75,201:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2621&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:37 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:37 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 73,182: Line 75,459:
what makes the difference?
what makes the difference?


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2622&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:37 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:37 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 73,398: Line 75,677:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2623&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 73,854: Line 76,135:
the answers to the questions?
the answers to the questions?


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2624&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 74,002: Line 76,285:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2625&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 74,316: Line 76,601:
saving something from xorxes' scheme.
saving something from xorxes' scheme.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2626&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 74,410: Line 76,697:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2627&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT         


John E Clifford scripsit:
John E Clifford scripsit:
Line 74,448: Line 76,737:
--Susan McCarthy (adapted) [email protected]
--Susan McCarthy (adapted) [email protected]


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2628&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 74,494: Line 76,785:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2648&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[user9|[[File:temp/public//avatar_arj.jpg|arj]]]]  Posted by [[user9|arj]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 953         
----
 
[[user9|[[User:arj|arj]]]]  Posted by [[user9|arj]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 953         


One minor quibble about your formal definitions, Jorge.
One minor quibble about your formal definitions, Jorge.
Line 74,520: Line 76,813:
- Har du h=F8rt om minste felles nevner?
- Har du h=F8rt om minste felles nevner?


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2649&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 74,624: Line 76,919:
http://vote.yahoo.com
http://vote.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2650&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[user9|[[File:temp/public//avatar_arj.jpg|arj]]]]  Posted by [[user9|arj]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 953         
----
 
[[user9|[[User:arj|arj]]]]  Posted by [[user9|arj]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT  posts: 953         


On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
Line 74,692: Line 76,989:
P=E5 hjul er du kj=F8rende.
P=E5 hjul er du kj=F8rende.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2664&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:46 GMT  posts: 152         
----
 
Posted by [[user12|rab.spir]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:46 GMT  posts: 152         


On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 01:14:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 01:14:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 74,730: Line 77,029:
Rob Speer
Rob Speer


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2667&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 74,770: Line 77,071:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2669&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:47 GMT  posts: 2388         


-----
-----
Line 74,836: Line 77,139:
will not even be brodas, surely a minimal requirement.
will not even be brodas, surely a minimal requirement.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2856&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user16|JohnCowan]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 21:44 GMT  posts: 149         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
Posted by [[user16|JohnCowan]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 21:44 GMT  posts: 149         


I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.
I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2857&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|Re: BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 21:59 GMT  posts: 14214         
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
 
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 21:59 GMT  posts: 14214         


Oops. There seem to be no examples of PA lo PA broda in the lo examples section. This is probably my fault.
Oops. There seem to be no examples of PA lo PA broda in the lo examples section. This is probably my fault.
Line 74,852: Line 77,163:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2858&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 22:48 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 22:48 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
Line 74,870: Line 77,183:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2859&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 22:48 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 22:48 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 74,906: Line 77,221:
www.yahoo.com
www.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2867&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 11:16:31AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 11:16:31AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 74,948: Line 77,265:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2872&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT  posts: 14214         
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 75,016: Line 77,335:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2875&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 75,060: Line 77,381:
www.yahoo.com
www.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2887&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 21:56 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 21:56 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:25:02PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:25:02PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
Line 75,112: Line 77,435:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=2888&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 21:56 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 21:56 GMT  posts: 1912         


-----
-----
Line 75,144: Line 77,469:
www.yahoo.com
www.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3465&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 07:15 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 07:15 GMT  posts: 14214         


This is only a test. Sorry.
This is only a test. Sorry.
Line 75,152: Line 77,479:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3498&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:12 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:12 GMT         


Constants
Constants
Line 75,202: Line 77,531:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3502&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:25 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:25 GMT         


A few more items
A few more items
Line 75,284: Line 77,615:
mi'e noras.
mi'e noras.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3503&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:29 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:29 GMT  posts: 2388         


But some of the later chapters are more relevant to the present section, since they deal inter alia with gadri. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how little needs to be changed to accommodate plurality in place of sets and groups. JCB and the creators of Lojban disagree (except in details &quot;is among&quot; rather than &quot;is a member of,&quot; for example) only in placing the distributive-or-not distinction in the term rather than in the predicate and in handling plurality with sets and selike things, rather than just several whatsises.
But some of the later chapters are more relevant to the present section, since they deal inter alia with gadri. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how little needs to be changed to accommodate plurality in place of sets and groups. JCB and the creators of Lojban disagree (except in details &quot;is among&quot; rather than &quot;is a member of,&quot; for example) only in placing the distributive-or-not distinction in the term rather than in the predicate and in handling plurality with sets and selike things, rather than just several whatsises.
Line 75,408: Line 77,741:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3504&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:30 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:30 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 75,438: Line 77,773:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3505&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:31 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:31 GMT  posts: 2388         


I think the idea of sorting out the various factors involved is a good one – the ongoing struggles with {le} show what happens when unrelated notions (well, historically related but not conceptually) get jumbled together — and RobinÂ’s sketch is a good start. Within that general approbation, however, some specific points call for comment. There is also a general question about whether gadri is the right place to deal with some of these notions.
I think the idea of sorting out the various factors involved is a good one – the ongoing struggles with {le} show what happens when unrelated notions (well, historically related but not conceptually) get jumbled together — and RobinÂ’s sketch is a good start. Within that general approbation, however, some specific points call for comment. There is also a general question about whether gadri is the right place to deal with some of these notions.
Line 75,470: Line 77,807:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal
http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3539&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:12 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:12 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 75,550: Line 77,889:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3540&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 2388         


A&gt; Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode} cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly its most basic.
A&gt; Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode} cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly its most basic.
Line 75,640: Line 77,981:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3541&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 75,732: Line 78,075:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3542&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 2388         


1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of context would make some of the current examples clearer.
1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of context would make some of the current examples clearer.
Line 75,836: Line 78,181:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3543&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 1912         
----
 
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 75,890: Line 78,237:
http://messenger.yahoo.com
http://messenger.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3544&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 2388         
----
 
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 2388         


A. &quot;Roses are red&quot; is a good place to start; &quot;Students surround the building&quot; (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.
A. &quot;Roses are red&quot; is a good place to start; &quot;Students surround the building&quot; (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.
Line 75,952: Line 78,301:
http://messenger.yahoo.com
http://messenger.yahoo.com


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3545&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 1912         
Posted by [[user6|xorxes]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT  posts: 1912         


pc:
pc:
Line 76,002: Line 78,353:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3546&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:14 GMT  posts: 2388         
Posted by [[user11|pycyn]] on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:14 GMT  posts: 2388         


A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal and neither has Lojban characteristically (in the explanations, not in the text, of course, since it did not have the wherewithal before).This is a nice case: I would have said {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e [[D|D]] krixa}, where [[D|D]] is the yet unlexed distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that is messier).
A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal and neither has Lojban characteristically (in the explanations, not in the text, of course, since it did not have the wherewithal before).This is a nice case: I would have said {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e [[D|D]] krixa}, where [[D|D]] is the yet unlexed distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that is messier).
Line 76,060: Line 78,413:
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


[[File:temp/public//avatar_rlpowell.jpg|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:14 GMT  posts: 14214         
----
 
[[User:rlpowell|rlpowell]]  Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:14 GMT  posts: 14214         


On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
Line 76,072: Line 78,427:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3551&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:16 GMT         
----
 
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:16 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,108: Line 78,465:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3552&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:19 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:19 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,122: Line 78,481:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3553&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:19 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:19 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,140: Line 78,501:
- Rob
- Rob


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3554&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:20 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:20 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,156: Line 78,519:
-Robin
-Robin


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3555&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:20 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:20 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,246: Line 78,611:
* &quot;le'e&quot; would do just as well, IMO. &quot;ro lo nu&quot; is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.
* &quot;le'e&quot; would do just as well, IMO. &quot;ro lo nu&quot; is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3556&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:31 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,344: Line 78,711:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
mu'o mi'e xorxes


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3615&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 01:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 01:31 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Line 76,352: Line 78,721:
I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.
I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.


[[tiki/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=3616&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain|BPFK Section: gadri]]
----
 
----


  Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 01:31 GMT         
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 01:31 GMT         


Re: BPFK Section: gadri
Re: BPFK Section: gadri

Revision as of 07:17, 7 March 2020



[[user9|arj]] Posted by arj on Wed 19 of May, 2004 10:33 GMT posts: 953

I dislike the new semantics of the {lo} article. Quite a lot, actually.

Are there by the way any other changes to the other articles? A cursory read doesn't reveal any.

Mightn't Nick's gadri solution be the way to go?



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 14:33 GMT

arj:

> Are there by the way any other changes to the other articles? A cursory read

> doesn't reveal any.

{le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

The change is almost imperceptible in practice because

{le} and {la} are almost always used for singletons. When

used in the plural, however, the proposed definitions make

them easier to handle because with constants you don't need

to worry about scope. An explicit {ro} gives you back the

quantified forms.

lo'i/le'i/la'i/loi/lei/lai/lo'e/le'e I tried to leave

untouched. The official definitions are not very clear in

some respects however. For example, what is {pimu lo'i broda}?

That's something like "a set with half of all the broda there

are", but is it such a set generically, or is it existentially

quantified (i.e. "at least one set with half the cardinality of

the total set"), or what? This has seen no significant

usage, and it is probably not very useful in any case, but

it is ill defined. I'm not sure whether I should try to

come up with something more precise but which will deviate

from the traditional prescription. From my point of view

it is not worth it because these cmavo should be phased out,

but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.

> Migtn't Nick's gadri solution be the way to go?

Which one? Adding a new cmavo for generic? That would have

a much bigger impact on past usage, wouldn't it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 16:39 GMT posts: 14214

> arj:

> I dislike the new semantics of the {lo} article. Quite a lot, actually.

Can you explain your objections, please?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 18:03 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> arj:

> > Are there by the way any other changes to the other articles? A

> > cursory read doesn't reveal any.

>

> {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

> quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

What do you mean by 'constants'?

> I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more

> precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From

> my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be

> phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.

I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question

and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.

Why do you dislike those other gadri so much, anyways?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:05 GMT


> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

> > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

>

> What do you mean by 'constants'?

Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

With constants, you single out an individual (or group) and

give a relationship in which it participates.

With quantification you single out a set, and then you say

how the members of the set are distributed with respect to

a relationship.

In simple cases it makes little difference which way you go,

but when you have two or three quantifiers operating or

some other thing with scope, constants are much easier to

deal with.

> > I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more

> > precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From

> > my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be

> > phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.

>

> I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question

> and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.

I'll see what I can do. But I doubt that the "fractional

quantifiers" on sets can at the same time be well

defined and in agreement with Lojban lore.

> Why do you dislike those other gadri so much, anyways?

Because:

a) They are redundant. Anything you can say with them can be

said by other means, usually in more simple terms.

b) They force you to make distinctions that you don't normally

want to make. We have pu/ca/ba for tenses, but we have the option

of using no tense when tense is unimportant or when tense makes

no sense. Similarly we need a non-content gadri for the occasions

when no gadri distinction is important or makes sense. The

proposed lo is such a gadri.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:30 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

> > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

> >

> > What do you mean by 'constants'?

>

> Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

In English, for us little people?

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT


> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

> > > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

> > > What do you mean by 'constants'?

> > Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

> In English, for us little people?

Perhaps this can be of some help:

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms3.htm

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 20:29 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

> > > > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

> > > > What do you mean by 'constants'?

> > > Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

> > In English, for us little people?

>

> Perhaps this can be of some help:

> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms3.htm

Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence

"s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates".

So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular,

individual cat or cats, correct? This seems in contradiction with your

proposal:

The resulting expression refers generically to any individual or

group that satisfies the predicate.

I apoologise if I'm just being dumb.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 21:18 GMT


> Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence

> "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates".

>

> So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular,

> individual cat or cats, correct?

Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes. But it is not a quantification over

the set of cats.

> This seems in contradiction with your

> proposal:

>

> The resulting expression refers generically to any individual or

> group that satisfies the predicate.

>

> I apoologise if I'm just being dumb.

{su'o lo mlatu} is a quantified expression over the set of cats.

{lo mlatu} is a constant term, which refers to the individual "cat(s)".

mi nelci lo mlatu

"I like cat(s)"

Not: "Given the set of all cats, there is at least one member x

of the set such that I like x". That's {mi nelci su'o mlatu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 14214

> Anonymous:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence

> > "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates".

> >

> > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular,

> > individual cat or cats, correct?

>

> Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes.

Those seem to be completely different kinds of things to me.

Please note that these aren't objections, I'm just trying to understand better.

-Robin


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:27 GMT posts: 14214

I'd like to see fewer examples of bare lo, and more of quantified lo please. Specificially, examples with just inner quantifiers and other examples with just outer quantifiers.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 00:22 GMT

Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:

>--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>

>

>>On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>>

>>

>>>{le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically

>>>quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

>>>

>>>

>>What do you mean by 'constants'?

>>

>>

>

>Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

>

>With constants, you single out an individual (or group) and

>give a relationship in which it participates.

>

>With quantification you single out a set, and then you say

>how the members of the set are distributed with respect to

>a relationship.

>

Correct me if I'm wrong (and if I'm suffering from "when you have a

hammer everything looks like a nail" disease), but this sounds like an

intension/extension distinction. Your "constant" is referring to some

particular item(s) in extension, while your quantification talks about

"members of the set," i.e. the set they're in is what's important:

intension.

As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and

intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It

doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster

could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} and

such.

>>>I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more

>>>precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From

>>>my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be

>>>phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.

>>>

>>>

>>I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question

>>and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.

>>

Defined is good. This is Lojban. If we can't define it, we might as

well pack up and go home.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Jorge "Llamb??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" wrote:

I think your mailer is confused, Mark. ---^

> As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and

> intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It

> doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster

> could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo}

> and such.

Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all default

quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change.

It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different thing.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>

>

>>Jorge "Llamb??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" wrote:

>>

>>

>

>I think your mailer is confused, Mark. ---^

>

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But it looked cool...

>>As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and

>>intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It

>>doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster

>>could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo}

>>and such.

>>

>>

>

>Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all default

>quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change.

>

>It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different thing.

>

Mmm. Good point. Pondering the hugeness of the change is something I

need to do. But the question remains: if the impact is tiny, then in

what sense does it fix the big problem? That is, the prior text,

written under a "buggy" system, presumably needs some more serious

repair than a "tiny" impact.

I think the first difficulty I have is the same one you pointed out,

Robin: "some particular cat" and "Mr. Cat" are sufficiently different

critters that they deserve different gadri

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT


> Correct me if I'm wrong (and if I'm suffering from "when you have a

> hammer everything looks like a nail" disease), but this sounds like an

> intension/extension distinction. Your "constant" is referring to some

> particular item(s) in extension, while your quantification talks about

> "members of the set," i.e. the set they're in is what's important:

> intension.

I would have put it the other way around. Quantification ranges over

the extension of a set, whereas the constant I'm talking about is an

intensional object. Here is a fairly clear exposition on the

intensional/extensional distinction:

> As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and

> intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It

> doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster

> could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} and

> such.

Well... If you want more details, there's another exposition of the

proposed system here:

The same proposal as written by And here:

(BTW, Robin, the links to that last page from other pages don't work,

probably because of something in its name, like the "--", do you think

it can be fixed somehow?)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:29 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:47:14PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >>As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and

> >>intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that.

> >>It doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a

> >>disaster could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers

> >>and {lo} and such.

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all

> >default quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change.

> >

> >It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different

> >thing.

>

> Mmm. Good point. Pondering the hugeness of the change is something I

> need to do. But the question remains: if the impact is tiny, then in

> what sense does it fix the big problem? That is, the prior text,

> written under a "buggy" system, presumably needs some more serious

> repair than a "tiny" impact.

Show me:

1. Prior text that uses "lo broda" to mean something other than "broda

in general".

and/or

2. Prior text that uses inner quantifiers on lo.

AFAICT, those ore the only cases that change. There aren't many of

them (i.e. basically none).

> I think the first difficulty I have is the same one you pointed out,

> Robin: "some particular cat" and "Mr. Cat" are sufficiently different

> critters that they deserve different gadri

There are: lo pa mlatu versus lo mlatu. Unless I'm missing something.

I'm pretty sure I understand xorxes' proposal just fine, it's his

comments here that confused me. :-)

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:31 GMT


> Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all default

> >quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change.

> >

> >It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different thing.

> >

> Mmm. Good point. Pondering the hugeness of the change is something I

> need to do.

The impact is almost exclusively for the better (i.e. it does not

invalidate previously valid text, but it does validate previously

suspect text.)

> But the question remains: if the impact is tiny, then in

> what sense does it fix the big problem? That is, the prior text,

> written under a "buggy" system, presumably needs some more serious

> repair than a "tiny" impact.

Basically, it solves the problem of intensional contexts by

providing another option besides quantification over the extension

of a set.

> I think the first difficulty I have is the same one you pointed out,

> Robin: "some particular cat" and "Mr. Cat" are sufficiently different

> critters that they deserve different gadri

Can we have examples please? Otherwise we get bogged down again in

meta-talk. How are they different? When do we use one or the other?

mi nelci su'o mlatu

There is some particular cat that I like.

mi nelci lo mlatu

I like cats.

ka'u lo mlatu cu kavbu lo smacu

(I know culturally:) Cats catch mice.

ju'ido'u za'a lo mlatu ca'o va kavbu lo smacu

Look! Cat(s) catching mouse/mice there!

{lo} is just an empty gadri, to be used when you don't need

to specify number, when you don't focus on the instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:33 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> The same proposal as written by And here:

>

>

> (BTW, Robin, the links to that last page from other pages don't work,

> probably because of something in its name, like the "--", do you think

> it can be fixed somehow?)

It is probably theoretically possible to fix it, but I don't care

enough, so I've renamed it. The problem is (and I don't know if this is

in the code or the browser) what was being looked for was not "--" but

"—".

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//XS%20gadri%20proposal:%20And's%20version

For links, XS gadri proposal: And's version should work. The Tiki

code seems to have already updated the pages that contained the old

name; go it.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:35 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Can we have examples please? Otherwise we get bogged down again in

> meta-talk.

A-fucking-*MEN*.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:39 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> ju'ido'u za'a lo mlatu ca'o va kavbu lo smacu

> Look! Cat(s) catching mouse/mice there!

Why is that not using 'le'? Seems like if we're observing something, we

must have it in mind.

BTW, "COI DO" == "COI DO'U" in effect, but is one syllable shorter.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 02:01 GMT


> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > ju'ido'u za'a lo mlatu ca'o va kavbu lo smacu

> > Look! Cat(s) catching mouse/mice there!

>

> Why is that not using 'le'? Seems like if we're observing something, we

> must have it in mind.

You can use {le} there, too. With {le}, what you're saying is:

"About that cat over there, and that mouse over there, I claim

that a kavbu relationship holds between them".

With {lo}, what you're saying is: "There's cat-catching-mouse

activity going on over there". If you don't particularly care to

say something about the particular cat and/or about the particular

mouse then you use {lo}.

The fact that you are seeing an instance of a cat does not mean

you are forced to say something about that instance. You can point

at the cat and mouse and say: "Didn't I tell you? Cats catch mice,

can you see it?"

> BTW, "COI DO" == "COI DO'U" in effect, but is one syllable shorter.

Yes, I just feel that using the second person pronoun in vocatives

is too abrupt. Natlang interference probably.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:23:12PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> > > Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence

> > > "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates".

> > >

> > > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular,

> > > individual cat or cats, correct?

> >

> > Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes.

>

> Those seem to be completely different kinds of things to me.

>

> Please note that these aren't objections, I'm just trying to understand better.

I have to agree. The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to me; but

as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like something completely

different and alien.

I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't think I'd want to

accidentally be talking about him. I imagine that the concept will be similarly

difficult to grasp for most learners of the language.

It seems perfectly fine to define "lo" as an empty gadri. Why does Mr. Cat need

to be brought up at all?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:23:03AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:23:12PM -0700, [email protected]

> wrote:

> > > > Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names;

> > > > hence "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate

> > > > "Socrates".

> > > >

> > > > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some

> > > > particular, individual cat or cats, correct?

> > >

> > > Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes.

> >

> > Those seem to be completely different kinds of things to me.

> >

> > Please note that these aren't objections, I'm just trying to

> > understand better.

>

> I have to agree. The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to

> me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like

> something completely different and alien.

Actually, from the perspective of the proposal I have no problem with

it, it's the 'constants' think that messes me up.

> I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't think

> I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine that the

> concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most learners of the

> language.

Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is a

trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which case

it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

> It seems perfectly fine to define "lo" as an empty gadri. Why does Mr.

> Cat need to be brought up at all?

See above. Also, this is apparently something that people feel the need

to say, although I'm not sure why.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 05:20 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:35:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't think

> > I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine that the

> > concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most learners of the

> > language.

>

> Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is a

> trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which case

> it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

The words "Mr. Raven" simply don't explain anything to me. If "Mr. Raven"

means "an unspecified general bunch of ravens", then the definition

handles that case just fine without Mr. Raven needing to be mentioned.

"Mr. Raven" is an English translation of a concept that comes from some

other natlang, right? It's just not useful in talking about Lojban in

English, because your typical English reader will have no idea what it

means. Also, it takes a good concept and makes it sound silly.

Or is there some reason that it's essential that this unspecified general

bunch of ravens is considered as a single entity and given a name?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 09:47 GMT

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:02:49AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:35:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't

> > > think I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine

> > > that the concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most

> > > learners of the language.

> >

> > Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is

> > a trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which

> > case it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

>

> The words "Mr. Raven" simply don't explain anything to me. If "Mr.

> Raven" means "an unspecified general bunch of ravens", then the

> definition handles that case just fine without Mr. Raven needing to be

> mentioned.

>

> "Mr. Raven" is an English translation of a concept that comes from

> some other natlang, right?

Wow, I'm sorry, it never occured to me that you simply hadn't

encountered the concept at all.

Raven is, depending on how you want to look at it, the animistic spirit

that embodies raven-ness, the Platonic ideal of raven-ness, or something

like that.

You might want to start with http://www.boisestate.edu/art/lmcneil/

> It's just not useful in talking about Lojban in English, because your

> typical English reader will have no idea what it means. Also, it takes

> a good concept and makes it sound silly.

Please note that Mr. Raven is not actually mentioned in the proposal.

> Or is there some reason that it's essential that this unspecified

> general bunch of ravens is considered as a single entity and given a

> name?

Many, many other languages do this to talk about classes of things in

general. I suspect, although I don't know this for fact, that in Native

American languages you don't say "All ravens are black", you say "Raven

is black". Certainly that's how stereotypical native americans talk

when speaking in english on TV.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 13:05 GMT


> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:23:03AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to

> > me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like

> > something completely different and alien.

>

> Actually, from the perspective of the proposal I have no problem with

> it, it's the 'constants' think that messes me up.

A constant term is any term that is not a quantified term. If

it has no quantifier, it's a constant, that's all there is to it.

The word 'constant' is not mentioned in the definitions anyway.

The reason Mr. Broda comes up every time we discuss gadri is

that that's how JCB described generics in Loglan. Like it or

not, it's part of the language's traditional jargon. Again,

it is not mentioned in the definitions, so feel free to

ignore it.

Names are paradigmatic constant terms so thinking of "cats"

as "Mr. Cat" can clarify the logical structure of a proposition

for some people. If it doesn't work for you, just skip it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


[[user1|admin]] Posted by admin on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:09 GMT posts: 208

This is actually by PC:

On {lo}

<< mi nitcu lo lanme i ko pirfi'i lo lanme seva'u mi

What I need is a sheep. Draw me a sheep.

mi djica lo lanme poi ba ze'u jmive

I want a sheep that will live a long time.>>

Even if {nitcu} and {djica} are in play yet again (are they?), it is hardly informative to use these examples, since they one of are wrong, prejudge a controversial issue, or need some explanation for folks who know how the corresponding words work in English (or just know about the paradoxes resulting from them as level with other contexts).

la

Name article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or a cmevla into a sumti. The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker names with the selbri or cmevla. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over members of the group. An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate the cardinality of the group.

Can we fit a quantifier between {la} and the cmevla/selbri without getting the name wrong? How?

<

Typical article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or group that satisfies the predicate. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the typical individual or group. An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group.

le'e

Stereotypical article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers to the stereotypical individual or group that is described by the predicate, from the point of view of the speaker. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the stereotypical individual or group. An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group.

>>

I am unsure just what to make of enumerating typical and stereotypical whatsises. The pattern seems to call for it, but in the cases where plurality plays a role, it seems to me that the typicality (etc.) is predicative not descriptive. That is you really want such things not just using the locution to talk in generalities about whatsises � whether or not they exist.

The treatment of quantifiers seems to me to be the sensible one and gets rid of 30 years of bootless disputes.

The examples in {lo}, combined with the dismissal of the {lo} = {so�u} equation (which probably should fade a bit) leaves {lo} ultimately unintelligible, if not contradictory.

pc



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:48 GMT

(Repeating my answer due to accidental removal.)

pc:

> Can we fit a quantifier between {la} and the cmevla/selbri without getting

> the name wrong? How?

A quantifier between {la} and a cmevla is ungrammatical.

A quantifier between {la} and the selbri is grammatical.

The meaning of {la ci cribe} could be either "the three

that I call 'Bear'" or "the one that I call 'Three Bears'".

I'm not sure we really need to impose one of them.

> lo'e

> le'e

> >>

>

> I am unsure just what to make of enumerating typical and stereotypical

> whatsises. The pattern seems to call for it, but in the cases where plurality

> plays a role, it seems to me that the typicality (etc.) is predicative not

> descriptive. That is you really want such things not just using the locution

> to talk in generalities about whatsises � whether or not they exist.

I too am unsure what to make of them, but the grammar allows them.

I can leave the quantifiers out of lo'e/le'e if they are utterly

meaningless. Anyone else has an opinion on this?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 21 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > I have to agree. The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to

> > me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like

> > something completely different and alien.

>

> Actually, from the perspective of the proposal I have no problem with

> it, it's the 'constants' think that messes me up.

The point is that since there's exactly one Mr. Cat, "all Mr. Cats" and

"some Mr. Cats" mean exactly the same thing, so you don't have to

worry about scope issues.

> Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is a

> trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which case

> it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

Well, that's *one* meaning of English "Ravens are tricksters". It can

also mean that each raven is a trickster, or that some ravens are

tricksters, or the "thin abstraction" consisting of what ravens have

in common includes tricksterness.

--

Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan

that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com

--Susan McCarthy (adapted) [email protected]


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:21 GMT posts: 143

doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le selsni zo loi zo'u

lu loi broda li'u

cu dunli

lu su'o2 broda li'u

.i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi

lo girzu ku {plurality}

.e lo gunma ku {mass}

.e lo selpau ku {substance}

.e loi dukse

mu'o mi'e xod



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:43 GMT

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:21:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

> doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo

Just for the record, that's not what carmi means. You want 'traji' or

'mutce'. Unless you are saying that your approval has a wavelength in

the visible spectrum?

> .e loi dukse

>

>

>

I wonder what happened to "mu'o mi'e xod", which I can see on the

discuss page.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:20 GMT

> doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le selsni

> zo loi zo'u

coi xod mi do ckire lo nu pinka i mi spuda

> lu loi broda li'u

> cu dunli

> lu su'o2 broda li'u

sa'e lu loi broda li'u cu mutce simsa lu lo su'ore broda li'u

i lu su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u su'o da poi

broda ku'o su'o de poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da e de brode

i lu lo su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u

lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode

ni'o ku'i le do pinka cu mapti i le me zo loi poi mi skicu ke'a

cu na mutce frica zo lo i ku'i lo bartu namcu cu ja'a frica stika

zo lo fa'u zo loi

> .i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi

> lo girzu ku {plurality}

> .e lo gunma ku {mass}

> .e lo selpau ku {substance}

> .e loi dukse

pe'i zo lo banzu lo nu tavla fi ro la'e di'u

i mu'a

lu la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu li'u

lu ta culno lo bimu bidju li'u

lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u

i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe

i do stidi ma

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 1912

> i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe

oi se'i mi pu skudji lu zo loi basti zo lo li'u

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 03:35 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>>doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le =

selsni

>>zo loi zo'u=20

>> =20

>>

>

>coi xod mi do ckire lo nu pinka i mi spuda

>=20

> =20

>

>>lu loi broda li'u=20

>>cu dunli=20

>>lu su'o2 broda li'u

>> =20

>>

>

>sa'e lu loi broda li'u cu mutce simsa lu lo su'ore broda li'u

>i lu su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u su'o da poi

>broda ku'o su'o de poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da e de brode

>i lu lo su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u=20

>lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode

>

>ni'o ku'i le do pinka cu mapti i le me zo loi poi mi skicu ke'a=20

>cu na mutce frica zo lo i ku'i lo bartu namcu cu ja'a frica stika=20

>zo lo fa'u zo loi =20

> =20

>

je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica

lu 2 broda li'u

fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u

fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

..i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

>>.i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi=20

>>lo girzu ku {plurality}

>>.e lo gunma ku {mass}

>>.e lo selpau ku {substance}

>>.e loi dukse

>> =20

>>

>

>pe'i zo lo banzu lo nu tavla fi ro la'e di'u=20

>i mu'a=20

> lu la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu li'u

> lu ta culno lo bimu bidju li'u=20

> =20

>

..i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne lo=20

si'o gunma

> lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u

>i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe=20

> =20

>

..i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 17:18 GMT

xod:

> je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica

> lu 2 broda li'u

> fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u

> fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do

i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li re

i lo re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do

i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li pa

> .i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

pe'i noda

....

> .i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne lo

> si'o gunma

do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e

pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

....

> .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o

enai zo lo i mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le

papri ki'u lo na mutce srana i ku'i mi ba pensi

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica

>>lu 2 broda li'u

>>fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u

>>fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

>> =20

>>

>

>re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do=20

>i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li re

>i lo re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do

>i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li pa

> =20

>

..i'u je'ecai

>>.i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

>> =20

>>

>

>pe'i noda

>

>...

> =20

>

>>.i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne lo

>>si'o gunma

>> =20

>>

>

>do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e=20

>pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

> =20

>

bi'unai lo selsni be zo loi cu nalsatci .i'enai .oisai

..i lo si'o gunma ku (noi nalsatci zi'e ne zo loi)

cu da'inai di'i mintu

lo si'o girzu ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo su'o broda li'u)

..i ji'a da'inai di'i mintu

lo si'o selmai ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo tu'o broda li'u=20

..onai lu tu'o broda li'u)

..i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy

ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i

gi tu'a zo tu'o

>...

> =20

>

>>.i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

>> =20

>>

>

>mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o

>enai zo lo i mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le

>papri ki'u lo na mutce srana i ku'i mi ba pensi

> =20

>

..ie mi zmanei

lo tcita be fi zo tu'o be'o

lo tcita be fi lu lo tu'o be'o

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e=20

>pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

> =20

>

la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u su'omei .i xy. jinvi=20

le du'u malgli

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

xod:

> .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy

> ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i

> gi tu'a zo tu'o

zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo

be zo le joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka

be zo tu'o le papri cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau

da lo nu na pilno i ro da jdice i mi finti lo velski poi

jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be mi

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year

http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT


> la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u

> su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>.i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy

>>ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i

>>gi tu'a zo tu'o

>> =20

>>

>

>zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo=20

>be zo le joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka=20

>be zo tu'o le papri cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau=20

>da lo nu na pilno i ro da jdice i mi finti lo velski poi=20

>jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be mi=20

> =20

>

..iecai .i lo pu'u nalpli zo loi kei zo'u

norcatni je nalbilga je certu stidi ki'u lo du'u nalsatci

..i zo tu'o zo'u

do na galfi lo catni selsni gi'eku'i stidi le nu pilno tai lo gadri

..i ku'i la'e di'u .e la'e de'u cu selni'i .eise'anai la'o {excellent=20

solution} .i'ecai noi do ba'o stidi .e'edaisai

--

ni'o ta'o mi fliba troci lo nu fanta tu'a zoi {=3D20}

mu'o mi'e xod

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:

>

> =20

>

>>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u=20

>>su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

>> =20

>>

>

>iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

> =20

>

..ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi la'o

{http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

mu'o mi'e xod

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT


> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >--- xod wrote:

> >

> >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u=20

> >>su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

> >

> >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

>

> .ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi la'o

> {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

ku'i la'e di'u na mintu lo glico ka su'oremei i gy mapti

ge lu su'ore broda li'u gi lu lo su'ore broda li'u iseki'ubo

mi na tavla fi zoi gy plural gy

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

I'm going to go through and turn these into English. If this bothers

the authors, they are welcome to say so.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:23:57PM -0400, xod wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>

> >>doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i

> >>le selsni zo loi zo'u

xod:

Dear xorxes, I intensely approve of your meaning for "lo", but about "loi":

> >coi xod mi do ckire lo nu pinka i mi spuda

xorxes:

Dear xod, I appreciate your comment and I reply.

> >>lu loi broda li'u

> >>cu dunli

> >>lu su'o2 broda li'u

xod:

"loi broda" == "su'o 2 broda"

> >sa'e lu loi broda li'u cu mutce simsa lu lo su'ore broda li'u i lu

> >su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u su'o da poi broda ku'o

> >su'o de poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da e de brode i lu lo su'ore

> >broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode

xorxes:

Precisely speaking, "loi broda" is very similar to "lo su'o re broda".

"su'o re broda cu brode" means that not translating here su'o da poi

broda ku'o su'o do poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da .e de broda

[[translation:%20there%20is%20at%20least%20one%20X,%20a%20broda,%20and%20at%20least%20one%20Y,%20a%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ebroda%20that%20is%20not%20the%20same%20as%20X,%20where%20both%20are%20brode|translation: there is at least one X, a broda, and at least one Y, a

broda that is not the same as X, where both are brode]]. "lo su'o re

broda cu brode" means that lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode [[translation:%0A%3Cbr%20/%3EAn%20at-least-two-some%20which%20are%20broda%20are%20also%20brode|translation:

An at-least-two-some which are broda are also brode]].

> >ni'o ku'i le do pinka cu mapti i le me zo loi poi mi skicu ke'a cu na

> >mutce frica zo lo i ku'i lo bartu namcu cu ja'a frica stika zo lo

> >fa'u zo loi

xorxes still:

However, your comment fits. The "loi"-stuff which I describe is not

much different from "lo". However, the outer numbers [[i.e.%20outer%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Equantifiers|i.e. outer

quantifiers]] indeed differently adjust "lo" than "loi".

> je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica

> lu 2 broda li'u

> fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u

> fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

xod:

Uhhh, OK. What is an example illustrating the event of desiring

I don't follow that, btw:

"2 broda"

and repsectively "loi 2 broda"

reciprocal of?? "lo 2 broda"

I'm%20assuming%20that%20both%20be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?" rel="">I'm assuming that both "fa'u" and "fa'i" were more-or-less intended to

be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?

> .i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

rlpowell:

la'a zo loi cu po'o rinju le se smuni be zo lo .i va'i ro selkai be zo

loi cu vasru tu'a zo lo .iku'i ro selkai be zo lo cu ba'e na vasru tu'a

zo loi

> >>.i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi lo girzu ku

> >>{plurality}

> >>.e lo gunma ku {mass}

> >>.e lo selpau ku {substance}

> >>.e loi dukse

xod:

Is this a result only of intense thoughts about pluralities and masses

and substances and other things? Not sure about that last bit.

> >pe'i zo lo banzu lo nu tavla fi ro la'e di'u

> >i mu'a

> > lu la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu li'u

> > lu ta culno lo bimu bidju li'u

> >

> >

xorxes:

I think "lo" suffices to talk about all of the above. For example:

"la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu"

Tennis is a competition between two people and two people

"ta culno lo bimu bidju"

That is completely filled with half-beads.

> .i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne

> lo si'o gunma

xod:

Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what

is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> > lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u

> >i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe

xorxes:

more examples

"lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki"

I%20have%20*no*%20idea%20what%20to%20do%20with%20 nothing-water?" rel="">I have *no* idea what to do with "lo tu'o djacu". The

nothing-water?

"lo" substituting for "loi" doesn't help understanding.

> .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

Yes, please do; what are you talking about?

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

More translation.

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:34:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> xod:

> > je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica

> > lu 2 broda li'u

> > fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u

> > fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

xod:

Uhhh, OK. What is an example illustrating the event of desiring

I don't follow that, btw:

"2 broda"

and repsectively "loi 2 broda"

reciprocal of?? "lo 2 broda"

I'm%20assuming%20that%20both%20be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?" rel="">I'm assuming that both "fa'u" and "fa'i" were more-or-less intended to

be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?

> re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do

> i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li re

> i lo re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do

> i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li pa

xorxes:

Two people pay one dollar to you. Therefore, you get two dollars. A

two-person group pays one dollar to you. Therefore, you get one dollar.

The former being "re prenu", the latter being "lo re prenu"

doi xorxes ne'i le do se stidi xu lu re prenu li'u cu dunli lu re lo

prenu li'u

> > .i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

xod:

What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

> pe'i noda

xorxes:

I think none at all.

> ...

> > .i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne

> > lo si'o gunma

xod:

Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what

is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e pilno

> zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes:

What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I

suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a

two-or-more-some.

> ...

> > .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

xod:

I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

> mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o enai zo lo i mi

> na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le papri ki'u lo na mutce srana i

> ku'i mi ba pensi

I doubt it. I thing I am obligated to explain "tu'o" with the label of

"tu'o" and not "lo". [[jatna:%20Unless%20you%20are%20expecting%20this%20usage%20to%20be%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ea%20natural%20outcome%20of%20your%20|%20Unless%20you%20are%20expecting%20this%20usage%20to%20be%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ea%20natural%20outcome%20of%20your%20]]explained." rel="">jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be

a natural outcome of your "lo" proposal, in which case I expect it to be

explained. I don't want at least one person to disapprove of the page

because it was not relevant enough. But I will think on it.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:02:21PM -0400, xod wrote:

snip

> >>.i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

xod:

What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

> >pe'i noda

xorxes:

I think none at all.

> >...

> >>.i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne

> >>lo si'o gunma

xod:

Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what

is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> >do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e

> >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes:

What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I

suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a

two-or-more-some.

> bi'unai lo selsni be zo loi cu nalsatci .i'enai .oisai

> .i lo si'o gunma ku (noi nalsatci zi'e ne zo loi)

> cu da'inai di'i mintu

> lo si'o girzu ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo su'o broda li'u)

> .i ji'a da'inai di'i mintu

> lo si'o selmai ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo tu'o broda li'u

> .onai lu tu'o broda li'u)

xod:

As I've said, the meaning of "loi" is not exact; this upsets me greatly

and I disapprove. The idea of a mass (which is inexact and is

associated with "lo") is in fact regularily identical with the idea of a

plurality (which has an exact meaning and must be "lo su'o broda"). In

addition, it is in fact regularily identical with the idea of a

substance (which has an exact meaning and must be "lo tu'o broda" or

"tu'o broda"). [[By%20which%20you%20mean%20a%20substance%20without%20intantiation%20in%20a%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eparticular%20form?%20%20I%20guess?%20%20What's%20the%20difference%20between%20|By%20which%20you%20mean%20a%20substance%20without%20intantiation%20in%20a%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eparticular%20form?%20%20I%20guess?%20%20What's%20the%20difference%20between%20]]and "no broda"?" rel="">By which you mean a substance without intantiation in a

particular form? I guess? What's the difference between "tu'o broda"

and "no broda"?

> .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy

> ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod still:

I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore

you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi"

is tragically cursed and about "tu'o".

> >...

> >>.i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

xod:

I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

> >mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o enai zo lo i

> >mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le papri ki'u lo na mutce srana

> >i ku'i mi ba pensi

xorxes:

I doubt it. I thing I am obligated to explain "tu'o" with the label of

"tu'o" and not "lo". [[jatna:%20Unless%20you%20are%20expecting%20this%20usage%20to%20be%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ea%20natural%20outcome%20of%20your%20|%20Unless%20you%20are%20expecting%20this%20usage%20to%20be%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ea%20natural%20outcome%20of%20your%20]]explained." rel="">jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be

a natural outcome of your "lo" proposal, in which case I expect it to be

explained. I don't want at least one person to disapprove of the page

because it was not relevant enough. But I will think on it.

> .ie mi zmanei

> lo tcita be fi zo tu'o be'o

> lo tcita be fi lu lo tu'o be'o

xod:

Yes, I prefer the label of "tu'o" to the lable of "lo tu'o".

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:53:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> xod:

> > .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy

> > ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod:

I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore

you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi" is tragically cursed and

about "tu'o".

> zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo

> be zo le joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka

> be zo tu'o le papri cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau

> da lo nu na pilno i ro da jdice i mi finti lo velski poi

> jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be mi

xorxes:

"tu'o" is a cmavo of the class of "pa". I'm still making a description

of "le" and "la". However, I will comply; I am able to and comments

about tu'o to the bottom of the page. WRT "loi", I am not able to

obligate that it not be used. Everyone decides. I will invent a

description that is as near the customary one as I am able.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:19:31PM -0400, xod wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>

> >xod:

> >

> >

> >>.i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy

> >>ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i

> >>gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod:

I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore

you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi" is tragically cursed and

about "tu'o".

> >zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo be zo le

> >joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka be zo tu'o le papri

> >cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau da lo nu na pilno i ro da

> >jdice i mi finti lo velski poi jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be

> >mi

xorxes:

"tu'o" is a cmavo of the class of "pa". I'm still making a description

of "le" and "la". However, I will comply; I am able to and comments

about tu'o to the bottom of the page. WRT "loi", I am not able to

obligate that it not be used. Everyone decides. I will invent a

description that is as near the customary one as I am able.

> .iecai .i lo pu'u nalpli zo loi kei zo'u

> norcatni je nalbilga je certu stidi ki'u lo du'u nalsatci

xod:

Bravo! The process of not using "loi": neither the authority nor lack

of it, and not oblige and expertly suggest the fact on not being

precise.

> .i zo tu'o zo'u do na galfi lo catni selsni gi'eku'i stidi le nu pilno

> tai lo gadri

xod:

"tu'o": You do not modify the authoritative meaning, but you suggest a

usage with repsect to articles.

> .i ku'i la'e di'u .e la'e de'u cu selni'i .eise'anai la'o {excellent

> solution} .i'ecai noi do ba'o stidi .e'edaisai

xod:

But that and the other are implied (with obligation) by an "excellent

solution" which I am approvingly certain you will suggest, because you

are very good at this.

FWIW, I agree.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:17:45PM -0400, xod wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>

> >do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e

> >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes:

What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I

suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a

two-or-more-some.

> la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u su'omei .i xy.

> jinvi le du'u malgli

xod:

The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of

two-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:08:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- xod wrote:

>

> > la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u su'omei .i xy.

> > jinvi le du'u malgli

xod:

The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of

two-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

> iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

xorxes:

Therefore I will not suggest that.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:25:11PM -0400, xod wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >--- xod wrote:

> >

> >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u

> >>su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

xod:

The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of

two-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

[[two-some-ness:%20That%20was%20an%20error,%20and%20should%20read%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E|two-some-ness: That was an error, and should read

"at-least-one-some-ness".]]

> >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

xorxes:

Therefore I will not suggest that.

> .ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi la'o

> {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

xod:

I disagree; I understand that the property of at-least-one-some-ness,

which we'll call S, is your suggestion in the BPFK gadri section.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:57:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- xod wrote:

> > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> > >--- xod wrote:

> > >

> > >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u=20 su'omei .i

> > >>xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

xod:

The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of

at-least-one-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

> > >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

xorxes:

Therefore I will not suggest that.

> > .ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi

> > la'o

> > {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

xod:

I disagree; I understand that the property of at-least-one-some-ness,

which we'll call S, is your suggestion in the BPFK gadri section.

> ku'i la'e di'u na mintu lo glico ka su'oremei i gy mapti ge lu su'ore

> broda li'u gi lu lo su'ore broda li'u iseki'ubo mi na tavla fi zoi gy

> plural gy

xorxes:

However, that's not the same as the English property of

at-least-two-some-ness. English fits both "su'o re broda" and

"lo su'o re broda". Therefore, I didn't say "plural".

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> I'm going to go through and turn these into English. If this bothers

> the authors, they are welcome to say so.

Quite good.

>

> > je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica

> > lu 2 broda li'u

> > fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u

> > fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

>

> xod:

> Uhhh, OK. What is an example illustrating the event of desiring

> I don't follow that, btw:

> "2 broda"

> and repsectively "loi 2 broda"

> reciprocal of?? "lo 2 broda"

>

> I'm%20assuming%20that%20both%20> be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?" rel="">I'm assuming that both "fa'u" and "fa'i" were more-or-less intended to

> be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?

Whoops. fa'i should be fa'u.

> > > lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u

> > >i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe

>

> xorxes:

> more examples

> "lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki"

> I%20have%20*no*%20idea%20what%20to%20do%20with%20> nothing-water?" rel="">I have *no* idea what to do with "lo tu'o djacu". The

> nothing-water?

> "lo" substituting for "loi" doesn't help understanding.

>

>

> > .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

>

> I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

>

> Yes, please do; what are you talking about?

tu'o doesn't mean zero, but is a number that means no number of

applicable. tu'o goes where a xo would deserve na'i. Substances are

uncountable; we can count arbitrary chunks (3 gallons, 8 grams) but the

chunks themselves don't obey expected numerical properties (one blob of

water, plus another, equals still only one blob.)

mu'o mi'e xod

--

"The Americans promised freedom and prosperity; what's this? Go up to

their headquarters, at one of those checkpoints where they point their

guns at you, and tell them that you hate them as much as Saddam, and see

what they do to you," said Mohammad Saleh, 39, a building contractor.

"The only difference is that Saddam would kill you in private, where the

Americans will kill you in public."



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:19:31PM -0400, xod wrote:

>

> > .iecai .i lo pu'u nalpli zo loi kei zo'u

> > norcatni je nalbilga je certu stidi ki'u lo du'u nalsatci

>

> xod:

> Bravo! The process of not using "loi": neither the authority nor lack

> of it, and not oblige and expertly suggest the fact on not being

> precise.

The phasing-out of 'loi' is an unofficial, unobligatory, expert suggestion

based on the fact that it's ambiguous.

> > .i ku'i la'e di'u .e la'e de'u cu selni'i .eise'anai la'o {excellent

> > solution} .i'ecai noi do ba'o stidi .e'edaisai

>

> xod:

> But that and the other are implied (with obligation) by an "excellent

> solution" which I am approvingly certain you will suggest, because you

> are very good at this.

It is his proposal of the Excellent Solution to the BF that was skillful.

(.oinai I try to be precise with the location of my .ui)

--

"The Americans promised freedom and prosperity; what's this? Go up to

their headquarters, at one of those checkpoints where they point their

guns at you, and tell them that you hate them as much as Saddam, and see

what they do to you," said Mohammad Saleh, 39, a building contractor.

"The only difference is that Saddam would kill you in private, where the

Americans will kill you in public."



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT

Let me stress that my comments were directed at the use of {nitcu lo} and {djica lo} in place of {nitcu tu'a lo} and {djica tu'a lo} as stock examples, not at other problems with the new {lo}. As a solution to the opaque context "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names. It is ineffective because the problem persists: the inference from the new {lo bridi} in situ to {su'o da poi (bridi) go'i ... da...} works with the new {lo} as well as with the old — lacking the blocking action of {tu'a}.

It is also superfluous since Lojban does not have a problem with opaque contexts; {tu'a} and the abstract phrases it covers deal with these contexts in an exemplary fashion. The problem is with Lojbanists who refuse to use these devices, either because they have not taken the time to understand them or just persist in following their home language habit of not making the Lojban distinction — often even claiming that that habit rather than the Lojban (logical) format is the correct view of reality.

To be sure, we could ignore opaque contexts if we were willing to make some modifications to Lojban. But I think the modifications are much worse than just learning to use the language as she is given. We could, for example, insist that only existent objects culd be needed, wanted, dreamed about and so on. But this would limit our ability to plan and invent and countless other things we do — and want to — do. Unless, of course, we quantify not over existents but over non-existents (even impossibles) as well. But then we have to introduce the distinction between existents and non- explicitly, since everything (in the outer domain sense) is available for quantification, but not all are available for acting upon. Alternatively (or additionally, for that matter) we could deny that generalization was an inference that Lojban supported and take it that the logic it copied was a free logic (parallelling but slightly different from the view that "every" does not have existential

import). Along a different line, we might insist that {nitcu} and {djica} and an indefinite number of other predicates have (unmarked) opaque places, places which interfere with generalization (and Leibniz's law) and then just learn to recognize those places when the need arises (this is, of course, what natural languages do for the most part) and drop the need for explicit markers on ordinary places. This solution has regularly been rejected, even by people who act as though it were in place.

On the larger issue — which I did not mention except in passing — of the new definition of {lo} in general, I have said my say on that many times. Briefly, the definition is simply muddled since it tries to deal with a number of separate (and already fairly well separated in Lojban) concepts in a single device. The result is that the whole is at least incoherent and, I think I have shown, inconsistent. It does point to a couple of possible additions for Lojban: a way of talking about kinds separate from talking about the collective of its members or unspecified members or (stereo)typical members and a way of talking about stuffsubstancegoo. Note that, insofar as the new {lo} does either of these things, it fails in its other purposes, since neither the kind nor the kind-stuff does what an unspecified individual does. As for "generic" individuals, I have trouble seeing them as other than either the genus itself or a concrete individual without specifying which one, a

particular quantifier — with short scope, perhaps. The notion of Mr. Whatsis — at least the one that turns up most often — as a single object doing whatever any whatsis does really is contradictory and turns out to be nothing more than minimum-scoped quantifiers loosely disguised.

Ahah, another possibility for {lo}: it is just such a minimum-scoped quantifier and thus different from {su'o} which is, presumably, capable of being fronted. {lo} would then not be capable of being fronted and would — by itself — block generalization. Further, it would not be anaphorizable, since that would illegitimately extend its scope. (Actually, it would be anaphorizable with pronouns that repeat the phrase but not the referent of the phrase — as happens in English, for example). That might be a useful change to make, but I suspect that even it would go against much previous usage.

The possibility that {lo} really does refer to the genus — as opposed to the collective or the set or the members taken separately — might also work, but it would require a rewriting of the semantics of virtually every place since most places have been taken to deal with members of the genus, not the genus itself. And then the rewrites have to be adjusted to account for sumti not introduced by {lo} (or all the other gadri have to be redefined as well).

Frankly, I think the best solution to all the problems that the new {lo} is meant to solve is just learning to deal with Lojban itself, not Lojanized English or Spanish or whatever.

pc



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>Let me stress that my comments were directed at the use of {nitcu lo} and {djica lo} in place of {nitcu tu'a lo} and {djica tu'a lo} as stock examples, not at other problems with the new {lo}. As a solution to the opaque context "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective.

>

>

It was my understanding that the new lo is opaque, not su'oda,

intentional, Mister, and suitable for "needed boxes" and off-white

unicorns. If it is not, or if those concepts are not identical

(rendering my understanding into a confused mess) then I and others will

need concrete use-cases showing the errors I've made, and the actual

difficulties this presents. (In fact, the response will have to be even

clearer than this very paragraph of mine, which unfortunately is above

the heads of many of the BF commissioners, who have not attended the

jboske seminar series; thus the need for concrete example sentences.)

mu'o mi'e xod

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT


> xorxes:

> I think "lo" suffices to talk about all of the above. For example:

> "la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu"

> Tennis is a competition between two people and two people

Or "Tennis can be played two against two."

> "ta culno lo bimu bidju"

> That is completely filled with half-beads.

{bimu} = 85, but it works with {pimu} as well.

Are {bi} and {pi} too similar to be both in PA?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT


> doi xorxes ne'i le do se stidi xu lu re prenu li'u cu dunli lu re lo

> prenu li'u

go'i

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT

These usages seem entirely non-problematic and, except possibly for the question of where the quantifiers go, don't obviously require the new {lo} (I suppose the scope rules are a bit vague here, but that seems to be mainly because no one has bothered to work them up)

pc

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> xorxes:

> I think "lo" suffices to talk about all of the above. For example:

> "la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu"

> Tennis is a competition between two people and two people

Or "Tennis can be played two against two."

> "ta culno lo bimu bidju"

> That is completely filled with half-beads.

{bimu} = 85, but it works with {pimu} as well.

Are {bi} and {pi} too similar to be both in PA?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT

(Many of pc's points refer to quantified terms. I agree with most of

what he says, but they don't concern the proposed lo, which is not a

quantified term.) I respond to some of the other points.

pc:

> As a solution to the opaque context

> "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is

> inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti

> other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every

> other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names.

Could you explain what the problem is with:

mi nitcu le va tanxe

I need that box.

I don't see what could be the difference between:

"I need: (For that box: I have it)" and

"For that box: (I need: I have it)". Is there a

difference?

...

> Alternatively (or additionally,

> for that matter) we could deny that generalization was an inference that

> Lojban supported and take it that the logic it copied was a free logic

> (parallelling but slightly different from the view that "every" does not have

> existential

> import).

Presumably any logic can be expressed in Lojban as well as in English

or any other language. It seems that generalization is something that

we can do or not do irrespective of the language in which we express

it.

...

> As for "generic" individuals, I have trouble seeing them as other than

> either the genus itself or a concrete individual without specifying which

> one, a

> particular quantifier — with short scope, perhaps. The notion of Mr.

> Whatsis — at least the one that turns up most often — as a single object

> doing whatever any whatsis does really is contradictory and turns out to be

> nothing more than minimum-scoped quantifiers loosely disguised.

Could you please point out the contradiction, ideally with an example?

...

> Frankly, I think the best solution to all the problems that the new {lo} is

> meant to solve is just learning to deal with Lojban itself, not Lojanized

> English or Spanish or whatever.

If you could write the proposed lo-examples in what you consider

more correct Lojban, that would help to highlight where the differences

are.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT

By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal

(prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to

look.

do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa

You're 6 years younger than me.

la stace pu citka lo cirla

=46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le glar=

e djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le du'u xuk=

au le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le raktu poi n=

u sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo blabi ractu po=

i xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu

(lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit)

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengev=E6ter. Forutsatt at ingen p=E5 base=

n p=E5

Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpole=

n



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal

>(prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to

>look.

>

>

>

I find these in keeping with the proposed usage of lo, which I

understand to be similar to the English "any".

>do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa

>You're 6 years younger than me.

>

>

A general six years; not a particular six years.

>la stace pu citka lo cirla

>=46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

>

>

That's right. Not a particular chunk.

>i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le glar=

>e djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le du'u xuk=

>au le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le raktu poi n=

>u sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo blabi ractu po=

>i xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu

>(lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit)

>

>--=20

>Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

>/

>Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengev=E6ter. Forutsatt at ingen p=E5 base=

>n p=E5

>Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpole=

>n

>

>

>

>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 25 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT posts: 14214

BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me

W

Wmake me very happy.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

[email protected] wrote:

>Re: BPFK Section: gadri

>BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

>

>Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

>

>In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me

W

Wmake me very happy. >

>-Robin

>

>

>

I've found a dyad of ideas which approximate *Intension* and

  • Extension*, even if the correlation is not perfect. Intension is

similar to *selkaicfa*; la'e-like, beginning with a set of qualities,

one discusses the items, if any, that qualify. Extension is similar to

  • kaicfa*; lu'e-like, beginning with an object in mind, one discusses its

qualities in order to describe it. (When I use "any" in English, I am

experiencing selkaicfa; I have a requirement in mind, and I am referring

to whatever items fit the bill. However, I also can use "any" to express

a lack of preference among the members of a set, all of whose members

might be known specifically to me: "Hit this button with any of your

fingers.")

Under Jorge's proposal before the BF, lo = selkaicfa, le = kaicfa. With

selkaicfa, the speaker has given an explicit description of the required

qualities, and the sumti refers to anything that matches. In kaicfa, the

speaker has given only a partial list of the qualities, in order to aid

the listener in understanding.

So lo poi isn't le.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT


> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

> BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of

> information, of course).

>

> Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems

> to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

{le broda} can refer to anything at all that you have in mind, so

I don't understand exactly what you mean. In general it is not equivalent

to use one expression or the other. With {le} there is a certain thing

or things that you want to talk about, you have them identified, so you

will refer to them as {le ....}. All you need to do is pick a predicate

that will be helpful to your audience to identify what thing or things

you are making a claim about.

With {lo} you won't be making a claim about any specific thing or

things, you will only talk about the things that satisfy a certain

predicate, whether or not there are any of them around.

With {lo broda poi brode} you claim something about brodas

that brode. For example:

lo gerku poi cmoni cu na batci

A dog that barks won't bite.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT


> By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal

> (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to

> look.

Are these supposed to be problematic for the proposed {lo}?

They are not.

> do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa

> You're 6 years younger than me.

This one makes more sense with {lo} refering generically to

a period of six years rather than quantifying over periods

od six years: "there is at least one period of six years

such that you're younger than my by that period"? Not wrong,

but weird. The natural thing to say is that the difference

in our ages is the single entity "6 years".

> la stace pu citka lo cirla

> =46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

That one works with both {lo cirla} or {su'o cirla}.

> i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le glar=

> e djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le du'u xuk=

> au le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le raktu poi n=

> u sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo blabi ractu po=

> i xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu

> (lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit)

(I would use {lo nu} for most of those {le nu} now.)

Yes, you can use {lo blabi ractu} when there is only one white

rabbit around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:20:16PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal

> (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to

> look.

For those of you who weren't on IRC at the time, Arnt believes that

xorxes' proposal will invalidate much past usage of lo.

We asked him for examples; these are they.

All my interpretations are based on my understanding of xorxes'

proposal, which I admit is limited.

> do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa

> You're 6 years younger than me.

You are less than me in any length-6-years time period.

Not seeing a problem.

> la stace pu citka lo cirla

> Frank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

Honest ate any cheese.

Not seeing a problem; if you care which cheese he ate, use le.

> i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le

> glare djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le

> du'u xukau le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le

> raktu poi nu sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo

> blabi ractu poi xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu

> (lo blabi ractu = a (1) white rabbit)

Where did "a (1)" come from? It has *never* been the case in Lojban

that "lo blabi ractu" means "one white rabbit".

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > (lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit)

>

> Yes, you can use {lo blabi ractu} when there is only one white rabbit

> around.

Please expand on this. In particular, if there is only one white rabbit

around and you say "lo blabi ractu", are you referring to said local

white rabbit in any useful way?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT


> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Yes, you can use {lo blabi ractu} when there is only one white rabbit

> > around.

>

> Please expand on this. In particular, if there is only one white rabbit

> around and you say "lo blabi ractu", are you referring to said local

> white rabbit in any useful way?

You're not referring to it specifically, no, but the fact that there

is a white rabbit present does not preclude that you speak about

white rabbits either. But this is independent of my proposal.

If you say {su'o blabi ractu} you are not referring to any local

rabbit either, you are quantifying over the set of all rabbits.

This has to do with specificity {le} vs. {su'o}/{lo}, not with

{su'o} vs. {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

pc adds caps to indicate where replies fit.

A: Interesting. I wasn't aware of saying much of anything about quantified expressions — escept that one can be inferred from any unblocked sumti

B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

C: My point is exactly that if we want to prevent the problems when we elect to do generalization we have to forbid generalization if we are not going to mark places where it does not apply, {nitcu2} for example.

D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain, Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except perhaps one in an intentional context.

E: already done God knows how often over the last few decades. Most of them are indistinguishable from cases of new {lo}, which is meant to appear conservative. The opaque cases — as with {nitcu} — are the most obvious differences. Other would probably be negative examples, where {lo} is used in place of some other more accurate gadri: {loi}, for example, or the possibly needed genus or goo forms.

pc

A:

(Many of pc's points refer to quantified terms. I agree with most of

what he says, but they don't concern the proposed lo, which is not a

quantified term.) I respond to some of the other points.

pc:

> As a solution to the opaque context

> "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is

> inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti

> other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every

> other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names.

B:

Could you explain what the problem is with:

mi nitcu le va tanxe

I need that box.

I don't see what could be the difference between:

"I need: (For that box: I have it)" and

"For that box: (I need: I have it)". Is there a

difference?

...

> Alternatively (or additionally,

> for that matter) we could deny that generalization was an inference that

> Lojban supported and take it that the logic it copied was a free logic

> (parallelling but slightly different from the view that "every" does not have

> existential

> import).

C:Presumably any logic can be expressed in Lojban as well as in English

or any other language. It seems that generalization is something that

we can do or not do irrespective of the language in which we express

it.

...

> As for "generic" individuals, I have trouble seeing them as other than

> either the genus itself or a concrete individual without specifying which

> one, a

> particular quantifier — with short scope, perhaps. The notion of Mr.

> Whatsis — at least the one that turns up most often — as a single object

> doing whatever any whatsis does really is contradictory and turns out to be

> nothing more than minimum-scoped quantifiers loosely disguised.

D:Could you please point out the contradiction, ideally with an example?

...

> Frankly, I think the best solution to all the problems that the new {lo} is

> meant to solve is just learning to deal with Lojban itself, not Lojanized

> English or Spanish or whatever.

E:If you could write the proposed lo-examples in what you consider

more correct Lojban, that would help to highlight where the differences

are.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

Careful. English "any" fluctuates (in fairly contoleed ways — but you need to supply more context) between universal and particlar. I take it this means particular "some unspecifed one(s)."

The other cases are merely conservative, that is not different from "old {lo}" though they may differ from some intermediate cases which arose once folks started mucking about with {lo} (this time or earlier).

pc

xod wrote:

I find these in keeping with the proposed usage of lo, which I

understand to be similar to the English "any".

>do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa

>You're 6 years younger than me.

>

>

A general six years; not a particular six years.

>la stace pu citka lo cirla

>=46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

>

>

That's right. Not a particular chunk.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

I can't find xod's claim (but I know that some things never get to me — and some of mine don't get to some other people). It is however pretty certainly false for almost any reading of {lo}: {lo broda poi brode} is only marginally more specific than {lo broda} — and maybe not at all if all or even most broda are also brode: Any old broda poi brode is not a specified one except accidentally.

pc

[email protected] wrote:

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me

W

Wmake me very happy.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

pc:

> B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its

> taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems

> because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred

> to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as

> such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike

> most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

You had said that the new {lo} is "inadequate because it does not "solve"

the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo},

but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti

(LO + (bridi)) or names." What would be an example where {nitcu le} or

{nitcu la} are problematic, then?

> D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is

> not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since

> contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not

> exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain,

> Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except

> perhaps one in an intentional context.

Mr Rabbit is eating grass (here), but he is not eating grass (over there).

That's not contradictory. John talked to Mary (yesterday), but he did not

talk to Mary (the day before). That's the same type of non-contradiction.

That John did and did not talk to Mary does not mean he cannot exist. All

it means is that to understand what a sentence means you need context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

I don't quite see how this distinction fits the extension-intension distinction and even less what that distinction has to do with the {lo}-{le} contrast. Both {lo broda} and {le broda} pick out things with reference to the (probably very vague) property of being a broda. In one case, the speaker is apparently indifferent to or ignorant of which broda satisfies the rest of the sentence. In the other case, the speaker knows and wishes to let the hearer know which one it is and uses the predication to aid that task. Both are extensional (refer to things, not concepts). The distinction given here does seem to bear on the difference between {le} and {lo}, though the connection bertween these and {la'e} and {lu'e} is forced at best.

pc

xod wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

>Re: BPFK Section: gadri

>BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

>

>Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

>

>In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me

W

Wmake me very happy. >

>-Robin

>

>

>

I've found a dyad of ideas which approximate *Intension* and

  • Extension*, even if the correlation is not perfect. Intension is

similar to *selkaicfa*; la'e-like, beginning with a set of qualities,

one discusses the items, if any, that qualify. Extension is similar to

  • kaicfa*; lu'e-like, beginning with an object in mind, one discusses its

qualities in order to describe it. (When I use "any" in English, I am

experiencing selkaicfa; I have a requirement in mind, and I am referring

to whatever items fit the bill. However, I also can use "any" to express

a lack of preference among the members of a set, all of whose members

might be known specifically to me: "Hit this button with any of your

fingers.")

Under Jorge's proposal before the BF, lo = selkaicfa, le = kaicfa. With

selkaicfa, the speaker has given an explicit description of the required

qualities, and the sumti refers to anything that matches. In kaicfa, the

speaker has given only a partial list of the qualities, in order to aid

the listener in understanding.

So lo poi isn't le.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

't



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

There is of course a particular period of six years that you are younger than I but that is probably not what is meant here and so anyold period will do. I agree it would be nicer if we had a unit concept, but the way that "younger by six years " has developed makes that difficult ({lo nanca xamei} is weird in other ways, as is {lo xavnanca}).

pc

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal

> (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to

> look.

Are these supposed to be problematic for the proposed {lo}?

They are not.

> do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa

> You're 6 years younger than me.

This one makes more sense with {lo} refering generically to

a period of six years rather than quantifying over periods

od six years: "there is at least one period of six years

such that you're younger than my by that period"? Not wrong,

but weird. The natural thing to say is that the difference

in our ages is the single entity "6 years".



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned cirumvention.

F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its

> taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems

> because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred

> to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as

> such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike

> most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

E:You had said that the new {lo} is "inadequate because it does not "solve"

the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo},

but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti

(LO + (bridi)) or names." What would be an example where {nitcu le} or

{nitcu la} are problematic, then?

> D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is

> not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since

> contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not

> exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain,

> Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except

> perhaps one in an intentional context.

F:Mr Rabbit is eating grass (here), but he is not eating grass (over there).

That's not contradictory. John talked to Mary (yesterday), but he did not

talk to Mary (the day before). That's the same type of non-contradiction.

That John did and did not talk to Mary does not mean he cannot exist. All

it means is that to understand what a sentence means you need context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:05:13PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> I can't find xod's claim

It was never posted here.

> (but I know that some things never get to me — and some of mine don't

> get to some other people).

If you have specific examples, please let me know.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:42:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > "ta culno lo bimu bidju"

> > That is completely filled with half-beads.

>

> {bimu} = 85, but it works with {pimu} as well.

  • Whoops*.

> Are {bi} and {pi} too similar to be both in PA?

Oh, believe me, if we start down the path of trying to disentangle

easily mix-uppable Lojban words, we'll never get done. Let's not start.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:09:34PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- [email protected] wrote:

> > Re: BPFK Section: gadri BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" ==

> > "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

> >

> > Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless,

> > it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it

> > somewhere.

>

> {le broda} can refer to anything at all that you have in mind, so I

> don't understand exactly what you mean.

That's OK; it wasn't well thought out.

-Coffee



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT


> E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le

> xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific

> in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with

> references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned

> cirumvention.

But that is the same for the proposed {lo}. {mi nitcu lo kriptonite}

has the same kind of problem. That's different than the quantification

issues. When you can meaningfully say {la meripapnz cu prenu}, then you

can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le}

and same for {lo}.

> F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now

> just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a).

John is raising his (right) hand here and now, just as he is not

raising his (left) hand here and now.

Rabbit a and rabbit b can't be on the exact same spot at the exact

same time, so Mr Rabbit is eating wherever rabbit a is and he is not

eating wherever rabbit b is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 04:43 GMT

F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless?? But, of course, we often want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is not in the given cases.

G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is both here now and not here now. Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences. If you want to change that now, then, of course, you have a metaphysically anomolous reading of the old {lo ractu} — "a part of Mr. Rabbit" rather than "a rabbit" (or "a natural chunk of rabbit goo" or "a manifestation of rabbithood" and so on) but the upshot will be the same in each of these cases, since each occurrence is of a different thing (chunk, part, manifestation, etc.). The talk of Mr.Rabbit then becomes merely useless fluff, since the same work can be done more economically by other means that fit in more naturally with the rest of the language. (The Trobrianders can get away with it since runs throughout their language, doing the work of quantification and abstraction which

appear in Lojban as separatesystems needed elsewhere.)

pc

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le

> xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific

> in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with

> references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned

> cirumvention.

F: But that is the same for the proposed {lo}. {mi nitcu lo kriptonite}

has the same kind of problem. That's different than the quantification

issues. When you can meaningfully say {la meripapnz cu prenu}, then you

can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le}

and same for {lo}.

G:

> F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now

> just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a).

John is raising his (right) hand here and now, just as he is not

raising his (left) hand here and now.

Rabbit a and rabbit b can't be on the exact same spot at the exact

same time, so Mr Rabbit is eating wherever rabbit a is and he is not

eating wherever rabbit b is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 12:34 GMT


> F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not

> exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless??

Of course not, that's not what I said. I said that lo, le and la

behave in the same way vis-a-vis fiction/non-existence. lo is

not special in this regard.

> But, of course, we often

> want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when

> {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz}

> may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is

> presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for

> quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o

> broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the

> inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is

> not in the given cases.

The inference from "I need a box" to "there is some kind of thing

such that I need it" is valid. The inference to "there is some

instance of box such that I need it" is not. It is not in general

valid to infer from the kind to the instances.

> G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not

> eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is

> both here now and not here now.

Mr. Rabbit is both here and other-than-here. Kinds can be in more

than one place at the same time. That's not contradictory.

> Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not

> to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences.

Right. The same happens with {la djan}. It has the same referent

when I say he is here today and he was not here yesterday. Space

acts for kinds in a similar way to the way time acts for ordinary

individuals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT

H: xorxes said <can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le}

and same for {lo}.>> It is unclear what this means if not what I tooik it to mean. We do agree, however, that the problems are exactly the same with {la} and {lo} and {le}, which is an improvement on the previous discussion.

I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind. I don't think that that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions. And, of course, what I need is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all over again.

J: Kinds aren't anywhere, manifestations of kinds can each be in only one place at a given time. The two things — kinds and their manifestations — are not to be confused, as they seem to have been here. If predicates are to take kinds as objects then their semantics needs to be revised. But that revision will make them inapplicable to ordinary things, so either we have to double the vocabulary or make all names and {le} etc. sumti about kinds as well. Just learning to use Lojban as written seems a much easier and more natural approach.

K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same whole over time, but has spatial parts. It is rather hard to build spatial analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations. It is they that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language).

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not

> exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless??

H:Of course not, that's not what I said. I said that lo, le and la

behave in the same way vis-a-vis fiction/non-existence. lo is

not special in this regard.

> But, of course, we often

> want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when

> {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz}

> may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is

> presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for

> quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o

> broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the

> inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is

> not in the given cases.

I:The inference from "I need a box" to "there is some kind of thing

such that I need it" is valid. The inference to "there is some

instance of box such that I need it" is not. It is not in general

valid to infer from the kind to the instances.

> G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not

> eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is

> both here now and not here now.

J:Mr. Rabbit is both here and other-than-here. Kinds can be in more

than one place at the same time. That's not contradictory.

> Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not

> to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences.

K:Right. The same happens with {la djan}. It has the same referent

when I say he is here today and he was not here yesterday. Space

acts for kinds in a similar way to the way time acts for ordinary

individuals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT

pc:

> I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some

> object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying

> that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind.

{lo broda} does not refer to an instance, that's right. I thought that

was clear from the beginning.

> I don't think that

> that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in

> Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions.

I think it is.

> And, of course, what I need

> is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes

> the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all

> over again.

When you see John, you are actually seeing a stage of John, but

we don't need to revise {viska} to "a stage of x1 sees a stage

of x2".

> K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far

> as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same

> whole over time, but has spatial parts.

Similarly Mr Individual is the same whole over instances, just as

John is the same whole over stages.

> It is rather hard to build spatial

> analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for

> spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the

> today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his

> right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is

> not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play

> no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations.

When you don't care which manifestation is doing the work, all the

reference you need is to Mr.Rabbit.

> It is they

> that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and

> properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can

> replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language).

I don't think we need to embed any metaphysics in the language.

The "Mr" talk is just one way of understanding how {lo broda}

behaves logically as a constant term, like {la djan}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT

L: It is becoming about as clear as anything in all this, but what is not clear is what if anything it does refer to. It is in a place where the norm (I would think) is for reference to individuals, as {le ractu} and {la meripapnz} seem clearly to be, but 9it is not to an individual in any functional sense, apparently, but to an abstraction which then is taken to function as a concrete individual. I think there is some confusion in this notion, so I suppose I do not yet have it right, but nothing said so far has clarified it. Until that is done, I have to say that this section is not yet adequately dealt with, even if the usages are clear (which they are not, for just this reason).

M: I want to see how it will work out: {mi visaka lo ractu} makes {viska} stand for a relation between me and an abstraction, rabbitkind or Mr. Rabbit, while {mi viska le ractu} makes {viska} a relation between me and a concrete object, a selected rabbit. This seems to be two separate meanings of {viska}, marked at best contextually. Lojban literature claims that Lojban predicates are not ambiguous, only vague.

N: A better analogy would surely be that when I see John I see only one side (and maybe not even all of that). But the parts of John — both spatial and temporal — are joiined together in a familiar way, featuring primarily continuity. The parts of Mr. Rabbit lack this feature — among others. Mr.Rabbit appears more like an intermediate abstraction — like a state or a corporation — but lacking the foundation (at least as so far explained) that give these critters legitimacy. I suspect that this can all be corrected and that the notion will have some — maybe even considerable — use. It does not seem to me yet to have anything to do with case like what I need or see or any other fairly normal activity in non-general claims. I am not even clear how it will help in cases like "Cats chase mice" in a way that is clearer than old Lojban devices.

O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk — when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

P: When you don't care which manifestation it is, particular quantification — which we already have to have for other reasons — does the job too. Why complicate matters?

Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la}, say.

As I have said, it is probably possible eventually to make a coherent explanation of Mr. Rabbit or whatever, but it seems like a lot of work and it has yet to be demonstrated that the result will solve any real problem — something Lojban does not yet do or do very well. Most of the apparent economies of the notion come about, it seems to me, simply because the notion is still so vague that all manner of very different effects can be attributed to it, even though, were they all actually in it, the result would be incoherent.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some

> object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying

> that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind.

L:{lo broda} does not refer to an instance, that's right. I thought that

was clear from the beginning.

> I don't think that

> that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in

> Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions.

M:I think it is.

> And, of course, what I need

> is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes

> the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all

> over again.

N:When you see John, you are actually seeing a stage of John, but

we don't need to revise {viska} to "a stage of x1 sees a stage

of x2".

> K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far

> as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same

> whole over time, but has spatial parts.

O:Similarly Mr Individual is the same whole over instances, just as

John is the same whole over stages.

> It is rather hard to build spatial

> analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for

> spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the

> today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his

> right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is

> not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play

> no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations.

P:When you don't care which manifestation is doing the work, all the

reference you need is to Mr.Rabbit.

> It is they

> that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and

> properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can

> replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language).

Q:I don't think we need to embed any metaphysics in the language.

The "Mr" talk is just one way of understanding how {lo broda}

behaves logically as a constant term, like {la djan}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT

An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo}

would help clarify matters. From what you say I don't see

how the proposed {lo} is ambiguous.

pc:

> O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not

> merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk --

> when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts

> of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit

> simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

Quantification is over the instances. We can talk about them

when we need or want to.

> Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you

> keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect

> to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over

> compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la},

> say.

Generalization to the proper general case does apply to {lo}. It

does not generalize to instances, but then it is not an instance.

Negation transparency does apply to {lo}.

I don't quite understand the third point, but if it applies

to {la} it probably does apply to {lo} as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

A brief general discussion to make some context here. One thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect and at the same time. So, when we seem to have a case that contradicts that we have to make a distinction, either in the subject or in the predicate. So, given that John was here yesterday and is not today, we can avoid problems ether by saying "John is here yesterday and is not here today" (taking "John" as a constant directly involved in the situation) or by saying "The yesterday slice of John is here but the today slice is not" (taking John as involved only through his parts, not as a whole. We might of course say "John is such that his yesteday slice is here and his today slice is not" leaving "John" a constant but only his slices doing the work.) The corresponding situations for Mr. Rabbit eating and not are "Mr. Rabbit is a-eating and not b-eating" (or some such thing) and "The a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit is eating but the b-manifestation is not." We can, of

course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... . But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible

needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.)

R: See above.

S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much) and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me a rule for figuring out when it is which.

T: What is the proper case: "something" or even "something which is a rabbit kind," I suppose. This clearly goes through. But the interesting case is of a manifestation and there the generalization leaves an reference to manifestations which is not accounted fgor in your examples, so far as I can see. UNless, of course, we are back to the two — undistinguished — meaning of predicates, where the reference to the manifestation is buried in the predicate when it is convenient to do so. The third point is the move from "Mr. Rabbit x's and Mr.Rabbit y's" to Mr. Rabbit x's and y's" Again, this will work (like negation transparency) only if the predicates have been modified to absorb the reference to the different manifestations (and it would be nice to make that absorption explicit at least — aand better, of course, to make it nominal rather than predicative).

pc

Jorge Llambías wrote:

R:An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo}

would help clarify matters. From what you say I don't see

how the proposed {lo} is ambiguous.

pc:

> O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not

> merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk --

> when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts

> of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit

> simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

S:Quantification is over the instances. We can talk about them

when we need or want to.

> Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you

> keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect

> to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over

> compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la},

> say.

T:Generalization to the proper general case does apply to {lo}. It

does not generalize to instances, but then it is not an instance.

Negation transparency does apply to {lo}.

I don't quite understand the third point, but if it applies

to {la} it probably does apply to {lo} as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

pc:

> We

> can, of

> course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in

> those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not

> exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other

> hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so

> can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... .

lo ractu e la djan lenon cu zasti

"Rabbits and John Lennon exist."

lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu na zasti

"Unicorns and Mary Poppins" don't exist.

{lo ractu} works like {la djan lenon}.

{lo pavyseljirna} works like {la meripapnz}.

In this regard there is no lo/la distinction for opaque

or transparent contexts.

> But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque

> contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There

> is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr.

> Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I

> want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is

> something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My

> problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and,

> having said that, how do I say the other.

When we say "I want that rabbit", we don't usually make

the distinction "for that rabbit, I want a (time)slice of it".

Similarly with "I want Mr. Rabbit" we don't have to make

the distinction "for Mr. Rabbit, I want a manifestation

of it."

You can of course still say: {mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ractu}

"I want that for some instance of rabbit, I have it", and you can

even shorten it to the somewhat vague {mi djica tu'a su'o ractu}.

You can also say:

lo ractu goi ko'a zo'u mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ko'a

Rabbits: I want that there is some instance of them that I have.

But usually you don't need to go that far, just as usually

you don't need to examine what each slice of "that rabbit"

does.

> The situation is easy in old

> Lojban (up to possible

> needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest

> thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica

> da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da

> (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}.

All of that remains sayable, though I don't really see people

going that route.

> The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems

> to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the

> other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird

> sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all

> other abstractions — as much as I can.)

In what sense can I say to have Mr. Rabbit when I don't have any

of its manifestations?

> S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much)

> and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth

> without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning

> from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me

> a rule for figuring out when it is which.

It is always Mr Rabbit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible

> needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.)

>

>

There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa;

referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

criteria; uses lo)

2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa;

referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

the wrong rabbit; uses le)

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

xod:

> There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>

> 1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa;

> referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

> criteria; uses lo)

>

> 2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa;

> referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

> criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

> the wrong rabbit; uses le)

Right.

My only comment is very BTW: I don't like -cfa for this. {cfari}

means "x1 starts to occur", it does not mean "x1 starts at x2"

which seems to be your idea. I suggest {selkaiselfa'a},

"property-oriented" and {kairselfa'a}, "thing-oriented".

Or perhaps {velskiselfa'a}, "description-oriented" and

{selskiselfa'a}, "described-oriented".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do. Unless, of course, {zasti} has an implicit reference to an instance in it as well or — as now seems likely — all predicates have manifestation references built in. Saying it that way does prejudice the issue a bit, for we could construct a language where the relations with abstractions were primary and either concreta were never mentioned or the predicates with concreta had implicit reduction devices . Depending on the details, these languages are rarely or not at all different from concrete-based languages which raises the question of why bothering to create this elaborate metaphysics . For Lojban, that is; it is perfectly clear Nyaya or Madhyamika might do it, since they need the metaphysics already.

V: Well, in one sense yes we do. That I want when I want a rabbit is an animal with soft fur, long ears, pronounced incisors, etc. That is not Mr. Rabbit, who, as an abstracta, doesn't have ears or incisors or.... Only his manifestations do. All that I want a rabbit doesn't distinguish among is *which* of those manifestations I want.

W: What does the long form say that is different from the short form? It does have the virtue of saying what it means, I think. The fronted case is also not a problem if {lo ractu} refers to the kind or whatever. But then the {su'o lo ractu} does not seem to make much sense, since a kind is not a set or a group of any sort of which we can some members. But in any case, it is an advance since we now actually have to say that it is the instances we want not the kind. And notice, if we do say that, we cannot also say {... ponse lo ractu}, since {ponse} has been identified with a relation having a concreta in its second place (a probably its first as well). {djica} of course has an abstract second place and relates to an (implicit) instance of that abstraction — this time an event one. And we can work these all out eventually.

I guess my ultimate question is "Why bother?" The summary says that this change in {lo} eliminates some problems arising from {lo} = {su'o}, but no examples are given that seem to be problems rather than solecisms. To be sure, {lo} (and probably {su'o} as well) may well have been used in ways that it is not equipped to deal with — kinds and the like, for example. But that means we need more gadri or whatever device we hit upon, not that there is anything wrong with the devices we have for doing their job. Of course, after years of this kind of fiddling, we probably need to be reminded what the jobs of some of these things are and the wiki page would be a good place to start. The only real problems seem to have been dealt with there: the dumb quantifier questions that generate fruitless debate actually extending back further than this one.

X: Well, the long ecxpression has the virtue of being clear and has all the factors explicitly mentioned, including the one hidden in the shorter forms.

Y:The concept exists and I can make the usual uses of it — which is all that having it ever means for concepts.

Z: But you just above said that it was not, I don't have Mr. Rabbit, only his manifestations. Please stick to one side or the other or flag when you are going to shift.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> We

> can, of

> course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in

> those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not

> exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other

> hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so

> can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... .

U:lo ractu e la djan lenon cu zasti

"Rabbits and John Lennon exist."

lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu na zasti

"Unicorns and Mary Poppins" don't exist.

{lo ractu} works like {la djan lenon}.

{lo pavyseljirna} works like {la meripapnz}.

In this regard there is no lo/la distinction for opaque

or transparent contexts.

> But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque

> contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There

> is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr.

> Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I

> want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is

> something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My

> problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and,

> having said that, how do I say the other.

V:When we say "I want that rabbit", we don't usually make

the distinction "for that rabbit, I want a (time)slice of it".

Similarly with "I want Mr. Rabbit" we don't have to make

the distinction "for Mr. Rabbit, I want a manifestation

of it."

W:You can of course still say: {mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ractu}

"I want that for some instance of rabbit, I have it", and you can

even shorten it to the somewhat vague {mi djica tu'a su'o ractu}.

You can also say:

lo ractu goi ko'a zo'u mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ko'a

Rabbits: I want that there is some instance of them that I have.

But usually you don't need to go that far, just as usually

you don't need to examine what each slice of "that rabbit"

does.

X:> The situation is easy in old

> Lojban (up to possible

> needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest

> thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica

> da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da

> (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}.

All of that remains sayable, though I don't really see people

going that route.

> The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems

> to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the

> other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird

> sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all

> other abstractions — as much as I can.)

Y:In what sense can I say to have Mr. Rabbit when I don't have any

of its manifestations?

> S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much)

> and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth

> without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning

> from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me

> a rule for figuring out when it is which.

Z:It is always Mr Rabbit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.

xod wrote: John E Clifford wrote:

>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible

> needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.)

>

>

There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa;

referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

criteria; uses lo)

2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa;

referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

the wrong rabbit; uses le)

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.

xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible

> needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.)

>

>

There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa;

referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

criteria; uses lo)

2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa;

referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

the wrong rabbit; uses le)

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:28 GMT


> U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be

> false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do.

Mr. Unicorn is as inexistent as Mary Poppins.

{lo pavyseljirna na zasti} simply means "Unicorns don't exist"

in the same way that {la meripapnz na zasti} means "Mary Poppins

does not exist".

To understand the meaning of {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} you need

to know what {lo pavyseljirna} means in the same way that you need

to know what {la meripapnz} means to understand {la meripapnz na zasti}.

That the meanings of both those expressions "exist" doesn't imply that

there are real objects in the world that respond to them.

There is no distinction in principle between Mary Poppins and

Mr Unicorn.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 23:36 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff.

>

By "lo-le" distinction I hope you mean the one I've described below.

It does in fact cover the case of no rabbits. Questions of existence are

a distraction. There is no existence claim in lo here. And even if all

doctors are slaughtered, it will still be possible to ask for one and be

understood, even if the listeners are powerless to help. Therefore such

sentences do express something which is actually invariant with respect

to the existence of doctors.

> In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.

>

>

We do intend {mi djica lo ractu} to in fact gloss as {I want a rabbit}.

>xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>

>>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible

>>needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>

>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa;

>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

>criteria; uses lo)

>

>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa;

>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

>the wrong rabbit; uses le)

>

>

>

>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

Well, there are no manifestations of Mr. Unicorn, but Mr. Unicorn exists like all kinds. You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or, I suspect, get better about saying what that is. If Mr. Unicorn does not exist, then he is only a disguised way of talking about his instances and so in practice not different from "some unicorn." The juggling to get something externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri there is otiose, even odious).

pc

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be

> false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do.

Mr. Unicorn is as inexistent as Mary Poppins.

{lo pavyseljirna na zasti} simply means "Unicorns don't exist"

in the same way that {la meripapnz na zasti} means "Mary Poppins

does not exist".

To understand the meaning of {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} you need

to know what {lo pavyseljirna} means in the same way that you need

to know what {la meripapnz} means to understand {la meripapnz na zasti}.

That the meanings of both those expressions "exist" doesn't imply that

there are real objects in the world that respond to them.

There is no distinction in principle between Mary Poppins and

Mr Unicorn.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.

As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained. And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution. Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?

xod wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

>Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff.

>

By "lo-le" distinction I hope you mean the one I've described below.

It does in fact cover the case of no rabbits. Questions of existence are

a distraction. There is no existence claim in lo here. And even if all

doctors are slaughtered, it will still be possible to ask for one and be

understood, even if the listeners are powerless to help. Therefore such

sentences do express something which is actually invariant with respect

to the existence of doctors.

> In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}.

>

>

We do intend {mi djica lo ractu} to in fact gloss as {I want a rabbit}.

>xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>

>>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible

>>needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>

>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa;

>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

>criteria; uses lo)

>

>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa;

>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

>the wrong rabbit; uses le)

>

>

>

>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

pc:

> You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or,

> I suspect, get better about saying what that is.

I'll try. {lo broda} is, first and foremost, a constant term,

just like {la brod.} is a constant term.

lo ractu can be seen and touched. That means "rabbits can be seen

and touched".

la ract can be seen and touched. That means "Rasht can be seen and

touched".

When you see or touch an instance of lo ractu, you are, in the

very same act, seeing or touching lo ractu.

When you see or touch a stage of la ract, you are, in the very

same act, seeing or touching la ract.

(A "stage" differs from a "slice" in that a stage has some time depth,

so a stage is a series of contiguous slices. The analogy of instances

with stages seems better than the analogy with slices, which, having

zero time depth, are somewhat unreal. The best analogy is perhaps that

of stages of individuals with instances of substances, because two

time-contiguous stages give you one longer stage, two space-contiguous

instances give you one bigger instance of the substance.)

lo ractu cu zasti. Rabbits are real/actual.

la ract cu zasti. Rasht is real/actual.

For the above to be true, it is necessary that some instance

of lo ractu and some stage of la ract are real/actual, too. That's

just how {zasti} works. You can't zasti if you don't have some

instance/stage that zasti.

lo pavyseljirna cu xanri. Unicorns are imaginary.

la pavyseljirn cu xanri. Pavyseljirn is imaginary.

Imaginary things don't have real instances/stages. They may

or may not have imaginary instances/stages, depending on how

elaborately they are imagined.

> The juggling to get something

> externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick

> that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the

> generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri

> there is otiose, even odious).

The "Mr" talk is one way of conceptualizing things. As long as

{lo broda} behaves like a constant term (i.e. it is transparent

to negation, it can be repeated with anaphora, etc) then it

doesn't matter much how one conceptualizes it. That such a thing

is needed is evident to anyone who has used the language to some

extent. It is extremely cumbersome to reduce all your claims to

instances when in very many cases the distribution of instances

is obvious or irrelevant. When we do want to go into instances,

all the usual machinery remains available: we simply quantify

over all of them with {PA lo broda}, or refer to a specific

instance or group of instances directly with le/la.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

pc (to xod):

> Can you — xorxes having so far not

> — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem

> which new {lo} solves?

But properly used old {lo} never causes a problem! It corresponds

exactly to both old and proposed {su'o lo}, which is unproblematic.

What the new {lo} does is allow things that propoerly used old {lo}

cannot handle easily or at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT

A': I get that it is a constant term, i.e., refers to the same thing in all contexts. The issue is what that thing is. Apparently it is a concretum and so the talk about it as an abstractum is wrong, in spite of its making sense of the constancy, which seems to be lacking in the concrete sense.

B: So lo ractu is just the sum (collective? not set surely) of all its "instances", that is of all rabbits. It has, then, (and this may distinguish it from collectives, which might only have the cooperative properties of more than one thing) all the properties of all the rabbits, in some way that does not create contradictions.

I think my basic problem here is that you are trying to explain a synthetic category (like a collective or so) by analogy with an analytic category like a slicew or stage. with analytic categories you can fall back on the original object being analysed to guarantee and at least partially explain what holds the pieces together, with a synthetic category we have to provide that glue explicitly and this has not been done. Why should I (starting from where I am) see all these individuals (rabbits in this case) as being instances of something else concrete. This is not even like seeing all nature as One or even treating an ecosystem as an entity, for what we are dealing with has no "natural" cohesion. What is needed then is a convincing artificial one and that isn't here yet. (This is not to say that, starting from a different perceptual framework — a Madhyamika Buddhis, say — I wouldn't find this natural as well, though I am not sure that they actually would).

C: Assuming that {la ract} is meant to be a name for an ordinary thing — a guy called Bunny, for example — then more than a stage has to exist for it to exist. The stage has to fit into a continuous series of contiguous stages satisfying an array of further condition. Otherwise, Bunny falls into some category like delusions or illusions or ...

Mr. Rabbit on the other hand seems to be exactly nothing other than a bunch of "instances" with no yet explained further conditions. And as such it seems pointless, given that we have the instances. So, in addition to the glue, we need a raison d'etre for this notion.

D: Thse, of course, raise the old paradox of how to say of something that does not exist that it does not exist. I don't see that Mr. Unicorn helps here at all (though short-scope {lo} would if we take "imaginary" to be world-creating — which we should, for a variety of other reasons as well).

E: Frinstance? Lojban is almost always going to seem cumbersome to speakers of natural language because it has a built in precising mechanism and has not yet developed good conventions for work-arounds. I would assume that people who use tha language a lot (a class which is almost coextensive with you) have begun to develop those things. But that is very different from changing the basics of the language, which is what new {lo} seems to do.

What exactly is the advantage of making {lo ractu} a constant, when the phenomena being described involve variable references? As for the obvious/irrelevant distribution, that is exactly what particular quantifiers do.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or,

> I suspect, get better about saying what that is.

A':I'll try. {lo broda} is, first and foremost, a constant term,

just like {la brod.} is a constant term.

lo ractu can be seen and touched. That means "rabbits can be seen

and touched".

la ract can be seen and touched. That means "Rasht can be seen and

touched".

B:When you see or touch an instance of lo ractu, you are, in the

very same act, seeing or touching lo ractu.

When you see or touch a stage of la ract, you are, in the very

same act, seeing or touching la ract.

(A "stage" differs from a "slice" in that a stage has some time depth,

so a stage is a series of contiguous slices. The analogy of instances

with stages seems better than the analogy with slices, which, having

zero time depth, are somewhat unreal. The best analogy is perhaps that

of stages of individuals with instances of substances, because two

time-contiguous stages give you one longer stage, two space-contiguous

instances give you one bigger instance of the substance.)

C:lo ractu cu zasti. Rabbits are real/actual.

la ract cu zasti. Rasht is real/actual.

For the above to be true, it is necessary that some instance

of lo ractu and some stage of la ract are real/actual, too. That's

just how {zasti} works. You can't zasti if you don't have some

instance/stage that zasti.

D:lo pavyseljirna cu xanri. Unicorns are imaginary.

la pavyseljirn cu xanri. Pavyseljirn is imaginary.

Imaginary things don't have real instances/stages. They may

or may not have imaginary instances/stages, depending on how

elaborately they are imagined.

> The juggling to get something

> externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick

> that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the

> generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri

> there is otiose, even odious).

E:The "Mr" talk is one way of conceptualizing things. As long as

{lo broda} behaves like a constant term (i.e. it is transparent

to negation, it can be repeated with anaphora, etc) then it

doesn't matter much how one conceptualizes it. That such a thing

is needed is evident to anyone who has used the language to some

extent. It is extremely cumbersome to reduce all your claims to

instances when in very many cases the distribution of instances

is obvious or irrelevant. When we do want to go into instances,

all the usual machinery remains available: we simply quantify

over all of them with {PA lo broda}, or refer to a specific

instance or group of instances directly with le/la.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT

F: Frinstance again? Are these things that old {lo} should do, rather than some other (perhaps new) gadri or other device. Were you supplementing {lo} rather than replacing it, there would probably be no problems here, but replacing it wihtout ground or reason seem hubristic as well as unnecessary.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc (to xod):

> Can you — xorxes having so far not

> — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem

> which new {lo} solves?

But properly used old {lo} never causes a problem! It corresponds

exactly to both old and proposed {su'o lo}, which is unproblematic.

F:What the new {lo} does is allow things that propoerly used old {lo}

cannot handle easily or at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT

pc:

> I think my basic problem here is that you are trying to explain a synthetic

> category (like a collective or so) by analogy with an analytic category like

> a slicew or stage.

The analogy is kind:instance::individual:stage

so the kind is analogous to the individual and the

instance to the stage.

> with analytic categories you can fall back on the

> original object being analysed to guarantee and at least partially explain

> what holds the pieces together, with a synthetic category we have to provide

> that glue explicitly and this has not been done.

The glue is the property in question. lo ka ractu is the

property that all the instances of lo ractu have in common.

> Why should I (starting from

> where I am) see all these individuals (rabbits in this case) as being

> instances of something else concrete.

Because they share a common name/description?

> This is not even like seeing all

> nature as One or even treating an ecosystem as an entity, for what we are

> dealing with has no "natural" cohesion. What is needed then is a convincing

> artificial one and that isn't here yet.

I offer their description, "ractu", or the property they all share,

{lo ka ractu}.

> (This is not to say that, starting

> from a different perceptual framework — a Madhyamika Buddhis, say — I

> wouldn't find this natural as well, though I am not sure that they actually

> would).

>

> C: Assuming that {la ract} is meant to be a name for an ordinary thing — a

> guy called Bunny, for example — then more than a stage has to exist for it

> to exist. The stage has to fit into a continuous series of contiguous stages

> satisfying an array of further condition.

Intermittent existence is ruled out even in principle, by definition?

{da ru'inai zasti} is false by definition?

> Otherwise, Bunny falls into some

> category like delusions or illusions or ...

If it has at least one stage that exists, I bet it has to exist.

> Mr. Rabbit on the other hand seems to be exactly nothing other than a bunch

> of "instances" with no yet explained further conditions. And as such it

> seems pointless, given that we have the instances. So, in addition to the

> glue, we need a raison d'etre for this notion.

The glue is that the instances share a description, the raison

d'etre is simplicity in use (constants are much easier to handle than

quantified terms).

> D: Thse, of course, raise the old paradox of how to say of something that

> does not exist that it does not exist. I don't see that Mr. Unicorn helps

> here at all (though short-scope {lo} would if we take "imaginary" to be

> world-creating — which we should, for a variety of other reasons as well).

In any case, the paradox is neither more nor less paradoxical for

Mr. Unicorn than for Ms. Poppins.

> E: Frinstance? Lojban is almost always going to seem cumbersome to speakers

> of natural language because it has a built in precising mechanism and has not

> yet developed good conventions for work-arounds. I would assume that people

> who use tha language a lot (a class which is almost coextensive with you)

> have begun to develop those things. But that is very different from changing

> the basics of the language, which is what new {lo} seems to do.

> What exactly is the advantage of making {lo ractu} a constant, when the

> phenomena being described involve variable references? As for the

> obvious/irrelevant distribution, that is exactly what particular quantifiers

> do.

But not always the references are variable. When I talk of rabbits

in general, I am talking of one thing: rabbits, not about some

rabbit or each rabbit. Examples of things that the old {lo} is not

well equipped to handle are most of the lo examples under the

proposed definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT

F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

G: Te property of being a rabbit holds together the stages of individual rabbits, but it does not (or at least has not been shown to) hld together various rabbits into a new entity.

H: But I have no reason (that I know of or have been informed of) to think that all the men named John form a concrete entity, nor for that matter any other things which share a name or even a description. that they form a variety of *abstract* entities (in some sense of "form") I have no doubt (which is probably why I — trying my damnedest to be fair and make sense out of what you say — keep coming back to Mr. Rabbit as an abstract).

I:There are things (I'm not sure how concrete they are) that have intermittent existences — Poland springs to mind, but they are held together by quite a bit more than the name (history, culture, language, emotion, even a constitution in some cases — though not Poland's). I should not think that Mr. Rabbit — or Mr.anything else concrete would be such an intermediate case. (The official Christian view of the afterlife, bodily resurrection, is an interesting case, too.)

J: Maybe, but as noted, not as the sort of thing it seems to be.

K: Hey, a reasonably clear statement of why do this: it is simpler. Doing a way with quantifiers altogether and using only constants (it can be done) would be simpler still, it would seem. But there remains the problem of 1) explaining what the heck these constants mean and 2)working out the screamingly difficult connection between what are linguistically constants and what are logically quantified variables. Part of the point of Lojban, recall is that the logical operations are to be near the surface, not buried — at least in langue, even if not always in parole. Since we had a smoothly functioning device for doing this, why replace it with one that creates a mass of headaches by burying the logic away in references to mythic objects (which, it turns out, we cannot in fact refer to since every use of the supposed referring expression turns out to refer in fact to an instance for the practical semantic moves, e.g., finding out whether a sentence using the expression is true).

L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted. (Of coure, I tend to think that most of the kinds of thins you are talking about are malglicoisms in spades, but I am willing to think there may be a residue that need work: more gadri {le'e} and {lo'e}, which refer not to individuals but create a summary of claims about the critters of the appropriate sort: "rabbits," if it is not just {lo'e ractu}, is clearly in the same area. Note that it does not refer to some mythic individual — or to any describable combination of reals ones and so is not quantifiable, either in itself nor as a base for generalization. I forget what the gadri page says about this.)

If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {... nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought, since, by your descripotion, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for or what I dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I think my basic problem here is that you are trying to explain a synthetic

> category (like a collective or so) by analogy with an analytic category like

> a slicew or stage.

F:The analogy is kind:instance::individual:stage

so the kind is analogous to the individual and the

instance to the stage.

> with analytic categories you can fall back on the

> original object being analysed to guarantee and at least partially explain

> what holds the pieces together, with a synthetic category we have to provide

> that glue explicitly and this has not been done.

G:The glue is the property in question. lo ka ractu is the

property that all the instances of lo ractu have in common.

> Why should I (starting from

> where I am) see all these individuals (rabbits in this case) as being

> instances of something else concrete.

H:Because they share a common name/description?

> This is not even like seeing all

> nature as One or even treating an ecosystem as an entity, for what we are

> dealing with has no "natural" cohesion. What is needed then is a convincing

> artificial one and that isn't here yet.

I offer their description, "ractu", or the property they all share,

{lo ka ractu}.

> (This is not to say that, starting

> from a different perceptual framework — a Madhyamika Buddhis, say — I

> wouldn't find this natural as well, though I am not sure that they actually

> would).

>

> C: Assuming that {la ract} is meant to be a name for an ordinary thing — a

> guy called Bunny, for example — then more than a stage has to exist for it

> to exist. The stage has to fit into a continuous series of contiguous stages

> satisfying an array of further condition.

I:Intermittent existence is ruled out even in principle, by definition?

{da ru'inai zasti} is false by definition?

> Otherwise, Bunny falls into some

> category like delusions or illusions or ...

J:If it has at least one stage that exists, I bet it has to exist.

> Mr. Rabbit on the other hand seems to be exactly nothing other than a bunch

> of "instances" with no yet explained further conditions. And as such it

> seems pointless, given that we have the instances. So, in addition to the

> glue, we need a raison d'etre for this notion.

K:The glue is that the instances share a description, the raison

d'etre is simplicity in use (constants are much easier to handle than

quantified terms).

> D: Thse, of course, raise the old paradox of how to say of something that

> does not exist that it does not exist. I don't see that Mr. Unicorn helps

> here at all (though short-scope {lo} would if we take "imaginary" to be

> world-creating — which we should, for a variety of other reasons as well).

L:In any case, the paradox is neither more nor less paradoxical for

Mr. Unicorn than for Ms. Poppins.

> E: Frinstance? Lojban is almost always going to seem cumbersome to speakers

> of natural language because it has a built in precising mechanism and has not

> yet developed good conventions for work-arounds. I would assume that people

> who use tha language a lot (a class which is almost coextensive with you)

> have begun to develop those things. But that is very different from changing

> the basics of the language, which is what new {lo} seems to do.

> What exactly is the advantage of making {lo ractu} a constant, when the

> phenomena being described involve variable references? As for the

> obvious/irrelevant distribution, that is exactly what particular quantifiers

> do.

M:But not always the references are variable. When I talk of rabbits

in general, I am talking of one thing: rabbits, not about some

rabbit or each rabbit. Examples of things that the old {lo} is not

well equipped to handle are most of the lo examples under the

proposed definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.

>

>

It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we

see it is really more of a factor for le.

>

>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained.

>

Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the

proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

> And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution.

>

Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?

> Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?

>

>

An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a

secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any

doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each

time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a

doctor is a toy!

Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be

interested to see them:

>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>>

>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji;

>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

>>criteria; uses lo)

>>

>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji;

>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

>>the wrong rabbit; uses le)

>>

>>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT

pc:

> F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other

> of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the

> totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow

> that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

I don't have more doubts about the stages than the individual, or

about the kind than the instances. They are all artifacts of language

to me. Maybe that's why we can't seem to understand each other.

> L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the

> reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

What about {su'o pavyseljirna cu xanri}?

> M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say

> something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever

> it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a

> lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a

> reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted.

{lo} was redundant in its function, being equivalent to {su'o},

so it was the logical choice. Also, there's the historical conexion

to Loglan {lo}. Also, the simplest gadri should be the most general

one. {lo} is to gadri as {cu} is to tenses.

> If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {...

> nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought,

> since, by your descripotion, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that

> are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

They are examples of the proposed lo, of course. This is the adrees

of the page, in case you want to discuss actual examples:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

> Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of

> course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for

Both {djica} and {nitcu} have an x3 for "for", so the vagueness

of tu'a is of a different sort. For example:

mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty(?)

I need (something about) a box so that I put some books in it(?)

The "something" is probably "having it". I'm not sure if the {ty}

is correct here. Can you refer to a quantified something that's

inside a different abstraction?

> dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in

> your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate

> that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not

> even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

lo ractu does, of course, ractu. {mi nitcu lo tanxe lo nu mi punji

lo cukta ty} is simply "I need a box to put books in it", no more vague

than that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT

  • Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.
  • that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo} is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event, which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect). The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something in this world, and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see).
  • Not probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous. And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.
  • How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a" basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to Lojban. The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at all and so can't be counted against it. Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does anything to help this situation. Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.

And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious).. The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly.

  • Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}.

xod wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.

>

>

  • It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we

see it is really more of a factor for le.

>

>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained.

>

  • Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the

proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

> And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution.

>

  • Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?

> Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?

>

>

  • An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a

secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any

doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each

time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a

doctor is a toy!

  • Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be

interested to see them:

>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>>

>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji;

>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

>>criteria; uses lo)

>>

>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji;

>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

>>the wrong rabbit; uses le)

>>

>>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

> * Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different

> way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.

In kairsanji, existence is implied because the thing existed at least

when the speaker made its acquaintance. In selkaisanji, existence is not

implied at all; the speaker is only discussing characteristics.

> ** that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo}

> is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps

> distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses

> (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event,

> which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This

> fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely

> a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect).

> The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that

> reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something

> in this world,

What does "fronted" mean? Please give an example of the problem it poses.

> and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange

> consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see). ***Not

> probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But

> briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single

> thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain

> a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will

> conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to

> something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous.

I don't follow this at all.

> And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna}

> is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem

> to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica

> ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.

Why would this be more false than with the substitution of ko'a with its

value?

> ****How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a"

> basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to

> Lojban.

I was talking about the existence claim. Does English "a" have one?

> The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at

> all and so can't be counted against it.

If you read the description in the Book, you'll find it comes very close

to what Jorge is proposing, and that at one time, the idea of using lo

for "a doctor" would not have been controversial. I don't know what went

wrong.

> Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does

> anything to help this situation.

No evidence, I suppose, beyond example sentences, definitions that some

people manage to understand, and the elucidation of a rather common

mental process related to it.

> Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo

> mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.

Are you claiming that the old lo was more suited to "any" than the new one?

>And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious)..

>

When I mean "lo" I mean it without tu'a, le ka, or any of the other

contraptions you've suggested. Are you now claiming that a bare {djica

lo mikce} will suffice???? By now I'm afraid the context is lost, so:

You asked what problems are being fixed, and I responded with "the

ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a

fortnight of heated discussion each time. "

> The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly.

>

>

>

>*****Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}.

>

>

>

Unfortunately, pc, your response was rather somewhat short on concrete

examples, so as I review my post, I'm not sure it will actually

contribute to any convergence of understanding. To continue fruitfully

we'll need example sentences where the new lo leads to contradictions,

or where a meaning of the old lo is orphaned and can no longer be expressed.

>xod wrote:

>John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>*It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we

>see it is really more of a factor for le.

>

>

>

>>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained.

>>

>>

>>

>

>**Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the

>proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

>

>

>

>>And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution.

>>

>>

>>

>

>***Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?

>

>

>

>

>>Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>****An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a

>secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any

>doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each

>time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a

>doctor is a toy!

>

>

>*****Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be

>interested to see them:

>

>

>

>>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>>>

>>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji;

>>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

>>>criteria; uses lo)

>>>

>>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji;

>>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

>>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

>>>the wrong rabbit; uses le)

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 00:11 GMT

1. How Whorfian! To me it is a matter of expreience: I have met rabbits and myself. I can extract stages from myself (or a rabbit) by analysis though not experience them as such (I've tried for half my life as a student of Buddhism but no go — fortunately the Buddhists I know admit they cqan't either or not for more than a flash). I cannot at all, by synthesis, get Mr. Rabbit from rabbits. So, I have some doubts about stages, none about people or rabbits, and quite a few about Mr. Rabbit, however defined or described.

2. Nice one! In that case the quantifiers are no better than any other device. We need a general solution for this and I never can decide or get an agreement about the best one — or just to pick one (intensional contexts, outer domain quantification, to name the two easiest)

3. I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} and certtainly that fact alone wouldn't justify changing it, unless there were a new, closely related function that needed doing. So far the functions proposed seem either not new or not related. Appeal to Loglan {lo} will have no effect on me (or others who were in that world) than to convince us that your {lo} is inciherent if not contradictory — the status of Loglan {lo} when last I checked.

4: That this is new {lo} is less than clear, BPFK was supposed to clarify and regularize existing forms, not introduce innovations — except to acheve those mentioned tasks. This is new and surely does nothing for either of the set purposes. If you are doing something else, you should announce it loud and clear at the beginning.

5: Yes, fooled by English cleft sentence constructions Lojban creators brook up the single thread of those notions into two places — less drastically in this case than in some others perhaps, but still creating a messy situation. You cannot, for example, officially anaphorize the sumti behind {tu'a} with a coreferential pronoun (you can with a literal one, of couse, but then it means something different. Notice that the third place is also intensional so the {lo tanxe} doesn't create any problem here except that, being in a different intensional context, it cannot be hooked up to the earlier one (I suppose the ideal embedded predicate is {pilno}, which I would use if I wanted to express purpose).

6: but lo ractu does not ractu — no ractu has instances but, at least for now, lo ractu does (How would you say that in Lojban, by the way). I still think you are trying to have things both ways — a constant that does exactly the work of a variable — and very little you have said convinces me otherwise (even leads me to consider it).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other

> of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the

> totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow

> that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

1.I don't have more doubts about the stages than the individual, or

about the kind than the instances. They are all artifacts of language

to me. Maybe that's why we can't seem to understand each other.

> L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the

> reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

2. What about {su'o pavyseljirna cu xanri}?

> M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say

> something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever

> it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a

> lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a

> reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted.

3. {lo} was redundant in its function, being equivalent to {su'o},

so it was the logical choice. Also, there's the historical conexion

to Loglan {lo}. Also, the simplest gadri should be the most general

one. {lo} is to gadri as {cu} is to tenses.

> If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {...

> nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought,

> since, by your description, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that

> are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

4:They are examples of the proposed lo, of course. This is the adrees

of the page, in case you want to discuss actual examples:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri

> Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of

> course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for

5:Both {djica} and {nitcu} have an x3 for "for", so the vagueness

of tu'a is of a different sort. For example:

mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty(?)

I need (something about) a box so that I put some books in it(?)

The "something" is probably "having it". I'm not sure if the {ty}

is correct here. Can you refer to a quantified something that's

inside a different abstraction?

> dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in

> your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate

> that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not

> even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

6:lo ractu does, of course, ractu. {mi nitcu lo tanxe lo nu mi punji

lo cukta ty} is simply "I need a box to put books in it", no more vague

than that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT

1. Assuming the differences you talk about are those for {le} and {lo}, this looks approximately right: for {le} the existence is implicit as a [recondition for using the form, for {lo} existence is actually part of what is said.

2. Fronting is move a referential expression from its proper place in the utterance to the prenex, leaving some appopriate relic behind: {ty broda ro da} to {roda zo'u ty broda da} as a dumb example. The problem cases are one like {mi djica (tu'a) lo tanxe} to {su'o tanxe goi ko'a zo'u mi djica (tu'a) ko'a} This move can't happen with {tu'a} which explicitly blocks it. There seems to be nothing to block it in the case without the {tu'a}.

3: I am not sure I can be clearer without developing the theories (and that is not conducive to clarity either), however the various cases have been discussed in earlier exchanges, going back a decade or more, and so should be in the archives in a gadri thread.

4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn, but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

5. Yes, in the sense that {lo} is meant to translate (probably in some of the others as well, but they tend to be in restricted scoping situations — subjunctive and the like).

6: My story about what went wrong tends to be about people misusing {lo} in its normal case and trying to make it do work it very remote cases. And then when they got into trouble they decided that there was something wrong with {lo} because surely they could not make mistakes in Lojban! So they started muckjing with it, resulting in the present impenetrable state. Happily, in most cases — most of the cases of proper use of (old) {lo} — the two uses coincide and the differences are merely in the explanation of what is going on. The remote cases (and a few normal ones) work differently and those are what need soting out. Why is {lo mikce} for "a doctor"controversial with the new {lo}, that is (usually, I need to see a case to be sure) a central usage andm ought to agree with the old.

7:Including those, or what purport to be them. The "elucidations" are garbled at least, the examples are questionable — even in terms of the explanations given, and the mental processes are not ones that I can find in me or in books on the subject.

8: I suppose so, since the old {lo} clearly worked for some cases of "any" and the new one does not clearly work for anything, though seems to be just like old {lo} in the central case (which include the relevant uses of "any").

9: I seem to have missed the discussion. As for the cmavo, well, sometimes they have to be there to say what you want to say. And not always where you would expect them from English. You can say {mi djica lo mikce} and mean to say that you want a doctor and may even be understood to have said it, but the trip to that understanding (other than the patronizing "Well, he is new at this and can't be expected to get it exactly right") is much more complicated than with {tu'a}. In the {lo mikce} for "any doctor" case, I would need to see the whole context; translating "any doctor" alone is just not possible, since it can mean a variety of things depending on what role it is playing in what sentence.

xod wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

> * Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different

> way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.

1.In kairsanji, existence is implied because the thing existed at least

when the speaker made its acquaintance. In selkaisanji, existence is not

implied at all; the speaker is only discussing characteristics.

> ** that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo}

> is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps

> distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses

> (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event,

> which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This

> fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely

> a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect).

> The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that

> reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something

> in this world,

2.What does "fronted" mean? Please give an example of the problem it poses.

> and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange

> consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see).

      • Not

> probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But

> briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single

> thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain

> a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will

> conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to

> something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous.

3:I don't follow this at all.

> And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna}

> is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem

> to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica

> ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.

4:Why would this be more false than with the substitution of ko'a with its

value?

> ****How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a"

> basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to

> Lojban.

5.I was talking about the existence claim. Does English "a" have one?

> The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at

> all and so can't be counted against it.

6.If you read the description in the Book, you'll find it comes very close

to what Jorge is proposing, and that at one time, the idea of using lo

for "a doctor" would not have been controversial. I don't know what went

wrong.

> Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does

> anything to help this situation.

7:No evidence, I suppose, beyond example sentences, definitions that some

people manage to understand, and the elucidation of a rather common

mental process related to it.

> Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo

> mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.

8:Are you claiming that the old lo was more suited to "any" than the new one?

>And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious)..

>

9:When I mean "lo" I mean it without tu'a, le ka, or any of the other

contraptions you've suggested. Are you now claiming that a bare {djica

lo mikce} will suffice???? By now I'm afraid the context is lost, so:

You asked what problems are being fixed, and I responded with "the

ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a

fortnight of heated discussion each time. "

10: Since my comments have mainly been about the metaphysics of {lo ractu} and Mr. Rabbit, examples seem irrelevant. However, the cases at issue have been discussed ad nauseam on several different occasions over the last few decades. They are all there in the archives and if you want to join the discuswsion you need to get up to speed again (you have been there in the past).

> The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly.

>

>

>

>*****Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}.

>

>

>

10:Unfortunately, pc, your response was rather somewhat short on concrete

examples, so as I review my post, I'm not sure it will actually

contribute to any convergence of understanding. To continue fruitfully

we'll need example sentences where the new lo leads to contradictions,

or where a meaning of the old lo is orphaned and can no longer be expressed.

>xod wrote:

>John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>*It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we

>see it is really more of a factor for le.

>

>

>

>>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained.

>>

>>

>>

>

>**Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the

>proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

>

>

>

>>And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution.

>>

>>

>>

>

>***Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?

>

>

>

>

>>Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>****An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a

>secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any

>doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each

>time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a

>doctor is a toy!

>

>

>*****Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be

>interested to see them:

>

>

>

>>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

>>>

>>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji;

>>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his

>>>criteria; uses lo)

>>>

>>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji;

>>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all

>>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring

>>>the wrong rabbit; uses le)

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

>

>

>

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT


> 2. Nice one! In that case the quantifiers are no better than any other

> device. We need a general solution for this and I never can decide or get an

> agreement about the best one — or just to pick one (intensional contexts,

> outer domain quantification, to name the two easiest)

(Re: lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu xanri}

Whatever the solution is, it will apply to Mr Unicorn and to Mary Poppins

in the same way.

> 3. I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} and

But then, what is the old lo you keep talking about if not the one

equivalent to su'o???

> certtainly that fact alone wouldn't justify changing it, unless there were a

> new, closely related function that needed doing. So far the functions

> proposed seem either not new or not related. Appeal to Loglan {lo} will have

> no effect on me (or others who were in that world) than to convince us that

> your {lo} is inciherent if not contradictory — the status of Loglan {lo}

> when last I checked.

OK. In any case, you are fully justified in opposing the new {lo} on

the grounds that it goes against Lojban traditional understanding of it.

I don't really want to argue the political side of it, just the technical

one.

> 4: That this is new {lo} is less than clear, BPFK was supposed to clarify and

> regularize existing forms, not introduce innovations — except to acheve

> those mentioned tasks. This is new and surely does nothing for either of the

> set purposes. If you are doing something else, you should announce it loud

> and clear at the beginning.

There was a large enough consensus that the gadri system as it was needed

fixing. You are more than welcome to propose another way of doing it, but

it has to be more than a sketch, you have to show how to deal with all

the tough cases. It's not enough to claim it can be done, you have to show

how it's done, with concrete examples.

> 5: Yes, fooled by English cleft sentence constructions Lojban creators brook

> up the single thread of those notions into two places — less drastically in

> this case than in some others perhaps, but still creating a messy situation.

(Re: third place of nitcu/djica)

When we use the language, we have to deal with the messy situation,

so it is not enough to say that it could have been done better, we

have to show how to deal with it as it is.

> You cannot, for example, officially anaphorize the sumti behind {tu'a} with a

> coreferential pronoun (you can with a literal one, of couse, but then it

> means something different. Notice that the third place is also intensional

> so the {lo tanxe} doesn't create any problem here except that, being in a

> different intensional context, it cannot be hooked up to the earlier one (I

> suppose the ideal embedded predicate is {pilno}, which I would use if I

> wanted to express purpose).

So what do you propose we do about it?

> 6: but lo ractu does not ractu — no ractu has instances but, at least for

> now, lo ractu does (How would you say that in Lojban, by the way).

But rabbits do rabbit, and that's what {lo ractu cu ractu} means.

As for the rest, I'm not sure, but wouldn't every ractu be an instance

(the only instance) of itself? I'm just pondering aloud here, I know

what your answer will be.

In any case, in a more general case, instances of one kind can in

turn be a kind with its own instances: for example rabbits as a kind

are an instance of animals. (Each rabbit is also an instance, of course.)

I think {mupli} could be used for "x1 is an instance of x2", modifying

its place structure a bit, and {klesi} for subkinds, so:

ta mupli lo ractu

That's an instance of rabbits.

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu

Rabbits are a kind of animal.

> I still

> think you are trying to have things both ways — a constant that does exactly

> the work of a variable — and very little you have said convinces me

> otherwise (even leads me to consider it).

As long as it does the work, what's the problem?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 02:17 GMT

pc:

> 4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn,

> but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns

> (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

I make a distinction between the predicate {zasti} and the "there is"

of existential quantification. I have no problem with:

su'o da naku zasti

There are things that don't exist (in this world).

I wouldn't say that there is no Mr Unicorn. I'd say that Mr Unicorn

is such that he does not exist in this world (and the same thing I

would say of Mary Poppins, for example.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT

7. Probably, though at least (old) {lo} might take a slight change, playing off its relation to {su'o}

8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a different context.

9: I agreee and it is precisely the technical one that I find so deplorable (admittedly from the historical point of view initially but then from a purely tchnical one as well).

10: Back atcha! Your claims that new {lo} solves some of these problems are at best tendentious when not clearly false. I would solve these "problems" at least pro tem simply by adding new gadri (or other devices) with the intended functions (vocab out of xCC, I suppose) and then see if 1) they get any use at all and 2) see if ways can be found to do without them using existing elements. I would not do it by redefining a stable form.

I am not convinced that the gadri system needs more reworking than that (and a change on the meaning of internal and external quantifiers, perhaps).

11: Done, though it involves just not using {nitcu3} with {nitcu2} {mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe poi mi punji lo cukta ke'a}

12:That makes two proposals — not mutually exclusive. I suppose I could come up with more. How many do you need?

13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are used to make the resulting sentence true. There is no one rabbit that makes all true {lo ractu} sentences true. lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is a John-stage. It is your saying things like this that convince me that you are constantly confusing (or shifting back and forth between) an abstractum and the underlying concreta.

14: It depends, but for the general case you suggest, the answer it clearly "no" — instance are at a different level from what they are instances of.

15: Yes, and that is exactly the classic tree or hierarchy of abstracta, with all the usual rules. So there clearly are both and abstract something and a concrete one here and the question is only whether they are distinct or confused. If distinct, then either lo ractu is not a ractu or else {lo ractu} is not a constant.

16: Fine, provided that the 2nd place can embrace kinds or whatever as well as properties (assuming that there is a significant difference, which I think there is, though I would be hard-pressed to spell it out).

17: These work fine with {lo ractu} as a kind, but fail when we look (as we usually have to do) for an instance that makes it true. That Mr. Rabbit is eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here. That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is correct?

18: The point is that when we get down to careful usage — which is what Lojban is about, basically — it does not work. See examples just above.

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> 2. Nice one! In that case the quantifiers are no better than any other

> device. We need a general solution for this and I never can decide or get an

> agreement about the best one — or just to pick one (intensional contexts,

> outer domain quantification, to name the two easiest)

7. Re: lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu xanri}

Whatever the solution is, it will apply to Mr Unicorn and to Mary Poppins

in the same way.

> 3. I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} and

8: But then, what is the old lo you keep talking about if not the one

equivalent to su'o???

> certtainly that fact alone wouldn't justify changing it, unless there were a

> new, closely related function that needed doing. So far the functions

> proposed seem either not new or not related. Appeal to Loglan {lo} will have

> no effect on me (or others who were in that world) than to convince us that

> your {lo} is inciherent if not contradictory — the status of Loglan {lo}

> when last I checked.

9: OK. In any case, you are fully justified in opposing the new {lo} on

the grounds that it goes against Lojban traditional understanding of it.

I don't really want to argue the political side of it, just the technical

one.

> 4: That this is new {lo} is less than clear, BPFK was supposed to clarify and

> regularize existing forms, not introduce innovations — except to acheve

> those mentioned tasks. This is new and surely does nothing for either of the

> set purposes. If you are doing something else, you should announce it loud

> and clear at the beginning.

10:There was a large enough consensus that the gadri system as it was needed

fixing. You are more than welcome to propose another way of doing it, but

it has to be more than a sketch, you have to show how to deal with all

the tough cases. It's not enough to claim it can be done, you have to show

how it's done, with concrete examples.

> 5: Yes, fooled by English cleft sentence constructions Lojban creators brook

> up the single thread of those notions into two places — less drastically in

> this case than in some others perhaps, but still creating a messy situation.

11:(Re: third place of nitcu/djica)

When we use the language, we have to deal with the messy situation,

so it is not enough to say that it could have been done better, we

have to show how to deal with it as it is.

> You cannot, for example, officially anaphorize the sumti behind {tu'a} with a

> coreferential pronoun (you can with a literal one, of couse, but then it

> means something different. Notice that the third place is also intensional

> so the {lo tanxe} doesn't create any problem here except that, being in a

> different intensional context, it cannot be hooked up to the earlier one (I

> suppose the ideal embedded predicate is {pilno}, which I would use if I

> wanted to express purpose).

12: So what do you propose we do about it?

> 6: but lo ractu does not ractu — no ractu has instances but, at least for

> now, lo ractu does (How would you say that in Lojban, by the way).

13:But rabbits do rabbit, and that's what {lo ractu cu ractu} means.

14: As for the rest, I'm not sure, but wouldn't every ractu be an instance

(the only instance) of itself? I'm just pondering aloud here, I know

what your answer will be.

15: In any case, in a more general case, instances of one kind can in

turn be a kind with its own instances: for example rabbits as a kind

are an instance of animals. (Each rabbit is also an instance, of course.)

16:I think {mupli} could be used for "x1 is an instance of x2", modifying

its place structure a bit, and {klesi} for subkinds, so:

17:ta mupli lo ractu

That's an instance of rabbits.

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu

Rabbits are a kind of animal.

> I still

> think you are trying to have things both ways — a constant that does exactly

> the work of a variable — and very little you have said convinces me

> otherwise (even leads me to consider it).

18: As long as it does the work, what's the problem?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT

19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for quantification over non-existents. That is a perfectly good way to go and, once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often important to know that something really exists. The old rules for quantifiers (for the zastis) are then applied only to this restricted set and the unbounded set covers everything and always applies. I was attributing to you a less drastic change, taking {lo zasti} to apply to a kind, an abstract entity, which by convention would therefore exist, and then (mistakenly) saying that it did not exist since it had no instances. And indeed that is closer to what you now claim, since Mr.Unicorn is said not to exist in this world but to be nonetheless. I'm not sure what that does to the problem inference, but I think it still makes the start {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} false, like the fronted version.

However, this gets tangled with the ambiguity of {lo pavyseljirna} so I am not sure.

I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing cases.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> 4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn,

> but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns

> (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

19:I make a distinction between the predicate {zasti} and the "there is"

of existential quantification. I have no problem with:

su'o da naku zasti

There are things that don't exist (in this world).

I wouldn't say that there is no Mr Unicorn. I'd say that Mr Unicorn

is such that he does not exist in this world (and the same thing I

would say of Mary Poppins, for example.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT

pc:

> [[before:%20I%20am%20not%20sure%20that%20I%20agree%20that%20%7Blo%7D%20ever%20was%20equivalent%20to%20%7Bsu'o%7D|before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o}]]

> 8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of

> times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque

> contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in

> the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a

> proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a

> different context.

That seems to result in something almost indistinguishable from my

proposal, leaving aside the meta-talk.

I removed the nitcu and djica examples from the page. Even though

I will keep using them in the sense "person x1 wants object x2" and

"person x1 needs object x2", the fact is that at least for djica

the gi'uste seems to restrict it to "perxon x1 wants event x2", so

I won't push an example that contradicts the gi'uste. (Also, Robin

wanted less examples from L* P**** P****, so that's an additional

reason to remove them.)

Of the remaining examples in that page, would you say that any

of them conflicts with your understanding of the old {lo}?

How would you improve the wording of the definition of {lo}

to make it coherent?

> 13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same

> in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are

> used to make the resulting sentence true.

Right, just as in different contexts different John-stages are used

to make the resulting sentence true. (The John-stage that makes true

"John goes to the market on Saturday" is not the John-stage that makes

true "John stayed at home on Sunday".)

> There is no one rabbit that makes

> all true {lo ractu} sentences true.

No single instance of rabbits, right.

>lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is

> a John-stage.

Using {le ca me la djan} for now-John, and {le puza me la djan} for

a-while-ago-John, then I would say:

le ca me la djan cu me la djan

Now-John is John.

le puza me la djan cu me la djan

A-while-ago-John is John.

la djan cu me la djan

John is John.

So yes, the same identificatory predicate that is satisfied by the

stages is satisfied by the individual, and the same I would say

for kinds and instances.

(I would like to be able to talk of {la ca djan} and {la puza djan},

but the current grammar forbids it.)

> That Mr. Rabbit is

> eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here.

> That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is

> correct?

Both are correct, because in general the truth of {lo broda cu brode}

does not hang on the truth of {su'o mupli be lo broda cu brode}. For

some predicates brode, it just happens that the second entails the first,

but that's due to the semantics of the predicate, not due to any logical

necessity.

Anyway, if you can check the list of examples and tell me which ones

look wrong to you (and how you would correct them) that would be

helpful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:32 GMT

pc:

> 19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for

> quantification over non-existents.

That depends on the context, doesn't it? Surely sometimes you

quantify over non-existents when speaking in English and other

times you don't. If context does not make it clear that you

are restricting it to existents, you can always say

{ro da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}, {su'o da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}.

> That is a perfectly good way to go and,

> once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then

> need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often

> important to know that something really exists.

When it is not obvious what you mean, you can explicitly restrict

with {poi zasti}. In a similar way, sometimes we use {no da} when

we mean {no da poi prenu}, and so on. If you want to buy more

precision you have to pay with more verbosity.

> I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is

> made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing

> cases.

Shift?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:29 GMT

1. To be sure, since your proposal was at least conservative enough to preserve the core cases of old {lo}. The differences would come only in the new uses, which I simply would not take to be cases of {lo} (I have fleshed out these suggestion a bit on a comment to the gadri page.)

2. What?

3: I blushingly confess that I have not studied the examples, but on a glance I saw at least one ("A young person respect an old person" or so) that I agree should be {lo} (given that {ei} generates an opaque context, or rather one tha delimits any quantification) but that others might want to put (with some justification) into the species class.

4: I think it did that in the note, something like "a (or several) thing(s) in the current domain that actually meet(s) the given property." which probably needs some tidying. I think your stuff about quantities can stand (thouggh, as I note, some of the more remote cases don't make sense).

5: Well, I still don't accept the analogy for the reasons rehearsed before, so this is not a convinving case. And it certainly does not override the problems with taking {lo} for Mr. Rabbit when his properties qua Mr. Rabbit are at issue.

6: Since I don't know what {me} is meaning this week, I can't be sure what to make of these sentences. Assuming that the wordlist is approximately right, then I think that saying John-now is specific to John will work only with the tag "in respect to time-stages" or some such. I suppose the corresponding case you want is {leva ractu me lo ractu} or so, which again may work with some tag. But that is not the case that is interesting (even if it does work with a nonvacuous respect (it looks a lot like "this rabbit is a rabbit" with some fluff thrown in). In any case, the identificatory predicates will not be same — only the {me} carries over, not the aspect.

7: Logic hjabits die hard, so I like the already permissible (I think) {la djan xi ca}. As I write this I notice that {xi} seems only defined for numerals and the like, so some tampering is required here as well (or with {la}, though that seems to me harder).

8: I would want to go back to the old system where {lo broda cu brode} does entail (indeed is equivalent to in this context?) {su'o mupli be le broda cu brode}. Of course, your replacing the proeprty in {mupli2} with a whatever pretty much prejudices the issue. But notice at what price simplification has been bought here: every place of every predicate has to be marked for whether {lo broda} in that place refers to some broda or to Mr. Broda. And yet there will be cases that are hard to pin down {lo broda cu zasti} is ambiguous; it doesn't make a difference since in your strange halfbreed Mr. Broda they are extensionally equivalent. And, of course, getting out of extensional case separates them: what am I thinking about when {mi pensi lo ractu} is true?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> [[before:%20I%20am%20not%20sure%20that%20I%20agree%20that%20%7Blo%7D%20ever%20was%20equivalent%20to%20%7Bsu'o%7D|before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o}]]

> 8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of

> times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque

> contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in

> the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a

> proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a

> different context.

1.That seems to result in something almost indistinguishable from my

proposal, leaving aside the meta-talk.

I removed the nitcu and djica examples from the page. Even though

I will keep using them in the sense "person x1 wants object x2" and

"person x1 needs object x2", the fact is that at least for djica

the gi'uste seems to restrict it to "perxon x1 wants event x2", so

I won't push an example that contradicts the gi'uste. (Also, Robin

wanted less examples from 2.L* P**** P****, so that's an additional

reason to remove them.)

3:Of the remaining examples in that page, would you say that any

of them conflicts with your understanding of the old {lo}?

4:How would you improve the wording of the definition of {lo}

to make it coherent?

> 13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same

> in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are

> used to make the resulting sentence true.

5:Right, just as in different contexts different John-stages are used

to make the resulting sentence true. (The John-stage that makes true

"John goes to the market on Saturday" is not the John-stage that makes

true "John stayed at home on Sunday".)

> There is no one rabbit that makes

> all true {lo ractu} sentences true.

No single instance of rabbits, right.

>lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is

> a John-stage.

Using {le ca me la djan} for now-John, and {le puza me la djan} for

a-while-ago-John, then I would say:

6:le ca me la djan cu me la djan

Now-John is John.

le puza me la djan cu me la djan

A-while-ago-John is John.

la djan cu me la djan

John is John.

So yes, the same identificatory predicate that is satisfied by the

stages is satisfied by the individual, and the same I would say

for kinds and instances.

7:(I would like to be able to talk of {la ca djan} and {la puza djan},

but the current grammar forbids it.)

8: That Mr. Rabbit is

> eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here.

> That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is

> correct?

Both are correct, because in general the truth of {lo broda cu brode}

does not hang on the truth of {su'o mupli be lo broda cu brode}. For

some predicates brode, it just happens that the second entails the first,

but that's due to the semantics of the predicate, not due to any logical

necessity.

Anyway, if you can check the list of examples and tell me which ones

look wrong to you (and how you would correct them) that would be

helpful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:51 GMT

1. I don't think so. Once you do it you seem to be committing the language. To be sure, you could contextualize (put the scope in an opaque clause) and go on from there. This is one standard work-around logicians use for English, which is very sloppy about this. Lojban ought to do better, not leaving it to context. And just how would those contexts be described? What separates {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn} from {la tonibler xabju la lndn} so that we can sort out what is real from what is not. (By the way, I would kee the current quantifiers for existents and add the outer domain one on, just as a practical matter.)

2: Or with a somewhat longer cmavo list, either more quantifiers or perhaps more "trenses" "in story" relevantly in this cse. And, of course, all of these (like everything else in Lojban) are optional in most speech situations. The point is to have the tools when more precision is needed.

3: Shift! The present quantifiers are explicitly real-world (and, indeed, I would have said — if asked — that you were one of the people who jumped on me for suggesting otherwise. Since, in the outer domain, neither {ro} nore {su'o} goes unfufilled, many questions disappear — including, obviously, the one about how many whojis there are for internal quantification. Hooray!)

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> 19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for

> quantification over non-existents.

1. That depends on the context, doesn't it? Surely sometimes you

quantify over non-existents when speaking in English and other

times you don't. If context does not make it clear that you

are restricting it to existents, you can always say

{ro da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}, {su'o da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}.

> That is a perfectly good way to go and,

> once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then

> need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often

> important to know that something really exists.

2:When it is not obvious what you mean, you can explicitly restrict

with {poi zasti}. In a similar way, sometimes we use {no da} when

we mean {no da poi prenu}, and so on. If you want to buy more

precision you have to pay with more verbosity.

> I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is

> made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing

> cases.

3:Shift?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT


> 2. What?

Le Petit Prince

> 7: Logic hjabits die hard, so I like the already permissible (I think) {la

> djan xi ca}. As I write this I notice that {xi} seems only defined for

> numerals and the like, so some tampering is required here as well (or with

> {la}, though that seems to me harder).

The easiest path is to blend CMENE with BRIVLA. No point in them

having different grammars.

> But notice at what price simplification

> has been bought here: every place of every predicate has to be marked for

> whether {lo broda} in that place refers to some broda or to Mr. Broda.

{lo broda} ALWAYS refers to Mr Broda. No marking is required.

>From {ko'a viska lo broda} we can deduce, based on our

understanding of viska, that {ko'a viska su'o broda}.

But {lo broda} itself is a visible thing. We can say, for example,

pointing to Mr Rabbit, present as a single instance in

front of us:

mi pu viska su'o ta

I saw one of those before.

That doesn't mean necessarily that I saw the same instance.

{ta} in this case refers to Mr Rabbit, just as "those" in English.

> And

> yet there will be cases that are hard to pin down {lo broda cu zasti} is

> ambiguous; it doesn't make a difference since in your strange halfbreed Mr.

> Broda they are extensionally equivalent. And, of course, getting out of

> extensional case separates them: what am I thinking about when {mi pensi lo

> ractu} is true?

You'd be thinking about rabbits, what else?

(I'm copying here some of your comments from the page.

I would prefer that you use the 'discuss' forum rather than the

'comments', because it makes it much easier to reply. Besides, I

don't find out that you have made a comment until I visit the page

or you tell me, whereas the 'discuss' forum I get in my post box.)

pc:

>on {lo'e} and {le'e}.These do NOT take external quantifiers; internal

>quantifiers are about the size of group which is being typed or

>stereotyped (and so is rarely used).

I will write it as you suggest unless there is opposition from others.

The grammar still allows outer quantifiers, but I'm not particularly

interested in assigning them weird meanings.

>If we want to talk about more than one typical whatever, the

>appropriate form (even if it is only one but is not being used for

>typing) is to used the (as yet unlexed) brivla for "typuical"

>and "stereotypical".

{fadni} can be used for "typical". I don't know about "stereotypical".

>Along the lines of these, a modern language surely needs corresponding

>forms for "the average," probably one for each measure of central

>tendency> Of these, the mean does not support generalization but both

>median and mode do, so this fact should be made visible somehow (maybe,

>sticking to the rules, {xo'e} for mean and have the others look more

>like normaler gadri: {xa'a} and {xa'e} say).

There's a page for this kind of thing if you are really interested:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Currently+proposed+experimental+cmavo?

I'm curious as to what kind of thing you could say about

the median flower, or the modal rabbit, or the mean shoe.

I just can't think of a place I would use one of those.

>I am unsure about the following additions. Trying to deal with

>them without much care is what has complicated {lo} out of

>coherence. On the other hand, I suspect tha, once we master

>subjunctives in Lojban, the problem cases will be dealt with.

>Until then (and maybe even after then as a shortcut — like {lo'e}

>and {le'e} (although admittedly we cannot now say what is

>abbreviated in these case)):

>a gadri, {xo'o} say, which produces the name of the species/kind/...

>of things that satisfy the predicate. Such things always exist, even

>if there are no such critters as satisy the predicate. These can be

>used to make general claims of one sort.

Of what sort? Can these be used in contrast with {lo broda}

to make a distinction, or only in places where {lo broda} cannot

be used?

>And another for the stuff/substance/goo of things of the predicated

>sort. This is useful for another kind of generalization (though less

>common, I think, except for the normally mass nouns).

Examples?

>Once the extension of old {lo} are dealt with separately, old {lo}

>can take on its proper job again, doing what has rather less

>successfully been done by most uses of new {lo}: an unspecified

>member of the current domain that actually has the proberty described.

>As such, it is generalizable **within the range of the current domain**

>but not generally outside.

Can it be the antecedent of a pronoun from outside the current

domain? For example, I could say:

mi nitcu lo nu mi cpacu lo tanxe

i mi pu viska ty bu'u le lamji kumfa

i e'apei mi lebna ty

"I need to get a box.

I saw ONE in the other room.

May I take IT?"

Can this be done with your proposed {lo}, given that the reference

is from outside the domain where {lo tanxe} appears?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

pc:

> And just how would those contexts be described? What

> separates {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn} from {la tonibler xabju la lndn} so

> that we can sort out what is real from what is not.

If the names themselves are not enough, you could add something

explicit {la crlakolmz noi se cfika} or maybe {la crlakolmz xabju

la lndn sei cfika}.

> 2: Or with a somewhat longer cmavo list, either more quantifiers or perhaps

> more "trenses" "in story" relevantly in this cse.

I don't see the Lojban community adopting a whole set of new cmavo

at this stage. One or two maybe, but drastic new incorporations, I

don't see it. More likely is the adoption of something already

existing with perhaps a different or more specialized meaning than

what it was planned for. But you can always propose new ones if you

think they are worth it.

> And, of course, all of

> these (like everything else in Lojban) are optional in most speech

> situations. The point is to have the tools when more precision is needed.

Indeed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT posts: 14214

Just for the record, one of the current No votes is from PC, who is not a member of the BPFK, and as such should be considered as being for informational purposes only.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT

One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either

conflate two different meanings into one, or have one meaning that is

ill-defined or hard to formalize. What I want is a general algorithm fo=

r

determining whether or not a sentence that uses XS-lo is true or false.

These examples are taken from an IRC discussion I had with xod.

{mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances)

Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac=

h

one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo=

r

which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No

problem here.

{lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false

We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all=

)

instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} =

is

false. No problem here.

{lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true.

We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in

which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi=

ch

is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

So. What is it that I'm missing here.

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

P=E5 1300-tallet kom tersen. F=F8r og etter det var det meste bare rot,=

men

s=E5 kom Sch=F6nberg og ordnet opp. Puh. Endelig litt system. S=E5 klar=

te Arne

Nordheim =E5 rote det til igjen. — Under Dusken 08/2=

001



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT


> {mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances)

> Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac=

> h

> one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo=

> r

> which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No

> problem here.

But what you are describing is {mi nitcu ro mikce}.

In {mi nitcu lo mikce} you don't examine any doctor. All you

need to know is what a doctor is. Then, knowing what a doctor

is, you ask yourself, is that what I need? If the answer is yes,

then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. You don't have to examine any

doctors. As xod says, all the doctors may be dead and you may

still need one.

> {lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false

> We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all=

> )

> instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} =

> is

> false. No problem here.

Again you are describing the procedure to check {ro prenu cu tarci}.

For {lo prenu cu tarci} what you need to know is what a prenu is.

Knowing what a prenu is, do you think it is (at least sometimes)

a tarci? If not, then the sentence is false.

> {lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true.

> We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in

> which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi=

> ch

> is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

Again, you are describing {ro prenu cu sadjo}, which as you conclude

is false.

To check {lo prenu cu sadjo} you start from your knowledge of

what a prenu is. Then you ask yourself, is it (at least sometimes)

a sadjo? If yes then {lo prenu cu (su'oroi) sadjo} is true.

{lo prenu roroi fe'eroroi sadjo} is obviously false. People can be

Saudis, but people are not always and everywhere Saudis.

> So. What is it that I'm missing here.

You seem to be confusing lo with ro.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 23:55 GMT

About the {lo} examples:

General comment: most of these examples are complex; good examples begin, at least, with clear simple cases where there is little chance to miss the point. Such examples are boring, but they provide the information readers are looking for at the start. Later cases can deal with peculiarities. And most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all): generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like – things that are more or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its ground at all).

ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

Children should always show great forbearance

toward grown-up people.

This looks like a general maxim or moral rule. It is unlikely that the propounder would think it satisfied if just one child was found who forgave one adult. Using {ro} instead of {lo} is probably closer to the point to be made, especially if we allow implicit exceptions (as morals pretty regularly do) to at least the second {ro}: adult ax murderers are not to be forgiven or are their child victims required to forgive them. In these fuzzy areas (as maxims usually are) the temptation to talk in terms of “some” – which includes “all” and everything in between — is pretty strong but gives the wrong effect, as noted. Trying to do it with classes/species/kinds raises the same problems both ways (not to mention the problem of how to word it sensibly). Of course the propounder might (probably does in typical cases) has some particular youths in mind and so even {le} could be justified on that occasion.

ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe

i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of

boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

I am not sure whether {pa’o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially: “any sheep through any box” (is “the walls of” just a flourish? This eems to apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends. The {lo} in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going on to some property. I would use {la’e} here, but that is only a reasonable start of working out how to talk about species.

ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

At night lions hunt for food.

As usual for generalities, the propounder would not feel he had made his point if only on one night was one lion found to be hunting food – a single eland, say. But of course the universal is not required either, since some lions sometimes take a night off (after a big meal or when they have some fleshy corpse still available. (Lions are actually day hunters at least as much as night, but that is not relevant here.) This really soes seem to be about the species: “Lions are nocturnal food-hunters,” however that works out in the end (pretty much like that or in terms of explicit relation between species or between a species and a property — or maybe all three and more besides.)

lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

One picture is worth a thousand words.

Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki’o valsi} looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki’o valsi} – presumably the words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways, indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either universal or about species or perhaps {la’e}.

de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there was – implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds’ – now extinct – eggs, certified organic, …). Iam inclining more and more to {la’e} here.

lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

The teacher will divide the class

into five groups of four students.

Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}. But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu

ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni

The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups

of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.

This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.

o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi

Caution! There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden.

No problems that I can see (finally!) This should come much earlier in the business.

lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu

cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270

Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water

being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and

weigh about 270lbs.

Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope, {lo} would work)

lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma

gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u

Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse

with a horn coming out of their foreheads.

Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).

bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe

(to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy.

alveolar gy. toi)

tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi

I’m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo} What is the role of the blue expressions?

le cmana lo cidja ba claxu

In the mountains there is no food.

lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli

Normal usage – well it is good to see that implicit negation works like ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu

The road of the good language is costly.

lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli

Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)

la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o

gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo

xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto

tenguar

Species or set (probably the latter). “the severalth” is nice, though not a clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me “one of several” or just “pretty far along in the set ordered by … (date?)”



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT

I agree with the opening remark here, though for somewhat different reasons. The problem that arj is dealing with arises from the fact that one (or maybe the only) "meaning" assigned to {lo} is essentially vague. Trying to apply recise tests to discover the truth of a sentence in this case is bound to fail. Looking at the examples on the wiki sheet I found that most of them fluctuated (when applying precise tests) between "all" and "some" but with conditions. Thus, if read as "some," it often turned out that one or two — or any fixed number of — cases were not enought; if read as "all" then any number of exceptions had to be allowed without affecting truth. Nor would any of "may", "most," or such intermediate — and already rather vague — quantifiers work. This is out of the range of quantifers and into operators like "generally," "as a rule" and so on, applied at the argument level rather than the sentential. This seems to be one thing that xorxes means when he says that

{lo} expressions refer to kinds or species or maybe even Mr. The next step (and where the ambiguity comes in from my point of view) is moving from talking about things in a certain unspecified collective way to talking about one thing, the unspecified collect of those things — more or less like taking the typical x as being some paricular (though prehaps unidentified) x. This way of talking does result in an expression that serves much like a constant: it is usually negation transparent — if it is not the case that some unspecified collective of xs are ys, then such a collective is usually not ys (unles there are no xs at all) and, except for discrete properties, is such a collective is a and such a collective is b, then there will be such a collective that is both a and b. These are not valid moves, of course, but they usually work and thus can be applied in practical cases.

BTW, the test for {mi nitcu lo mikce} is probably misguided, the doctor you need may not be any actual doctor — you need one who can perform a memory-retaining brain transplant, for example. The {lo prenu cu tarci} works on any case. the {lo prenu cu sadjo} falls into the vagueness trap by working at the upper end of the range rather than the lower or middle (xorxes does encourage that with his examples, to be sure). Here it would be enough if some few (or many or...) people were Saudis (I am not sure whether one would be enough).

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either

conflate two different meanings into one, or have one meaning that is

ill-defined or hard to formalize. What I want is a general algorithm fo=

r

determining whether or not a sentence that uses XS-lo is true or false.

These examples are taken from an IRC discussion I had with xod.

{mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances)

Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac=

h

one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo=

r

which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No

problem here.

{lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false

We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all=

)

instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} =

is

false. No problem here.

{lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true.

We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in

which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi=

ch

is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

So. What is it that I'm missing here.

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

P=E5 1300-tallet kom tersen. F=F8r og etter det var det meste bare rot,=

men

s=E5 kom Sch=F6nberg og ordnet opp. Puh. Endelig litt system. S=E5 klar=

te Arne

Nordheim =E5 rote det til igjen. — Under Dusken 08/2=

001



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT

1. Not even that, since his examination is largely irrelevant to the issue: all the doctors he needs may be none of the ones there are.

The claim that all the doctors might be dead and you still need one is about the opaque context generated (covertly in your usage) by {nitcu}: {mi viska lo mikce} won't be true if all the doctors are dead (doctor-corpses not counting as doctors for this case at least).

I suspect that the "just think about it" will not work generally: it does for someof the intensional cases — though not even for all of those.

2: arj's technique is essentially correct here. Look at them all and if none correspond then the {lo} claim is surely false. Since this is probably an analytic claim, thinking about it may be sufficient.

3: Yes, he screws up here: the run through is right but he should be counting hits, not misses. Admittedly, not fixed number of hits is the right one, but cases of no hits will make the whole false (and maybe cases of too few hits — precisely as vague as that seems). But I doubt that thinking about it will help here: Graustarkians are at least as likely a group of people as Saudis coonsidered conceptually but lo prenu are not Graustarkian. You have to check in the real world.

4: And the same to you (see examples). He is merely taking {lo broda} a seriously as you sometimes do, but being consistent about it.


> {mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances)

> Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac=

> h

> one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo=

> r

> which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No

> problem here.

1. But what you are describing is {mi nitcu ro mikce}.

In {mi nitcu lo mikce} you don't examine any doctor. All you

need to know is what a doctor is. Then, knowing what a doctor

is, you ask yourself, is that what I need? If the answer is yes,

then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. You don't have to examine any

doctors. As xod says, all the doctors may be dead and you may

still need one.

> {lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false

> We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all=

> )

> instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} =

> is

> false. No problem here.

2:Again you are describing the procedure to check {ro prenu cu tarci}.

For {lo prenu cu tarci} what you need to know is what a prenu is.

Knowing what a prenu is, do you think it is (at least sometimes)

a tarci? If not, then the sentence is false.

> {lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true.

> We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in

> which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi=

> ch

> is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

3:Again, you are describing {ro prenu cu sadjo}, which as you conclude

is false.

To check {lo prenu cu sadjo} you start from your knowledge of

what a prenu is. Then you ask yourself, is it (at least sometimes)

a sadjo? If yes then {lo prenu cu (su'oroi) sadjo} is true.

{lo prenu roroi fe'eroroi sadjo} is obviously false. People can be

Saudis, but people are not always and everywhere Saudis.

> So. What is it that I'm missing here.

4:You seem to be confusing lo with ro.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT

pc:

> And

> most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all):

> generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like – things that are more

> or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its

> ground at all).

But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are

everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker

should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found

most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did

not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced

easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with

current Lojban.

Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time.

I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples.

That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts,

which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims

are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced

in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban

will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.

> ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> Children should always show great forbearance

> toward grown-up people.

It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether

you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it

differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively

frequent in any language?

> ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe

> i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

> But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of

> boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

>

> I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first

> sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it

> reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially:

> “any sheep through any box” (is “the walls of” just a flourish? This eems to

> apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.

The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sais

pas voir les moutons à travers les caisses." I guess context helps make it

clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince

is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had rejected

all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another.

So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo.

(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more

concrete claim, though.)

> The {lo}

> in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going

> on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reasonable

> start of working out how to talk about species.

But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu prenu}?

Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?

The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the

previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", not

the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}

that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

> ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

> At night lions hunt for food.

I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of

this translation.

> lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> One picture is worth a thousand words.

>

> Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi}

> looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}

But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the

thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.

{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such that

the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the

picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000

times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000

words put together.

>– presumably the

> words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways,

> indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either

> universal or about species or perhaps {la’e}.

So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

> de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

> In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

>

> Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there

> was – implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds’ – now extinct –

> eggs, certified organic, …). Iam inclining more and more to {la’e} here.

Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous

one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too much

of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of

doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say

{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another

thread altogether.)

> lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

> The teacher will divide the class

> into five groups of four students.

>

> Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to

> be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}.

> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.

For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim…)

The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column.

The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down

in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher will

ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker

has in mind. It is more general.

> lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu

> ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni

> The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups

> of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.

>

> This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of

> rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be

> appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more

> gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be

> about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three

> {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary

> of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this

> form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.

I'll take that as semi-approved then.

> lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu

> cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270

> Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water

> being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and

> weigh about 270lbs.

>

> Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope,

> {lo} would work)

Do you approve or disapprove of using {lo} for substance?

> lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma

> gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u

> Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse

> with a horn coming out of their foreheads.

>

> Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I

> think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way

> to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).

I can't tell whether you approve or not.

> bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe

> (to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy.

> alveolar gy. toi)

> tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi

>

> I’m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one

> use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a

> problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo}

He meant to say that we should pick either velar or alveolar for all

occasions.

> What is the role of the blue

> expressions?

They are links to the page where the sentence was taken from, so you

can check the context if you want.

> le cmana lo cidja ba claxu

> In the mountains there is no food.

> lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli

>

> Normal usage – well it is good to see that implicit negation works like

> ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

Why not analyse {nitcu} as an implicit negation too, then?

> le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu

> The road of the good language is costly.

> lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli

>

> Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)

You agree with me that it is not equivalent to {le dargu pe su'o xamgu

bangu} then.

> la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o

> gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo

> xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto

> tenguar

>

> Species or set (probably the latter). “the severalth” is nice, though not a

> clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me “one of several” or just “pretty

> far along in the set ordered by … (date?)”

Maybe he meant {so'omei}.

Either way, {lo xanri munje lisri} seems to me generic. {su'o} would

not make sense there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:57 GMT posts: 1912

(Please everybody, use the 'discuss' button and not the

'comments' button to make comments and proposals on the

contents of the page. It makes it easier to reply, thank you.)

pier:

> {lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42} to me means that there are 12

> eggs, each of which costs 42 cents. If a dozen eggs costs 42

> cents, I'd say {lo sovda paremei cu fepni li 42} or maybe {loi

> pare sovda cu fepni li 42}.

{pare sovda cu fepni li 42} says that there are 12 eggs, each

of which costs 42 cents. {lo pare sovda} refers to a twelvesome

of eggs. It is like {lo sovda paremei} but without the tanru

imprecision. {loi pare sovda} is indeed equivalent to

{lo pare sovda}.

> {lo'e se} with the word for a kind of organism is a special case

> and should be mentioned. It refers to the taxon containing all

> members of the kind and no others, if that exists. So {lo'e se

> guzme} means the family Cucurbitaceae, while {lo se guzme}

>can be Cucumis, Sicyos, Luffa, or any of several others. {lo'e se

> jesymabru}, however, has no clear meaning, as {jesymabru}

> can refer to both spiny anteaters and hedgehogs.

I have added a comment to that effect. If others have any

objections to this, please speak up now or forever hold your

peace.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 19:14 GMT

1. Quite true and Lojban needs to have ways to say them,. The question is whether thye are proper for the historical continuity of {lo} and whether one concept can cover them all. I think that the answer is at least doubtful on the first and even more so one the second. They are peculiar only against standard {lo} and thus as generalization away from that. As for there being something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times. There have been many good ideas about how to do it, but no set of them (no one suggestion has solved all — or even most — of the problems) has been accepted and what seems to gain ocasional favor is a good partial solution pushed to absurdity. Until it collapses and we go back to nearly square one with all the intervening suggestions (and even what was good in the popular suggestion) lost.

2. Well, not basic basic but very common indeed and the more so as we get more remote from nature and live in conceptual realms. If this is what Lojban so far has been doing with {lo} (as I take is your point) then to that extent it is bad Lojban and ought not to be preserved as exemplary. It sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in generalities. Admittedly, much of what the generalities brought up here say is pretty compatible with {lo}, covering the gap between none and all, although in a rather different way. As noted, one case is usually too few, all is closer but with a variety of ad hoc exceptions, and — though I have not mentioned it before — often with some cases counting more than others (absolute monarch are better for figuring out what kings do than constitutional monarchs, for example). So in factthese notions do not belong in the same area with those where

counting is to the point. But {lo} just does belong in that area and so ought not be brought into this discussion. It may turn out that, on zipfy gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal). I don't, by the way, think you consistently use {lo} in this way, but that is another matter at this point.

3: Depending on context, I mght do either of two things or maybe something else. If this is just being laid down sententiously, I would probably take all the {lo}s as {ro}s and leave it to casuistry to deal with the exceptions (there always are some; only a person with no life — like Kant — believes in absolute moral generalizations and no one that I can find has ever seriously tried to list all the exceptions beforehand for any rule). On the other hand, if this is admonitory — codger to irksome kids, I might go for brass tacks and deal with "you whippersnappers" and "me, your older, wiser and better" {do noi malverba} and {mi noi makcu}. If I was being cagey I might flavor the universal form with an "as a rule" modal/tense/something (which we lack but need for other things).

4: Negations are a nice source for confusions: if no x is y, than it is not the case that at least one is nor is it the case that some unspecified/ble number are. Ditto if we really mean "all" (which we rarely do, of course).

5: Sorry; misprint. {lo'e}

6: I suspect that I meant that this was basically untranslatable into current Lojban. It looks like a general claim but can't be universal, since there are exceptions and no ground for casuistry. On the other hand, clearly more than one lion and one night is meant. I think that the reference to food should probably be to substance not to particulars or generals so, even if {lo} turns out to be OK for the first two, it is not for the last.

7: Thanx. I doing get this usage completely yet, though I think it is a good one. It is a shift, however, and so needs more discussion (and a large warning) on the wiki page.

8: I am inclined to use {lo'e pixra} and {lo or su'o ki'o valsi}. This is relatively particular, one picture, one set of 1000 words, so full generic does not seem to apply as would "Pictures are worth thousands of words each," say. Here the inspecificity of the generic usage is further complicated. On a bet, not only are some {unspecified number of) pictures worth a thousand words, but 1000 is merely a round number of unspecified import: some are worth only 950, some 1200, quite a few less than 100, a rare few upwards toward millions. A nice "roughly speaking" modal might help here. (I know it is improper to take this stuff literally — what, as the poet asked, are words worth after all. But the serious cases of this sort are also very common — something about eggs coming up.)

9: I see that the {la'e} for {lo'e} runs through this whole thing. Sorry again (especially since I never seem to have backed it up with a "the typical"). In this case, since there are statistics (on a bet) The average — in some sense (though they probably all three coincide).

10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still, as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le [[or%20%7Blei%7D|or {lei}]] selctu}.

11: Nicely put. This is sort of a definition (lacking something about stringing them together in a loop with the last set dangling from the join and about how the groups are demarcated), I am not sure how to do this — even if we have what I have been calling a generic gadri — but I am sure that it does not require more new stuff. Of course, it could be literally a definition, defining the expression, but that — thouggh it has a long history as an out — does not seem quite fair.

12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo bakni are cattle, not beef.

13. Me either. We've been around about how to say that non-existents don't exist, so I'll leave that part out. I never feel comfortable with whichever gadri I use with {ka} and the like, but one seems a good as the other. {lo jirna} is surely correct, even with old {lo} and I would say {le sedycra} since it is the particular one of the particular unicorn we have got to in applying this property.

14. Yes, though {bilga} that way looks odd. The point is that {lo} is in the scope of {roroi} In that sense I am not sure that this says what it is supposed to. It seems to limit the choices one has to velars and alveolars but not to require the same one all the time. One has decided, apparently, never to use dentals or labials or gutterals or palatals. I haven't a clue at the moment how to clean it up. But the {lo}s are OK.

15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies lacking; but it does not assert it.

16: Yes indeed. I now would incline to generic (though I wonder about the {le} in that context.)

17: {so'omei} makes not sense in the context. {lo'i} would be nice and safe or maybe even {ro}, but {su'o} clearly does not work here. The generic doesn't very well either, since I think it means we are to run through all of them (with conditions — e.g., unpublished ones, privately printed runs of thirty and the like).

pc:

> And

> most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all):

> generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like – things that are more

> or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its

> ground at all).

1.But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are

everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker

should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found

most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did

not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced

easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with

current Lojban.

2.Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time.

I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples.

That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts,

which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims

are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced

in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban

will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.

> ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> Children should always show great forbearance

> toward grown-up people.

3.It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether

you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it

differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively

frequent in any language?

> ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe

> i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

> But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of

> boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

>

> I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first

> sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it

> reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially:

> “any sheep through any box” (is “the walls of” just a flourish? This eems to

> apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.

The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sais

pas voir les moutons à travers les caisses." I guess context helps make it

clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince

is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had rejected

all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another.

4:So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo.

(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more

concrete claim, though.)

> The {lo}

> in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going

> on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reasonable

> start of working out how to talk about species.

5:But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu prenu}?

Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?

The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the

previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", not

the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}

that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

> ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

> At night lions hunt for food.

6:I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of

this translation.

> lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> One picture is worth a thousand words.

>

> Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi}

> looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}

7:But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the

thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.

{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such that

the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the

picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000

times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000

words put together.

>– presumably the

> words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways,

> indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either

> universal or about species or perhaps {la’e}.

8: So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

> de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

> In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

>

> Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there

> was – implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds’ – now extinct –

> eggs, certified organic, …). Iam inclining more and more to {la’e} here.

9:Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous

one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too much

of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of

doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say

{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another

thread altogether.)

> lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

> The teacher will divide the class

> into five groups of four students.

>

> Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to

> be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}.

> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

10:"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.

For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim…)

The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column.

The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down

in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher will

ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker

has in mind. It is more general.

> lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu

> ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni

> The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups

> of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.

>

> This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of

> rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be

> appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more

> gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be

> about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three

> {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary

> of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this

> form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.

11:I'll take that as semi-approved then.

> lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu

> cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270

> Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water

> being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and

> weigh about 270lbs.

>

> Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope,

> {lo} would work)

12:Do you approve or disapprove of using {lo} for substance?

> lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma

> gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u

> Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse

> with a horn coming out of their foreheads.

>

> Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I

> think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way

> to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).

13.I can't tell whether you approve or not.

> bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe

> (to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy.

> alveolar gy. toi)

> tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi

>

> I’m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one

> use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a

> problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo}

14.He meant to say that we should pick either velar or alveolar for all

occasions.

> What is the role of the blue

> expressions?

They are links to the page where the sentence was taken from, so you

can check the context if you want.

> le cmana lo cidja ba claxu

> In the mountains there is no food.

> lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli

>

> Normal usage – well it is good to see that implicit negation works like

> ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

15: Why not analyse {nitcu} as an implicit negation too, then?

> le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu

> The road of the good language is costly.

> lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli

>

> Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)

16: You agree with me that it is not equivalent to {le dargu pe su'o xamgu

bangu} then.

> la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o

> gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo

> xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto

> tenguar

>

> Species or set (probably the latter). “the severalth” is nice, though not a

> clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me “one of several” or just “pretty

> far along in the set ordered by … (date?)”

17. Maybe he meant {so'omei}.

Either way, {lo xanri munje lisri} seems to me generic. {su'o} would

not make sense there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical" to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some, probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these and here finally is a case — I think.

[email protected] wrote:

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

(Please everybody, use the 'discuss' button and not the

'comments' button to make comments and proposals on the

contents of the page. It makes it easier to reply, thank you.)

pier:

> {lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42} to me means that there are 12

> eggs, each of which costs 42 cents. If a dozen eggs costs 42

> cents, I'd say {lo sovda paremei cu fepni li 42} or maybe {loi

> pare sovda cu fepni li 42}.

{pare sovda cu fepni li 42} says that there are 12 eggs, each

of which costs 42 cents. {lo pare sovda} refers to a twelvesome

of eggs.!. It is like {lo sovda paremei} but without the tanru

imprecision. {loi pare sovda} is indeed equivalent to

{lo pare sovda}.

2:> {lo'e se} with the word for a kind of organism is a special case

> and should be mentioned. It refers to the taxon containing all

> members of the kind and no others, if that exists. So {lo'e se

> guzme} means the family Cucurbitaceae, while {lo se guzme}

>can be Cucumis, Sicyos, Luffa, or any of several others. {lo'e se

> jesymabru}, however, has no clear meaning, as {jesymabru}

> can refer to both spiny anteaters and hedgehogs.

I have added a comment to that effect. If others have any

objections to this, please speak up now or forever hold your

peace.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

pc:

> 1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it

> could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

{paremei} is not the tanru, {sovda paremei} is. An egg type of dozen

is most likely but not necessarily a dozen eggs.

> 2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical"

> to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of

> thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing

> usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some,

> probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what

> xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely

> mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly

> subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some

> with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about

> members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these

> and here finally is a case — I think.

I'm not sure if you're taking into account the "se" here.

The x1 of guzme is for the cucumbers and the x2 for the taxon

or whatever. Pierre is talking about {lo'e se guzme}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT

pc:

> As for there being

> something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as

> there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times.

Not sure who you mean by "we", but some people think that nothing

should be touched.

> It

> sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of

> {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in

> generalities.

People were called out on those uses all the time, you can see

that from the list archives. The problem is that we could say

{su'o lo} was wrong but we could not say what was right instead.

Any way of generic speaking could be objected to. And {lo} is not

the only thing people use for lack of something better. {le} and

{loi} are also popular alternatives.

> It may turn out that, on zipfy

> gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer

> expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major

> decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki

> page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal).

The wiki page is clearly labeled as a proposal, and it is clearly

part of the BPFK work we are doing. This is a proposal to be

discussed, amended as necessary, and voted on.

> 10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a

> direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still,

> as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it

> is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le [[or%20%7Blei%7D|or {lei}]] selctu}.

So even though the speaker does not have any particular

teacher in mind, you think he should use {le} because some teacher

reading it might have a particular one in mind? What about other

readers that may simply be interested in teaching methods but not

in actually performing this particular lesson?

> 12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the

> uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the

> substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo

> bakni are cattle, not beef.

{lo tu'o gerku} is proposed for the dog all over the pavement.

"Beef" however is probably better as {bakni rectu}.

({ractu rectu} for rabbit.)

> 15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies

> lacking; but it does not assert it.

Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT

1. Oops! Thinking "lujvo" when reading "tanru."

2. Yes, that is what makes it so interesting. Apparently he wants the things which generally do so and so to be the subtaxa — maybe species, maybe genera but certainly not the indivdual plants — that fall under the whatever it is. So there is some need for a marker for these things.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> 1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it

> could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

1. {paremei} is not the tanru, {sovda paremei} is. An egg type of dozen

is most likely but not necessarily a dozen eggs.

> 2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical"

> to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of

> thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing

> usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some,

> probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what

> xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely

> mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly

> subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some

> with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about

> members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these

> and here finally is a case — I think.

2>I'm not sure if you're taking into account the "se" here.

The x1 of guzme is for the cucumbers and the x2 for the taxon

or whatever. Pierre is talking about {lo'e se guzme}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

Judging from what Nick wrote at

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003

this is a field of active research in linguistics/philosophy, and we

should not expect to arrive at a consensus solution here. To do so would

mean that we either had broken significant ground worthy of publishing,

or more likely, that we had succeeded in deluding ourselves. The BF

commissioners should attempt to clarify the situation beyond its current

state, but not expect a solution that lies beyond all criticism. ju'a

..e'unai lo prane cu bradi lo xamgu

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>pc:

> =20

>

>>And

>>most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all):

>>generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like =96 things that ar=

e more

>>or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not it=

s

>>ground at all).

>> =20

>>

>

>But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are

>everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker

>should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found

>most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did=20

>not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced=20

>easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with=20

>current Lojban.

>

>Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time.

>I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples.

>That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts,

>which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims

>are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced

>in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban

>will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.=20

>

> =20

>

>>ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

>>Children should always show great forbearance

>>toward grown-up people.

>> =20

>>

>It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether=20

>you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it=20

>differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively=20

>frequent in any language?=20

> =20

>

It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,

should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every

member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative

usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope=

r.

>>ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe

>>i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

>>But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of

>>boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

>>=20

>>I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the firs=

t

>>sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), si=

nce it

>>reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existenti=

ally:

>>=93any sheep through any box=94 (is =93the walls of=94 just a flourish?=

This eems to

>>apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sa=

is

>pas voir les moutons =E0 travers les caisses." I guess context helps mak=

e it=20

>clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince

>is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had reject=

ed

>all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another.

>So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo.

>(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more

>concrete claim, though.)

>=20

> =20

>

>>The {lo}

>>in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is g=

oing

>>on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reaso=

nable

>>start of working out how to talk about species.

>> =20

>>

>

>But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu pren=

u}?

>Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?=20

>

>The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the=20

>previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", no=

t=20

>the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}=20

>that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

>

> =20

>

>>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

>>At night lions hunt for food.

>> =20

>>

>

>I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of

>this translation.

> =20

>

This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in

an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo

cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo

nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general

claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or

food. (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence

should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to

wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion,

so'a cinfo will do.

>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>>

>>Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi=

}

>>looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}=20

>> =20

>>

>

>But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the

>thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.=20

>{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such tha=

t=20

>the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the=20

>picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000=20

>times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000=20

>words put together.=20

> =20

>

Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some

lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.

>>=96 presumably the

>>words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways,

>>indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either

>>universal or about species or perhaps {la=92e}.

>> =20

>>

>

>So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

>

> =20

>

>>de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

>>In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

>>

>>Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen=

there

>>was =96 implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds=92 =96 now=

extinct =96

>>eggs, certified organic, =85). Iam inclining more and more to {la=92e}=

here.

>> =20

>>

>

>Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous=

=20

>one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too muc=

h

>of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of

>doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say

>{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another=20

>thread altogether.)

>

> =20

>

>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

>>The teacher will divide the class

>>into five groups of four students.

>>

>>Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this se=

ems to

>>be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei se=

lctu}.

>> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

>> =20

>>

>

>The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

>

>"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

>

>The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.=20

>For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim=85)

>

>The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column=

..

>

>The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

>

>The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down=

=20

>in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher wil=

l=20

>ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

>

>It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker=20

>has in mind. It is more general.

> =20

>

It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a

particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that

specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le;

the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and

the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either

>conflate two different meanings into one, or have one meaning that is

>ill-defined or hard to formalize. What I want is a general algorithm fo=

>r

>determining whether or not a sentence that uses XS-lo is true or false.

>

>

If you check out

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report%2C+aug+2003

and search for the section "Problem 4. Intensionals." you'll see that by

their nature intensionals cannot be enumerate, and so evade the precise

analysis you're looking for. That is not a solvable flaw, but a feature

of what intensionals are.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something they want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almost everyone additions.

2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke). The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, already have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thought that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted (because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice JCB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, clear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how the proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. That is a lot of work for one person to do and

loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do things (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's just create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text corpus. Since at least 1976, when I started seeing the carping, claims fuzzily between all and some, claims about the substance of things, and claims about nodes in the great conceptual tree (not usually put that way, to be sure) have come along annually (if not daily). I take that as enough data, let's fix it.

3. I know how it is labelled and I know the effect of seeing something in official looking print, especially with the kind of power that BPFK appears to wield. That it is not a done deal or even close can't be emphasized too often (actually, I suppose it could: if it gave the impression that nothing was ever done and so there was either no point in trying or that one might as well toss everything in one's head into the hopper since it is all persiflage anyhow).

4: I don't think that a teacher reading it for guidance has anydoubt who the writer has in mind: the teacher reading this copy for guidance. The casual reader doesn't either: the teacher who is using the guidelines in an actual situation. This is a perhaps metaphorical sense of in mind but the point is that, in a given case, the teacher meant is always specific, not just any old teacher. The whole could be framed differently, as a report of what went on in a (according to the authors) well-run classroom or as a general direction for how a classroom ought to be run, but this is direction for how you the student teacher are to go.

5: But number may not be irrelevant here, one is quite capable of being interested in reporting a smear of two-dogs on the highway. I forget all the proposals and all the cases for and against; I just note this has been a problem over the years, so let's fix it, The {rectu} only works for the (mainly) edible parts of critters, not for goo.

6: Asserts.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> As for there being

> something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as

> there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times.

1.Not sure who you mean by "we", but some people think that nothing

should be touched.

> It

> sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of

> {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in

> generalities.

2:People were called out on those uses all the time, you can see

that from the list archives. The problem is that we could say

{su'o lo} was wrong but we could not say what was right instead.

Any way of generic speaking could be objected to. And {lo} is not

the only thing people use for lack of something better. {le} and

{loi} are also popular alternatives.

> It may turn out that, on zipfy

> gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer

> expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major

> decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki

> page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal).

3. The wiki page is clearly labeled as a proposal, and it is clearly

part of the BPFK work we are doing. This is a proposal to be

discussed, amended as necessary, and voted on.

> 10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a

> direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still,

> as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it

> is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le [[or%20%7Blei%7D|or {lei}]] selctu}.

4: So even though the speaker does not have any particular

teacher in mind, you think he should use {le} because some teacher

reading it might have a particular one in mind? What about other

readers that may simply be interested in teaching methods but not

in actually performing this particular lesson?

> 12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the

> uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the

> substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo

> bakni are cattle, not beef.

5:{lo tu'o gerku} is proposed for the dog all over the pavement.

"Beef" however is probably better as {bakni rectu}.

({ractu rectu} for rabbit.)

> 15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies

> lacking; but it does not assert it.

6:Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure =

that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough =

time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something the=

y want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almos=

t everyone additions.

>=20

>2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that =

got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & =

at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke).=

The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does =

one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, alr=

eady have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thoug=

ht that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted =

(because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a =

holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice J=

CB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged=

on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, c=

lear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how th=

e proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. Th=

at is a lot of work for one person to do and

> loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do t=

hings (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was =

an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping=

it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all =

are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's jus=

t create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to=

say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is=

a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text =

corpus.

>

This isn't a bad description of where we are now. Intensionality is=20

essential, and the Book's definition of lo is a close approximation of=20

that, but unfortunately also conflated it with the extensional "da poi", =

resulting in a contradiction. Most usage of lo is intensional. Other=20

attempts at intension used bizarre stunts like lo jai ka, appropriations =

of other cmavo such as lo'e, or evasions like le. And the (only) other=20

sense of the old lo is easily expressed using su'o!

The conclusion is clear. lo must go from usually being intensional to=20

being always intensional.

We will not hammer out all the oddities of intensionality here on this=20

list before the BF must vote. The BF commissioners should vote yes=20

because this plan improves clarity and consistency, and because it's=20

better than the status quo or anything that will be sketched up before=20

the vote. But regardless of the BF's decision I will continue to apply=20

the XS in my usage as I have been. If this is a fork or schism, so be it.=

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

xod:

> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003

That seems broken. The address is:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report%2C+aug+2003

or

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report%2C+aug+2003[[tiki-editpage.php?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lojban.org%2Ftiki%2Ftiki-index.php%3Fpage%3Dgadri%2Breport%252C%2Baug%2B2003|?]]

for those of you reading from the wiki.

Thanks for reminding us of that report! Nick is undoubtedly a

better expounder than I am.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT


(lo/le ctuca cu fatri lo/le selctu mu lo vo tadni)

> 4: I don't think that a teacher reading it for guidance has anydoubt who the

> writer has in mind: the teacher reading this copy for guidance. The casual

> reader doesn't either: the teacher who is using the guidelines in an actual

> situation. This is a perhaps metaphorical sense of in mind

Yes. Is {le} supposed to be used in this metaphorical sense?

I have often been in doubt about this. Is it always for things

that are identified by the speaker, or can it be used for things

that are not identified by the speaker but which would be

identifiable by someone taking part in the (hypothetical)

situation being described?

Example:

Get two boxes of different sizes and put the smaller one

inside the bigger one.

Can we use {le} for "the bigger one" and "the smaller one" even

though there are no actual objects that the speaker has in mind?

He doesn't even know if the first part of the command will be

fulfilled, so at this point the two boxes are hypothetical.

Can he refer to them with {le}?

> 5: But number may not be irrelevant here, one is quite capable of being

> interested in reporting a smear of two-dogs on the highway. I forget all the

> proposals and all the cases for and against; I just note this has been a

> problem over the years, so let's fix it, The {rectu} only works for the

> (mainly) edible parts of critters, not for goo.

For two dog smear we can use {lo tu'o lo re gerku}.

> 6:Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?

> 6: Asserts.

So you would say:

mi claxu roda

= mi na ponse roda

= su'oda naku zo'u mi ponse da

mi claxu su'oda

= mi na ponse su'oda

= noda zo'u mi ponse da

"I lack everything" = "There's something I don't have"?

"I lack something" = "There's nothing that I have"?

It doesn't seem right. With claxu = narponse, i.e. shortest

scope negation, it works much better.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive discourse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw notes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics.

2: And here is the problem. Lacking casuistry (or at least without clear notions of how to apply it) {ro} won't do here. A goodly number of lions never hunt for food at night (it's easier to see it in the daylight and there is plenty around) and all of them take time off occasionally, so the exceptions are not peculiar enough for dodging an "all" (unlike the cow with the amputation who doesn't count against "all cows have four legs") The pointabout trating the various {lo}s differently may be right: certainly the meal could be {su'o cidja} (in the scope of two {lo}s), but someone might argue that nights and lions are on a par here. The objection to {so'a} at this point is that it continues the suggestion that these things are about how many critters do something, rather than being loose talk about critterkind — compare {lo'e} at least. (Notice that I am not recommending {lo} for this usage but talking about it in a context where {lo} seems best uderstood in this way.)

3: You don't have too far to find pictures worth one word ("Shit" typically) or - in the original sense of this maxim that don't help you find/do/understand anything at all ("Modern Art" (pe'a) is a case in point). But {pe'a} might be a good idea here; I think {ro} is less so.

4: the script analogy is a good one, since that is what these kinds of instruction are to a great extent. The point about other than first references is standard stuff (thjough we forget it a lot), but I think the first one is {le} too.

xod wrote:

Judging from what Nick wrote at

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003

this is a field of active research in linguistics/philosophy, and we

should not expect to arrive at a consensus solution here. To do so would

mean that we either had broken significant ground worthy of publishing,

or more likely, that we had succeeded in deluding ourselves. The BF

commissioners should attempt to clarify the situation beyond its current

state, but not expect a solution that lies beyond all criticism. ju'a

..e'unai lo prane cu bradi lo xamgu

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>pc:

> =20

>

>>And

>>most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all):

>>generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like =96 things that ar=

e more

>>or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not it=

s

>>ground at all).

>> =20

>>

>

>But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are

>everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker

>should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found

>most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did=20

>not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced=20

>easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with=20

>current Lojban.

>

>Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time.

>I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples.

>That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts,

>which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims

>are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced

>in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban

>will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.=20

>

> =20

>

>>ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

>>Children should always show great forbearance

>>toward grown-up people.

>> =20

>>

>It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether=20

>you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it=20

>differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively=20

>frequent in any language?=20

> =20

>

1: It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,

should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every

member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative

usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope=

r.

>>ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe

>>i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

>>But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of

>>boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

>>=20

>>I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the firs=

t

>>sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), si=

nce it

>>reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existenti=

ally:

>>=93any sheep through any box=94 (is =93the walls of=94 just a flourish?=

This eems to

>>apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sa=

is

>pas voir les moutons =E0 travers les caisses." I guess context helps mak=

e it=20

>clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince

>is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had reject=

ed

>all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another.

>So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo.

>(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more

>concrete claim, though.)

>=20

> =20

>

>>The {lo}

>>in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is g=

oing

>>on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reaso=

nable

>>start of working out how to talk about species.

>> =20

>>

>

>But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu pren=

u}?

>Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?=20

>

>The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the=20

>previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", no=

t=20

>the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}=20

>that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

>

> =20

>

>>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

>>At night lions hunt for food.

>> =20

>>

>

>I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of

>this translation.

> =20

>

2:This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in

an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo

cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo

nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general

claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or

food. (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence

should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to

wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion,

so'a cinfo will do.

>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>>

>>Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi=

}

>>looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}=20

>> =20

>>

>

>But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the

>thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.=20

>{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such tha=

t=20

>the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the=20

>picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000=20

>times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000=20

>words put together.=20

> =20

>

3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some

lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.

>>=96 presumably the

>>words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways,

>>indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either

>>universal or about species or perhaps {la=92e}.

>> =20

>>

>

>So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

>

> =20

>

>>de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

>>In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

>>

>>Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen=

there

>>was =96 implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds=92 =96 now=

extinct =96

>>eggs, certified organic, =85). Iam inclining more and more to {la=92e}=

here.

>> =20

>>

>

>Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous=

=20

>one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too muc=

h

>of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of

>doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say

>{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another=20

>thread altogether.)

>

> =20

>

>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

>>The teacher will divide the class

>>into five groups of four students.

>>

>>Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this se=

ems to

>>be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei se=

lctu}.

>> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

>> =20

>>

>

>The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

>

>"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

>

>The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.=20

>For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim=85)

>

>The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column=

..

>

>The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

>

>The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down=

=20

>in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher wil=

l=20

>ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

>

>It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker=20

>has in mind. It is more general.

> =20

>

4: It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a

particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that

specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le;

the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and

the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is=

available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive disco=

urse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw no=

tes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics.

> =20

>

If ro is insufficient, then so'a will have to do. Everything else is=20

handwaving.

>2: And here is the problem. Lacking casuistry (or at least without clea=

r notions of how to apply it) {ro} won't do here. A goodly number of lio=

ns never hunt for food at night (it's easier to see it in the daylight an=

d there is plenty around) and all of them take time off occasionally, so =

the exceptions are not peculiar enough for dodging an "all" (unlike the c=

ow with the amputation who doesn't count against "all cows have four legs=

") The pointabout trating the various {lo}s differently may be right: ce=

rtainly the meal could be {su'o cidja} (in the scope of two {lo}s), but s=

omeone might argue that nights and lions are on a par here. The objectio=

n to {so'a} at this point is that it continues the suggestion that these =

things are about how many critters do something, rather than being loose =

talk about critterkind — compare {lo'e} at least. (Notice that I am not =

recommending {lo} for this usage but talking about it in a context where =

{lo} seems best uderstood in this way.)

> =20

>

I reject the attempt to make general (all/most) claims but then slither=20

out of responsibility. If your definitional concepts don't apply to most =

of the targets, your definition needs fixing, but the gadri shouldn't=20

help you make such dishonest claims. If most cows no longer have 4 legs, =

revise your definition of "cow".

You see, making claims about the general cow is different from treating=20

cows intensionally. "Sam fears cows"; this is a claim about Sam. "Cows=20

have 4 legs" is a claim about cows. Claims about something are=20

extensional: we validate them by looping over instances and testing the=20

assertion. Intensional claims escape this, because they don't actually=20

make claims about the thing at hand. This is why Sam can fear cows in a=20

cow-less universe. Cows can appear and disappear, but the statement=20

holds invariantly true!

Perhaps we can test in/extensionality by asking: does the statement hold =

true if all X were to vanish? I would very much need doctors after all=20

doctors are slaughtered, but lions wouldn't eat at night or day if they=20

were all killed.

Have I now succeeded in ripping non-specific away from intensionality?=20

mi viska lo ractu is non-specific but hardly intensional by the above tes=

t.

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

xod:

> It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,

> should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every

> member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative

> usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope=

> r.

Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up

just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into

contact with most grown-ups. This is just about Mr Child being

forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of

"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. The maxim says

that things ought to be such that the child forgives the grown-up.

Which child? Which grown-up? How many of each? Those are the wrong

questions to ask because we are not talking about instances.

> >>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

> >>At night lions hunt for food.

>

> This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in

> an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo

> cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

It's not a claim about all lions. The context might be:

"Be careful, don't stray too far from the camp. At night

lions hunt for food." You are giving information about

lions and nights, but of a generic kind, not about instances.

Maybe you're lucky and just tonight there aren't any lions

around hunting for food. It's still the case that "at night

lions hunt for food" so you ought to be careful.

> Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo

> nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general

> claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or

> food.

Agreed.

> (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence

> should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to

> wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion,

> so'a cinfo will do.

It's not meant to be a claim about how many instances of lions

do that.

> >>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> >>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>

> 3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some

> lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.

{pe'a} is ok, but even then, ro is inadequate. The idea is not that

you examine each picture and conclude that its worth is that of

a thousand words. The idea is that in general a picture gives

information that could only be conveyed by a lot of words. So

pictures are worth a lot of words, but this is not about counting

the number of pictures this applies to.

> >>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

> >>The teacher will divide the class

> >>into five groups of four students.

> >>

> It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a

> particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that

> specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le;

> the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and

> the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.

Kind of like English "the"...

I read it as:

TEACHER divides CLASS into 5 STUDENT-FOURSOME

The only relevant quantifier in the statement is 5 (4 is part of

a description). If there is any specificity it is not of the usual

kind, because the speaker doesn't have any particular teacher in

mind.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,

>>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every

>>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative

>>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro=

pe=3D

>>r.

>> =20

>>

>

>Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up

>just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into

>contact with most grown-ups.=20

>

That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving.

This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out

every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adult.

>This is just about Mr Child being

>forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of

>"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. The maxim says

>that things ought to be such that the child forgives the grown-up.

>Which child? Which grown-up? How many of each? Those are the wrong=20

>questions to ask because we are not talking about instances.

>

> =20

>

>>>>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

>>>>At night lions hunt for food.

>>>> =20

>>>>

>>This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find i=

n

>>an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo

>>cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

>> =20

>>

>

>It's not a claim about all lions. The context might be:

>"Be careful, don't stray too far from the camp. At night

>lions hunt for food." You are giving information about

>lions and nights, but of a generic kind, not about instances.

>Maybe you're lucky and just tonight there aren't any lions=20

>around hunting for food. It's still the case that "at night

>lions hunt for food" so you ought to be careful.

> =20

>

Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo

cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is

completely crucial. And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be

pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.

>>Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca l=

o

>>nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general

>>claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or

>>food.

>> =20

>>

>

>Agreed.=20

>

> =20

>

>>(It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence

>>should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to

>>wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion,

>>so'a cinfo will do.

>> =20

>>

>

>It's not meant to be a claim about how many instances of lions

>do that.

>

> =20

>

>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>>>> =20

>>>>

>>3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest s=

ome

>>lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.

>> =20

>>

>

>{pe'a} is ok, but even then, ro is inadequate. The idea is not that

>you examine each picture and conclude that its worth is that of

>a thousand words. The idea is that in general a picture gives=20

>information that could only be conveyed by a lot of words. So=20

>pictures are worth a lot of words, but this is not about counting

>the number of pictures this applies to.

> =20

>

Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every

picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless

of its figurative sense.

How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t=

hat we=20

loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

>>>>The teacher will divide the class

>>>>into five groups of four students.

>>>>

>>>> =20

>>>>

>>It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a

>>particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that

>>specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le=

>>the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and

>>the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.

>> =20

>>

>

>Kind of like English "the"...

>

>I read it as:

>

> TEACHER divides CLASS into 5 STUDENT-FOURSOME

>

>The only relevant quantifier in the statement is 5 (4 is part of

>a description). If there is any specificity it is not of the usual

>kind, because the speaker doesn't have any particular teacher in

>mind. =20

> =20

>

What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the

example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that

he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders. If each reference to

a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each

sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensical.

We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any

teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.=

Let=20

there be a classroom..."

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,

>>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every

>>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative

>>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro=

pe=3D

>>r.

>> =20

>>

>

>Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up

>just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into

>contact with most grown-ups. This is just about Mr Child being

>forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of

>"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances.

>

I don't think we can simply say "don't worry about instances" without=20

proving that counting instances is absurd in this situation. Little=20

Johnny should forgive Aunt Susan; those are specific instances and it=20

makes total sense. The maxim is only a numeric generalization from this=20

extensional case.

In the situation of needed doctors, counting doctor instances is=20

demonstrably absurd.

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT


> That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving.

> This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out

> every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adult.

To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means:

"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult."

What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

> Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo

> cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is

> completely crucial.

In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte

lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.

> And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be

> pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.

The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must.

If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does

not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you

can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the

minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because

it doesn't carry any info on number.

> >>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> >>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>

> Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every

> picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless

> of its figurative sense.

If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you,

but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that

every picture is very informative instead of comparing the

informative value of pictures vs. words.

> How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t=

> hat we=20

> loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes.

In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like.

>From least to most precise:

ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai

ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai

And of course you can add tense:

ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai

"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."

If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they

wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.

> >>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

> >>>>The teacher will divide the class

> >>>>into five groups of four students.

>

> What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the

> example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that

> he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.

And who might never exist, right.

> If each reference to

> a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each

> sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensical.

> We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out.

When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence,

as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of

course be more precise when you need or want to.

> Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any

> teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use

number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two

conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.

> Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.=

> Let=20

> there be a classroom..."

Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

But let's get away from the idea that there is always one

correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong.

{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically

never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

xod:

> I don't think we can simply say "don't worry about instances" without=20

> proving that counting instances is absurd in this situation. Little=20

> Johnny should forgive Aunt Susan; those are specific instances and it=20

> makes total sense. The maxim is only a numeric generalization from this=20

> extensional case.

>

> In the situation of needed doctors, counting doctor instances is=20

> demonstrably absurd.

But lo is not restricted to cases where counting is absurd! It is

for cases where counting is irrelevant, be it because it is absurd

or because it is just not important.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT

A: Phooey!. The Books description of {lo} has nothing to do with intensionality and indeed the idea of an intensional gadri barely makes sense: it could not be used in transparent context and would be unnecessary in opaque one. What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that wondrously vague sense of English plurals, "the" generic expressions and the like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the language: that is they talk about the members of a class but without an specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree — closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just

leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business). To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it.

John E Clifford wrote:

>1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure =

that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough =

time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something the=

y want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almos=

t everyone additions.

>=20

>2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that =

got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & =

at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke).=

The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does =

one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, alr=

eady have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thoug=

ht that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted =

(because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a =

holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice J=

CB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged=

on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, c=

lear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how th=

e proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. Th=

at is a lot of work for one person to do and

> loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do t=

hings (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was =

an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping=

it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all =

are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's jus=

t create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to=

say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is=

a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text =

corpus.

>

A: This isn't a bad description of where we are now. Intensionality is=20

essential, and the Book's definition of lo is a close approximation of=20

that, but unfortunately also conflated it with the extensional "da poi", =

resulting in a contradiction. Most usage of lo is intensional. Other=20

attempts at intension used bizarre stunts like lo jai ka, appropriations =

of other cmavo such as lo'e, or evasions like le. And the (only) other=20

sense of the old lo is easily expressed using su'o!

B:e conclusion is clear. lo must go from usually being intensional to=20

being always intensional.

We will not hammer out all the oddities of intensionality here on this=20

list before the BF must vote. The BF commissioners should vote yes=20

because this plan improves clarity and consistency, and because it's=20

better than the status quo or anything that will be sketched up before=20

the vote. But regardless of the BF's decision I will continue to apply=20

the XS in my usage as I have been. If this is a fork or schism, so be it.=

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT

A: Actually, "don't worry about instances" is more or less a rule in normative discouse. At least the apparent counterinstances are dismissed with some small argument — ax murderers are adults to be forgiven by any one. Not counting doctors in the "need" case is just a feature of opaque context: the relevant doctors are not arounf to be counted. Maxims, however are not numeric generalizations — if they are generalizations; they are weighted, generic, rules about classes (or perhaps laying obs on such genric claims about classes).

xod wrote:Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,

>>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every

>>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative

>>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro=

pe=3D

>>r.

>> =20

>>

>

>Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up

>just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into

>contact with most grown-ups. This is just about Mr Child being

>forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of

>"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances.

>

A:I don't think we can simply say "don't worry about instances" without=20

proving that counting instances is absurd in this situation. Little=20

Johnny should forgive Aunt Susan; those are specific instances and it=20

makes total sense. The maxim is only a numeric generalization from this=20

extensional case.

In the situation of needed doctors, counting doctor instances is=20

demonstrably absurd.

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT

A: Well, of course no child (or anyone else) has to forgive someone he never heard of, nor (more significantly) are they bound to forgive the unforgivable. On the first issue, it seems fair to understand the claim (as I did-- misrecalling the actual example — when I said that old {lo} seemed right for the case) as "if a child (x) is crossed by an adult (y), x should forgive y" The protasis here is lost in conversational implicature (presupposition), leaving only a stripped down version of the apodasis, where the {lo}s ought logically be connverted to {ro}s. But you can't depend on grammar to be logical all the time, even in Lojban. In this case, the maxim can be taken as obligating a generic claim — which is probablty not true, else why oblicate it — to the effect that children forgive adults. I think that the {ro} reading is more comfortable to most moralists, but the generic one is not impossible.

B: Aside from the issue of whether {lo} is the right word here (and whether this is the way you have been using {lo}), this eems right for generic usage.

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving.

> This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out

> every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adult.

A:To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means:

"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult."

What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

> Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo

> cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is

> completely crucial.

In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte

lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.

> And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be

> pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.

B:The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must.

If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does

not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you

can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the

minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because

it doesn't carry any info on number.

> >>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> >>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>

> Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every

> picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless

> of its figurative sense.

If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you,

but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that

every picture is very informative instead of comparing the

informative value of pictures vs. words.

> How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t=

> hat we=20

> loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes.

In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like.

>From least to most precise:

ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai

ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai

And of course you can add tense:

ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai

"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."

If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they

wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.

> >>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

> >>>>The teacher will divide the class

> >>>>into five groups of four students.

>

> What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the

> example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that

> he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.

And who might never exist, right.

> If each reference to

> a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each

> sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensical.

> We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out.

When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence,

as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of

course be more precise when you need or want to.

> Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any

> teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use

number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two

conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.

> Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.=

> Let=20

> there be a classroom..."

Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

But let's get away from the idea that there is always one

correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong.

{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically

never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT

pc:

> What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that

> wondrously vague sense of English plurals,

English bare plurals, yes. Not "some brodas" or "all brodas" or

"the brodas", but just "brodas".

>"the" generic expressions and the

> like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the

> language:

That's why I used {lo'e} for that for many years, but it didn't

catch on. And even to me, it always seemed too marked, and there

was always someone around to point out that that's not what

"the typical" means.

> that is they talk about the members of a class but without an

> specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more

> than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the

> claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a

> class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different

> from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree --

> closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though

> {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just

> leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business).

Your proposal at this point is to use {lo'e}, right?

> To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its

> are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but

> that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk

> about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

The difference in terms of sets that I'm familiar with is in how

a set is defined. A definition by extension is a list of the

members, whereas a definition by intension is giving the property

that the members have. So the same set A can be defined either way:

by extension A={2,4,6,8}

by intension A={x/x is an even number greater than 1 and less than 9}

The same set can have different definitions by intension.

Lojban uses {ce} for definitions by extension and {lo'i} for definitions

by intension.

> B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it

> be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the

> Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it.

I agree that that is not in itself a justification but just a supporting

argument. Another supporting argument is that nothing is lost in terms of

expressiveness because {su'o} duplicates the job of old-lo. Also, because

the proposed sense is more general that the old and covers it, past usage

is hardly invalidated but at most may read as a little more vague than

intended. And since in a sense {lo} is supposed to be the least marked

gadri, it should go to the least restricted notion.

How do languages without articles handle this? Always using {lo}

and making distinctions of specificity by other means would be

like having a language without articles.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 20:52 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:

> =20

>

>>That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving.

>>This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out

>>every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adul=

t.

>> =20

>>

>

>To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means:

>"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult." =20

>

>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

> =20

>

I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20

adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

  • because* of it's lack of ro. And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20

non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20

but now I don't.

>=20

> =20

>

>>Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo

>>cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is

>>completely crucial.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte=20

>lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.

> =20

>

"Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20

we can no longer say that none do. It doesn't tell us about the habits=20

of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20

the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20

god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

>>And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be

>>pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite=

..

>> =20

>>

>

>The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must.

>If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does

>not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you=20

>can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the=20

>minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because

>it doesn't carry any info on number.

> =20

>

Other than the trivial case of zero, I agree.

>>>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

>>>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>>>>>> =20

>>>>>>

>>Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "ever=

y

>>picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless

>>of its figurative sense.

>> =20

>>

>

>If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you,

>but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that

>every picture is very informative instead of comparing the

>informative value of pictures vs. words.

> =20

>

What's the difference? The informative value of pictures vs. words is=20

exactly a word:picture mapping.

>>How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean=

t=3D

>>hat we=3D20

>>loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

>> =20

>>

>

>It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes.

>In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like.

>From least to most precise:

>

> ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

> =20

>

Here is where the meaning really changes. Above is a very weak claim,=20

below is much stronger. I won't assume that lo is ro, although it's not=20

ruled out. But this is normative usage, and there's a big difference=20

between a maxim the speaker feels should apply to the type, and an=20

observational statement which may or may not generalize to the type (and=20

thus lo equal ro).

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai

>

>And of course you can add tense:

>

> ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai

>

>"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."=20

>If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they

>wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.

>

> =20

>

>>>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

>>>>>>The teacher will divide the class

>>>>>>into five groups of four students.

>>>>>> =20

>>>>>>

>>What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the

>>example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except tha=

t

>>he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>And who might never exist, right.

> =20

>

He exists like a fictional story character. But I think we understand=20

each other here.

>>If each reference to

>>a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each

>>sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensica=

l.

>>We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

>> =20

>>

>

>Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out.

>When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence,

>as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of

>course be more precise when you need or want to.

>

> =20

>

>>Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any

>>teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teache=

r.

>> =20

>>

>

>If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use

>number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two

>conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.

>=20

> =20

>

>>Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teache=

r.=3D

>> Let=3D20

>>there be a classroom..."

>> =20

>>

>

>Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

>But let's get away from the idea that there is always one

>correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong.

>{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically=20

>never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

>

>

>

>=09

> =09

>'__

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

>http://messenger.yahoo.com/=20

>

>

> =20

>

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 22:02 GMT


> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

>

> I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20

> adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

> *because* of it's lack of ro.

Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have

a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the

sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:

"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to

particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the

sentence. It says nothing about how many children should do what

to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different

ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both

terms. Another way is to add tense for example:

ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu

Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.

> And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

> be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20

> non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20

> but now I don't.

The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.

It is simply not a statement about instances.

> "Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20

> we can no longer say that none do.

Of course, that's what {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} means.

> It doesn't tell us about the habits=20

> of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20

> the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20

> god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

But {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} is meant neither as "some lions

hunt at night" nor as "all lions hunt at night". It is meant as the

more vague "lions hunt at night", without reference to the number of

instances. If you are told that, you may or may not be interested

in enquiring further, "do they hunt only at night?" "do they hunt

every night?" "does every lion hunt at night?" "does every lion

hunt every night?" "do only lions hunt at night?" and many other

questions, none of which are answered by the original claim, though

they may be suggested by the context.

The information of number of instances is just not contained in lo,

which is good because sometimes we are not interested in it. If we

make lo overprecise, we don't have a way of expresing ourselves

when precision is not possible or not wanted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 05:25 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:

> =20

>

>>Jorge Llamb=3DEDas wrote:

>> =20

>>

>>>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

>>> =20

>>>

>>I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=3D=

20

>>adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=3D20

>>*because* of it's lack of ro.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have=20

>a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the

>sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:

>

>"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

>

>Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to

>particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20

>sentence.=20

>

How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that

the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri. Given that

maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker

avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must

conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is

incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.

>It says nothing about how many children should do what

>to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different

>ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both

>terms. Another way is to add tense for example:

>

> ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu

> Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.

>

> =20

>

>>And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=3D20

>>be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=3D=

20

>>non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=

=3D20

>>but now I don't.

>> =20

>>

>

>The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.

>It is simply not a statement about instances.

> =20

>

I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an

extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement

really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other

observations. Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then this

non-extensional claim would be false, yes?

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT

xod:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

> >

> >Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to

> >particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20

> >sentence.=20

>

> How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that

> the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri.

That's not how I see it. You cannot help but to use a gadri.

Otherwise you can't make a sumti. All that {lo} does is turn

a selbri into a sumti, it adds nothing else. If you want to

add precision, you have other gadri or quantifiers for that,

but using {lo} is like using {cu}, it's vacuous. You don't

choose it, it's imposed by the grammar as the minimal

selbri-to-sumti converter.

>Given that

> maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker

> avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must

> conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is

> incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.

The speaker did not avoid {ro}, just as when you use {cu}

instead of {ca} or {pu} you are not avoiding {ca} or {pu}.

You simply don't care to be that precise.

> >The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.

> >It is simply not a statement about instances.

>

> I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an

> extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement

> really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other

> observations. Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then

> this non-extensional claim would be false, yes?

Yes. If you know that {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} you

can conclude that {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca su'o nicte}.

And you can also conclude that {lo cinfo su'oroi kalte ca

lo nicte}.

But both statements with {su'o} are more precise than the

general statement without su'o.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT

1. sometimes "the brodas" too, though that seems more likely to be about species.

2. Yes, the gehavior may be common (even) without being typical and it is the common that one wants. Unlike old {lo}, which is about particular — though unspecified — individuals on particular occasions where they could be dientified, what is wanted is groups of perhaps different individuals in different situations, no longer recoverable individually. Yet factual, not definitional nor (usually) universal (which get closer to species use).

3. No, a new gadri with a grammar (and a semantics) like {lo'e}, but without the stigma of typicality.

4. Yes, this is a thrid (or are we up to fourth) distinction tht is sometimes called extension-intension. It is related to the one I was working on below in that the specification in one *lists* the extensions and in the other the intension; but both listing give the set, an extension, not the property, an intension.

5. As you know, I am not convinced that old {lo} and {su'o} really are the same. Certainly there are places where {lo} occurs that {su'o} cannot in the same meaning (before internal quantifiers, for example) but they seem trivial. Nor is it clear that generic usage is more unmarked than particular, but that is a fault of the ambiguity of the notion of marking. Still, what is essential here is that we need both somehow and that we don't have them now..Since {lo} is fairly well-defined in one use, it seems natural to add another expression for the other use. On the other hand, it may turn out on, say, Zipfean grounds, that the generic use is so markedly more common than the particular that giving it a longer form is just criminal. Then the misuse — especially if it is buried in a lot of otherwise valuable text — might justify the change.

6. Variously, I gather. Perhaps a Russian or a Chinese expert can help here. As far as I can make out for Medieval Latin (which, admittedly was moving toward articles), they mostly did not make the distinction overtly but worked implicitly by context and explicitly by correcction when errors occurred (see the whole discussion on the proprietates terminorum which are large sorting these things out). Classical Sanskrit seems about the same and scholastic Sanskrit basically never talks about particular cases — except through lengthy periphrasis; "locus of brodanessness" or so.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that

> wondrously vague sense of English plurals,

1.English bare plurals, yes. Not "some brodas" or "all brodas" or

"the brodas", but just "brodas".

>"the" generic expressions and the

> like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the

> language:

2>That's why I used {lo'e} for that for many years, but it didn't

c.tch on. And even to me, it always seemed too marked, and there

was always someone around to point out that that's not what

"the typical" means.

> that is they talk about the members of a class but without an

> specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more

> than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the

> claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a

> class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different

> from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree --

> closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though

> {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just

> leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business).

3.Your proposal at this point is to use {lo'e}, right?

> To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its

> are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but

> that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk

> about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

4.The difference in terms of sets that I'm familiar with is in how

a set is defined. A definition by extension is a list of the

members, whereas a definition by intension is giving the property

that the members have. So the same set A can be defined either way:

by extension A={2,4,6,8}

by intension A={x/x is an even number greater than 1 and less than 9}

The same set can have different definitions by intension.

Lojban uses {ce} for definitions by extension and {lo'i} for definitions

by intension.

> B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it

> be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the

> Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it.

5. I agree that that is not in itself a justification but just a supporting

argument. Another supporting argument is that nothing is lost in terms of

expressiveness because {su'o} duplicates the job of old-lo. Also, because

the proposed sense is more general that the old and covers it, past usage

is hardly invalidated but at most may read as a little more vague than

intended. And since in a sense {lo} is supposed to be the least marked

gadri, it should go to the least restricted notion.

6.How do languages without articles handle this? Always using {lo}

and making distinctions of specificity by other means would be

like having a language without articles.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:12 GMT

1. I think the mess comes out of its deep history, whihc may well have started with (the roots of) "if a child (x) is harmed by an adult (y), x ought to forgive y. This would become a universal conditional by one line of transformations, but the present sentence but another, which puts the condition into presupposition (how can anyone forgive anyone if not harmed by them?) aand carry the forms forward from the old condition to their consequent-anaphor. Messy, but plausible, since it works and gives the right result: this really is a maxim (we could, for comfort, get the {ro}'s by much the same process).

2. Old {lo} certainly does not work for generics (the above case is odd because of the {ei}) but {ro}, taken literally won't do either, since it is false and something true is intended. {so'a}, while literally true, misses something of the force intended. I think the idea of counting rather than weighing is probably bound to miss the point.

3. With some new {lo} (not necessarily any now flying around).

4.?? I take it that the chestnut says that pictures tell us more than words, a lot more than any single word (though probably not more than a text which uses an equal number of bytes). It is not meant to be exact since (if for no other reason) words themselves have different values, and indeed their values change depending on the other words they are with and how arranged. It does not appear to say anything about whether pictures are very informative or not, unless it is assumed that 1000 words is a lot of information.

xod wrote:

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:

> =20

>

>>That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving.

>>This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out

>>every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adul=

t.

>> =20

>>

>

>To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means:

>"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult." =20

>

>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

> =20

>

1.I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20

adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

  • because* of it's lack of ro. And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20

non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20

but now I don't.

>=20

> =20

>

>>Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo

>>cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is

>>completely crucial.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte=20

>lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.

> =20

>

2."Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20

we can no longer say that none do. It doesn't tell us about the habits=20

of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20

the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20

god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

>>And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be

>>pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite=

..

>> =20

>>

>

>The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must.

>If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does

>not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you=20

>can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the=20

>minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because

>it doesn't carry any info on number.

> =20

>

3.Other than the trivial case of zero, I agree.

>>>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

>>>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.

>>>>>> =20

>>>>>>

>>Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "ever=

y

>>picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless

>>of its figurative sense.

>> =20

>>

>

>If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you,

>but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that

>every picture is very informative instead of comparing the

>informative value of pictures vs. words.

> =20

>

4. What's the difference? The informative value of pictures vs. words is=20

exactly a word:picture mapping.

>>How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean=

t=3D

>>hat we=3D20

>>loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

>> =20

>>

>

>It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes.

>In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like.

>From least to most precise:

>

> ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

> =20

>

Here is where the meaning really changes. Above is a very weak claim,=20

below is much stronger. I won't assume that lo is ro, although it's not=20

ruled out. But this is normative usage, and there's a big difference=20

between a maxim the speaker feels should apply to the type, and an=20

observational statement which may or may not generalize to the type (and=20

thus lo equal ro).

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai

>

>And of course you can add tense:

>

> ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai

>

>"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."=20

>If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they

>wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.

>

> =20

>

>>>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

>>>>>>The teacher will divide the class

>>>>>>into five groups of four students.

>>>>>> =20

>>>>>>

>>What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the

>>example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except tha=

t

>>he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>And who might never exist, right.

> =20

>

He exists like a fictional story character. But I think we understand=20

each other here.

>>If each reference to

>>a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each

>>sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensica=

l.

>>We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

>> =20

>>

>

>Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out.

>When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence,

>as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of

>course be more precise when you need or want to.

>

> =20

>

>>Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any

>>teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teache=

r.

>> =20

>>

>

>If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use

>number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two

>conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.

>=20

> =20

>

>>Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teache=

r.=3D

>> Let=3D20

>>there be a classroom..."

>> =20

>>

>

>Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.

>But let's get away from the idea that there is always one

>correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong.

>{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically=20

>never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

>

>

>

>=09

> =09

>'__

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

>http://messenger.yahoo.com/=20

>

>

> =20

>

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Of course, just what THAT means is a large part of the issue here. That aside, what follows is right as I understand it (and I think I am now close to xorxes except on the issues of whether the gadri should be {lo} and whether all this has anything to do with xorxes' {lo} reported elsewhere.).

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

>

> I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20

> adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

> *because* of it's lack of ro.

Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have

a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. 1.All the

sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:

"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to

particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the

sentence. It says nothing about how many children should do what

to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different

ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both

terms. Another way is to add tense for example:

ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu

Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.

> And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

> be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20

> non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20

> but now I don't.

The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.

It is simply not a statement about instances.

> "Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20

> we can no longer say that none do.

Of course, that's what {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} means.

> It doesn't tell us about the habits=20

> of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20

> the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20

> god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

But {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} is meant neither as "some lions

hunt at night" nor as "all lions hunt at night". It is meant as the

more vague "lions hunt at night", without reference to the number of

instances. If you are told that, you may or may not be interested

in enquiring further, "do they hunt only at night?" "do they hunt

every night?" "does every lion hunt at night?" "does every lion

hunt every night?" "do only lions hunt at night?" and many other

questions, none of which are answered by the original claim, though

they may be suggested by the context.

The information of number of instances is just not contained in lo,

which is good because sometimes we are not interested in it. If we

make lo overprecise, we don't have a way of expresing ourselves

when precision is not possible or not wanted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Maxims are a bad place to fight this fight sincew maxims tend to talk about aall, but also always have unmentioned exceptions, i.e., are not really about all at all. On the other hand, generic {lo} does seem to miss some of the apparent moral force of a maxim by being honest about what is covered (though possibly allowing too much).

2. Note that {ei} creates an intensional context. Within that context, however, the same rules apply as outside it, whatever they are. And, of course, maxims precisely are not derived from observation but proponded against observation (no one tells kids they ought to foregive their elders if they already do).

3. Yes, but that doesn't connect with quantifiers more than minimally; the next step — that if only one lion does it then... already is irrelevant.

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:

> =20

>

>>Jorge Llamb=3DEDas wrote:

>> =20

>>

>>>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

>>> =20

>>>

>>I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=3D=

20

>>adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=3D20

>>*because* of it's lack of ro.=20

>> =20

>>

>

>Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have=20

>a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the

>sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:

>

>"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

>

>Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to

>particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20

>sentence.=20

>

1. How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that

the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri. Given that

maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker

avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must

conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is

incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.

>It says nothing about how many children should do what

>to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different

>ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both

>terms. Another way is to add tense for example:

>

> ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu

> Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.

>

> =20

>

>>And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=3D20

>>be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=3D=

20

>>non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=

=3D20

>>but now I don't.

>> =20

>>

>

>The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.

>It is simply not a statement about instances.

> =20

>

2.I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an

extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement

really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other

observations. 3.Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then this

non-extensional claim would be false, yes?

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

Maxims are a bad plce to fight this fight



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Even generic {lo} seems to require that there are some of the things to keep from meaninglessness. But otherwise yes.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

xod:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

> >

> >Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to

> >particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20

> >sentence.=20

>

> How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that

> the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri.

1.That's not how I see it. You cannot help but to use a gadri.

Otherwise you can't make a sumti. All that {lo} does is turn

a selbri into a sumti, it adds nothing else. If you want to

add precision, you have other gadri or quantifiers for that,

but using {lo} is like using {cu}, it's vacuous. You don't

choose it, it's imposed by the grammar as the minimal

selbri-to-sumti converter.

>Given that

> maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker

> avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must

> conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is

> incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.

The speaker did not avoid {ro}, just as when you use {cu}

instead of {ca} or {pu} you are not avoiding {ca} or {pu}.

You simply don't care to be that precise.

> >The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.

> >It is simply not a statement about instances.

>

> I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an

> extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement

> really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other

> observations. Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then

> this non-extensional claim would be false, yes?

Yes. If you know that {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} you

can conclude that {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca su'o nicte}.

And you can also conclude that {lo cinfo su'oroi kalte ca

lo nicte}.

But both statements with {su'o} are more precise than the

general statement without su'o.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

A summary of where I think we are on the first step in dealing with gadri.

Up to this point, I think that {lo} has been used in at tleast the following ways. People have also tried to express many of these positions inwith other gadri – or other devices. Gadri – indeed {lo} have been used intending to express some combinations of these as well.

Lo1 – particular (CLL)

{lo broda} refers to particular identifiable broda on a particular occasion but that identification is not specified beyond {broda}. In most respects, {lo broda} is equivalent to {su’o broda}, except that it can occur in certain environments where the other is excluded with the same meaning({lo PA broda} does not mean the same as {su’o PA broda} with the same PA. {PA lo broda} means the same as {PA broda} so long as the internal quantifier does not occur. Each occurrence of {lo broda} — whether literal or with literal pronouns, may refer to different broda – like {su’o broda}. Same-reference anaphora uses such pronouns (not yet strictly determined but that is off this point) or, typically, {le broda}.

  • Officially, the internal quantifier in {lo PA broda} is the size of the set of all broda, the external quantifier {PA (lo) broda} is the number of brodas referred to on this occasion. Officially, these default to {ro} and {su’o} respectively. Some folk have frequently said that these defaults (indeed, having defaults) were more trouble than they were worth, creating extra steps in quantifier situations and the like, and so have recommended eliminating them while elaving the option of using explicit ones as needed for meaning. Some have also suggested that reports on the size of the class of broda are generally uninformative and that other uses for internal quantifiers might be found (this is often allied with other readings of {lo}).

Lo2 – generic

{lo broda} refers to unspecified (indeed unspecifiable) broda in unspecified situations. As such, quantifiers are strictly irrelevant except that {lo broda cu brode} is entailed {ro broda cu brode} and entails {su’o broda cu brode}. No number of exceptions (short of all) to {lo broda cu brode}-- broda that don’t brode or occasions when they don’t — falsify the claim but typically single instances or a few don’t establish it either. Some cases – outstanding broda – may establish it or masses may weigh against contrary outstanding cases (truth is from weight rather than number and the propounder gets to assign the weights – not that any such assignment or even checking goes on). {lo broda cu brode} makes not claim that the behavior mentioned is common, typical, normal, average, nor weird, only that it does occur. (There is an implication that it is either common or weird just because it is mentioned, but that is not asserted – and either side of the possibility may be intended.)

In general, {PA (lo) broda} reduces to the same expression using {lo1}. Lo2 seems especially asociated with the notion that {lo PA broda} should be used as a more precise version of {lo broda PAmei}, unspecifiable groups of PA broda, considered as acting distinctly from individual broda.

In a single context, repeated occurrences of {lo2 broda} may be taken to have “the same reference” so long as not too much is made of this (like insisting that some particular broda is represented in both cases). This can lead to an occasional paradox, which must then be resolved by introducing a bit more precision, but generally one ca proceed as though the reference were constant.

Lo3 – species

{lo broda} refers to the concept of broda both in the Great Semantic Web but also in factual Weaving of the World. For example, lo ractu is semantically connected to animals, gnawers, furbearing and factually to threatening Australia and overbreeding. Quantifiers play no role here at all (well, maybe PA broda hook up differently from broda tout court and so internal quantifiers might have a role). Repeated occurrences refer to the same thing, of course. The interesting question is what kinds of sentences can this expression enter into. We want to say two kinds of things about species – species kinds of things and specimen kinds. The first is that a species is a species and that it falls under such and such genera (in the broad sense, as is “species”). The second – sometimes related – is that “members” of the species have such and such properties more or less by virtue of their membership. The second involves ordinary predicates, the first involves relations like “falls

under,” “is a subclass of,” “intersects with,” and the like. All of the second kind of things can be said using the first line of chat. “Rabbits are animals” and “The species Rabbit falls under the genus Animal” say much the same thing. But the first is much longer and the basic items here are much less commonly said. The the norm sems to be to use the second kind of locution, {lo ractu cu danlu} rather than {lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu} (or something along that line). When we need to talk species talk, it turns out to be as useful to talk set talk: {lo’i ractu cu klesi lo’i danlu}. This allows another advantage: we can circumvent the problem of saying of something that does not exist that it does not exist: the species always does exist so all we need to is say that it does not fall under lo zasti.

Since external quantifiers are irrelevant (there is exactly one of each species) , we can use them to refer to specimens {su’o lo ractu} behaves just like {lo ractu} with {lo1} (or {lo2 for that matter).

Lo4 – goo

{lo broda} refers to the substance of which individual broda are made. It akes fractional quantifiers for gobs of goo and perhaps (quasi Chinese) regular quantifiers for “natural” gobs. This is the least explored alternative and so there is less to say bout it. The goo is the same throughout but different gobs (explicit external quantifiers) may be different. Internal quantifiers do not seem to make much sense either way.

Obviously 2 and 3 with one another and parts of both with 1 have a lot in common. Many suggested usages seem to have started with that core and built on it toward one or the other of them but often incorporated inconsistent bits of the other. It may be that one or the other of 2 and 3 is enough (1 seems pretty clearly to be subsumable under either). It may even be that there is a form of 2 and 3 that are so indistinguishable tht we need not declare which we are using. Or we may need both and even 1 as well. 4 seems to be a separate case, not readily encompassing any other except perhaps 1.

Notice in passing that all of these are presented as observable real world notions, not – in any troublesome way “intensional.”



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

Some corrections.

lo2 : {lo broda na brode} neither implies nor is implied by {lo broda naku brode}; the first fails when there are no broda, the second because of the vagueness of how many broda are required for {lo broda}. {lo broda} is also not transparent to other connectives — the contradiction problem.

lo3: Whether this is transparent depends upon just what {lo broda cu brode} means: subsumption or overlap. Each has advantages. If both {lo2} and {lo3} are used, {lo3} would be subsumption, since {lo2} (and {lo1}, which is derivable from either) covers intersections better. In that case, {lo3} is transparent to all and, indeed, behaves like a constant (which it is, after all).

To the proposal:

I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates, probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for "median" and maybe {fadni} or a compound for "mode."



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

pc:

> To the proposal:

> I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are

> real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates,

> probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for "median" and maybe {fadni} or a

> compound for "mode."

{midju} works for naturally ordered sets:

li re cu midju li pa ce li re ce li ci

2 is in the middle (is the median) of set {1,2,3}.

But for unordered sets it is less clear:

la djan cu midju lo'i prenu

John is in the middle of the set of persons.

Without an ordering for the set of persons, the above does not

seem to make sense. I guess {midju} centrally refers to spatial

position, but even then for people distributed over the surface

of the globe that is not much help.

We could use {midju} with an added {sepo'i} term:

la djan cu midju lo'i prenu sepo'i lo ka ce'u nanca makau

John is the median of the set of persons when ordered by

how old they are.

The mode makes sense for sets that can have repeated members.

The mode of {1,3,4,4,4} is 4. Maybe we could use {rapraicmi},

"x1 is the most repeated member of x2" for this:

li vo cu rapraicmi li pa ce li ci ce li vo ce li vo ce li vo

4 is the mode (most repeated member) of {1,3,4,4,4}.

{fadni} would be closer to something like: "x1 is a member of

x3 whose value by x2 is the mode", but I think it has to be a

very significant mode for fadni to work. For example, Chinese

people are the ones who have the modal value of nationality

among humans, but I'm not sure I would want to say that

all Chinese and only the Chinese are fadni in nationality.

Perhaps a relativised {fadrai}, "most typical", would work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by PierreAbbat on Wed 02 of June, 2004 04:29 GMT posts: 324

MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 09:44 GMT

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

>

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

> 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.

If you look at what the actual definition of {lo} is in XS, and not the

weird-ass metaphysical discussions going on about it, you'll find that it's

very reasonable: {lo} converts a selbri to a sumti without implying anything

else.

Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro ze

bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how

simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its

simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the

evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT

pier:

> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

Don't worry about it. The definitions on the page should stand on

their own.

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

> 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that

> exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so

> it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in

> the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group

> of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires

> {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

It seems to me that the use of inner quantifiers you propose is

only slightly less rarely needed than the current one. Perhaps you

could give some examples (preferably natural sounding) of how

it would be used.

> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not

> exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji

> jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't

> removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be

> kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its

> x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact

> exist, say {da'inai}.

I have no problem with {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau

le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. As far as I'm concerned

that's perfectly fine with the proposed {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT

Rob Speer:

> Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro

> ze

> bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

{roze} for "all seven" is CLL-sanctioned:

-----------------------

Another possibility is that of combining definite and indefinite

numbers into a single number. This usage implies that the two kinds

of numbers have the same value in the given context:

8.18) mi viska le rore gerku

I saw the all-of/two dogs.

I saw both dogs.

8.19) mi speni so'ici prenu

I am-married-to many/three persons.

I am married to three persons

(which is ``many in the circumstances).

Example 8.19 assumes a mostly monogamous culture by stating that

three is ``many.

----------------------

> I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how

> simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its

> simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the

> evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes.

How do you suggest I word the definition? I think the examples

show the simplicity of the new {lo}. Just try saying them with

the old one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT

A> Fib\ne, but I think that the discussion (current and past) demonstrates the need for at least {lo2} and {lo3} somehow. Suggestions?

B> This makes more sense than the present system — and fits in with {le} at least.

C> I don't quite understand this use of {da'i}, which seems to have sentential scope, not sumti. Poc\ssibly {claxu2} creates an opque context, i.e., is some sort of abstrct description. But that does not seem to fit with the definition.

[email protected] wrote:

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

A>I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

B>1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

C>2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT

A> But the discussion around the paper clearly shows that Mr. Rabbit is lurking. I agree that virtually the same results can be obtained without at leaast that bit of metaphysical argle-bargle. I do think that laying the real story out would be useful somewhere.

B> Since {roze} is well-formed but with an unassigned meaning, the proposed one seems quite plausible, even if clarly related to the corresonding English.

C> Could you lay out the semantics of this simple notion.

Rob Speer wrote:

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

>

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

> 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.

A>If you look at what the actual definition of {lo} is in XS, and not the

weird-ass metaphysical discussions going on about it, you'll find that it's

very reasonable: {lo} converts a selbri to a sumti without implying anything

else.

B>Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro ze

bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

C>I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how

simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its

simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the

evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT

A> I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are there stats on this? But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I just don't see it off hand).

B> This remarks makes it seem that the proposed {lo} is {lo3}, whereas others more or less force {lo2}. Maybe the notion is not quite as simple as rabspir thinks.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pier:

> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

Don't worry about it. The definitions on the page should stand on

their own.

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

> 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that

> exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so

> it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in

> the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group

> of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires

> {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

A>It seems to me that the use of inner quantifiers you propose is

only slightly less rarely needed than the current one. Perhaps you

could give some examples (preferably natural sounding) of how

it would be used.

> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not

> exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji

> jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't

> removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be

> kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its

> x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact

> exist, say {da'inai}.

B>I have no problem with {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau

le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. As far as I'm concerned

that's perfectly fine with the proposed {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT

A> Nice to see CLL doing something right in anticipation of needs.

B> The examples present a number of problems, as I have noted. Most of them derive from some uncertainty about the meaning of your {lo} in that, with some one meaning each could be resolved, but that the resolving meaning appears to be different for different cases. So fixing on one relatively simple and metaphysically unsuspect meaning and then checking that all the examples fit it would be a big help. Mr. Rabbit, as presented, won't do.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Rob Speer:

> Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro

> ze

> bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

A>{roze} for "all seven" is CLL-sanctioned:

-----------------------

Another possibility is that of combining definite and indefinite

numbers into a single number. This usage implies that the two kinds

of numbers have the same value in the given context:

8.18) mi viska le rore gerku

I saw the all-of/two dogs.

I saw both dogs.

8.19) mi speni so'ici prenu

I am-married-to many/three persons.

I am married to three persons

(which is ``many in the circumstances).

Example 8.19 assumes a mostly monogamous culture by stating that

three is ``many.

----------------------

> I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how

> simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its

> simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the

> evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes.

B>How do you suggest I word the definition? I think the examples

show the simplicity of the new {lo}. Just try saying them with

the old one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT

A> Use of the statistical notions presuppose that there are statistics to cover the case (at least informal one), so we can assume whatever is needed to make this meaningful. In this case, some sort of ordering. The {sepo'i} is a good idea — or something to indicate the property involved (with an implicit ordering, e.g, salary by amount, height by height, and so on).

B> I agree that mode is trickier, since — for one thing — there can be more than one mode in a set. So the idea of a predicate only is useful ({le} then could select one for consideration or the lot of them, depending). But again, the fact that there are the statistics will simplify out the cases: the Chinese example is not, apparently, a mode but simply the most frequent value.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> To the proposal:

> I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are

> real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates,

> probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for "median" and maybe {fadni} or a

> compound for "mode."

A>{midju} works for naturally ordered sets:

li re cu midju li pa ce li re ce li ci

2 is in the middle (is the median) of set {1,2,3}.

But for unordered sets it is less clear:

la djan cu midju lo'i prenu

John is in the middle of the set of persons.

Without an ordering for the set of persons, the above does not

seem to make sense. I guess {midju} centrally refers to spatial

position, but even then for people distributed over the surface

of the globe that is not much help.

We could use {midju} with an added {sepo'i} term:

la djan cu midju lo'i prenu sepo'i lo ka ce'u nanca makau

John is the median of the set of persons when ordered by

how old they are.

B>The mode makes sense for sets that can have repeated members.

The mode of {1,3,4,4,4} is 4. Maybe we could use {rapraicmi},

"x1 is the most repeated member of x2" for this:

li vo cu rapraicmi li pa ce li ci ce li vo ce li vo ce li vo

4 is the mode (most repeated member) of {1,3,4,4,4}.

{fadni} would be closer to something like: "x1 is a member of

x3 whose value by x2 is the mode", but I think it has to be a

very significant mode for fadni to work. For example, Chinese

people are the ones who have the modal value of nationality

among humans, but I'm not sure I would want to say that

all Chinese and only the Chinese are fadni in nationality.

Perhaps a relativised {fadrai}, "most typical", would work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:48 GMT

pc:

> A> I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly

> is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It

> is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive

> or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda

> or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are

> there stats on this?

I don't know if there are stats. To me the obvious way to see

which is more useful is to consider the most common group

used: singletons. Quantifying over members of a singleton

is a waste of time. Quantifying over instances of a singleton

is the most common use of quantifiers.

> But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the

> present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from

> the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I

> just don't see it off hand).

We can get both relatively easily:

PA mupli be lo ze broda

PA instances of lo ze broda

PA cmima be lo ze broda

PA members of lo ze broda

(In the case of {le} the situation is reversed. We normally have

a single instance in mind (be it of an individual or group), so

quantifying over instances is a waste of time, the useful quantification

in this case is over members when we have a specific group in mind.)

> B> This remarks makes it seem that the proposed {lo} is {lo3}, whereas

> others more or less force {lo2}. Maybe the notion is not quite as simple as

> rabspir thinks.

If lo2 does not act like a constant term, then the proposed lo

is not lo2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:54 GMT

1> I doubt that the most common group is a singleton; the most common is surely no group at all but just and individual. But then I suppose that is what you meant; quantifying into a singleton would make sense, though on with {pa} — and fractionals. I again would say that the most common thing would be to count individuals, which I assume is what you mean. But it does not seem to me that that helps at all with the question of internal quantifiers as group sizes, since the analogy is not very good.

2> Yes, but these are rather complex. The first has a short form and the second does not, but I suspect the second is more common — or at least as common — as the first.

3> {lo2} does not behave like a constant, since it is not one (it is not tranparent to any operation). {lo3} does behave like a constant (since it is one) but is abstract and relatively impervious (as described so far) to factual properties (though that could be changed fairly easily at this point).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A> I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly

> is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It

> is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive

> or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda

> or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are

> there stats on this?

1>I don't know if there are stats. To me the obvious way to see

which is more useful is to consider the most common group

used: singletons. Quantifying over members of a singleton

is a waste of time. Quantifying over instances of a singleton

is the most common use of quantifiers.

> But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the

> present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from

> the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I

> just don't see it off hand).

2>We can get both relatively easily:

PA mupli be lo ze broda

PA instances of lo ze broda

PA cmima be lo ze broda

PA members of lo ze broda

(In the case of {le} the situation is reversed. We normally have

a single instance in mind (be it of an individual or group), so

quantifying over instances is a waste of time, the useful quantification

in this case is over members when we have a specific group in mind.)

> B> This remarks makes it seem that the proposed {lo} is {lo3}, whereas

> others more or less force {lo2}. Maybe the notion is not quite as simple as

> rabspir thinks.

3>If lo2 does not act like a constant term, then the proposed lo

is not lo2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:54 GMT

pc:

> 1> I doubt that the most common group is a singleton; the most common is

> surely no group at all but just and individual. But then I suppose that is

> what you meant;

Yes, I meant {lo pa broda}, with the proposed {lo}.

> quantifying into a singleton would make sense, though on with

> {pa} — and fractionals.

That would be:

PA pagbu be lo pa broda

That's a possible use for fractional quantifiers, though not

my preferred one.

> I again would say that the most common thing would

> be to count individuals, which I assume is what you mean. But it does not

> seem to me that that helps at all with the question of internal quantifiers

> as group sizes, since the analogy is not very good.

I understand Pierre does not object to using internal quantifiers

as group sizes. He objects to the use of the external quantifiers to

quantify over instances rather than over members.

I guess {PA broda} can equally well be understood as quantifying

over members of the group of all broda, or over instances of

a single broda.

(Re:mupli & cmima)

> 2> Yes, but these are rather complex. The first has a short form and the

> second does not, but I suspect the second is more common — or at least as

> common — as the first.

I presented some examples with instances of groups. Perhaps if

someone presented some examples of members of (generic) groups

we could get a better idea of what we are comparing.

> 3> {lo2} does not behave like a constant, since it is not one (it is not

> tranparent to any operation). {lo3} does behave like a constant (since it is

> one) but is abstract and relatively impervious (as described so far) to

> factual properties (though that could be changed fairly easily at this

> point).

If lo3 could be made more pervious to factual properties, then

we may be converging.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 02 of June, 2004 16:55 GMT posts: 14214

Test post; Pierre is apparently having problems.

As a side note, this thread in the forums takes a long time to load. This is primarily because it has reached almost 1MiB in size.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 17:39 GMT

A> This doesn't help me much, since I have understood {lo pa broda} to be, like the other {lo PA broda}, about a group with PA members (as your expansion suggests). {PA1 lo PA2 broda} is then PA1 distinct (not necessary separate) groups with PA2 members, eqquivalent to your {PA1 mupli be lo PA2 broda} (stretching {mupli} somewhat perhaps). To refer to, say, two of these guys requires something like {refe'iPA2 lo PA2 broda}, or — if their being in this group is not important — just {re broda} (but not, obviously, {re lo broda}), equivalent to your {re cmima be be lo PA2 broda}. So, to talk about a single individual, one has to say {pa broda}. You suggest that pierre is OK with your use of internal quantifers but wants the external to be used in the {cmima} sense. Presumably your external quantifer sense ({mupli}) would, for him be covered by {PA1lo broda PA2mei} — or maybe without the {lo}. Sounds like a Zipfean question; any ideas how to sort matters out?

B> I am not clear what part of a set is, even a singleton, so I suppose this is part of an individual, {PA broda} with fractional PA (a controversial point in its own right, if I remember rightly).

C> Ambigous: do you mean "takes as value individuals from the set of broda" or "for some individual broda, takes as values instances of that individual" I don't quite know what you might mean by an instance of an individual, so I suspect you mean the former. But that is not different from the first quantifier reading, so I don't understand the choice you are offering.

D> Again, I don't understand what the choice here is. What is a generic group (what more so that the/a group of broda)?

E> That is, I take it, that I am getting close to understanding what you have in mind. But I had just conmvinced myself that you werre after {lo2} and had made one small mistake. Now apparently you are after {lo3} with a few complexities. If {lo3} is made pervious to claims, then every sentence {lo broda cu brode} is three-way ambiguous (with a bunch of cases where the ambiguity disappers immediately and most others easily resolved by context): 1) the species broda falls under the genus brode, 2) the species broda overlaps the genus brode, or 3) specimens of broda do brode. Forms with explicit tense fall into the last category, of course. Contradictory claims ({lo broda cu ga brode ginai brode} fall into the second, as do claims that are otherwise impossible (though some of these may be of type 1 when there are no broda: {lo pavyseljirna cu xanri danlu}. {lo broda cu brode} does not generalize to {da brode}, since, in this line of talk, species are not things (we can shift

into species talk but it is much messier), nor even, in types 1 and 2, to {su'o broda cu brode}. I suspect that this is crucially different from your {lo} and so am no further along than I was.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> 1> I doubt that the most common group is a singleton; the most common is

> surely no group at all but just an individual. But then I suppose that is

> what you meant;

A>Yes, I meant {lo pa broda}, with the proposed {lo}.

> quantifying into a singleton would make sense, though on with

> {pa} — and fractionals.

That would be:

B>PA pagbu be lo pa broda

That's a possible use for fractional quantifiers, though not

my preferred one.

> I again would say that the most common thing would

> be to count individuals, which I assume is what you mean. But it does not

> seem to me that that helps at all with the question of internal quantifiers

> as group sizes, since the analogy is not very good.

I understand Pierre does not object to using internal quantifiers

as group sizes. He objects to the use of the external quantifiers to

quantify over instances rather than over members.

C>I guess {PA broda} can equally well be understood as quantifying

over members of the group of all broda, or over instances of

a single broda.

(Re:mupli & cmima)

> 2> Yes, but these are rather complex. The first has a short form and the

> second does not, but I suspect the second is more common — or at least as

> common — as the first.

D>I presented some examples with instances of groups. Perhaps if

someone presented some examples of members of (generic) groups

we could get a better idea of what we are comparing.

> 3> {lo2} does not behave like a constant, since it is not one (it is not

> tranparent to any operation). {lo3} does behave like a constant (since it is

> one) but is abstract and relatively impervious (as described so far) to

> factual properties (though that could be changed fairly easily at this

> point).

E>If lo3 could be made more pervious to factual properties, then

we may be converging.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 17:55 GMT

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:43:14AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Rob Speer:

> > I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify

> > just how simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much

> > attention to its simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the

> > discussion assume that the evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the

> > scenes.

>

> How do you suggest I word the definition? I think the examples show

> the simplicity of the new {lo}. Just try saying them with the old one.

If Rob is correct about the total lack of other implication, and/or that

the new lo is completely generic (which I think is the same thing), it

would be a good idea to explicitely point this out.

BTW, I don't think you've talked about tu'o on the page yet.

-Robin


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by PierreAbbat on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:06 GMT posts: 324

MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:21 GMT

pier:

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and

> the like.

Then don't read that crap. PC's out of his mind; I'm certainly not

going to try to follow it. Just work on the definitions as stated.

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:

Neither of your changes allow me to say "Cats eat mice" or "I need a

doctor".

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:55 GMT

pc:

> Again, I don't understand what the choice here is. What is a generic

> group (what more so that the/a group of broda)?

For example, for {ci lo mu broda}, the choice is between "three groups

of five broda" and "three members of any group of five broda".

I want some example of use for the second case, to judge how useful

it might be. I already gave some examples of the first case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 18:55 GMT

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:30:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I want some example of use for the second case, to judge how useful it

> might be. I already gave some examples of the first case.

ci lo mu mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:22 GMT

Robin Lee Powell:

> If Rob is correct about the total lack of other implication, and/or that

> the new lo is completely generic (which I think is the same thing), it

> would be a good idea to explicitely point this out.

How about:

"Generic article. The resulting expression refers generically

to any individual or group that satisfies the predicate."

> BTW, I don't think you've talked about tu'o on the page yet.

I have, in one of the notes. I didn't want to include {tu'o}

in the definition of {lo} because it is rather marginal. I doubt

it will be used much if at all. Substances don't really

need special marking in most cases. Since this is really

about {tu'o} more than about {lo}, it should be treated in

the definition of {tu'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT

Robin Lee Powell:

> ci lo mu mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

If we adopt And's proposal for the interpretation of fractional

quantifiers (which I think we should) then that would be:

ci fi'u mu mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

or equivalently:

xano ce'i mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

But I'm not sure if Pierre would read it as three out of

every five doictors, or three from some unidentified group

of five doctors.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT

How do you say these sentences in XS-Lojban?

- People are alone, but there are many of them.

- People kill each other.

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

Tusener p=E5 tusener av nydelige l=F8penoter - og hvilenoter!



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 19:59 GMT


> How do you say these sentences in XS-Lojban?

>

> - People are alone, but there are many of them.

lo prenu cu nonkansa gi'eku'i so'imei

> - People kill each other.

lo prenu cu catra py

People kill people.

If you mean "each other" literally, then:

lo prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u catra

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:20 GMT

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> --- Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> > How do you say these sentences in XS-Lojban?

> >

> > - People are alone, but there are many of them.

>

> lo prenu cu nonkansa gi'eku'i so'imei

That was _not_ what I was trying to make you say! :-)

Here, try this instead:

There are many single bears in the desert, but whole packs of them in t=

he

forest.

> > - People kill each other.

>

> lo prenu cu catra py

> People kill people.

>

> If you mean "each other" literally, then:

>

> lo prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u catra

Okay. That's actually rather nice.

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

Twinkle, twinkle little star

I don't wonder what you are,

=46or by spectroscopic ken,

I know that you are hydrogen.

--Ian Bush



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:20 GMT

On Wednesday 02 June 2004 15:33, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> If we adopt And's proposal for the interpretation of fractional

> quantifiers (which I think we should) then that would be:

>

> ci fi'u mu mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

>

> or equivalently:

>

> xano ce'i mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

>

> But I'm not sure if Pierre would read it as three out of

> every five doictors, or three from some unidentified group

> of five doctors.

I read it as 3/5 of a mass of doctors, which properly speaking is {ci fi'u =

mu=20

loi mikce}. But it could also mean "3/5 of a doctor" {ci fi'u mu lo mikce},=

=20

but that is nonsense in this context. {ci lo mu mikce} means three of a gro=

up=20

of five doctors.

phma

=2D-=20

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:29 GMT

Arnt Richard Johansen:

> There are many single bears in the desert, but whole

> packs of them in the forest.

Without anaphora:

so'i lo pa bersa cu xabju lo kutytu'a

iku'i so'o lo so'i bersa cu go'i lo ricfoi

With anaphora I would say:

so'i lo pa bersa cu xabju lo kutytu'a

iku'i so'o lo so'iboi by cu go'i lo ricfoi

That {boi} should be made elidable.

(I took "the desert" and "the forest" as generic, not referring

to some particular desert or forrest you may have in mind.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Pierre:

> {ci lo mu mikce} means three of a group

> of five doctors.

That's what I thought you meant.

In what kind of context would it be useful to

say something like that, where "a group of five doctors"

is not certain group that you have in mind?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT

Ah so. I guess I was thinking of having hit upon a group of five broda and then taaking three out of that. If we keep the {lo mu broda} as "any group of five broda" rather than "a group of five broda, then it seems there is no use for the partitive sense. I suppose that the second sense ("a group") is to be {su'o lo mu broda} or some such and the partitive gotten at using {lu'a} (or something like it for the right sort of entity).

s wrote:

For example, for {ci lo mu broda}, the choice is between "three groups

of five broda" and "three members of any group of five broda".

I want some example of use for the second case, to judge how useful

it might be. I already gave some examples of the first case.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT

A> This looks like {lo2}; I thought you were after {lo3}

B> What does {tu'o} have to do with substances?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

A>How about [[for%20a%20definition%20of%20%7Blo%7D|for a definition of {lo}]]:

"Generic article. The resulting expression refers generically

to any individual or group that satisfies the predicate."

.. I didn't want to include {tu'o}

in the definition of {lo} because it is rather marginal. I doubt

it will be used much if at all. Substances don't really

need special marking in most cases. Since this is really

about {tu'o} more than about {lo}, it should be treated in

the definition of {tu'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT

pc:

> What does {tu'o} have to do with substances?

Substances don't have cardinality, so we use {tu'o}

as inner quantifier to emphasize that no number

applies there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT

At some point I gathered (I thought you said it in fact) that {PA broda} was about instances, not generalities. So these critters look like some 3/5 of some doctor.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin Lee Powell:

> ci lo mu mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

If we adopt And's proposal for the interpretation of fractional

quantifiers (which I think we should) then that would be:

ci fi'u mu mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

or equivalently:

xano ce'i mikce cu zmanei la snaikoil

But I'm not sure if Pierre would read it as three out of

every five doictors, or three from some unidentified group

of five doctors.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:08 GMT

OK but pointless, assuming we have a way to refer to substances at all, Is there one in your system at this time?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> What does {tu'o} have to do with substances?

Substances don't have cardinality, so we use {tu'o}

as inner quantifier to emphasize that no number

applies there.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:17 GMT

pc:

> At some point I gathered (I thought you said it in fact) that {PA broda} was

> about instances, not generalities. So these critters look like some 3/5 of

> some doctor.

You may want to check the full proposal for fractional quantifiers,

by And. You seemed to like it at the time. It can be found here:

XS gadri proposal: And's version

Briefly: {PA broda} is equivalent to {PA fi'u ro broda} and is

about instances, "PA out of all". {PA1 fi'u PA2} is "PA1 out of

every PA2".

This is more about the nitty gritty of quantifiers than about gadri,

so I don't think it needs to be added to the gadri definitions. It

can be voted separately, when we do quantifiers.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 21:17 GMT

pc:

> OK but pointless, assuming we have a way to refer to

> substances at all, Is there one in your system at this time?

{lo} can be used with substances or non-substances, it does

not by itself force a distinction. When you use an inner

quantifier, you indicate something countable, so not a

substance. When you use an explicit tu'o as inner quantifier,

you indicate a substance. In general such an explicit

indication is not necessary, but it is available.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:00 GMT

This will be nice if it works, but several attempts to reduce {lo4} to {lo3} or {lo2} crahed and burnt. I don't remember details, but it seems plausible to me at least in the case of {lo2}, which is inherently quantificational. With {lo3} I haven't thought through (or remembered) how thespecies is related to its embodiment. It may be that {tu'o} is enough of a distinction. External quantifiers are then on globs? (I think BTW that something has to be said about quantifiers in the gadri section, though maybe not at this time).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> OK but pointless, assuming we have a way to refer to

> substances at all, Is there one in your system at this time?

{lo} can be used with substances or non-substances, it does

not by itself force a distinction. When you use an inner

quantifier, you indicate something countable, so not a

substance. When you use an explicit tu'o as inner quantifier,

you indicate a substance. In general such an explicit

indication is not necessary, but it is available.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:01 GMT

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:28:33PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> With anaphora I would say:

>

> so'i lo pa bersa cu xabju lo kutytu'a

> iku'i so'o lo so'iboi by cu go'i lo ricfoi

>

> That {boi} should be made elidable.

I will fight to the death against any attempt to make BY invalid in

numerical expressions. That may or may not be relevant here, but I

wanted you to know.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 00:01 GMT

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:01:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin Lee Powell:

> > If Rob is correct about the total lack of other implication, and/or

> > that the new lo is completely generic (which I think is the same

> > thing), it would be a good idea to explicitely point this out.

>

> How about:

> "Generic article. The resulting expression refers generically to any

> individual or group that satisfies the predicate."

Err. Nevermind.

> > BTW, I don't think you've talked about tu'o on the page yet.

>

> I have, in one of the notes.

Err, nevermind again.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT

Robin Lee Powell:

> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:28:33PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > iku'i so'o lo so'iboi by cu go'i lo ricfoi

> >

> > That {boi} should be made elidable.

>

> I will fight to the death against any attempt to make BY invalid in

> numerical expressions. That may or may not be relevant here, but I

> wanted you to know.

{boi} is demonstrably a nuisance in such cases, whereas lerfu within

numbers have not as yet seen any use. I don't think I'd go so far as

to kill for it, however.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT

Withdrawn (or resolved) objections to the current proposal on {lo}:

1. The new {lo} will have essentially two different meanings with and

without quantifiers.

Icky and intellectual unfulfilling, but not really a problem. {ku} and

{bo} already have different meanings in different contexts.

2. Old uses of {lo} will have a new meaning, that will in many cases not

have been intended by the original users.

I stand corrected that most of the previous uses, even Red Book

examples, *do* seem to run counter to my understanding of it, and

apparently also to the prescription in the Red Book.

Jorge's argument that post-BPFK Lojban will look very different if an

entirely new article, which will probably be very high in frequency, is

another of the reasons that I am withdrawing this objections.

My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:

3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a special

case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is

intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

If the former is the case, I can't stand it, and it has to go.

If the latter, it does not appear to fit stringently into the system.

It appears to be one of these clever tricks that immediately make

sense, but does not really hold when people try to think inside the

system, instead of standing on the outside1.


1 Rather like JCB's use of the equivalent of "mutce krinu nanmu" for

"very reasonable man".

--

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/

"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put!"

--attributed to Winston Churchill



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 21:11 GMT

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:

>

>3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a special

> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is

> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

>

>

It's not specific to lo; it could be used with le.

How would you interpret tu'o in the place of a quantifier? When do you

think quantification becomes meaningless?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 03 of June, 2004 21:35 GMT

arj:

> 1. The new {lo} will have essentially two different meanings with and

> without quantifiers.

>

> Icky and intellectual unfulfilling, but not really a problem. {ku} and

> {bo} already have different meanings in different contexts.

I don't think the meaning of {lo} changes when you quantify over

instances. {PA lo broda} is essentially {PA mupli be lo broda}, or

{PA da poi mupli lo broda}: {lo broda} tells you the kind you're

talking about, and the quantifiers run over the instances. But

ignore this comment if it causes more confusion, since you are

not presenting this as an objection.

> My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:

>

> 3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a special

> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is

> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

{tu'o} is not mentioned in the definition of {lo}, not even

in the examples. Its meaning as an inner quantifier has to be

proposed and voted on when defining {tu'o}, that's why I only

mentioned it under "notes".

> If the latter, it does not appear to fit stringently into the system.

> It appears to be one of these clever tricks that immediately make

> sense, but does not really hold when people try to think inside the

> system, instead of standing on the outside1.

If you don't think it fits into the system, vote against it when

it is proposed in the definition of {tu'o}.

For {lo}, all you need to know is that {lo solji} can refer to

"gold" generically. Inner quantifiers are not obligatory, and

none is assumed by default when none is presented, just as

with outer quantifiers. Do you see that as problematic?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:15 GMT

As I understand it working within the system, since {tu'o} is the null quantifiers it indicates that NO Quantifier applies and this seems to be the case only with substances. Anything else justifies {pa} or som other number or at least {su'o} or {ro}. Now, of course, that does not work as well with the new interpretation of internal quantifiers, since they are about the size of selected groups not about the whole of the class (and so more like quantifiers with {le}), but it is still the case that only with substance do (whole-number, cardinal) quantifiers make no sense. I am not sure whether this line of reasoning is sufficient, but it is a cheap way to get substances without a new gadri.

xod wrote:Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:

>

>3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a special

> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is

> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

>

>

It's not specific to lo; it could be used with le.

How would you interpret tu'o in the place of a quantifier? When do you

think quantification becomes meaningless?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT

A> But unquantified {lo broda} is precisely not about instances (in one fairly frequent version of this tale), so the meaning DOES change when quantifiers are added. I am not sure that this is an objection; it is certainly a mild one compared with other problems with this tale (if we are still on the old Mr line).

B> Not with {solji}, a substance word to begin with, but please don't tell me that {lo bakni} is cow goo along with everything else.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

arj:

> 1. The new {lo} will have essentially two different meanings with and

> without quantifiers.

>

> Icky and intellectual unfulfilling, but not really a problem. {ku} and

> {bo} already have different meanings in different contexts.

A>I don't think the meaning of {lo} changes when you quantify over

instances. {PA lo broda} is essentially {PA mupli be lo broda}, or

{PA da poi mupli lo broda}: {lo broda} tells you the kind you're

talking about, and the quantifiers run over the instances. But

ignore this comment if it causes more confusion, since you are

not presenting this as an objection.

> My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:

>

> 3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a special

> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is

> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

{tu'o} is not mentioned in the definition of {lo}, not even

in the examples. Its meaning as an inner quantifier has to be

proposed and voted on when defining {tu'o}, that's why I only

mentioned it under "notes".

> If the latter, it does not appear to fit stringently into the system.

> It appears to be one of these clever tricks that immediately make

> sense, but does not really hold when people try to think inside the

> system, instead of standing on the outside1.

If you don't think it fits into the system, vote against it when

it is proposed in the definition of {tu'o}.

B>For {lo}, all you need to know is that {lo solji} can refer to

"gold" generically. Inner quantifiers are not obligatory, and

none is assumed by default when none is presented, just as

with outer quantifiers. Do you see that as problematic?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT

pc:

> Not with {solji}, a substance word to begin with, but please don't tell me

> that {lo bakni} is cow goo along with everything else.

Only to the extent that cow goo does bakni. lo bakni can be

anything that baknis. For {bakni}, the goo is probably a marginal

sense, if allowed at all. If {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}, then

{mi citka lo bakni}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:58 GMT

Well, if what I eat is a (part of a) cow then this is not problematic, but I don't see it as meaning what I eat is cow. I suspect that the lack of quantifiers (i.e., bare {lo}) here covers the possibility of fractional ones as well as integral and indefinites. That would seem to be the natural understanding of indefiniteness.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Not with {solji}, a substance word to begin with, but please don't tell me

> that {lo bakni} is cow goo along with everything else.

Only to the extent that cow goo does bakni. lo bakni can be

anything that baknis. For {bakni}, the goo is probably a marginal

sense, if allowed at all. If {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}, then

{mi citka lo bakni}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:59 GMT

On Thursday 03 June 2004 20:30, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> Only to the extent that cow goo does bakni. lo bakni can be

> anything that baknis. For {bakni}, the goo is probably a marginal

> sense, if allowed at all. If {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}, then

> {mi citka lo bakni}.

I would say {loi bakni} for cow all over the road. For food, {mi citka lo=20

bakyrectu}; I wouldn't say {mi citka lo bakni} unless I ate the whole cow, =

or=20

at least as much as is edible.

Some words could refer to individuals or substances. {panono me'andi cu zva=

ti=20

le foldi} vs. {lo grake be li panono me'andi cu nenri le dakli}. An Indian =

is=20

more likely to think of {loi me'andi} as plants considered as a mass; an=20

American is more likely to think of a mass of powder.

phma

=2D-=20

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 14:59 GMT

pier:

> For food, {mi citka lo bakyrectu}; I wouldn't say {mi citka lo bakni}

> unless I ate the whole cow, or at least as much as is edible.

Me too. I would say {lo se citka be mi cu bakyrectu} and

{mi citka lo bakyrectu}.

The question of whether or not one could also just say {mi citka

lo bakni} has little to do with {lo}. It only concerns the meaning

of {bakni}. Just like the question about {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}

does not concern {cu}, it concerns {bakni}.

{lo} does not add meaning, it is a purely syntactical marker,

like {cu}.

> Some words could refer to individuals or substances. {panono me'andi cu zva=

> ti=20

> le foldi} vs. {lo grake be li panono me'andi cu nenri le dakli}. An Indian =

> is=20

> more likely to think of {loi me'andi} as plants considered as a mass; an=20

> American is more likely to think of a mass of powder.

That's more to do with the meaning of {me'andi} than about gadri.

lo me'andi is that which me'andis, whatever that is, that's all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT

Pierre Abbat wrote:

>On Thursday 03 June 2004 20:30, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

>

>

>>Only to the extent that cow goo does bakni. lo bakni can be

>>anything that baknis. For {bakni}, the goo is probably a marginal

>>sense, if allowed at all. If {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}, then

>>{mi citka lo bakni}.

>>

>>

>

>I would say {loi bakni} for cow all over the road.

>

And it could easily be interpreted as a herd of cows standing in the

road. Therefore I suggest so'o bakni for cow herd, and tu'o bakni for

cow goo, and the disuse of loi.

>For food, {mi citka lo=20

>bakyrectu}; I wouldn't say {mi citka lo bakni} unless I ate the whole cow, =

>or=20

>at least as much as is edible.

>

>

lo bakni can refer to part of a cow.

Context should *always* imply that you didn't consume the entire cow,

and you shouldn't need to emphasize that except in the most bizarre

circumstances.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT

A>Well, it is about {cu}, too: am I now eating a cow, could I eat a cow, did I get through a cow over a period of time, and so on, just like the issue of whether it is one cow or several or bits and pieces of perhaps several cows.

B> At least says that he thing(s) exist(s) in the implied world. Of course, {cu} says that the event happens in the implied world, so they are on a par.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pier:

> For food, {mi citka lo bakyrectu}; I wouldn't say {mi citka lo bakni}

> unless I ate the whole cow, or at least as much as is edible.

Me too. I would say {lo se citka be mi cu bakyrectu} and

{mi citka lo bakyrectu}.

A>The question of whether or not one could also just say {mi citka

lo bakni} has little to do with {lo}. It only concerns the meaning

of {bakni}. Just like the question about {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}

does not concern {cu}, it concerns {bakni}.

B>{lo} does not add meaning, it is a purely syntactical marker,

like {cu}.

> Some words could refer to individuals or substances. {panono me'andi cu zva=

> ti=20

> le foldi} vs. {lo grake be li panono me'andi cu nenri le dakli}. An Indian =

> is=20

> more likely to think of {loi me'andi} as plants considered as a mass; an=20

> American is more likely to think of a mass of powder.

That's more to do with the meaning of {me'andi} than about gadri.

lo me'andi is that which me'andis, whatever that is, that's all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:05 GMT

  • {me'andi}? Apparently not a lujvo.

Pierre Abbat wrote:On Thursday 03 June 2004 20:30, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote: > Only to the extent that cow goo does bakni. lo bakni can be

> anything that baknis. For {bakni}, the goo is probably a marginal

> sense, if allowed at all. If {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}, then

> {mi citka lo bakni}.

I would say {loi bakni} for cow all over the road. For food, {mi citka lo=20

bakyrectu}; I wouldn't say {mi citka lo bakni} unless I ate the whole cow, =

or=20

at least as much as is edible.

Some words could refer to individuals or substances. {panono me'andi cu zva=

ti=20

le foldi} vs. {lo grake be li panono me'andi cu nenri le dakli}. An Indian =

is=20

more likely to think of {loi ***me'andi} as plants considered as a mass; an=20

American is more likely to think of a mass of powder.

phma

=2D-=20

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:53 GMT

On Friday 04 June 2004 12:49, John E Clifford wrote:

> *** {me'andi}? Apparently not a lujvo.

Fu'ivla from Indic languages meaning "henna". See http://www.mehandi.com.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 17:53 GMT

On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:

> And it could easily be interpreted as a herd of cows standing in the

> road. Therefore I suggest so'o bakni for cow herd, and tu'o bakni for

> cow goo, and the disuse of loi.

{so'o bakni} is equivalent to {so'o lo bakni} which refers to several cows

considered individually. {loi bakni}, referring to the same cows, considers

them as a mass.

> lo bakni can refer to part of a cow.

I don't see that in the definition of {bakni}.

> Context should *always* imply that you didn't consume the entire cow,

> and you shouldn't need to emphasize that except in the most bizarre

> circumstances.

{mi} can have a plural referent considered as a mass, in which case {mi citka

lo bakni} can be true, with all of us together eating the cow.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:17 GMT

Pierre Abbat wrote:

>On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:

>

>

>>And it could easily be interpreted as a herd of cows standing in the

>>road. Therefore I suggest so'o bakni for cow herd, and tu'o bakni for

>>cow goo, and the disuse of loi.

>>

>>

>

>{so'o bakni} is equivalent to {so'o lo bakni} which refers to several cows

>considered individually. {loi bakni}, referring to the same cows, considers

>them as a mass.

>

>

If loi is never used for cow herds or cow goo, but only in cases where

the cows are acting collectively (doing something as a group that they

could not do individually) then loi has a useful and clear meaning. I

can't imagine an example of cows working cooperatively and not as a

number of individuals. The classic case of this is the 3 men carrying

the piano; a collective task because no one individual can do it, thus

the ability to carry a piano is an emergent property of the collective.

>>lo bakni can refer to part of a cow.

>>

>>

>

>I don't see that in the definition of {bakni}.

>

>

Half a cow is {.5 bakni}. Two cows is {2 bakni}. If {lo bakni} can refer

to the latter, then why not the former?

>>Context should *always* imply that you didn't consume the entire cow,

>>and you shouldn't need to emphasize that except in the most bizarre

>>circumstances.

>>

>>

>

>{mi} can have a plural referent considered as a mass, in which case {mi citka

>lo bakni} can be true, with all of us together eating the cow.

>

>

Yes, when mi is referring to a group with the ability to consume a cow,

then you should be clear to distinguish whether they did devour one

animal, or simply sit down to a steak meal.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:24 GMT

Pierre Abbat:

> On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:

> > lo bakni can refer to part of a cow.

>

> I don't see that in the definition of {bakni}.

We all agree that {lo bakni} is only for things that do bakni.

That's all that matters for the gadri discussion.

> > Context should *always* imply that you didn't consume the entire cow,

> > and you shouldn't need to emphasize that except in the most bizarre

> > circumstances.

>

> {mi} can have a plural referent considered as a mass, in which case

> {mi citka lo bakni} can be true, with all of us together eating the cow.

Yes. And {mi citka lo pa bakni} would make it clear that it

is one cow and not several cows or an uncountable amount

of cow.

BTW, Pierre, are you still opposing the definitions because of

the outer-inner quantifiers interplay?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 18:38 GMT

xod:

> I

> can't imagine an example of cows working cooperatively and not as a

> number of individuals.

Cooperative cows:

le sasfoi cu culno lo renono bakni

The meadow is filled with two hundred cows.

None of the cows fills the meadow by itself.

le so'i bakni cu dukse lo ka tilju kei lo nu le karce cu bevri by

The many cows are too heavy for the truck to carry them.

None of the cows is too heavy by itself for the truck to carry it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT

On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:15:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> arj:

> > 1. The new {lo} will have essentially two different meanings with

> > and without quantifiers.

> >

> > Icky and intellectual unfulfilling, but not really a problem.

> > {ku} and {bo} already have different meanings in different

> > contexts.

>

> I don't think the meaning of {lo} changes when you quantify over

> instances. {PA lo broda} is essentially {PA mupli be lo broda}, or {PA

> da poi mupli lo broda}

If this is a strict equivalence, I'd like to see it in the proposal

somewhere.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT


> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:15:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > I don't think the meaning of {lo} changes when you quantify over

> > instances. {PA lo broda} is essentially {PA mupli be lo broda}, or {PA

> > da poi mupli lo broda}

> If this is a strict equivalence, I'd like to see it in the proposal

> somewhere.

It only works with {mupli} meaning "x1 is an instance of x2".

Unfortunately, that's not quite how the gi'uste defines {mupli}.

According to the gi'uste, mupli means "x1 ckaji x2 gi'e cmima x3".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:15:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > I don't think the meaning of {lo} changes when you quantify over

> > > instances. {PA lo broda} is essentially {PA mupli be lo broda}, or

> > > {PA da poi mupli lo broda}

> >

> > If this is a strict equivalence, I'd like to see it in the proposal

> > somewhere.

>

> It only works with {mupli} meaning "x1 is an instance of x2".

> Unfortunately, that's not quite how the gi'uste defines {mupli}.

What about 'me' then?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 20:03 GMT


> What about 'me' then?

{me} and {lo} cancel each other out, yes. {lo} converts

selbri to sumti, {me} converts sumti to selbri.

So basically {lo me ko'a} = {ko'a}, {me lo broda} = {broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT

Z> Seems to follow from some readings of {lo}:the most generic absence of unique quantifier would cover the {piPA}s as well as the PAs.

X> bones, hooves, and all?

Pierre Abbat wrote: On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:

> And it could easily be interpreted as a herd of cows standing in the

> road. Therefore I suggest so'o bakni for cow herd, and tu'o bakni for

> cow goo, and the disuse of loi.

{so'o bakni} is equivalent to {so'o lo bakni} which refers to several cows

considered individually. {loi bakni}, referring to the same cows, considers

them as a mass.

> lo bakni can refer to part of a cow.

Z>I don't see that in the definition of {bakni}.

> Context should *always* imply that you didn't consume the entire cow,

> and you shouldn't need to emphasize that except in the most bizarre

> circumstances.

X>{mi} can have a plural referent considered as a mass, in which case {mi citka

lo bakni} can be true, with all of us together eating the cow.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT

T> Can individual cows mill around and block a road? Sounds like a herd to me.

S> the game at the moment is to be minimally precise — hence the possibility that {lo bakni} means "a chunk of cow" and {mi} means "all for whom I presume to speak."

xod wrote:

Pierre Abbat wrote:

>On Friday 04 June 2004 11:35, xod wrote:

>

>

>>And it could easily be interpreted as a herd of cows standing in the

>>road. Therefore I suggest so'o bakni for cow herd, and tu'o bakni for

>>cow goo, and the disuse of loi.

>>

>>

>

>{so'o bakni} is equivalent to {so'o lo bakni} which refers to several cows

>considered individually. {loi bakni}, referring to the same cows, considers

>them as a mass.

>

>

T>If loi is never used for cow herds or cow goo, but only in cases where

the cows are acting collectively (doing something as a group that they

could not do individually) then loi has a useful and clear meaning. I

can't imagine an example of cows working cooperatively and not as a

number of individuals. The classic case of this is the 3 men carrying

the piano; a collective task because no one individual can do it, thus

the ability to carry a piano is an emergent property of the collective.

>>lo bakni can refer to part of a cow.

>>

>>

>

>I don't see that in the definition of {bakni}.

>

>

Half a cow is {.5 bakni}. Two cows is {2 bakni}. If {lo bakni} can refer

to the latter, then why not the former?

>>Context should *always* imply that you didn't consume the entire cow,

>>and you shouldn't need to emphasize that except in the most bizarre

>>circumstances.

>>

>>

>

>{mi} can have a plural referent considered as a mass, in which case {mi citka

>lo bakni} can be true, with all of us together eating the cow.

>

>

S>Yes, when mi is referring to a group with the ability to consume a cow,

then you should be clear to distinguish whether they did devour one

animal, or simply sit down to a steak meal.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT

On Friday 04 June 2004 16:31, John E Clifford wrote:

> Z> Seems to follow from some readings of {lo}:the most generic absence of

> unique quantifier would cover the {piPA}s as well as the PAs.

>

> X> bones, hooves, and all?

lo'e resrvarano cu tai citka, but I did say "at least as much as is edible"

earlier.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT

Using xorxes' internal quantifiers here (which maybe does away with {loi}).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

xod:

> I

> can't imagine an example of cows working cooperatively and not as a

> number of individuals.

Cooperative cows:

le sasfoi cu culno lo renono bakni

The meadow is filled with two hundred cows.

None of the cows fills the meadow by itself.

le so'i bakni cu dukse lo ka tilju kei lo nu le karce cu bevri by

The many cows are too heavy for the truck to carry them.

None of the cows is too heavy by itself for the truck to carry it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:03 GMT

The examples make {me} seem like a waste of a good and useful; bit of wordspace. I asssume there are examples that makt this word useful enough to justify using up a CV. Where is this meaning spelled out — not on my wordlist.

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> What about 'me' then?

{me} and {lo} cancel each other out, yes. {lo} converts

selbri to sumti, {me} converts sumti to selbri.

So basically {lo me ko'a} = {ko'a}, {me lo broda} = {broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:05 GMT

Sorry, I never can tell in advance who is operating at what level of precision.

resrvarano? A fu'ivla for a type of snake? Can sets eat?

Pierre Abbat wrote: On Friday 04 June 2004 16:31, John E Clifford wrote:

> Z> Seems to follow from some readings of {lo}:the most generic absence of

> unique quantifier would cover the {piPA}s as well as the PAs.

>

> X> bones, hooves, and all?

lo'e resrvarano cu tai citka, but I did say "at least as much as is edible"

earlier.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:15 GMT

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:03:19PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> Sorry, I never can tell in advance who is operating at what level of

> precision. resrvarano? A fu'ivla for a type of snake?

A monitor lizard.

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/wiki/taxonomy

BTW, PC, *PLEASE* trim your replies. You have made this thread *much*

larger than it needs to be.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 21:15 GMT

On Friday 04 June 2004 16:54, John E Clifford wrote:

> The examples make {me} seem like a waste of a good and useful; bit of

> wordspace. I asssume there are examples that makt this word useful enough

> to justify using up a CV. Where is this meaning spelled out — not on my

> wordlist.

{me} is also used with cmene (making a type-2 fu'ivla, if the cmevla is

borrowed) and numbers:

mi zbasu lo me me'o bi jgena - I make a figure 8 knot.

ti me la meipl. la sakta - this is a sugar maple.

(For the latter, I'd rather say {.a'orne}, but for a plant whose only name is

in the Waorani language, I'd use a type-1 or type-2.)

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 04 of June, 2004 22:16 GMT

pc:

> The examples make {me} seem like a waste of a good and useful; bit of

> wordspace. I asssume there are examples that makt this word useful enough to

> justify using up a CV. Where is this meaning spelled out — not on my

> wordlist.

CLL talks about it.

Using it with a bare {lo} makes little sense, but it has uses

with any other type of sumti: me KOhA, me la CMENE, me le broda,

me zo , etc.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Too much nesting.


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 02:32 GMT posts: 14214

I'm with Pierre WRT the fact that lo quantifiers are different from all the others, actually. I don't think it's a good idea.

It doesn't much matter to me which one makes more sense; it is both an inconsistency and a change to past usage.

We already have other ways of saying "three groups of five"; "ci lo mumei broda" does the right thing, does it not?

Given that, why have the inconsistency? "Three out of some five-some of doctors" may not mean much, but it means something, and it'll be a lot less confusing that way, nevermind the possiblity of invalidating past usage.

Here's an example usage with lo quantifiers being the same as all others:

doi lo re no prenu ko fendi ko lo mumei gi'e ci lo mu prenu cu bevri lo mudri gi'e lo re drata cu kajde fi lo rokci

Not amazingly important, but certainly not completely without use.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT

On Friday 04 June 2004 22:32, [email protected] wrote:

> I'm with Pierre WRT the fact that lo quantifiers are different from all the

> others, actually. I don't think it's a good idea.

>

> It doesn't much matter to me which one makes more sense; it is both an

> inconsistency and a change to past usage.

>

> We already have other ways of saying "three groups of five"; "ci lo mumei

> broda" does the right thing, does it not?

"ci lo broda mumei", or to avoid tanru, "ci lo mumei be fi lo broda".

> Given that, why have the inconsistency? "Three out of some five-some of

> doctors" may not mean much, but it means something, and it'll be a

> lot less confusing that way, nevermind the possiblity of invalidating past

> usage.

>

> Here's an example usage with lo quantifiers being the same as all others:

>

> doi lo re no prenu ko fendi ko lo mumei gi'e ci lo mu prenu cu bevri lo

> mudri gi'e lo re drata cu kajde fi lo rokci

Sounds good to me. Are they building a fort, or what?

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT

Robin:

> It doesn't much matter to me which one makes more sense; it is both an

> inconsistency and a change to past usage.

What past usage?

> We already have other ways of saying "three groups of five"; "ci lo mumei

> broda" does the right thing, does it not?

It's a tanru. It gets the message across, but we want to have more

precise ways of talking too.

> Given that, why have the inconsistency? "Three out of some five-some of

> doctors" may not mean much, but it means something, and it'll be a

> lot less confusing that way, nevermind the possiblity of invalidating past

> usage.

That is a very complex formula in quantifier terms. "There is some

group of five such that three members of that group ..."

How is the group of five determined, given that it is not an

in-mind selection of the speaker and the claim only

holds for three members? Where do the other two come from?

> Here's an example usage with lo quantifiers being the same as all others:

>

> doi lo re no prenu ko fendi ko lo mumei gi'e ci lo mu prenu cu bevri lo mudri

> gi'e lo re drata cu kajde fi lo rokci

(Both {gi'e} should be {ije}.) Shouldn't those be {le}?

In any case, we have:

PA lo broda = PA mupli be lo broda

PA le broda = PA cmima be le broda

Having

PA lo broda = PA cmima be lo mupli be lo broda

does not strike me as more regular.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:53:58PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Friday 04 June 2004 22:32, [email protected] wrote:

> > Here's an example usage with lo quantifiers being the same as all

> > others:

> >

> > doi lo re no prenu ko fendi ko lo mumei gi'e ci lo mu prenu cu bevri

> > lo mudri gi'e lo re drata cu kajde fi lo rokci

>

> Sounds good to me. Are they building a fort, or what?

Just moving logs; watching for rocks so the carriers don't trip.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:45 GMT

On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 08:10:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > It doesn't much matter to me which one makes more sense; it is both

> > an inconsistency and a change to past usage.

>

> What past usage?

>From Le Petit Prince 2?:

mi krefu finti seva'u py pa lo re po'o pixra poi mi kakne

I find it *profoundly* unlikely that that's meant to mean anything other

than "one of the two pictures which I am able to draw". In fact,

that's a *perfect* usage example, IMO.

Do you wish me to find more?

> > We already have other ways of saying "three groups of five"; "ci lo

> > mumei broda" does the right thing, does it not?

>

> It's a tanru. It gets the message across, but we want to have more

> precise ways of talking too.

Are there none?

> > Given that, why have the inconsistency? "Three out of some

> > five-some of doctors" may not mean much, but it means

> > something, and it'll be a lot less confusing that way, nevermind

> > the possiblity of invalidating past usage.

>

> That is a very complex formula in quantifier terms. "There is some

> group of five such that three members of that group ..."

Doesn't seem particularily hard to me.

> How is the group of five determined, given that it is not an in-mind

> selection of the speaker and the claim only holds for three members?

> Where do the other two come from?

However you like; this is generic lo, after all.

> > Here's an example usage with lo quantifiers being the same as all

> > others:

> >

> > doi lo re no prenu ko fendi ko lo mumei gi'e ci lo mu prenu cu bevri

> > lo mudri gi'e lo re drata cu kajde fi lo rokci

>

> (Both {gi'e} should be {ije}.)

Yes.

> Shouldn't those be {le}?

No, because the speaker is referring to all groups in question and cares

not a whit how they are divided.

> In any case, we have:

>

> PA lo broda = PA mupli be lo broda

> PA le broda = PA cmima be le broda

>

> Having

>

> PA lo broda = PA cmima be lo mupli be lo broda

>

> does not strike me as more regular.

As none of that is part of the definition, I don't see how it's

relevant.

The regularity is in usage. The outer quantifier works the same for

  • all* gadri *except* lo.

mu le pa broda

and

mu lo pa broda

are talking about completely different numbers of things. Better yet,

the former is invalid but the latter is not. That's going to be very

confusing.

Quite frankly, I'd rather that all quantifiers couted groups, but that

would break past usage much more badly.

-Robin


Robin's Long Post


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 06:55 GMT posts: 14214

(Dammit, I just lost everything I had done. Grr. mad Restarting).

This is my requisite long post, in which I show myself to be the only

person in the BPFK that actually reads the Lojban carefully and is

capable of copy-editing. If I sound annoyed, it's because I am, but only

a little bit.

One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.

At the beginning of this post, I was politely phrasing things as

requests. Eventually this got tedious; please insert "please" and "if

you don't mind" anywhere it will make you feel better.

  • "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti.".

"Selecting" is rather opaque to me. Maybe you could add something like

"In other words, lo broda is anything that could fit the first argument

of broda". Also see the next point. This applies to, umm, all of the

definitions, as does the next point.

  • "that satisfies the predicate." should be "that satisifies the first

argument of the predicate". HOWEVER, please read the next few

points before doing anything about this one.

  • In loi: "The resulting expression refers to a group of individuals

that satisfy the selbri and which satisfy the predicate for which the

sumti is an argument collectively." This is different from every other

definition for no apparent reason. I actually like the extra

specificity, but please either repeat it everywhere or drop it.

  • OK, it may not actually be true that the others are less

specific; it may be that "the predicate" in "and which the speaker

describes with the predicate" is intended to refer to the whole

bridi, not just the selbri. In which case, I very strongly

request that you add the "for which the sumti is an argument" thing

everywhere, because by "the predicate", I thought you meant the

predicate represented by the selbri.

  • This point may very well abrogate the previous point; I don't know

which you meant "the predicate" to mean, but please pick one and

make it clear.

  • "Children should always" . "always" does not occur in the Lojban; fix

one or the other please.

  • I do not know what "viska pa'o lo tanxe" means, but I am certain it

does not mean " through the walls of boxes"; add bitmu or

something please.

  • "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two lo are

most definately "le" if you want it to match the English. You should

probably quantify ctuca as well.

  • "lo kucysni" . given the numerical precision of the rest, you should

quantify this.

  • Was it really necessary to make a lujvo out of "Soviet Cow?"

biggrin

  • The unicorn one:
  • "gi'e catlu lo ka" — did you mean "se catlu"? No, not even that

works. You want "And can be seen to have"; "se catlu simsa" would

work I think.

  • Quantify jirna, please; it just sounds silly otherwise.
  • Forehead is "mebri"
  • What does "describes with the predicate" mean? If you are maintaining

the non-veridicality of "le", please be specific about that. Perhaps

"chooses to describe with the first place of the predicate, whether it

objectively applies or not". But see the first few points; I may

have had the wrong predicate here.

  • Similarily, please include at least one blatantly non-veridical

example for "le". Ideally, have one for each non-veridical gadri, but I

won't bitch if you don't wont to bother with ones other than "le".

  • "An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate

the cardinality of the group." Explain to me why this doesn't work with

cmevla? "ci la pano hels.angels. pu darxi mi doi pulji". checks

Wow, that's a grammar change! OK, that's reason enough. Kinda sad

though. We do have the ability to make grammar changes; your call

though, I'm not set on one or the other. However, I suddenly

understand your dislike of the seperate LA selma'o.

  • "ca jbena" seems insufficient; "puzi jbena" or "cazi jbena" would be

nicer I think.

  • The emphasis in "FACE-DOWN" is not mirrored in the Lojban.
  • lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.
  • "The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or

group that satisfies the predicate.". Don't you mean a typical

individual or group? If not, more explanation please. Same with

lo'e.

  • For completeness, we really need set and mass versions of lo'e and

le'e.

  • Umm, isn't it the outer quantifier of lo that is different?
  • I would really like something more in there about constants. A

link to a really good expository URL would be nice. Even something

as simple as "A constant is something that has no quantity from a

predicate logic perspective" or something would help.

  • Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

gets there.

  • In the "tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi" example: "mokla tirxe"

should be "moklu trixe".

  • "In the mountains there is no food." s/is/will be/
  • "so'omoi" — probably meant to be mei.

Translations.


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of June, 2004 07:10 GMT posts: 14214

Every time I go through a section, I translate all the Lojban independently of the English, to check for errors. Just for giggles, here's what I got this time. These are (deliberately) very literalistic.

ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

Obligation: Children should muchly forgive mature persons/non-children.

ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe

i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

However, sadly, I don't see sheep passing through boxes. Maybe I am

mildly similar to mature persons.

ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

During night-time, lions hunt food.

lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

A one-some of pictures (i.e. any single picture) has value a

thousand-some (i.e. any thousand) words.

de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

In 1960, 12 eggs were measured in cents numbering 42.

lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

Teachers (un-numbered, could be one) divide those taught into five

foursomes of students.

lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu

ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni

Necklaces of seven-somes of things causing sadness have parts: seven

seven-somes of been and also three one-somes of beeds and crosses

(un-numbered, could be one).

o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi

Beware: five hungry Soviet cows are in the garden.

lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu

cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270

Standing hit-sacks are full of water XOR sand (water is more pleasant

because of the event of oscillating non-idleness (motion) ) and weigh

about 270 pounds.

lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma

gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u

Unicorns are mythical animals and examine se catlu meant? the property

of both it's a horse and horns (un-numbered, could be one) are upon the

front-head I suggest mebri of it.

- -------

le palta ba'o porpi i ma gasnu i xu le gerku cu go'i

The plate has been broken. Who did? Is it true that the dog did?

ko punji le sicni lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai

Put the coin in the sequence ordered from most expensive to least

expensive.

ci le bi ctuca cu ninmu

Three of the eight teachers are women.

- -------

ma'i la midju terdi la sadam na sai me la sauron

In the reference frame of Middle Earth, Saddam is very much not Sauron.

- -------

ma cnano lo ka makau junta ce'u kei lo'i cifnu poi ca jbena

What is normal in what weight it is of the set of babies now born?

- -------

ro le verba pu cuxna pa karda le'i cnita selcra

All of the children chose one card from this set of face-down.

- -------

doi turni do so'i da na fadni la'i kenedis ma'i lo jecra'a

Oh ruler, you are in many ways not ordinary among the set of things

named "kenedis" in reference to polity-relevant-things.

- -------

loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

A mass of travellers here gathers from every part of the earth.

- -------

lei brazo cu jinga fi lei dotco la kabri

The mass of Brazillian things won agains the mass of German things in a

competition called Cup.

- -------

ta melbi pixra lai simpson

That is a beautiful picture of the mass of things named Simpson.

- -------

lo'e glipre cu xabju le fi'ortu'a na.e le gligugde

The typical Englishman dwells in African, *not*, and in England.

- -------

le'e xelso merko cu gusta ponse

Stereotypical Greek Americans are restaurant type-of owners.

- -------

le nanmu cu se snuti ija'ebo lo tu'o gerku cu kuspe le klaji

The man did something accidental and therefore a mass of doggy bits

spanned the road.

bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe

(to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy.

alveolar gy. toi)

It is obliged that it is decided that every time using mouth behind-

("Velar") -XOR-front ("alveolar")

le cmana lo cidja ba claxu

The mountain, food will be without.

Yoda I am, hmm, yeees!

le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu

The road of good languages is costly.

la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o

gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo

xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto

JRR Tolkien wrote Ring Lord ("Lord Of The Rings") and the several-th of

imaginary-universe storiies during the previous century.



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT

[email protected] wrote:

>* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

>gets there.

>

>

tu'o is a "best practice"; it is a usage that doesn't affect the

official meaning of tu'o, and therefore never goes before the BPFK.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:28:45AM -0400, xod wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:

>

> >* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

> >gets there.

>

> tu'o is a "best practice"; it is a usage that doesn't affect the

> official meaning of tu'o, and therefore never goes before the BPFK.

That's not what xorxes has been saying.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 12:13 GMT

On Saturday 05 June 2004 02:55, [email protected] wrote:

> * Was it really necessary to make a lujvo out of "Soviet Cow?"

> biggrin

It was necessary to have a 'y' in the sentence to make it a pangram, and the

most obvious way to get one was to make a lujvo.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 14:22 GMT

Robin Lee Powell:

> From Le Petit Prince 2?:

:-)

> mi krefu finti seva'u py pa lo re po'o pixra poi mi kakne

Ok, that's one example. It doesn't make me change my mind, though.

> Do you wish me to find more?

If it's not too much trouble, it would be great.

> > > We already have other ways of saying "three groups of five"; "ci lo

> > > mumei broda" does the right thing, does it not?

> >

> > It's a tanru. It gets the message across, but we want to have more

> > precise ways of talking too.

>

> Are there none?

Sure, but much wordier.

We'd also lose the quantification over fractions {PA lo piPA broda}.

> The regularity is in usage. The outer quantifier works the same for

> *all* gadri *except* lo.

  • all* is le and la, right?

It certainly doesn't work like that for loi, lei, lai, lo'i, le'i,

la'i, lo'e and le'e.

> Quite frankly, I'd rather that all quantifiers couted groups, but that

> would break past usage much more badly.

If you have more than one group in mind, you can still manage with {le}:

le ci lo mu broda

The three five-brodas

{le} points to a single thing you have in mind (in that example the

single thing is the group of three five-brodas). You can quantify

over members of the thing, but not over instances.

{lo} points to the predicate that must be satsfied. The natural thing

to quantify over are the things that satisfy the predicate, not the

members of a group that satisfies the predicate.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 14:22 GMT

Robin:

> One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.

>

> * "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti.".

> "Selecting" is rather opaque to me. Maybe you could add something like

> "In other words, lo broda is anything that could fit the first argument

> of broda".

I added something like that, please check if it's clear.

....

> ** This point may very well abrogate the previous point; I don't know

> which you meant "the predicate" to mean, but please pick one and

> make it clear.

Yes, I was using "predicate" for two different things. I now use "selbri"

in all cases for the transformed selbri, and "predicate for which the sumti

is an argument" for the external one. Please check if it's clear.

> * "Children should always" . "always" does not occur in the Lojban; fix

> one or the other please.

This is what's going on: The Lojban is a translation from the French.

The English is also a translation from the French, by someone other

than me. In French, there is no explicit "always". Maybe the

translator thought that "always" made the intent of the original

more clear in English. Anyway, I removed it.

> * I do not know what "viska pa'o lo tanxe" means, but I am certain it

> does not mean " through the walls of boxes"; add bitmu or

> something please.

Same as before, no mention of walls in French. I wouldn't mention walls

in Spanish either, but I will add the walls to make it more

English-friendly. {pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe} then.

> * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two lo are

> most definately "le" if you want it to match the English. You should

> probably quantify ctuca as well.

How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The context

is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)

> * "lo kucysni" . given the numerical precision of the rest, you should

> quantify this.

Only if you think that I should also change to "one Crucifix" in English.

But I changed {ci lo pa bidju} to {ci bidju}, which is clearly enough.

> * The unicorn one:

> * "gi'e catlu lo ka" — did you mean "se catlu"? No, not even that

> works. You want "And can be seen to have"; "se catlu simsa" would

> work I think.

I meant {simlu}! Thanks for catching that one!

> * Quantify jirna, please; it just sounds silly otherwise.

Ok, but I'm not sure why it sound silly.

> * Forehead is "mebri"

Right.

> * Similarily, please include at least one blatantly non-veridical

> example for "le". Ideally, have one for each non-veridical gadri, but I

> won't bitch if you don't wont to bother with ones other than "le".

Any suggestions for something natural? I don't want to give the

impression that non-veridicality is used in more that .1% of cases.

> * "An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate

> the cardinality of the group." Explain to me why this doesn't work with

> cmevla?

Because the grammar is overrestrictive. CMENE should be in BRIVLA.

> "ci la pano hels.angels. pu darxi mi doi pulji". checks

> Wow, that's a grammar change! OK, that's reason enough. Kinda sad

> though. We do have the ability to make grammar changes; your call

> though, I'm not set on one or the other. However, I suddenly

> understand your dislike of the seperate LA selma'o.

Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE

into BRIVLA?

> * "ca jbena" seems insufficient; "puzi jbena" or "cazi jbena" would be

> nicer I think.

Ok {cazi}.

(jbena is really wrong for this, because it has a time place,

so it doesn't make much sense to use a tense with it, but

I'm not going to use zi'o.)

> * The emphasis in "FACE-DOWN" is not mirrored in the Lojban.

That's how it was written where I found it. It didn't strike me

as emphatic though. I'm lower-casing it.

> * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

Why?

> * "The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or

> group that satisfies the predicate.". Don't you mean a typical

> individual or group? If not, more explanation please. Same with

> lo'e.

I think it's "the" typical, it's a single abstraction. See if you like

the new version.

> * For completeness, we really need set and mass versions of lo'e and

> le'e.

And also name versions.

> * Umm, isn't it the outer quantifier of lo that is different?

The inner of lo becomes the cadinality of a generic group instead of

being the cardinality of the group of all existing brodas.

The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the

same meaning.

> * I would really like something more in there about constants. A

> link to a really good expository URL would be nice. Even something

> as simple as "A constant is something that has no quantity from a

> predicate logic perspective" or something would help.

A constant is something that always keeps the same referent. {lo broda}

always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is

a variable, because it takes values from the set of all things that

brodas. Anything with a quantifier in front takes values from the set

of things over which the quantifier runs.

> * Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

> gets there.

I changed "can" to "could".

> * In the "tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi" example: "mokla tirxe"

> should be "moklu trixe".

I'm quoting.

> * "In the mountains there is no food." s/is/will be/

Helselm's words, not mine.

> * "so'omoi" — probably meant to be mei.

Probably, but I'm just quoting.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 16:53 GMT

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:28:45AM -0400, xod wrote:

>

>

>>[email protected] wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>>* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

>>>gets there.

>>>

>>>

>>tu'o is a "best practice"; it is a usage that doesn't affect the

>>official meaning of tu'o, and therefore never goes before the BPFK.

>>

>>

>

>That's not what xorxes has been saying.

>

>

Which has he been saying?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:11 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:33:49AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Saturday 05 June 2004 02:55, [email protected] wrote:

> > * Was it really necessary to make a lujvo out of "Soviet Cow?"

> > biggrin

>

> It was necessary to have a 'y' in the sentence to make it a pangram,

> and the most obvious way to get one was to make a lujvo.

Yeah, didn't realize it was a pangram until xod pointed it out.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:16 GMT

> >>>* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

> >>>gets there.

> >>>

> >>tu'o is a "best practice"; it is a usage that doesn't affect the

> >>official meaning of tu'o, and therefore never goes before the BPFK.

> >

> >That's not what xorxes has been saying.

>

> Which has he been saying?

Quoting from a conversation between him and arj:

> My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:

>

> 3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a

> special

> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is

> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

{tu'o} is not mentioned in the definition of {lo}, not even

in the examples. Its meaning as an inner quantifier has to be

proposed and voted on when defining {tu'o}, that's why I only

mentioned it under "notes".

> If the latter, it does not appear to fit stringently into the system.

> It appears to be one of these clever tricks that immediately make

> sense, but does not really hold when people try to think inside the

> system, instead of standing on the outside1.

If you don't think it fits into the system, vote against it when

it is proposed in the definition of {tu'o}.

In resonse to PC (I think):

... I didn't want to include {tu'o}

in the definition of {lo} because it is rather marginal. I doubt

it will be used much if at all. Substances don't really

need special marking in most cases. Since this is really

about {tu'o} more than about {lo}, it should be treated in

the definition of {tu'o}.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 19:35 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:13:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell:

> > From Le Petit Prince 2?:

>

> :-)

Yes, that amused me as well.

> > Do you wish me to find more?

>

> If it's not too much trouble, it would be great.

OK, here's the thing:

It seems to me that this changes *all* usage of "PA lo", because

suddenly when you said "pa lo broda" and meant "One broda", you don't

  • get* one broda anymore, you get one *group* of broda, which is very,

very different.

" If I say "pa lo re nanmu", I make a much stronger claim. I am of

course selecting one member from the set of things which really are men

to discuss; I am also stating that this set is enumerated as having two

members. "

http://www.lojban.org/files/draft-textbook/lesson19

Which is, of course, the most important point: This is a drastict

change from current teaching materials. Dropping implicit quantifiers

seems, to me, much less drastic.

su'o pa lo prenu cu prami do

At least one person loves you.

http://www.lojban.org/files/brochures/lesson4.html

In your version, this means "At least one group of people loves you",

does it not?

Fully expanded, su'o pa lo pa broda: at least one out of the one thing

in the world which can be described (veridically) as the x1 of broda.

Since brivla typically describe more than one thing, it's hard to find

examples, so let's settle for lo pa cevni be le xebro. (There is not

only one God for all religions, but there is only one God for that

religion.)

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/only

I can't decied if the stuff on

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/sumti+qualifiers agrees

with you or not.

19 May 2003 14:23:19 ci re'u ca pa lo cacra

http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/2003_05_20-02_22.txt

Again, your version would be "Three times in one *group* of hours".

That was just from searching on 'site:www.lojban.org "pa lo"', and I

ommited most of the ones that used only an outer quantifier.

I immediately see one example from searching on "re lo".

> > The regularity is in usage. The outer quantifier works the same for

> > *all* gadri *except* lo.

>

> *all* is le and la, right?

> It certainly doesn't work like that for loi, lei, lai, lo'i, le'i,

> la'i, lo'e and le'e.

You have very few examples of quantification of those ones. However,

those all say "An outer quantifier can be used to indicate a subset of

that cardinality ", or "subgroup" instead of subset. la and le say " An

outer quantifier can be used to quantify over members of the group."

Ignoring lo'e and le'e, of course.

If those two are different, I don't understand one or the other.

The only example of quantification of these articles is "ro le verba",

which helps very little.

If "indicate a subset of that cardinality" and "quantify over members of

the group" mean substantially different things, then on behalf of slow

people everywhere I request more verbosity. "In other words, ..." would

be nice. More examlpes would be nice too.

> > Quite frankly, I'd rather that all quantifiers couted groups, but

> > that would break past usage much more badly.

>

> If you have more than one group in mind, you can still manage with

> {le}:

>

> le ci lo mu broda

> The three five-brodas

I had no idea that was legal.

> {le} points to a single thing you have in mind (in that example the

> single thing is the group of three five-brodas). You can quantify over

> members of the thing, but not over instances.

>

> {lo} points to the predicate that must be satsfied. The natural thing

> to quantify over are the things that satisfy the predicate, not the

> members of a group that satisfies the predicate.

I understand your point; it's the change in usage and inconsistency that

bother me.

I will probably not vote No just for this reason, however.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:11 GMT

J> I would argue that {ci lo broda mumei} is better, we want a brodaish fivesome, not a fivesomeish broda. As xorxes notes, all of these are tanru and so open to other interpretations — so go for a lujvo.

[email protected] wrote:Too much nesting.

I'm with Pierre WRT the fact that lo quantifiers are different from all the others, actually. I don't think it's a good idea.

It doesn't much matter to me which one makes more sense; it is both an inconsistency and a change to past usage.

J>We already have other ways of saying "three groups of five"; "ci lo mumei broda" does the right thing, does it not?

Given that, why have the inconsistency? "Three out of some five-some of doctors" may not mean much, but it means something, and it'll be a lot less confusing that way, nevermind the possiblity of invalidating past usage.

Here's an example usage with lo quantifiers being the same as all others:

doi lo re no prenu ko fendi ko lo mumei gi'e ci lo mu prenu cu bevri lo mudri gi'e lo re drata cu kajde fi lo rokci

Not amazingly important, but certainly not completely without use.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:11 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.

> >

Did you spot it?

> > * "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a

> > sumti.". "Selecting" is rather opaque to me. Maybe you could add

> > something like "In other words, lo broda is anything that could fit

> > the first argument of broda".

>

> I added something like that, please check if it's clear.

>

> ...

> > ** This point may very well abrogate the previous point; I don't know

> > which you meant "the predicate" to mean, but please pick one and

> > make it clear.

>

> Yes, I was using "predicate" for two different things. I now use "selbri"

> in all cases for the transformed selbri, and "predicate for which the sumti

> is an argument" for the external one. Please check if it's clear.

"The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group

that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker describes with the

selbri." "describes as fitting the first argument of the selbri",

please.

> > * "Children should always" . "always" does not occur in the Lojban;

> > fix one or the other please.

>

> This is what's going on: The Lojban is a translation from the French.

> The English is also a translation from the French, by someone other

> than me. In French, there is no explicit "always". Maybe the

> translator thought that "always" made the intent of the original more

> clear in English.

OK, fair enough.

> Anyway, I removed it.

Thanks.

> > * I do not know what "viska pa'o lo tanxe" means, but I am certain

> > it does not mean " through the walls of boxes"; add bitmu or

> > something please.

>

> Same as before, no mention of walls in French. I wouldn't mention

> walls in Spanish either, but I will add the walls to make it more

> English-friendly. {pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe} then.

Thanks. I'm still not sure I know what the Lojban means, but it's

certainly close enough.

> > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two lo

> > are most definately "le" if you want it to match the English. You

> > should probably quantify ctuca as well.

>

> How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The context

> is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)

The way I translated it (see my other post) is "Teachers (un-numbered,

could be one) divide those taught into five foursomes of students."

> > * "lo kucysni" . given the numerical precision of the rest, you

> > should quantify this.

>

> Only if you think that I should also change to "one Crucifix" in

> English.

"a crucifix" *does* mean "one crucifix", at least in my dialect.

> But I changed {ci lo pa bidju} to {ci bidju}, which is clearly enough.

Actually, that's not clear to me at all; see the other thread.

> > * The unicorn one:

> > * "gi'e catlu lo ka" — did you mean "se catlu"? No, not even that

> > works. You want "And can be seen to have"; "se catlu simsa" would

> > work I think.

>

> I meant {simlu}! Thanks for catching that one!

Cool.

> > * Quantify jirna, please; it just sounds silly otherwise.

>

> Ok, but I'm not sure why it sound silly.

Because you have a pavyseljirna with some number of horns unspecified.

> > * Similarily, please include at least one blatantly non-veridical

> > example for "le". Ideally, have one for each non-veridical gadri,

> > but I won't bitch if you don't wont to bother with ones other than

> > "le".

>

> Any suggestions for something natural? I don't want to give the

> impression that non-veridicality is used in more that .1% of cases.

Erk. "le ta ninmu cu mutce melbi .iku'i ca'a nanmu gi'e nelci lo nu

ninmu dasni" is the first one that comes to mind.

Gender-queer-positive people would have a field day with "le", I

suspect.

> > * "An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to

> > indicate the cardinality of the group." Explain to me why this

> > doesn't work with cmevla?

>

> Because the grammar is overrestrictive. CMENE should be in BRIVLA.

I see that.

> > "ci la pano hels.angels. pu darxi mi doi pulji". checks Wow,

> > that's a grammar change! OK, that's reason enough. Kinda sad

> > though. We do have the ability to make grammar changes; your call

> > though, I'm not set on one or the other. However, I suddenly

> > understand your dislike of the seperate LA selma'o.

>

> Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE into

> BRIVLA?

mumble, mumble It's up to you. I can't think of a *better* time,

though. If you do so, I will *immediately* call an extension to voting,

for obvious reasons.

> > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

>

> Why?

Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German

sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl called

The Cup.

> > * "The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or

> > group that satisfies the predicate.". Don't you mean a typical

> > individual or group? If not, more explanation please. Same with

> > lo'e.

>

> I think it's "the" typical, it's a single abstraction. See if you like

> the new version.

"typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and "also". That

works.

> > * Umm, isn't it the outer quantifier of lo that is different?

>

> The inner of lo becomes the cadinality of a generic group instead of

> being the cardinality of the group of all existing brodas.

>

> The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the same

> meaning.

I don't see how that's possible. Before, "pa lo broda" meant *exactly*

one broda. Now it means one *group* of broda, of indeterminate size.

That is a massive change, unless I'm missing something.

None of your examples use an outer quantifier by itself, by the way.

Might want to fix that.

> > * I would really like something more in there about constants.

> > A link to a really good expository URL would be nice. Even

> > something as simple as "A constant is something that has no quantity

> > from a predicate logic perspective" or something would help.

>

> A constant is something that always keeps the same referent. {lo

> broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode},

> "da" is a variable, because it takes values from the set of all things

> that brodas. Anything with a quantifier in front takes values from the

> set of things over which the quantifier runs.

Don't tell me; tell the notes. :-)

> > * Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK

> > gets there.

>

> I changed "can" to "could".

OK.

-Robin


Attempting to increase clarity.


[[user1|admin]] Posted by admin on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:15 GMT posts: 208

OK, clarifying my stance on the lo quantifier thing.

It's not the inner quantifier change I'm worried about. The two or three times that someone has really *wanted* to quantify the entire universe of objects can go stuff themselves, although I *am* curious as to how to say "One of the pictures I can draw, of which there are only two in the universe" in the new lo.

What I'm worried about is the change that this effectively makes to the behaviour of the *outer* quantifier of lo. "An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the generic individual or group.": "or group" is what I'm worried about. "pa lo broda" used to me *exactly* one broda; now it can mean one *group* of broda, unless I'm missing something.

This is a major and drastic change to past usage, and I cannot support it.

I doubt that fixing it is difficult, but it needs to be addressed.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT

L> A clear variation on the famouse "Juno was a man."

K> but then how keep the quantifier from becoming part of the name — and how distinguish from cases where it is part of the nme "Three Cows Came> {la ci bakni. cu klama} Three cows or Three-Cows?

J> the claim that {lo broda} is a constant because it always refers to broda is at least contentious — and to a logician just blatantly false. Like a variable it ranges over broda; we just don't know how wide the range is.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> * Similarily, please include at least one blatantly non-veridical

> example for "le". Ideally, have one for each non-veridical gadri, but I

> won't bitch if you don't wont to bother with ones other than "le".

L>Any suggestions for something natural? I don't want to give the

impression that non-veridicality is used in more that .1% of cases.

> * "An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate

> the cardinality of the group." Explain to me why this doesn't work with

> cmevla?

K>Because the grammar is overrestrictive. CMENE should be in BRIVLA.

> "ci la pano hels.angels. pu darxi mi doi pulji". checks

> Wow, that's a grammar change! OK, that's reason enough. Kinda sad

> though. We do have the ability to make grammar changes; your call

> though, I'm not set on one or the other. However, I suddenly

> understand your dislike of the seperate LA selma'o.

Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE

into BRIVLA?

> * I would really like something more in there about constants. A

> link to a really good expository URL would be nice. Even something

> as simple as "A constant is something that has no quantity from a

> predicate logic perspective" or something would help.

J>A constant is something that always keeps the same referent. {lo broda}

always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is

a variable, because it takes values from the set of all things that

brodas. Anything with a quantifier in front takes values from the set

of things over which the quantifier runs.

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT

If you don't start trimming your replies, I'm going to lock you out of

the boards, PC.

> K>Because the grammar is overrestrictive. CMENE should be in BRIVLA.

>

> but then how keep the quantifier from becoming part of the name --

> and how distinguish from cases where it is part of the nme "Three Cows

> Came> {la ci bakni. cu klama} Three cows or Three-Cows?

There's a difference?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 20:59 GMT

Robin:

> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Robin:

> > > One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.

> Did you spot it?

Yes. Did you think my response to it was serious? :-)

> "The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group

> that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker describes with the

> selbri." "describes as fitting the first argument of the selbri",

> please.

OK.

> > > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two lo

> > > are most definately "le" if you want it to match the English. You

> > > should probably quantify ctuca as well.

> >

> > How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The context

> > is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)

>

> The way I translated it (see my other post) is "Teachers (un-numbered,

> could be one) divide those taught into five foursomes of students."

I mean into normal English. The Lojban sounds normal as it is.

> > Any suggestions for something natural? I don't want to give the

> > impression that non-veridicality is used in more that .1% of cases.

>

> Erk. "le ta ninmu cu mutce melbi .iku'i ca'a nanmu gi'e nelci lo nu

> ninmu dasni" is the first one that comes to mind.

Added. (With {va} instead of {ta}.)

> Gender-queer-positive people would have a field day with "le", I

> suspect.

Many of them would claim they are ca'a ninmu, not that

they are using the selbri non-veridically.

> > Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE into

> > BRIVLA?

>

> mumble, mumble It's up to you. I can't think of a *better* time,

> though. If you do so, I will *immediately* call an extension to voting,

> for obvious reasons.

I won't then. We can always fix the definition of {la} later if that is

ever changed.

> > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

> > Why?

>

> Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German

> sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl called

> The Cup.

Isn't the English version equally vague though?

> "typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and "also". That

> works.

Done.

> > The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the same

> > meaning.

>

> I don't see how that's possible. Before, "pa lo broda" meant *exactly*

> one broda. Now it means one *group* of broda, of indeterminate size.

> That is a massive change, unless I'm missing something.

It's {PA lo pa broda} in most contexts. Before, it meant

{PA da poi broda} exactly PA things that broda.

{pa da poi broda} could also mean exactly one group of brodas,

given the appropriate context. In most contexts, in both cases,

the usual interpretation is that we are counting individual

brodas.

> None of your examples use an outer quantifier by itself, by the way.

> Might want to fix that.

That's because in that case {lo} is elidable. There's

{mu (lo) xagji sofybakni} anyway.

> > A constant is something that always keeps the same referent. {lo

> > broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode},

> > "da" is a variable, because it takes values from the set of all things

> > that brodas. Anything with a quantifier in front takes values from the

> > set of things over which the quantifier runs.

>

> Don't tell me; tell the notes. :-)

OK.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 21:00 GMT

> > > > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two

> > > > lo are most definately "le" if you want it to match the English.

> > > > You should probably quantify ctuca as well.

> > >

> > > How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The

> > > context is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)

> >

> > The way I translated it (see my other post) is "Teachers

> > (un-numbered, could be one) divide those taught into five foursomes

> > of students."

>

> I mean into normal English. The Lojban sounds normal as it is.

Teachers divide those taught into five groups of four.

> > Gender-queer-positive people would have a field day with "le", I

> > suspect.

>

> Many of them would claim they are ca'a ninmu, not that they are using

> the selbri non-veridically.

Right, and then fights would break out. That would be the field day.

:-)

> > > Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE

> > > into BRIVLA?

> >

> > mumble, mumble It's up to you. I can't think of a *better* time,

> > though. If you do so, I will *immediately* call an extension to

> > voting, for obvious reasons.

>

> I won't then. We can always fix the definition of {la} later if that

> is ever changed.

I don't see what other BPFK section it could happen in, but we might

want to collect proposed grammar changes and do them all at once.

> > > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

> > > Why?

> >

> > Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German

> > sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl

> > called The Cup.

>

> Isn't the English version equally vague though?

In my dialect, "The Brazillians" can only mean "a group of Brazillian

people".

> > > The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the

> > > same meaning.

> >

> > I don't see how that's possible. Before, "pa lo broda" meant

> > *exactly* one broda. Now it means one *group* of broda, of

> > indeterminate size. That is a massive change, unless I'm missing

> > something.

>

> It's {PA lo pa broda} in most contexts. Before, it meant {PA da poi

> broda} exactly PA things that broda.

Please show me chapter and verse for it meaning that, please.

> {pa da poi broda} could also mean exactly one group of brodas, given

> the appropriate context. In most contexts, in both cases, the usual

> interpretation is that we are counting individual brodas.

OK, problems here. I suppose "pa lo girzu" always meant one group, but

it still means only one thing that matches the x1 of girzu. Same with

"pa da poi broda". Your proposal seems to be expanding that to one

  • group* of things that match the x1 of girzu, i.e. on group of groups.

I don't see how the old definition could ever have meant that.

> > None of your examples use an outer quantifier by itself, by the way.

> > Might want to fix that.

>

> That's because in that case {lo} is elidable. There's {mu (lo) xagji

> sofybakni} anyway.

Oh, true.

-Robni



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT

> > "typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and "also".

> > That works.

>

> Done.

Nope. "that satisfy the selbri typically satisfy also the predicate"

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT


> > > "typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and "also".

> > > That works.

> >

> > Done.

>

> Nope. "that satisfy the selbri typically satisfy also the predicate"

?

That's what the previous version was.

Now it says:

The resulting expression indicates that the individuals or groups that satisfy

the selbri typically also satisfy the predicate for which the sumti is an

argument.

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:11:25PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > "typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and

> > > > "also". That works.

> > >

> > > Done.

> >

> > Nope. "that satisfy the selbri typically satisfy also the

> > predicate"

>

> ? That's what the previous version was. Now it says:

>

> The resulting expression indicates that the individuals or groups that

> satisfy the selbri typically also satisfy the predicate for which the

> sumti is an argument.

OK, that was wierd. Nevermind.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT

Robin:

> It seems to me that this changes *all* usage of "PA lo", because

> suddenly when you said "pa lo broda" and meant "One broda", you don't

> *get* one broda anymore, you get one *group* of broda, which is very,

> very different.

No, you get one instance of brodas. What counts as an instance

depends on context, but the most normal instances are individual

brodas, at least in cases where brodas are normally individuated.

What counts as an instance in {pa djacu} is much more context

sensitive.

But this is nothing new. {ci lo djacu} always could be three

glasses of water or three lakes, depending on context.

> su'o pa lo prenu cu prami do

> At least one person loves you.

>

> http://www.lojban.org/files/brochures/lesson4.html

>

> In your version, this means "At least one group of people loves you",

> does it not?

No, "at least one instance of people loves you". In the case

of su'o surely it makes no difference anyway, because "group"

must include groups of one.

> 19 May 2003 14:23:19 ci re'u ca pa lo cacra

>

> http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/2003_05_20-02_22.txt

>

> Again, your version would be "Three times in one *group* of hours".

(cire'u is the third time)

I'd say {cire'u lo cacra be li pa}.

> > > The regularity is in usage. The outer quantifier works the same for

> > > *all* gadri *except* lo.

> >

> > *all* is le and la, right?

> > It certainly doesn't work like that for loi, lei, lai, lo'i, le'i,

> > la'i, lo'e and le'e.

>

> You have very few examples of quantification of those ones. However,

> those all say "An outer quantifier can be used to indicate a subset of

> that cardinality ", or "subgroup" instead of subset. la and le say " An

> outer quantifier can be used to quantify over members of the group."

Right, so something very different.

> Ignoring lo'e and le'e, of course.

>

> If those two are different, I don't understand one or the other.

If you understand outer quantification of sets, please explain

it to me.

> The only example of quantification of these articles is "ro le verba",

> which helps very little.

>

> If "indicate a subset of that cardinality" and "quantify over members of

> the group" mean substantially different things, then on behalf of slow

> people everywhere I request more verbosity. "In other words, ..." would

> be nice. More examlpes would be nice too.

Consider the set {a, b, c}.

The subsets are:

{}, {a}, {b}, {c}, {a, b}, {b, c}, {a, c} and {a, b, c}.

Quantifying over the subsets would mean that you can say something

of up to eight objects. For example: Exactly four subsets of

{a, b, c} contain b as a member. That's NOT what quantifiers

on lo'i would seem to be for.

If the quantifier indicates a cardinality, as I wrote, then it

is not doing quantification over a set. It is not very clear at

all what it is doing, either, but presumably {pimu lo'i broda}

is something like a set with half the members of lo'i broda. There

are usually many such sets, and I don't really know how

{pimu lo'i} works. "at least one subset of half the cardinality

of the set"? Exactly one such subset? A generic such subset?

Fortunately all this is irrelevant, because we never talk about

such things in normal situations, and when we want to talk math

there are better ways of doing it (like using proper predicates

for "set", "subset", etc.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:33 GMT

Robin:

> Attempting to increase clarity.

> OK, clarifying my stance on the lo quantifier thing.

>

> It's not the inner quantifier change I'm worried about. The two or three

> times that someone has really *wanted* to quantify the entire universe of

> objects can go stuff themselves, although I *am* curious as to how to say

> "One of the pictures I can draw, of which there are only two in the universe"

> in the new lo.

lo/le rore pixra poi mi kakne lo nu finti

> What I'm worried about is the change that this effectively makes to the

> behaviour of the *outer* quantifier of lo. "An outer quantifier can be used

> to quantify over instances of the generic individual or group.": "or group"

> is what I'm worried about. "pa lo broda" used to me *exactly* one broda; now

> it can mean one *group* of broda, unless I'm missing something.

>

> This is a major and drastic change to past usage, and I cannot support it.

>

> I doubt that fixing it is difficult, but it needs to be addressed.

I changed it to: "An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over

instances of the generic individual or, if an explicit inner quantifier

is given, over instances of a group."

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:34 GMT

pc:

> but then how keep the quantifier from becoming part of the name — and how

> distinguish from cases where it is part of the nme "Three Cows Came> {la ci

> bakni. cu klama} Three cows or Three-Cows?

We already have that case allowed: {la ci bakni}.

That can mean "the group of three things that I call 'Cow'"

or the one thing that I call 'The Three Cows' (a restaurant, say).

I would say the second reading has to be the predominant one.

For several things with the same name it makes more sense to

use {lo ci me la bakni}.

I changed the definition of {la} accordingly to:

"An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to

indicate the cardinality of the group or as part of the name."

I didn't do the same change for lai and la'i because in those

cases an actual cardinality seems much more likely.

Anyone against?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:34 GMT

Robin:

> > > > > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" .

> Teachers divide those taught into five groups of four.

Isn't "the class" a more normal translation than "those taught"?

I want some examples where English "the" is translated with

lojban {lo} so that people don't automatically assume the=le.

I don't think translating {lo ctuca} as "the teacher" in this

sentence is such a stretch. Do you think I should change:

le palta ba'o porpi i ma gasnu i xu le gerku cu go'i

The dish is broken. Who did it? Was it the dog?

to: The dishes are broken. Who did it? Was it the dogs?

> > > > Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE

> > > > into BRIVLA?

>

> I don't see what other BPFK section it could happen in, but we might

> want to collect proposed grammar changes and do them all at once.

The special section 'Formal Grammar' would be where this belongs,

I think.

> > > > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

> > > > Why?

> > >

> > > Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German

> > > sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl

> > > called The Cup.

> >

> > Isn't the English version equally vague though?

>

> In my dialect, "The Brazillians" can only mean "a group of Brazillian

> people".

Ok, English is more precise in this case. That does not mean that

you can't use {lei brazo} to refer to the Brazilians.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Votes


Posted by xorxes on Sat 05 of June, 2004 22:39 GMT posts: 1912

Can we know who is voting against the proposal at this point, and what their objections are? I know pc is one, but there are two others.

ki'e mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:39:27PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Votes

>

> Can we know who is voting against the proposal at this point, and what

> their objections are? I know pc is one, but there are two others.

Me and Arnt, both for the lo outer quantifier over groups issue. Mine

will be reversed shortly.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT

I think the point is that if what comes after {lo} is {broda} the quantifiers on {lo broda} are just quantifiers on {broda}, while if what follows is {PA broda} then quantifers on {lo pa broda} are quantifiers on groups of {PA broda}, which cannot be be written without the {lo}. In other words, with {lo} you are talking about the whole phrase that follows in the sumti and what satisfies it, while with {le} you are talking about just what is said to satisfy the brivla that follows in the sumti (and then you are told how many there are. The external quantifiers work the same in each case; it is the internal ones that play different roles.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> It seems to me that this changes *all* usage of "PA lo", because

> suddenly when you said "pa lo broda" and meant "One broda", you don't

> *get* one broda anymore, you get one *group* of broda, which is very,

> very different.

No, you get one instance of brodas. What counts as an instance

depends on context, but the most normal instances are individual

brodas, at least in cases where brodas are normally individuated.

What counts as an instance in {pa djacu} is much more context

sensitive.

But this is nothing new. {ci lo djacu} always could be three

glasses of water or three lakes, depending on context.

> su'o pa lo prenu cu prami do

> At least one person loves you.

>

> http://www.lojban.org/files/brochures/lesson4.html

>

> In your version, this means "At least one group of people loves you",

> does it not?

No, "at least one instance of people loves you". In the case

of su'o surely it makes no difference anyway, because "group"

must include groups of one.

> 19 May 2003 14:23:19 ci re'u ca pa lo cacra

>

> http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/2003_05_20-02_22.txt

>

> Again, your version would be "Three times in one *group* of hours".

(cire'u is the third time)

I'd say {cire'u lo cacra be li pa}.

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT

H>This is useless unless ione has been indoctrinated into the incoherent notion of a generic individual (contradictory already) and its instances. Quantification is over brodas or groups of brodas.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> Attempting to increase clarity.

> OK, clarifying my stance on the lo quantifier thing.

>

> It's not the inner quantifier change I'm worried about. The two or three

> times that someone has really *wanted* to quantify the entire universe of

> objects can go stuff themselves, although I *am* curious as to how to say

> "One of the pictures I can draw, of which there are only two in the universe"

> in the new lo.

lo/le rore pixra poi mi kakne lo nu finti

> What I'm worried about is the change that this effectively makes to the

> behaviour of the *outer* quantifier of lo. "An outer quantifier can be used

> to quantify over instances of the generic individual or group.": "or group"

> is what I'm worried about. "pa lo broda" used to me *exactly* one broda; now

> it can mean one *group* of broda, unless I'm missing something.

>

> This is a major and drastic change to past usage, and I cannot support it.

>

> I doubt that fixing it is difficult, but it needs to be addressed.

H>I changed it to: "An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over

instances of the generic individual or, if an explicit inner quantifier

is given, over instances of a group."

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT

I> And what distinguishes the two — very different — cases?

G> So, we can clearly use this for cmevla as well (though the use of {me} is as always questionable) and there is no problem. And notice that the "internal quantifier" now does not function like that in other sumti, which was the reason for trying to shove quantifiers in in the first place.

F>This does not solve the "problem" which you posed to begin with, and, as you note, with {lai} and {la'i} the work around for that problem will not work either.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> but then how keep the quantifier from becoming part of the name — and how

> distinguish from cases where it is part of the nme "Three Cows Came> {la ci

> bakni. cu klama} Three cows or Three-Cows?

I>We already have that case allowed: {la ci bakni}.

That can mean "the group of three things that I call 'Cow'"

or the one thing that I call 'The Three Cows' (a restaurant, say).

G>I would say the second reading has to be the predominant one.

For several things with the same name it makes more sense to

use {lo ci me la bakni}.

I changed the definition of {la} accordingly to:

"An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to

indicate the cardinality of the group or as part of the name."

I didn't do the same change for lai and la'i because in those

cases an actual cardinality seems much more likely.

F>Anyone against?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT

E> It depends (as all references do to a greater or lesser extent) on context. It is easy to imagine cases where {lo brazo} does refer to Brazilain sausages, but in contextless cases, Brazilian people are clearly the most likely (unmarked, not needed special context).

Jorge Llambías wrote:Robin:

> > > > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

> > > > Why?

> > >

> > > Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German

> > > sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl

> > > called The Cup.

> >

> > Isn't the English version equally vague though?

>

E> In my dialect, "The Brazillians" can only mean "a group of Brazillian

> people".

Ok, English is more precise in this case. That does not mean that

you can't use {lei brazo} to refer to the Brazilians.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 05:59 GMT

E> It depends (as all references do to a greater or lesser extent) on context. It is easy to imagine cases where {lo brazo} does refer to Brazilain sausages, but in contextless cases, Brazilian people are clearly the most likely (unmarked, not needed special context).

Jorge Llambías wrote: Robin:

> > > > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

> > > > Why?

> > >

> > > Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German

> > > sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl

> > > called The Cup.

> >

> > Isn't the English version equally vague though?

>

E> In my dialect, "The Brazillians" can only mean "a group of Brazillian

> people".

Ok, English is more precise in this case. That does not mean that

you can't use {lei brazo} to refer to the Brazilians.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:30:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > > > > > * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" .

> > Teachers divide those taught into five groups of four.

>

> Isn't "the class" a more normal translation than "those taught"?

No, that's le.

> I want some examples where English "the" is translated with lojban

> {lo} so that people don't automatically assume the=le.

Umm, "the" *does* == "le", as far as I can tell.

> I don't think translating {lo ctuca} as "the teacher" in this

> sentence is such a stretch. Do you think I should change:

>

> le palta ba'o porpi i ma gasnu i xu le gerku cu go'i

> The dish is broken. Who did it? Was it the dog?

>

> to: The dishes are broken. Who did it? Was it the dogs?

Err.

ponder

OK, I take it back. "lo selctu" == "the class" is acceptable.

> > > > > Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE

> > > > > into BRIVLA?

> >

> > I don't see what other BPFK section it could happen in, but we might

> > want to collect proposed grammar changes and do them all at once.

>

> The special section 'Formal Grammar' would be where this belongs,

> I think.

Yep.

> > > > > > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

> > > > > Why?

> > > >

> > > > Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus

> > > > German sausages, and who one for being placed in a very

> > > > expensive bowl called The Cup.

> > >

> > > Isn't the English version equally vague though?

> >

> > In my dialect, "The Brazillians" can only mean "a group of

> > Brazillian people".

>

> Ok, English is more precise in this case. That does not mean that you

> can't use {lei brazo} to refer to the Brazilians.

True. It's a matter of personal taste; my taste happens to disagree

with yours, but it's not a big deal.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 03:07:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> pc:

> > but then how keep the quantifier from becoming part of the name --

> > and how distinguish from cases where it is part of the nme "Three

> > Cows Came> {la ci bakni. cu klama} Three cows or Three-Cows?

>

> We already have that case allowed: {la ci bakni}.

>

> That can mean "the group of three things that I call 'Cow'" or the one

> thing that I call 'The Three Cows' (a restaurant, say).

It can? As far as I know, it only means the latter.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > What I'm worried about is the change that this effectively makes to

> > the behaviour of the *outer* quantifier of lo. "An outer

> > quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the generic

> > individual or group.": "or group" is what I'm worried about. "pa

> > lo broda" used to me *exactly* one broda; now it can mean one

> > *group* of broda, unless I'm missing something.

> >

> > This is a major and drastic change to past usage, and I cannot

> > support it.

> >

> > I doubt that fixing it is difficult, but it needs to be addressed.

>

> I changed it to: "An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over

> instances of the generic individual or, if an explicit inner

> quantifier is given, over instances of a group."

That'll do. Vote changed.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > > > The regularity is in usage. The outer quantifier works the same

> > > > for *all* gadri *except* lo.

> > >

> > > *all* is le and la, right? It certainly doesn't work like that for

> > > loi, lei, lai, lo'i, le'i, la'i, lo'e and le'e.

> >

> > You have very few examples of quantification of those ones.

> > However, those all say "An outer quantifier can be used to indicate

> > a subset of that cardinality ", or "subgroup" instead of subset. la

> > and le say " An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over

> > members of the group."

>

> Right, so something very different.

>

> > Ignoring lo'e and le'e, of course.

> >

> > If those two are different, I don't understand one or the other.

>

> If you understand outer quantification of sets, please explain it to

> me.

>

> > The only example of quantification of these articles is "ro le

> > verba", which helps very little.

> >

> > If "indicate a subset of that cardinality" and "quantify over

> > members of the group" mean substantially different things, then on

> > behalf of slow people everywhere I request more verbosity. "In

> > other words, ..." would be nice. More examlpes would be nice too.

>

> Consider the set {a, b, c}.

>

> The subsets are:

>

> {}, {a}, {b}, {c}, {a, b}, {b, c}, {a, c} and {a, b, c}.

>

> Quantifying over the subsets would mean that you can say something

> of up to eight objects. For example: Exactly four subsets of

> {a, b, c} contain b as a member. That's NOT what quantifiers

> on lo'i would seem to be for.

Granted.

> If the quantifier indicates a cardinality, as I wrote, then it

> is not doing quantification over a set. It is not very clear at

> all what it is doing, either, but presumably {pimu lo'i broda}

> is something like a set with half the members of lo'i broda. There

> are usually many such sets, and I don't really know how

> {pimu lo'i} works. "at least one subset of half the cardinality

> of the set"? Exactly one such subset? A generic such subset?

Ouch.

> Fortunately all this is irrelevant, because we never talk about

> such things in normal situations, and when we want to talk math

> there are better ways of doing it (like using proper predicates

> for "set", "subset", etc.)

Granted. If it's a serious problem we can come back to it.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

I'm inclined to say that the inner quantifier is always

a part of the name. This would seem to agree with something

CLL says about the inner quantifier of le:

"Note that the inner quantifier of le, even when exact, need

not be truthful: le ci nanmu means what I describe as three

men, not three of what I describe as men. This follows from

the rule that what is described by a le description represents

the speaker's viewpoint rather than the objective way things are."

So the inner quantifier is part of the description in the case

of le, and part of the name in the case of la.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> I'm inclined to say that the inner quantifier is always a part of the

> name. This would seem to agree with something CLL says about the inner

> quantifier of le:

>

> "Note that the inner quantifier of le, even when exact, need not

> be truthful: le ci nanmu means what I describe as three men,

> not three of what I describe as men. This follows from the rule

> that what is described by a le description represents the

> speaker's viewpoint rather than the objective way things are."

>

> So the inner quantifier is part of the description in the case of le,

> and part of the name in the case of la.

Works for me. I'd rather that then being wishy-washy about it. One can

always use the lo/le PA la PA broda trick. If you're going to go that

route, though, explicitely mentioning that trick somewhere seems like a

good idea.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 06:00 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > I want some examples where English "the" is translated with lojban

> > {lo} so that people don't automatically assume the=le.

>

> Umm, "the" *does* == "le", as far as I can tell.

Well, "the" gets translated "le", but "a certain" does too. "A certain cow"

means that I know the cow (+specific) but you don't (-definite).

--

Where the wombat has walked, John Cowan

it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 16:29 GMT

A Gedankenexperiment:

I have created a thing which I call in Lojban a jvugi. There are a dozen of them and they are identical above the molecular lattice level. They are all on my table. I put some (but not all) of them into my designated box, Waldo. At this point, {lo jvugi cu nenri le tanxe o la ualdos} is true. So also is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}. But neither {lo jvugi na nenri le tanxe} or {lo jvugi nenri gi'enai nenri le tanxe} is true, the first because its negate is true, the second because it is a contradiction. We can save the latter (and, to some extent the former) by dividing the predicate to distinguish "different senses of {nenri}" one of which applies to the jvugi in the box, another to those outside. But how to do this: the jvugi are the same in all usable properties, the box is the same. I suppose we could invent some kind of deictic property which applied only to the items pointed at or the like. But this only works if we have already individuated the jvugi (by pointing)

and turns out to be aproperty whose apllication depends upon that individuation. That is, it is a complex way of separating lo jvugi into these (pointed at) and those (not). It has to be reinvented everytime we shift which jvugi are in and which out. So the properties are always isomorphic to the individuation of the jvugi. In short, the unitary lo jvugi plays not significant role in all this, only the individual jvugi. And that means that, so far as practical concerns go, {lo jvugi} behaves exactly like {su'o jvugi} — just as CLL says. And wirthout the mumbling metaphysics.



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 19:47 GMT

All right. I'm about to do something incredibly rude.

The incredibly voluminous argumentation on this topic has been too much

for me to keep up with; I'm literally weeks behind (I actually panic

when I accidentally bring up one of the messages on my mail-reading

window, that's how scared of the topic I am). OTOH, I do want to be

sure I understand and contribute. So I am going to see if I understand

things okay and ask my one or two questions without bothering to read

all the give-and-take which may have already answered them.

I've read through the gadri proposal, and most of it makes sense. One

or two points remain, for me, though. And maybe you've already answered

them.

(1) in the proposal, a sample sentence given is {lo ctuca cu fendi lo

selctu mu lo vo tadni}/"The teacher will divide the class into five

groups of four students." This doesn't work, by my understanding of the

proposal. It should mean that "teachers in general," (something like

"all teachers"?) will divide their classes. The English translation

sounds like it's referring to some particular teacher, which would be

{le}. If I'm wrong about the meaning of the English translation, that

just means this is a bad example or a bad English rendering.

(2) is the usage of loi/lei changed? The proposal specifies that the

group satisfies the matrix predication *as a group*. This implies that

the mass does *not* inherit the properties of its elements, or at least

not all of them. Do we still say that it's true that both {loi ratcu cu

cmalu} (as rats are small) and that {loi ratcu cu barda} (as the class

is big)? The first sentence would be better expressed as {lo ratcu cu

cmalu} in the new formulation. So is it then *not* true that {loi ratcu

cu cmalu}? Does the group have to satisfy the matrix predicate jointly

but NOT singly? Or either way? Whatever the answer to this, it should

be clarified in the proposal.

(3) just some minor expenditure of grey-matter on the subject of

gadri+NU. As I read it, many (maybe most) of the prior uses of {le nu}

are probably okay, and the rest need to be {lo nu}. That's all right,

but we'll probably be using {lo nu} more than we have been in the past.

Most of the rest looks okay and makes sense to me. Hope I haven't

muddied the waters too much...

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:02 GMT

~mark:

> (1) in the proposal, a sample sentence given is {lo ctuca cu fendi lo

> selctu mu lo vo tadni}/"The teacher will divide the class into five

> groups of four students." This doesn't work, by my understanding of the

> proposal. It should mean that "teachers in general," (something like

> "all teachers"?) will divide their classes. The English translation

> sounds like it's referring to some particular teacher, which would be

> {le}. If I'm wrong about the meaning of the English translation, that

> just means this is a bad example or a bad English rendering.

It's the teacher in general. It is part of a set of directions on

how to conduct a certain lesson, the speaker has no particular

teacher in mind. Perhaps it is a bad example given that so many

people have complained about it, but "the teacher" can be generic

in English.

> (2) is the usage of loi/lei changed? The proposal specifies that the

> group satisfies the matrix predication *as a group*. This implies that

> the mass does *not* inherit the properties of its elements, or at least

> not all of them. Do we still say that it's true that both {loi ratcu cu

> cmalu} (as rats are small) and that {loi ratcu cu barda} (as the class

> is big)? The first sentence would be better expressed as {lo ratcu cu

> cmalu} in the new formulation. So is it then *not* true that {loi ratcu

> cu cmalu}? Does the group have to satisfy the matrix predicate jointly

> but NOT singly? Or either way? Whatever the answer to this, it should

> be clarified in the proposal.

As I understand it, the group has to satisfy the matrix predicate

jointly, whether or not the members satisfy it. The claim is about

the group and nothing is claimed about the members individually.

I think that's what the definition says.

I suppose {loi ci ratcu cu cmalu} and {loi ki'o ratcu cu barda}, so

{loi ratcu} could be either. We need more context.

{lo ratcu cu cmalu}, "rats are small", is definitely more clear.

> (3) just some minor expenditure of grey-matter on the subject of

> gadri+NU. As I read it, many (maybe most) of the prior uses of {le nu}

> are probably okay, and the rest need to be {lo nu}. That's all right,

> but we'll probably be using {lo nu} more than we have been in the past.

Yes, and I think {lo ka} and {lo du'u} make much more sense than

with {le}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:

Wonder why my mailer keeps doing that.

>~mark:

>

>

>>(1) in the proposal, a sample sentence given is {lo ctuca cu fendi lo

>>selctu mu lo vo tadni}/"The teacher will divide the class into five

>>groups of four students." This doesn't work, by my understanding of the

>>proposal. It should mean that "teachers in general," (something like

>>"all teachers"?) will divide their classes. The English translation

>>sounds like it's referring to some particular teacher, which would be

>>{le}. If I'm wrong about the meaning of the English translation, that

>>just means this is a bad example or a bad English rendering.

>>

>>

>

>It's the teacher in general. It is part of a set of directions on

>how to conduct a certain lesson, the speaker has no particular

>teacher in mind. Perhaps it is a bad example given that so many

>people have complained about it, but "the teacher" can be generic

>in English.

>

OK, with you. So you're saying "Classes in this school will start

tomorrow morning at nine sharp, at which time the teacher [[i.e.%20each%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eclass'%20teacher(s)|i.e. each

class' teacher(s)]] will divide the students..." I can see that. The

English is ambiguous (big surprise) and seems to be, to me, closer to

the non-example meaning than to the example meaning.

>>(2) is the usage of loi/lei changed? The proposal specifies that the

>>group satisfies the matrix predication *as a group*. This implies that

>>the mass does *not* inherit the properties of its elements, or at least

>>not all of them. Do we still say that it's true that both {loi ratcu cu

>>cmalu} (as rats are small) and that {loi ratcu cu barda} (as the class

>>is big)? The first sentence would be better expressed as {lo ratcu cu

>>cmalu} in the new formulation. So is it then *not* true that {loi ratcu

>>cu cmalu}? Does the group have to satisfy the matrix predicate jointly

>>but NOT singly? Or either way? Whatever the answer to this, it should

>>be clarified in the proposal.

>>

>>

>

>As I understand it, the group has to satisfy the matrix predicate

>jointly, whether or not the members satisfy it. The claim is about

>the group and nothing is claimed about the members individually.

>I think that's what the definition says.

>

>I suppose {loi ci ratcu cu cmalu} and {loi ki'o ratcu cu barda}, so

>{loi ratcu} could be either. We need more context.

>

OK, gotcha. That's good, and significant. But would it be true that

{loi ki'o ratcu cu cmalu}? Um... I presume not, since although the

individuals satisfy it, the group as a whole isn't small. Oog. OTOH,

{loi dembi cu nenri le patxu} is true and seems to mean exactly the same

thing as {lo dembi cu nenri le patxu}, doesn't it? (There are beans in

the pot). Except for a natlang-biased singular/plural thing I am having

trouble avoiding. Hrm. Still feels like some ambiguity or question

there, somehow.

>{lo ratcu cu cmalu}, "rats are small", is definitely more clear.

>

Right, ok, with you.

>>(3) just some minor expenditure of grey-matter on the subject of

>>gadri+NU. As I read it, many (maybe most) of the prior uses of {le nu}

>>are probably okay, and the rest need to be {lo nu}. That's all right,

>>but we'll probably be using {lo nu} more than we have been in the past.

>>

>>

>

>Yes, and I think {lo ka} and {lo du'u} make much more sense than

>with {le}.

>

Mmm... But if I'm talking about a specific picture, say, then it should

be {le ka le pixre cu melbi kei} and not {lo ka} shouldn't it? Um, maybe.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>All right. I'm about to do something incredibly rude.

>

>The incredibly voluminous argumentation on this topic has been too much

>for me to keep up with; I'm literally weeks behind (I actually panic

>when I accidentally bring up one of the messages on my mail-reading

>window, that's how scared of the topic I am). OTOH, I do want to be

>sure I understand and contribute. So I am going to see if I understand

>things okay and ask my one or two questions without bothering to read

>all the give-and-take which may have already answered them.

>

>

I can sympathize. I've probably spent 20 hours on this topic over the

past few weeks.

>I've read through the gadri proposal, and most of it makes sense. One

>or two points remain, for me, though. And maybe you've already answered

>them.

>

>(1) in the proposal, a sample sentence given is {lo ctuca cu fendi lo

>selctu mu lo vo tadni}/"The teacher will divide the class into five

>groups of four students." This doesn't work, by my understanding of the

>proposal. It should mean that "teachers in general," (something like

>"all teachers"?) will divide their classes. The English translation

>sounds like it's referring to some particular teacher, which would be

>{le}. If I'm wrong about the meaning of the English translation, that

>just means this is a bad example or a bad English rendering.

>

>

Zu'u it's not a specific teacher, it could be any teacher. Zu'unai once

the teacher is introduced at the top of the script (which is what that

sentence comes from) subsequent references don't refer again to any

teacher, but the same one bi'unai. Zu'unainai lo is general enough to

cover le as well as other than le. Zu'unainainai assuming the speaker is

cooperative, the listener should wonder why the speaker didn't use le,

and what are they trying to signal by using lo?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

pc:

> A Gedankenexperiment:

>

> I have created a thing which I call in Lojban a jvugi. There are a dozen of

> them and they are identical above the molecular lattice level. They are all

> on my table. I put some (but not all) of them into my designated box, Waldo.

> At this point, {lo jvugi cu nenri le tanxe o la ualdos} is true. So also

> is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}.

As long as a different spatial tense is understood, yes.

> But neither {lo jvugi na nenri le tanxe}

> or {lo jvugi nenri gi'enai nenri le tanxe} is true, the first because its

> negate is true, the second because it is a contradiction. We can save the

> latter (and, to some extent the former) by dividing the predicate to

> distinguish "different senses of {nenri}" one of which applies to the jvugi

> in the box, another to those outside.

Or the same sense of nenri with different tenses.

> But how to do this: the jvugi are the

> same in all usable properties, the box is the same. I suppose we could

> invent some kind of deictic property which applied only to the items pointed

> at or the like. But this only works if we have already individuated the

> jvugi (by pointing)

> and turns out to be aproperty whose apllication depends upon that

> individuation. That is, it is a complex way of separating lo jvugi into

> these (pointed at) and those (not). It has to be reinvented everytime we

> shift which jvugi are in and which out. So the properties are always

> isomorphic to the individuation of the jvugi. In short, the unitary lo jvugi

> plays not significant role in all this, only the individual jvugi. And that

> means that, so far as practical concerns go, {lo jvugi} behaves exactly like

> {su'o jvugi} — just as CLL says. And wirthout the mumbling metaphysics.

You can repeat the gedankenexperiment with la jvugis. This is an object

that remains unaltered in all its properties throughout all time.

At some point you put it into Waldo, and later you take it out.

So {la jvugis cu nenri la ualdos} is true, and so is {la jvugis naku

nenri la ualdos}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:44:23PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> All right. I'm about to do something incredibly rude.

Participation is *NEVER* rude.

> The incredibly voluminous argumentation on this topic has been too

> much for me to keep up with;

Hear hear!

> I'm literally weeks behind (I actually panic when I accidentally bring

> up one of the messages on my mail-reading window, that's how scared of

> the topic I am).

I can understand that.

> OTOH, I do want to be sure I understand and contribute. So I am going

> to see if I understand things okay and ask my one or two questions

> without bothering to read all the give-and-take which may have already

> answered them.

Don't bother; if the proposal doesn't stand on it's own, we're not done

yet.

> (1) in the proposal, a sample sentence given is {lo ctuca cu fendi lo

> selctu mu lo vo tadni}/"The teacher will divide the class into five

> groups of four students." This doesn't work, by my understanding of

> the proposal. It should mean that "teachers in general," (something

> like "all teachers"?) will divide their classes. The English

> translation sounds like it's referring to some particular teacher,

> which would be {le}. If I'm wrong about the meaning of the English

> translation, that just means this is a bad example or a bad English

> rendering.

xorxes and I did, in fact, have a substantial discussion about that.

The issue is that lo is inspecific in number, but English is *not*,

ever. "lo ctuca" refers, in general, to a non-numbered generic teacher.

If there happens to only be one around, translating it with "the" in

English isn't really a stretch.

Bear in mind that the English instructions, despite using "the", *are*

general. The person writing the instructions did not have a particular

class or teacher in mind, but he knew there would be only one of each.

My gf Dalton just pointed out that this *only* works in context.

Parent-teacher night:

"At this school, for art class the teacher divides the class into four

groups of five".

But in the vast majority of contexts the sentence given would mean

"Teachers divide students into four groups of five".

I'd like very, very much to have a note added to this example.

Something as simple as given the proper context would suffice.

Also, if you're going to use the word "will", you need "doi ctuca ko

fendi" or similar.

> (2) is the usage of loi/lei changed?

loi is, yes, WRT inner quantifiers.

I don't understand the old outer quantifiers for these, so I can't

answer that part. As far as I can tell, for example, it was not valid

to have "pa loi broda" before; only fractional outer quantifiers were

valid.

> The proposal specifies that the group satisfies the matrix predication

> *as a group*. This implies that the mass does *not* inherit the

> properties of its elements, or at least not all of them. Do we still

> say that it's true that both {loi ratcu cu cmalu} (as rats are small)

> and that {loi ratcu cu barda} (as the class is big)? The first

> sentence would be better expressed as {lo ratcu cu cmalu} in the new

> formulation. So is it then *not* true that {loi ratcu cu cmalu}?

> Does the group have to satisfy the matrix predicate jointly but NOT

> singly? Or either way? Whatever the answer to this, it should be

> clarified in the proposal.

I'm sorry, I have *never* understood these issues. :-(

> (3) just some minor expenditure of grey-matter on the subject of

> gadri+NU. As I read it, many (maybe most) of the prior uses of {le

> nu} are probably okay, and the rest need to be {lo nu}. That's all

> right, but we'll probably be using {lo nu} more than we have been in

> the past.

I already am. :-)

I don't see that the previous "le nu" cause any problems, but suddenly

we actually *understand* what "lo nu" *means*, so yeah, we'll be using

it more.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>Jorge "Llamb=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=

BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD

EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF

BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF

=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD" wrote:

>

>Wonder why my mailer keeps doing that.

> =20

>

What mailer?

>OK, gotcha. That's good, and significant. But would it be true that=20

>{loi ki'o ratcu cu cmalu}? Um... I presume not, since although the=20

>individuals satisfy it, the group as a whole isn't small. Oog. OTOH,=20

>{loi dembi cu nenri le patxu} is true and seems to mean exactly the same=

=20

>thing as {lo dembi cu nenri le patxu}, doesn't it? (There are beans in=20

>the pot). Except for a natlang-biased singular/plural thing I am having=

=20

>trouble avoiding. Hrm. Still feels like some ambiguity or question=20

>there, somehow.

> =20

>

This example sneakily introduces the idea of Substance because as a=20

food, "beans" sounds like "beef" or "water", those innately continuous=20

materials for which loi has been used (the third sense of loi!!) but for=20

which we now tend to use tu'o as a quantifier {tu'o dembi, tu'o bakni}=20

signalling that counting chunks is meaningless. Beans are case where the=20

item is actually countable, and unlike cows, are actually consumed in=20

their countable state (not requiring butchery) but usually not counted=20

as they are being used, hence are treated as a substance measured by=20

mass or volume.

>>>(3) just some minor expenditure of grey-matter on the subject of=20

>>>gadri+NU. As I read it, many (maybe most) of the prior uses of {le nu=

}=20

>>>are probably okay, and the rest need to be {lo nu}. That's all right,=

=20

>>>but we'll probably be using {lo nu} more than we have been in the past=

..

>>> =20

>>>

>>> =20

>>>

>>Yes, and I think {lo ka} and {lo du'u} make much more sense than=20

>>with {le}.

>>

>> =20

>>

>Mmm... But if I'm talking about a specific picture, say, then it should=20

>be {le ka le pixre cu melbi kei} and not {lo ka} shouldn't it? Um, maybe=

..

> =20

>

I have used lo ka to mean something-ness, and le ka to hint that I have=20

a specific property in mind. lo kamckafi is coffee-ness, but le kamckafi=20

is caffeine!

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> In short, the unitary lo jvugi plays not significant role in all this,

> only the individual jvugi. And that means that, so far as practical

> concerns go, {lo jvugi} behaves exactly like {su'o jvugi} — just as

> CLL says. And wirthout the mumbling metaphysics.

Nobody denies that if su'o jvugi applies, lo jvugi does also. In fact,

I think there is now a hierarchy of applicability:

lo > le (except in non-veridical uses of le)

lo > loi

le > lei

BTW, as currently defined, lo'i ratcu means the set of all rats rather than

a set of some rats. I think the latter is more consistent with the

definitions for loi and lo.

--

Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers John Cowan

Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is http://www.reutershealth.com

Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 21:57 GMT

~mark:

>

> >It's the teacher in general. It is part of a set of directions on

> >how to conduct a certain lesson, the speaker has no particular

> >teacher in mind. Perhaps it is a bad example given that so many

> >people have complained about it, but "the teacher" can be generic

> >in English.

> >

> OK, with you. So you're saying "Classes in this school will start

> tomorrow morning at nine sharp, at which time the teacher [[i.e.%20each%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20class'%20teacher(s)|i.e. each

> class' teacher(s)]] will divide the students..." I can see that. The

> English is ambiguous (big surprise) and seems to be, to me, closer to

> the non-example meaning than to the example meaning.

Yes. It's actually even more general than that:

"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.

For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim…)

The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column.

The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

..."

From: http://www.teachers.net/lessons/posts/2450.html(external link)

So it's not even about a specific group of teachers tomorrow morning

at nine. Out of context the more specific meaning seems to be more

salient.

How about if I change it to:

cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

"Step 3: The teacher will divide the class

into five groups of four students."

> >I suppose {loi ci ratcu cu cmalu} and {loi ki'o ratcu cu barda}, so

> >{loi ratcu} could be either. We need more context.

> >

> OK, gotcha. That's good, and significant. But would it be true that

> {loi ki'o ratcu cu cmalu}? Um... I presume not, since although the

> individuals satisfy it, the group as a whole isn't small. Oog. OTOH,

> {loi dembi cu nenri le patxu} is true and seems to mean exactly the same

> thing as {lo dembi cu nenri le patxu}, doesn't it? (There are beans in

> the pot). Except for a natlang-biased singular/plural thing I am having

> trouble avoiding. Hrm. Still feels like some ambiguity or question

> there, somehow.

Yes, there isn't really any significant distinction in the proposal

between {lo} and {loi} for that case. The only difference I can detect

for {loi} is in how the outer quantifier behaves, as something that

is not a quantifier at all. That's why I say that lo/le/la are really

all the gadri we need.

> >Yes, and I think {lo ka} and {lo du'u} make much more sense than

> >with {le}.

> >

> Mmm... But if I'm talking about a specific picture, say, then it should

> be {le ka le pixre cu melbi kei} and not {lo ka} shouldn't it? Um, maybe.

I don't think you can have {ka} without an open slot for the thing

with the property. {lo ka le pixra cu melbi} would be the property

of consideryng the picture beautiful. For example:

do zmadu mi lo ka le pixra cu melbi (ce'u)

You more than I consider the picture beautiful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>

>Yes. It's actually even more general than that:

>"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

>

>The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.=20

>For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim=85)

>

>The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column=

..

>

>The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

>

>..."

>From: http://www.teachers.net/lessons/posts/2450.html(external link)

>

>So it's not even about a specific group of teachers tomorrow morning=20

>at nine. Out of context the more specific meaning seems to be more

>salient.=20

>

>How about if I change it to:

>

> cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni

> "Step 3: The teacher will divide the class

> into five groups of four students."

> =20

>

This makes it even clearer that you are referring to a specific (albeit=20

unnamed and hypothetical) teacher and his specific classroom.

>>>Yes, and I think {lo ka} and {lo du'u} make much more sense than=20

>>>with {le}.

>>>

>>> =20

>>>

>>Mmm... But if I'm talking about a specific picture, say, then it should=

=20

>>be {le ka le pixre cu melbi kei} and not {lo ka} shouldn't it? Um, mayb=

e.

>> =20

>>

>

>I don't think you can have {ka} without an open slot for the thing

>with the property. {lo ka le pixra cu melbi} would be the property

>of consideryng the picture beautiful. For example:

>

> do zmadu mi lo ka le pixra cu melbi (ce'u)

> You more than I consider the picture beautiful.

> =20

>

I had assumed he wanted to put the ce'u in melbi3, since that requires a =

ka.

ka'e frili casnu lo ka le pixra cu melbi fi ce'u

It's easy to express what's so lovely about that picture.

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=

ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=

onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT

A> Spatial tenses be damned! These are true in a thoroughly untenseeed way. Nor is there anyway to rectify matters with spatial tenses other than to say "where the in-box jvugi are" and "where the out-box jvugi are".

B> See above, it always comes back to the different jvugi.

C> For la jvugis we have temporal properties that do not depend upon where the critter is.

To expand a bit on the Ge: from time to time I scoop some jvugi out of the box or toss some in or both. At any given time, some are in and some are not — not necesarily the same numbers in each case and certainly not the same individuals (not that I can really check that). All of the claims below remain true withwhatever tense you want to put in that apply (sometimes, right now, usuually, always,...) . How is this different from the situation with Mr. Jvugi?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A Gedankenexperiment:

>

> I have created a thing which I call in Lojban a jvugi. There are a dozen of

> them and they are identical above the molecular lattice level. They are all

> on my table. I put some (but not all) of them into my designated box, Waldo.

> At this point, {lo jvugi cu nenri le tanxe o la ualdos} is true. So also

> is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}.

A>As long as a different spatial tense is understood, yes.

> But neither {lo jvugi na nenri le tanxe}

> or {lo jvugi nenri gi'enai nenri le tanxe} is true, the first because its

> negate is true, the second because it is a contradiction. We can save the

> latter (and, to some extent the former) by dividing the predicate to

> distinguish "different senses of {nenri}" one of which applies to the jvugi

> in the box, another to those outside.

B>Or the same sense of nenri with different tenses.

> But how to do this: the jvugi are the

> same in all usable properties, the box is the same. I suppose we could

> invent some kind of deictic property which applied only to the items pointed

> at or the like. But this only works if we have already individuated the

> jvugi (by pointing)

> and turns out to be aproperty whose apllication depends upon that

> individuation. That is, it is a complex way of separating lo jvugi into

> these (pointed at) and those (not). It has to be reinvented everytime we

> shift which jvugi are in and which out. So the properties are always

> isomorphic to the individuation of the jvugi. In short, the unitary lo jvugi

> plays not significant role in all this, only the individual jvugi. And that

> means that, so far as practical concerns go, {lo jvugi} behaves exactly like

> {su'o jvugi} — just as CLL says. And wirthout the mumbling metaphysics.

C>You can repeat the gedankenexperiment with la jvugis. This is an object

that remains unaltered in all its properties throughout all time.

At some point you put it into Waldo, and later you take it out.

So {la jvugis cu nenri la ualdos} is true, and so is {la jvugis naku

nenri la ualdos}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT

My point is that the opposit is true as well: if {lo jvugi} applies, so does {su'o jvugi}.

I gather that the last two implication you list are also in didpute.

John Cowan wrote:

..

Nobody denies that if su'o jvugi applies, lo jvugi does also. In fact,

I think there is now a hierarchy of applicability:

lo > le (except in non-veridical uses of le)

lo > loi

le > lei



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> My point is that the opposit is true as well: if {lo jvugi} applies, so does {su'o jvugi}.

Almost always, yes. I can't figure out the claxu examples, and I personally

wouldn't say lo -unicorn, but I don't think it's actually *confusing*.

As long as lo broda can't include no broda, then I think the new

definition of lo is unproblematic.

--

There is / One art John Cowan

No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com

To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 22:20 GMT

pc:

> For la jvugis we have temporal properties that do not depend upon where

> the critter is.

Such as?

> To expand a bit on the Ge: from time to time I scoop some jvugi out of the

> box or toss some in or both. At any given time, some are in and some are

> not — not necesarily the same numbers in each case and certainly not the

> same individuals (not that I can really check that). All of the claims below

> remain true withwhatever tense you want to put in that apply (sometimes,

> right now, usuually, always,...) . How is this different from the situation

> with Mr. Jvugi?

It is the same, as far as I can tell. Here there are jvugis inside

of the box, and over there there are jvugis that are not inside of

the box.

I don't really see any insurmountable distinction between lo jvugi

and its identical instances in different places, and la jvugis and

its identical stages in different times.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT

John Cowan:

> BTW, as currently defined, lo'i ratcu means the set of all rats rather than

> a set of some rats. I think the latter is more consistent with the

> definitions for loi and lo.

I tried to keep the definitions of loi/lei/lai/lo'i/le'i/la'i/lo'e/le'e

as close to the old ones as I could, but I wouldn't mind making that

change, unless people are opposed.

One problem I see is that "the set of all rats" is pretty well defined,

whereas "a set of some rats" could mean:

1 - a generic set of rats.

2 - at least one set of rats.

3 - exactly one set of rats.

I would discard the third option, and if the outer quantifier

were used to quantify over sets of rats, then we can let the

unquantified one be a generic set. {ci lo'i mu ratcu} would then

be "three sets of 5 rats each". (The sets might have non-empty

intersections.)

{lo'i ro ratcu} is still available for the set of all rats so

no expressive power is lost.

Comments?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT

Hey, if it can't include {no broda} then it must include {su'o broda}, those are the choices. And then, of course, it is not a new definition but just the old one in weird clothes.

John Cowan wrote:John E Clifford scripsit:

> My point is that the opposit is true as well: if {lo jvugi} applies, so does {su'o jvugi}.

Almost always, yes. I can't figure out the claxu examples, and I personally

wouldn't say lo -unicorn, but I don't think it's actually *confusing*.

As long as lo broda can't include no broda, then I think the new

definition of lo is unproblematic.

--

There is / One art John Cowan

No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com

To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> Hey, if it can't include {no broda} then it must include {su'o broda}, those are the choices. And then, of course, it is not a new definition but just the old one in weird clothes.

As may be. My job is not to make the best possible definition, but

to decide if I can live with the new one.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com

And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should

be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population.

For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express dissatisfaction with the

regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six

shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so dishonorable, such

putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT

A> Now, yesterday, tonorrow, etc. none of which make reference to la jvugis.

B> Over where? Can you specify the location independently of its being the place where the out-of-box jvugi are?

C>I despair of ever gettting you to admit what is so plain and obvious, but to say it again (without the plain and obvious part about la jvugis being given and its slices being created and the instances of jvugi beiung given and Mr. Jvugi being created), in the case of contradictory properties, I can disambiguate the predicate on {la jvugis} without reference to what la jvugis is doeing, etc (different times of assignable sorts) but I cannot disambiguate the predicate on {lo jvugis} without referring — precisely or vaguely — to the particular instances of lo jvugis involved. It is only the instances that mark out places s significant, the times are there and separated out already.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> For la jvugis we have temporal properties that do not depend upon where

> the critter is.

A>Such as?

> To expand a bit on the Ge: from time to time I scoop some jvugi out of the

> box or toss some in or both. At any given time, some are in and some are

> not — not necesarily the same numbers in each case and certainly not the

> same individuals (not that I can really check that). All of the claims below

> remain true withwhatever tense you want to put in that apply (sometimes,

> right now, usuually, always,...) . How is this different from the situation

> with Mr. Jvugi?

B>It is the same, as far as I can tell. Here there are jvugis inside

of the box, and over there there are jvugis that are not inside of

the box.

C>I don't really see any insurmountable distinction between lo jvugi

and its identical instances in different places, and la jvugis and

its identical stages in different times.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:31 GMT

Jorge Llambías wrote:

John Cowan:

> BTW, as currently defined, lo'i ratcu means the set of all rats rather than

> a set of some rats. I think the latter is more consistent with the

> definitions for loi and lo.

I tried to keep the definitions of loi/lei/lai/lo'i/le'i/la'i/lo'e/le'e

as close to the old ones as I could, but I wouldn't mind making that

change, unless people are opposed.

One problem I see is that "the set of all rats" is pretty well defined,

whereas "a set of some rats" could mean:

1 - a generic set of rats.

2 - at least one set of rats.

3 - exactly one set of rats.

I would discard the third option, and if the outer quantifier

were used to quantify over sets of rats, then we can let the

unquantified one be a generic set. {ci lo'i mu ratcu} would then

be "three sets of 5 rats each". (The sets might have non-empty

intersections.)

{lo'i ro ratcu} is still available for the set of all rats so

no expressive power is lost.

Comments?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Aside from not being clear about what is the difference between 1 and 2, this seems sensible and coherent — if we have shifted the meaning of the internal quantifiers



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:38:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

lo'i usage

> I would discard the third option, and if the outer quantifier were

> used to quantify over sets of rats, then we can let the unquantified

> one be a generic set.

Thus matching lo.

> {ci lo'i mu ratcu} would then be "three sets of 5 rats each". (The

> sets might have non-empty intersections.)

>

> {lo'i ro ratcu} is still available for the set of all rats so no

> expressive power is lost.

>

> Comments?

Looks good to me, but I think I'll have to call another extension. No

great loss, though.

Certainly having the old "lo'i mu ratcu" means a set of the exactly five

rats in the world seems amazingly pointless.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

Robin:

> Looks good to me, but I think I'll have to call another extension. No

> great loss, though.

>

> Certainly having the old "lo'i mu ratcu" means a set of the exactly five

> rats in the world seems amazingly pointless.

And if you ever need to say it, you still can: {lo'i romu ratcu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

pc:

> A> Now, yesterday, tonorrow, etc. none of which make reference to la jvugis.

Here, there, over there, they make no reference to lo jvugis either.

> B> Over where? Can you specify the location independently of its being the

> place where the out-of-box jvugi are?

If you can specify the time independently of its being the time

when la jvugis is out of the box, then I can specify the location, yes.

> , in the case of contradictory properties, I can

> disambiguate the predicate on {la jvugis} without reference to what la jvugis

> is doeing, etc (different times of assignable sorts) but I cannot

> disambiguate the predicate on {lo jvugis} without referring — precisely or

> vaguely — to the particular instances of lo jvugis involved. It is only the

> instances that mark out places s significant, the times are there and

> separated out already.

I don't see how times are more significantly separated than places.

You have times when la jvugis is out of the box, and times when it

is inside.

You have places where lo jvugis is out of the box, and places where it

is inside.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 06 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:04:25PM -0400, xod wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

snip

> >

> >The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

> >

> >..."

> >

> >So it's not even about a specific group of teachers tomorrow morning

> >at nine. Out of context the more specific meaning seems to be more

> >salient.

> >

> >How about if I change it to:

> >

> > cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni "Step 3: The

> > teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students."

>

>

> This makes it even clearer that you are referring to a specific

> (albeit unnamed and hypothetical) teacher and his specific classroom.

Is that an objection, xod? If so, I don't understand what you are

suggesting.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:09 GMT

A> There all deictic and, if they are going to do the work wanted, what is pointed at has to be various instnaces of lo jvugi. Otherwise, {lo jvugi here, etc. naku nenri le tanxe} will generally be false, while {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe} is true, yet is said to be explained by the other. And, of course, when we take the case over a period of time, none of the locations will work.

B> I am given a time and I look to see what is the situation with la jvugis. But the places that I need to look at are not given before hand. I pick a place and there are no jvugi there this time, so it does not explain {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe} or the place turns out to be inside the box this time. Time and space do not behave in exactly the same way.

C> The issue is separating the two predicates by spatial tenses in such a way as to make it possible to go from {lo jvugi X nenri le tanxe ije lo jvugi Ynaku nenri le tanxe} to {lo jvugi X nenri gi'e (or whatever it takes) Y naku nenri le tanxe}, without reference, over or covert, to where instances of lo jvugi are.

pc:

> A> Now, yesterday, tonorrow, etc. none of which make reference to la jvugis.

A>Here, there, over there, they make no reference to lo jvugis either.

> B> Over where? Can you specify the location independently of its being the

> place where the out-of-box jvugi are?

B>If you can specify the time independently of its being the time

when la jvugis is out of the box, then I can specify the location, yes.

> , in the case of contradictory properties, I can

> disambiguate the predicate on {la jvugis} without reference to what la jvugis

> is doeing, etc (different times of assignable sorts) but I cannot

> disambiguate the predicate on {lo jvugis} without referring — precisely or

> vaguely — to the particular instances of lo jvugis involved. It is only the

> instances that mark out places s significant, the times are there and

> separated out already.

C>don't see how times are more significantly separated than places.

You have times when la jvugis is out of the box, and times when it

is inside.

You have places where lo jvugis is out of the box, and places where it

is inside.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:27 GMT

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:04:25PM -0400, xod wrote:

>

>

>>Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>>

>>

>snip

>

>

>>>The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

>>>

>>>..."

>>>

>>>So it's not even about a specific group of teachers tomorrow morning

>>>at nine. Out of context the more specific meaning seems to be more

>>>salient.

>>>

>>>How about if I change it to:

>>>

>>> cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni "Step 3: The

>>> teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students."

>>>

>>>

>>This makes it even clearer that you are referring to a specific

>>(albeit unnamed and hypothetical) teacher and his specific classroom.

>>

>>

>

>Is that an objection, xod? If so, I don't understand what you are

>suggesting.

>

>

It's a (minor) objection to the wording of that example, but not to the

proposal.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


Voting


Posted by noras on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:27 GMT posts: 23

I am voting "no" at this point. This does not mean I am unalterably opposed. The volume of traffic has been too much for me to keep up with to be able to make a real decision.

I think that the original 2-week time-period was unrealistic, especially for this controversial a topic. In addition, after any changes or significant volume of discussion, there should be at least 2 weeks to re-review everthing; this will also give some leeway for people, like me, who don't spend all day every day reading e-mail or the tiki. There have been 28 messages since Robin posted the latest extension.



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 00:49 GMT

pc:

> I am given a time and I look to see what is the situation with la jvugis.

> But the places that I need to look at are not given before hand. I pick a

> place and there are no jvugi there this time, so it does not explain {lo

> jvugi naku nenri le tanxe} or the place turns out to be inside the box this

> time. Time and space do not behave in exactly the same way.

Let's say la jvugis has a limited duration then, so that there are times

when it does not exist, just as there are places where there are no jvugi.

> C> The issue is separating the two predicates by spatial tenses in such a

> way as to make it possible to go from {lo jvugi X nenri le tanxe ije lo jvugi

> Ynaku nenri le tanxe} to {lo jvugi X nenri gi'e (or whatever it takes) Y naku

> nenri le tanxe}, without reference, over or covert, to where instances of lo

> jvugi are.

How do you make the equivalent claim for la jvugis without reference,

overt or covert, to times when there are stages of la jvugis?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 01:35 GMT

xod scripsit:

> This example sneakily introduces the idea of Substance because as a

> food, "beans" sounds like "beef" or "water", those innately continuous

> materials for which loi has been used (the third sense of loi!!) but for

> which we now tend to use tu'o as a quantifier {tu'o dembi, tu'o bakni}

> signalling that counting chunks is meaningless. Beans are case where the

> item is actually countable, and unlike cows, are actually consumed in

> their countable state (not requiring butchery) but usually not counted

> as they are being used, hence are treated as a substance measured by

> mass or volume.

IMHO using loi for substances is not a third use at all, but the same as

using it for aggregates: the countability of the individual components

is irrelevant, and in fact may constitute a slippery slope that we

should avoid trying to put a fence in.

A substance can be seen as made up of component parts, and this can

even be true in a physical sense: the water in a puddle of rain got

there drop by drop. If you look from far enough away, you can't tell

whether the "sailor all over the deck" is literally goo, or just

an aggregation of sailors standing still.

I would ask, therefore, that the section on substances be removed

from the proposal, because I think it is strictly irrelevant and

changes existing precedent. I don't object to referring to water-the-

substance as "lo djacu", but I don't think it necessary to rule out

the use of "loi" here even by implication.

--

Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan

portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [email protected]

it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan

epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com

at a block of wood make there an image of a cow,

is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 01:35 GMT

John Cowan:

> A substance can also be seen as made up of component parts, and this can

> even be true in a physical sense: the water in a puddle of rain got

> there drop by drop. If you look from far enough away, you can't tell

> whether the "sailor all over the deck" is literally goo, or just

> an aggregation of sailors standing still.

I added that paragraph to the notes. The "also" is mine.

> I would ask, therefore, that the section on substances be removed

> from the proposal, because I think it is strictly irrelevant and

> changes existing precedent. I don't object to referring to water-the-

> substance as "lo djacu", but I don't think it necessary to rule out

> the use of "loi" here even by implication.

What is the status of the "Notes" section? I understand it as

not being a part of the definitions we're voting on, but just

for comments and clarifications. Robin?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> What is the status of the "Notes" section? I understand it as

> not being a part of the definitions we're voting on, but just

> for comments and clarifications. Robin?

In that case, I'd like this to be added to the definitions of loi and lei:

(A substance may be treated as a group made up of

individuals without worrying about which individuals

they are.)

This should appear just before the text about quantifiers.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com

I must confess that I have very little notion of what [[s.%204%20of%20the%20British%0A%3Cbr%20/%3ETrade%20Marks%20Act,%201938|s. 4 of the British

Trade Marks Act, 1938]] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence

of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if

the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of

equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit:

>

>

>

>>This example sneakily introduces the idea of Substance because as a

>>food, "beans" sounds like "beef" or "water", those innately continuous

>>materials for which loi has been used (the third sense of loi!!) but for

>>which we now tend to use tu'o as a quantifier {tu'o dembi, tu'o bakni}

>>signalling that counting chunks is meaningless. Beans are case where the

>>item is actually countable, and unlike cows, are actually consumed in

>>their countable state (not requiring butchery) but usually not counted

>>as they are being used, hence are treated as a substance measured by

>>mass or volume.

>>

>>

>

>IMHO using loi for substances is not a third use at all, but the same as

>using it for aggregates: the countability of the individual components

>is irrelevant, and in fact may constitute a slippery slope that we

>should avoid trying to put a fence in.

>

>A substance can be seen as made up of component parts, and this can

>even be true in a physical sense: the water in a puddle of rain got

>there drop by drop. If you look from far enough away, you can't tell

>whether the "sailor all over the deck" is literally goo, or just

>an aggregation of sailors standing still.

>

>

Sailors can act as a collective, but the number of sailors involved is

often very important. "One sailor" is a meaningful idea. The number of

sailors can be asked and answered.

One drop of water plus one drop of water equals one drop. Countability

here is not irrelevant, it's absolutely meaningless! "pa djacu" doesn't

mean a single water molecule, so while tu'o blosoi emerges from so'i

blosoi, tu'o djacu does not emerge from so'i djacu.

And the invocation of molecules could be considered a bias towards an

atomic metaphysics, justified only by very recent developments in science.

There are cases where many individuals could appear as and be treated as

a substance, but there are many substances for which decomposition is

problematic, therefore the concept of substance remains distinct from

emergent properties or pluralities. The continued conflation should be

discouraged.

>I would ask, therefore, that the section on substances be removed

>from the proposal, because I think it is strictly irrelevant and

>changes existing precedent.

>

"Precedent" is the embarrassing fusion of plurality, collective, and

substance. The proposal clarifies this in the least destructive manner

possible.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT

xod scripsit:

> "Precedent" is the embarrassing fusion of plurality, collective, and

> substance. The proposal clarifies this in the least destructive manner

> possible.

I think consolidating substance with (I don't know the term

for it, the three guys who carry the piano) is entirely correct, becaue

no fixed distinction can be maintained.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com

The penguin geeks is happy / As under the waves they lark

The closed-source geeks ain't happy / They sad cause they in the dark

But geeks in the dark is lucky / They in for a worser treat

One day when the Borg go belly-up / Guess who wind up on the street.



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit:

>

>

>

>>"Precedent" is the embarrassing fusion of plurality, collective, and

>>substance. The proposal clarifies this in the least destructive manner

>>possible.

>>

>>

>

>I think consolidating substance with (I don't know the term

>for it, the three guys who carry the piano) is entirely correct, becaue

>no fixed distinction can be maintained.

>

>

>

You've deleted and ignored all my arguments. Am I expected to re-paste

them, or concede my point to your superior skills on that fierce delete key?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 02:34 GMT

xod scripsit:

> You've deleted and ignored all my arguments. Am I expected to re-paste

> them, or concede my point to your superior skills on that fierce delete key?

No. I'm just telling you what I think, not trying to convince you otherwise.

(In general, this is one of the most uncommunicable facts via the Internet;

it's hard enough to communicate it in person.)

--

"In my last lifetime, John Cowan

I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

in this lifetime, [email protected]

I don't." --Thiagi http://www.reutershealth.com



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 12:16 GMT

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 06:26:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > I would ask, therefore, that the section on substances be removed

> > from the proposal, because I think it is strictly irrelevant and

> > changes existing precedent. I don't object to referring to

> > water-the- substance as "lo djacu", but I don't think it necessary

> > to rule out the use of "loi" here even by implication.

>

> What is the status of the "Notes" section? I understand it as not

> being a part of the definitions we're voting on, but just for comments

> and clarifications. Robin?

The Notes are very much a part of what we are voting on. We are voting

on the whole page. Having said that, they are not a part of the

definitions themselves. They have, in my mind, about the same value as

a piece of officially produced teaching material, or the "usage

convention" notes in the Red Book.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 12:16 GMT

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 05:27:36PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> I am voting "no" at this point. This does not mean I am unalterably

> opposed. The volume of traffic has been too much for me to keep up

> with to be able to make a real decision.

I will be responding more fully to this when I can do so with some

modicum of politeness, but one point needs to be made immediatly:

The discussion is irrelevant. Utterly, totally, completely irrelevant.

At least for purposes of casting a vote.

The proposal *must* stand on its own, without the discussion. Read the

proposal (it's not long), and go ahead and ask your questions, if any.

I, for one, don't care in the slightest if you ask questions that have

been asked before. Heck, I'll even call you on my dime to answer your

questions if you like.

The important thing is, though, that the proposal must stand on its own,

or we aren't done yet. Save your sanity, ignore the discussion.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:27 GMT

I apologize for getting sidetracked on xorxes' red herring here. The point is that {lo jvugi} (and {la jvugis} for that matter) is not transparent to conjunction. The need to go herring off to find another argument that seems not to be problematic in this way merely emphasizes the basic point: {lo jvugi} in any sense is not transparent to logical operations (we have not looked at quantifiers yet but the same non-transparency applies — that is, as with "and." it works in the one direction it does for "some" but not in the other).

Nor need it be. No language I know of (all I-E alas) has anything that works in the way this {lo broda} construction is meant to. And none needs one, getting by just fine with a variety of other devices, most of which Lojban already has, either in place or needed for other purposes anyhow. In addition to which, the proposed {lo broda} does not even solve the two "problems" (i.e., trivial rules that people are either too ignorant or to lazy to apply) it claims to solve: it does not eliminate or otherwise deal with intensional contexts and it does not allow free movement across quantifier and negation boundaries. I say leave {lo} as it is and learn to say what you mean.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I am given a time and I look to see what is the situation with la jvugis.

> But the places that I need to look at are not given before hand. I pick a

> place and there are no jvugi there this time, so it does not explain {lo

> jvugi naku nenri le tanxe} or the place turns out to be inside the box this

> time. Time and space do not behave in exactly the same way.

Let's say la jvugis has a limited duration then, so that there are times

when it does not exist, just as there are places where there are no jvugi.

> C> The issue is separating the two predicates by spatial tenses in such a

> way as to make it possible to go from {lo jvugi X nenri le tanxe ije lo jvugi

> Ynaku nenri le tanxe} to {lo jvugi X nenri gi'e (or whatever it takes) Y naku

> nenri le tanxe}, without reference, over or covert, to where instances of lo

> jvugi are.

How do you make the equivalent claim for la jvugis without reference,

overt or covert, to times when there are stages of la jvugis?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:59 GMT

Robin:

> The Notes are very much a part of what we are voting on. We are voting

> on the whole page. Having said that, they are not a part of the

> definitions themselves. They have, in my mind, about the same value as

> a piece of officially produced teaching material, or the "usage

> convention" notes in the Red Book.

Given that, I think the notes is the right place to present the different

ways of viewing substances. I don't see any conflicts arising from

seeing it one or the other. Let's say we use {lo broda} in a context

that calls for a substance and someone asks {lo xo broda}. Xod would

answer tu'o, John would answer na'i. Same difference.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 13:59 GMT

pc:

> I apologize for getting sidetracked on xorxes' red herring here. The point

> is that {lo jvugi} (and {la jvugis} for that matter) is not transparent to

> conjunction.

My point was that {lo jvugi} behaves in the same way as {la jvugis}.

What I think is not very transparent to conjunction are hidden

assumptions. Saying:

la jvugis cu nenri [ca le cabdei] gi'enai nenri [ca le purlamdei]

"Jvugi is inside [today] and not inside [yesterday]."

without the bracketed terms is as perverse as saying:

lo jvugi cu nenri [bu'u le zunle] gi'enai nenri [bu'u le pritu]

"Jvugis are inside [on my left] and not inside [on my right]."

I don't know whether such hidden assumptions are strictly

permitted or not, but in any case they could only be used as

riddles and not for normal communication.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 15:40 GMT

But of course these "hidden assumptions" are just what a generic usage — which is what we purport yo be dealing with — drop out (or, better, explicitly refuse to raise). If we have to bring them back in to make some (unused) rule work, then we have failed to cover the case at hand. we don't need transparency and normal languages (including logic) don't have it, so why go through all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to get it in (especially since even with it the trick doesn't solve the "problems").

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I apologize for getting sidetracked on xorxes' red herring here. The point

> is that {lo jvugi} (and {la jvugis} for that matter) is not transparent to

> conjunction.

My point was that {lo jvugi} behaves in the same way as {la jvugis}.

What I think is not very transparent to conjunction are hidden

assumptions. Saying:

la jvugis cu nenri [ca le cabdei] gi'enai nenri [ca le purlamdei]

"Jvugi is inside [today] and not inside [yesterday]."

without the bracketed terms is as perverse as saying:

lo jvugi cu nenri [bu'u le zunle] gi'enai nenri [bu'u le pritu]

"Jvugis are inside [on my left] and not inside [on my right]."

I don't know whether such hidden assumptions are strictly

permitted or not, but in any case they could only be used as

riddles and not for normal communication.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 15:57 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>I say leave {lo} as it is and learn to say what you mean.

>

Yet weeks ago you expressed the need for "somewhat longer cmavo list" to

deal with Existence.

>But of course these "hidden assumptions" are just what a generic usage — which is what we purport yo be dealing with — drop out (or, better, explicitly refuse to raise). If we have to bring them back in to make some (unused) rule work, then we have failed to cover the case at hand. we don't need transparency and normal languages (including logic) don't have it, so why go through all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to get it in (especially since even with it the trick doesn't solve the "problems").

>

>

I think that Jorge is saying that we already have temporal transparency,

so why not permit spatial? I see symmetry. And there is no prohibition

against using the detailed expressions in either case.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:36 GMT

A> And your point is? There are some things which Lojban does not say very precisely and it would be nice to have devices for dealing with them. A new {lo} is not on that list however.

B> But in the relevant sense we do not have even temporal transparency, so — if they are analogous — we should not expect spatial either. The point remains about generic claims, not about specifications of those generic claims, which are likely to be different, depending on how they are specified.

xod wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

>I say leave {lo} as it is and learn to say what you mean.

>

A>Yet weeks ago you expressed the need for "somewhat longer cmavo list" to

deal with Existence.

>But of course these "hidden assumptions" are just what a generic usage — which is what we purport yo be dealing with — drop out (or, better, explicitly refuse to raise). If we have to bring them back in to make some (unused) rule work, then we have failed to cover the case at hand. we don't need transparency and normal languages (including logic) don't have it, so why go through all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo to get it in (especially since even with it the trick doesn't solve the "problems").

>

>

B>I think that Jorge is saying that we already have temporal transparency,

so why not permit spatial? I see symmetry. And there is no prohibition

against using the detailed expressions in either case.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:45 GMT

Here's my longer response to Nora's No-vote post.

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 05:27:36PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> I am voting "no" at this point. This does not mean I am unalterably

> opposed. The volume of traffic has been too much for me to keep up

> with to be able to make a real decision.

I don't consider a vote, pro or con, made without reading the proposal

to be made in good faith. In fact, I consider it obstructionist, as I

have tried to make clear.

I am hereby requesting, as jatna, that you withdraw your unfounded vote

(or, rather, request me to do so, as there is no way to remove votes

without directly altering the database).

You should know, by the way, that yours is the No vote from a BPFK

member (the other No vote is from PC, who is not a member), and as such

will not be enough to stop the passage of this checkpoint, even if your

vote *was* a legal vote under the BPFK procedures.

> I think that the original 2-week time-period was unrealistic,

> especially for this controversial a topic. In addition, after any

> changes or significant volume of discussion, there should be at least

> 2 weeks to re-review everthing; this will also give some leeway for

> people, like me, who don't spend all day every day reading e-mail or

> the tiki. There have been 28 messages since Robin posted the latest

> extension.

I resent the implication that I, or John Cowan, or Mark Shoulson, or any

of the other thirteen people that have voted on this are shiftless

layabouts that have nothing better to do with their time than read

e-mail.

Beyond that, however, two weeks after each change is absolutely out of

the question, and here's why:

There are sixty-six sections in the BPFK. I have been trying to not do

more then 3 or 4 per-checkpoint, but let's be generous. Let's say each

checkpoint averages out to 4 sections. I think in practice it's going

to be more like 2, but let's go with 4. That's approximately 16

checkpoints.

It seems to take about two weeks for a checkpoint to get into a form

that is worth voting on. At that point, we wrangle on it for another

two weeks and, when consensus among those active on the topic has been

reached, I close voting because hey, the goal is consensus.

At that rate, we're looking at *six*-*teen* *months* of BPFK work, of

which we've done *three*. That's another year and change of this.

Your suggestion would add another *eigth* *months* to the proccess, at

an absolutely bare minimum, and with very generous (to you) assumptions.

I will not support any such idea.

-Robin


Constants, quantifiers


Posted by rab.spir on Mon 07 of June, 2004 17:45 GMT posts: 152

I hadn't noticed that the thing about constants was part of the proposal.

Is it absolutely essential to the proposal that {lo broda} is a constant? The concept doesn't make very much sense to me, while the idea that {lo} is a generic article makes perfect sense. The constants thing seems like an unwanted rider on the proposal to me.

I would also prefer if the outer quantifier for {lo} had the same meaning as the one for {le}. But to help me understand it better, in the current proposal:

How do you say "the five groups of four students"?

How do you say "two of the five groups of four students"?

How do you say "the teacher will choose two out of five groups of four students"?

Basically, can you nest quantifiers arbitrarily, and how does it come out?

And when someone makes a post here without leaving a signature line, how do you tell who it is from the e-mail?

- Rob



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT

Rob:

> Constants, quantifiers

> I hadn't noticed that the thing about constants was part of the proposal.

>

> Is it absolutely essential to the proposal that {lo broda} is a constant?

Yes. At least to the same extent that {la broda} and {le broda} are

constants.

> The

> concept doesn't make very much sense to me, while the idea that {lo} is a

> generic article makes perfect sense. The constants thing seems like an

> unwanted rider on the proposal to me.

All it means is that:

lo broda naku brode

is the same as

naku lo broda cu brode

just as with {la broda} and {le brode}.

Also, you can use a pronoun with {lo broda} as its antecedent, even

from outside of its prenex, just as with {la broda} and {le broda}.

> I would also prefer if the outer quantifier for {lo} had the same meaning as

> the one for {le}. But to help me understand it better, in the current

> proposal:

>

> How do you say "the five groups of four students"?

le mu lo vo tadni

> How do you say "two of the five groups of four students"?

re le mu lo vo tadni

> How do you say "the teacher will choose two out of five groups of four

> students"?

le ctuca ba cuxna re da lo mu lo vo tadni

> Basically, can you nest quantifiers arbitrarily, and how does it come out?

Yes, as you would expect.

> And when someone makes a post here without leaving a signature line, how do

> you tell who it is from the e-mail?

You can't, you have to go to the wiki page.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:45:13AM -0700, Rob Speer? wrote:

> I hadn't noticed that the thing about constants was part of the

> proposal.

It is part of the Notes. As such, it is descriptive and annotative, but

largely subordinate to the definitions themselves.

> Is it absolutely essential to the proposal that {lo broda} is a

> constant?

Looking from a predicate logic perpective, I am told that it is. I care

very little about that aspect of it.

> The concept doesn't make very much sense to me, while the idea that

> {lo} is a generic article makes perfect sense. The constants thing

> seems like an unwanted rider on the proposal to me.

Ignore it, then. I certainly am for the most part.

> I would also prefer if the outer quantifier for {lo} had the same

> meaning as the one for {le}.

It is not very useful to talk about "two arbitrary, unspecified members

out of an arbitrary, unspecified three-some of broda". This is *not*

the same thing as "two out of every three broda", in the "two out of

three doctors prefer SnakeOil brand painkiller" sense.

The latter, IIRC, is "re fi'u ci lo broda".

> But to help me understand it better, in the current proposal:

>

> How do you say "the five groups of four students"?

Depends on what you mean by "the".

le mu lo vo selctu

is what I think you mean: The thing have in mind and am describing as

five groups arbitrary groups of four arbitrary students each.

> How do you say "two of the five groups of four students"?

Assuming I had you right the first time:

re le mu lo vo selctu

> How do you say "the teacher will choose two out of five groups of four

> students"?

Again, depending on context and "the":

lo ctuca .ei cu cuxna re le mu lo vo selctu

or, probably better:

lo ctuca .ei cu cuxna re girzu be fi mu lo'i vo selctu

> Basically, can you nest quantifiers arbitrarily, and how does it come

> out?

Does that help?

> And when someone makes a post here without leaving a signature line, how

> do you tell who it is from the e-mail?

>

> - Rob

You don't. That's why I keep badgering people to do it. I'll try to

fix the code at some point.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > How do you say "the teacher will choose two out of five groups of four

> > students"?

>

> le ctuca ba cuxna re da lo mu lo vo tadni

Forgot about the place structure of cuxna. Ignore mine; this is better.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT

IMNSHO, the last part of the definition for lo'e, starting at "It has been

proposed that ...", should be moved to the Notes section. The definitions

must be maximally prescriptive.

--

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/

The savvy DXer will usually bet a pair of nickels he can pinpoint the DXCC

country of the "chopity-chow-pit chow-chow-pi-chow" even before he hears the

call sign. -John F. Lindholm, QST vol. 66 no. 3 p. 83



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:30:56PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> IMNSHO, the last part of the definition for lo'e, starting at "It has

> been proposed that ...", should be moved to the Notes section. The

> definitions must be maximally prescriptive.

I agree; this is pretty clearly a usage convention.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT


> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:30:56PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> > IMNSHO, the last part of the definition for lo'e, starting at "It has

> > been proposed that ...", should be moved to the Notes section. The

> > definitions must be maximally prescriptive.

>

> I agree; this is pretty clearly a usage convention.

OK. I also removed the note that started "Personally, I think..."

because I don't think people should be voting on what I should

think.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 19:01 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:40:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:30:56PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen

> > wrote:

> > > IMNSHO, the last part of the definition for lo'e, starting at "It

> > > has been proposed that ...", should be moved to the Notes section.

> > > The definitions must be maximally prescriptive.

> >

> > I agree; this is pretty clearly a usage convention.

>

> OK. I also removed the note that started "Personally, I think..."

> because I don't think people should be voting on what I should think.

Fair enough. Thanks.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 09:56:56PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > What is the status of the "Notes" section? I understand it as not

> > being a part of the definitions we're voting on, but just for

> > comments and clarifications. Robin?

>

> In that case, I'd like this to be added to the definitions of loi and

> lei:

>

> (A substance may be treated as a group made up of individuals

> without worrying about which individuals they are.)

Why not in the notes?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT


> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 09:56:56PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> > In that case, I'd like this to be added to the definitions of loi and

> > lei:

> >

> > (A substance may be treated as a group made up of individuals

> > without worrying about which individuals they are.)

>

> Why not in the notes?

I have now added it as:

"A substance can also be seen as made up of component parts,

and this can even be true in a physical sense: the water in a

puddle of rain got there drop by drop. If you look from far

enough away, you can't tell whether the "sailor all over the

deck" is literally goo, or just an aggregation of sailors

standing still. So a substance may be treated as a group

made up of individuals without worrying about which individuals

they are."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> OK. I also removed the note that started "Personally, I think..."

> because I don't think people should be voting on what I should

> think.

Good. I have three more changes to propose:

a) Alter the inner quantifiers of lai and la'i to agree with la, so lai ci cribe

is the Three Bears rather than the three Bears.

b) Alter the outer quantifier of loi to agree with lo and lo'i.

c) Clarify that an integral outer quantifier does not make sense with lei

unless an explicit inner quantifier is given. If change a is rejected,

this change should be extended to lai as well.

I have prepared a table at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/gadri.html which

summarizes the proposal as it now stands in tabular form. Feel free to

incorporate this into your proposal; I will keep altering it to track

whatever changes you make.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves."

--Murray Gell-Mann



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > (A substance may be treated as a group made up of individuals

> > without worrying about which individuals they are.)

>

> Why not in the notes?

That was conditional on the notes not being part of the proposal

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan

If a traveler were informed that such a man as Lord John Russell was

leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the

Egyptians worshiped an insect. --Benjamin Disraeli



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

A>But it isn't. The second denies {lo broda cu brode} so is true even if there are no broda, while {lo broda naku brode} is not.

B> But one must be very careful about what anaphoric pronouns we use. To be sure, Lojban — just like English — does not yet make the careful distinction needed. The difference generally does not make a difference for {la} and {le}, which are as close to constants as we are likely to find.

C>This is one possibility; but not the most likely in the context in which these examples arose.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Rob:

> Constants, quantifiers

> I hadn't noticed that the thing about constants was part of the proposal.

>

> Is it absolutely essential to the proposal that {lo broda} is a constant?

Yes. At least to the same extent that {la broda} and {le broda} are

constants.

> The

> concept doesn't make very much sense to me, while the idea that {lo} is a

> generic article makes perfect sense. The constants thing seems like an

> unwanted rider on the proposal to me.

A>All it means is that:

lo broda naku brode

is the same as

naku lo broda cu brode

just as with {la broda} and {le brode}.

B>Also, you can use a pronoun with {lo broda} as its antecedent, even

from outside of its prenex, just as with {la broda} and {le broda}.

> I would also prefer if the outer quantifier for {lo} had the same meaning as

> the one for {le}. But to help me understand it better, in the current

> proposal:

>

> How do you say "the five groups of four students"?

le mu lo vo tadni

> How do you say "two of the five groups of four students"?

re le mu lo vo tadni

> How do you say "the teacher will choose two out of five groups of four

> students"?

C> le ctuca ba cuxna re da lo mu lo vo tadni

> Basically, can you nest quantifiers arbitrarily, and how does it come out?

Yes, as you would expect.

> And when someone makes a post here without leaving a signature line, how do

> you tell who it is from the e-mail?

You can't, you have to go to the wiki page.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

pc:

> But it isn't. The second denies {lo broda cu brode} so is true even if

> there are no broda, while {lo broda naku brode} is not.

As long as the same distinction applies to {la broda naku brode}

vs. {naku la broda cu brode}, then there's no problem.

But when there are broda, the two are the same. That does not

apply to {su'o broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT

A> But {lo broda naku brode} implies {su'o broda naku brode}, while {naku lo broda cu brode} does not.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> But it isn't. The second denies {lo broda cu brode} so is true even if

> there are no broda, while {lo broda naku brode} is not.

As long as the same distinction applies to {la broda naku brode}

vs. {naku la broda cu brode}, then there's no problem.

A>But when there are broda, the two are the same. That does not

apply to {su'o broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:17:46PM -0400, [email protected]

wrote:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > OK. I also removed the note that started "Personally, I think..."

> > because I don't think people should be voting on what I should

> > think.

>

> Good. I have three more changes to propose:

>

> a) Alter the inner quantifiers of lai and la'i to agree with la, so

> lai ci cribe is the Three Bears rather than the three Bears.

>

> b) Alter the outer quantifier of loi to agree with lo and lo'i.

>

> c) Clarify that an integral outer quantifier does not make sense with

> lei unless an explicit inner quantifier is given. If change a is

> rejected, this change should be extended to lai as well.

For the record, I agree with all of these.

> I have prepared a table at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/gadri.html which

> summarizes the proposal as it now stands in tabular form. Feel free

> to incorporate this into your proposal; I will keep altering it to

> track whatever changes you make.

He also has http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/gadri-cll.html, which is an

attempt at doing a similar table for what's currently in the CLL.

I'd like to see one or both of these in the proposal (presumably in the

Notes). I will do the conversion to Tiki tables if you like.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT

pc:

> But {lo broda naku brode} implies {su'o broda naku brode}, while {naku lo

> broda cu brode} does not.

When there are broda? What would be an example?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT


> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:17:46PM -0400, [email protected]

> wrote:

> > Good. I have three more changes to propose:

> >

> > a) Alter the inner quantifiers of lai and la'i to agree with la, so

> > lai ci cribe is the Three Bears rather than the three Bears.

> >

> > b) Alter the outer quantifier of loi to agree with lo and lo'i.

> >

> > c) Clarify that an integral outer quantifier does not make sense with

> > lei unless an explicit inner quantifier is given. If change a is

> > rejected, this change should be extended to lai as well.

>

> For the record, I agree with all of these.

I have incorporated a) and b).

About c): lei/le'i/lai/la'i would be the only remaining cases of

outer quantifiers not doing quantification. I'm willing to go

whichever way people like with these, but the most harmonious

with the system, I think, would be quantification over members

for lei/lai and quantification over subsets for le'i/la'i.

(Not that quantifying over subsets is especially useful, I can't

really think of interesting uses, but neither can I think of

interesting uses for the other interpretation.)

Comments?

> > I have prepared a table at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/gadri.html which

> > summarizes the proposal as it now stands in tabular form. Feel free

> > to incorporate this into your proposal; I will keep altering it to

> > track whatever changes you make.

>

> He also has http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/gadri-cll.html, which is an

> attempt at doing a similar table for what's currently in the CLL.

I added links.

> I'd like to see one or both of these in the proposal (presumably in the

> Notes). I will do the conversion to Tiki tables if you like.

We could add it once we're done, if you want.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:22:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > John:

> Robin:

> > > c) Clarify that an integral outer quantifier does not make sense

> > > with lei unless an explicit inner quantifier is given. If change

> > > a is rejected, this change should be extended to lai as well.

> >

> > For the record, I agree with all of these.

>

> I have incorporated a) and b).

>

> About c): lei/le'i/lai/la'i would be the only remaining cases of outer

> quantifiers not doing quantification.

You mean besides le and la?

> I'm willing to go whichever way people like with these, but the most

> harmonious with the system, I think, would be quantification over

> members for lei/lai and quantification over subsets for le'i/la'i.

I know it would make xod very happy to have things be consistent one way

or the other.

I'm not inclined to comment as I still don't understand the difference

between "quantifying over members of the group" and "indicating a

subgroup".

I know this is a lot of work, but could you please translate the

following sentences using each version (i.e. first with what's currently

in the proposal, and secondly with what you're suggesting)?

re lei ci broda

re le'i ci broda

ci lei re broda

ci le'i re broda

re lai ci broda

re la'i ci broda

ci lai re broda

ci la'i re broda

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:42 GMT

Oops! Rather {su'o broda naku brode} implies a> {lo broda naku brode}, but not b> {naku lo broda cu brode}, since the a may be true together with {lo broda cu brode}.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> But {lo broda naku brode} implies {su'o broda naku brode}, while {naku lo

> broda cu brode} does not.

When there are broda? What would be an example?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> About c): lei/le'i/lai/la'i would be the only remaining cases of

> outer quantifiers not doing quantification. I'm willing to go

> whichever way people like with these, but the most harmonious

> with the system, I think, would be quantification over members

> for lei/lai and quantification over subsets for le'i/la'i.

The difficulty there is that quantifying over members presumes that

there are members to quantify over, and sometimes we no longer remember

what they are.

> (Not that quantifying over subsets is especially useful, I can't

> really think of interesting uses, but neither can I think of

> interesting uses for the other interpretation.)

I think quantifying over subsets is bogus, because it makes all the

difference in the world which subset it is. "Two subsets of the set

of Beatles"? Bah.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan

The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand

on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.

Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,

to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.

--Thomas Henry Huxley



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT


> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:22:07PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > About c): lei/le'i/lai/la'i would be the only remaining cases of outer

> > quantifiers not doing quantification.

>

> You mean besides le and la?

Outer quantifiers on {le/la broda} quantify over members of the group

you have in mind and which you describe/name with broda. (That has

not changed from CLL.)

> I'm not inclined to comment as I still don't understand the difference

> between "quantifying over members of the group" and "indicating a

> subgroup".

"indicating a subgroup" is my way of saying "I'm not quite sure

what's going on, but I'm sure it is not quantification".

> I know this is a lot of work, but could you please translate the

> following sentences using each version (i.e. first with what's currently

> in the proposal, and secondly with what you're suggesting)?

>

> re lei ci broda

Now: Probably equivalent to {lo re le ci broda}

Suggestion: {re le ci broda}

> re le'i ci broda

Now: Probably {lo'i re le ci broda} i.e. a set with two

of the three brodas as members.

Suggestion: Two subsets of le'i broda.

> ci lei re broda

Now: meaningless

Suggestion: meaningless

> ci le'i re broda

Now: meaningless

Suggestion: Three subsets of le'i re broda.

(A set with two members happens to have four subsets.)

> re lai ci broda

> re la'i ci broda

> ci lai re broda

> ci la'i re broda

Analogously to lei/le'i.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > About c): lei/le'i/lai/la'i would be the only remaining cases of

> > outer quantifiers not doing quantification. I'm willing to go

> > whichever way people like with these, but the most harmonious

> > with the system, I think, would be quantification over members

> > for lei/lai and quantification over subsets for le'i/la'i.

>

> The difficulty there is that quantifying over members presumes that

> there are members to quantify over, and sometimes we no longer remember

> what they are.

Right, but the other choice also requires members.

The choice seems to be between:

PA1 lei PA2 broda = lo PA1 le PA2 broda

PA1 lei PA2 broda = PA1 le PA2 broda

The second one just duplicates {le}. The first one turns the outer

quantifier into a sort of inner quantifier. I doubt this will

see much use either way.

> > (Not that quantifying over subsets is especially useful, I can't

> > really think of interesting uses, but neither can I think of

> > interesting uses for the other interpretation.)

>

> I think quantifying over subsets is bogus, because it makes all the

> difference in the world which subset it is. "Two subsets of the set

> of Beatles"? Bah.

It is not meaningless, but I definitely agree it has practically

no use. At least I don't see one. The other options not only have

no use, but also break the system.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 22:43 GMT

pc:

> Oops! Rather {su'o broda naku brode} implies a> {lo broda naku brode}, but

> not b> {naku lo broda cu brode}, since the a may be true together with {lo

> broda cu brode}.

{lo broda naku brode} can be true together with {lo broda cu brode} only

in the sense that {la broda naku brode} can be true together with

{la broda cu brode}, i.e. at different unmentioned times/places/

circumstances. But if everything else is kept constant, they can't

be true together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:40 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:02:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > I'm not inclined to comment as I still don't understand the

> > difference between "quantifying over members of the group" and

> > "indicating a subgroup".

>

> "indicating a subgroup" is my way of saying "I'm not quite sure what's

> going on, but I'm sure it is not quantification".

Aaaah.

> > I know this is a lot of work, but could you please translate the

> > following sentences using each version (i.e. first with what's

> > currently in the proposal, and secondly with what you're

> > suggesting)?

> >

> > re lei ci broda

>

> Now: Probably equivalent to {lo re le ci broda}

>

> Suggestion: {re le ci broda}

That makes it identical to le except for emphasis, correct?

> > re le'i ci broda

>

> Now: Probably {lo'i re le ci broda} i.e. a set with two

> of the three brodas as members.

>

> Suggestion: Two subsets of le'i broda.

Which two?

> > ci le'i re broda

>

> Now: meaningless

>

> Suggestion: Three subsets of le'i re broda.

> (A set with two members happens to have four subsets.)

> > re lai ci broda

> > re la'i ci broda

> > ci lai re broda

> > ci la'i re broda

How is that possible if the number is part of the name?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:40 GMT

Robin:

> > > re lei ci broda

> > Now: Probably equivalent to {lo re le ci broda}

> > Suggestion: {re le ci broda}

>

> That makes it identical to le except for emphasis, correct?

Yes.

> > > re le'i ci broda

> > Now: Probably {lo'i re le ci broda} i.e. a set with two

> > of the three brodas as members.

> > Suggestion: Two subsets of le'i broda.

>

> Which two?

Quantification never specifies which.

> > > re lai ci broda

> > > re la'i ci broda

> > > ci lai re broda

> > > ci la'i re broda

>

> How is that possible if the number is part of the name?

The thing can still have members, even though you can't be sure that

the number of members always agrees with the number in the name you

give it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:58 GMT

Oh, give it a rest. The point is that the inference you claim holds does not in fact hold. The reason why it does not hold is that the particular quantifier — which regardless of how often you yack on the contrary is all that {lo} is or ever was — does not distribute the way you want it to. The whole point of generic claims is precisely that they do not involve particular times and places etc,.so, whatever may be true about claims that do involve particular times and places is not relevant. To be sure, finding out about the truth of these claims may involve looking at some particular times and places, but they are not part of the claim. The spurious analogy with individuals fails because of the larger disanalogy — there is the individual in the world and there is not Mr. Rabbit.

[email protected]> wrote:

pc:

> Oops! Rather {su'o broda naku brode} implies a> {lo broda naku brode}, but

> not b> {naku lo broda cu brode}, since the a may be true together with {lo

> broda cu brode}.

{lo broda naku brode} can be true together with {lo broda cu brode} only

in the sense that {la broda naku brode} can be true together with

{la broda cu brode}, i.e. at different unmentioned times/places/

circumstances. But if everything else is kept constant, they can't

be true together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 07 of June, 2004 23:58 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:54:52PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> Oh, give it a rest.

If that irony was hot, you could cook eggs on it.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:58:35PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> John:

> > I have prepared a table at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/gadri.html

> > which summarizes the proposal as it now stands in tabular form.

>

> Maybe the key phrases for masses should be:

>

> fit and collectively satisfy

> described as and collectively satisfy

> named with and collectively satisfy

>

> and for sets:

>

> has members that fit

> has members described as

> has members named with

Those last seem to imply that the set could contain other things. That

would be, at best, counterintutive.

lo'i prenu cu vasru lo mlatu

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT


> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:58:35PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> > and for sets:

> >

> > has members that fit

> > has members described as

> > has members named with

>

> Those last seem to imply that the set could contain other things. That

> would be, at best, counterintutive.

Ok then:

has only members that fit

has only members described as

has only members named with

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT

And the phrases for lo'e and le'e:

Those that fit typically satisfy

Those described as are said to typically satisfy

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 00:34 GMT

I personally made all the jvugi. There are exactly 12 of them, some of them are inside my box, some of them are outside. So, {lo jvugi cu nenri le tanxe} is true as is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}, at the same time and in the same place and so (as long as they are outside the box it doesn't matter, they are not at the only relevant place, inside the box). But I {lo jvugi cu jvugi} is true, so one of these jvugi must be both inside and outside the box, which it clearly is not. But these are all the jvugi. So, at least one of the lojban sentences above is false, if {lo jvugi} is a constant (as it is not as already noted). Which will you give up — the ones which are there in front of you or one of the ones that is supported only by a (to be generous) dubious metaphysics.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Oops! Rather {su'o broda naku brode} implies a> {lo broda naku brode}, but

> not b> {naku lo broda cu brode}, since the a may be true together with {lo

> broda cu brode}.

{lo broda naku brode} can be true together with {lo broda cu brode} only

in the sense that {la broda naku brode} can be true together with

{la broda cu brode}, i.e. at different unmentioned times/places/

circumstances. But if everything else is kept constant, they can't

be true together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

pc:

> I personally made all the jvugi. There are exactly 12 of them, some of them

> are inside my box, some of them are outside. So, {lo jvugi cu nenri le

> tanxe} is true as is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}, at the same time and in

> the same place

But surely it can't be true at the exact same spot. Maybe in the same room,

on the same table, but not at the exact same spot. If all the jvugi are

superimposed one on top of another then they are all in or all out of

the box.

I personally made la jvugis, which scintillates so that any given second

it is emitting and not emitting light many times. However, if you look

at a very precise point in time, it is either emitting or not emitting,

but never both.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

This is getting really boring., I point out a simple logical truth to you about an argument and you tell me something about another argument. The you take a dubious claim about space and support it with a slightly less dubious claim about time, as though they were somehow the same. The only thing that differentiates the subjects in the various sentences is that, as different occurrences of the particular quantifier, they may — and in this case do — point to different jvugi. Since no place or time or anything else is mentioned here, only the separate quantifiers, what do place and time (just what "generic" is all about ignoring) have to do with the issue?

And we still have the question of which of these claims are you going to give up, because you can't have them all.

As for the analogy between the temporal slices of an individual and the spatially separated instnaces of a generality. it just doesn't work to prove that the instances are all phases of the same indivviual: individuals (if we must get metaphysical) are, if concrete, spatially and temporally continuous.

But, as I have said before, if you really think you want a constant here (but I have yet to see a real problem that such a thing would solve) there is at least species (and probably a few others of that ilk) that you can use. The thing talk about species is always idiomatic, that is, it is never literally true but is a shorthand for species talk. But it will — under that condition — do whatever you want a constant to do, even converge over a conjunction of contradictory properties (the species overlaps both P and not-P, that is, is subsunmed by neither), There are some problems with empirical truth and existence here, since — as it goes now — Lojban doesn't distinguish between what is true conceptually and what empirically. But pretty much the same cmavo that Lojban needs to do a better job with the standard {lo} could be used to solve that instead. Unfortunetely, even species don't pass through negation unharmed (and there is no time/place/instance/whatever else you might

think would help to fall back on, species being the sort of things they are, nodes on the semantic net).

But again, why bother with all of this (though I think species may be something we want to deal with eventually)? What can one of these things do (even assuming it could do all the things you claim for it) that needs to be done (speaker sloth — and malgliconess — aside) that old {lo} can't?

And, of course, by using these odd things you manage to disguise again at least one of the more interest features which old {lo} turned up, the ambiguity of the notion of anaphora and the corresponding ambiguity of (English) pronouns (now projected onto Lojban and so in need of correcting there).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I personally made all the jvugi. There are exactly 12 of them, some of them

> are inside my box, some of them are outside. So, {lo jvugi cu nenri le

> tanxe} is true as is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}, at the same time and in

> the same place

But surely it can't be true at the exact same spot. Maybe in the same room,

on the same table, but not at the exact same spot. If all the jvugi are

superimposed one on top of another then they are all in or all out of

the box.

I personally made la jvugis, which scintillates so that any given second

it is emitting and not emitting light many times. However, if you look

at a very precise point in time, it is either emitting or not emitting,

but never both.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe}.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I personally made all the jvugi. There are exactly 12 of them, some of them

> are inside my box, some of them are outside. So, {lo jvugi cu nenri le

> tanxe} is true as is {lo jvugi naku nenri le tanxe}, at the same time and in

> the same place

But surely it can't be true at the exact same spot. Maybe in the same room,

on the same table, but not at the exact same spot. If all the jvugi are

superimposed one on top of another then they are all in or all out of

the box.

I personally made la jvugis, which scintillates so that any given second

it is emitting and not emitting light many times. However, if you look

at a very precise point in time, it is either emitting or not emitting,

but never both.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

pc:

> Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let

> us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however

> narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and

> others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi

> naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi

> ca vi nenri le tanxe}.

What happens with la jvugis in the analogous set up? If la jvugis

is here and now emitting and not emitting light, then

{la jvugis ca zi te gusni} and {la jvugis ca zi naku te gusni}, but

not (since the first is true) {naku la jvugis ca zi te gusni}.

But it is not {la jvugis} or {lo jvugi} that are interfering with

{naku}, it is {vi} and {zi}, both of which contain points where ja'aku

and points where naku.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

The point is, of course, that, ex hypothesi, la jvugis is an individual and so cannot be both emitting and not emitting light here and now (which may — to make you happy — require defining here and now rather narrowly, to be sure). As for the latter point, note where the negation is in my example — already outside the tense place. Again I have made a point about one argument and you have countered with a point about another — irrelevant — argument. Trying to defend an obvious lunacy does that to one eventually.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let

> us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however

> narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and

> others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi

> naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi

> ca vi nenri le tanxe}.

What happens with la jvugis in the analogous set up? If la jvugis

is here and now emitting and not emitting light, then

{la jvugis ca zi te gusni} and {la jvugis ca zi naku te gusni}, but

not (since the first is true) {naku la jvugis ca zi te gusni}.

But it is not {la jvugis} or {lo jvugi} that are interfering with

{naku}, it is {vi} and {zi}, both of which contain points where ja'aku

and points where naku.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> It is not meaningless, but I definitely agree it has practically

> no use. At least I don't see one. The other options not only have

> no use, but also break the system.

Fair enough. In that case, it might be better just to say that non-fractional

quantifiers are simply undefined.

--

John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com

Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of

resources is the purpose of markets. Efficiency is a byproduct of market

systems, not their goal. The reasons markets work are not because users

have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow

users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are

not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirkey



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 13:34 GMT

pc:

> The point is, of course, that, ex hypothesi, la jvugis is an individual and

> so cannot be both emitting and not emitting light here and now (which may --

> to make you happy — require defining here and now rather narrowly, to be

> sure).

lo jvugi cannot be both inside and not inside the box here and now

for a narrow "here" either.

> As for the latter point, note where the negation is in my example --

> already outside the tense place.

Right, I missed that. In that case, I disagree that {lo jvugi naku

ca vi nenri} is true with a vi that includes the jvugis inside the box.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 14:24 GMT

John Cowan:

> Fair enough. In that case, it might be better just to say that

> non-fractional

> quantifiers are simply undefined.

The way I think outer fractional quantifiers should work,

non-fractionals are a special case of fractionals (with

{ro} as denominator) so defining how fractionals work

automatically defines non-fractionals.

So I gather your preference for lei and le'i is for the

status quo, which I interpret as:

PA lei broda = lo PA le broda

PA le'i broda = lo'i PA le broda

where PA can be a fractional.

So for example:

pa fi'u re lei broda

= lo pa fi'u re le broda

= A group consisting of one out of every two

of the group of broda I have in mind.

= A group of half of the broda I have in mind.

pa fi'u re le'i broda

= lo'i pa fi'u re le broda

= A set of one out of every two of the broda I have in mind.

= A set of half of the broda I have in mind

= A set with half the members of the set of broda I have in mind.

I understand that's what the current definitions say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 14:25 GMT

A> How do you do that? There are clearly jvugi that are not here and now inside the box: thye are not here and they are not inside the box, although they are now, but 2 out of 3 (indeed 1 out of 3) is enough to decide the negation. Do you understand your own idea of what {lo jvigu} means? Or {naku}?

In any case, what will you end up proving. So far we have established that linguistic proper names are not logical constants, which is hardly a surprise since 20th century British analytic philosophy started with Russell making that point (rathe more tidily than we have but still involving negation transparency essentially). The counterinstances are cases that look paradoxical: Jvugi is glowing and Jvugi is not glowing. So, to resolve the paradox, we artificially divide the unit subject, Jvugi, into parts, so that we can say "part of Jvugi is glowing and part of him is not." The parts involved have no independent reality beyond the analytic needs of the moment. So supposed analogy to this is {lo broda cu brede ije lo broda naku brode}. But — in official Lojban — this is not even paradoxical, let alone needing some cure. But, to make it paradoxical (are there other reasons?), we artifically create Mr. Broda, referred to by all {lo broda}s. Like the parts of the person created

by analysis, this creature of synthesis has no independent reality. Since all it has managed to do so far is create an apparent paradox out of a perfectly ordinary claim (and it should be noted that the claim involving {lo} can be perfectly ordinary, while the problem with names involve a lot of stage setting before we can get the right kind of case).

wrote:

pc:

> The point is, of course, that, ex hypothesi, la jvugis is an individual and

> so cannot be both emitting and not emitting light here and now (which may --

> to make you happy — require defining here and now rather narrowly, to be

> sure).

lo jvugi cannot be both inside and not inside the box here and now

for a narrow "here" either.

> As for the latter point, note where the negation is in my example --

> already outside the tense place.

A>Right, I missed that. In that case, I disagree that {lo jvugi naku

ca vi nenri} is true with a vi that includes the jvugis inside the box.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT

pc:

> So far we have established that

> linguistic proper names are not logical constants, which is hardly a surprise

> since 20th century British analytic philosophy started with Russell making

> that point (rathe more tidily than we have but still involving negation

> transparency essentially).

That's why I say that {lo jvugi} is a constant to the same extent

that {la jvugis} is.

> Since

> all it has managed to do so far is create an apparent paradox out of a

> perfectly ordinary claim (and it should be noted that the claim involving

> {lo} can be perfectly ordinary, while the problem with names involve a lot of

> stage setting before we can get the right kind of case).

{su'o broda cu brode ije su'o broda naku brode} is as clear and

ordinary as "Some brodas brode and some brodas don't brode".

{lo broda cu brode ije lo broda naku brode} is as paradoxical (or not)

as "Brodas brode and brodas don't brode".

There is no need to identify the two.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT

Or{la jvugis} fails to be a constant to the extent that {lo jvugi} does. But you seem to want to say that {lo jvugi} is more of a constant that {la jvugis}, since you seem to want to say tha there is some sense in which {lo jvugi} collects over conjunction and passes unscathed through negation in a way that {la jvugis} does not. The most that can be said accurately about la jvugis in a collective way is that some part of it shines and some (other, of course) part of it does not. {la jvugis zu'o ge pisu'o jy te gusni gi pisu'o jy naku te gusni}, but you deny the corresponding form for {lo jvugi}. And well you should, because the it has to admit quantifers over {lo jvugi} which gets back the old meaning of {lo} and explains at least this case in terms of them ({lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni} — unlless instances are parts too, in which case I suppose the exact parallel would work). To which the immediate rhetorical reply would be, if you need them

already, why bother with the added bit that doesn't help (and indeed created the paradox in the first place).

B> From my point of view not paradoxical at all. But that is because {lo broda} simply refers to different broda in the two places. If they refer to one and the same broda, then there is an apparent paradox and we solve it by saying — in your terms — some instances of lo broda do and some don't.

C> Whjich two? The sentences? There may be no need to identify them but they mutually entail one another and so aare materially equivalent. That is, there is no reason to separate them.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> So far we have established that

> linguistic proper names are not logical constants, which is hardly a surprise

> since 20th century British analytic philosophy started with Russell making

> that point (rathe more tidily than we have but still involving negation

> transparency essentially).

A>That's why I say that {lo jvugi} is a constant to the same extent

that {la jvugis} is.

> Since

> all it has managed to do so far is create an apparent paradox out of a

> perfectly ordinary claim (and it should be noted that the claim involving

> {lo} can be perfectly ordinary, while the problem with names involve a lot of

> stage setting before we can get the right kind of case).

{su'o broda cu brode ije su'o broda naku brode} is as clear and

ordinary as "Some brodas brode and some brodas don't brode".

B>{lo broda cu brode ije lo broda naku brode} is as paradoxical (or not)

as "Brodas brode and brodas don't brode".

C>There is no need to identify the two.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT

pc:

> lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni

That's perfectly fine. It makes no sense to replace {lo jvugi}

with {su'o jvugi} there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT


>

> pc:

> > lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni

>

> That's perfectly fine. It makes no sense to replace {lo jvugi}

> with {su'o jvugi} there.

In fact, you need {boi}s between su'o and jy, but other than

that, it's perfectly fine.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT

Well, why not? To be sure, just what {su'o su'o jvugi} means is probably unclear and (alternately) what requantifying variables means is controversial. Or is your point just that it is stylistically inelegant? Perhaps; I never said there were no differences between {su'o} and {lo} ({lo PA brode} for one simple case). But to say that it makes *no* sense is just false.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni

That's perfectly fine. It makes no sense to replace {lo jvugi}

with {su'o jvugi} there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT

Presumably in the {la jvugis} case too. {boi} is one of those patches that I have never quite figued out how it works nor why it is there in the first place, but I'll take your word that it is needed here.

Jorge Llambías wrote:


>

> pc:

> > lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni

>

> That's perfectly fine. It makes no sense to replace {lo jvugi}

> with {su'o jvugi} there.

In fact, you need {boi}s between su'o and jy, but other than

that, it's perfectly fine.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:27 GMT

It had better mean something (and something like {su'o jvigu cu nenri le tanxe ije su'o broda naku nenri le tanxe} because it follows from the sentence given, which is then senseless if the {suo} for {lo} replacement is. The alternative is that your {lo jvigu} can't do the job it is designed to do, say what jvigu do.

pc:

> lo jvugi zo'u ge su'o jy te gusni gi su'o jy naku te gusni

That's perfectly fine. It makes no sense to replace {lo jvugi}

with {su'o jvugi} there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT

pc:

> {boi} is one of those patches that I

> have never quite figued out how it works nor why it is there in the first

> place, but I'll take your word that it is needed here.

The problem is that digits and lerfu always merge, so {su'o by}

is a number. When the time to discuss grammar changes comes, I

am proposing that digits and lerfu be disentangled, so that

{su'o by} works as one would expect.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT

Another example:

lo jvugi zo'u roboi jy broda ije su'oboi jy brode

ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"As for jvugis, all of them broda, some of them brode,

none of them brodi and not all of them brodo."

I wouldn't use {su'o jvugi} in the prenex instead of {lo jvugi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT

Good!

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {boi} is one of those patches that I

> have never quite figued out how it works nor why it is there in the first

> place, but I'll take your word that it is needed here.

The problem is that digits and lerfu always merge, so {su'o by}

is a number. When the time to discuss grammar changes comes, I

am proposing that digits and lerfu be disentangled, so that

{su'o by} works as one would expect.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT

I am sure you wouldn't and I wouldn't either, but for stylistic-- maybe even grammatical — reasons. As I said before, requantifying is a controversy, but suely {ro lo jvigu} or {ro jvigu} (whichever {jy} stands for here). The initial {lo jvigu} is vacuous, of course, or downright misleading, but not wrong.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Another example:

lo jvugi zo'u roboi jy broda ije su'oboi jy brode

ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"As for jvugis, all of them broda, some of them brode,

none of them brodi and not all of them brodo."

I wouldn't use {su'o jvugi} in the prenex instead of {lo jvugi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 21:28 GMT

pc:

> I am sure you wouldn't and I wouldn't either, but for stylistic-- maybe even

> grammatical — reasons. As I said before, requantifying is a controversy,

> but suely {ro lo jvigu} or {ro jvigu} (whichever {jy} stands for here).

{jy} stands for {lo jvigu} here, which is unquantified.

> The

> initial {lo jvigu} is vacuous, of course, or downright misleading, but not

> wrong.

Let's change to a non-vacuous one then:

la pycyn cu nelci lo nu zbasu lo jvugi i roboi jy broda

ije su'oboi jy brode ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"pc likes making jvugis. All of them broda, some of them brode,

none of them brodi and not all of them brodo."

I wouldn't use {su'o jvugi} there instead of {lo jvugi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT

Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent sentences only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of them of course, so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact, not logic). As far as I can tell, {nelci} does not create opaque places, so the pronouns work just fine. The questions about {jy} and requantification do keep coming back, but — without deciding those issues completely — this seems to be right. I am not sure just what this has to do with {lo}, but I can't complain about the sentences.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I am sure you wouldn't and I wouldn't either, but for stylistic-- maybe even

> grammatical — reasons. As I said before, requantifying is a controversy,

> but suely {ro lo jvigu} or {ro jvigu} (whichever {jy} stands for here).

{jy} stands for {lo jvigu} here, which is unquantified.

> The

> initial {lo jvigu} is vacuous, of course, or downright misleading, but not

> wrong.

Let's change to a non-vacuous one then:

la pycyn cu nelci lo nu zbasu lo jvugi i roboi jy broda

ije su'oboi jy brode ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"pc likes making jvugis. All of them broda, some of them brode,

none of them brodi and not all of them brodo."

I wouldn't use {su'o jvugi} there instead of {lo jvugi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 08 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT

But on second thought — this one devoted to anaphora, but not requantification (for which I am at least temporarily assuming that the each subsequent quantifier subdivides the original one — not the latest one and not back to scratch either) — I want the anaphora after the first sentence to be referential, not literal. But I have (not quite arbitrarily) said that the letterals are literal, so I would use other pronouns here. Unfortunately, once we get rid of the letterals, Lojban — for all it has reams of sheets of pronouns — does not have any that relaibly pick out something already mentioned or pick it out again after one shot. so, for the nonce, I'll let {jy} be as ambiguous as the English cases.

John E Clifford wrote:Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent sentences only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of them of course, so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact, not logic). As far as I can tell, {nelci} does not create opaque places, so the pronouns work just fine. The questions about {jy} and requantification do keep coming back, but — without deciding those issues completely — this seems to be right. I am not sure just what this has to do with {lo}, but I can't complain about the sentences.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I am sure you wouldn't and I wouldn't either, but for stylistic-- maybe even

> grammatical — reasons. As I said before, requantifying is a controversy,

> but suely {ro lo jvigu} or {ro jvigu} (whichever {jy} stands for here).

{jy} stands for {lo jvigu} here, which is unquantified.

> The

> initial {lo jvigu} is vacuous, of course, or downright misleading, but not

> wrong.

Let's change to a non-vacuous one then:

la pycyn cu nelci lo nu zbasu lo jvugi i roboi jy broda

ije su'oboi jy brode ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"pc likes making jvugis. All of them broda, some of them brode,

none of them brodi and not all of them brodo."

I wouldn't use {su'o jvugi} there instead of {lo jvugi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT

pc:

> Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent sentences

> only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of them of course,

> so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact, not logic).

Ok, so here is a difference in our understanding. Consider this variation:

lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu

i la pycyn cu nelci lo nu zbasu jy i roboi jy broda

ije su'oboi jy brode ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"Jvugis are inside the box and out. pc likes making them.

All of them broda, some of them brode, none of them brodi

and not all of them brodo."

jy is always lo jvugi, whatever you have said about them or

how you have quantified over the instances.

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT

Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:

Mozilla 1.6 mailer. Go figure.

>pc:

>

>

>>Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let

>>us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however

>>narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and

>>others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi

>>naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi

>>ca vi nenri le tanxe}.

>>

>>

The reason why all this works (or doesn't) is that {lo jvugi} can refer

to more than one jvugi, and that's the problem for pc, since as a

"constant" it shouldn't be allowed to switch around like that. I

think. This discussion is well past me and I probably shouldn't be

talking on it.

>What happens with la jvugis in the analogous set up? If la jvugis

>is here and now emitting and not emitting light, then

>{la jvugis ca zi te gusni} and {la jvugis ca zi naku te gusni}, but

>not (since the first is true) {naku la jvugis ca zi te gusni}.

>

>

It's not as obvious, since {la jvugis} is *usually* taken to mean just

one thing, but it *can* mean more than one. Does that

help/hinder/otherwise affect thinking on the problem?

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT

Mark E. Shoulson:

> The reason why all this works (or doesn't) is that {lo jvugi} can refer

> to more than one jvugi, and that's the problem for pc, since as a

> "constant" it shouldn't be allowed to switch around like that. I

> think. This discussion is well past me and I probably shouldn't be

> talking on it.

I think pc would not like it even if we limit ourselves to

{lo pa jvugi}, i.e. singleton jvugies.

For example:

pamai lo jvugi cu xanri la pycyn i remai pycy skicu jy

i romai pycy zbasu jy

"First jvugis were imagined by pc, then he described them,

and fianlly he made them."

How many were imagined? How many were described? na'i!

(We know he made 12 though.)

> It's not as obvious, since {la jvugis} is *usually* taken to mean just

> one thing, but it *can* mean more than one. Does that

> help/hinder/otherwise affect thinking on the problem?

la jvugis can be a group, yes, but it is still a single referent.

In a given use it has a fixed referent, unlike variables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 01:28 GMT

On Tuesday 08 June 2004 18:59, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> pc:

> > Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent

> > sentences only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of

> > them of course, so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact,

> > not logic).

>

> Ok, so here is a difference in our understanding. Consider this variation:

>

> lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu

{lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu} is false.

{lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'a bartu} is true.

{lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true (some =

are=20

in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

phma

=2D-=20

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 01:59 GMT

Pierre Abbat:

> {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu} is false.

All else being equal, yes, but:

lo jvugi le tanxe cu pu nenri gi'e ca bartu

or:

lo jvugi le tanxe cu va nenri gi'e vi bartu

can be true. Jvugis are inside the box over there and outside over here.

> {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'a bartu} is true.

Almost tautologically true :-)

> {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true

> (some are in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

This is the expansion of the first one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Minor re-wording.


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:00 GMT posts: 14214

In loi and lei:

and which satisfy the predicate for which the sumti is an argument collectively

should be

and which collectively satisfy the predicate for which the sumti is an argument

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:09 GMT

I haven't been following this (I stopped getting mail about bpfk

stuff a long time ago---I think it was moved away from the TWiki

or something like that), and because of that I'm not entirely sure

whether I'm going to vote.

First thing, so that the rest of this isn't misunderstood: the

lojban gadri system is definitely not complete currently---this is

probably one of the main things which has made me lose a lot of

interest in the language. I agree that changes are needed.

However....

I think the proposed change to {lo} invalidates substatial portions

of CLL and *lots* of past usage (although correct usage of {lo} was

admittedly somewhat rare). For some reason it isn't being advertised

as such on its page. Moreover it's a hacky way to add generics to

the language. In many cases the current {loi} works for sentences

which you want a generic article for (check out the example sentence

for {loi} on the wiki page). And if a new function is actually

necessary, it would be much cleaner to use {lau} for it than to do

something like this, which complicates the meaning of {lo} based

on whether its quantifiers are explicit.

How it changes the meaning of things:

lojbo: .ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

xorlo: Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

old-lo: There is a child for whom there is an adult, where the former

should show great forbearance toward the latter.

lojbo: ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

xorlo: At night lions hunt for food.

old-lo: There was a night when there was a lion and some food;

the former was hunting for the latter.

lojbo: lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu

lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u

xorlo: Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a

horn coming out of their foreheads.

old-lo: There is a unicorn who is a mythical animal, and who looks like

a horse with a/the horn which is the only horn in existence

upon one of its heads.

Note also that under the old lo, this uses the nonsensical

"lo ka". All {ka} or {du'u} (which are the same thing) are

"le", by virtue of the fact that the speaker is about to

say it.

There are also examples of real usage that are invalidated, aside

from the above example sentences. At this point I'm less concerned

about the effects things have on existing usage, since most existing

usage is wrong anyway. But on IRC Robin seemed to be of the opinion

that this change to {lo} did not invalidate existing usage, which

does not seem to me to be the case:

My translation of Carver's "Little Things":

lojbo: do bersa lo malpre

xorlo: You are a son of bitches (in general).

Or more englishy: Bitches are your mother.

old-lo: There is a bitch who is your mother.

Your mother's a bitch.

Nick's aesop stuff:

lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

xorlo: Foxes are hungry and when they see some grapes

dangling from trees want to take them but can't.

old-lo: A fox, who was hungry, upon seeing some grapes in a tree

wanted to take them, but couldn't.

>From my translation of Ambrose Bierce's "The Man and the Snake":

lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

xorlo: Snakes are inside of bedrooms.

old-lo: There is a snake for whom there is a bedroom containing him.

In the context of: {le'enu lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

be lo cabna ke tcadu zdani noi zmadu cu to xamgu toi na

dukse leka fadni kei lenu na jai se sarcu tu'a lo ve ciksi}

a

One other thing I'd like to point out is that currently {lo} is the

only article that is defined in terms of the lower-level predicate

logic features of the language (lo broda == da poi broda). First

of all this really sucks---more of the language should be that

explicitly defined if lojban really is supposed to be a "logical

language".

But regarding this---why try to kill the only article which *is*

well defined, instead of fixing the various ill-defined articles

(i.e. there is no definite consensus on which properties of individual

members a mass gets and which properties emerge, and we need an

article for the old problem of accidently declaring the existance

of imaginary things (a la {mi kalte LE pavyseljirna}), so that we

don't need to keep working around it with tanru).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAxnOBDrrilS51AZ8RAoTRAKCTAG3GzxkxxEIomaAqQrmtoNx9wwCfbTA7

yf1rO2K7VXJwgz7XmPORrUM=

=z/JH

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:35 GMT

On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:51, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> Pierre Abbat:

> > {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu} is false.

>

> All else being equal, yes, but:

>

> lo jvugi le tanxe cu pu nenri gi'e ca bartu

That can be true, if a jvugi was taken out of the box, ...

> or:

>

> lo jvugi le tanxe cu va nenri gi'e vi bartu

>

> can be true. Jvugis are inside the box over there and outside over here.

but I don't see how this can be true, unless {nenri} and {bartu} are true a=

t=20

different times.

> > {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'a bartu} is true.

>

> Almost tautologically true :-)

>

> > {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true

> > (some are in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

>

> This is the expansion of the first one.

It looks like it, but {lo jvugi} can have a different referent each time it=

=20

occurs, whereas in the first one {lo jvugi} occurs once, so the sentence is=

=20

claiming that a jvugi is both inside and outside the box.

phma

=2D-=20

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:35 GMT

> should be

> and which collectively satisfy the predicate for which the sumti is an

> argument

> -Robin

Done. I have also added a summary table based on John's to the page.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 02:43 GMT


> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:51, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> >

> > lo jvugi le tanxe cu va nenri gi'e vi bartu

>

> but I don't see how this can be true, unless {nenri} and {bartu} are

> true at different times.

It can be true at the same time because {lo jvugi} is not "some jvugi"

but jvugis in general.

> > > {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true

> > > (some are in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

> >

> > This is the expansion of the first one.

>

> It looks like it, but {lo jvugi} can have a different referent each

> time it occurs,

It always has the same referent: jvugis.

> whereas in the first one {lo jvugi} occurs once, so the sentence

> claiming that a jvugi is both inside and outside the box.

It just claims that jvugis are both inside and outside. It doesn't

talk about instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:02 GMT

Looks fine to me; all the {jy} are functioning as literal anaphora, though I suppose we disagree on that. We agree both on what the grammar is and what it means but not how it means that. And, of course, both of our understandings are in their own ways non-standard.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent sentences

> only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of them of course,

> so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact, not logic).

Ok, so here is a difference in our understanding. Consider this variation:

lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu

i la pycyn cu nelci lo nu zbasu jy i roboi jy broda

ije su'oboi jy brode ije noboi jy brodi ije me'iboi jy brodo

"Jvugis are inside the box and out. pc likes making them.

All of them broda, some of them brode, none of them brodi

and not all of them brodo."

jy is always lo jvugi, whatever you have said about them or

how you have quantified over the instances.

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Nitpicky errors


Posted by noras on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:02 GMT posts: 23

A couple of nit-picky errors (corrections welcome if I am mistaken):

Under "le" examples

"ko punji le sicni lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai"

"Put the coins in order from greatest to least value."

The x3 of punji is the place where the x2 is put

Put the coins at place: sequence(s) from ... I think perhaps "ko zukte fi le nu le'i sicni cu te porsi lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai", but this would then not be an example of "le". Or maybe "ko punji le sicni sepo'i lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai".

Under "la" examples

"ma'i la midju terdi la sadam na sai me la sauron"

"In Middle Earth-terms, Saddam is by no means a 'Sauron'."

You really have 2 reference-frames wanted here: the real world and Middle Earth. Saddam is in one, and the Sauron is in the other. I read the lojban as setting the "world" to Middle Earth for the whole sentence, in which case "Saddam" is meaningless. The Middle Earth reference-frame applies only to 'Sauron'. So I suggest "la sadam na sai me la sauron pe ma'i la midju terdi" = "Saddam is by no means a 'Sauron'-of-middle-earth"

These are not all my comments. I am working on the rest.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:14 GMT

It is not the plurality of {lo jvugi} but its variability that is the problem. Or more exactly that it is a number things being treated simultaneously as though they were just one. The {la jvugis} case is actually made easier by plurality, but then it is even more obviously not a constant.

"Mark E. Shoulson" wrote:Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:

Mozilla 1.6 mailer. Go figure.

>pc:

>

>

>>Taking your purported argument somewhat more seriously than it deserves, let

>>us get away from generics and consider the situation here and now (in however

>>narrow or broad a sense you will. With some jvugi in the box (here) and

>>others not, we have as true {lo jvugi ca vi nenri le tanxe} and {lo jvugi

>>naku ca vi nenri le tanxe}, but not (since the first is true) {naku lo jvugi

>>ca vi nenri le tanxe}.

>>

>>

The reason why all this works (or doesn't) is that {lo jvugi} can refer

to more than one jvugi, and that's the problem for pc, since as a

"constant" it shouldn't be allowed to switch around like that. I

think. This discussion is well past me and I probably shouldn't be

talking on it.

>What happens with la jvugis in the analogous set up? If la jvugis

>is here and now emitting and not emitting light, then

>{la jvugis ca zi te gusni} and {la jvugis ca zi naku te gusni}, but

>not (since the first is true) {naku la jvugis ca zi te gusni}.

>

>

It's not as obvious, since {la jvugis} is *usually* taken to mean just

one thing, but it *can* mean more than one. Does that

help/hinder/otherwise affect thinking on the problem?

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:14 GMT

A> Well, I do think it is easier to stick with jvugis rather than singleytons of jvugi, but the problem turns up either way. If there were-- overtly — only one jvugi, of course, the situation would be somewhat simpler

B> We don't say of course; that is a large part of what "generic" means.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Mark E. Shoulson:

> The reason why all this works (or doesn't) is that {lo jvugi} can refer

> to more than one jvugi, and that's the problem for pc, since as a

> "constant" it shouldn't be allowed to switch around like that. I

> think. This discussion is well past me and I probably shouldn't be

> talking on it.

A>I think pc would not like it even if we limit ourselves to

{lo pa jvugi}, i.e. singleton jvugies.

For example:

pamai lo jvugi cu xanri la pycyn i remai pycy skicu jy

i romai pycy zbasu jy

"First jvugis were imagined by pc, then he described them,

and fianlly he made them."

B>How many were imagined? How many were described? na'i!

(We know he made 12 though.)

> It's not as obvious, since {la jvugis} is *usually* taken to mean just

> one thing, but it *can* mean more than one. Does that

> help/hinder/otherwise affect thinking on the problem?

la jvugis can be a group, yes, but it is still a single referent.

In a given use it has a fixed referent, unlike variables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:45 GMT

I haven't gotten this one from xorxes yet; but I haven't anything to add to our comments.

Pierre Abbat wrote:On Tuesday 08 June 2004 18:59, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote: > pc:

> > Yes, this use is non-vacuous and the quantifiers in the subsequent

> > sentences only quantify over the one I make (which is, in fact, all of

> > them of course, so the distinction isn't worth much — but that is fact,

> > not logic).

>

> Ok, so here is a difference in our understanding. Consider this variation:

>

> lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu

{lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu} is false.

{lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'a bartu} is true.

{lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true (some =

are=20

in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

phma

=2D-=20

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:45 GMT

coi fi'i ui doi jordan

> lojbo: .ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> xorlo: Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

> old-lo: There is a child for whom there is an adult, where the former

> should show great forbearance toward the latter.

I think rather

oldlo: It ought to be that there is some child that shows great

forbearance toward some adult.

i.e. {ei} has scope over quantifiers, not the other way around.

> My translation of Carver's "Little Things":

> lojbo: do bersa lo malpre

> xorlo: You are a son of bitches (in general).

> Or more englishy: Bitches are your mother.

> old-lo: There is a bitch who is your mother.

> Your mother's a bitch.

Why not "you are the son of at least one bitch"? And why

"mother" rather than "parent"?

I don't see any problem with {do bersa lo malpre} with

the proposed lo.

> Nick's aesop stuff:

> lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

> xorlo: Foxes are hungry and when they see some grapes

> dangling from trees want to take them but can't.

> old-lo: A fox, who was hungry, upon seeing some grapes in a tree

> wanted to take them, but couldn't.

Why do you translate the second as a particular event and the first one

as a general event, given that there is no indication either way in

the Lojban? old-lo could just as well be: "some foxes are hungry

and when they see some grapes dangling from some trees want to

take them but can't." The proposed {lo} does not impose a generic

reading to the whole sentence, it is just not explicit as to instances.

All it says is: "Fox, hungry, when sees that grape hangs from tree, wants

get it but can't get". How you choose to fill the gaps must come from

context.

> From my translation of Ambrose Bierce's "The Man and the Snake":

>

> lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

> xorlo: Snakes are inside of bedrooms.

> old-lo: There is a snake for whom there is a bedroom containing him.

or: At least one snake is inside of at least one room.

With the proposed lo, I would simply say "snake inside room". How you

turn that into more fluent English will depend on the context. {lo}

adds nothing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 03:46 GMT

A> True but not relevant to the question at issue, namely whether we could get Pierre's false claim from the true {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri ije lo jvugi le tanxe naku nenri}

B> Not really, since the first is not the collapse of it. The first is contradictory, the last is not.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Pierre Abbat:

> {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'e bartu} is false.

A>All else being equal, yes, but:

lo jvugi le tanxe cu pu nenri gi'e ca bartu

or:

lo jvugi le tanxe cu va nenri gi'e vi bartu

can be true. Jvugis are inside the box over there and outside over here.

> {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri gi'a bartu} is true.

Almost tautologically true :-)

> {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true

> (some are in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

B>This is the expansion of the first one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:48 GMT

noras:

> "ko punji le sicni lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai"

> "Put the coins in order from greatest to least value."

>

> The x3 of punji is the place where the x2 is put

> Put the coins at place: sequence(s) from ... I think perhaps "ko zukte fi

> le nu le'i sicni cu te porsi lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai", but this would

> then not be an example of "le". Or maybe "ko punji le sicni sepo'i lo vamrai

> bi'o lo vamtolrai".

Right, how about:

ko punji le sicni ja'e lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai

> "ma'i la midju terdi la sadam na sai me la sauron"

> "In Middle Earth-terms, Saddam is by no means a 'Sauron'."

>

> You really have 2 reference-frames wanted here: the real world and Middle

> Earth. Saddam is in one, and the Sauron is in the other. I read the lojban

> as setting the "world" to Middle Earth for the whole sentence, in which case

> "Saddam" is meaningless. The Middle Earth reference-frame applies only to

> 'Sauron'. So I suggest "la sadam na sai me la sauron pe ma'i la midju terdi"

> = "Saddam is by no means a 'Sauron'-of-middle-earth"

The predicate here is {me la sauron}. Don't BAI tags add a place to

the predicate, so that we have "x1 is a 'Sauron' by standard x"?

> These are not all my comments. I am working on the rest.

ki'e mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:49 GMT

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:11:46PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:51, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> > Pierre Abbat:

> > or:

> >

> > lo jvugi le tanxe cu va nenri gi'e vi bartu

> >

> > can be true. Jvugis are inside the box over there and outside over

> > here.

>

> but I don't see how this can be true, unless {nenri} and {bartu} are

> true at different times.

Just for the record, vi and va are place markers, not time markers.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 10:49 GMT

On Wednesday 09 June 2004 01:15, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:11:46PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> > but I don't see how this can be true, unless {nenri} and {bartu} are

> > true at different times.

>

> Just for the record, vi and va are place markers, not time markers.

Yes. I am assuming that a jvugi can't be in two places at the same time.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 12:49 GMT

Pierre Abbat:

> I am assuming that a jvugi can't be in two places at the same time.

No jvugi can be in two places at once, but jvugis in general can

be in more than one place at the same time. Remember that {lo jvugi}

says nothing about the instances. All you say is "jvugi inside of

the box and outside of the box". How that relates to instances is

left unspecified. If you now say "at least one jvugi is both inside

and outside of the box at the same time" then I agree that's not

true. But that's not what {lo jvugi} says.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Constants


Posted by xorxes on Wed 09 of June, 2004 14:10 GMT posts: 1912

Some comments on constant terms.

IF X and Z are constant terms, then the following equivalences

always hold:

X na broda == X naku broda == naku X broda == X broda naku

X broda Z == Z se broda X

X broda Z ije X brode Z == X boi Z broda gi'e brode

X broda lo nu Z brode ije ri brodi == X broda lo nu Z brode ije Z brodi

None of the above work in general with terms that carry an

outer quantifier.

With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

With CLL-defaults, {le broda} and {la broda} are pseudo-constants,

they carry a quantifier but they usually have a single referent, so

the transformations "usually" work. The proposal, by requiring

explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

logic of terms much cleaner.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:12 GMT

[email protected] scripsit:

> With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

> outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

> and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

> like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

> their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

> can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

> quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

Good.

Question about the semantics of "lo ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu":

does this entail that all of the dogs bit the bone, or is it left vague?

I'd prefer to require it to be all of them (as opposed to loi, where

they only have to bite it "collectively").

--

Do what you will, John Cowan

this Life's a Fiction [email protected]

And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com

Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:12 GMT

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:42:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> It can be true at the same time because {lo jvugi} is not "some jvugi"

> but jvugis in general.

I don't care that this is discussion and not in the proposal, but if people

keep saying this, I will have to change my vote to NO until it's cleared up.

Why must {lo jvugi} refer to jvugis in general every time it's used? That

breaks past usage, and also is opposed to saying that the meaning of {lo} is

unspecified.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

The official usage has its problems, too. {lo} is used too often on the assumption that just one thing is intended, where as it says that any number from one on is involved. So, where singularity is an issue, it is misleading. On the other hand, the new {lo} goes to the other extreme, getting away from single cases and single situations, while still (unremarked — even denied — by xorxes) staying within the scope of the particular quantifier. It is unclear to me whether this is a semantic issue or merely a pragmatic one: where do we place the (vague) limits on what counts as validating a claim? At the moment, I think it is pragmatic: the range is the same but we take it in one sense or the other: general or singular. Along that line, I have suggested (or was about to; I can't remember whether I have already said this in print) that we reserve {lo} henceforth for one of these assumptions and use {su'o} or a more exact number for the others. But I think that either of these will

run into a lot of conflicts with usage: xorxes' v. everybody else's.

While I object to xorxes reading of {lo} in some cases, in others it is clearly more nearly correct than the alternative suggested here.

<xorlo: Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

old-lo: There is a child for whom there is an adult, where the former

should show great forbearance toward the latter>>

Clearly, first of all, the quantifiers are inside the opaque context of {ei}. Secondly, this is obviously not about any single child and single adult; it is meant generally (though not quite "all"). The second point applies (though less obviously) to the lion case, though there the single-interpretation is only improbable.

<lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u

xorlo: Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a

horn coming out of their foreheads.

old-lo: There is a unicorn who is a mythical animal, and who looks like

a horse with a/the horn which is the only horn in existence

upon one of its heads.>>

This is a classic problem, since whatever we do (barring making {xanri1} opaque) we end up saying that there is something which is imaginary (a problem if we are quantifying only one this-world things). The "which is the only horn in existence" is not a problem about {lo} but a separate issue about what internal quantifiers mean (and, for now, I think xorxes has the right of it). I would have used {le mebri}, but "one of its heads" is pretty clearly not right as a translation, much less "at least one of its heads," which is correct but wrong. the comment about {le ka} seems right (even if there are several such properties, it is the one I am about to give that I mean). But equating {ka} and {du'u} will create some other problems down the line and fairly shortly (we will get back to this when the time comes).

The remaining (i.e., real) cases all seem to favor the "one" reading, but are, to that extent, as wrongheaded as the other reading. This comes out precisely because {lo} was well-defined: as "at least one...," not as "one" (and certainly not as "in general" though this is included). I agree that every gadri (and other cmavo eventually) needs a clear logical definition and I take it that ultimately that is what this BPFK exercise is about. Given that, the exercise has barely begun, let alone being over in the next week or two.

I see {kalte} is back as a problem: does something have to exist to be hunted in the {kalte} sense. Lifew is easier for logicians if we say no and make {kalte2} opaque. But it is harder for Lojbanists, since {kalte2} — like several other cases that have turned up lately — does not take an abstract argument and thus does not overtly provide a frame for other-world reference. Lojbanists have regularly rejectted the notion that some places are by themselves opaque. So, I guess that, whatever I may think, {mi kalte lo pavyseljirna} is false; I just think that I am doing that or what is really true is {mi pavyseljirna kalte} (the two stock philosphers' tricks here).

Jordan DeLong wrote:

I haven't been following this (I stopped getting mail about bpfk

stuff a long time ago---I think it was moved away from the TWiki

or something like that), and because of that I'm not entirely sure

whether I'm going to vote.

First thing, so that the rest of this isn't misunderstood: the

lojban gadri system is definitely not complete currently---this is

probably one of the main things which has made me lose a lot of

interest in the language. I agree that changes are needed.

However....

I think the proposed change to {lo} invalidates substatial portions

of CLL and *lots* of past usage (although correct usage of {lo} was

admittedly somewhat rare). For some reason it isn't being advertised

as such on its page. Moreover it's a hacky way to add generics to

the language. In many cases the current {loi} works for sentences

which you want a generic article for (check out the example sentence

for {loi} on the wiki page). And if a new function is actually

necessary, it would be much cleaner to use {lau} for it than to do

something like this, which complicates the meaning of {lo} based

on whether its quantifiers are explicit.

How it changes the meaning of things:

lojbo: .ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

xorlo: Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

old-lo: There is a child for whom there is an adult, where the former

should show great forbearance toward the latter.

lojbo: ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

xorlo: At night lions hunt for food.

old-lo: There was a night when there was a lion and some food;

the former was hunting for the latter.

lojbo: lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu

lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u

xorlo: Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a

horn coming out of their foreheads.

old-lo: There is a unicorn who is a mythical animal, and who looks like

a horse with a/the horn which is the only horn in existence

upon one of its heads.

Note also that under the old lo, this uses the nonsensical

"lo ka". All {ka} or {du'u} (which are the same thing) are

"le", by virtue of the fact that the speaker is about to

say it.

There are also examples of real usage that are invalidated, aside

from the above example sentences. At this point I'm less concerned

about the effects things have on existing usage, since most existing

usage is wrong anyway. But on IRC Robin seemed to be of the opinion

that this change to {lo} did not invalidate existing usage, which

does not seem to me to be the case:

My translation of Carver's "Little Things":

lojbo: do bersa lo malpre

xorlo: You are a son of bitches (in general).

Or more englishy: Bitches are your mother.

old-lo: There is a bitch who is your mother.

Your mother's a bitch.

Nick's aesop stuff:

lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

xorlo: Foxes are hungry and when they see some grapes

dangling from trees want to take them but can't.

old-lo: A fox, who was hungry, upon seeing some grapes in a tree

wanted to take them, but couldn't.

>From my translation of Ambrose Bierce's "The Man and the Snake":

lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

xorlo: Snakes are inside of bedrooms.

old-lo: There is a snake for whom there is a bedroom containing him.

In the context of: {le'enu lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

be lo cabna ke tcadu zdani noi zmadu cu to xamgu toi na

dukse leka fadni kei lenu na jai se sarcu tu'a lo ve ciksi}

a

One other thing I'd like to point out is that currently {lo} is the

only article that is defined in terms of the lower-level predicate

logic features of the language (lo broda == da poi broda). First

of all this really sucks---more of the language should be that

explicitly defined if lojban really is supposed to be a "logical

language".

But regarding this---why try to kill the only article which *is*

well defined, instead of fixing the various ill-defined articles

(i.e. there is no definite consensus on which properties of individual

members a mass gets and which properties emerge, and we need an

article for the old problem of accidently declaring the existance

of imaginary things (a la {mi kalte LE pavyseljirna}), so that we

don't need to keep working around it with tanru).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAxnOBDrrilS51AZ8RAoTRAKCTAG3GzxkxxEIomaAqQrmtoNx9wwCfbTA7

yf1rO2K7VXJwgz7XmPORrUM=

=z/JH

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

> outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

> and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

> like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

> their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

> can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

> quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

>

> With CLL-defaults, {le broda} and {la broda} are pseudo-constants,

> they carry a quantifier but they usually have a single referent, so

> the transformations "usually" work. The proposal, by requiring

> explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

> logic of terms much cleaner.

Yes, but apparently it does so by breaking past usage of {lo}.

Sorry, but this strikes me as one of the areas where {lo} is _supposed_ to be

different from {le} and {la} - it can refer to different things at different

times. Making {lo} generic is great. But if it's generic, it has to be able to

mean {su'o} in some contexts, and {su'o} is not a constant.

Sorry if I'm getting pissy. You were _so_ close to an entirely agreeable

proposal about {lo} that handled all past usage, but now constants are smeared

all over it.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

A>But it implies (and is implied by {su'o jvugi} and so is false if the corresponding {su'o jvugi} is false.

B> See above.

C> See above.

Jorge Llambías wrote:


wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 21:51, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> >

> > lo jvugi le tanxe cu va nenri gi'e vi bartu

>

> but I don't see how this can be true, unless {nenri} and {bartu} are

> true at different times.

A>It can be true at the same time because {lo jvugi} is not "some jvugi"

but jvugis in general.

> > > {lo jvugi le tanxe cu nenri .ije lo jvugi le tanxe cu bartu} is true

> > > (some are in, some are out, but they're not the same ones).

> >

> > This is the expansion of the first one.

>

> It looks like it, but {lo jvugi} can have a different referent each

> time it occurs,

B>It always has the same referent: jvugis.

> whereas in the first one {lo jvugi} occurs once, so the sentence

> claiming that a jvugi is both inside and outside the box.

C>It just claims that jvugis are both inside and outside. It doesn't

talk about instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

John Cowan:

> Question about the semantics of "lo ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu":

> does this entail that all of the dogs bit the bone, or is it left vague?

> I'd prefer to require it to be all of them (as opposed to loi, where

> they only have to bite it "collectively").

I don't think {lo ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu} says anything about

individual dogs. It says something about the one bone you have in mind

and dog trios. The bone gets bitten by dog trio. If you want to say

that three dogs bit the bone and each of them sank its teeth in, say

it: {ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu}. Your claim is then explicitly

about several instances of biting, and thus requires quantification.

{lo} can never fail if {loi} holds, because {loi} adds content. At

worst {lo} is more vague.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

D> See earlier.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Pierre Abbat:

> I am assuming that a jvugi can't be in two places at the same time.

No jvugi can be in two places at once, but jvugis in general can

be in more than one place at the same time. Remember that {lo jvugi}

says nothing about the instances. All you say is "jvugi inside of

the box and outside of the box". How that relates to instances is

left unspecified. If you now say "at least one jvugi is both inside

and outside of the box at the same time" then I agree that's not

true. But that's not what {lo jvugi} says.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

D> See earlier.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Pierre Abbat:

> I am assuming that a jvugi can't be in two places at the same time.

No jvugi can be in two places at once, but jvugis in general can

be in more than one place at the same time. Remember that {lo jvugi}

says nothing about the instances. All you say is "jvugi inside of

the box and outside of the box". How that relates to instances is

left unspecified. If you now say "at least one jvugi is both inside

and outside of the box at the same time" then I agree that's not

true. But that's not what {lo jvugi} says.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:17:45PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> coi fi'i ui doi jordan

> > lojbo: .ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> > xorlo: Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

> > old-lo: There is a child for whom there is an adult, where the former

> > should show great forbearance toward the latter.

>

> I think rather

> oldlo: It ought to be that there is some child that shows great

> forbearance toward some adult.

> i.e. {ei} has scope over quantifiers, not the other way around.

Agreed.

> > My translation of Carver's "Little Things":

> > lojbo: do bersa lo malpre

> > xorlo: You are a son of bitches (in general).

> > Or more englishy: Bitches are your mother.

> > old-lo: There is a bitch who is your mother.

> > Your mother's a bitch.

>

> Why not "you are the son of at least one bitch"? And why

> "mother" rather than "parent"?

What I was translating from english. The lojban doesn't say anything

about gender deliberately, so it shouldn't be "mother" or "bitch"

in the back-translation to English, sorry.

...

> > Nick's aesop stuff:

> > lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> > dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

> > xorlo: Foxes are hungry and when they see some grapes

> > dangling from trees want to take them but can't.

> > old-lo: A fox, who was hungry, upon seeing some grapes in a tree

> > wanted to take them, but couldn't.

>

> Why do you translate the second as a particular event and the first one

> as a general event, given that there is no indication either way in

> the Lojban? old-lo could just as well be: "some foxes are hungry

> and when they see some grapes dangling from some trees want to

> take them but can't." The proposed {lo} does not impose a generic

> reading to the whole sentence, it is just not explicit as to instances.

> All it says is: "Fox, hungry, when sees that grape hangs from tree, wants

> get it but can't get". How you choose to fill the gaps must come from

> context.

The old {lo} does impose that it is a real, existing event, which

occurs for at least one fox, who saw at least one tree, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but xorlo doesn't require that the fox

actually exists. It could work just as well for me to say:

lo pavyseljirna noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi srasu noi

cpana lo rajma'a cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

(Of course the above could work in old-lo, but only in a work of

fiction---no one will believe the speaker is talking about reality)

> > From my translation of Ambrose Bierce's "The Man and the Snake":

> >

> > lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

> > xorlo: Snakes are inside of bedrooms.

> > old-lo: There is a snake for whom there is a bedroom containing him.

>

> or: At least one snake is inside of at least one room.

Same thing. My gloss was intended to emphasize the logical structure

of it.

What it means is

Exx) . Ey(sipna_kumfa(y) . nenri(x, y?)

> With the proposed lo, I would simply say "snake inside room". How you

> turn that into more fluent English will depend on the context. {lo}

> adds nothing.

If you want that, why not say {since nenri kumfa}?

You didn't adress my point about this killing the only well-defined

article in the language. I think BPFK article changes should really

go towards further formalization, rather than away from the small

amount we currently have.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAxyowDrrilS51AZ8RAvWoAJwL5J69W9b901Z/EW/i8fMatVnhrwCgoTex

TN0GuY5Ysb0w/jkF66c03r4=

=ffpV

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

A>As xorxes as demonstrated (though I don't think he thinks this is what he has demonstrated) none of these equations work for any sumti expression in Lojban. That is, lojban sumti of whatever sort are not logical constant. What we can do in some case — maybe in all — is rewrite some parts of these expressions to make the pattern go through — either divide the subject or precide the the predicate to avoid problems. The negation problems seem the hardest to deal with, but even there we can usually manage to rewrite what we say to achieve the shift for what we mean.

B> Is the proposal really this broad? If so, it is bound to fail in most cases, even with the "abstract" gadri like {lo'e}. Oddly enough, the case of {da} within the scope of its quantifier is the one case that pretty clearly is not problematic, since it is *guaranteed* a unique reference.

[email protected] wrote:

A>Constants

Some comments on constant terms.

IF X and Z are constant terms, then the following equivalences

always hold:

X na broda == X naku broda == naku X broda == X broda naku

X broda Z == Z se broda X

X broda Z ije X brode Z == X boi Z broda gi'e brode

X broda lo nu Z brode ije ri brodi == X broda lo nu Z brode ije Z brodi

None of the above work in general with terms that carry an

outer quantifier.

B>With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

With CLL-defaults, {le broda} and {la broda} are pseudo-constants,

they carry a quantifier but they usually have a single referent, so

the transformations "usually" work. The proposal, by requiring

explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

logic of terms much cleaner.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

Rob Speer:

> > The proposal, by requiring

> > explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

> > logic of terms much cleaner.

>

> Yes, but apparently it does so by breaking past usage of {lo}.

For example? Only if you were relying on the implicit quantifier

to transmit something significant is the usage broken. I don't

see many examples of that.

> Sorry, but this strikes me as one of the areas where {lo} is _supposed_ to be

> different from {le} and {la} - it can refer to different things at different

> times. Making {lo} generic is great. But if it's generic, it has to be able

> to

> mean {su'o} in some contexts, and {su'o} is not a constant.

{lo} allows that su'o is true, but it does not ever impose it.

Context may strongly suggest {su'o}, and the semantics of the

predicate may strongly require it (how can you see something

if you don't see at least one instance?) but the quantifier

is not part of the bare {lo} claim.

> Sorry if I'm getting pissy. You were _so_ close to an entirely agreeable

> proposal about {lo} that handled all past usage, but now constants are

> smeared

> all over it.

If you are not much concerned with the logic part of a

Lojban sentence you can disregard all talk about constants.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

A> Hell, under the present proposal, we just have that dog threesomes (in general) bite the one bone (which apparently moves around a lot to be available to dog threesomes wherever they are). The question of whether each member of every such threesome has to get its teeth around the bone seems relatively insignificant at this point.

John Cowan wrote:[email protected] scripsit:

> With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

> outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

> and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

> like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

> their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

> can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

> quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

Good.

A>Question about the semantics of "lo ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu":

does this entail that all of the dogs bit the bone, or is it left vague?

I'd prefer to require it to be all of them (as opposed to loi, where

they only have to bite it "collectively").

--

Do what you will, John Cowan

this Life's a Fiction [email protected]

And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com

Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 15:13 GMT

Amen (except to note that this proposal has been around for several years in nearly this form, so it is a long time since it was close to being right).

Rob Speer wrote:On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

> outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

> and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

> like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

> their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

> can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

> quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

>

> With CLL-defaults, {le broda} and {la broda} are pseudo-constants,

> they carry a quantifier but they usually have a single referent, so

> the transformations "usually" work. The proposal, by requiring

> explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

> logic of terms much cleaner.

Yes, but apparently it does so by breaking past usage of {lo}.

Sorry, but this strikes me as one of the areas where {lo} is _supposed_ to be

different from {le} and {la} - it can refer to different things at different

times. Making {lo} generic is great. But if it's generic, it has to be able to

mean {su'o} in some contexts, and {su'o} is not a constant.

Sorry if I'm getting pissy. You were _so_ close to an entirely agreeable

proposal about {lo} that handled all past usage, but now constants are smeared

all over it.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT

E> See earlier

F> rabspir's comments suggest that he is deeply concerned about the logic of Lojban and that is why he finds your proposal so objectionable: it replaces reasonably clear logic with a total muddle (and to no purpose to boot).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Rob Speer:

> > The proposal, by requiring

> > explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

> > logic of terms much cleaner.

>

> Yes, but apparently it does so by breaking past usage of {lo}.

For example? Only if you were relying on the implicit quantifier

to transmit something significant is the usage broken. I don't

see many examples of that.

> Sorry, but this strikes me as one of the areas where {lo} is _supposed_ to be

> different from {le} and {la} - it can refer to different things at different

> times. Making {lo} generic is great. But if it's generic, it has to be able

> to

> mean {su'o} in some contexts, and {su'o} is not a constant.

E>{lo} allows that su'o is true, but it does not ever impose it.

Context may strongly suggest {su'o}, and the semantics of the

predicate may strongly require it (how can you see something

if you don't see at least one instance?) but the quantifier

is not part of the bare {lo} claim.

> Sorry if I'm getting pissy. You were _so_ close to an entirely agreeable

> proposal about {lo} that handled all past usage, but now constants are

> smeared

> all over it.

F>If you are not much concerned with the logic part of a

Lojban sentence you can disregard all talk about constants.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Constants

> Some comments on constant terms.

>

> IF X and Z are constant terms, then the following equivalences

> always hold:

>

> X na broda == X naku broda == naku X broda == X broda naku

> X broda Z == Z se broda X

> X broda Z ije X brode Z == X boi Z broda gi'e brode

> X broda lo nu Z brode ije ri brodi == X broda lo nu Z brode ije Z brodi

>

> None of the above work in general with terms that carry an

> outer quantifier.

...

Do I take you to mean that you think xorlo would make {lo broda}

into a "constant term"?

Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

lojban sentences. As well as completely breaking negation with

{naku}.

For example:

lo curnu cu na nenri le plise

old: == naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise ("It is false that a worm is in the apple")

Which is same as the strong claim that

== ro curnu naku nenri le plise ("All worms are not in the apple")

xorlo: lo curnu cu na nenri le plise

== lo curnu cu naku nenri le plise

xorxes can provide a gloss. "worm not in apple", by his earlier thoughts

Which no longer implies that every worm is not in the apple. In

fact, it would allow both

lo curnu cu na nenri le plise

and

lo curnu cu nenri le plise

to be simultaneously true.

Which completely breaks the consistency of the language, because

putting {na} before the selbri is the same as putting {naku} before

the whole deal, and presumably any true sentence negated by {naku}

should be false....

{naku lo curnu cu nenri} cannot equal {lo curnu naku nenri}.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAxy5bDrrilS51AZ8RAlMXAJ0fYl5OvNw0g1IuYkZwimA1Ut7yrwCePx0W

V+Mbi8Gu62oZJJzcH3MoiWI=

=DEWY

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> {ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu}.

Which is to say, "ci [lo pa] gerku".

--

Here lies the Christian, John Cowan

judge, and poet Peter, http://www.reutershealth.com

Who broke the laws of God http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

and man and metre. [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:50 GMT

Jordan:

> ...

> > > lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> > > dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

>

> The old {lo} does impose that it is a real, existing event, which

> occurs for at least one fox, who saw at least one tree, etc.

>

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but xorlo doesn't require that the fox

> actually exists. It could work just as well for me to say:

>

> lo pavyseljirna noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi srasu noi

> cpana lo rajma'a cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

Since we are talking about a fable here, I don't think it being

about lorxu or pavyseljirna makes any difference. If I remember

correctly the lorxu later has a conversation with the cipnrkorvo.

> (Of course the above could work in old-lo, but only in a work of

> fiction---no one will believe the speaker is talking about reality)

No one is supposed to believe that.

> > > lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

>

> What it means is

> Exx) . Ey(sipna_kumfa(y) . nenri(x, y?)

That's what it means with {su'o lo}, right.

With bare {lo}, I propose it should rather mean:

nenri(SINCE, SIPNA KUMFA)

No quantification implied.

> If you want that, why not say {since nenri kumfa}?

That's much more vague. It doesn't say that SINCE is in the x1

of nenri and KUMFA in the x2.

> You didn't adress my point about this killing the only well-defined

> article in the language. I think BPFK article changes should really

> go towards further formalization, rather than away from the small

> amount we currently have.

I think defining every not explicitly quantified term as not

quantified is a big step in that direction.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

G> Well, xorxes occasionally talks as though it did not, but it has to for what he wants it to do (but which it can't do anyhow as presently constituted).

H> Presumably because that means "Lo, the snake-inside type of room," which is not the utterance anyone around was trying to make (though I agree it is a handier way of doing things could we get the semantics and grammar to cooperate).

Jordan DeLong wrote:

...

> > Nick's aesop stuff:

> > lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> > dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

> > xorlo: Foxes are hungry and when they see some grapes

> > dangling from trees want to take them but can't.

> > old-lo: A fox, who was hungry, upon seeing some grapes in a tree

> > wanted to take them, but couldn't.

>

> Why do you translate the second as a particular event and the first one

> as a general event, given that there is no indication either way in

> the Lojban? old-lo could just as well be: "some foxes are hungry

> and when they see some grapes dangling from some trees want to

> take them but can't." The proposed {lo} does not impose a generic

> reading to the whole sentence, it is just not explicit as to instances.

> All it says is: "Fox, hungry, when sees that grape hangs from tree, wants

> get it but can't get". How you choose to fill the gaps must come from

> context.

The old {lo} does impose that it is a real, existing event, which

occurs for at least one fox, who saw at least one tree, etc.

G>Correct me if I'm wrong, but xorlo doesn't require that the fox

actually exists. It could work just as well for me to say:

lo pavyseljirna noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi srasu noi

cpana lo rajma'a cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

(Of course the above could work in old-lo, but only in a work of

fiction---no one will believe the speaker is talking about reality)

> > From my translation of Ambrose Bierce's "The Man and the Snake":

> >

> > lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

> > xorlo: Snakes are inside of bedrooms.

> > old-lo: There is a snake for whom there is a bedroom containing him.

>

> or: At least one snake is inside of at least one room.

Same thing. My gloss was intended to emphasize the logical structure

of it.

What it means is

Exx) . Ey(sipna_kumfa(y) . nenri(x, y?)

> With the proposed lo, I would simply say "snake inside room". How you

> turn that into more fluent English will depend on the context. {lo}

> adds nothing.

H>If you want that, why not say {since nenri kumfa}?

You didn't adress my point about this killing the only well-defined

article in the language. I think BPFK article changes should really

go towards further formalization, rather than away from the small

amount we currently have.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

Lord, I hope not: singletons don't bite bones (I am not sure about triads, but probably not). I suspect this is just a terminological problems, though working out the logic is a bitch — because of the quantifiers, as usual.

[email protected] wrote:Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> {ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu}.

Which is to say, "ci [lo pa] gerku".

--

Here lies the Christian, John Cowan

judge, and poet Peter, http://www.reutershealth.com

Who broke the laws of God http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

and man and metre. [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

H> That is exactly what the quantifier is.

I> Except that it doesn't work, and it leaves them without any reliable logic at all.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Jordan:

> ...

> > > lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> > > dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

>

> The old {lo} does impose that it is a real, existing event, which

> occurs for at least one fox, who saw at least one tree, etc.

>

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but xorlo doesn't require that the fox

> actually exists. It could work just as well for me to say:

>

> lo pavyseljirna noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi srasu noi

> cpana lo rajma'a cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

Since we are talking about a fable here, I don't think it being

about lorxu or pavyseljirna makes any difference. If I remember

correctly the lorxu later has a conversation with the cipnrkorvo.

> (Of course the above could work in old-lo, but only in a work of

> fiction---no one will believe the speaker is talking about reality)

No one is supposed to believe that.

> > > lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

>

> What it means is

> Exx) . Ey(sipna_kumfa(y) . nenri(x, y?)

That's what it means with {su'o lo}, right.

With bare {lo}, I propose it should rather mean:

nenri(SINCE, SIPNA KUMFA)

H>No quantification implied.

> If you want that, why not say {since nenri kumfa}?

That's much more vague. It doesn't say that SINCE is in the x1

of nenri and KUMFA in the x2.

> You didn't adress my point about this killing the only well-defined

> article in the language. I think BPFK article changes should really

> go towards further formalization, rather than away from the small

> amount we currently have.

I>I think defining every not explicitly quantified term as not

quantified is a big step in that direction.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

Jordan:

> Do I take you to mean that you think xorlo would make {lo broda}

> into a "constant term"?

No quantifier would ever be implicitly imposed, correct.

> Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

> lojban sentences.

Not any of the examples you have presented.

> {naku lo curnu cu nenri} cannot equal {lo curnu naku nenri}.

By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri}

cannot equal {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that

I'm not disputing.

I'm saying that without an explicit su'o, it is not a quantified

claim. It just means:

~ nenri(CURNU, )

and it is left to the context to fill the gaps. When? Where?

For every instance? Inside of what? etc.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

> > Do I take you to mean that you think xorlo would make {lo broda}

> > into a "constant term"?

>

> No quantifier would ever be implicitly imposed, correct.

>

> > Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

> > lojban sentences.

>

> Not any of the examples you have presented.

Currently {lo curnu cu na nenri le plise} means that *all* worms

in the entire world (if there are any worms) are not in the apple.

This meaning is not preserved if the naku can't move and make {su'o

lo curnu} into an assertion about {ro curnu}.

> > {naku lo curnu cu nenri} cannot equal {lo curnu naku nenri}.

>

> By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri}

> cannot equal {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that

> I'm not disputing.

...

No, I mean under any meaning of {lo}. If you allow {naku} to move

like that, you change the language so that prefixing a true assertion

with {naku} no longer produces a false assertion. In lojban I

believe this currently works for all sentences which have a

truth-value.

Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does not

imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAxzauDrrilS51AZ8RAlbkAJ9CsghnTx91Fy/sdV/gKIQQdZ4fvACfedIb

mpEuRw0AQo+Om1WqKJy1UA4=

=PIey

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

> > ...

> > > > lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> > > > dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

> >

> > The old {lo} does impose that it is a real, existing event, which

> > occurs for at least one fox, who saw at least one tree, etc.

> >

> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but xorlo doesn't require that the fox

> > actually exists. It could work just as well for me to say:

> >

> > lo pavyseljirna noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi srasu noi

> > cpana lo rajma'a cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

>

> Since we are talking about a fable here, I don't think it being

> about lorxu or pavyseljirna makes any difference. If I remember

> correctly the lorxu later has a conversation with the cipnrkorvo.

It's just an example sentence; that it's from a fable is a nonissue.

An equivalent sentence for our purposes can be constructed which

isn't from a work of fiction.

But in the context of the fable, we're supposed to believe it is

true. The fable creates an imaginary world---in that world there

really is at least one fox who saw a tree and so on. The {lo}

asserts its existence---it is not a generic statement about how

foxes behave when they see berries in a tree.

...

> > > > lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

> >

> > What it means is

> > Exx) . Ey(sipna_kumfa(y) . nenri(x, y?)

>

> That's what it means with {su'o lo}, right.

> With bare {lo}, I propose it should rather mean:

>

> nenri(SINCE, SIPNA KUMFA)

>

> No quantification implied.

Right. Which is a very big change to the meaning of the sentence,

as well as a reduction in formalism.

...

> > You didn't adress my point about this killing the only well-defined

> > article in the language. I think BPFK article changes should really

> > go towards further formalization, rather than away from the small

> > amount we currently have.

>

> I think defining every not explicitly quantified term as not

> quantified is a big step in that direction.

OTOH, I think all terms (excepting non-logical ones like ma) should

be definable in terms of quantified variables.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAxzhpDrrilS51AZ8RAk20AJ9U6KyBOQoKD7SK5nR24Zg5xKFM5wCfS7FN

II7JMzZ2lODul+YKiQbTSSc=

=Uqjw

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

Jordan:

> > > Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

> > > lojban sentences.

> >

> > Not any of the examples you have presented.

> Currently {lo curnu cu na nenri le plise} means that *all* worms

> in the entire world (if there are any worms) are not in the apple.

> This meaning is not preserved if the naku can't move and make {su'o

> lo curnu} into an assertion about {ro curnu}.

Sorry, I thought you meant usage sentences. Usage sentences usually

have a context so that such absolute terms hardly apply.

> Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does not

> imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

Give me context!

{mi nenri le mi zdani} does not necessarily imply that

{naku mi nenri le mi zdani} is false, I need to know if you want

to keep every other possible circumstance constant or not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:10:19AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>

>

>>With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

>>outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

>>and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

>>like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

>>their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

>>can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

>>quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

>>

>>With CLL-defaults, {le broda} and {la broda} are pseudo-constants,

>>they carry a quantifier but they usually have a single referent, so

>>the transformations "usually" work. The proposal, by requiring

>>explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

>>logic of terms much cleaner.

>>

>>

>

>Yes, but apparently it does so by breaking past usage of {lo}.

>

>Sorry, but this strikes me as one of the areas where {lo} is _supposed_ to be

>different from {le} and {la} - it can refer to different things at different

>times. Making {lo} generic is great. But if it's generic, it has to be able to

>mean {su'o} in some contexts, and {su'o} is not a constant.

>

>Sorry if I'm getting pissy. You were _so_ close to an entirely agreeable

>proposal about {lo} that handled all past usage, but now constants are smeared

>all over it.

>

>

In order to even mention past usage as a factor, you have to show that

the past usage is meaningful: that it was used in a consistent way by

people who understood how they were using it, and with all

contradictions recognized by consensus as *mistakes*. Otherwise, past

usage breaks past usage, and you are restricting us with the impossible

task of upholding contradiction.

The only way this new lo was able to get out of committee — having been

kicked around for easily a year on jboske, the record of which you all

are invited to study at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/ — is the

fact that su'oda is available for your logical precision pleasure.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> > Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does not

> > imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

>

> Give me context!

It doesn't matter what the context may be as long as it's fixed.

--

John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.

Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.

--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 16:51 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:11:26AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> No, I mean under any meaning of {lo}. If you allow {naku} to move

> like that, you change the language so that prefixing a true assertion

> with {naku} no longer produces a false assertion. In lojban I believe

> this currently works for all sentences which have a truth-value.

You're joking, right?

mi vofli

do na ka'e vofli

mi pu vofli se pi'o le vinji

All of these sentences are true.

Remember, neither the tense nor CAhA status are actually part of the

sentence unless specified.

I don't see a substantial difference between that an the new lo stuff.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT

The new notation here (OK, so I've seen it once before today) suggests that {lo broda} is now being taken as a species or a property or a set or some such abstract thing. This makes perfectly good sense and fits more of xorxes tales than Mr. Rabbit, a "concrete object." But it does raise another set of problems: how to tell the difference between what is said about the abstract in the web of abstractions from what is said of it in the web of facts, for example, how to tell whether nenri(curnu, plise) merely says that worms are the sort of things that might be inside apples or says that worms actually are inside apples from time to time and place to place. Tenseless Lojban sentences have the same problem (officially) and it is resolved (offically and actually) by context. But, just in case, we need also an offical way (as we do with vague tenses like {su'oroi}) to disambiguate without losing too much of the original intent. Such ways exist, and, if we decide to use {lo} in this

way, will have to explored. While the basic sentences are still the same, the disambiguations are mildly hairy.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Jordan:

> Do I take you to mean that you think xorlo would make {lo broda}

> into a "constant term"?

No quantifier would ever be implicitly imposed, correct.

> Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

> lojban sentences.

Not any of the examples you have presented.

> {naku lo curnu cu nenri} cannot equal {lo curnu naku nenri}.

By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri}

cannot equal {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that

I'm not disputing.

I'm saying that without an explicit su'o, it is not a quantified

claim. It just means:

~ nenri(CURNU, )

and it is left to the context to fill the gaps. When? Where?

For every instance? Inside of what? etc.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:19:29PM -0400, [email protected]

wrote:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > > Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does

> > > not imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

> >

> > Give me context!

>

> It doesn't matter what the context may be as long as it's fixed.

That's not his point; you snipped the important part:

{mi nenri le mi zdani} does not necessarily imply that {naku mi

nenri le mi zdani} is false, I need to know if you want to keep

every other possible circumstance constant or not.

Note that that sentence does not use "lo".

It has *never* been the case that a sentence without *everything*

specified (tense & CAhA, at a bare minimum) always asserted that its

negation was untrue.

mi ca nenri le mi zdani == mi nenri le mi zdani

mi pu na nenri le mi zdani == mi na nenri le mi zdani

If you think "mi nenri le mi zdani" always implies that "mi na nenri le

mi zdani" is false, without context, you are living in a fantasy world.

Nevermind CAhA, which just makes things worse, or the tricks I could

pull with BAI.

I've never used "lo" in this post, but I'm able to produce the exact

same problems that Jordan (and, apparently, you) are complaining about.

If you want these problems to go away (hah!) it's going to take a hell

of a lot more than changing xorlo.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT

Well, suppose that we intend to keep all the preverb the same in both cases, whatever it unspecifiedly is. That is, suppose that the {naku} sentence is meant to be exactly the denial of the unnegated form. This is, after all, what the question was.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Jordan:

> > > Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

> > > lojban sentences.

> >

> > Not any of the examples you have presented.

> Currently {lo curnu cu na nenri le plise} means that *all* worms

> in the entire world (if there are any worms) are not in the apple.

> This meaning is not preserved if the naku can't move and make {su'o

> lo curnu} into an assertion about {ro curnu}.

Sorry, I thought you meant usage sentences. Usage sentences usually

have a context so that such absolute terms hardly apply.

> Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does not

> imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

Give me context!

{mi nenri le mi zdani} does not necessarily imply that

{naku mi nenri le mi zdani} is false, I need to know if you want

to keep every other possible circumstance constant or not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT

"Past usage" is a generic term — it does not require that *all* past usage be covered, nor even that most of it be. In the case of Lojban, we actually have a normative description of what past usage *should* be, against which we may discover that much actual past usage fails. But what remains, even if it is only one passage, has a special claim on being supported by any change. Actually, it seems that most past usage is pretty much OK, although the pragmatics of the situations have not been explored or exploited. the criticisms have generally been from that part of the issue — and have generally been as misleading andd misled as the examples criticized.

Even if we have {su'o} for greater precision, it still remains a question whether the new {lo} does anything useful, let alone whether it does what it is claimed to do. And whether ti does it better than old {lo}.

xod wrote:

In order to even mention past usage as a factor, you have to show that

the past usage is meaningful: that it was used in a consistent way by

people who understood how they were using it, and with all

contradictions recognized by consensus as *mistakes*. Otherwise, past

usage breaks past usage, and you are restricting us with the impossible

task of upholding contradiction.

The only way this new lo was able to get out of committee — having been

kicked around for easily a year on jboske, the record of which you all

are invited to study at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/ — is the

fact that su'oda is available for your logical precision pleasure.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 17:17 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:04:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> For example? Only if you were relying on the implicit quantifier

> to transmit something significant is the usage broken. I don't

> see many examples of that.

I have no problem with the implicit quantifiers being removed; I think it's a

good idea.

But the claim that it sounds like you're making is that {lo jvugi} *always*

refers to jvugis in general. This may not be what you mean, but it sounds like

what you're saying.

The way I read the proposal when I liked it, {lo jvugi} could mean any of

  • one jvugi
  • many jvugis
  • jvugis in general
  • intensional jvugis

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT

Rob:

> The way I read the proposal when I liked it, {lo jvugi} could mean any of

> * one jvugi

> * many jvugis

> * jvugis in general

> * intensional jvugis

The way I understand it, lo jvugi does not mean any of them,

but can cover cases where any of them would apply. When

you use {lo jvugi} you are not making the claim that one jvugi

does this or that, nor that jvugis in general do this

or that. All you are doing is making the x1 of jvugi coincide

with whatever slot you fill and leaving everything else to

context (or other precision words, like possibly quantifiers

over instances).

Outside of all context, sentences with {lo jvugi} are easiest

to interpret as claims about jvugis in general, but that's

just the way out of context sentences work. If you have a

jvugi right in front of view and say {lo jvugi ca ca'o clani}

you may be just reflecting what you see: jvugi is being long.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:28:28AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Rob:

> > The way I read the proposal when I liked it, {lo jvugi} could mean

> > any of

> > * one jvugi

> > * many jvugis

> > * jvugis in general

> > * intensional jvugis

>

> The way I understand it, lo jvugi does not mean any of them,

> but can cover cases where any of them would apply.

Dude, you write kick-ass proposals, but you don't explain them so good.

Rob: Yes, you are correct.

:-)

> Outside of all context, sentences with {lo jvugi} are easiest

> to interpret as claims about jvugis in general, but that's

> just the way out of context sentences work.

I think that sentence is important to keep in mind.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT

Jordan:

> OTOH, I think all terms (excepting non-logical ones like ma) should

> be definable in terms of quantified variables.

Consider the term {zo lo}.

zo lo cmavo

"lo" is a cmavo

mi ciska reno zo lo le papri

I write 20 "lo"s on the page.

Would it even cross you mind to think of instances of zo lo

in the first sentence? The second sentence clearly deals with

instances, the first one doesn't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> > > {ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu}.

> >

> > Which is to say, "ci [lo pa] gerku".

> >

> Lord, I hope not: singletons don't bite bones (I am not sure about

> triads, but probably not). I suspect this is just a terminological

> problems, though working out the logic is a bitch — because of the

> quantifiers, as usual.

When there is an outer quantifier to lo, but no inner quantifier, it

retains its meaning of quantifying over individuals, for the sake of

backward compatibility. This is a wart, but a necessary one.

--

We call nothing profound [email protected]

that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan

--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT

pc:

> for

> example, how to tell whether nenri(curnu, plise) merely says that worms are

> the sort of things that might be inside apples or says that worms actually

> are inside apples from time to time and place to place.

{ka'e}, {ca'a}, {su'oroi}, {so'iroi}, {fe'e su'oroi}, {fe'eso'iroi}, etc.

> Tenseless Lojban

> sentences have the same problem (officially) and it is resolved (offically

> and actually) by context.

Right.

> But, just in case, we need also an offical way (as

> we do with vague tenses like {su'oroi}) to disambiguate without losing too

> much of the original intent. Such ways exist, and, if we decide to use {lo}

> in this

> way, will have to explored. While the basic sentences are still the same,

> the disambiguations are mildly hairy.

We have, of course, explicit quantifiers to use when needed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:04 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> It has *never* been the case that a sentence without *everything*

> specified (tense & CAhA, at a bare minimum) always asserted that its

> negation was untrue.

>

> mi ca nenri le mi zdani == mi nenri le mi zdani

>

> mi pu na nenri le mi zdani == mi na nenri le mi zdani

>

> If you think "mi nenri le mi zdani" always implies that "mi na nenri le

> mi zdani" is false, without context, you are living in a fantasy world.

I see your meta-argument and raise you one meta.

No sentence has any meaning at all without a specification of context,

because some things must always be left to the context. There are after

all an infinite amount of places that could be attached to a bridi --

one for each place of each possible selbri, using fi'o.

Now, given a particular context, the bridi "naku broda" and "broda" are

contradictories: if one is true, the other is false, for any binding of

"broda" whatsoever. Any argument that purports to upset that is bogus,

bogus, and more bogus. By the same token, in two different contexts, no

statements can be made about the relationship between the truth values of

"broda" and "naku broda".

I agree that this has nothing to do with "lo" specifically.

--

"Well, I'm back." --Sam John Cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 18:45 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:54:51PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:

> Now, given a particular context, the bridi "naku broda" and "broda"

> are contradictories: if one is true, the other is false, for any

> binding of "broda" whatsoever. Any argument that purports to upset

> that is bogus, bogus, and more bogus.

Well, there's "le'e", but I suppose the person speaking counts as part

of the context.

What about the mass gadri? I thought it was part of the lore of masses

that they had all the features of their members, such that the mass of

all lions is both male and female?

> By the same token, in two different contexts, no statements can be

> made about the relationship between the truth values of "broda" and

> "naku broda".

>

> I agree that this has nothing to do with "lo" specifically.

Good.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

jcowan:

> Now, given a particular context, the bridi "naku broda" and "broda" are

> contradictories: if one is true, the other is false, for any binding of

> "broda" whatsoever. Any argument that purports to upset that is bogus,

> bogus, and more bogus.

Agreed. Sometimes though, given a context it is hard to determine

what exactly the speaker means with a vague sentence. Suppose we

are in front of a wall with white and yellow spots. Someone asks

{xu le bitmu cu pelxu}.

The natural answer is neither {ja'a go'i} nor {na go'i},

but something more explicative. Either answer could be defended

depending on your suppositions.

Similarly, if there are some jvugis inside and others outside

the box, and someone asks {xu lo jvugi cu nenri}, "jvugi inside?"

the most natural answer is neither {ja'a go'i} nor {na go'i} but

something more explicative (like {su'oboi jy go'i}). Both answers

can be defended depending on your suppositions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri}

> cannot equal {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that

> I'm not disputing.

But you do say that {naku lo curnu cu nenri} equals {lo curnu naku nenri},

and you say that {lo} can mean {su'o lo}, so there's a problem somewhere.

What advantage does negation transparency give us that it's worth all this

metaphysical debate to get?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> What about the mass gadri? I thought it was part of the lore of masses

> that they had all the features of their members, such that the mass of

> all lions is both male and female?

Very true. So "loi cinfo cu nakni" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na nakni"

is false) and "loi cinfo cu fetsi" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na fetsi"

is false). This is not a *contradiction*, just surprising.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan

Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:

"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"

El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

On Wednesday 09 June 2004 15:40, [email protected] wrote:

> Very true. So "loi cinfo cu nakni" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na nakni"

> is false) and "loi cinfo cu fetsi" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na fetsi"

> is false). This is not a *contradiction*, just surprising.

Also {loi cinfo naku nakni} is true, as is {loi cinfo naku fetsi}. However,

{loi figre naku fetsi} is false: ro figre bezu'i cu fetsi po'o (to se grute

le se citka toi) gi'onai fetsi joibo nakni (to kanbyfigre toi). iji'a da poi

se skargolu zo'u lo nakni cu binxo lo fetsi, and I'll let you figure out what

to say about loi skargolu be da.

mu'omi'e pier.

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:56:19PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 15:40, [email protected] wrote:

> > Very true. So "loi cinfo cu nakni" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na

> > nakni" is false) and "loi cinfo cu fetsi" is true (and "loi cinfo cu

> > na fetsi" is false). This is not a *contradiction*, just

> > surprising.

>

> Also {loi cinfo naku nakni} is true, as is {loi cinfo naku fetsi}.

Help the poor confused person, please.

What's the difference between

"loi cinfo naku nakni" and "loi cinfo na nakni"?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> What's the difference between

>

> "loi cinfo naku nakni" and "loi cinfo na nakni"?

In XS (Xorxes's Solution), nothing, as best I understand.

In CLL, the former meant "The mass-of-all-lions is not wholly male",

and the latter meant "The mass-of-all-lions is not male in any part".

That was because "loi" = "pisu'o loi", so the pisu'o changes to piro as

the negation boundary passes over it. (In XS, if you want "pisu'o loi",

you say so.)

The two can be paraphrased more narrowly as "For some part of the

total-lion-mass, it is false that it is male" and "It is false that some

part of the total-lion-mass is male."

In any case, the first is true and the second is false.

--

"And it was said that ever after, if any John Cowan

man looked in that Stone, unless he had a [email protected]

great strength of will to turn it to other www.ccil.org/~cowan

purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering www.reutershealth.com

in flame." --"The Pyre of Denethor"



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

On Wednesday 09 June 2004 16:13, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Help the poor confused person, please.

>

> What's the difference between

>

> "loi cinfo naku nakni" and "loi cinfo na nakni"?

{loi cinfo na nakni} = {naku loi cinfo cu nakni}. Since many of the lions are

male, the mass is male, so that's false.

{loi cinfo naku nakni}. Since many of the lions are non-male, the mass is

non-male, so that's true.

But among figs, all are female, but only some are male. So {loi figre naku

fetsi} is false.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:46 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:19:29PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Jordan:

> > > Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does

> > > not imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

> >

> > Give me context!

>

> It doesn't matter what the context may be as long as it's fixed.

All of my response deals only with xorlo.

For any *fixed* context, including the binding of the constant (which is

only in the speaker's head), "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" implies that

"naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise" is false (assuming I understand naku,

which is false).

However, there is nothing the requires the speaker to maintain the

binding of the constant from one statement to the next, and that's where

the problem is.

There is nothing wrong with the following interchange:

A: lo curnu cu nenri le plise

B: .i ma curnu

A: ro curnu poi nenri le plise .iji'a naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise

B: .i .oisai ma curnu

A: ro curnu poi na nenri le plise

My question is, is "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" false if there is, in

fact, no worm in the apple? I believe that it is false in that case,

but I'd like others' opinions. Assuming I'm right, the above exchange

is only sensible if there is at least one worm in the apple.

Now, if it was "lo curnu cu nenri *lo* plise", that would be different.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:52:25AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri} cannot equal

> > {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that I'm not disputing.

>

> But you do say that {naku lo curnu cu nenri} equals {lo curnu naku

> nenri}, and you say that {lo} can mean {su'o lo}, so there's a problem

> somewhere.

"lo" can mean "su'o lo" in the sense that "lo broda" can mean "One or

more broda", but it is not logically quantified at any point.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> For any *fixed* context, including the binding of the constant (which is

> only in the speaker's head), "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" implies that

> "naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise" is false (assuming I understand naku,

> which is false).

Naku at the beginning is easy: it's exactly "It is false that ...".

> However, there is nothing the requires the speaker to maintain the

> binding of the constant from one statement to the next, and that's where

> the problem is.

Granted, but if the speaker varies things too wildly, the listener will

get confused, and Lojban is intended to be listener-centric: if the

listener doesn't get it, the speaker has a (Gricean) obligation to

amplify.

> A: lo curnu cu nenri le plise

> B: .i ma curnu

> A: ro curnu poi nenri le plise .iji'a naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise

> B: .i .oisai ma curnu

> A: ro curnu poi na nenri le plise

All serene, provided some but not all worms are in the apple. One can

construct similar dialogues without using anything like lo, however:

A: rants about Socrates

B: Who is Socrates?

A: train of thought derailed Why, Socrates is the person I call "Socrates",

to be sure.

B: Yes, but whom do you call "Socrates"?

A: Why, Socrates, of course. Do pay attention. resumes rant

> My question is, is "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" false if there is, in

> fact, no worm in the apple? I believe that it is false in that case,

Subject to reasonable assumptions (which are themselves part of the

context), such as that the tense is "caca'a" and that there is no

implicit BAI or FIhO hanging about, and so on: then yes.

> Assuming I'm right, the above exchange

> is only sensible if there is at least one worm in the apple.

I think so too. The snag comes in when we say "lo -unicorn cu blabi", there

being no unicorns. I think we either assume we're in a fantasy world, or

we have to reword this as talk of concepts rather than things.

> Now, if it was "lo curnu cu nenri *lo* plise", that would be different.

This is falsified if there are no wormy apples, IMHO.

--

John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.

--Albert Einstein



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:58:52PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > My question is, is "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" false if there is,

> > in fact, no worm in the apple? I believe that it is false in that

> > case,

>

> Subject to reasonable assumptions (which are themselves part of the

> context), such as that the tense is "caca'a" and that there is no

> implicit BAI or FIhO hanging about, and so on: then yes.

>

> > Assuming I'm right, the above exchange is only sensible if there is

> > at least one worm in the apple.

>

> I think so too. The snag comes in when we say "lo -unicorn cu blabi",

> there being no unicorns. I think we either assume we're in a fantasy

> world, or we have to reword this as talk of concepts rather than

> things.

Actually, that causes no problems WRT the nenri example. If one

translates "lo pavyseljirna cu blabi" as "The idea of unicorns is white"

(as you are welcome to do; xorlo is empty after all), one could then

complain that "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" should be translated as "The

idea of a worm is in this apple", to which I would respond that, since

you are talking about a particular apple, it's contents are precisely

determinable and all of them can be compared to the idea of a worm for a

match if you wish.

Then I would slap one for being annoying.

> > Now, if it was "lo curnu cu nenri *lo* plise", that would be

> > different.

>

> This is falsified if there are no wormy apples, IMHO.

Agreed, as long as there have *never* been any wormy apples, even in

someone's head:

ca lo purlamcte mi senva la'e di'e .i lo curnu cu pu nenri lo plise

The xorlo mantra: "xorlo adds nothing".

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:32:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:28:28AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> >

> > Rob:

> > > The way I read the proposal when I liked it, {lo jvugi} could mean

> > > any of

> > > * one jvugi

> > > * many jvugis

> > > * jvugis in general

> > > * intensional jvugis

> >

> > The way I understand it, lo jvugi does not mean any of them,

> > but can cover cases where any of them would apply.

>

> Dude, you write kick-ass proposals, but you don't explain them so good.

>

> Rob: Yes, you are correct.

You see, I don't want {lo} to mean some weird concept that is supposed to

be all of those at the same time. You're having a difficult time convincing

most people that such a concept makes any sense at all. And though PC can be a

pain, he's also a logician, and I will trust him when he says your overarching

concept makes no sense.

I want {lo} to literally mean {su'o} some of the time, because that's how you

encompass past usage.

So which does it mean?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, xod wrote:

> In order to even mention past usage as a factor, you have to show that

> the past usage is meaningful: that it was used in a consistent way by

> people who understood how they were using it, and with all

> contradictions recognized by consensus as *mistakes*. Otherwise, past

> usage breaks past usage, and you are restricting us with the impossible

> task of upholding contradiction.

Please clarify: are you saying that {lo} has never been used correctly to mean

{su'o}? Or are you saying that using {lo} to mean {su'o} was a mistake?

I will repeat: before the constants fiasco, you *had* a proposal that

encompassed past usage, by making the meaning of {lo} unspecified.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> I want {lo} to literally mean {su'o} some of the time, because that's

> how you encompass past usage.

>

> So which does it mean?

By "literally mean {su'o}", you mean up to and including logical

quantification?

xorlo is definately not ever logically quantified.

I have yet to be convinced that the logical quantification of lo has

been relied upon in practice more than a handful of times, but then I

haven't finished studying Jordan's post.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> I will repeat: before the constants fiasco, you *had* a proposal that

> encompassed past usage, by making the meaning of {lo} unspecified.

Explain to me the difference between the two, please.

If the meaning of lo is unspecified, then we clearly cannot allow

logical quantification or naku movement or whatever across, because we

have no idea what it means. So we're back at constants, as far as I can

tell.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > I will repeat: before the constants fiasco, you *had* a proposal that

> > encompassed past usage, by making the meaning of {lo} unspecified.

>

> Explain to me the difference between the two, please.

>

> If the meaning of lo is unspecified, then we clearly cannot allow

> logical quantification or naku movement or whatever across, because we

> have no idea what it means. So we're back at constants, as far as I can

> tell.

What do you mean by logical quantification here? And what's so important about

naku movement that it's worth breaking the proposal for (given that it's

been used repeatedly as a justification for constants)?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 09 of June, 2004 21:47 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > I want {lo} to literally mean {su'o} some of the time, because that's

> > how you encompass past usage.

> >

> > So which does it mean?

>

> By "literally mean {su'o}", you mean up to and including logical

> quantification?

Sure. If the quantifiers aren't there, they should be unspecified, and it

should be possible for them to be {su'o lo ro} (by the old lo), which I think

is {su'o lo pa} by the new lo.

--

Rob Speer


I disagree


Posted by PierreAbbat on Wed 09 of June, 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 324

I am changing my vote to "no". I understand why we need an article for things that really broda but may not exist, such as unicorns, CCJ's fingernail, and the doctor I need. But if when applied to things that do exist, it violates the law of inverting the quantifier when {naku} passes through it, and something can be both inside and outside the box, I don't accept that.

phma



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:53 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > > I want {lo} to literally mean {su'o} some of the time, because

> > > that's how you encompass past usage.

> > >

> > > So which does it mean?

> >

> > By "literally mean {su'o}", you mean up to and including logical

> > quantification?

>

> Sure. If the quantifiers aren't there, they should be unspecified, and

> it should be possible for them to be {su'o lo ro} (by the old lo),

> which I think is {su'o lo pa} by the new lo.

So you would rather that "lo mlatu na fetsi" have the options of meaning

"No cats are female", correct?

I honestly don't care one way or the other. Optional, unspecified outer

quantifiers bothers me very little.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:53 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:05:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> I disagree

>

> I am changing my vote to "no". I understand why we need an article for

> things that really broda but may not exist, such as unicorns, CCJ's

> fingernail, and the doctor I need. But if when applied to things that

> do exist, it violates the law of inverting the quantifier when {naku}

> passes through it, and something can be both inside and outside the

> box, I don't accept that.

Nothing can be both inside and outside the box. Please read my other

posts. The context, and in particular the binding of "lo broda" can

vary between two statements, but that's not the same thing.

Aside from all that, as jatna I expect a counter-proposal along with

your No vote.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > > I will repeat: before the constants fiasco, you *had* a proposal

> > > that encompassed past usage, by making the meaning of {lo}

> > > unspecified.

> >

> > Explain to me the difference between the two, please.

> >

> > If the meaning of lo is unspecified, then we clearly cannot allow

> > logical quantification or naku movement or whatever across, because

> > we have no idea what it means. So we're back at constants, as far

> > as I can tell.

>

> What do you mean by logical quantification here?

Quantification that can be affected by naku movemunt.

> And what's so important about naku movement that it's worth breaking

> the proposal for (given that it's been used repeatedly as a

> justification for constants)?

OK, I'm the wrong person to ask, but in CLL lo, the following are all

equivalent:

lo mlatu cu na fetsi

su'o da poi mlatu cu na fetsi

naku su'o da poi mlatu cu fetsi

Which means "It is not the case that there is at least on female cat".

In other words, if you actually use the quantifiers correctly, "lo mlatu

cu na fetsi" means "No cats are female".

It is absolutely trivial to find people using lo in a way that violates

this, and nearly impossible to find people using lo in a way that does

not violate this, where it applies, but Jordan doesn't seem to care.

lo skami ca'a na spofu — found on IRC in about twenty seconds of

searching. It is unlikely that the user meant to state that there

actually are *no* broken computers.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 08:57:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> noras:

> > "ma'i la midju terdi la sadam na sai me la sauron" "In Middle

> > Earth-terms, Saddam is by no means a 'Sauron'."

> >

> > You really have 2 reference-frames wanted here: the real world and

> > Middle Earth. Saddam is in one, and the Sauron is in the other. I

> > read the lojban as setting the "world" to Middle Earth for the whole

> > sentence, in which case "Saddam" is meaningless. The Middle Earth

> > reference-frame applies only to 'Sauron'. So I suggest "la sadam na

> > sai me la sauron pe ma'i la midju terdi" = "Saddam is by no means a

> > 'Sauron'-of-middle-earth"

>

> The predicate here is {me la sauron}. Don't BAI tags add a place to

> the predicate,

Yes, but the only BAI is ma'i.

> so that we have "x1 is a 'Sauron' by standard x"?

Sort of.

me ME sumti to selbri

convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is

specific to sumti in aspect x2

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>OK, I'm the wrong person to ask, but in CLL lo, the following are all

>equivalent:

>

>lo mlatu cu na fetsi

>

>su'o da poi mlatu cu na fetsi

>

>naku su'o da poi mlatu cu fetsi

>

>Which means "It is not the case that there is at least on female cat".

>

>In other words, if you actually use the quantifiers correctly, "lo mlatu

>cu na fetsi" means "No cats are female".

>

>

I thought the whole thing with na-movement was that quantifiers get

inverted when the pass a na-boundary. So {su'o da poi mlatu na fetsi}

becomes {naku roda fetsi}, i.e. "it is not the case that all cats are

female," which is what the naïve meaning of {lo mlatu na fetsi} is:

"some cat is not female".

Right?

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:07:47PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>

> >OK, I'm the wrong person to ask, but in CLL lo, the following are all

> >equivalent:

> >

> >lo mlatu cu na fetsi

> >

> >su'o da poi mlatu cu na fetsi

> >

> >naku su'o da poi mlatu cu fetsi

> >

> >Which means "It is not the case that there is at least on female

> >cat".

> >

> >In other words, if you actually use the quantifiers correctly, "lo

> >mlatu cu na fetsi" means "No cats are female".

>

> I thought the whole thing with na-movement was that quantifiers get

> inverted when the pass a na-boundary. So {su'o da poi mlatu na fetsi}

> becomes {naku roda fetsi}, i.e. "it is not the case that all cats are

> female," which is what the na??ve meaning of {lo mlatu na fetsi} is:

> "some cat is not female".

Nope. na broda == naku broda .

You're thinking of naku broda , which is another beast

entirely.

Or so John tells me.

-Rboin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>I thought the whole thing with na-movement was that quantifiers get

>inverted when the pass a na-boundary. So {su'o da poi mlatu na fetsi}

>becomes {naku roda fetsi}, i.e. "it is not the case that all cats are

>

>

Um. That's {naku ro mlatu cu fetsi}. Sorry.

>female," which is what the naïve meaning of {lo mlatu na fetsi} is:

>"some cat is not female".

>

>Right?

>

>~mark

>

>

>

>



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:17:15PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>

> >I thought the whole thing with na-movement was that quantifiers get

> >inverted when the pass a na-boundary. So {su'o da poi mlatu na

> >fetsi} becomes {naku roda fetsi}, i.e. "it is not the case that all

> >cats are

> >

> >

> Um. That's {naku ro mlatu cu fetsi}. Sorry.

Except it's not.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:38:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

...

> It is absolutely trivial to find people using lo in a way that violates

> this, and nearly impossible to find people using lo in a way that does

> not violate this, where it applies, but Jordan doesn't seem to care.

Nope, I don't care.

Wrong usage is wrong usage. This was on the gotchas page back when

I first got involved lojban, and probably is still there.

I've tried to use it correctly in my translations. And recall at

least one occasion where I tried to get xorxes to fix a broken

sentence in le cmalu nolraitru (but he didn't want to .u'i).

> lo skami ca'a na spofu — found on IRC in about twenty seconds of

> searching. It is unlikely that the user meant to state that there

> actually are *no* broken computers.

IRC has a *lot* of incorrect usage. It's off the top of people's

heads, remember.

Believe it or not, I totally agree with xod that "past usage" cannot

be globally held up as a test, since the vast majority of past usage

is either incorrect or maybe-correct, pending bpfk descisions.

We shouldn't make frivolous changes---meaning changes to the language

as defined (as distinct from the language as used)---but priority

number one should be having things make sense (in particular in the

gadri system), and in some cases that'll potentially conflict with

past usage.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAx7C6DrrilS51AZ8RAo7IAKDMXKmx7wYTzXApy6zOZ7/o8BqEXACgugnK

hUggcm066otUTLSLAwr6mew=

=0Wz7

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:52:10PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

I had nothing useful to say to the rest; good points all

> Believe it or not, I totally agree with xod that "past usage" cannot

> be globally held up as a test, since the vast majority of past usage

> is either incorrect or maybe-correct, pending bpfk descisions.

>

> We shouldn't make frivolous changes---meaning changes to the language

> as defined (as distinct from the language as used)---but priority

> number one should be having things make sense (in particular in the

> gadri system), and in some cases that'll potentially conflict with

> past usage.

I actually disagreed with that prioritization. Past usage is, for me,

more important than making sense, for some value of "making sense".

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:05:47AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

> > > > Please note that this *drastically* changes the meaning of some

> > > > lojban sentences.

> > >

> > > Not any of the examples you have presented.

> > Currently {lo curnu cu na nenri le plise} means that *all* worms

> > in the entire world (if there are any worms) are not in the apple.

> > This meaning is not preserved if the naku can't move and make {su'o

> > lo curnu} into an assertion about {ro curnu}.

>

> Sorry, I thought you meant usage sentences. Usage sentences usually

> have a context so that such absolute terms hardly apply.

I'm not sure what you mean by this....

> > Do you agree that under xorlo {lo curnu cu nenri le plise} does not

> > imply that {naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise} is false?

>

> Give me context!

>

> {mi nenri le mi zdani} does not necessarily imply that

> {naku mi nenri le mi zdani} is false, I need to know if you want

> to keep every other possible circumstance constant or not.

This replies to Robin's post also:

Keep the context the same. Assume no CAhA trickery. Etc.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAx7dwDrrilS51AZ8RAlSgAJ9ZhocuGQMRhD/gqSLD5LaL+dEPVgCgq/EW

fyX4Obn7k+RFVLzniAVUlg4=

=foWg

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:46:00AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

> > OTOH, I think all terms (excepting non-logical ones like ma) should

> > be definable in terms of quantified variables.

>

> Consider the term {zo lo}.

>

> zo lo cmavo

> "lo" is a cmavo

>

> mi ciska reno zo lo le papri

> I write 20 "lo"s on the page.

>

> Would it even cross you mind to think of instances of zo lo

> in the first sentence? The second sentence clearly deals with

> instances, the first one doesn't.

Quoted things can be a primative. They need to be considered in

the manner which names would have to be (some X such that X is that

particular thing).

I don't know whether quantification of "zo " works in the

manner you used it in the second sentence, and would suggest probably

not. It is grammatical, but probably because no one thought to go

out of their way to disalow it.

Check out x1 of lerfu. {la'e zo .abu} refers to a lerfu, but {naku

zo .abu lerfu}; zo .abu refers to the one and only lojban string

".abu".

To refer to the actualy letters on the page you don't want to use

quoted things---there's no quoted things on the page, only real

things. So {mi renoroi ciska zo lo le papri} seems better.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAx7msDrrilS51AZ8RAvAyAJ4tylK8Ie3S02ZkURrYp2skUyVE6wCgrNQu

UOe8k3vGcYV915V2V/Glm70=

=pgY/

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wednesday 09 June 2004 18:16, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Nothing can be both inside and outside the box. Please read my other

> posts. The context, and in particular the binding of "lo broda" can

> vary between two statements, but that's not the same thing.

>

> Aside from all that, as jatna I expect a counter-proposal along with

> your No vote.

There has been way too much volume of discussion for me to digest it all, and

I still don't grok intensions, and I have some RL work to do, but here's a

try:

{lo broda} means one or more of those things that actually broda. If there are

none, which may be inherent in {broda} or may be indicated by another selbri

in the sentence, such as {claxu}, then it means one or more of those things

that actually broda, in some world where they exist.

Ex.: {la katr,in. claxu lo degji jgalu}. {lo degji jgalu} refers to the

fingernail which she has in some other world, which she lacks in this one.

{lo pavyseljirna cu blabi}. This means that in some world where unicorns

exist, there is at least one white one.

If one occurrence of {lo broda} is a sumti of more than one selbri, it means

the same one or more broda to all those selbri. If more than one {lo broda}

occurs, they can refer to different broda.

I'd like it to be intensional as well as quantified, but I don't know how to

word that. Can you write it better?

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT

On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:30, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> Quoted things can be a primative. They need to be considered in

> the manner which names would have to be (some X such that X is that

> particular thing).

>

> I don't know whether quantification of "zo " works in the

> manner you used it in the second sentence, and would suggest probably

> not. It is grammatical, but probably because no one thought to go

> out of their way to disalow it.

>

> Check out x1 of lerfu. {la'e zo .abu} refers to a lerfu, but {naku

> zo .abu lerfu}; zo .abu refers to the one and only lojban string

> ".abu".

{zo .abu} is ungrammatical, IIRR. Both {zo} and {bu} try to grab {a} and

whichever one gets it turns it into the wrong kind of token for the other. zo

by. valsi .i me'o by. lerfu.

> To refer to the actualy letters on the page you don't want to use

> quoted things---there's no quoted things on the page, only real

> things. So {mi renoroi ciska zo lo le papri} seems better.

I see nothing wrong with {mi ciska reno zo lo le papri}.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:54 GMT


> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri}

> > cannot equal {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that

> > I'm not disputing.

>

> But you do say that {naku lo curnu cu nenri} equals {lo curnu naku nenri},

Correct.

> and you say that {lo} can mean {su'o lo}, so there's a problem somewhere.

I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

mean {su'o lo}.

What can happen, and often does, is that a claim with {lo} is true and

so is a claim with {su'o lo}. But so what? Would you say that {la djan}

means {su'o prenu}? Because {naku la djan cu nenri} equals {la djan

naku nenri} too, and that says nothing about what happens if you

replace the unquantified term {la djan} with the quantified term

{su'o prenu}.

> What advantage does negation transparency give us that it's worth all this

> metaphysical debate to get?

I don't really understand what the metaphysical debate is about. The

proposal on {lo} has not changed since I presented it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


A few more items


Posted by noras on Thu 10 of June, 2004 02:59 GMT posts: 23

1. Three things on "la" example:

"la ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois cu mutce zabna ge lo vanbi gi lo cidja" = "The Three Cows Restaurant in Kaiapoi is a wonderful place, both atmosphere and food-wise."

a) 1st place of zabna is a favorable connotation of x2. So, the restaurant is a favorable connotation of environments and food? I think zabna is more correctly used with expressions (la'e zoi gy steadfast gy cu zanba la'e zo xarnu); that may be why it's so rarely used as the main brivla.

b) "ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois" is the name (Three Cows Which Are Restaurants of Kaiapoi). If you want just the "Three Cows", you need "la ci bakni ku po'u ..."

c) The use of "lo" in "lo gusta" disagrees with what's spelled out in the table. Per the table at the end, "la" means the speaker has a specific in mind, and "lo" means the the speaker does not have a specific in mind (in-mind = "No"). "po'u" means, effectively "poi du"; they are the same one(s). The speaker certainly know which restaurant it is if he knows it is the one in-mind from "la ci bakni". Either the example or the table needs to change; I suggest the table.

2. I'm not entirely comfortable with the "lo'i" example:

"ma cnano lo ka makau junta ce'u kei lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" = "What is the normal weight of a baby at childbirth?"

I think "cnano" is a mathematical thing - average/mean; that means "ni" would be better than "ka". Also, I read past-tense, pronounced like "red" "lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" as "a/some set(s) of babies who were just now born"; this is certainly not the only possible meaning, but would prefer (not insist on) something clearer. Perhaps "pe ca lo nu jbena"?

3. In "le'i" example:

"ro le verba pu cuxna pa karda le'i cnita selcra" = "Each child chose a card from the face-down collection."

x1 crane x2 means x1 is in front (or is THE front) of x2. So selcra is something that has a front. "cnita selcra", to me, means "beneath type of thing that has a front; this doesn't bring to mind "face-down". How about "le'i seke cnita crane". This would be the x2 of "cnita crane" (x1 cnita crane x2 = "x1 is a beneath-type-of-front of x2"); if would be the something that has a beneath-type-of-front.

mi'e noras.



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 04:09 GMT

At 01:38 PM 6/9/04 -0700, Robin wrote:

>For any *fixed* context, including the binding of the constant (which is

>only in the speaker's head), "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" implies that

>"naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise" is false (assuming I understand naku,

>which is false).

>

>However, there is nothing the requires the speaker to maintain the

>binding of the constant from one statement to the next, and that's where

>the problem is.

>

>There is nothing wrong with the following interchange:

>

>A: lo curnu cu nenri le plise

>

>B: .i ma curnu

>

>A: ro curnu poi nenri le plise .iji'a naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise

>

>B: .i .oisai ma curnu

>

>A: ro curnu poi na nenri le plise

>

>My question is, is "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" false if there is, in

>fact, no worm in the apple? I believe that it is false in that case,

>but I'd like others' opinions. Assuming I'm right, the above exchange

>is only sensible if there is at least one worm in the apple.

>

>Now, if it was "lo curnu cu nenri *lo* plise", that would be different.

Picked this message at random. This is not a comment on xorlo.

Your example "ma curnu" suggests to me the negation example of "The present

king of France is bald" vs The present king of France is not bald".

At which point I'll ask (to fit the example) if your questions make sense

(and have answers) if you replace curnu by crida (I'm thinking maybe Tinker

Bell here, but I'm likewise thinking "unicorn" and "present king of France".

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:14:50PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> So you would rather that "lo mlatu na fetsi" have the options of meaning

> "No cats are female", correct?

Certainly.

Though doesn't it mean that in Constant Land, also, because it says that

Mr. Cat is not female u'i? Not that I'm warming up to the idea of Mr. Cat,

I'm just saying that I don't think this is too far from what you and xorxes

want anyway.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:28:53AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:14:50PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > So you would rather that "lo mlatu na fetsi" have the options of

> > meaning "No cats are female", correct?

>

> Certainly.

>

> Though doesn't it mean that in Constant Land, also, because it says

> that Mr. Cat is not female u'i? Not that I'm warming up to the idea

> of Mr. Cat, I'm just saying that I don't think this is too far from

> what you and xorxes want anyway.

It *can* mean that, yes, but by a completely different mechanism.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

> mean {su'o lo}.

I was sold on the idea that bare {lo} would be unspecified in such a way that

it would cover several different usages of lo, including {su'o} and

intensionality. This was the very thing that convinced me that the proposal

would work.

Since this was apparently not true, the proposal now has my NO vote.

You and Robin even seem to be talking about slightly different versions of the

proposal, and I'd vote for Robin's version. I think you're asking for too much

with your proposal, and you need to back off to something that more people can

understand and accept.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

Rob Speer scripsit:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

> > mean {su'o lo}.

>

> I was sold on the idea that bare {lo} would be unspecified in such

> a way that it would cover several different usages of lo, including

> {su'o} and intensionality. This was the very thing that convinced me

> that the proposal would work.

>

> Since this was apparently not true, the proposal now has my NO vote.

I hate to say this, but the problem is with the meaning of "meaning".

When xorxes sas above that "lo" doesn't mean "su'o lo", he means that

they are not *synonymous*, precisely because "lo" covers different cases

that "su'o lo" does not. However, as xorxes says in another posting,

"lo" and "su'o lo" can both apply.

--

All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan

that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part www.ccil.org/~cowan

that cooks with olive oil, and the part that www.reutershealth.com

cooks with butter. — David Chessler [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

John Cowan wrote:

>Rob Speer scripsit:

>

>

>

>>On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>>

>>

>>>I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

>>>mean {su'o lo}.

>>>

>>>

>>I was sold on the idea that bare {lo} would be unspecified in such

>>a way that it would cover several different usages of lo, including

>>{su'o} and intensionality. This was the very thing that convinced me

>>that the proposal would work.

>>

>>Since this was apparently not true, the proposal now has my NO vote.

>>

>>

>

>I hate to say this, but the problem is with the meaning of "meaning".

>

>When xorxes sas above that "lo" doesn't mean "su'o lo", he means that

>they are not *synonymous*, precisely because "lo" covers different cases

>that "su'o lo" does not. However, as xorxes says in another posting,

>"lo" and "su'o lo" can both apply.

Are there any examples (using XS lo) where lo broda nau brode .iku'i

su'oda broda nau na brode?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

xod scripsit:

> Are there any examples (using XS lo) where lo broda nau brode .iku'i

> su'oda broda nau na brode?

Sure: lo -unicorn -has-a-horn. su'o da poi -unicorn -has-a-horn

would be false, because it says "there exists at least one thing

which is a unicorn and it has a horn", but there are no unicorns.

--

Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known; John Cowan

Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone; [email protected]

Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind; www.ccil.org/~cowan

Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 06:08 GMT

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit:

>

>

>

>>Are there any examples (using XS lo) where lo broda nau brode .iku'i

>>su'oda broda nau na brode?

>>

>>

>

>Sure: lo -unicorn -has-a-horn. su'o da poi -unicorn -has-a-horn

>would be false, because it says "there exists at least one thing

>which is a unicorn and it has a horn", but there are no unicorns.

>

>

The entire context must be one in which unicorns exist; otherwise the

sentences are not even false but meaningless.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT

xod:

> Are there any examples (using XS lo) where lo broda nau brode .iku'i

> su'oda broda nau na brode?

lo mikce nau se nitcu mi iku'i naku su'o mikce nau se nitcu mi

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT

John Cowan:

> When xorxes sas above that "lo" doesn't mean "su'o lo", he means that

> they are not *synonymous*, precisely because "lo" covers different cases

> that "su'o lo" does not. However, as xorxes says in another posting,

> "lo" and "su'o lo" can both apply.

Right.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT

noras:

> A few more items

> 1. Three things on "la" example:

> "la ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois cu mutce zabna ge lo vanbi gi lo

> cidja" = "The Three Cows Restaurant in Kaiapoi is a wonderful place, both

> atmosphere and food-wise."

>

> a) 1st place of zabna is a favorable connotation of x2. So, the restaurant

> is a favorable connotation of environments and food? I think zabna is more

> correctly used with expressions (la'e zoi gy steadfast gy cu zanba la'e zo

> xarnu); that may be why it's so rarely used as the main brivla.

Right, I forgot about that. I was using my definition of zabna.

See mabla

So, how do we say:

"x1 is excellent/wonderful/great/first-class/top-quality

in property x2 by standard x3"

in a more acceptable canonical form?

> b) "ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois" is the name (Three Cows Which Are

> Restaurants of Kaiapoi). If you want just the "Three Cows", you need "la ci

> bakni ku po'u ..."

Good point.

> c) The use of "lo" in "lo gusta" disagrees with what's spelled out in the

> table. Per the table at the end, "la" means the speaker has a specific in

> mind, and "lo" means the the speaker does not have a specific in mind

> (in-mind = "No"). "po'u" means, effectively "poi du"; they are the same

> one(s). The speaker certainly know which restaurant it is if he knows it is

> the one in-mind from "la ci bakni". Either the example or the table needs to

> change; I suggest the table.

I understood that as saying that in-mindedness was not an issue for

the lo-series, not that you cannot have something in mind when you

use lo. Any suggestions for a better wording?

> 2. I'm not entirely comfortable with the "lo'i" example:

> "ma cnano lo ka makau junta ce'u kei lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" = "What is

> the normal weight of a baby at childbirth?"

>

> I think "cnano" is a mathematical thing - average/mean; that means "ni" would

> be better than "ka".

The x1 of junta, as signaled by makau, is what's averaged. If I used

{ni}, we would have a second order amount coming into play: the extent to

which some weight is the weight of a baby.

> Also, I read past-tense, pronounced like "red" "lo'i

> cifnu poi cazi jbena" as "a/some set(s) of babies who were just now born";

> this is certainly not the only possible meaning, but would prefer (not insist

> on) something clearer. Perhaps "pe ca lo nu jbena"?

We do tend to read {ca} as {nau}, that's true. I would like

to leave the example as counterweight for that bias, if there

is not a lot of opposition.

> 3. In "le'i" example:

> "ro le verba pu cuxna pa karda le'i cnita selcra" = "Each child chose a card

> from the face-down collection."

>

> x1 crane x2 means x1 is in front (or is THE front) of x2. So selcra is

> something that has a front. "cnita selcra", to me, means "beneath type of

> thing that has a front; this doesn't bring to mind "face-down". How about

> "le'i seke cnita crane". This would be the x2 of "cnita crane" (x1 cnita

> crane x2 = "x1 is a beneath-type-of-front of x2"); if would be the something

> that has a beneath-type-of-front.

My thinking was "beneath faced", {selcra be lo cnita}, something whose

face is beneath, not {cnita je selcra}.

ki'e mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT

The token-type distinction is a very different critter from whatever it is that you are working with. I am not sure it is even analogous. To be sure, Lojban doesn't deal with it at all (not merely not well) and to that extent, it may be like your problem (what is that by the way?).

wrote:

Jordan:

> OTOH, I think all terms (excepting non-logical ones like ma) should

> be definable in terms of quantified variables.

Consider the term {zo lo}.

zo lo cmavo

"lo" is a cmavo

mi ciska reno zo lo le papri

I write 20 "lo"s on the page.

Would it even cross you mind to think of instances of zo lo

in the first sentence? The second sentence clearly deals with

instances, the first one doesn't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:47 GMT

I am unclear about which feature you consider necessary and which a wart. They are different things for me. That external quantifiers quantify over individuals seems necessary, but (therefore, in fact) not a wart. That internal quantifiers set up -ads rather than just so-and-so mmany individuals seems a wart and not at all necessary (as witness the several other ways that it has been done or have been proposed).

John E Clifford scripsit:

> > > {ci gerku cu batci le pa bongu}.

> >

> > Which is to say, "ci [lo pa] gerku".

> >

> Lord, I hope not: singletons don't bite bones (I am not sure about

> triads, but probably not). I suspect this is just a terminological

> problems, though working out the logic is a bitch — because of the

> quantifiers, as usual.

When there is an outer quantifier to lo, but no inner quantifier, it

retains its meaning of quantifying over individuals, for the sake of

backward compatibility. This is a wart, but a necessary one.

--

We call nothing profound [email protected]

that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan

--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:38:34PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:30, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > Quoted things can be a primative. They need to be considered in

> > the manner which names would have to be (some X such that X is that

> > particular thing).

> >

> > I don't know whether quantification of "zo " works in the

> > manner you used it in the second sentence, and would suggest probably

> > not. It is grammatical, but probably because no one thought to go

> > out of their way to disalow it.

> >

> > Check out x1 of lerfu. {la'e zo .abu} refers to a lerfu, but {naku

> > zo .abu lerfu}; zo .abu refers to the one and only lojban string

> > ".abu".

>

> {zo .abu} is ungrammatical, IIRR. Both {zo} and {bu} try to grab {a} and

> whichever one gets it turns it into the wrong kind of token for the other. zo

> by. valsi .i me'o by. lerfu.

{me'o by.} is not a lerfu, it's a mekso. {la'e zo by. lerfu}.

You're right that {zo .abu} is wrong, but it's not relevant to the

point I was making.... (replace all the .abu with by. and read it

again).

> > To refer to the actualy letters on the page you don't want to use

> > quoted things---there's no quoted things on the page, only real

> > things. So {mi renoroi ciska zo lo le papri} seems better.

>

> I see nothing wrong with {mi ciska reno zo lo le papri}.

Care to give a reason why you don't think my above reasoning makes

sense?

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyHr1DrrilS51AZ8RAoG7AJ4pLsAYXcK6NxjEcd7iy5R+77GCJACgqTRK

ObatuZVIuCPyVZYd2ewylhk=

=NP/q

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

I think that masses (at least in the {loi} sense) have a different set of rules nowadays and a more useful one. This is getting on toward the species sense (without using {lo}!). and there, at at least one level, the claim {broda gi'enai broda} holds. But, like all claims at this level, it is merely an idiom, a convenient way to say a rather complicated thing, in this case that the node in question spans the break between broda and naku broda.

[email protected] wrote:Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> What about the mass gadri? I thought it was part of the lore of masses

> that they had all the features of their members, such that the mass of

> all lions is both male and female?

Very true. So "loi cinfo cu nakni" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na nakni"

is false) and "loi cinfo cu fetsi" is true (and "loi cinfo cu na fetsi"

is false). This is not a *contradiction*, just surprising.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan

Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:

"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"

El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

I've decided to vote "no".

My reasoning is that xorlo isn't well-defined, but oldlo very much

is (in fact, it's the best defined article out of all of them).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyHt8DrrilS51AZ8RAudGAJ45Hu/Y77lDV8qUw/h4BYXx0VUMOgCeOosZ

I0Ory8By5vdRelXlZgYLQ8I=

=o8vQ

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

If there are quantifiers in the offing at all, whether unsated or inspecific or whateve, then not e that all of them except {no} and {me'i} entail {su'o} . (I hope old {su'o lo} is not proposed {su'o lo pa}; I want to quantify over things, not sets or groups or,,, of them.

Rob Speer wrote:On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:18:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:13:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > I want {lo} to literally mean {su'o} some of the time, because that's

> > how you encompass past usage.

> >

> > So which does it mean?

>

> By "literally mean {su'o}", you mean up to and including logical

> quantification?

Sure. If the quantifiers aren't there, they should be unspecified, and it

should be possible for them to be {su'o lo ro} (by the old lo), which I think

is {su'o lo pa} by the new lo.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

Wrong. In spite of where it appears in the sentence (next to the predicate), {na} negates the whole sentence, i.e., is equivalent to {naku} at the very front. On the other hand, repalacing the {na} with {naku} right before the predicate means that negation has moved from the front to this internal location and so all intervening quantifiers change. I gather that it is this fact — and the comnfusion it engenders among the careless — that has led to the proposal to make {lo} — unlike anything else in the language — negation-transparent. It doesn't work.

"Mark E. Shoulson" wrote:Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>OK, I'm the wrong person to ask, but in CLL lo, the following are all

>equivalent:

>

>lo mlatu cu na fetsi

>

>su'o da poi mlatu cu na fetsi

>

>naku su'o da poi mlatu cu fetsi

>

>Which means "It is not the case that there is at least on female cat".

>

>In other words, if you actually use the quantifiers correctly, "lo mlatu

>cu na fetsi" means "No cats are female".

>

>

I thought the whole thing with na-movement was that quantifiers get

inverted when the pass a na-boundary. So {su'o da poi mlatu na fetsi}

becomes {naku roda fetsi}, i.e. "it is not the case that all cats are

female," which is what the naïve meaning of {lo mlatu na fetsi} is:

"some cat is not female".

Right?

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

Jordan:

> > > Check out x1 of lerfu. {la'e zo .abu} refers to a lerfu, but {naku

> > > zo .abu lerfu}; zo .abu refers to the one and only lojban string

> > > ".abu".

(BTW, that definition of lerfu should be fixed at some point, it seems

to suggest that {zo a bu} is grammatical. Or maybe it will end up being

grammatical, we still have to figure out magic words.)

I wonder what you would understand of this dialog:

A: ry blabi

B: zo ry sinxa ma

A: zo ry sinxa lo ractu i va'i la'e zo ry du lo ractu

But that assumes that {zo ry enai la'e zo ry lerfu}.

I suppose you would rather say {la'e zo ry sinxa lo ractu ije

la'e la'e zo ry du lo ractu}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

A> But it does entail it (and is entailed by it, so is materially equivalent to it). It is not just that they both happen to be true; their cotruth (or cofalsehood) is necessary. In the John case, the implication only goes one way — at most (since we need to know that John is a prenu). And, of course, {naku la djan...} does not even entail {la djan naku...}, so they are certainly not equal.

B> Metaphysics is bad enough, but this is a logical debate, to which you have not really responded.

Jorge Llambías wrote:


> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:37:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > By that you mean that {naku su'o lo curnu cu nenri}

> > cannot equal {su'o lo curnu naku nenri}, something that

> > I'm not disputing.

>

> But you do say that {naku lo curnu cu nenri} equals {lo curnu naku nenri},

Correct.

> and you say that {lo} can mean {su'o lo}, so there's a problem somewhere.

A>I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

mean {su'o lo}.

What can happen, and often does, is that a claim with {lo} is true and

so is a claim with {su'o lo}. But so what? Would you say that {la djan}

means {su'o prenu}? Because {naku la djan cu nenri} equals {la djan

naku nenri} too, and that says nothing about what happens if you

replace the unquantified term {la djan} with the quantified term

{su'o prenu}.

> What advantage does negation transparency give us that it's worth all this

> metaphysical debate to get?

B>I don't really understand what the metaphysical debate is about. The

proposal on {lo} has not changed since I presented it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

Conversion does not make {nitcu2} (that is {se nitcu 1}) less opaque, In the realm of of my needs doctors and some doctors amount to the same thing, even if no current doctor matters.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

xod:

> Are there any examples (using XS lo) where lo broda nau brode .iku'i

> su'oda broda nau na brode?

lo mikce nau se nitcu mi iku'i naku su'o mikce nau se nitcu mi

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

What, aside from {no} and {mi'e} does {su'o lo} not cover?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

John Cowan:

> When xorxes sas above that "lo" doesn't mean "su'o lo", he means that

> they are not *synonymous*, precisely because "lo" covers different cases

> that "su'o lo" does not. However, as xorxes says in another posting,

> "lo" and "su'o lo" can both apply.

Right.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

As I said, Lojaban (nor English, for that matter) doesn't do tokens and types. They tend to be species (and so to have tokens of a type which are in turn types to other tokens and so on down — for letters — to the particular mark at a particular place in a particular copy of a particular book--- which is another similar problem).

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:38:34PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:30, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > Quoted things can be a primative. They need to be considered in

> > the manner which names would have to be (some X such that X is that

> > particular thing).

> >

> > I don't know whether quantification of "zo " works in the

> > manner you used it in the second sentence, and would suggest probably

> > not. It is grammatical, but probably because no one thought to go

> > out of their way to disalow it.

> >

> > Check out x1 of lerfu. {la'e zo .abu} refers to a lerfu, but {naku

> > zo .abu lerfu}; zo .abu refers to the one and only lojban string

> > ".abu".

>

> {zo .abu} is ungrammatical, IIRR. Both {zo} and {bu} try to grab {a} and

> whichever one gets it turns it into the wrong kind of token for the other. zo

> by. valsi .i me'o by. lerfu.

{me'o by.} is not a lerfu, it's a mekso. {la'e zo by. lerfu}.

You're right that {zo .abu} is wrong, but it's not relevant to the

point I was making.... (replace all the .abu with by. and read it

again).

> > To refer to the actualy letters on the page you don't want to use

> > quoted things---there's no quoted things on the page, only real

> > things. So {mi renoroi ciska zo lo le papri} seems better.

>

> I see nothing wrong with {mi ciska reno zo lo le papri}.

Care to give a reason why you don't think my above reasoning makes

sense?

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyHr1DrrilS51AZ8RAoG7AJ4pLsAYXcK6NxjEcd7iy5R+77GCJACgqTRK

ObatuZVIuCPyVZYd2ewylhk=

=NP/q

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

pc:

> Conversion does not make {nitcu2} (that is {se nitcu 1}) less opaque,

Of course. The conversion was made only to fit the requested pattern.

> In the

> realm of of my needs doctors and some doctors amount to the same thing, even

> if no current doctor matters.

Right, instances do not matter. It would be more proper to say:

mi nau nitcu lo mikce iku'i na'i su'o da poi mikce zo'u mi nau nitcu da

"I need a doctor, but it is wrong to say that there is some doctor

such that I need that doctor."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

pc:

> What, aside from {no} and {mi'e} does {su'o lo} not cover?

(You meant {me'i}.)

{su'o lo} does not cover cases where instances are irrelevant,

when we don't want to or can't claim anything about instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

Token-type, and just a whiff of use-mention.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Jordan:

> > > Check out x1 of lerfu. {la'e zo .abu} refers to a lerfu, but {naku

> > > zo .abu lerfu}; zo .abu refers to the one and only lojban string

> > > ".abu".

(BTW, that definition of lerfu should be fixed at some point, it seems

to suggest that {zo a bu} is grammatical. Or maybe it will end up being

grammatical, we still have to figure out magic words.)

I wonder what you would understand of this dialog:

A: ry blabi

B: zo ry sinxa ma

A: zo ry sinxa lo ractu i va'i la'e zo ry du lo ractu

But that assumes that {zo ry enai la'e zo ry lerfu}.

I suppose you would rather say {la'e zo ry sinxa lo ractu ije

la'e la'e zo ry du lo ractu}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

And that is true not because {lo} does not imply {su'o} (it does) but because you cannot validly move a quantifier out of an opaque context.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Conversion does not make {nitcu2} (that is {se nitcu 1}) less opaque,

Of course. The conversion was made only to fit the requested pattern.

> In the

> realm of of my needs doctors and some doctors amount to the same thing, even

> if no current doctor matters.

Right, instances do not matter. It would be more proper to say:

mi nau nitcu lo mikce iku'i na'i su'o da poi mikce zo'u mi nau nitcu da

"I need a doctor, but it is wrong to say that there is some doctor

such that I need that doctor."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:48 GMT

I would say that is what it does best. Cases are never irrelevant, though which cases or how many may well be. And that is just what {su'o} does.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> What, aside from {no} and {mi'e} does {su'o lo} not cover?

(You meant {me'i}.)

{su'o lo} does not cover cases where instances are irrelevant,

when we don't want to or can't claim anything about instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

pc:

> As I said, Lojaban (nor English, for that matter) doesn't do tokens and

> types.

English doesn't do them? What does that mean?

We have to be able to say anything we want to say, so if there are

unsayable things in Lojban, we better add the words we need.

Personally, I don't think we need to add new words to say

"I wrote 20 lo's on this page". In fact, with lo/le/la

as proposed, I don't think the gadri system needs any new

additions, I can say anything I want to say with them.

(lo'i/le'i/la'i/loi/lei/lai/lo'e/le'e are bells and whistles

as far as I'm concerned.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

>

>>I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

>>mean {su'o lo}.

>>

>>

>

>I was sold on the idea that bare {lo} would be unspecified in such a way that

>it would cover several different usages of lo, including {su'o} and

>intensionality. This was the very thing that convinced me that the proposal

>would work.

>

>

That is in fact the case. Jorge is being overly precise. His quote here

is trying to express that bare lo isn't *always* equivalent to su'o lo,

but it certainly is sometimes.

>Rob:

>

>

>>> > > The way I read the proposal when I liked it, {lo jvugi} could mean

>>> > > any of

>>> > > * one jvugi

>>> > > * many jvugis

>>> > > * jvugis in general

>>> > > * intensional jvugis

>>

>>

This is correct.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:17:17AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> I've decided to vote "no".

>

> My reasoning is that xorlo isn't well-defined, but oldlo very much is

> (in fact, it's the best defined article out of all of them).

Am I to take it then that your counter-proposal (which is required, by

the way) is to maintain the status quo?

If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

[email protected] scripsit:

> I am changing my vote to "no". I understand why we need an article for

> things that really broda but may not exist, such as unicorns, CCJ's

> fingernail, and the doctor I need. But if when applied to things that

> do exist, it violates the law of inverting the quantifier when {naku}

> passes through it, and something can be both inside and outside the box,

> I don't accept that.

The XS lo does not violate this law, for it has in fact no quantifier, being

vague.

--

"May the hair on your toes never fall out!" John Cowan

--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

xod scripsit:

> The entire context must be one in which unicorns exist; otherwise the

> sentences are not even false but meaningless.

Oh, come on. You know Pegasus didn't exist, but you don't reckon the

question "Did Pegasus have wings?" as unfit to answer, do you? I, at least,

answer "Yes".

--

John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected]

Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where

no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in

the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,

James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

[email protected] wrote:

>xod scripsit:

>

>

>

>>The entire context must be one in which unicorns exist; otherwise the

>>sentences are not even false but meaningless.

>>

>>

>

>Oh, come on. You know Pegasus didn't exist, but you don't reckon the

>question "Did Pegasus have wings?" as unfit to answer, do you? I, at least,

>answer "Yes".

>

>

>

Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was

Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> The token-type distinction is a very different critter from whatever

> it is that you are working with. I am not sure it is even analogous.

> To be sure, Lojban doesn't deal with it at all (not merely not well) and

> to that extent, it may be like your problem (what is that by the way?).

IMHO the type-token problem is just too hard, and that's why I've been

pushing it under the rug. See Quine's brief remarks in _Quiddities_.

--

BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU [email protected]

BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:15, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> {me'o by.} is not a lerfu, it's a mekso. {la'e zo by. lerfu}.

me'o by is a mekso consisting of one lerfu, which is the closest Lojban

construct I can find to a lerfu. la'e zo by is whatever {by} refers to, which

could be a number or a thing whose name begins with 'b'.

{ro by. zo'u li by. du ...} is another sticking point, but that's for another

section.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> If there are quantifiers in the offing at all, whether unsated or

> inspecific or whateve, then not e that all of them except {no} and

> {me'i} entail {su'o} . (I hope old {su'o lo} is not proposed {su'o lo

> pa}; I want to quantify over things, not sets or groups or,,, of them.

You don't. A lo B broda is quantifying over A*B things taken B at a time.

(In particular, A lo broda = A broda = quantifying over A things taken

one at time.) That doesn't mean that the A things constitute a set;

the term "group" is used faute de mieux.

--

"That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan

and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

and disinformation in your posts http://www.reutershealth.com

through sheer volume — that is another [email protected]

misconception." --Mike to Peter



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

Pierre:

> {ro by. zo'u li by. du ...} is another sticking point, but that's

> for another section.

That has to be {ro boi by} unfortunately, at least for now.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

xod:

> Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was

> Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

Are these questions more difficult to formulate in Lojban

than in English, leaving aside the lack of vocabulary? Are

they more meaningful/meaningless in Lojban than in English?

Is there any doubt that we should use {la} (or {la'o}) for

"Sherlock Holmes", "Dr. Watson" and "Bilbo" here, and le

for "the dragon" and "the cave"?

Talking about ficticious characters is no more difficult

in Lojban than in English, as far as I can tell.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:49 GMT

There is no easy way in English (and no obvious way at all in Lojban) to distinguish among: the archetypal letter a, the archetypal letter italic a, the archetypal New Times Roman a, (and so on through any number of other archetypes — all of these are relative tokens of the type a and some of the of others of them), the tokens of a on a given page of a given book type, the tokens of that in a particular copy of that book type, the particular token of a at a certain place on that page in that copy of the book. This is not a job for gadri but for relational predicates and,while we can press some into use here ({mupli} for at least some cases of "token"), no consistent pattern seems possible with the current vocabulary. But maybe only lujvo are needed.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> As I said, Lojaban (nor English, for that matter) doesn't do tokens and

> types.

English doesn't do them? What does that mean?

We have to be able to say anything we want to say, so if there are

unsayable things in Lojban, we better add the words we need.

Personally, I don't think we need to add new words to say

"I wrote 20 lo's on this page". In fact, with lo/le/la

as proposed, I don't think the gadri system needs any new

additions, I can say anything I want to say with them.

(lo'i/le'i/la'i/loi/lei/lai/lo'e/le'e are bells and whistles

as far as I'm concerned.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 17:50 GMT

So far as he presentes a coherent theory, the one he usually presents is of a {lo} that is indeed materially equivalent to {su'o}. As one would expect for something that is the least marked thing one can say about a bunch of things.

xod wrote:Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:46:16PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

>

>>I don't say that. Bare {lo} is not quantified, so it can't possibly

>>mean {su'o lo}.

>>

>>

>

>I was sold on the idea that bare {lo} would be unspecified in such a way that

>it would cover several different usages of lo, including {su'o} and

>intensionality. This was the very thing that convinced me that the proposal

>would work.

>

>

That is in fact the case. Jorge is being overly precise. His quote here

is trying to express that bare lo isn't *always* equivalent to su'o lo,

but it certainly is sometimes.

>Rob:

>

>

>>> > > The way I read the proposal when I liked it, {lo jvugi} could mean

>>> > > any of

>>> > > * one jvugi

>>> > > * many jvugis

>>> > > * jvugis in general

>>> > > * intensional jvugis

>>

>>

This is correct.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

But vagueness has its limits, and within those limits the negation rules for quantifiers apply. Minimally, the duality between {su'o} and {ro} plays its role.

[email protected] wrote:[email protected] scripsit:

> I am changing my vote to "no". I understand why we need an article for

> things that really broda but may not exist, such as unicorns, CCJ's

> fingernail, and the doctor I need. But if when applied to things that

> do exist, it violates the law of inverting the quantifier when {naku}

> passes through it, and something can be both inside and outside the box,

> I don't accept that.

The XS lo does not violate this law, for it has in fact no quantifier, being

vague.

--

"May the hair on your toes never fall out!" John Cowan

--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

Because you either 1) answer the question within the context where Pegasus exists or 2) allow that names (and their ilk) refer to the outer domain. Either way has its problems but on the wehole I think 1 has fewer.

[email protected] wrote:xod scripsit:

> The entire context must be one in which unicorns exist; otherwise the

> sentences are not even false but meaningless.

Oh, come on. You know Pegasus didn't exist, but you don't reckon the

question "Did Pegasus have wings?" as unfit to answer, do you? I, at least,

answer "Yes".

--

John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected]

Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where

no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in

the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,

James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

No and No, regardless of what ontological position you take.

xod wrote:[email protected] wrote:

>xod scripsit:

>

>

>

>>The entire context must be one in which unicorns exist; otherwise the

>>sentences are not even false but meaningless.

>>

>>

>

>Oh, come on. You know Pegasus didn't exist, but you don't reckon the

>question "Did Pegasus have wings?" as unfit to answer, do you? I, at least,

>answer "Yes".

>

>

>

Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was

Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

Amen to that. Anything Quine is brief — and not even apppearing to offer anauthoritative solution must be hard indeed. But still someday we must deal with it-- to translate Quine if nothing else.

[email protected] wrote:John E Clifford scripsit:

> The token-type distinction is a very different critter from whatever

> it is that you are working with. I am not sure it is even analogous.

> To be sure, Lojban doesn't deal with it at all (not merely not well) and

> to that extent, it may be like your problem (what is that by the way?).

IMHO the type-token problem is just too hard, and that's why I've been

pushing it under the rug. See Quine's brief remarks in _Quiddities_.

--

BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU [email protected]

BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was=20

>>Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

>> =20

>>

>

>Are these questions more difficult to formulate in Lojban

>than in English, leaving aside the lack of vocabulary? Are=20

>they more meaningful/meaningless in Lojban than in English?=20

>Is there any doubt that we should use {la} (or {la'o}) for=20

>"Sherlock Holmes", "Dr. Watson" and "Bilbo" here, and le=20

>for "the dragon" and "the cave"?=20

> =20

>

No, and there is also no doubt that in a fictional context, existence

claims are relative to that context.

John Cowan wrote:

>Sure: lo -unicorn -has-a-horn. su'o da poi -unicorn -has-a-horn

>would be false, because it says "there exists at least one thing

>which is a unicorn and it has a horn", but there are no unicorns.

>

But "lo pavseljirna cu blabi" implies a context where unicorns exist.

And in a context where they don't, the sentence isn't false because

unicorns don't exist; it's *meaningless* because they don't exist.

(False would imply that unicorns have color and it's never white.)

It had better be safe for the listener to assume that the speaker isn't

expressing meaningless sentences, and then to reason backwards from

that. So the existence of da cannot be restricted to non-fictional contex=

ts.

>Talking about ficticious characters is no more difficult=20

>in Lojban than in English, as far as I can tell.

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

Gee, I hope there is a mieux. But that is not clearly what xorxes has maintained. {ci lo mu broda cu brode} does not seem to say that 15 broda each brode (by the way, they presnt themselves in three groups of five) but that each of three groups of five brode, a rather different claim (and a more useful one — replacing {ci broda mumei} or so).

[email protected] wrote:

John E Clifford scripsit:

> If there are quantifiers in the offing at all, whether unsated or

> inspecific or whateve, then not e that all of them except {no} and

> {me'i} entail {su'o} . (I hope old {su'o lo} is not proposed {su'o lo

> pa}; I want to quantify over things, not sets or groups or,,, of them.

You don't. A lo B broda is quantifying over A*B things taken B at a time.

(In particular, A lo broda = A broda = quantifying over A things taken

one at time.) That doesn't mean that the A things constitute a set;

the term "group" is used faute de mieux.

--

"That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan

and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

and disinformation in your posts http://www.reutershealth.com

through sheer volume — that is another [email protected]

misconception." --Mike to Peter



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:26 GMT

And that, Lord knoes, is hard enough. I suppose the added problem Lojban has is the cultural need to be precise and to have clear translations into recise langauge. So far this need has gone almost completely unfulfilled (old {lo} to the contrary notwithstanding).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

xod:

> Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was

> Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

Are these questions more difficult to formulate in Lojban

than in English, leaving aside the lack of vocabulary? Are

they more meaningful/meaningless in Lojban than in English?

Is there any doubt that we should use {la} (or {la'o}) for

"Sherlock Holmes", "Dr. Watson" and "Bilbo" here, and le

for "the dragon" and "the cave"?

Talking about ficticious characters is no more difficult

in Lojban than in English, as far as I can tell.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT

Actually {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.

xod wrote:Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:

> =20

>

>>Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was=20

>>Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

>> =20

>>

>

>Are these questions more difficult to formulate in Lojban

>than in English, leaving aside the lack of vocabulary? Are=20

>they more meaningful/meaningless in Lojban than in English?=20

>Is there any doubt that we should use {la} (or {la'o}) for=20

>"Sherlock Holmes", "Dr. Watson" and "Bilbo" here, and le=20

>for "the dragon" and "the cave"?=20

> =20

>

No, and there is also no doubt that in a fictional context, existence

claims are relative to that context.

John Cowan wrote:

>Sure: lo -unicorn -has-a-horn. su'o da poi -unicorn -has-a-horn

>would be false, because it says "there exists at least one thing

>which is a unicorn and it has a horn", but there are no unicorns.

>

But "lo pavseljirna cu blabi" implies a context where unicorns exist.

And in a context where they don't, the sentence isn't false because

unicorns don't exist; it's *meaningless* because they don't exist.

(False would imply that unicorns have color and it's never white.)

It had better be safe for the listener to assume that the speaker isn't

expressing meaningless sentences, and then to reason backwards from

that. So the existence of da cannot be restricted to non-fictional contex=

ts.

>Talking about ficticious characters is no more difficult=20

>in Lojban than in English, as far as I can tell.

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20

assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=

im=20

Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=

=20

Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>Actually {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.

>

>

Sentences which are resistant to negation are meaningless sentences.

This is rather basic and uncontroversial.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:27 GMT

pc:

> There is no easy way in English (and no obvious way at all in Lojban) to

> distinguish among: the archetypal letter a,

lo lerfu po'u zo a = letter "a"

> the archetypal letter italic a,

lo itlika lerfu po'u zo a = italic letter "a"

(or whatever brivla you prefer for "italic")

> the archetypal New Times Roman a,(and so on through any number of other

> archetypes — all of these are relative tokens of the type a and some of

> the of others of them), the tokens of a on a given page of a given book type,

> the tokens of that in a particular copy of that book type, the particular

> token of a at a certain place on that page in that copy of the book. This is

> not a job for gadri but for relational predicates and,while we can press some

> into use here ({mupli} for at least some cases of "token"), no consistent

> pattern seems possible with the current vocabulary. But maybe only lujvo are

> needed.

Perhaps if you wrote a sentence that cannot be said in Lojban

we could test the claim that Lojban is incapable of dealing

with it. From what you say, I don't see any difficulties.

I don't know what is the problem you see in {mi ciska

reno zo lo le papri} yet. Is it a bad translation of "I write

20 lo's on the page"? Is there a better way of saying it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:41 GMT

xod wrote:

>John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>

>>Actually is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>Sentences which are resistant to negation are meaningless sentences.

>This is rather basic and uncontroversial.

>

>

OK, unless you are thinking that {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} = {la'e zo

pavyseljirna cu zasti je blabi}, and the zasti part is false.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 18:41 GMT

lo pavyseljirna noi se ranmi gi'e na zasti le fatci munje

cu ta'e blabi

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


About lo'e


Posted by xorxes on Thu 10 of June, 2004 19:13 GMT posts: 1912

While everybody seems to be happy with the definition of lo'e,

there is at least one issue about it that we haven't addressed

yet.

Roughly speaking, we are defining lo'e such that

{lo'e broda cu brode} means:

lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

The property of brodeing is very common among brodas

(I use mutce tu relativise "kampu", which seems to require

that it apply to very member of x2, while lo'e is less strict

than that.)

So far so good. But what if the matrix predicate is more

complex? We want the quantifier in {lo'e broda cu kanla reda}

to remain inside the property:

lo ka reda zo'u ce'u kanla da cu mutce kampu lo'e broda

Question 1: is {lo'e broda cu kanla reda} equivalent to

{reda zo'u lo'e broda cu kanla da}?

What about tense? Is {lo'e broda pu ca'o brode}

lo ka ce'u pu ca'o brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

or

lo ka ce'u brode cu pu ca'o mutce kampu lo'i broda

In other words, "the typical lion used to roam the savanna

unimpeded" or "the typical lion used to be a cub"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

xod scripsit:

> Did Sherlock Holmes carry on a secret love affair with Dr. Watson? Was

> Bilbo incinerated by the dragon in the cave?

Not proven and no, respectively.

--

With techies, I've generally found John Cowan

If your arguments lose the first round http://www.reutershealth.com

Make it rhyme, make it scan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Then you generally can [email protected]

Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

No argument; just noting that this one is not resistant to negation (well, maybe in new {lo}).

xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>Actually {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.

>

>

Sentences which are resistant to negation are meaningless sentences.

This is rather basic and uncontroversial.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

Fine. I assume that you mean 20 lowest tokens of the high type {lo}. But, of course — depending on how our conventions — you might mean that you wrote 1oo of those things, 5 each in 20 different styles. And so on. So the question is: given that we can one of these things easily, how do we say the others. {zo lo} is typically about the highest level word, so quantifying it seems very odd.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> There is no easy way in English (and no obvious way at all in Lojban) to

> distinguish among: the archetypal letter a,

lo lerfu po'u zo a = letter "a"

> the archetypal letter italic a,

lo itlika lerfu po'u zo a = italic letter "a"

(or whatever brivla you prefer for "italic")

> the archetypal New Times Roman a,(and so on through any number of other

> archetypes — all of these are relative tokens of the type a and some of

> the of others of them), the tokens of a on a given page of a given book type,

> the tokens of that in a particular copy of that book type, the particular

> token of a at a certain place on that page in that copy of the book. This is

> not a job for gadri but for relational predicates and,while we can press some

> into use here ({mupli} for at least some cases of "token"), no consistent

> pattern seems possible with the current vocabulary. But maybe only lujvo are

> needed.

Perhaps if you wrote a sentence that cannot be said in Lojban

we could test the claim that Lojban is incapable of dealing

with it. From what you say, I don't see any difficulties.

I don't know what is the problem you see in {mi ciska

reno zo lo le papri} yet. Is it a bad translation of "I write

20 lo's on the page"? Is there a better way of saying it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

That'll work, too, but the {zasti} part is unnecessary.

xod wrote:xod wrote:

>John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>

>>Actually is false just in case no unicorn is white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when there are no unicorns.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>Sentences which are resistant to negation are meaningless sentences.

>This is rather basic and uncontroversial.

>

>

OK, unless you are thinking that {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} = {la'e zo

pavyseljirna cu zasti je blabi}, and the zasti part is false.

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

I think that {lo'e} is more complicated than can be translated by any quantifier — it is again a weighted survey; not all whatsis have the same effect on the notion. For that reason, among others, I think that questions about quantifier flow are premature; we need to pin the basic notion down a bit more. To question 1, for example, we need to sort some stuff out: {ka} sets up an opaque context, out of which you cannot normally move quantifiers, but OTOH this is a quantifier over properties which always exist and are the same in all worlds. As for tense, I suppose thatthat that can be handled from inside and outside the sumti: The typical (time unspecified) lion was a cub v. the formerly typical lion used to roam the savannah. But those are guesses.

[email protected] wrote:

About lo'e

While everybody seems to be happy with the definition of lo'e,

there is at least one issue about it that we haven't addressed

yet.

Roughly speaking, we are defining lo'e such that

{lo'e broda cu brode} means:

lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

The property of brodeing is very common among brodas

(I use mutce tu relativise "kampu", which seems to require

that it apply to very member of x2, while lo'e is less strict

than that.)

So far so good. But what if the matrix predicate is more

complex? We want the quantifier in {lo'e broda cu kanla reda}

to remain inside the property:

lo ka reda zo'u ce'u kanla da cu mutce kampu lo'e broda

Question 1: is {lo'e broda cu kanla reda} equivalent to

{reda zo'u lo'e broda cu kanla da}?

What about tense? Is {lo'e broda pu ca'o brode}

lo ka ce'u pu ca'o brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

or

lo ka ce'u brode cu pu ca'o mutce kampu lo'i broda

In other words, "the typical lion used to roam the savanna

unimpeded" or "the typical lion used to be a cub"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

pc:

> I think that {lo'e} is more complicated than can be translated by any

> quantifier — it is again a weighted survey; not all whatsis have the same

> effect on the notion. For that reason, among others, I think that questions

> about quantifier flow are premature; we need to pin the basic notion down a

> bit more.

I can't tell if you are objecting here to the notion that

{lo'e broda cu brode} can be expressed as {lo'i broda

cu brodi lo ka ce'u brode}, or to the particular choice

of {mutce kampu} for {se brodi}.

> To question 1, for example, we need to sort some stuff out: {ka}

> sets up an opaque context, out of which you cannot normally move

> quantifiers, but OTOH this is a quantifier over properties which

> always exist and are the same in all worlds.

Even if the properties exist and are the same over worlds, we

cannot move the quantifier out of them retaining the same sense.

It is not equivalent to say that there are two things such that

having them as eyes is typical of lions, and saying that it is

typical of lions that there are two things that they have for

eyes. We definitley want the latter for {lo'e cinfo cu se kanla

reda}. But is that equivalent to {reda zo'u lo'e cinfo cu se

kanla da}?

> As for tense, I suppose thatthat that can be handled

> from inside and outside the sumti: The typical (time unspecified)

> lion was a cub v. the formerly typical lion used to roam the

> savannah. But those are guesses.

Sounds reasonable. Then we can have

lo'e broda pu brode =

lo ka ce'u pu brode cu kampu lo'i broda

or

lo'e pu broda cu brode =

lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu lo'i pu broda

and {kampu} is never tensed. If that is so, the most coherent

might be that the prenex of kampu is also inaccessible for {lo'e},

and so the prenex of brode is always inside of ka.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

pc:

> Fine. I assume that you mean 20 lowest tokens of the high type {lo}. But,

> of course — depending on how our conventions — you might mean that you

> wrote 1oo of those things, 5 each in 20 different styles.

In that case I would say:

mi ciska reno klesi be zo lo i ro klesi zo'u go'i mu mupli be ky

I wrote 20 kinds of 'lo', for each kind, 5 instances of it.

> And so on. So the

> question is: given that we can one of these things easily, how do we say the

> others.

Also easily.

> {zo lo} is typically about the highest level word, so quantifying it

> seems very odd.

Why not quantify over instances?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> "x1 is excellent/wonderful/great/first-class/top-quality

> in property x2 by standard x3"

This is closer to xamgu, with some additional element to provide the

"in property x2". The beneficiary can still have a place, implicitly "mi".

> I understood that as saying that in-mindedness was not an issue for

> the lo-series, not that you cannot have something in mind when you

> use lo. Any suggestions for a better wording?

Just change the No's in that column to Maybe's.

--

"The Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan

idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

use characters, nor does it encode logos http://www.reutershealth.com

or graphics." [email protected]



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

(Apologies for responding here, I accidentally deleted the message I really

wanted to respond to.)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > "x1 is excellent/wonderful/great/first-class/top-quality

> > in property x2 by standard x3"

>

> This is closer to xamgu, with some additional element to provide the

> "in property x2". The beneficiary can still have a place, implicitly "mi".

How is this different from banli?

> > I understood that as saying that in-mindedness was not an issue for

> > the lo-series, not that you cannot have something in mind when you

> > use lo. Any suggestions for a better wording?

>

> Just change the No's in that column to Maybe's.

Is there a reason for using "po'u lo" instead of "poi"?

--

Adam Lopresto

http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

"The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual

mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in 'Find

people that have sex with goats that are on fire' and the computer will say,

'Specify type of goat.'"

-- Rich Jeni



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > "x1 is excellent/wonderful/great/first-class/top-quality

> > in property x2 by standard x3"

>

> This is closer to xamgu, with some additional element to provide the

> "in property x2". The beneficiary can still have a place, implicitly "mi".

Would {zankai} work? I don't understand how people understand

the mal- and zan- lujvo if mabla and zabna refer to words rather

than things.

> > I understood that as saying that in-mindedness was not an issue for

> > the lo-series, not that you cannot have something in mind when you

> > use lo. Any suggestions for a better wording?

>

> Just change the No's in that column to Maybe's.

Hm. Maybe I'll just put "irrelevant".

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

Both I think. At least as a certainty. The logicians who have dabbled with this have gone quite a ways beyond such simple formulae. But admittedly have not reached definite conclusions.

On moving quantifiers about, I am less sure even. I does not work with eyes, but it may with ideas: "There are two properties that the typical lion has" is pretty clearly what is meant even if we say "The typical lion has two properties". I think this is just a matter of being very careful what we say about typicals. But exactly what the parameters of that care are, I do not yet know.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I think that {lo'e} is more complicated than can be translated by any

> quantifier — it is again a weighted survey; not all whatsis have the same

> effect on the notion. For that reason, among others, I think that questions

> about quantifier flow are premature; we need to pin the basic notion down a

> bit more.

I can't tell if you are objecting here to the notion that

{lo'e broda cu brode} can be expressed as {lo'i broda

cu brodi lo ka ce'u brode}, or to the particular choice

of {mutce kampu} for {se brodi}.

> To question 1, for example, we need to sort some stuff out: {ka}

> sets up an opaque context, out of which you cannot normally move

> quantifiers, but OTOH this is a quantifier over properties which

> always exist and are the same in all worlds.

Even if the properties exist and are the same over worlds, we

cannot move the quantifier out of them retaining the same sense.

It is not equivalent to say that there are two things such that

having them as eyes is typical of lions, and saying that it is

typical of lions that there are two things that they have for

eyes. We definitley want the latter for {lo'e cinfo cu se kanla

reda}. But is that equivalent to {reda zo'u lo'e cinfo cu se

kanla da}?

> As for tense, I suppose thatthat that can be handled

> from inside and outside the sumti: The typical (time unspecified)

> lion was a cub v. the formerly typical lion used to roam the

> savannah. But those are guesses.

Sounds reasonable. Then we can have

lo'e broda pu brode =

lo ka ce'u pu brode cu kampu lo'i broda

or

lo'e pu broda cu brode =

lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu lo'i pu broda

and {kampu} is never tensed. If that is so, the most coherent

might be that the prenex of kampu is also inaccessible for {lo'e},

and so the prenex of brode is always inside of ka.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:37 GMT

I smell an analogy coming on: {zo lo} refers by itself to the highest significant type, {PA zo lo} to instances of that type — at whatever level, When the levels are important we can press any number of predicates into service to mark (relative) subtypes/ instances.

OK, so maybe it is not such a problem — except in practice.

But back to the analogy. Like {zo lo}, {lo broda} is for the highest relevant species, {PA lo broda} the for the specimens. And that analogy works just fine, althought there are not generally the intermediate relevant levels. Notice that it is distinctly not the Mr. Broda approach, however.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Fine. I assume that you mean 20 lowest tokens of the high type {lo}. But,

> of course — depending on how our conventions — you might mean that you

> wrote 1oo of those things, 5 each in 20 different styles.

In that case I would say:

mi ciska reno klesi be zo lo i ro klesi zo'u go'i mu mupli be ky

I wrote 20 kinds of 'lo', for each kind, 5 instances of it.

> And so on. So the

> question is: given that we can one of these things easily, how do we say the

> others.

Also easily.

> {zo lo} is typically about the highest level word, so quantifying it

> seems very odd.

Why not quantify over instances?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT


> How is this different from banli?

I guess I could use banli in this case. My understanding of zabna

is that it describes something as a positive thing, not necessarily

grandiose, which is what I get from banli.

> Is there a reason for using "po'u lo" instead of "poi"?

I wrote {poi} first, but because gusta doesn't have a place

for the location it was easier to attach pe la kaiapois to

a sumti.

mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT

pc:

> On moving quantifiers about, I am less sure even. I does not work with eyes,

> but it may with ideas: "There are two properties that the typical lion has"

> is pretty clearly what is meant even if we say "The typical lion has two

> properties".

Of course both are meaningful. We have to decide if both are

going to be expressible with lo'e or if one will require making

explicit use of whatever predicate hides behind lo'e.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT

pc:

> I smell an analogy coming on: {zo lo} refers by itself to the highest

> significant type, {PA zo lo} to instances of that type — at whatever level,

> When the levels are important we can press any number of predicates into

> service to mark (relative) subtypes/ instances.

> OK, so maybe it is not such a problem — except in practice.

When for example?

> But back to the analogy. Like {zo lo}, {lo broda} is for the highest

> relevant species, {PA lo broda} the for the specimens. And that analogy

> works just fine, althought there are not generally the intermediate relevant

> levels.

There can be intermediate levels though. {mi pu pinxe re vanju},

{mi pu pinxe re klesi be lo vanju}.

> Notice that it is distinctly not the Mr. Broda approach, however.

How does it differ?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT

At 06:00 AM 6/10/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:

>noras:

> > A few more items

> > 1. Three things on "la" example:

> > "la ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois cu mutce zabna ge lo vanbi gi lo

> > cidja" = "The Three Cows Restaurant in Kaiapoi is a wonderful place, both

> > atmosphere and food-wise."

> >

> > a) 1st place of zabna is a favorable connotation of x2. So, the

> restaurant

> > is a favorable connotation of environments and food? I think zabna is more

> > correctly used with expressions (la'e zoi gy steadfast gy cu zanba la'e zo

> > xarnu); that may be why it's so rarely used as the main brivla.

>

>Right, I forgot about that. I was using my definition of zabna.

>See mabla

>So, how do we say:

>

>"x1 is excellent/wonderful/great/first-class/top-quality

>in property x2 by standard x3"

>

>in a more acceptable canonical form?

>

How about "banli"?

> > c) The use of "lo" in "lo gusta" disagrees with what's spelled out in the

> > table. Per the table at the end, "la" means the speaker has a specific in

> > mind, and "lo" means the the speaker does not have a specific in mind

> > (in-mind = "No"). "po'u" means, effectively "poi du"; they are the same

> > one(s). The speaker certainly know which restaurant it is if he knows

> it is

> > the one in-mind from "la ci bakni". Either the example or the table

> needs to

> > change; I suggest the table.

>

>I understood that as saying that in-mindedness was not an issue for

>the lo-series, not that you cannot have something in mind when you

>use lo. Any suggestions for a better wording?

Instead of "No", something like "speaker's option" or "may be".

> > 2. I'm not entirely comfortable with the "lo'i" example:

> > "ma cnano lo ka makau junta ce'u kei lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" = "What is

> > the normal weight of a baby at childbirth?"

> >

> > I think "cnano" is a mathematical thing - average/mean; that means "ni"

> would

> > be better than "ka".

>

>The x1 of junta, as signaled by makau, is what's averaged. If I used

>{ni}, we would have a second order amount coming into play: the extent to

>which some weight is the weight of a baby.

Ah. Yes. Then I guess I'd leave out the "ka". "lo junta" is what's being

averaged.

> > Also, I read past-tense, pronounced like "red" "lo'i

> > cifnu poi cazi jbena" as "a/some set(s) of babies who were just now

> born";

> > this is certainly not the only possible meaning, but would prefer (not

> insist

> > on) something clearer. Perhaps "pe ca lo nu jbena"?

>

>We do tend to read {ca} as {nau}, that's true. I would like

>to leave the example as counterweight for that bias, if there

>is not a lot of opposition.

No opposition here.

> > 3. In "le'i" example:

> > "ro le verba pu cuxna pa karda le'i cnita selcra" = "Each child chose a

> card

> > from the face-down collection."

> >

> > x1 crane x2 means x1 is in front (or is THE front) of x2. So selcra is

> > something that has a front. "cnita selcra", to me, means "beneath type of

> > thing that has a front; this doesn't bring to mind "face-down". How about

> > "le'i seke cnita crane". This would be the x2 of "cnita crane" (x1 cnita

> > crane x2 = "x1 is a beneath-type-of-front of x2"); if would be the

> something

> > that has a beneath-type-of-front.

>

>My thinking was "beneath faced", {selcra be lo cnita}, something whose

>face is beneath, not {cnita je selcra}.

OK. That works.

--

mi'e noras [email protected]

Nora LeChevalier



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 10 of June, 2004 23:38 GMT

noras:

> How about "banli"?

Yes, Adam suggested the same. Changed.

> Instead of "No", something like "speaker's option" or "may be".

I changed it to "irrelevant".

> > > "ma cnano lo ka makau junta ce'u kei lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" = "What

> is

> > > the normal weight of a baby at childbirth?"

>

> Ah. Yes. Then I guess I'd leave out the "ka". "lo junta" is what's being

> averaged.

Yes, that works with the new {lo}. It didn't with {su'o lo}. Excellent!

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 01:21 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:27PM -0400, xod wrote:

> That is in fact the case. Jorge is being overly precise. His quote here

> is trying to express that bare lo isn't *always* equivalent to su'o lo,

> but it certainly is sometimes.

I appreciate other people trying to reassure me, but I'd like to hear it from

xorxes, because it's his proposal, and so far he hasn't said this.

What I want confirmed is that bare {lo} is sometimes equivalent to {su'o}, and

that this equivalence can be explained without going via some concept I don't

believe in (like Mr. Rabbit or the constant RABBIT).

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 01:16:49PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:15, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > {me'o by.} is not a lerfu, it's a mekso. {la'e zo by. lerfu}.

>

> me'o by is a mekso consisting of one lerfu, which is the closest Lojban

> construct I can find to a lerfu. la'e zo by is whatever {by} refers to, which

> could be a number or a thing whose name begins with 'b'.

>

> {ro by. zo'u li by. du ...} is another sticking point, but that's for another

> section.

I don't see a problem with this one. (Though maybe there is one).

It's a seperate issue for sure though.

I replied to xorxes on jboske. It should address your point (xorxes

made basically the same argument about {la'e}).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyRMaDrrilS51AZ8RAsRQAJ9myoiXv73W6TMxzOfDt5s6PipmvQCgvxZK

IISejHUFCxX6xlHx6Ug3qLk=

=QLj6

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:17:17AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > I've decided to vote "no".

> >

> > My reasoning is that xorlo isn't well-defined, but oldlo very much is

> > (in fact, it's the best defined article out of all of them).

>

> Am I to take it then that your counter-proposal (which is required, by

> the way) is to maintain the status quo?

I don't think the status quo is ideal for gadri in general.

However, the status quo for {lo} is perfectly fine. {lo} is just

existential quantification, which is a perfectly useful thing to

have an article for.

That is, {PA1 lo PA2 broda cu FOO} always means {PA1 DA poi ke'a

cmima lo'i PA2 broda}. Or in the simple cases, {lo broda} is {su'o

da poi broda ku'o}.

> If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck

less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

mi mikce nitcu

tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm

hunting a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna

kalte}.

FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic"

article, if it could be better defined than the current proposal.

So you'd be able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau

pavyseljirna}.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyRX2DrrilS51AZ8RAhhTAJ9zgI8/WM3YQgnLn7aBV45qpb8l6ACdH5jo

zeku7xeQeFi/R6oFuCGvfIE=

=p/vO

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> That is, {PA1 lo PA2 broda cu FOO} always means {PA1 DA poi ke'a

> cmima lo'i PA2 broda}. Or in the simple cases, {lo broda} is {su'o

> da poi broda ku'o}.

insert {cu FOO} on the end of that first one.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyRcuDrrilS51AZ8RAt1QAJ4kG6uDFobBsyUKU3jbVlOWy3hLtQCcCkaR

B8BiLMx7aX9VSIJ9BlfnFQE=

=NooZ

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT

Jordan DeLong wrote:

>>If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

>>

>>

>

>Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

>only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck

>less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

>

>mi mikce nitcu

>

>

I can't help but feel that using tanru is a cop-out, avoiding the

question. You need to get down to the "Deep Gismu Structure" (or

something like it); we want to know if there's a way to say it

  • unambiguously* in Lojban. {mi mikce nitcu} might mean that I need

things like doctors need things...

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:58 GMT

On Thursday 10 June 2004 14:18, xod wrote:

> John E Clifford wrote:

> >Actually {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is false just in case no unicorn is

> > white and that happens when each is a different color from white or when

> > there are no unicorns.

>

> Sentences which are resistant to negation are meaningless sentences.

> This is rather basic and uncontroversial.

What do you mean by "resistant to negation"? {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} is

false, and {lo pavyseljirna na blabi} is true, if there are no unicorns. {lo

pavyseljirna naku blabi} is false if there are no unicorns, then {lo

pavyseljirna naku na blabi} is true.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 02:59 GMT

On Thursday 10 June 2004 15:13, [email protected] wrote:

> What about tense? Is {lo'e broda pu ca'o brode}

>

> lo ka ce'u pu ca'o brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

>

> or

>

> lo ka ce'u brode cu pu ca'o mutce kampu lo'i broda

>

> In other words, "the typical lion used to roam the savanna

> unimpeded" or "the typical lion used to be a cub"?

lo'e cinfo pu cifnu. For the other meaning, you say {lo'e pu broda}.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT

Jordan:

> I don't think the status quo is ideal for gadri in general.

The idea of the proposal is to give an integral solution to gadri

in general.

> However, the status quo for {lo} is perfectly fine. {lo} is just

> existential quantification, which is a perfectly useful thing to

> have an article for.

We already have {su'o} for that, and it doesn't change under the

proposal. Old {lo} just duplicates {su'o}.

> That is, {PA1 lo PA2 broda cu FOO} always means {PA1 DA poi ke'a

> cmima lo'i PA2 broda}.

Under the proposal, {PA1 lo PA2 broda} always means {PA1 da poi

ke'a me lo PA2 broda}.

> Or in the simple cases, {lo broda} is {su'o

> da poi broda ku'o}.

{su'o broda} is just that. Why is it so important to be able to

disguise {su'o} as {lo}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT

Rob Speer:

> I appreciate other people trying to reassure me, but I'd like to hear it from

> xorxes, because it's his proposal, and so far he hasn't said this.

>

> What I want confirmed is that bare {lo} is sometimes equivalent to {su'o},

> and

> that this equivalence can be explained without going via some concept I don't

> believe in (like Mr. Rabbit or the constant RABBIT).

I probably don't understand what you mean by "is sometimes equivalent to".

Do you think that {la djan} is sometimes equivalent to {su'o prenu},

for example? If yes, then certainly, {lo} is sometimes equivalent to

{su'o}.

Perhaps if you give me a sentence you have doubts about (preferrably

with some context) we can see if we agree on what it means. If we

both understand the same thing by it, then what are we arguing about?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:18 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

>

> Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

> only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck less

> (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

>

> mi mikce nitcu tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the meaning.

> le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

> ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

According to *whom*?

> The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm hunting

> a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna kalte}.

> FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic" article,

> if it could be better defined than the current proposal. So you'd be

> able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau pavyseljirna}.

A generic article connot, by definition, be qauntified over, which is

what you were complaining about.

-Robin


A completely different directions


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 11 of June, 2004 07:38 GMT posts: 14214

What does:

mi kalte lo da'i pavyseljirna

mean?

More importantly, what could it be made to mean?

Theoretically, we can define it any way we want, and da'i is pretty poorly defined right now.

What if we stuck with the status quo on "lo" and added:

  • If "da'i" is not defined in a way that boils down to "da'i causes the term it is attached to to become agnostic with respect to truth; it has no truth value and cannot affect the truth value of things that contain it", this proposal must immediatly be revisited.

It seems to me that that would just about solve everything, other than wrangling over lo's useless inner quantifier.

What do you all think?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 12:03 GMT

On Friday 11 June 2004 03:38, [email protected] wrote:

> What if we stuck with the status quo on "lo" and added:

>

> * If "da'i" is not defined in a way that boils down to "da'i causes the

> term it is attached to to become agnostic with respect to truth; it has no

> truth value and cannot affect the truth value of things that contain it",

> this proposal must immediatly be revisited.

>

> * If the first place of the selbri attached to "lo" does not, in fact,

> match anything in the real world [[crappy%20wording%20I'm%20sure,%20but%20this%20is%20just%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20a%20first%20stab|crappy wording I'm sure, but this is just

> a first stab]], it should be read as "lo da'i ", with the inner quantifier

> inserted between "lo" and "da'i".

>

> It seems to me that that would just about solve everything, other than

> wrangling over lo's useless inner quantifier.

>

> What do you all think?

Sounds good to me.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:03 GMT

A> In English at least we tend not to notice what level we are wworking at unless a serious problem arises. Will Lojbanfollow this pattern or build the levels in at the start (at least in some crude initial way)?

B> These do not seem to be levels of abstraction so much as groupings within the overall whatever of {lo} (assuming you are talking about your {lo}).

C> It is coherent, it is abstract not concrete, its relation to {su'o} is clearly spelled out (actually we have some choice here, but each is explicit and precise), its logic is known and works (though it does not allow all the contradictory list of things you want — just all you need).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> I smell an analogy coming on: {zo lo} refers by itself to the highest

> significant type, {PA zo lo} to instances of that type — at whatever level,

> When the levels are important we can press any number of predicates into

> service to mark (relative) subtypes/ instances.

> OK, so maybe it is not such a problem — except in practice.

A>When for example?

> But back to the analogy. Like {zo lo}, {lo broda} is for the highest

> relevant species, {PA lo broda} the for the specimens. And that analogy

> works just fine, althought there are not generally the intermediate relevant

> levels.

B>There can be intermediate levels though. {mi pu pinxe re vanju},

{mi pu pinxe re klesi be lo vanju}.

> Notice that it is distinctly not the Mr. Broda approach, however.

C>How does it differ?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:03 GMT

A> I can't find that carved anywhere. CLL has the opposite.

B> I would think that Lojbanists would be only slightly less fond of an opaque gadri than of an opaque place. Why the ongoing resistance to the present system, which works most of the time and so just needs a little work, mainly in gismu definitions?

Jordan DeLong wrote:

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:17:17AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > I've decided to vote "no".

> >

> > My reasoning is that xorlo isn't well-defined, but oldlo very much is

> > (in fact, it's the best defined article out of all of them).

>

> Am I to take it then that your counter-proposal (which is required, by

> the way) is to maintain the status quo?

I don't think the status quo is ideal for gadri in general.

However, the status quo for {lo} is perfectly fine. {lo} is just

existential quantification, which is a perfectly useful thing to

have an article for.

That is, {PA1 lo PA2 broda cu FOO} always means {PA1 DA poi ke'a

cmima lo'i PA2 broda}. Or in the simple cases, {lo broda} is {su'o

da poi broda ku'o}.

> If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck

less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

mi mikce nitcu

tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

A>ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm

hunting a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna

kalte}.

B>FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic"

article, if it could be better defined than the current proposal.

So you'd be able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau

pavyseljirna}.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyRX2DrrilS51AZ8RAhhTAJ9zgI8/WM3YQgnLn7aBV45qpb8l6ACdH5jo

zeku7xeQeFi/R6oFuCGvfIE=

=p/vO

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

"Fixing {lo}" won't solve all — or even a major — gadri problems. The argument below is one for finding a useful distinction between the uses of {lo} and {su'o}, not for breaking the equivalence. Several such proposals are around.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Jordan:

> I don't think the status quo is ideal for gadri in general.

The idea of the proposal is to give an integral solution to gadri

in general.

> However, the status quo for {lo} is perfectly fine. {lo} is just

> existential quantification, which is a perfectly useful thing to

> have an article for.

We already have {su'o} for that, and it doesn't change under the

proposal. Old {lo} just duplicates {su'o}.

> That is, {PA1 lo PA2 broda cu FOO} always means {PA1 DA poi ke'a

> cmima lo'i PA2 broda}.

Under the proposal, {PA1 lo PA2 broda} always means {PA1 da poi

ke'a me lo PA2 broda}.

> Or in the simple cases, {lo broda} is {su'o

> da poi broda ku'o}.

{su'o broda} is just that. Why is it so important to be able to

disguise {su'o} as {lo}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

Well, assuming John is a person, then {la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}, so I suppose we can safely assume {lo broda} implies {su'o broda}. If there is a differnce then, it must be that {su'o broda} does not imply {lo broda}. That is to say, there are properties which some broda have but which lo broda does not. This is a defensible position, namely that {lo broda} is from the upper end of "some," one or two cases don't make it for "in general" or whatever. There is a vagueness about how many do make it, but that can safely (pretty safely) be left to convention.

Jorge Llambías wrote:Rob Speer:

> I appreciate other people trying to reassure me, but I'd like to hear it from

> xorxes, because it's his proposal, and so far he hasn't said this.

>

> What I want confirmed is that bare {lo} is sometimes equivalent to {su'o},

> and

> that this equivalence can be explained without going via some concept I don't

> believe in (like Mr. Rabbit or the constant RABBIT).

I probably don't understand what you mean by "is sometimes equivalent to".

Do you think that {la djan} is sometimes equivalent to {su'o prenu},

for example? If yes, then certainly, {lo} is sometimes equivalent to

{su'o}.

Perhaps if you give me a sentence you have doubts about (preferrably

with some context) we can see if we agree on what it means. If we

both understand the same thing by it, then what are we arguing about?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

So, {lo da'i pavyseljirna cu blabi} is non-problematically true (barring some discussion about the color of unicorns) and {mi nitcu lo da'i mikce} is at least possibly true even if all doctors die. And so on. Since the doctor caase is not really a problem in Lojban, it dsoes not contribute much here, The unicorn case has its attractions and the overall plan would cover in one stroke the problem of floating opaque contexts ({kalte2} {xanri1} and so on). At first it looks like the {da'i} is misplaced; it might better be a modal "in an imaginary world" but then it is apparent that , though this works for the unicorn case, it does not for the {kalte} one, where the activity is real, only the object is not. (And, of course, {da'i} is a modal anyhow, just on the sumti bridi, not the whole sentence). Hmmm.

[email protected] wrote:A completely different directions

What does:

mi kalte lo da'i pavyseljirna

mean?

More importantly, what could it be made to mean?

Theoretically, we can define it any way we want, and da'i is pretty poorly defined right now.

What if we stuck with the status quo on "lo" and added:

  • If "da'i" is not defined in a way that boils down to "da'i causes the term it is attached to to become agnostic with respect to truth; it has no truth value and cannot affect the truth value of things that contain it", this proposal must immediatly be revisited.

It seems to me that that would just about solve everything, other than wrangling over lo's useless inner quantifier.

What do you all think?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> Well, assuming John is a person, then {la djan} does imply {su'o prenu},

> so I suppose we can safely assume {lo broda} implies {su'o broda}.

> If there is a differnce then, it must be that {su'o broda} does not

> imply {lo broda}. That is to say, there are properties which some

> broda have but which lo broda does not. This is a defensible position,

> namely that {lo broda} is from the upper end of "some," one or two

> cases don't make it for "in general" or whatever. There is a vagueness

> about how many do make it, but that can safely (pretty safely) be left

> to convention.

By George, I do believe you've got it!

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan

Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration

is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was

under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than

two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.

--Specht v. Netscape



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

Robin:

> What does:

> mi kalte lo da'i pavyseljirna

> mean?

"I hunt would-be unicorns"?

> * If "da'i" is not defined in a way that boils down to "da'i causes the term

> it is attached to to become agnostic with respect to truth; it has no truth

> value and cannot affect the truth value of things that contain it", this

> proposal must immediatly be revisited.

The proposed lo is very much veridical. When you say {mi nitcu lo mikce}

you are using the veridical sense of mikce. It certainly affects the

truth value, because {mi nitcu lo mikce} can have a different truth

value than {mi nitcu lo tanxe}.

I think all the talk about fictional characters is beside the point.

The BPFK does not have to rule on the truth value of statements

about unicorns or Sherlock Holmes, all we have to do is agree on

what the statements mean. Whether people consider such statements

true or false is not the BPFK's business.

> * If the first place of the selbri attached to "lo" does not, in fact, match

> anything in the real world [[crappy%20wording%20I'm%20sure,%20but%20this%20is%20just%20a%20first%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20stab|crappy wording I'm sure, but this is just a first

> stab]], it should be read as "lo da'i ", with the inner quantifier inserted

> between "lo" and "da'i".

In {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni}, does the x1 of gusni match

anything in the real world? I think it does, because sunlight

exists in the real world, and yet I would not say that there

is some instance of sunlight such that the plant is lacking that

instance.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

pc:

> Well, assuming John is a person, then {la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}, so I

> suppose we can safely assume {lo broda} implies {su'o broda}.

OK. As long as nobody takes that to mean "you can go and blindly replace

{lo broda} for {su'o broda} in any sentence" then that's fine. For example,

even though "{la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}" is sort of true, if properly

understood, you can't just replace {la djan} with {su'o prenu} in {la djan

na klama le zarci} and preserve the truth value. When you introduce a

quantifier you have to be careful to place it in the proper position.

{lo broda} is not quantified, so when you want to look at a quantified

replacement, you have to be careful where in the sentence you put the

quantifier.

> If there is a

> differnce then, it must be that {su'o broda} does not imply {lo broda}.

Again, it depends on what you mean by a term implying another.

If it's a matter of cutting and pasting, then no, in general we

can't say that one implies the other.

> That

> is to say, there are properties which some broda have but which lo broda does

> not.

For example?

> This is a defensible position, namely that {lo broda} is from the upper

> end of "some," one or two cases don't make it for "in general" or whatever.

> There is a vagueness about how many do make it, but that can safely (pretty

> safely) be left to convention.

Maybe. I'd need to see concrete examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:22:27PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Jordan DeLong wrote:

> >>If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

> >only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck

> >less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

> >

> >mi mikce nitcu

> >

> >

> I can't help but feel that using tanru is a cop-out, avoiding the

> question.

I disagree. The question was about how to say something, which in

fact *can* be said under the current system (in a few ways).

> You need to get down to the "Deep Gismu Structure" (or

> something like it);

la gydysys. malylijda

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAycd4DrrilS51AZ8RAudLAKDKM+l1MldmBQndtF3OL6m037iL/gCfZUgJ

Xj+sILPhwvceTsSYPl7Ywv8=

=9MSA

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:04 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> >

> > Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

> > only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck less

> > (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

> >

> > mi mikce nitcu

> > tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

>

> Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the meaning.

If you're talking about the old proposed fix for people using "lenu"

everywhere of making {da nu ...} always true (i.e. imaginary events

exist), this is completely irrelevant.

(And I don't like that fix so much---I'd much rather have better

gadri).

{tu'a lo mikce} is {LEsu'u co'e lo mikce}. Works perfectly.

> > le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

>

> Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

How so? I believe this is CLL-sanctioned...

> > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

>

> According to *whom*?

Your memory isn't so good Robin. :-) You voted it, along with

everyone but PC, IIRC, back in the day.

CLL contradicts itself about whether {ro} is importing. The

naku-rules require that it be non-importing1, but CLL has a passage

which says it is importing.

The latter should be viewed as an error, because basically all

symbolic logic systems have universal quantification as non-importing

(and in general, they require quantification over all things in

order to talk about specific subset of things, so non-importing vs.

importing would only make a distinction between an empty or non-empty

universe).

1 They follow the usual convetion of saying that existential

quantification is defined in terms of universal quantification and

negation. ~(x)~x?, {naku roda naku zo'u da broda}, is the

same as Exx?, {da zo'u da broda}. You can't have this if

{ro} imports.

> > The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm hunting

> > a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna kalte}.

>

>

I agree that it sucks that that is the best we have. However in

real conversation it's totally reasonable, and does mean "I'm hunting

unicorns".

Xorxes used to use {lo'e} for this. I think his definition for

{lo} is supposed to be somehow related to his old {lo'e}. No one

understood the latter either, though, IIRC.

> > FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic" article,

> > if it could be better defined than the current proposal. So you'd be

> > able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau pavyseljirna}.

>

> A generic article connot, by definition, be qauntified over, which is

> what you were complaining about.

It could be handled the way {lo'e} and {le'e} are. What I was

complaining about was that it is not very well defined what xorlo

means.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAycp9DrrilS51AZ8RAlqzAJ9D2uk/m+Cq8TX0yJ4WP6iv8+HX3QCfafYZ

c7kuqB1o9q9y77NMvaE1lKM=

=q52i

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 07:59:58PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

...

> {su'o broda} is just that. Why is it so important to be able to

> disguise {su'o} as {lo}?

{su'o broda} *is* {lo}. You're just allowed to omit the {lo} for

brevity, and primarily for things like {pa broda}, {me'iro broda},

etc.

The default of {lo broda} as {su'o} saves you a syllable for the

common case of existential quantification.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAycsfDrrilS51AZ8RAu0aAJwPt1UamccgrisUDescDLwJGEv+dwCgi+gh

Bv809Yy5G19V4zvyIOqiAM4=

=pRDV

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:38:47AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> A completely different directions

> What does:

>

> mi kalte lo da'i pavyseljirna

>

> mean?

>

> More importantly, what could it be made to mean?

If AndR were here he'd say he doesn't like {da'i} used in this way.

I think he wanted it for the "supposing ..." of logical proofs.

Imho it sucks anyway; it'd be a lot cleaner to have a new article

in selma'o LE which means what you'd have {lo da'i} mean, than to

have to attach a UI to it.

...

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAycvXDrrilS51AZ8RAuayAJ4mBCKq9MPLGaVDPhP9ygvqlSHwOgCdFjqL

h5hp5FPbhYGKWFg+6BXmcFw=

=OsNO

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:12:19PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I probably don't understand what you mean by "is sometimes equivalent to".

>

> Do you think that {la djan} is sometimes equivalent to {su'o prenu},

> for example? If yes, then certainly, {lo} is sometimes equivalent to

> {su'o}.

What I want is for every sentence where {lo} was previously used to mean {su'o}

to still have what it was intended to mean as a possible meaning.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

Rob:

> What I want is for every sentence where {lo} was previously used to mean

> {su'o}

> to still have what it was intended to mean as a possible meaning.

I can't think of any cases where that would not hold.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

A> Misleading; I take it the intent is "I hunt unicorns, whether or not they exist."

B> What does this mean? Even if there are no doctors, it still may be true that I need a doctor. But, by any normal rules {mi nitcu lo mikce} has to be false, if {lo mikce} is veridical and there are no doctors. The difference from the case with {lo tanxe} is just a different opaque claim.

C>Right, but BPFK ought to decide on a uniform way of 1) expressing such claims and 2) deciding whether they are true or not.

D>Not a good case to argue anything from, since it is itself a case in need of a resolution. I would say that the Lojban claim is that the plant gets no sunlight at all and thus that any bit of sunlight is a bit the plant doesn't get. But I dmity that it is possible to read the Lojban differently or to apply this reading differently.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> What does:

> mi kalte lo da'i pavyseljirna

> mean?

A>"I hunt would-be unicorns"?

> * If "da'i" is not defined in a way that boils down to "da'i causes the term

> it is attached to to become agnostic with respect to truth; it has no truth

> value and cannot affect the truth value of things that contain it", this

> proposal must immediatly be revisited.

B>The proposed lo is very much veridical. When you say {mi nitcu lo mikce}

you are using the veridical sense of mikce. It certainly affects the

truth value, because {mi nitcu lo mikce} can have a different truth

value than {mi nitcu lo tanxe}.

C>I think all the talk about fictional characters is beside the point.

The BPFK does not have to rule on the truth value of statements

about unicorns or Sherlock Holmes, all we have to do is agree on

what the statements mean. Whether people consider such statements

true or false is not the BPFK's business.

> * If the first place of the selbri attached to "lo" does not, in fact, match

> anything in the real world [[crappy%20wording%20I'm%20sure,%20but%20this%20is%20just%20a%20first%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20stab|crappy wording I'm sure, but this is just a first

> stab]], it should be read as "lo da'i ", with the inner quantifier inserted

> between "lo" and "da'i".

D>In {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni}, does the x1 of gusni match

anything in the real world? I think it does, because sunlight

exists in the real world, and yet I would not say that there

is some instance of sunlight such that the plant is lacking that

instance.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

A> It is not a replacement, it is an entailment. The opposite implcation does not hold, so they cannot replace one another in all environments. In particular, because of the {la djan} entailment, we have a {naku su'o} to {naku la djan} entailment as well (but not, of course, the reverse).

B> I did not think my short-form was unclear, but to spell it out: except in special cases (the two we have at the moment are negations and opaque contexts), a sentence containing {la djan} entails one containing {su'o prenu} at the same place. I suspect that there will be pronoun tidying to do as well, but I don't know the general rule on that (nor pronouns generally, come to think of it).

C> This is a pure existence proof: since {su'o broda cu brode} does not entail {lo broda cu brode}, there must be at least one set of values for {broda} and {brode}, such that {su'o broda cu brode} is true and {lo broda cu brode} is false (what "does not entail" means).

D> See just above. But suppose that we have two lions who for somereason walk on their hind feet (trained, sor front paws, evolutionary leap, whatever). We night not want to jump from {re cinfo...} to {lo cinfo...}. That is, lions don't do that sort of thing for all that this pair does.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Well, assuming John is a person, then {la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}, so I

> suppose we can safely assume {lo broda} implies {su'o broda}.

OK. As long as nobody takes that to mean "you can go and blindly replace

{lo broda} for {su'o broda} in any sentence" then that's fine. For example,

even though "{la djan} does imply {su'o prenu}" is sort of true, if properly

understood, you can't just replace {la djan} with {su'o prenu} in {la djan

na klama le zarci} and preserve the truth value. When you introduce a

quantifier you have to be careful to place it in the proper position.

{lo broda} is not quantified, so when you want to look at a quantified

replacement, you have to be careful where in the sentence you put the

quantifier.

> If there is a

> differnce then, it must be that {su'o broda} does not imply {lo broda}.

B>Again, it depends on what you mean by a term implying another.

If it's a matter of cutting and pasting, then no, in general we

can't say that one implies the other.

> That

> is to say, there are properties which some broda have but which lo broda does

> not.

C>For example?

> This is a defensible position, namely that {lo broda} is from the upper

> end of "some," one or two cases don't make it for "in general" or whatever.

> There is a vagueness about how many do make it, but that can safely (pretty

> safely) be left to convention.

D>Maybe. I'd need to see concrete examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:05 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:53:45AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:22:27PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> > Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > >>If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> > >

> > >Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

> > >only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck

> > >less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

> > >

> > >mi mikce nitcu

> > >

> > I can't help but feel that using tanru is a cop-out, avoiding the

> > question.

>

> I disagree. The question was about how to say something, which in

> fact *can* be said under the current system (in a few ways).

I will vote against any proposal that *requires* me to use tanru to

express something. That goes utterly against my model of how Lojban

works.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:06:38AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> > >

> > > Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said.

> > > The only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system

> > > suck less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to

> > > say).

> > >

> > > mi mikce nitcu tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism

> > > way)

> >

> > Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the

> > meaning.

>

> If you're talking about the old proposed fix for people using "lenu"

> everywhere of making {da nu ...} always true (i.e. imaginary events

> exist), this is completely irrelevant.

I have no idea what your talking about.

My point was that tu'a is short for an unspecified abstraction. If

you're going to propose using tu'a, you need to show me what it expands

to, at which point I'll tell you that that's not what I need because 1)

I want a doctor, not an abstraction and 2) abstractions are

non-veridical.

> (And I don't like that fix so much---I'd much rather have better

> gadri).

Then why didn't you propose one when I asked for you counter-proposal?

Please tell us more about this gadri so we have something to work with.

> {tu'a lo mikce} is {LEsu'u co'e lo mikce}. Works perfectly.

You original sentence doesn't parse, I've just noticed.

Am I correct in believing that you wish to translate "I need a doctor"

with:

mi nitcu lo su'u lo mikce cu sarcu mi

?

> > > le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > > lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> >

> > Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

>

> How so? I believe this is CLL-sanctioned...

We've already had fights about this; it boils down to how you read the

CLL. I do not believe that "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi" says anything

about unicorns in general; only the typical ones.

> > > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

> >

> > According to *whom*?

>

> Your memory isn't so good Robin. :-)

True.

> You voted it, along with everyone but PC, IIRC, back in the day.

Umm, what? The BPFK hasn't reached ro yet, to my knowledge. Please

give me more detail.

> > > The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm

> > > hunting a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna

> > > kalte}.

> >

> >

>

> I agree that it sucks that that is the best we have. However in real

> conversation it's totally reasonable, and does mean "I'm hunting

> unicorns".

Again: I will absolutely oppose any proposal that *requires* me to use

tanru.

> Xorxes used to use {lo'e} for this. I think his definition for {lo}

> is supposed to be somehow related to his old {lo'e}. No one

> understood the latter either, though, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure I understand the new lo just fine. Again, I'm waiting

for a concrete replacement from you (or anyone).

> > > FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic"

> > > article, if it could be better defined than the current proposal.

> > > So you'd be able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau

> > > pavyseljirna}.

> >

> > A generic article connot, by definition, be qauntified over, which

> > is what you were complaining about.

>

> It could be handled the way {lo'e} and {le'e} are.

I have no idea how those are handled with respect to logical

quantification. My belief was that they are ignored.

> What I was complaining about was that it is not very well defined what

> xorlo means.

It means *nothing*. It is semantically empty. It's like the way "cu"

says "Here comes a selbri"; it means "here comes a sumti". Everything

else is left to context.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT

A> I can't find what in the {naku} rules implies non-importing {ro}, citation please.

B> Almost NO symbolic logic system has non-importing "all." The only exceptions I could find were 1) a logic set precisely to explore what the results of that change might be and 2) the 19th century version of syllogistic which tried to take advantage of Boolean formats without using conditionals. The latter became obsolete after Frege, though still — I fear — is taught in "Logic" classes by non-logicians and is completely explained by the modern "all S is P" read as "(x)(Sx => Px)" (with importing (x)).

C> How does your reasoning on that go? The equation is standard logic (i.e., with importing universal). Which way does the equation fail? If something is broda, then it is not the case that everything is non-broda is indifferent to importation. And if it is not the case that everything is non-broda, then presumably there is a counterinstance, since, if the universal is not importing, "All broda are..." is true for any ",,," and the negation is false, contrary to the hypothesis.

Jordan DeLong wrote:

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> >

> > Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

> > only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck less

> > (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

> >

> > mi mikce nitcu

> > tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

>

> Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the meaning.

If you're talking about the old proposed fix for people using "lenu"

everywhere of making {da nu ...} always true (i.e. imaginary events

exist), this is completely irrelevant.

(And I don't like that fix so much---I'd much rather have better

gadri).

{tu'a lo mikce} is {LEsu'u co'e lo mikce}. Works perfectly.

> > le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

>

> Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

How so? I believe this is CLL-sanctioned...

> > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

>

> According to *whom*?

Your memory isn't so good Robin. :-) You voted it, along with

everyone but PC, IIRC, back in the day.

A>CLL contradicts itself about whether {ro} is importing. The

naku-rules require that it be non-importing1, but CLL has a passage

which says it is importing.

B>The latter should be viewed as an error, because basically all

symbolic logic systems have universal quantification as non-importing

(and in general, they require quantification over all things in

order to talk about specific subset of things, so non-importing vs.

importing would only make a distinction between an empty or non-empty

universe).

C>1 They follow the usual convetion of saying that existential

quantification is defined in terms of universal quantification and

negation. ~(x)~x?, {naku roda naku zo'u da broda}, is the

same as Exx?, {da zo'u da broda}. You can't have this if

{ro} imports.

> > The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm hunting

> > a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna kalte}.

>

>

I agree that it sucks that that is the best we have. However in

real conversation it's totally reasonable, and does mean "I'm hunting

unicorns".

Xorxes used to use {lo'e} for this. I think his definition for

{lo} is supposed to be somehow related to his old {lo'e}. No one

understood the latter either, though, IIRC.

> > FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic" article,

> > if it could be better defined than the current proposal. So you'd be

> > able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau pavyseljirna}.

>

> A generic article connot, by definition, be qauntified over, which is

> what you were complaining about.

It could be handled the way {lo'e} and {le'e} are. What I was

complaining about was that it is not very well defined what xorlo

means.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAycp9DrrilS51AZ8RAlqzAJ9D2uk/m+Cq8TX0yJ4WP6iv8+HX3QCfafYZ

c7kuqB1o9q9y77NMvaE1lKM=

=q52i

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 06:19:15AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I think all the talk about fictional characters is beside the point.

> The BPFK does not have to rule on the truth value of statements about

> unicorns or Sherlock Holmes, all we have to do is agree on what the

> statements mean. Whether people consider such statements true or false

> is not the BPFK's business.

I think that's a good point.

> > * If the first place of the selbri attached to "lo" does not, in

> > fact, match anything in the real world [[crappy%20wording%20I'm%20sure,%20but%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20%3E%20this%20is%20just%20a%20first%20stab|crappy wording I'm sure, but

> > this is just a first stab]], it should be read as "lo da'i ", with

> > the inner quantifier inserted between "lo" and "da'i".

>

> In {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni}, does the x1 of gusni match

> anything in the real world? I think it does, because sunlight exists

> in the real world, and yet I would not say that there is some instance

> of sunlight such that the plant is lacking that instance.

Point.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:12:24AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> Imho it sucks anyway; it'd be a lot cleaner to have a new article

> in selma'o LE which means what you'd have {lo da'i} mean, than to

> have to attach a UI to it.

And you are going to explain this new article to us when?

The example xorxes just used, le spati cu nitcu lo solri gusni, is

actually better than what I've been using. It is obviously *not* su'o

da, and is just as obviously something we'd like to say.

How would your new gadri handle that?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 19:06 GMT

pc:

> A> It is not a replacement, it is an entailment. The opposite implcation

> does not hold, so they cannot replace one another in all environments. In

> particular, because of the {la djan} entailment, we have a {naku su'o} to

> {naku la djan} entailment as well (but not, of course, the reverse).

Exactly. That's also why replacement between {su'o broda} and {lo broda},

either way, doesn't always work. In special environments it might fail.

> B> I did not think my short-form was unclear, but to spell it out: except in

> special cases (the two we have at the moment are negations and opaque

> contexts), a sentence containing {la djan} entails one containing {su'o

> prenu} at the same place.

I did not think your short-form was unclear, but it's worth spelling

out the special cases because those special cases are what most of this

discussion has been about.

> This is a pure existence proof: since {su'o broda cu brode} does not

> entail {lo broda cu brode}, there must be at least one set of values for

> {broda} and {brode}, such that {su'o broda cu brode} is true and {lo broda cu

> brode} is false (what "does not entail" means).

I can't think of any cases where {su'o broda cu brode} does not

entail {lo broda cu brode}.

> But suppose that we have two lions who for somereason

> walk on their hind feet (trained, sor front paws, evolutionary leap,

> whatever). We night not want to jump from {re cinfo...} to {lo cinfo...}.

> That is, lions don't do that sort of thing for all that this pair does.

In that case, we can say: "[[Under%20special%20circumstances,%20such%20as%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ewhen%20they%20are%20trained,%20etc.|Under special circumstances, such as

when they are trained, etc.]] lions walk on their hind feet."

or "Look! Lions walk on their hind feet!" The bracketed part

may sometimes be understood from context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT

I'll be away for 2 weeks. Robin knows how to reach me in case of revolt,

but so far my vote remains in support of le xautce nuncikre.

mu'o mi'e xod

--

Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT

Well, if you think that {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, then the two ARE materially equivalent and can replace one another salve veritatem. The intensional contexts drop out of consideration because the replacement there is also in a single world, just not this one. Which brings me back to upper/lower fragment pragmatics to explain the difference between them. I think it is a reasonable one but is clearly not at all what you have had in mind.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A> It is not a replacement, it is an entailment. The opposite implcation

> does not hold, so they cannot replace one another in all environments. In

> particular, because of the {la djan} entailment, we have a {naku su'o} to

> {naku la djan} entailment as well (but not, of course, the reverse).

Exactly. That's also why replacement between {su'o broda} and {lo broda},

either way, doesn't always work. In special environments it might fail.

> B> I did not think my short-form was unclear, but to spell it out: except in

> special cases (the two we have at the moment are negations and opaque

> contexts), a sentence containing {la djan} entails one containing {su'o

> prenu} at the same place.

I did not think your short-form was unclear, but it's worth spelling

out the special cases because those special cases are what most of this

discussion has been about.

> This is a pure existence proof: since {su'o broda cu brode} does not

> entail {lo broda cu brode}, there must be at least one set of values for

> {broda} and {brode}, such that {su'o broda cu brode} is true and {lo broda cu

> brode} is false (what "does not entail" means).

I can't think of any cases where {su'o broda cu brode} does not

entail {lo broda cu brode}.

> But suppose that we have two lions who for somereason

> walk on their hind feet (trained, sor front paws, evolutionary leap,

> whatever). We night not want to jump from {re cinfo...} to {lo cinfo...}.

> That is, lions don't do that sort of thing for all that this pair does.

In that case, we can say: "[[Under%20special%20circumstances,%20such%20as%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Ewhen%20they%20are%20trained,%20etc.|Under special circumstances, such as

when they are trained, etc.]] lions walk on their hind feet."

or "Look! Lions walk on their hind feet!" The bracketed part

may sometimes be understood from context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:02:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:06:38AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> > > >

> > > > Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said.

> > > > The only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system

> > > > suck less (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to

> > > > say).

> > > >

> > > > mi mikce nitcu tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism

> > > > way)

> > >

> > > Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the

> > > meaning.

> >

> > If you're talking about the old proposed fix for people using "lenu"

> > everywhere of making {da nu ...} always true (i.e. imaginary events

> > exist), this is completely irrelevant.

>

> I have no idea what your talking about.

>

> My point was that tu'a is short for an unspecified abstraction. If

> you're going to propose using tu'a, you need to show me what it expands

> to, at which point I'll tell you that that's not what I need because 1)

> I want a doctor, not an abstraction and 2) abstractions are

> non-veridical.

You {se sarcu} an abstraction, not a doctor, which is why it works.

So what do you mean "abstractions are non-veridical", if you're not

talking about the old "every nu exists" kludge?

In {da nu do mrobi'o}, the sentence definitely claims something is

the event of you dying. The only question (back in the day) was

whether the X which makes that true is a real event (as in in real

life), or some conceptual hypothetical event.

IIRC, John's position was that "da nu " is always true.

I think that that sucks, and is a lame way to work around the fact

that people erroneously use "lenu" when some other gadri would be

better. Of course, you can hardly blame them for that in *some*

cases, because the other gadri would be some gadri we don't really

have right now...

> > (And I don't like that fix so much---I'd much rather have better

> > gadri).

>

> Then why didn't you propose one when I asked for you counter-proposal?

>

> Please tell us more about this gadri so we have something to work with.

>

> > {tu'a lo mikce} is {LEsu'u co'e lo mikce}. Works perfectly.

>

> You original sentence doesn't parse, I've just noticed.

That's because either you quoted it wrong, or this crappy shim

between the board and mail did it (it's been fucking with my mail

text, removing blank lines and stuff).

> > > > mi mikce nitcu tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism

> > > > way)

Was two sentences in my original mail.

mi mikce nitcu

and

tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi

I can understand why you were confused if you read it as one

sentence...

> > > > le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > > > lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > >

> > > Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

> >

> > How so? I believe this is CLL-sanctioned...

>

> We've already had fights about this; it boils down to how you read the

> CLL. I do not believe that "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi" says anything

> about unicorns in general; only the typical ones.

But if all unicorns have a property, then that property is equally true of

the typical unicorn.

Which is why in this case both {le'e} and {lo'e} work equally well

as {ro}, but make slightly less strong claims. (Though they at

least escape potential future embarassment about "black swans"...)

> > > > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

> > >

> > > According to *whom*?

> >

> > Your memory isn't so good Robin. :-)

>

> True.

>

> > You voted it, along with everyone but PC, IIRC, back in the day.

>

> Umm, what? The BPFK hasn't reached ro yet, to my knowledge. Please

> give me more detail.

This was not a BPFK vote, and obviously not binding. It was done

on the wiki almost 2 years ago, by AndR.

Actually I think Cowan might have eventually disagreed, and then

refused to give a reason why....

> > > > The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm

> > > > hunting a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna

> > > > kalte}.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I agree that it sucks that that is the best we have. However in real

> > conversation it's totally reasonable, and does mean "I'm hunting

> > unicorns".

>

> Again: I will absolutely oppose any proposal that *requires* me to use

> tanru.

I was describing the language as-is, not a proposal.

> > Xorxes used to use {lo'e} for this. I think his definition for {lo}

> > is supposed to be somehow related to his old {lo'e}. No one

> > understood the latter either, though, IIRC.

>

> I'm pretty sure I understand the new lo just fine. Again, I'm waiting

> for a concrete replacement from you (or anyone).

Maybe you could explain it to us better than xorxes?

> > > > FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic"

> > > > article, if it could be better defined than the current proposal.

> > > > So you'd be able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau

> > > > pavyseljirna}.

> > >

> > > A generic article connot, by definition, be qauntified over, which

> > > is what you were complaining about.

> >

> > It could be handled the way {lo'e} and {le'e} are.

>

> I have no idea how those are handled with respect to logical

> quantification. My belief was that they are ignored.

They are. They talk about a singleton, conceptual thing.

There is an X, such that X is the abstract entity of the "typical

foobar" and ....

> > What I was complaining about was that it is not very well defined what

> > xorlo means.

>

> It means *nothing*. It is semantically empty. It's like the way "cu"

> says "Here comes a selbri"; it means "here comes a sumti". Everything

> else is left to context.

u'isai

I will certainly not vote for anything which leaves the entire

meaning of a gadri up to context.

Why would anyone ever use any gadri other than "lo"?

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyiD1DrrilS51AZ8RAhfwAJ9F0DS8SLCt0RmM3KlsDR1PNcoIXQCfbz/y

fQNnFq8L8oni5hg6dBrjew8=

=X8a4

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT

pc:

> Well, if you think that {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, then the

> two ARE materially equivalent and can replace one another salve veritatem.

I didn't say {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, just that

{su'o broda cu brode} entails {lo broda cu brode}. I'm not sure how

much more you are letting in with the "..."

And {lo broda cu brode} does not entail {su'o broda cu brode} because

the first is not a claim about broda instances. {lo broda cu brode}

is silent about broda instances. Claims about {lo broda} often do

apply to instances, but they need not.

> The intensional contexts drop out of consideration because the replacement

> there is also in a single world, just not this one.

But such replacements often require paraphrasing, so that from

{lo broda cu brode} it doesn't follow that {su'o broda cu brode}.

> Which brings me back to

> upper/lower fragment pragmatics to explain the difference between them. I

> think it is a reasonable one but is clearly not at all what you have had in

> mind.

I'm afraid I don't know what upper/lower fragment pragmatics are,

so I can't comment.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 21:53 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:03:15AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> I can't find what in the {naku} rules implies non-importing

> {ro}, citation please.

Suppose ro is importing, and there are no unicorns:

ro pavyseljirna cu blabi is false, since there are no unicorns

naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi therefore is true

== su'o pavyseljirna naku cu blabi chapter 16

Which says there is a unicorn, contradicing the supposition.

> B> Almost NO symbolic logic system has non-importing "all." The

> only exceptions I could find were 1) a logic set precisely to explore

> what the results of that change might be and 2) the 19th century

> version of syllogistic which tried to take advantage of Boolean

> formats without using conditionals. The latter became obsolete

> after Frege, though still — I fear — is taught in "Logic" classes

> by non-logicians and is completely explained by the modern "all S

> is P" read as "(x)(Sx => Px)" (with importing (x)).

You claimed this last time we had this discussion, and everyone who

did any research on it found different results than you claim.

`(x)(Sx => Px)' is precicely what I'm talking about---it doesn't

matter if universal is importing. The only difference is whether

the thing has the side affect of asserting that the universe is

non-empty. If you think that that statement asserts Ex(Sx), please

tell me (and then apply the above about lojban to your system of

logic).

There's even a name for the fallacy of assuming that universals

import---"the existential fallacy". Importing universals is

old-school, aristotle-type bullshit.

Anyway, if you just want to relive the debate, maybe you should go

to the lojban list and jboske list archives?

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyibxDrrilS51AZ8RArPaAJwMbRIgd9xORV4UjkrSXD4fAjm2wgCZAXch

WxCrl2dECrj0y3d5pmufvG0=

=MfbI

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT

A> Well, I meant nothing by "..." than you do by: some appropriate context.

B> Well, I took the analogy with the John case to mean that it did. Also, this move has more serious consequences: it means that lo broda has properties that no broda actually has and that is strange given that it is supposed to be about what brodas do. The easiest way out, if you want to keep this point, is to say that {lo broda} stand for the species broda and that that clearly has all kinds of species properties that broda do not have (assuming they are not themselves species). But it still remains — if species are to be useful devices — that {lo broda cu brode}, where {brode} is not a species property, entails {su'o broda cu brode}, since it means that Broda (the species) factually (not merely conceptually) overlaps Brode (the species) and that only happens when the intersection of the corresponding sets is not empty, i.e., something is both a broda and brode.

C> Frinstance. The mutual entailments says "replacement as is"

D> Sorry; the suggestion that although {lo} and {su'o} are materially equivalent (back when you seemed to be saying that), in terms of how they were used, {lo} might be used for the upper range of "some," for generalities and the like, while {su'o} would be reserved for the lower range, particular individuals on particular occasions and the like.

[email protected]> wrote:

pc:

> Well, if you think that {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, then the

> two ARE materially equivalent and can replace one another salve veritatem.

A>I didn't say {...su'o broda...} entails {...lo broda...}, just that

{su'o broda cu brode} entails {lo broda cu brode}. I'm not sure how

much more you are letting in with the "..."

B>And {lo broda cu brode} does not entail {su'o broda cu brode} because

the first is not a claim about broda instances. {lo broda cu brode}

is silent about broda instances. Claims about {lo broda} often do

apply to instances, but they need not.

> The intensional contexts drop out of consideration because the replacement

> there is also in a single world, just not this one.

C>But such replacements often require paraphrasing, so that from

{lo broda cu brode} it doesn't follow that {su'o broda cu brode}.

> Which brings me back to

> upper/lower fragment pragmatics to explain the difference between them. I

> think it is a reasonable one but is clearly not at all what you have had in

> mind.

D>I'm afraid I don't know what upper/lower fragment pragmatics are,

so I can't comment.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:06:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Rob:

> > What I want is for every sentence where {lo} was previously used to mean

> > {su'o}

> > to still have what it was intended to mean as a possible meaning.

>

> I can't think of any cases where that would not hold.

Okay. The part that worried me is that it seemed like the only reason it would

hold was due to the properties of RABBIT or Mr. Rabbit or whatever.

For example, {mi viska lo ractu} should be interpretable as "I see some

rabbits" _without_ the need to use the following logic:

  • The sentence means "I see Mr. Rabbit".
  • Mr. Rabbit does whatever his instances do.
  • Therefore, the speaker of the sentence probably sees some rabbits.

I would prefer the logic to go like this:

  • The sentence talks about the speaker seeing rabbit, where "rabbit" is

unquantified.

  • So I'll guess at what the outer quantifier is, or whether it exists at all.

It should exist, because he's probably not talking about rabbit goo or

speaking intensionally. And the quantifier probably isn't {ro}. It might be

{pa} or {so'o}.

  • In any event, it would be safe to say that he sees some rabbits.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 11 of June, 2004 23:52 GMT

A> My memory is rather different: several people found the systems I mentioned, but all had to admit that (x)Fx entails (Ex)Fx, which is all that importing means. It certainly does not mean that (x)(Fx => Gx) entails (Ex)Fx. But the reason for that is not that the universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the inference suggested.

With restricted quantifiers ("all Fs" rather than "all x, x is F..."), the rules are rather different: "not all" enatails not "some not" but only "less than all" (O proprosition, {me'i} in Lojban, which, being negative, is not importing). The rule you cite is for unrestricted quantification, but in that (x)(Fx => Gx) is true. So your argument confuses two different things and fails.

B> Well, in a logical language it is a bad idea to throw stones at Aristotle. The "existential fallacy" was product of that same 19th century syllogistic that muddled things together as you have been doing (there was not a single logician among the propounders of this system, a fact that Charles Dodgson used to rail against very effectively). As you know, since you have followed the discussion, the decision whether universals import is largely an aesthetic one: importing gives a prettier system in some peoples' eyes, non-importing in others'. For whatever reason, logicians have (people like McTaggart aside) generally gone with importing.

C>I don't want to relive the debate, just clarify what you are doing so that it does not muddy the rest of this discussion (though I admit I can't quite work out how it comes in even).

Jordan DeLong wrote:

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:03:15AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> I can't find what in the {naku} rules implies non-importing

> {ro}, citation please.

Suppose ro is importing, and there are no unicorns:

ro pavyseljirna cu blabi is false, since there are no unicorns

naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi therefore is true

== su'o pavyseljirna naku cu blabi chapter 16

Which says there is a unicorn, contradicing the supposition.

> B> Almost NO symbolic logic system has non-importing "all." The

> only exceptions I could find were 1) a logic set precisely to explore

> what the results of that change might be and 2) the 19th century

> version of syllogistic which tried to take advantage of Boolean

> formats without using conditionals. The latter became obsolete

> after Frege, though still — I fear — is taught in "Logic" classes

> by non-logicians and is completely explained by the modern "all S

> is P" read as "(x)(Sx => Px)" (with importing (x)).

A>You claimed this last time we had this discussion, and everyone who

did any research on it found different results than you claim.

`(x)(Sx => Px)' is precicely what I'm talking about---it doesn't

matter if universal is importing. The only difference is whether

the thing has the side affect of asserting that the universe is

non-empty. If you think that that statement asserts Ex(Sx), please

tell me (and then apply the above about lojban to your system of

logic).

B>There's even a name for the fallacy of assuming that universals

import---"the existential fallacy". Importing universals is

old-school, aristotle-type bullshit.

C>Anyway, if you just want to relive the debate, maybe you should go

to the lojban list and jboske list archives?

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyibxDrrilS51AZ8RArPaAJwMbRIgd9xORV4UjkrSXD4fAjm2wgCZAXch

WxCrl2dECrj0y3d5pmufvG0=

=MfbI

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT

I admit I have lost trak of who is saying what here. But..

What does "all NU are non-veridical" mean? Ordinarily "veridical" turns up in reference to {le} (that le broda does not have to be a broda) and my memory (that the fact I "remember" something does not mean it happened). I suppose from the rest of the context that her it means that lo nu da broda does not have to have actually occurred forthe expression to have a referent. True, all events exist, but not all will have occurred — or "obtained" as philosopher like to say.

I would think that {lo'e broda} required some broda to behave in order for it to have a typical behavior; {le'e} on the other hand can work for anything, real or not. I supose that the white unicorns are stereotypes at least, and so, vewry likely, are the ones I am hunting.

On the confusion between "For all x, if Fx then..." and "All Fs are ..." as formal positions see earlier. Both are generally taken to be importing in modern (post 19th century) logic (but what the first imports is just "For some x, if Fx then...").

I guess I am still having trouble with the notion of a "generic" article. One that would do what is suggested here looks to me merely fucked up, not making some leap in clarity. Unless {lau} has some special rule, mi nitcu lau mikce} is going to\be false if there are no doctors and to entail {su'o da zo'u mi nitcu da} which is also false on the intended interpretation. While {lo'e} probably and {le'e} certainly do not entail {su'o}, most other gadri do (although I haven't actually seen a list of them with this feature marked + or -). To deal with opaque contexts and the like takes more than a gadri and a weird story, it requires (if we want to do it with gadri at all — and I see no particular reason to) a whole new line of chat, whether species, or something like whatever it is that xorxes has in mind but that works, or something about goo perhaps (though I don't quite see it): gadri, weird tale, coherent logical rules,...

Jordan DeLong wrote:

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> >

> > Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said. The

> > only reason I think changes are needed is to make the system suck less

> > (and thereby make sentences like the above easier to say).

> >

> > mi mikce nitcu

> > tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

>

> Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the meaning.

If you're talking about the old proposed fix for people using "lenu"

everywhere of making {da nu ...} always true (i.e. imaginary events

exist), this is completely irrelevant.

(And I don't like that fix so much---I'd much rather have better

gadri).

{tu'a lo mikce} is {LEsu'u co'e lo mikce}. Works perfectly.

> > le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

>

> Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

How so? I believe this is CLL-sanctioned...

> > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (ro is non-importing, if ya recall)

>

> According to *whom*?

Your memory isn't so good Robin. :-) You voted it, along with

everyone but PC, IIRC, back in the day.

CLL contradicts itself about whether {ro} is importing. The

naku-rules require that it be non-importing1, but CLL has a passage

which says it is importing.

The latter should be viewed as an error, because basically all

symbolic logic systems have universal quantification as non-importing

(and in general, they require quantification over all things in

order to talk about specific subset of things, so non-importing vs.

importing would only make a distinction between an empty or non-empty

universe).

1 They follow the usual convetion of saying that existential

quantification is defined in terms of universal quantification and

negation. ~(x)~x?, {naku roda naku zo'u da broda}, is the

same as Exx?, {da zo'u da broda}. You can't have this if

{ro} imports.

> > The harder one (which you probably meant to ask about) is "I'm hunting

> > a unicorn", and the best we have now is {mi pavyseljirna kalte}.

>

>

I agree that it sucks that that is the best we have. However in

real conversation it's totally reasonable, and does mean "I'm hunting

unicorns".

Xorxes used to use {lo'e} for this. I think his definition for

{lo} is supposed to be somehow related to his old {lo'e}. No one

understood the latter either, though, IIRC.

> > FWIW, I would more likely support moving {lau} to a "generic" article,

> > if it could be better defined than the current proposal. So you'd be

> > able to say {mi nitcu lau mikce} or {mi kalte lau pavyseljirna}.

>

> A generic article connot, by definition, be qauntified over, which is

> what you were complaining about.

It could be handled the way {lo'e} and {le'e} are. What I was

complaining about was that it is not very well defined what xorlo

means.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAycp9DrrilS51AZ8RAlqzAJ9D2uk/m+Cq8TX0yJ4WP6iv8+HX3QCfafYZ

c7kuqB1o9q9y77NMvaE1lKM=

=q52i

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT


> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:02:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > It means *nothing*. It is semantically empty. It's like the way "cu"

> > says "Here comes a selbri"; it means "here comes a sumti". Everything

> > else is left to context.

>

> u'isai

>

> I will certainly not vote for anything which leaves the entire

> meaning of a gadri up to context.

>

> Why would anyone ever use any gadri other than "lo"?

Why does anyone ever use tenses?

Why does anyone ever use sumti other than zo'e?

Why does anyone ever use selbri other than co'e?

Sometimes you need more precision, so you use quantifiers or the

specific gadri, depending on what you need to say. Sometimes you

don't, so you don't. If lo is not enough to get your meaning

across, you add something else. If it is, you don't need to add

anything else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT

pc:

> B> Well, I took the analogy with the John case to mean that it did.

No, that was just to show that that "this term entails that term" does

not mean that you can do a search & replace and always get a true claim

from a true claim. There are environments where that won't work.

> Also,

> this move has more serious consequences: it means that lo broda has

> properties that no broda actually has and that is strange given that it is

> supposed to be about what brodas do.

{le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} does not entail {le spati cu claxu

su'o solri gusni}, for example, even though it is about sunlight

being lacked.

> The easiest way out, if you want to

> keep this point, is to say that {lo broda} stand for the species broda and

> that that clearly has all kinds of species properties that broda do not have

> (assuming they are not themselves species).

As long as it is not limited to species properties...

> But it still remains — if

> species are to be useful devices — that {lo broda cu brode}, where {brode}

> is not a species property, entails {su'o broda cu brode}, since it means that

> Broda (the species) factually (not merely conceptually) overlaps Brode (the

> species) and that only happens when the intersection of the corresponding

> sets is not empty, i.e., something is both a broda and brode.

Indeed. For many brode, when {lo broda cu brode} then {su'o broda cu brode}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 13:12 GMT

Rob:

> For example, {mi viska lo ractu} should be interpretable as "I see some

> rabbits" _without_ the need to use the following logic:

>

> * The sentence means "I see Mr. Rabbit".

> * Mr. Rabbit does whatever his instances do.

> * Therefore, the speaker of the sentence probably sees some rabbits.

>

> I would prefer the logic to go like this:

> * The sentence talks about the speaker seeing rabbit, where "rabbit" is

> unquantified.

> * So I'll guess at what the outer quantifier is, or whether it exists at all.

> It should exist, because he's probably not talking about rabbit goo or

> speaking intensionally. And the quantifier probably isn't {ro}. It might be

> {pa} or {so'o}.

> * In any event, it would be safe to say that he sees some rabbits.

No problem. And if you're not sure, you can always ask the speaker

to be more precise: {do viska xo lo ractu}, or {do viska ca ma lo ractu},

or {do viska bu'u ma lo ractu}, or {do xoroi viska lo ractu} or any of

the million other things that the speaker has left unspecified. The number

of instances is just one more of those things.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT

Notice that the reasoning here applies equally well to {su'o} which is about as unspecified as you can get.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Rob:

> For example, {mi viska lo ractu} should be interpretable as "I see some

> rabbits" _without_ the need to use the following logic:

>

> * The sentence means "I see Mr. Rabbit".

> * Mr. Rabbit does whatever his instances do.

> * Therefore, the speaker of the sentence probably sees some rabbits.

>

> I would prefer the logic to go like this:

> * The sentence talks about the speaker seeing rabbit, where "rabbit" is

> unquantified.

> * So I'll guess at what the outer quantifier is, or whether it exists at all.

> It should exist, because he's probably not talking about rabbit goo or

> speaking intensionally. And the quantifier probably isn't {ro}. It might be

> {pa} or {so'o}.

> * In any event, it would be safe to say that he sees some rabbits.

No problem. And if you're not sure, you can always ask the speaker

to be more precise: {do viska xo lo ractu}, or {do viska ca ma lo ractu},

or {do viska bu'u ma lo ractu}, or {do xoroi viska lo ractu} or any of

the million other things that the speaker has left unspecified. The number

of instances is just one more of those things.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT

A> Sorry, it wasn't clear what your point was. However, no one I know of is suggesting that you can always replace one term by another if the use of one only implies that of the other. But in the cae of {lo} and {su'o} there seems to be an equivalence — and a necessary one at that.

B> I think it exactly does, that {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} means "The plant does not get any sunlight" ("lacks / goes without sunlight"). To be sure, that {su'o} can't be move to the front as {su'o}, because it is in a negative environment (unfortunately unmarked — see also the opaque context problem). But it comes out fine as {ro}. What you wanted to say, but did not, I think, is {le spati cu claxu rau solri gusni}, which — whatever it other problems seems to work out all right here.

C> "it" is the species Broda? It of course has only species properties, but as an idiom (since no conflict arises) we can use {lo broda} with non-species predicates to say something more complicated when said precisely. Thus {lo broda cu brode} does not mean — as it may seem to — that the species Broda brodes but only that the species Broda overlaps (in fact) the species Brode (as it would be in species-speak) , that is, that brodas (the specimens) brode.

D> For all proeprties that are not part of species-speak (which can, I think, be pretty clearly specified).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> B> Well, I took the analogy with the John case to mean that it did.

A>No, that was just to show that that "this term entails that term" does

not mean that you can do a search & replace and always get a true claim

from a true claim. There are environments where that won't work.

> Also,

> this move has more serious consequences: it means that lo broda has

> properties that no broda actually has and that is strange given that it is

> supposed to be about what brodas do.

B>{le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} does not entail {le spati cu claxu

su'o solri gusni}, for example, even though it is about sunlight

being lacked.

> The easiest way out, if you want to

> keep this point, is to say that {lo broda} stand for the species broda and

> that that clearly has all kinds of species properties that broda do not have

> (assuming they are not themselves species).

C>As long as it is not limited to species properties...

> But it still remains — if

> species are to be useful devices — that {lo broda cu brode}, where {brode}

> is not a species property, entails {su'o broda cu brode}, since it means that

> Broda (the species) factually (not merely conceptually) overlaps Brode (the

> species) and that only happens when the intersection of the corresponding

> sets is not empty, i.e., something is both a broda and brode.

D>Indeed. For many brode, when {lo broda cu brode} then {su'o broda cu brode}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT

pc:

> Notice that the reasoning here applies equally well to {su'o} which is about

> as unspecified as you can get.

When the claim is applicable to instances, su'o is as unspecified as you

can get, yes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:39 GMT

pc:

> I think it exactly does, that {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} means

> "The plant does not get any sunlight" ("lacks / goes without sunlight"). To

> be sure, that {su'o} can't be move to the front as {su'o}, because it is in a

> negative environment (unfortunately unmarked — see also the opaque context

> problem). But it comes out fine as {ro}.

So according to you, {mi claxu da} means "Everything is such that

I don't have it" and {mi claxu noda} means "I have something"?

> What you wanted to say, but did

> not, I think, is {le spati cu claxu rau solri gusni}, which — whatever it

> other problems seems to work out all right here.

Enough instances are lacked? (And the rest are not?) I don't think that's

what I wanted to say, no.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT

[[I'm%20assuming%20since%20you%20did%20not%20address%20it%20that%20you%20agree%20now%20that%20CLL%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eis%20contradictory%20on%20this%20topic|I'm assuming since you did not address it that you agree now that CLL

is contradictory on this topic]].

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:27:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> My memory is rather different: several people found the systems

> I mentioned, but all had to admit that (x)Fx entails (Ex)Fx, which

> is all that importing means. It certainly does not mean that (x)(Fx

> => Gx) entails (Ex)Fx. But the reason for that is not that the

> universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both

> a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the

> inference suggested.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/existent.html:

For reasons explained in the Exposure, logicians of the nineteenth century dropped

the traditional assumption of non-emptiness, and adopted what is called the

"Boolean interpretation"after logician George Booleof universal quantifiers.

Under the Boolean interpretation, A- and E-type propositions lack existential

import, while both I- and O-type have it. This has the consequence that some

immediate inferencessuch as subalternationand categorical syllogisms which were

valid under the traditional interpretation become instances of the Existential

Fallacy. Of course, as long as the relevant classes are known to be non-empty, an

argument should be considered to be an enthymeme instead of an instance of this

fallacy.

Exposure:

The traditional theory makes it impossible to reason about empty classes, which

might seem to be a small price to pay if all that we had to give up were classes

such as unicorns. However, some classes may be empty for all we know, yet we manage

to reason about them all the same. For instance, there may be no extraterrestrial

aliens, but we cannot even say this meaningfully in the traditional theory, let

alone use the class in an argument.

---

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/:

Today, logic texts divide between those based on contemporary logic and those from the

Aristotelian tradition or the nineteenth century tradition, but even many texts that

teach syllogistic teach it with the forms interpreted in the modern way, so that e.g.

subalternation is lost. So the traditional square, as traditionally interpreted, is now

mostly abandoned.

---

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sqr-opp.htm:

The presupposition, mentioned above, that all categories contain at least one thing,

has been abandoned by most later logicians. Modern logic deals with uninstantiated

terms such as "unicorn" and "ether flow" the same as it does other terms such as

"apple" and "orangutan". When dealing with "empty categories", the relations of being

contrary, being subcontrary and of subalternation no longer hold.

---

Your understanding of logic seems outdated, pc.

The only references google seems to return which agree with your

assessment of whether importing universals is typical in modern

logic are...well...you, from the lojban-list archives.

Furthermore, how most systems of logic do it is not necessarily how

lojban should do it. Lojban has different considerations (being

speakable, and not being a formal system, etc). So even if your

correct, you still haven't made a case for nuking the naku rules

in favor of an importing ro.

> B> Well, in a logical language it is a bad idea to throw stones

> at Aristotle.

Why not? He's not relevant to modern logic. Just of historical

significance.

I respect a Russell or a Quine or even a Boole much more than an

Aristotle.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyyGIDrrilS51AZ8RAh2rAKCqyOUtAb/+RzjzcpceEQ1fQ3bnjgCgm/zt

uLYt2AveZIV/KZ8ZInZrBOw=

=ISxy

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT

On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> pc:

> > I think it exactly does, that {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} means

> > "The plant does not get any sunlight" ("lacks / goes without sunlight"). To

> > be sure, that {su'o} can't be move to the front as {su'o}, because it is in a

> > negative environment (unfortunately unmarked — see also the opaque context

> > problem). But it comes out fine as {ro}.

>

> So according to you, {mi claxu da} means "Everything is such that

> I don't have it" and {mi claxu noda} means "I have something"?

He's wrong.

A lojban pet-peeve of mine is when I see people use things like

mi citka secau lenu vamtu

(which is also a bad "le"), when they actually mean

mi citka secau ronu vamtu

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyyJgDrrilS51AZ8RApyfAKDScpft4YVgPLMqL5pyOjm+3+mQBACgkxgK

czs3TFu8Pjr/0zhlBB6sRCc=

=QfOE

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT

What claims do not pertain to instances?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Notice that the reasoning here applies equally well to {su'o} which is about

> as unspecified as you can get.

When the claim is applicable to instances, su'o is as unspecified as you

can get, yes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT

A> Well, that does seem to follow, but is admittedly unappetizing. I don't know what the deep structure of {claxu} is, so working it to come out right is hard to do, since I get pulled various ways by examples (and by which English reading of {claxu} happens to be in the front of my mid at the moment, I'm afraid). It may be that {claxu2} really is opaque, even (if the need component is present — as clearly fits the plant example). Of the two counterexamples you give, the second seems to me almost right but weak: I would take {mi claxu noda} to mena "I have everything." (maybe "that I need"). The first just leaves me flip-flopping right now.

B> Well, it is clear from your discussion that that you mean that the plant gets some sunlight and does not get other and that the some that it gets is not enough. Now, given the unclarity of the deep structure of {claxu} (and "lack", for that matter) I am not sure what the best way to put that is: {le spati na se gusni rau da la Sol} is the point, but I am not sure how to word that using {claxu},

pc:

> I think it exactly does, that {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} means

> "The plant does not get any sunlight" ("lacks / goes without sunlight"). To

> be sure, that {su'o} can't be move to the front as {su'o}, because it is in a

> negative environment (unfortunately unmarked — see also the opaque context

> problem). But it comes out fine as {ro}.

A>So according to you, {mi claxu da} means "Everything is such that

I don't have it" and {mi claxu noda} means "I have something"?

> What you wanted to say, but did

> not, I think, is {le spati cu claxu rau solri gusni}, which — whatever it

> other problems seems to work out all right here.

B>Enough instances are lacked? (And the rest are not?) I don't think that's

what I wanted to say, no.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT

A> Actually, I think I asked for citations. I remember the importing point pretty clearly, though I haven't found it again. I don't remeber a case for non-importing.

B> Notice the flip-flop here. They start by talking about Boolean systems — what, after Frege became standard Formal (Symbolic) Logic and then the go back to talking about A and E proposition, which are in syllogistic. That is, they mix unrestricted and restricted quantification. If you think that Syllogistic is exactly encompassed in some simple translation into symbolic logic, then you are left with this result, since the traditional forms are not translated simply in some cases (A and O). But, if you do make the translation (as the 19th century folk generally did not), you discover that the "non-importing quantifier" is translated not as a nonimporting quantifier, but as an importing quantifier and the antecedent of a conditional. That combination does not allow the moves within restricted quantification (that is, tranaslating back again) that the original restricted quantifier allowed. So the restricted quantifier was originally importing and only when it was revised as a

non-restricted one did it appear to be non-importing. But the non-restricted *quantifier* is non-impoting; the failure of the Importing move comew from the disjunction and the negation, not the quantifier.

C> No extraterrestial aliens exist (there are some philosopjhical problems with taking "exist" as a predicate, but not many logical ones — provided it is kept separate from the "are" of "there are..."). And, as far as arguments go, valid arguments work fine even when the premises are false — as positive claims about non-existent pretty generally are. And invalid argument swe don't want to have anyhow.

D>Fair enough, but notice that, in the modern tradition "All S" is not a quantifier but a complex, part of which is an unrestricted importing quantifier. When "All S" is a quantifier, it entail "Some S" (as it does with the unnamed subjects of "unrestricted" quantifiers).

Jordan DeLong wrote:

A>[[I'm%20assuming%20since%20you%20did%20not%20address%20it%20that%20you%20agree%20now%20that%20CLL%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eis%20contradictory%20on%20this%20topic|I'm assuming since you did not address it that you agree now that CLL

is contradictory on this topic]].

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 03:27:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> My memory is rather different: several people found the systems

> I mentioned, but all had to admit that (x)Fx entails (Ex)Fx, which

> is all that importing means. It certainly does not mean that (x)(Fx

> => Gx) entails (Ex)Fx. But the reason for that is not that the

> universal quantifier is not importing but that the Fx is under both

> a negation and a disjunction, either of which would block the

> inference suggested.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/existent.html:

B>For reasons explained in the Exposure, logicians of the nineteenth century dropped

the traditional assumption of non-emptiness, and adopted what is called the

"Boolean interpretation"after logician George Booleof universal quantifiers.

Under the Boolean interpretation, A- and E-type propositions lack existential

import, while both I- and O-type have it. This has the consequence that some

immediate inferencessuch as subalternationand categorical syllogisms which were

valid under the traditional interpretation become instances of the Existential

Fallacy. Of course, as long as the relevant classes are known to be non-empty, an

argument should be considered to be an enthymeme instead of an instance of this

fallacy.

Exposure:

The traditional theory makes it impossible to reason about empty classes, which

might seem to be a small price to pay if all that we had to give up were classes

such as unicorns. However, some classes may be empty for all we know, yet we manage

C>to reason about them all the same. For instance, there may be no extraterrestrial

aliens, but we cannot even say this meaningfully in the traditional theory, let

alone use the class in an argument.

---

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/:

D>Today, logic texts divide between those based on contemporary logic and those from the

Aristotelian tradition or the nineteenth century tradition, but even many texts that

teach syllogistic teach it with the forms interpreted in the modern way, so that e.g.

subalternation is lost. So the traditional square, as traditionally interpreted, is now

mostly abandoned.

---

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sqr-opp.htm:

The presupposition, mentioned above, that all categories contain at least one thing,

has been abandoned by most later logicians. Modern logic deals with uninstantiated

terms such as "unicorn" and "ether flow" the same as it does other terms such as

"apple" and "orangutan". When dealing with "empty categories", the relations of being

contrary, being subcontrary and of subalternation no longer hold.

---

Your understanding of logic seems outdated, pc.

The only references google seems to return which agree with your

assessment of whether importing universals is typical in modern

logic are...well...you, from the lojban-list archives.

Furthermore, how most systems of logic do it is not necessarily how

lojban should do it. Lojban has different considerations (being

speakable, and not being a formal system, etc). So even if your

correct, you still haven't made a case for nuking the naku rules

in favor of an importing ro.

> B> Well, in a logical language it is a bad idea to throw stones

> at Aristotle.

Why not? He's not relevant to modern logic. Just of historical

significance.

I respect a Russell or a Quine or even a Boole much more than an

Aristotle.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyyGIDrrilS51AZ8RAh2rAKCqyOUtAb/+RzjzcpceEQ1fQ3bnjgCgm/zt

uLYt2AveZIV/KZ8ZInZrBOw=

=ISxy

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 16:40 GMT

A> An iffy case. Presumably the only event of vomiting that interests me in this case is me a reasonable time after this eating. There are a lot of other vomiting events I am not concerned with, including many which I don't even go without (me at that party five years ago, George just last night, and so on). So, whatever happens at {claxu2} - negation effect or not — {le} seems more nearly correct. In this case.

Jordan DeLong wrote:On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> pc:

> > I think it exactly does, that {le spati cu claxu lo solri gusni} means

> > "The plant does not get any sunlight" ("lacks / goes without sunlight"). To

> > be sure, that {su'o} can't be move to the front as {su'o}, because it is in a

> > negative environment (unfortunately unmarked — see also the opaque context

> > problem). But it comes out fine as {ro}.

>

> So according to you, {mi claxu da} means "Everything is such that

> I don't have it" and {mi claxu noda} means "I have something"?

He's wrong.

A>A lojban pet-peeve of mine is when I see people use things like

mi citka secau lenu vamtu

(which is also a bad "le"), when they actually mean

mi citka secau ronu vamtu

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAyyJgDrrilS51AZ8RApyfAKDScpft4YVgPLMqL5pyOjm+3+mQBACgkxgK

czs3TFu8Pjr/0zhlBB6sRCc=

=QfOE

---END PGP SIGNATURE---


Formal definitions?


Posted by xorxes on Sat 12 of June, 2004 17:26 GMT posts: 1912

This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

la broda = zo'e noi zo broda cmene ke'a mi

lo PA broda = lo PAmei be fi lo broda

le PA broda = le PAmei be fi lo broda

la PA broda = zo'e noi lu PA broda li'u cmene ke'a mi

PA lo broda = PA mupli be lo broda

PA le broda = PA cmima be le brode

PA la broda = PA cmima be la broda

PA1 lo PA2 broda = PA1 mupli be lo PA2 broda

PA1 le PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be le PA2 broda

PA1 la PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be la PA2 broda

lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

le'i broda = lo'i ro le broda

la'i broda = lo'i ro la broda

lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

le'i PA broda = lo'i ro le PA broda

la'i PA broda = lo'i ro la PA broda

PA lo'i broda = lo'i PA lo broda

PA le'i broda = lo'i PA le broda

PA la'i broda = lo'i PA la broda

PA1 lo'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 lo PA2 broda

PA1 le'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 le PA2 broda

PA1 la'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 la PA2 broda

loi broda cu brode = lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lei broda cu brode = le broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lai broda cu brode = la broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

loi PA broda cu brode = lo PA broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lei PA broda cu brode = le PA broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lai PA broda cu brode = la PA broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

PA loi broda = loi PA lo broda

PA lei broda = loi PA le broda

PA lai broda = loi PA la broda

PA1 loi PA2 broda = loi PA1 lo PA2 broda

PA1 lei PA2 broda = loi PA1 le PA2 broda

PA1 lai PA2 broda = loi PA1 la Pa2 broda

lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu le'i broda ma'i mi

lo'e PA broda = lo'e PAmei be fi lo broda

le'e PA broda = le'e PAmei be fi lo broda

Comments?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 18:10 GMT

Corrections:

> lo PA broda = lo PAmei be fi lo broda

> le PA broda = le PAmei be fi lo broda

lo PA broda = lo PAmei be fi lo broda enai lo na broda

le PA broda = le PAmei be fi lo broda enai lo na broda

> lo'e PA broda = lo'e PAmei be fi lo broda

> le'e PA broda = le'e PAmei be fi lo broda

lo'e PA broda = lo'e PAmei be fi lo broda enai lo na broda

le'e PA broda = le'e PAmei be fi lo broda enai lo na broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 18:10 GMT

More corrections (I forgot these had changed):

> PA lo'i broda = lo'i PA lo broda

PA lo'i broda = PA lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> PA1 lo'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 lo PA2 broda

PA1 lo'i PA2 broda = PA1 lo cmaci selcmi be PA2 broda e no lo na broda

> PA loi broda = loi PA lo broda

PA loi broda cu brode = PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

> PA1 loi PA2 broda = loi PA1 lo PA2 broda

PA1 loi PA2 broda cu brode = PA1 lo PA2 broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 22:52 GMT

Basically this looks OK as far as it goes. I would question the {noi} in the first set, since what follows is essential and restricting information (for that matter mixing {noi} with {zo'e} seems incongruous). And, of course, that {zo'e} is, for most practical purposes interchangeable with {su'o da} seems to make these definitions ill-advised for you to offer.

[email protected] wrote:Formal definitions?

This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

la broda = zo'e noi zo broda cmene ke'a mi

lo PA broda = lo PAmei be fi lo broda

le PA broda = le PAmei be fi lo broda

la PA broda = zo'e noi lu PA broda li'u cmene ke'a mi

PA lo broda = PA mupli be lo broda

PA le broda = PA cmima be le brode

PA la broda = PA cmima be la broda

PA1 lo PA2 broda = PA1 mupli be lo PA2 broda

PA1 le PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be le PA2 broda

PA1 la PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be la PA2 broda

lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

le'i broda = lo'i ro le broda

la'i broda = lo'i ro la broda

lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

le'i PA broda = lo'i ro le PA broda

la'i PA broda = lo'i ro la PA broda

PA lo'i broda = lo'i PA lo broda

PA le'i broda = lo'i PA le broda

PA la'i broda = lo'i PA la broda

PA1 lo'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 lo PA2 broda

PA1 le'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 le PA2 broda

PA1 la'i PA2 broda = lo'i PA1 la PA2 broda

loi broda cu brode = lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lei broda cu brode = le broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lai broda cu brode = la broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

loi PA broda cu brode = lo PA broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lei PA broda cu brode = le PA broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

lai PA broda cu brode = la PA broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

PA loi broda = loi PA lo broda

PA lei broda = loi PA le broda

PA lai broda = loi PA la broda

PA1 loi PA2 broda = loi PA1 lo PA2 broda

PA1 lei PA2 broda = loi PA1 le PA2 broda

PA1 lai PA2 broda = loi PA1 la Pa2 broda

lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu le'i broda ma'i mi

lo'e PA broda = lo'e PAmei be fi lo broda

le'e PA broda = le'e PAmei be fi lo broda

Comments?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 12 of June, 2004 22:52 GMT

pc:

> Basically this looks OK as far as it goes. I would question the {noi} in the

> first set, since what follows is essential and restricting information

It is not restricting information, but it is veridical.

>(for

> that matter mixing {noi} with {zo'e} seems incongruous).

Why?

> And, of course,

> that {zo'e} is, for most practical purposes interchangeable with {su'o da}

> seems to make these definitions ill-advised for you to offer.

Not always interchangeable. For example:

zo'e naku broda = naku zo'e broda

da naku broda <> naku da broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 04:14 GMT

On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:11:12AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> An iffy case. Presumably the only event of vomiting that

> interests me in this case is me a reasonable time after this eating.

> There are a lot of other vomiting events I am not concerned with,

> including many which I don't even go without (me at that party five

> years ago, George just last night, and so on). So, whatever happens

> at {claxu2} - negation effect or not — {le} seems more nearly

> correct. In this case.

If you didn't vomit, there was no event.

(Unless you believe in Cowan's solution that problem, which I don't

particularly favor).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAy6gZDrrilS51AZ8RAsddAKC1NAu4wjO6WKtMI/9c0VFnIg8ovQCgnwQb

1rd857V4cHp+M387lHZFc3g=

=tkeQ

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 04:14 GMT

On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:04:26AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> Actually, I think I asked for citations. I remember the

> importing point pretty clearly, though I haven't found it again.

> I don't remeber a case for non-importing.

Did you read the argument in my email or not? It references the

naku rules in chap16...

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAy6pQDrrilS51AZ8RArHrAKC08t5YI/idFdx1SlCWGeeqOhIS9gCePUZO

ljmJWQsHkhDWCZMzgp/waa4=

=KNy2

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 14:45 GMT

For a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with their use as subordinate clauses, abstracts have to exist whther or not they occur. Otherwise, I could in Lojban only fear misfortunes that were actually to befall me, could only dream about real events, and so on. It makes for a slightly overcrowded ontology, but the alternative is not to be able to talk about many things we want to talk about. As is so often the case (with the property of being a unicorn, for example) we have to distinguish between what is and what occurs.

Jordan DeLong wrote:On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:11:12AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> An iffy case. Presumably the only event of vomiting that

> interests me in this case is me a reasonable time after this eating.

> There are a lot of other vomiting events I am not concerned with,

> including many which I don't even go without (me at that party five

> years ago, George just last night, and so on). So, whatever happens

> at {claxu2} - negation effect or not — {le} seems more nearly

> correct. In this case.

If you didn't vomit, there was no event.

(Unless you believe in Cowan's solution that problem, which I don't

particularly favor).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAy6gZDrrilS51AZ8RAsddAKC1NAu4wjO6WKtMI/9c0VFnIg8ovQCgnwQb

1rd857V4cHp+M387lHZFc3g=

=tkeQ

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 14:45 GMT

I did, of course, and pointed out the muddle in it. My memory and a skim of the relevant sections tell me that all the examples there are of {su'o da} and {ro da}, that is, the unrestricted quantifiers. For them the all-some duality works just fine. It does not for the restricted quantifiers {su'o broda} and {ro broda} (and {no broda} and {me'i broda}). And so naturally if you try to treat (AxFx)Gx as though it were (Ax)(Fx => Gx) you get the wrong results. The universal in each case implies the particular, but only in the first does that say anything about Fs: (ExFx)Gx but (Ex)(Fx => Gx), which latter is satisfied by anything that is NOT an F.

Jordan DeLong wrote:On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:04:26AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> Actually, I think I asked for citations. I remember the

> importing point pretty clearly, though I haven't found it again.

> I don't remeber a case for non-importing.

Did you read the argument in my email or not? It references the

naku rules in chap16...

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAy6pQDrrilS51AZ8RArHrAKC08t5YI/idFdx1SlCWGeeqOhIS9gCePUZO

ljmJWQsHkhDWCZMzgp/waa4=

=KNy2

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 23:42 GMT

A>Right, it is not in Lojban. The point is that it should be since it describes what sort of thing the heretofore unspecified thing (zo'e) is in this case. Thi is not incidental information but the whole point of the phrase. {poi} seems to do the job more accurately.

B> {noi} adding incidental information seems to assume that we have the object clearly identified, which — since it is only marked by {zo'e} — we do not (identified by type, not individuation).

C> Yes, in a negative environmemt (verso generally) {zo'e} is replaced by {ro da} — always a recto particular.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Basically this looks OK as far as it goes. I would question the {noi} in the

> first set, since what follows is essential and restricting information

A>It is not restricting information, but it is veridical.

>(for

> that matter mixing {noi} with {zo'e} seems incongruous).

B>Why?

> And, of course,

> that {zo'e} is, for most practical purposes interchangeable with {su'o da}

> seems to make these definitions ill-advised for you to offer.

C>Not always interchangeable. For example:

zo'e naku broda = naku zo'e broda

da naku broda <> naku da broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of June, 2004 23:42 GMT

pc:

> {noi} adding incidental information seems to assume that we have the

> object clearly identified, which — since it is only marked by {zo'e} — we

> do not (identified by type, not individuation).

With {lo broda}, we do not have to have any object clearly identified. All

we know is that it satisfies broda, which is all that {noi ke'a broda}

tells us. {zo'e} does not require that you have a clearly identified

object: you may or may not have one.

> Yes, in a negative environmemt (verso generally) {zo'e} is replaced by

> {ro da} — always a recto particular.

Sorry, not sure what that means. Are you saying that

{naku zo'e} = {roda naku}? That's clearly not the case, it's

easy to find examples where it fails. But I don't know what

"verso generally" or "recto particular" mean.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


Outer and inner quantifiers


Posted by xorxes on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT posts: 1912

Inner quanifiers give the cardinality of the referent of a sumti. We don't need to know what the matrix bridi is in order to understand the inner quantifier. It has an internal function with respect to its sumti.

Outer quantifiers tell us how many times the matrix bridi is satisfied (by members or instances of the referent of the sumti). They have an external function with respect to the sumti they quantify.

The exception to the above rules, in the proposal as it stands now, are the outer quantifiers of le'i/la'i/lei/lai, which act in fact as inner quantifiers (this is easy to see from the formal definitions). It would be nice if this were fixed.

I would propose that outer quantifiers for these quantify over members, just as is the case for le/la. The idea behind the current definitions is that you can say {pimu lei prenu} for "half of the people (taken as a group)". To say the same thing with the fixed definition you would have to say {lo pimu lei prenu}. And similarly {lo pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members of {le'i prenu}. I think this additional {lo} is a small price to pay for the big gain in consistency.

Comments?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT

A> My point is that, in your formulation, we do not even know that the object is being indicated because it satisfies {broda}, that is incidental to its role here, which is (at best) to satisfy the more nearly main-clause predicate to which it is an argument. Then we are told that it also, incidentally satisfies {broda}. I would have though that its satisfying {broda} was its first feature and its satisfying the main clause secondary (an maybe not even true).

B> Of course not; in {roda naku} {roda} is not in a (n obviously) negative environment, so if we were to replace a {zo'e} there we would use {su'o da}. The replacements are in a place, not as a part of any inference pattern. "recto" means "inside an even number of negations" and "verso" ",,, odd...," the termiology is handy when there are nested negation and something which is clearly in the scope of the latest negation my turn out to be also in the scope of several others. That is< the mere fact that we are looking at {naku zo'e} doesn't tell us what the replacement is, that requires looking at the whole context, back at least to the preceding I and foreward to the next one (and maybe even farther). The point is that wherever {zo'e} is replaced, it is replaced by what is fully fronted as {su'o da}.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {noi} adding incidental information seems to assume that we have the

> object clearly identified, which — since it is only marked by {zo'e} — we

> do not (identified by type, not individuation).

A>With {lo broda}, we do not have to have any object clearly identified. All

we know is that it satisfies broda, which is all that {noi ke'a broda}

tells us. {zo'e} does not require that you have a clearly identified

object: you may or may not have one.

> Yes, in a negative environmemt (verso generally) {zo'e} is replaced by

> {ro da} — always a recto particular.

B>Sorry, not sure what that means. Are you saying that

{naku zo'e} = {roda naku}? That's clearly not the case, it's

easy to find examples where it fails. But I don't know what

"verso generally" or "recto particular" mean.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT

> And similarly {lo pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members

> of {le'i prenu}.

That should have been: {lo'i pimu le'i prenu}, or just {lo'i pimu le prenu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT

Is it still the case that the internal quantifiers on the collective and set gadri tell the size of the collective or set?

I do not understand what you mean by saying that external quantifiers on om {la/le} quantify over members. Members of what? {la/le} are presumably referring to individual(s)

in each case. And if that individual happens to be a collective (or set? — it is not quite clear which), the external quantifier tells how many such collectives are involved. I should think that the same applied to {le/la}. I suppose that, since {le'i/lo'i /la'i} with or without "'" refer to all the things which satisfy the sumti predicate, the notion of more than 1 such item makes no sense, though fractions of it do: half a set is a set half the size of the original and composed of only members of the original set. Since integral quantifiers are nonetheless also possible, they need a meaning and so we take them to be like the fractional though specifying the size of the set directly rather than relative to the size of the original set. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we rather take external integral quantifiers to specify the number of members of the set that are meant to satisy the dominant predicate, the things not the set of them. Reading your

proposal over again, I am not sure that IS what you are saying, but then I couldn't say what it was.

[email protected] wrote:

Outer and inner quantifiers

Inner quanifiers give the cardinality of the referent of a sumti. We don't need to know what the matrix bridi is in order to understand the inner quantifier. It has an internal function with respect to its sumti.

Outer quantifiers tell us how many times the matrix bridi is satisfied (by members or instances of the referent of the sumti). They have an external function with respect to the sumti they quantify.

The exception to the above rules, in the proposal as it stands now, are the outer quantifiers of le'i/la'i/lei/lai, which act in fact as inner quantifiers (this is easy to see from the formal definitions). It would be nice if this were fixed.

I would propose that outer quantifiers for these quantify over members, just as is the case for le/la. The idea behind the current definitions is that you can say {pimu lei prenu} for "half of the people (taken as a group)". To say the same thing with the fixed definition you would have to say {lo pimu lei prenu}. And similarly {lo pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members of {le'i prenu}. I think this additional {lo} is a small price to pay for the big gain in consistency.

Comments?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT

pc:

> My point is that, in your formulation, we do not even know that the object

> is being indicated because it satisfies {broda}, that is incidental to its

> role here, which is (at best) to satisfy the more nearly main-clause

> predicate to which it is an argument. Then we are told that it also,

> incidentally satisfies {broda}. I would have though that its satisfying

> {broda} was its first feature and its satisfying the main clause secondary

> (an maybe not even true).

No, I really do mean {noi}. {lo broda cu brode} = {zo'e noi broda cu brode},

all we say about whatever we are claiming that brodes is that it satisfies

the x1 of broda.

The reason I don't use {poi} is that {poi} requires a quantifier to go

with it. {poi broda} restricts from a set of things to those that satisfy

broda, but then you are left with a subset of things over which you

need to quantify with something in order to say something about that

subset.

{noi} is different, it just gives information about a value.

> B> Of course not; in {roda naku} {roda} is not in a (n obviously) negative

> environment, so if we were to replace a {zo'e} there we would use {su'o da}.

> The replacements are in a place, not as a part of any inference pattern.

> "recto" means "inside an even number of negations" and "verso" ",,, odd...,"

> the termiology is handy when there are nested negation and something which is

> clearly in the scope of the latest negation my turn out to be also in the

> scope of several others. That is< the mere fact that we are looking at {naku

> zo'e} doesn't tell us what the replacement is, that requires looking at the

> whole context, back at least to the preceding I and foreward to the next one

> (and maybe even farther). The point is that wherever {zo'e} is replaced, it

> is replaced by what is fully fronted as {su'o da}.

So you agree that you can't just replace {zo'e} with {su'o da} anywhere.

That's why I use {zo'e}, because I want the properties of a term like

{zo'e} for {lo broda}, not the properties of a quantified term like

{su'o da}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT

This actually makes matters less clear. {lo pimu le'i prenu} was "some set(s) of half the whole set of people" which is clear if awkward. But now it is to be a collectives of half the set of people or just a collective of half persons (which)? I am not even sure what you are shooting for, let alone what you have actually proposed.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> And similarly {lo pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members

> of {le'i prenu}.

That should have been: {lo'i pimu le'i prenu}, or just {lo'i pimu le prenu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 00:53 GMT

A>I don't read {poi} that way and can't find any reason to do so in a quick search. Citation?

B>It still seems to me to be essential to {lo broda} that the thing involved is a broda, not merely incidental to its being a brode.

C> I get the point; just pointing out that doing this does not get you away from quantification. It only makes the substitution more complex (not reall: you could always just use {su'o da} in front and replace the {zo'e} with {da}).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> My point is that, in your formulation, we do not even know that the object

> is being indicated because it satisfies {broda}, that is incidental to its

> role here, which is (at best) to satisfy the more nearly main-clause

> predicate to which it is an argument. Then we are told that it also,

> incidentally satisfies {broda}. I would have though that its satisfying

> {broda} was its first feature and its satisfying the main clause secondary

> (an maybe not even true).

B>No, I really do mean {noi}. {lo broda cu brode} = {zo'e noi broda cu brode},

all we say about whatever we are claiming that brodes is that it satisfies

the x1 of broda.

A>The reason I don't use {poi} is that {poi} requires a quantifier to go

with it. {poi broda} restricts from a set of things to those that satisfy

broda, but then you are left with a subset of things over which you

need to quantify with something in order to say something about that

subset.

{noi} is different, it just gives information about a value.

> B> Of course not; in {roda naku} {roda} is not in a (n obviously) negative

> environment, so if we were to replace a {zo'e} there we would use {su'o da}.

> The replacements are in a place, not as a part of any inference pattern.

> "recto" means "inside an even number of negations" and "verso" ",,, odd...,"

> the termiology is handy when there are nested negation and something which is

> clearly in the scope of the latest negation my turn out to be also in the

> scope of several others. That is< the mere fact that we are looking at {naku

> zo'e} doesn't tell us what the replacement is, that requires looking at the

> whole context, back at least to the preceding I and foreward to the next one

> (and maybe even farther). The point is that wherever {zo'e} is replaced, it

> is replaced by what is fully fronted as {su'o da}.

C>So you agree that you can't just replace {zo'e} with {su'o da} anywhere.

That's why I use {zo'e}, because I want the properties of a term like

{zo'e} for {lo broda}, not the properties of a quantified term like

{su'o da}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT

pc:

> Is it still the case that the internal quantifiers on the collective and set

> gadri tell the size of the collective or set?

Yes.

> I do not understand what you mean by saying that external quantifiers on om

> {la/le} quantify over members. Members of what?

Of a group.

> {la/le} are presumably

> referring to individual(s)

> in each case.

When they don't refer to something with members, outer quantification on

them is not very meaningful. Check the proposed definitions:

PA le broda = PA cmima be le brode

PA la broda = PA cmima be la broda

PA1 le PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be le PA2 broda

PA1 la PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be la PA2 broda

> And if that individual happens to be a collective (or set? --

> it is not quite clear which), the external quantifier tells how many such

> collectives are involved. I should think that the same applied to {le/la}.

No, it's always members with le/la, and instances with lo. That's what's

most useful in each case.

> I suppose that, since {le'i/lo'i /la'i} with or without "'" refer to all the

> things which satisfy the sumti predicate, the notion of more than 1 such item

> makes no sense, though fractions of it do: half a set is a set half the size

> of the original and composed of only members of the original set.

{lo'i broda} as currently proposed refers to a generic set of brodas, not

necessarily the only set of all brodas. {lo'i ro broda} is the set of all

brodas:

lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

> Since

> integral quantifiers are nonetheless also possible, they need a meaning and

> so we take them to be like the fractional though specifying the size of the

> set directly rather than relative to the size of the original set.

I am working with And's proposal for fractional quantifiers, where

integral are a special case, with denominator {ro}.

This is copied from XS gadri proposal: And's version

XS& proposes that, at least for the outer quantifier of lo and le, quantifier

expressions are underlyingly fractional/rational (i.e. expressing

fractions/ratios), as follows (brackets mark elidable defaults):

PA (fi'u ro)

"PA (out of all)"

PA1 fi'u PA2 = piPA

"PA1 out of every PA2, PA1 per PA2"

(ro fi'u) ro(PA) = ro(PA) (fi'u ro)

"each of all PA"

Because ot the "(pa) fi'u" convention:

(pa) fi'u PA2

"one out of every PA2, one per PA2"

(pa) fi'u roPA2

"one out of all PA2"

> If I

> understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we rather take external

> integral quantifiers to specify the number of members of the set that are

> meant to satisy the dominant predicate, the things not the set of them.

Correct.

> Reading your

> proposal over again, I am not sure that IS what you are saying, but then I

> couldn't say what it was.

I am suggesting to treat outer quantifiers always as outer quantifiers,

and not make an exception for lei/lai/le'i/la'i which is how the

proposal currently stands.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT

pc:

> I am not even sure what you are shooting for, let

> alone what you have actually proposed.

The proposal as it stands can be read from the proposal page:

PA le'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA le broda enai lo na cmima be le broda

PA la'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA la broda enai lo na cmima be la broda

PA lei broda cu brode = lo PA le broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

PA lai broda cu brode = lo PA la broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

(where PA can be fractional as per And's treatment of fractional

quantifiers). This definition gives the CLL interpretation of

fractional quantifiers.

I am now saying that it would be better to define them as:

PA le'i broda = PA cmima be le'i broda

PA la'i broda = PA cmima be la'i broda

PA lei broda cu brode = PA cmima be lei broda

PA lai broda cu brode = PA cmima be lai broda

With these definitions, the old meaning of {pa fi'u re lei broda} is

recovered with {lo pa fi'u re lei broda}, and the old meaning of

{pa fi'u re le'i roda} is recovered with {lo'i pa fi'u re le'i broda} or

its equivalent {lo'i pa fi'u re le broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT

pc:

> I don't read {poi} that way and can't find any reason to do so in a quick

> search. Citation?

I don't have any citations, that was just a quick analysis.

{poi} for example will be affected by being under negation, wheras

{noi} will not. {zo'e noi broda ku'o naku brode} is equivalent to

{naku zo'e noi broda ku'o broda}, but it doesn't work like that

with {poi}. So I need {noi}.

> It still seems to me to be essential to {lo broda} that the thing involved

> is a broda, not merely incidental to its being a brode.

Does the essential/incidental distinction affect truth value?

Changing to poi does, so I can't happily do it.

> I get the point; just pointing out that doing this does not get you away

> from quantification. It only makes the substitution more complex (not reall:

> you could always just use {su'o da} in front and replace the {zo'e} with

> {da}).

Assuming that's true (I don't think it is, but it doesn't matter here)

it is still easier to define it in terms of {zo'e} and not {da}, otherwise

I have to explain all those transformation rules.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 09:35 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> For a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with their use as

> subordinate clauses, abstracts have to exist whther or not they occur.

> Otherwise, I could in Lojban only fear misfortunes that were actually

> to befall me, could only dream about real events, and so on. It makes

> for a slightly overcrowded ontology, but the alternative is not to

> be able to talk about many things we want to talk about. As is so

> often the case (with the property of being a unicorn, for example)

> we have to distinguish between what is and what occurs.

+1

--

But that, he realized, was a foolish John Cowan

thought; as no one knew better than he [email protected]

that the Wall had no other side. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

--Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 09:35 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:14:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> I admit I have lost trak of who is saying what here. But..

Irony so thick you could make a sword out of it.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT

pc:

> > For a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with their use as

> > subordinate clauses, abstracts have to exist whther or not they occur.

> > Otherwise, I could in Lojban only fear misfortunes that were actually

> > to befall me, could only dream about real events, and so on.

bau la lojban ma'a so'iroi casnu lo pavyseljirna e lo fasnu poi na

ca'a fasnu i ma nabmi

"In Lojban we often talk about unicorns and about events that don't

actually occur. What's the problem?"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT

While it's possible that Lojban has the restrictive -non-restrictive distinction upside down and backwards (it would not be the first time in the last half century), I don't see any reason to think it does. {poi}, as a restrictive relative clause, is a part of the sumti, effectively another predicate in the sumti predicate. As such it is unaffected by negation passage, etc. {noi}, as a non-restrictive relative clause, is essentially another sentence added to the one in which the sumti occurs. As such, it might reasonably be expected to be affected by negation passage and the like. I do not think it is, however, since I think it is a context-leaper, an expression which comes out of its context to the higher level without being affected by its context ("any" and "a certain", the leaping universal and particular quantifiers are the usual examples). In short, both of them meet your unaffectedness requirement, but your characterization is otherwise incorrect (or Lojban's names are).

Neither, in other words, affects truth values — or if one does, it is {noi}, the separate sentence, not {poi} the part of the sumti. I am afraid I dont see why {zo'e poi broda naku} is different from {naku zo'e poi brode}. Citation?

I never suggested that you use {da} in your definition; {zo'e} is much more convenient — not having to give the transformation rules for one thing. As I said, the pint is just to note that they are equivalent and to point out that this tends to make a mockery of your usual story about what {lo} — and all the rest — mean.

xorxes wrote:

pc:

> I don't read {poi} that way and can't find any reason to do so in a quick

> search. Citation?

I don't have any citations, that was just a quick analysis.

{poi} for example will be affected by being under negation, wheras

{noi} will not. {zo'e noi broda ku'o naku brode} is equivalent to

{naku zo'e noi broda ku'o broda}, but it doesn't work like that

with {poi}. So I need {noi}.

> It still seems to me to be essential to {lo broda} that the thing involved

> is a broda, not merely incidental to its being a brode.

Does the essential/incidental distinction affect truth value?

Changing to poi does, so I can't happily do it.

> I get the point; just pointing out that doing this does not get you away

> from quantification. It only makes the substitution more complex (not reall:

> you could always just use {su'o da} in front and replace the {zo'e} with

> {da}).

Assuming that's true (I don't think it is, but it doesn't matter here)

it is still easier to define it in terms of {zo'e} and not {da}, otherwise

I have to explain all those transformation rules.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT

None that I can see; especially not in {casnu2} and the like.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> > For a variety of reasons, mainly having to do with their use as

> > subordinate clauses, abstracts have to exist whther or not they occur.

> > Otherwise, I could in Lojban only fear misfortunes that were actually

> > to befall me, could only dream about real events, and so on.

bau la lojban ma'a so'iroi casnu lo pavyseljirna e lo fasnu poi na

ca'a fasnu i ma nabmi

"In Lojban we often talk about unicorns and about events that don't

actually occur. What's the problem?"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 13:48 GMT

A> Duh! What group? {la/le} is about individuals, not groups and I see no reason to change. It does occur to me that we may be just arguing about words: whjen I say "two of the dogs", I mean two of the things I have identified as "the dogs" and you mean two member of the group I have identified as "the dogs" but we get down to the same things. I still see your approach as unnecessarily complex, to the point of being misleading. The distinction between instances and members seems to be based not on anyreal distinction but merely on your weird metaphysics about what {lo} refers to. Since that is such a loser, perhaps we can bring about some further simplification here. But that requires reworking the internal quantifiers and so we are off on another round of variant meaning for identical structures.

B> {ci la djan} is presumably three people named John, not — except analytically — three members of {la'i djan}.

It seems to me that, in the interest of regularizing things, you have managed to make things even more chaotic — possibly more trational, but still chaotic. {le} and {lo} are standardly identical except for specificity and veridicality; you would have them differ also in the meaning of their quantifiers and, indeed, of their underlying meaning, converting the former into some kind of group (and maybe the latter also, but this is less clear in the definitions, turning up only in the description of internal quantifiers).

Otherwise, this is still looking OK — pending further explanations (those seem to be what get you into trouble). I like the looser sort of sets and collectives, but whay specify mathematical sets; is there another kind? Likewise &'s treatment of external quantifiers of group expressions (but notice that it is different from the treatment of {le/la} groups (if they are such), even if it has the same effect (problem with explanation again — or, here, really with the concepts involved).And you do need to notify us that this is non-standard stuff, part of the new proposal.

In connection with another line here, the advantage of using {da} rather than {zo'e} is that you can quantify over it (may be you can with {zo'e} too but it is not clear what it means) and so can deal with a lot of these PA problems directly.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Is it still the case that the internal quantifiers on the collective and set

> gadri tell the size of the collective or set?

Yes.

> I do not understand what you mean by saying that external quantifiers on om

> {la/le} quantify over members. Members of what?

A>Of a group.

> {la/le} are presumably

> referring to individual(s)

> in each case.

B>When they don't refer to something with members, outer quantification on

them is not very meaningful. Check the proposed definitions:

PA le broda = PA cmima be le brode

PA la broda = PA cmima be la broda

PA1 le PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be le PA2 broda

PA1 la PA2 broda = PA1 cmima be la PA2 broda

> And if that individual happens to be a collective (or set? --

> it is not quite clear which), the external quantifier tells how many such

> collectives are involved. I should think that the same applied to {le/la}.

No, it's always members with le/la, and instances with lo. That's what's

most useful in each case.

> I suppose that, since {le'i/lo'i /la'i} with or without "'" refer to all the

> things which satisfy the sumti predicate, the notion of more than 1 such item

> makes no sense, though fractions of it do: half a set is a set half the size

> of the original and composed of only members of the original set.

{lo'i broda} as currently proposed refers to a generic set of brodas, not

necessarily the only set of all brodas. {lo'i ro broda} is the set of all

brodas:

lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

> Since

> integral quantifiers are nonetheless also possible, they need a meaning and

> so we take them to be like the fractional though specifying the size of the

> set directly rather than relative to the size of the original set.

I am working with And's proposal for fractional quantifiers, where

integral are a special case, with denominator {ro}.

This is copied from XS gadri proposal: And's version

XS& proposes that, at least for the outer quantifier of lo and le, quantifier

expressions are underlyingly fractional/rational (i.e. expressing

fractions/ratios), as follows (brackets mark elidable defaults):

PA (fi'u ro)

"PA (out of all)"

PA1 fi'u PA2 = piPA

"PA1 out of every PA2, PA1 per PA2"

(ro fi'u) ro(PA) = ro(PA) (fi'u ro)

"each of all PA"

Because ot the "(pa) fi'u" convention:

(pa) fi'u PA2

"one out of every PA2, one per PA2"

(pa) fi'u roPA2

"one out of all PA2"

> If I

> understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we rather take external

> integral quantifiers to specify the number of members of the set that are

> meant to satisy the dominant predicate, the things not the set of them.

Correct.

> Reading your

> proposal over again, I am not sure that IS what you are saying, but then I

> couldn't say what it was.

I am suggesting to treat outer quantifiers always as outer quantifiers,

and not make an exception for lei/lai/le'i/la'i which is how the

proposal currently stands.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 13:48 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>B> {ci la djan} is presumably three people named John, not — except analytically — three members of {la'i djan}.

>

>

Not how I hear it. {la djan} is some person *or people* named "djan"

(possibly collectively? No, that would require {lai}); you can select

three out of them. (if they're not named collectively, though, it may

not make a difference).

Whatever. I'm mostly staying out of this.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT

pc:

> {poi}, as a

> restrictive relative clause, is a part of the sumti, effectively another

> predicate in the sumti predicate. As such it is unaffected by negation

> passage, etc.

There are in fact two kinds of poi. You are describing inner poi,

and I was thinkimg of outer poi before.

Inner poi: lo broda poi brode ku

Outer poi: PA lo broda ku poi brode

Inner poi is indeed a part of the sumti predicate. We could

consider {broda poi brode} as a surrogate for {broda gi'e brode},

which is ungrammatical in that position.

Outer poi I can only make sense of with an outer quantifier in

front, because it is used to restrict the set over which one

quantifies.

I can't see at the moment a similar distinction between inner

and outer noi.

selma'o KOhA only permits outer poi/noi.

> {noi}, as a non-restrictive relative clause, is essentially

> another sentence added to the one in which the sumti occurs.

I agree.

> As such, it

> might reasonably be expected to be affected by negation passage and the like.

No, because it only takes the bare sumti to the other sentence, nothing

else.

> I do not think it is, however, since I think it is a context-leaper, an

> expression which comes out of its context to the higher level without being

> affected by its context ("any" and "a certain", the leaping universal and

> particular quantifiers are the usual examples).

Agreed.

> In short, both of them meet

> your unaffectedness requirement, but your characterization is otherwise

> incorrect (or Lojban's names are).

I don't think outer poi is a context-leaper, but I may very

well be wrong about this.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT

[bau la lojban ma'a so'iroi casnu lo pavyseljirna i ma nabmi]

pc:

> None that I can see; especially not in {casnu2} and the like.

But surely it is not the case that there is some instance of

unicorn such that we discuss that instance. At least not

usually.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT

On Monday 14 June 2004 09:08, John E Clifford wrote:

> {lo'i broda} as currently proposed refers to a generic set of brodas, not

> necessarily the only set of all brodas. {lo'i ro broda} is the set of all

> brodas:

>

> lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

Shouldn't that be {zilcmi} instead of {selcmi}? lo selcmi can't be the empty

set.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:33 GMT

pc:

> It does occur to me that we may be just arguing about

> words: whjen I say "two of the dogs", I mean two of the things I have

> identified as "the dogs" and you mean two member of the group I have

> identified as "the dogs" but we get down to the same things.

Right.

> {ci la djan} is presumably three people named John, not — except

> analytically — three members of {la'i djan}.

Since {la'i djan} is the set of things that I name John, I can't

tell the difference.

> It seems to me that, in the interest of regularizing things, you have managed

> to make things even more chaotic — possibly more trational, but still

> chaotic.

As I stated often, my purpose was not to redefine the whole gadri

system, just lo/le/la.

The rest of the system I originally tried to keep as close to

traditional as possible. Then I made a couple of modifications as

suggested by John Cowan, (inner and outer of loi and lo'i) which

I think are an improvement over the traditional system and make

the whole system more regular. Now I am saying that it would be

even more regular if outer of lei/lai/le'i/la'i were treated as

true quantifiers. I don't insist on this, just suggest it, at

least for the record, so that when people in the future ask how

come it was not done more regularly, we can say that it was because

the proposal to do so was not accepted.

> {le} and {lo} are standardly identical except for specificity and

> veridicality; you would have them differ also in the meaning of their

> quantifiers and, indeed, of their underlying meaning, converting the former

> into some kind of group (and maybe the latter also, but this is less clear in

> the definitions, turning up only in the description of internal quantifiers).

The definitions I propose are:

lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

> Otherwise, this is still looking OK — pending further explanations (those

> seem to be what get you into trouble).

Which part is still unclear?

> I like the looser sort of sets and

> collectives, but whay specify mathematical sets; is there another kind?

{selcmi} can be any group, not just mathematical sets:

lo selcmi be ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno

lo cmaci selcmi be ci nanmu cu na bevri lo pipno

A group of three men can carry pianos, a mathematical set can't.

> Likewise &'s treatment of external quantifiers of group expressions (but

> notice that it is different from the treatment of {le/la} groups (if they are

> such), even if it has the same effect (problem with explanation again — or,

> here, really with the concepts involved).And you do need to notify us that

> this is non-standard stuff, part of the new proposal.

What is non-standard stuff? Where have I failed to notify it?

> In connection with another line here, the advantage of using {da} rather than

> {zo'e} is that you can quantify over it (may be you can with {zo'e} too but

> it is not clear what it means) and so can deal with a lot of these PA

> problems directly.

>From my point of view, the disadvantage of using {da} here is that you

have to quantify over it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:52:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> pc:

> > {poi}, as a restrictive relative clause, is a part of the sumti,

> > effectively another predicate in the sumti predicate. As such it

> > is unaffected by negation passage, etc.

>

> There are in fact two kinds of poi. You are describing inner poi, and

> I was thinkimg of outer poi before.

>

> Inner poi: lo broda poi brode ku

> Outer poi: PA lo broda ku poi brode

>

> Inner poi is indeed a part of the sumti predicate. We could consider

> {broda poi brode} as a surrogate for {broda gi'e brode}, which is

> ungrammatical in that position.

>

> Outer poi I can only make sense of with an outer quantifier in front,

> because it is used to restrict the set over which one quantifies.

Neither my parser nor jbofihe require a quantifier to make it work.

> I can't see at the moment a similar distinction between inner and

> outer noi.

noi parses exactly the same way in both cases.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Pierre:

> > lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> > lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

>

> Shouldn't that be {zilcmi} instead of {selcmi}? lo selcmi can't be the empty

> set.

But then I can't say {be lo broda}...

Can we really talk of an empty set of brodas? {lo'i no broda}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Robin:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:52:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Outer poi I can only make sense of with an outer quantifier in front,

> > because it is used to restrict the set over which one quantifies.

>

> Neither my parser nor jbofihe require a quantifier to make it work.

Of course not, but what does it mean? The parser allows lots of

things that apparently don't have meaning. (The difference between

inner and outer poi is explained in CLL, BTW.)

> > I can't see at the moment a similar distinction between inner and

> > outer noi.

>

> noi parses exactly the same way in both cases.

Then there is something wrong with the parser, because

{lo broda noi brode} should parse differently than

{lo broda ku noi brode}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:41:49AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:52:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > Outer poi I can only make sense of with an outer quantifier in

> > > front, because it is used to restrict the set over which one

> > > quantifies.

> >

> > Neither my parser nor jbofihe require a quantifier to make it work.

>

> Of course not, but what does it mean? The parser allows lots of things

> that apparently don't have meaning. (The difference between inner and

> outer poi is explained in CLL, BTW.)

Where? (Not disbelieving, just lazy)

> > > I can't see at the moment a similar distinction between inner and

> > > outer noi.

> >

> > noi parses exactly the same way in both cases.

>

> Then there is something wrong with the parser, because {lo broda noi

> brode} should parse differently than {lo broda ku noi brode}.

Sorry, I meant "noi parses exactly the same way as poi in both cases".

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT


> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:41:49AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > (The difference between inner and

> > outer poi is explained in CLL, BTW.)

>

> Where? (Not disbelieving, just lazy)

Chapter 8, Section 6.

> Sorry, I meant "noi parses exactly the same way as poi in both cases".

It better, since they are both in the same selmaho.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:

> Formal definitions?

>

> This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

I really like the idea, and most of them. Just one thing.

> lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

> le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu le'i broda ma'i mi

{mutce kampu} seems problematic here. Adding {mutce} to make {kampu} less

{kampu} seems just...wrong. Not sure what to recommend in its place, maybe

something like {jibni}. If {kampu} isn't absolute, then there's no problem,

but also no need for {mutce}.

--

Adam Lopresto

http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Windows combines CE ME NT, to provide their most solid OS yet, WARNING: May

take considerable time to dry.



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:

> Formal definitions?

>

> This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

>

> lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

> le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

That doesn't sound right, either. From the gi'uste:

skicu ski describe

x1 tells about/describes x2 (object/event/state)

to audience x3 with description x4 (property)

I don't see {lo broda} as being either a description or a property; it's an

object that brodas. It seems it'd be more appropriate to do something like

le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda

"That which I describe to you as having the property of broda-ing".

Of course, much simpler would be {zo'e voi ke'a broda}.

--

Adam Lopresto

http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Who are you and what have you done with reality?

--Jamin Gray



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Adam:

> {mutce kampu} seems problematic here. Adding {mutce} to make {kampu} less

> {kampu} seems just...wrong. Not sure what to recommend in its place, maybe

> something like {jibni}. If {kampu} isn't absolute, then there's no problem,

> but also no need for {mutce}.

This is the definition:

x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set x2

(complete set)

How absolute is that? Does it allow for eventual exceptions?

The problem with {jibni} is that it would seem to disallow

universality, but in some cases the property may be truly

universal. {mutce} doesn't really make it less {kampu}, it just

makes sure that {kampu} is understood as having a scale.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Adam:

> > le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

>

> That doesn't sound right, either. From the gi'uste:

>

> skicu ski describe

> x1 tells about/describes x2 (object/event/state)

> to audience x3 with description x4 (property)

>

> I don't see {lo broda} as being either a description or a property; it's an

> object that brodas. It seems it'd be more appropriate to do something like

>

> le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda

Right. The tiki seems to be inaccessible at the moment, I will

fix it as soon as I can.

> "That which I describe to you as having the property of broda-ing".

>

> Of course, much simpler would be {zo'e voi ke'a broda}.

I did consider it, but I'm not sure if voi is the non-veridical

counterpart of poi or of noi. If it's poi, then I think it

doesn't quite work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Despite the accidental grammatical fact that {zo'e} is in KOhA and so takes only "outer {poi}, " that is exactly what you want and {noi} still does not work. But I don't see how the distinction applies to KOhA at all. The outer relative is used to note some feature of the currently interesting critters out of the larger bunch that the basic sumti refers to. I can't see why this distinction does not apply to {noi} as well as {poi}. And for {poi} it is even more important (and what you want in this case) since it specifies at least a part of the selection from the larger bunch. In this sense, I don't quite see how it is that KOhA allows only this kind of {poi} (and presumably {noi}) since it never involves a second selection.

But even in the usual cases of outer {poi}, it sems to be impervious to negation problems (it is not a leaper, it just sticks with its sumti):{re le ractu ku poi blabi na citka} goes to {na'e re le ractu ku poi blabi cu citka} but still is concerned only with the white ones among le ractu — nothing about rabbits of other colors is either implied nor contravening. Similarly, {su'o le ractu ku poi blabi na citka} goes (given appropriate existnece assumptions) to {ro le ra ractu ku poi blabi naku citka} is only about all the white ones.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {poi}, as a

> restrictive relative clause, is a part of the sumti, effectively another

> predicate in the sumti predicate. As such it is unaffected by negation

> passage, etc.

There are in fact two kinds of poi. You are describing inner poi,

and I was thinkimg of outer poi before.

Inner poi: lo broda poi brode ku

Outer poi: PA lo broda ku poi brode

Inner poi is indeed a part of the sumti predicate. We could

consider {broda poi brode} as a surrogate for {broda gi'e brode},

which is ungrammatical in that position.

Outer poi I can only make sense of with an outer quantifier in

front, because it is used to restrict the set over which one

quantifies.

I can't see at the moment a similar distinction between inner

and outer noi.

selma'o KOhA only permits outer poi/noi.

> {noi}, as a non-restrictive relative clause, is essentially

> another sentence added to the one in which the sumti occurs.

I agree.

> As such, it

> might reasonably be expected to be affected by negation passage and the like.

No, because it only takes the bare sumti to the other sentence, nothing

else.

> I do not think it is, however, since I think it is a context-leaper, an

> expression which comes out of its context to the higher level without being

> affected by its context ("any" and "a certain", the leaping universal and

> particular quantifiers are the usual examples).

Agreed.

> In short, both of them meet

> your unaffectedness requirement, but your characterization is otherwise

> incorrect (or Lojban's names are).

I don't think outer poi is a context-leaper, but I may very

well be wrong about this.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Why I pointed to the place — an opaque one, somehow. We must get around to dealing with opaque contexts in some uniform way or ways sometime.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

[bau la lojban ma'a so'iroi casnu lo pavyseljirna i ma nabmi]

pc:

> None that I can see; especially not in {casnu2} and the like.

But surely it is not the case that there is some instance of

unicorn such that we discuss that instance. At least not

usually.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Why not? le selcmi be no da

Pierre Abbat wrote:On Monday 14 June 2004 09:08, John E Clifford wrote: > {lo'i broda} as currently proposed refers to a generic set of brodas, not

> necessarily the only set of all brodas. {lo'i ro broda} is the set of all

> brodas:

>

> lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

Shouldn't that be {zilcmi} instead of {selcmi}? lo selcmi can't be the empty

set.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

A> If there is no difference, why bring the set into it at all?

B> In the process of which you broke a regularity, which then disrupted (apparently) regularities in other places, which then need to be changed to make them regular (more or less — usually less) again.

C> Pointing again to the definitions which were at the hear t of the problem does not seem a good way to clear up the problem.

D>What various quantifiers mean in various places and why to in the dsame place but with different gadri have such radically differnt meanings.

E>Everything except {le/la} is non-standard, apparently, and {le/la} is looking rather odd. Even if, under it all, this is all standard (if oddly presented) except &'s quantifiers, there is no mention that I can find that these are &'s quantifiers.

F> And mine is (well, this is not my point but I hold to it anyhow) that you are quantifying anyhow so you might as well take advantage of it.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> It does occur to me that we may be just arguing about

> words: whjen I say "two of the dogs", I mean two of the things I have

> identified as "the dogs" and you mean two member of the group I have

> identified as "the dogs" but we get down to the same things.

Right.

> {ci la djan} is presumably three people named John, not — except

> analytically — three members of {la'i djan}.

A>Since {la'i djan} is the set of things that I name John, I can't

tell the difference.

> It seems to me that, in the interest of regularizing things, you have managed

> to make things even more chaotic — possibly more trational, but still

> chaotic.

B>As I stated often, my purpose was not to redefine the whole gadri

system, just lo/le/la.

The rest of the system I originally tried to keep as close to

traditional as possible. Then I made a couple of modifications as

suggested by John Cowan, (inner and outer of loi and lo'i) which

I think are an improvement over the traditional system and make

the whole system more regular. Now I am saying that it would be

even more regular if outer of lei/lai/le'i/la'i were treated as

true quantifiers. I don't insist on this, just suggest it, at

least for the record, so that when people in the future ask how

come it was not done more regularly, we can say that it was because

the proposal to do so was not accepted.

> {le} and {lo} are standardly identical except for specificity and

> veridicality; you would have them differ also in the meaning of their

> quantifiers and, indeed, of their underlying meaning, converting the former

> into some kind of group (and maybe the latter also, but this is less clear in

> the definitions, turning up only in the description of internal quantifiers).

C>The definitions I propose are:

lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

> Otherwise, this is still looking OK — pending further explanations (those

> seem to be what get you into trouble).

D>Which part is still unclear?

> I like the looser sort of sets and

> collectives, but whay specify mathematical sets; is there another kind?

{selcmi} can be any group, not just mathematical sets:

lo selcmi be ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno

lo cmaci selcmi be ci nanmu cu na bevri lo pipno

A group of three men can carry pianos, a mathematical set can't.

> Likewise &'s treatment of external quantifiers of group expressions (but

> notice that it is different from the treatment of {le/la} groups (if they are

> such), even if it has the same effect (problem with explanation again — or,

> here, really with the concepts involved).And you do need to notify us that

> this is non-standard stuff, part of the new proposal.

E>What is non-standard stuff? Where have I failed to notify it?

> In connection with another line here, the advantage of using {da} rather than

> {zo'e} is that you can quantify over it (may be you can with {zo'e} too but

> it is not clear what it means) and so can deal with a lot of these PA

> problems directly.

F>From my point of view, the disadvantage of using {da} here is that you

have to quantify over it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

Why not? The empty set is a proper subset of the set of all broda (and, indeed, of every non-empty subset of that set).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Pierre:

> > lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> > lo'i PA broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA broda e no lo na broda

>

> Shouldn't that be {zilcmi} instead of {selcmi}? lo selcmi can't be the empty

> set.

But then I can't say {be lo broda}...

Can we really talk of an empty set of brodas? {lo'i no broda}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:19:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Right. The tiki seems to be inaccessible at the moment, I will fix it

> as soon as I can.

Tiki is back up.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

A> Why? {ku} is elidable with certain followers, one of which — in unquantified sumti — is sure {poi brode}. I think it is right that the quantifier makes a difference, since there are now two possible sumti for {poi} to attach to and {ko} disambiguates (poi attaches to the closest complete term. I thought you said there was no inner-outer distinction for {noi}, so why insist there must be one?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:52:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Outer poi I can only make sense of with an outer quantifier in front,

> > because it is used to restrict the set over which one quantifies.

>

> Neither my parser nor jbofihe require a quantifier to make it work.

Of course not, but what does it mean? The parser allows lots of

things that apparently don't have meaning. (The difference between

inner and outer poi is explained in CLL, BTW.)

> > I can't see at the moment a similar distinction between inner and

> > outer noi.

>

> noi parses exactly the same way in both cases.

A>Then there is something wrong with the parser, because

{lo broda noi brode} should parse differently than

{lo broda ku noi brode}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 20:35 GMT

Hmmm. I am not sure that either of these quite gets at the point of {lo'e} and {le'e}. {le'e broda cu brode} doesn't even require that any broda is brode, let alone that it is common. {lo'e brode cu brode} does not require that it is common, let alone very common, among broda — "typical" is usually weighed not counted (of course, maybe {kampu} is weighed, too). I think simple definitons like this one are bound to fail, but these at least have the right fundamental form, just the level of complexity may be too low.

"Adam D. Lopresto" wrote:On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:

> Formal definitions?

>

> This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

I really like the idea, and most of them. Just one thing.

> lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

> le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu le'i broda ma'i mi

{mutce kampu} seems problematic here. Adding {mutce} to make {kampu} less

{kampu} seems just...wrong. Not sure what to recommend in its place, maybe

something like {jibni}. If {kampu} isn't absolute, then there's no problem,

but also no need for {mutce}.

--

Adam Lopresto

http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Windows combines CE ME NT, to provide their most solid OS yet, WARNING: May

take considerable time to dry.



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

pc:

> But I don't see how the distinction applies to KOhA at all.

Consider for example {re do noi nanmu cu klama}. That says that

two of you, who are men, go. Does it say that all of you are men?

{re do poi nanmu cu klama} says that the two goers are men, but

the rest of do may not be men.

I have no problem understanding {do noi nanmu cu klama}.

But what does {do poi nanmu cu klama} mean?

> The outer

> relative is used to note some feature of the currently interesting critters

> out of the larger bunch that the basic sumti refers to. I can't see why this

> distinction does not apply to {noi} as well as {poi}.

poi helps to select the currently interesting critters, because it is

restrictive. noi does not.

And for {poi} it is

> even more important (and what you want in this case) since it specifies at

> least a part of the selection from the larger bunch. In this sense, I don't

> quite see how it is that KOhA allows only this kind of {poi} (and presumably

> {noi}) since it never involves a second selection.

I have no trouble understanding {KOhA noi} and {PA KOhA poi}.

{PA KOhA noi} and {KOhA poi} are the tricky ones.

What does the noi clause apply to in {PA KOhA noi}?

Does the poi in {KOhA poi broda} select all or some KOhAs that broda?

Or is it vague in that respect?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0400, xod wrote:

> > In order to even mention past usage as a factor, you have to show

> > that the past usage is meaningful: that it was used in a consistent

> > way by people who understood how they were using it, and with all

> > contradictions recognized by consensus as *mistakes*. Otherwise,

> > past usage breaks past usage, and you are restricting us with the

> > impossible task of upholding contradiction.

>

> Please clarify: are you saying that {lo} has never been used correctly

> to mean {su'o}? Or are you saying that using {lo} to mean {su'o} was a

> mistake?

He's not saying either of those things; he's saying that past usage,

taken as a whole, contradicts itself. This is demonstrably true:

..i lo so'i prenu poi na pu spuda ba mo

(states that there are only 'many' people in the world)

mi na viska lo flira

(I do not see any faces, at all, ever; it is likely the speaker was at a

computer at the time, and could see eir face in the monitor)

xu na cumki lo nu pilno la sed

(is it impossible that 'sed' has ever been used)

Contrast the many 'correct' uses of lo, which are all trivial,

non-negated sentences.

The question is, which parts of past usage are we going to enshrine?

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 04:15:33PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:02:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:06:38AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 11:39:31PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:16:22PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:29:31AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > If so, how do you "I need a doctor" or "Unicorns are white"?

> > > > >

> > > > > Under the current gadri system, these sentences *can* be said.

> > > > > The only reason I think changes are needed is to make the

> > > > > system suck less (and thereby make sentences like the above

> > > > > easier to say).

> > > > >

> > > > > mi mikce nitcu

> > > > >

> > > > > tu'a lo mikce cu sarcu mi (the propositionalism way)

> > > >

> > > > Expand the tu'a. All NU are non-veridical, thus breaking the

> > > > meaning.

> > >

> > > If you're talking about the old proposed fix for people using

> > > "lenu" everywhere of making {da nu ...} always true (i.e.

> > > imaginary events exist), this is completely irrelevant.

> >

> > I have no idea what you're talking about.

> >

> > My point was that tu'a is short for an unspecified abstraction. If

> > you're going to propose using tu'a, you need to show me what it

> > expands to, at which point I'll tell you that that's not what I need

> > because 1) I want a doctor, not an abstraction and 2) abstractions

> > are non-veridical.

>

> You {se sarcu} an abstraction, not a doctor, which is why it works.

Ah, true.

> So what do you mean "abstractions are non-veridical", if you're not

> talking about the old "every nu exists" kludge?

IIRC, anything inside an abstraction is considered irrelevant WRT

the logic of the rest of the sentence (i.e. its truth or falsity). I

could be misremembering.

> In {da nu do mrobi'o}, the sentence definitely claims something is the

> event of you dying. The only question (back in the day) was whether

> the X which makes that true is a real event (as in in real life), or

> some conceptual hypothetical event.

>

> IIRC, John's position was that "da nu " is always true.

What's the book's position?

> > > (And I don't like that fix so much---I'd much rather have better

> > > gadri).

> >

> > Then why didn't you propose one when I asked for you

> > counter-proposal?

> >

> > Please tell us more about this gadri so we have something to work

> > with.

I noticed you ignored me asking for this several times.

> > > {tu'a lo mikce} is {LEsu'u co'e lo mikce}. Works perfectly.

> >

> > You original sentence doesn't parse, I've just noticed.

>

> That's because either you quoted it wrong,

Probably my fault; corrected above.

> > > > > le'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > > > > lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi

> > > >

> > > > Only if you accept a broader meaning of le'e and lo'e than I do.

> > >

> > > How so? I believe this is CLL-sanctioned...

> >

> > We've already had fights about this; it boils down to how you read

> > the CLL. I do not believe that "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi" says

> > anything about unicorns in general; only the typical ones.

>

> But if all unicorns have a property, then that property is equally

> true of the typical unicorn.

Sure, but its the other way around that I care about; stating that

typical unicorns have a property says nothing about the rest of them.

Apparently ro is not importing, though, which makes that relatively

easy.

> Which is why in this case both {le'e} and {lo'e} work equally well

> as {ro}, but make slightly less strong claims.

I *utterly* disagree with this statement, but neither of us have enough

in the book to back up our positions.

> > > Xorxes used to use {lo'e} for this. I think his definition for

> > > {lo} is supposed to be somehow related to his old {lo'e}. No one

> > > understood the latter either, though, IIRC.

> >

> > I'm pretty sure I understand the new lo just fine. Again, I'm

> > waiting for a concrete replacement from you (or anyone).

>

> Maybe you could explain it to us better than xorxes?

Actually, I think xorxes' new conversion formula do a lovely job.

> > > What I was complaining about was that it is not very well defined

> > > what xorlo means.

> >

> > It means *nothing*. It is semantically empty. It's like the way

> > "cu" says "Here comes a selbri"; it means "here comes a sumti".

> > Everything else is left to context.

>

> u'isai

>

> I will certainly not vote for anything which leaves the entire meaning

> of a gadri up to context.

Why not?

What is deffirent between this and current "le" or "lo"?

> Why would anyone ever use any gadri other than "lo"?

Why do people ever use tenses? After all, they are not required.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Formal definitions?

>

> This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

Yaaaaay!

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:15:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Adam:

> > {mutce kampu} seems problematic here. Adding {mutce} to make

> > {kampu} less {kampu} seems just...wrong. Not sure what to recommend

> > in its place, maybe something like {jibni}. If {kampu} isn't

> > absolute, then there's no problem, but also no need for {mutce}.

>

> This is the definition:

>

> x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set x2

> (complete set)

>

> How absolute is that?

Not at all.

> Does it allow for eventual exceptions?

One of the key words is "common"; sounds like exceptions are fine. I

think kampu by itself is good.

> {mutce} doesn't really make it less {kampu}, it just makes sure that

> {kampu} is understood as having a scale.

+1

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 01:05:05PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 [email protected] wrote:

>

> > Formal definitions?

> >

> > This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

> >

> > lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

> >

> > le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo broda

>

>

> That doesn't sound right, either. From the gi'uste:

>

> skicu ski describe

> x1 tells about/describes x2 (object/event/state)

> to audience x3 with description x4 (property)

>

> I don't see {lo broda} as being either a description or a property;

Agreed.

> it's an object that brodas. It seems it'd be more appropriate to do

> something like

>

> le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda

That looks good.

> "That which I describe to you as having the property of broda-ing".

>

> Of course, much simpler would be {zo'e voi ke'a broda}.

Indeed.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:53 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:19:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Adam:

> > "That which I describe to you as having the property of broda-ing".

> >

> > Of course, much simpler would be {zo'e voi ke'a broda}.

>

> I did consider it, but I'm not sure if voi is the non-veridical

> counterpart of poi or of noi. If it's poi, then I think it doesn't

> quite work.

What's the issue again, with noi as opposed to poi? I don't quite

understand.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

> > lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

> > le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu le'i broda ma'i mi

pc:

> Hmmm. I am not sure that either of these quite gets at the point of {lo'e}

> and {le'e}. {le'e broda cu brode} doesn't even require that any broda is

> brode,

Neither does the proposed the definition, it only talks of le'i broda.

>let alone that it is common.

That's what the {ma'i mi} covers.

> {lo'e brode cu brode} does not require

> that it is common, let alone very common, among broda — "typical" is usually

> weighed not counted (of course, maybe {kampu} is weighed, too).

Please suggest a better word.

> I think

> simple definitons like this one are bound to fail, but these at least have

> the right fundamental form, just the level of complexity may be too low.

Let's make it more complex, then. That's what we're doing after all,

trying to find the right definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

Robin:

> What's the issue again, with noi as opposed to poi? I don't quite

> understand.

{ko'a noi broda cu brode} is very clear: "ko'a, who brodas, brodes".

{ci ko'a poi broda cu brode} is also clear: "three of the ko'as that

broda, brode."

But what does {ci ko'a noi broda cu brode} mean? Does broda apply

to ko'a, or just to the three ko'a that brode?

And what does {ko'a poi broda cu brode} means? The same as

{ro ko'a poi broda cu brode}? The same as {su'o ko'a poi broda

cu brode}? Something else, like lo ro ko'a poi broda cu brode}?

In other words, it is very clear what {noi} applied to a constant

term means. It is very clear what outer {poi} coupled with a quantifier

means. But the other options are not so clear. That's why I use

{zo'e noi} in the definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Mon 14 of June, 2004 23:54 GMT

A>Well, analogy works both ways. On the one hand, the shortest sumti is {do}, so it would be modified by the following relative. On the other hand, {do} is already classified {zo'e n/poi mi tavla ke'a}, so , since there is a requantification, it modifies that sumti and not the original one. Can one use {ku} with {do}? If not, this seems to be an irresolvable problem (well we could use the internal placement of the relative {re poi nanmu ko'u do cu klama} if that is legal).

B> I would tend to take {do poi broda} as partitive: "those of you who broda}, even without the quantifier. I don't think I have any justification for doing this, but that is the way I tend to read it.

C> Yes, but that is just the difference between {poi} and {noi}; it shouldn't matter on the issue of whether {noi} can attach to the larger sumti.

D> I only see a problem with {KOhA poi} and my problem is mainly — as I just said — that I can't justify what seems to me to be the obvious reading.

E> See A.

F> Lacking an authoritative answer, analogy pulls both ways. I think I will go for "vague" at the moment.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> But I don't see how the distinction applies to KOhA at all.

A>Consider for example {re do noi nanmu cu klama}. That says that

two of you, who are men, go. Does it say that all of you are men?

{re do poi nanmu cu klama} says that the two goers are men, but

the rest of do may not be men.

B>I have no problem understanding {do noi nanmu cu klama}.

But what does {do poi nanmu cu klama} mean?

> The outer

> relative is used to note some feature of the currently interesting critters

> out of the larger bunch that the basic sumti refers to. I can't see why this

> distinction does not apply to {noi} as well as {poi}.

C>poi helps to select the currently interesting critters, because it is

restrictive. noi does not.

And for {poi} it is

> even more important (and what you want in this case) since it specifies at

> least a part of the selection from the larger bunch. In this sense, I don't

> quite see how it is that KOhA allows only this kind of {poi} (and presumably

> {noi}) since it never involves a second selection.

I have no trouble understanding {KOhA noi} and {PA KOhA poi}.

D>{PA KOhA noi} and {KOhA poi} are the tricky ones.

E>What does the noi clause apply to in {PA KOhA noi}?

F>Does the poi in {KOhA poi broda} select all or some KOhAs that broda?

Or is it vague in that respect?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

pc:

[re do noi nanmu]

> Well, analogy works both ways. On the one hand, the shortest sumti is

> {do}, so it would be modified by the following relative. On the other hand,

> {do} is already classified {zo'e n/poi mi tavla ke'a}, so , since there is

> a requantification, it modifies that sumti and not the original one. Can one

> use {ku} with {do}?

Not directly, but we can say {lo me do me'u ku}, which in fact provides

four points where we can attach a relative clause: after lo, after do,

after me'u and after ku.

> If not, this seems to be an irresolvable problem (well

> we could use the internal placement of the relative {re poi nanmu ko'u do cu

> klama} if that is legal).

No, the internal placement works only after a gadri, not after a

quantifier. But we can say {re lo ro do}, which will take an inner

relative after lo as well as one after do.

> I would tend to take {do poi broda} as partitive: "those of you who

> broda}, even without the quantifier. I don't think I have any justification

> for doing this, but that is the way I tend to read it.

Me too. Equivalent to {lo ro do poi broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

I am pretty sure that is wrong. A stereotype of broda is not a description of "typical" members a class subjectively described as broda, but a subjectively validated description of "typical" members of the real class of broda. That is, the target has to be {lo'i broda} in both cases. The description may be wrong, but it is not about the wrong class.

B> Than {kampu}? My point is that "typical" is not to be defined in this short and simple a way (if at all). So I don't think there is a better word, maybe a bettter paragraph at least.

C> Here's the rub: while every definition suggested so far has obvious flaws, no one knows (or agree with anyone else) on what is lacking or where exactly a suggestion goes astray. It is one of those "I know it when I see it" kinds of things which seem to defy analysis of years (centuries) and this one has not yet had that flash that finally puts an end to the problem.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

> > le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu le'i broda ma'i mi

pc:

> Hmmm. I am not sure that either of these quite gets at the point of {lo'e}

> and {le'e}. {le'e broda cu brode} doesn't even require that any broda is

> brode,

A>Neither does the proposed the definition, it only talks of le'i broda.

>let alone that it is common.

That's what the {ma'i mi} covers.

> {lo'e brode cu brode} does not require

> that it is common, let alone very common, among broda — "typical" is usually

> weighed not counted (of course, maybe {kampu} is weighed, too).

B>Please suggest a better word.

> I think

> simple definitons like this one are bound to fail, but these at least have

> the right fundamental form, just the level of complexity may be too low.

C>Let's make it more complex, then. That's what we're doing after all,

trying to find the right definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:31:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > What's the issue again, with noi as opposed to poi? I don't quite

> > understand.

>

> {ko'a noi broda cu brode} is very clear: "ko'a, who brodas, brodes".

Let me ask the question you ask below: does that mean {su'o ko'a}, {ro

ko'a}, or something else?

> {ci ko'a poi broda cu brode} is also clear: "three of the ko'as that

> broda, brode."

>

> But what does {ci ko'a noi broda cu brode} mean?

Exactly the same thing, but with different emphasis. On what basis do

you thinnk it means anything different?

> Does broda apply to ko'a, or just to the three ko'a that brode?

Whatever poi means, which I think is the latter.

> And what does {ko'a poi broda cu brode} means? The same as {ro ko'a

> poi broda cu brode}? The same as {su'o ko'a poi broda cu brode}?

I'm not even sure I know what "su'o ko'a" means. I would say that it

means all ko'a that broda, but whether or not that's {ro ko'a poi

broda} or not I have no idea.

> In other words, it is very clear what {noi} applied to a constant term

> means. It is very clear what outer {poi} coupled with a quantifier

> means. But the other options are not so clear. That's why I use {zo'e

> noi} in the definition.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

A>Fech! there has to be a prettier way. Though this does do the trick, attaching {poi} before or after {ku} disambiguates (when there is a quantifer there certainly, maybe even without).

B> Oh dear, {lo ro do} seems to offer three places to attach relatives and, lacking any clues otherwise the rule would seem to say "attach to {do}," which is exactly wrong — for our purposes anyhow. Another note on the To Do list.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

[re do noi nanmu]

> Well, analogy works both ways. On the one hand, the shortest sumti is

> {do}, so it would be modified by the following relative. On the other hand,

> {do} is already classified {zo'e n/poi mi tavla ke'a}, so , since there is

> a requantification, it modifies that sumti and not the original one. Can one

> use {ku} with {do}?

A>Not directly, but we can say {lo me do me'u ku}, which in fact provides

four points where we can attach a relative clause: after lo, after do,

after me'u and after ku.

> If not, this seems to be an irresolvable problem (well

> we could use the internal placement of the relative {re poi nanmu ko'u do cu

> klama} if that is legal).

No, the internal placement works only after a gadri, not after a

quantifier. But we can say {re lo ro do}, which will take an inner

relative after lo as well as one after do.

> I would tend to take {do poi broda} as partitive: "those of you who

> broda}, even without the quantifier. I don't think I have any justification

> for doing this, but that is the way I tend to read it.

B>Me too. Equivalent to {lo ro do poi broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Formal definitions?

>

> This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

Sweet.

> lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

I think this sorta just passes things over to zo'e, which is also

pretty poorly defined.

Here's the problem as I see it:

Currently we assume {zo'e} is present anywhere you don't say anything.

It's marginally debated, but generally agreed that {mi bruna} is

the same as {mi bruna zo'e zo'e}, and thus implies that there are

things which fill those spaces. I can't {bruna} unless I {bruna}

  • to* something.

That is to say, {mi bruna} means the same as {mi bruna da de}.

So, in this case, depending on what the accepted meaning of {zo'e}

is/becomes, your definition of {lo} is either going to require that

{mi bruna} can be true if I have no siblings, or that {lo} is still

definable in terms of {da} (which presumably you don't want).

...

> lo PA broda = lo PAmei be fi lo broda

...

> lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> le'i broda = lo'i ro le broda

> la'i broda = lo'i ro la broda

I don't think you need "cmaci".

If you expand the le'i definition you get foo like {lo cmaci selcmi

be lo ro le broda .e no lo na ro le broda}. Which doesn't parse

because of the {na}.

You also need a definition for {lo PA le broda} and such anyway, I

think. Currently the only potentially applicable rule gives, {lo

re le broda == lo remei be fi lo re le broda}, which is obviously

not going to work :-)

...

> Comments?

That's all for now.

Some of the others can be discussed (masses), but it really all

comes down to {lo}.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAzkZ9DrrilS51AZ8RArElAJ97I0785B+DE5F1jZnpBT7sIo2EFgCghWZ8

OXBEl1M8rj9wQZSOCkLbUfk=

=rUOC

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

Jordan:

> > This is an attempt to define gadri more formally.

> Sweet.

You were the main instigator for this, so you better appreciate it. :-)

> Here's the problem as I see it:

>

> Currently we assume {zo'e} is present anywhere you don't say anything.

Yes.

> It's marginally debated, but generally agreed that {mi bruna} is

> the same as {mi bruna zo'e zo'e}, and thus implies that there are

> things which fill those spaces. I can't {bruna} unless I {bruna}

> *to* something.

Right.

> That is to say, {mi bruna} means the same as {mi bruna da de}.

Not the same, but it entails it. The {zo'e}s are very context sensitive.

If someone asks {ma bruna la djan}, and you respond {mi bruna}, that

does not exactly mean the same as {mi bruna da}, though it entails it.

> So, in this case, depending on what the accepted meaning of {zo'e}

> is/becomes, your definition of {lo} is either going to require that

> {mi bruna} can be true if I have no siblings, or that {lo} is still

> definable in terms of {da} (which presumably you don't want).

I don't want either of those two options. I want {lo} to be as

context sensitive as {zo'e} is.

> > lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> > le'i broda = lo'i ro le broda

> > la'i broda = lo'i ro la broda

>

> I don't think you need "cmaci".

But then it could be any group, even a group that can carry pianos!

lo'i/le'i/la'i are the odd men out among gadri. {lo cinfo},

{loi cinfo} and {lo'e cinfo} all can xabju le friko and kalte

lo cidja, but lo'i cinfo is a very weird entity that has no

business among them, its properties are of a completely different

sort than those of its cousins. The places that lo'i cinfo can

fill have been especially ear-marked for sets. If they hadn't, we

would use normal groups in those places with no loss of precision.

The whole idea of having these specially marked places where you

have to use these special gadri is absurd.

> If you expand the le'i definition you get foo like {lo cmaci selcmi

> be lo ro le broda .e no lo na ro le broda}. Which doesn't parse

> because of the {na}.

I already expanded the le'i and la'i definitions to avoid that.

Check the page, there are also some other minor changes from

my initial post.

> You also need a definition for {lo PA le broda} and such anyway, I

> think. Currently the only potentially applicable rule gives, {lo

> re le broda == lo remei be fi lo re le broda}, which is obviously

> not going to work :-)

Obviously the definitions as they stand don't cover every possible use

of gadri, but I think they pretty much give the idea how the extended

uses would work.

{lo PA le broda} is {lo PAmei be fi lo cmima be le broda e

no lo na cmima be le broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

pc:

> I am pretty sure that is wrong. A stereotype of broda is not a description

> of "typical" members a class subjectively described as broda, but a

> subjectively validated description of "typical" members of the real class of

> broda. That is, the target has to be {lo'i broda} in both cases. The

> description may be wrong, but it is not about the wrong class.

I'm following CLL for these. If you want to propose a better

definition, please do.

> B> Than {kampu}? My point is that "typical" is not to be defined in this

> short and simple a way (if at all). So I don't think there is a better word,

> maybe a bettter paragraph at least.

Ok, what paragraph do you suggest? We are not short of space. If it's in

Lojban, all the better. If not, it should be clear enough that I can

translate it into Lojban.

> Here's the rub: while every definition suggested so far has obvious flaws,

> no one knows (or agree with anyone else) on what is lacking or where exactly

> a suggestion goes astray. It is one of those "I know it when I see it" kinds

> of things which seem to defy analysis of years (centuries) and this one has

> not yet had that flash that finally puts an end to the problem.

So, should I replace my definition with "undefinable, you'll know it

when you see it"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

Robin:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:31:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > {ko'a noi broda cu brode} is very clear: "ko'a, who brodas, brodes".

>

> Let me ask the question you ask below: does that mean {su'o ko'a}, {ro

> ko'a}, or something else?

ko'a has a single referent, be it an individual or a group. ko'a noi broda

says that the referent of ko'a brodas.

> > {ci ko'a poi broda cu brode} is also clear: "three of the ko'as that

> > broda, brode."

> >

> > But what does {ci ko'a noi broda cu brode} mean?

>

> Exactly the same thing, but with different emphasis. On what basis do

> you thinnk it means anything different?

Analogy with the {lo broda noi brode} case. But I tend to agree with you

(and with pc!) that the outer reading is the right one. We can use

{ci lo noi broda ro ko'a} for the inner reading.

> > And what does {ko'a poi broda cu brode} means? The same as {ro ko'a

> > poi broda cu brode}? The same as {su'o ko'a poi broda cu brode}?

>

> I'm not even sure I know what "su'o ko'a" means.

If ko'a is a group, at least one member of the group, if it's a kind,

at least one instance of the kind.

> I would say that it

> means all ko'a that broda, but whether or not that's {ro ko'a poi

> broda} or not I have no idea.

I think it's equivalent to {lo ro ko'a poi broda}, if ko'a is a group.

i.e. the subgroup of the ko'a that are brodas. (If it's a kind, then

ko'a poi broda is the subkind that brodas.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT

A> I may be taking "sterotypical" too seriously here. It is the one that makes sense. Since a {le} grouping is always something thrown together by my decision (or someone's or..) the notion of "typical" does not generally apply.

B> Just say — in English; Lojban isn't up to it yet — that it means pretty much what "typical" or "stereotypical" means in Englsih, hard as that is to specify.

xorxes wrote:

pc:

> I am pretty sure that is wrong. A stereotype of broda is not a description

> of "typical" members a class subjectively described as broda, but a

> subjectively validated description of "typical" members of the real class of

> broda. That is, the target has to be {lo'i broda} in both cases. The

> description may be wrong, but it is not about the wrong class.

A>I'm following CLL for these. If you want to propose a better

definition, please do.

> B> Than {kampu}? My point is that "typical" is not to be defined in this

> short and simple a way (if at all). So I don't think there is a better word,

> maybe a bettter paragraph at least.

Ok, what paragraph do you suggest? We are not short of space. If it's in

Lojban, all the better. If not, it should be clear enough that I can

translate it into Lojban.

> Here's the rub: while every definition suggested so far has obvious flaws,

> no one knows (or agree with anyone else) on what is lacking or where exactly

> a suggestion goes astray. It is one of those "I know it when I see it" kinds

> of things which seem to defy analysis of years (centuries) and this one has

> not yet had that flash that finally puts an end to the problem.

B>So, should I replace my definition with "undefinable, you'll know it

when you see it"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT

Just my usual note to pooh-pooh your notion of kind (pending some coherent explanation). That aside, this seems about right, but I haven't though through all the details.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:31:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > {ko'a noi broda cu brode} is very clear: "ko'a, who brodas, brodes".

>

> Let me ask the question you ask below: does that mean {su'o ko'a}, {ro

> ko'a}, or something else?

ko'a has a single referent, be it an individual or a group. ko'a noi broda

says that the referent of ko'a brodas.

> > {ci ko'a poi broda cu brode} is also clear: "three of the ko'as that

> > broda, brode."

> >

> > But what does {ci ko'a noi broda cu brode} mean?

>

> Exactly the same thing, but with different emphasis. On what basis do

> you thinnk it means anything different?

Analogy with the {lo broda noi brode} case. But I tend to agree with you

(and with pc!) that the outer reading is the right one. We can use

{ci lo noi broda ro ko'a} for the inner reading.

> > And what does {ko'a poi broda cu brode} means? The same as {ro ko'a

> > poi broda cu brode}? The same as {su'o ko'a poi broda cu brode}?

>

> I'm not even sure I know what "su'o ko'a" means.

If ko'a is a group, at least one member of the group, if it's a kind,

at least one instance of the kind.

> I would say that it

> means all ko'a that broda, but whether or not that's {ro ko'a poi

> broda} or not I have no idea.

I think it's equivalent to {lo ro ko'a poi broda}, if ko'a is a group.

i.e. the subgroup of the ko'a that are brodas. (If it's a kind, then

ko'a poi broda is the subkind that brodas.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

http://messenger.yahoo.com/


su'o da worries


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 15 of June, 2004 02:13 GMT posts: 14214

I'm worried about the su'o da issue.

For those of you who haven't been following everything: CLL {lo broda} is equivalent to {da poi broda}, essentially. xorlo {lo broda} is {zo'e noi ke'a broda}.

Assuming for the moment that {zo'e} cannot be quantified over (and I am, indeed, assuming that, or past usage gets Really Really Wierd), this is potentially a drastic change to past usage, in as much as it is easy to construct sentences that change drastically in meaning.

For example, in CLL {lo broda cu na brode} means that there are *NO* brodas, anywhere, that brode. None at all. This is a consequence of what "da" and "na" mean.

In xorlo, the meaning of {lo broda cu na brode} is, of course, determined by context. There is nothing requiring it to mean the same thing as the CLL version, since xorlo is not quantified (i.e. does not imply "da").

I'm a little worried about this, so here's what I'd like:

1. I'd like the Impact section to mention this issue explicitely.

2. I'd like to know if I missed any cases. As far as I can tell, the only place where {lo} == {su'o da} is relevant is in sentence with "na" before the selbri, or naku before a {lo} sumti. I honestly can't think of any other cases where the {su'o da} issue matters, because the variable created by {lo} is invisible for most purposes. xorlo with an outer quantifier has the su'o da implication, so cases with an outer quantifier can also be ignored.

3. I'd like to know if CLL {lo} + {na} has ever demonstrably been used correctly outside of examples. I can't find any, including in Jordan's translations. I can find plenty of examples of {lo} without {na}, and I can find plenty of examples of {lo} + {na} used to mean "A broda is not brode", for some unspecified broda, which is an obvious xorlo interpretation. I have yet to find {lo} + {na} used to mean "There is no broda that brodes". If there is such a case in actual usage, I'd like to know about it.

At this point I have enough doubt about this issue that I might vote No, but I can see it's not necessary. :-P

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> The whole idea of having these specially marked places where you

> have to use these special gadri is absurd.

You can use any sumti that's equivalent to a set, in which case the

gadri can be le or lo.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan

If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a

terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always

reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an

enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer

that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> I am pretty sure that is wrong. A stereotype of broda is not a

> description of "typical" members a class subjectively described as

> broda, but a subjectively validated description of "typical" members of

> the real class of broda. That is, the target has to be {lo'i broda}

> in both cases. The description may be wrong, but it is not about the

> wrong class.

+1

--

Barry gules and argent of seven and six, John Cowan

on a canton azure fifty molets of the second. [email protected]

--blazoning the U.S. flag http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> A> I may be taking "sterotypical" too seriously here. It is the one that makes sense. Since a {le} grouping is always something thrown together by my decision (or someone's or..) the notion of "typical" does not generally apply.

>

> B> Just say — in English; Lojban isn't up to it yet — that it means

> pretty much what "typical" or "stereotypical" means in Englsih, hard

> as that is to specify.

Definitely not. "le'e" is very different from "stereotypical".

--

John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected]

Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where

no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in

the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,

James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT

As it stands now, can {lo} be used for instances, generalities, and

intensions? It seems to me that when it's used for instances, it inverts when

crossing {naku}, but when used for generalities and intensions it can't be

said what happens when {lo} crosses {naku}. For instance:

mi lo stagrleoxari cu tervecnu (I buy some water chestnuts - instances)

mi lo stagrleoxari naku naku tervecnu

mi naku ro stagrleoxari naku tervecnu

mi lo bambusa cifstani cu tervecnu

(I buy bamboo shoot - generality, assuming that the shoots are chopped so that

no one is identifiable)

mi lo bambusa cifstani naku naku tervecnu

  • mi naku ro bambusa cifstani naku tervecnu

(This isn't right, since there is no one bamboo shoot that I bought - I bought

a can containing pieces of several of them.)

la katr,in lo xanja'u cu claxu

(Catherine is missing a fingernail - intensional)

la katr,in lo xanja'u naku naku claxu

  • la katr,in naku ro xanja'u naku claxu

(This isn't right, because the fingernail she's missing never existed, and

everyone else's fingernails are included in ro xanja'u, but she's not missing

them.)

  • la katr,in naku lo xanja'u naku claxu

(This isn't right, because ky. le so drata naku claxu.)

Btw, here's a picture of her hand with the missing nail:

http://www.hennapage.com/henna/forum/messages/63916.html

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 04:01 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:30:29PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> As it stands now, can {lo} be used for instances, generalities, and

> intensions?

Assuming we're talking about xorlo, *without* an outer quantifier, yes.

> It seems to me that when it's used for instances, it inverts when

> crossing {naku},

Incorrect. To do so, it would have to be equivalent to something

involving da, and it is not.

> but when used for generalities and intensions it can't be said what

> happens when {lo} crosses {naku}.

Sure it can: nothing. Exactly the same as what happens with "le" and

"la" in the CLL. In fact, *all* the other gadri in the CLL are

unaffected by {naku} movement. CLL {lo} is the odd man out here.

> For instance:

>

> mi lo stagrleoxari cu tervecnu (I buy some water chestnuts -

> instances)

>

> mi lo stagrleoxari naku naku tervecnu

>

> mi naku ro stagrleoxari naku tervecnu

In the CLL, yes. In xorlo, no.

Other examples snipped due to being functionally identical.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT

Pierre:

> As it stands now, can {lo} be used for instances, generalities, and

> intensions?

Yes, but there is no hidden quantification of instances.

> It seems to me that when it's used for instances, it inverts when

> crossing {naku},

What inverts? There is nothing to invert, there is no quantifier.

> but when used for generalities and intensions it can't be

> said what happens when {lo} crosses {naku}.

Nothing happens, in every case. Just as with zo'e.

> For instance:

>

> mi lo stagrleoxari cu tervecnu (I buy some water chestnuts - instances)

> mi lo stagrleoxari naku naku tervecnu

> mi naku ro stagrleoxari naku tervecnu

But where did the ro come from? It is additional information that was

not present before.

mi lo stagrleoxari naku tervecnu.

Water chestnuts are such that I don't buy them.

naku mi lo stagrleoxari cu tervecnu.

It is not the case that I buy water chestnuts.

If you then want to be more specific, (every water chestnut

is such that I don't buy it, some water chestnut is such that

I don't buy it, it is not the case that I buy every water

chestnut, it is not the case that I buy at least one water

chestnut) then you can easily say so with the appropriate

ro or su'o in the appropriate place, and the De Morgan

transformations will apply as usual to the quantifiers. It

is additional info that you are giving, so it should take

the additional effort of specifying the quantifier.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT

Robin:

> For example, in CLL {lo broda cu na brode} means that there are *NO* brodas,

> anywhere, that brode. None at all. This is a consequence of what "da" and

> "na" mean.

Does CLL-lo really have an implied "anywhere", "anytime"? Can't CLL-lo

be interpreted as {lo broda cu na nau brode} for example? "It is not

the case that at least one broda is brodeing here&now", i.e.

"No broda is brodeing here and now"?

> In xorlo, the meaning of {lo broda cu na brode} is, of course, determined by

> context. There is nothing requiring it to mean the same thing as the CLL

> version, since xorlo is not quantified (i.e. does not imply "da").

Right, but I don't think the difference is as drastic as you make it

sound. CLL also leaves a lot to context. The only thing CLL apparently

doesn't leave to context is the quantifier on lo, but other quantifiers

(over times and places, for example, are left to context. And it is not

even clear that CLL doesn't allow XS-lo as a possible interpretation.

CLL says: "There are rules for each of the 11 descriptors specifying

what the implicit values for the inner and outer quantifiers are. They

are meant to provide sensible default values when context is absent,

not necessarily to prescribe hard and fast rules." So XS-lo is hardly

a big break from that.

> I'm a little worried about this, so here's what I'd like:

>

> 1. I'd like the Impact section to mention this issue explicitely.

The negative impact section says:

"It is conceivable that some usages become more vague than intended

if the default quantifiers played an important role in some expression,

but it is hard to determine. If someone finds examples where this

happens please report them."

I believe that's a fair assessment of the negative impact, but I

can change it if you suggest a different wording.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 13:51 GMT


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > The whole idea of having these specially marked places where you

> > have to use these special gadri is absurd.

>

> You can use any sumti that's equivalent to a set, in which case the

> gadri can be le or lo.

Yes, but that wouldn't change if there weren't any specially

reserved places. Suppose we could say:

mi cuxna pada le mu tanxe

I choose one out of the five boxes.

Then we could still use {le te cuxna} to talk about the group

of choices.

Having to remember that you have to use {le'i mu tanxe} in the

x3 of cuxna doesn't add any precision, it's just something

you have to remember with no justification. It's similar

to the gender marking in natlangs.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:13:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> su'o da worries

...

> 3. I'd like to know if CLL {lo} + {na} has ever demonstrably been

> used correctly outside of examples. I can't find any, including

> in Jordan's translations. I can find plenty of examples of {lo}

> without {na}, and I can find plenty of examples of {lo} + {na} used

> to mean "A broda is not brode", for some unspecified broda, which

> is an obvious xorlo interpretation. I have yet to find {lo} + {na}

> used to mean "There is no broda that brodes". If there is such a

> case in actual usage, I'd like to know about it.

I found this in my IRC logs:

13:54 secau ro nu farlu kei lo cpare cu na vlipymau binxo

(From a conversation between me and you about rock climbing, and

about you falling off a cliff).

That is: it's false that, without falling, any climber can become

better. I was attempting to convey the common saying "if you're

not falling, you're not progressing".

As I think about it I don't understand how secau should work with

this context though. It hurts my head. That ro might-should be

lo....

Dunno if that helps you, but personally I'm not too concerned with

past usage, since it is so frequently incorrect.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAzm41DrrilS51AZ8RAqTlAJ92IKo2WZhGPD3D6PqpNzgcxvJ6agCfTQOA

b5m18ykMMvLVqDV/38K8bQQ=

=GnvN

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:03:16PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

...

> > That is to say, {mi bruna} means the same as {mi bruna da de}.

>

> Not the same, but it entails it. The {zo'e}s are very context sensitive.

> If someone asks {ma bruna la djan}, and you respond {mi bruna}, that

> does not exactly mean the same as {mi bruna da}, though it entails it.

jimpe

> > So, in this case, depending on what the accepted meaning of {zo'e}

> > is/becomes, your definition of {lo} is either going to require that

> > {mi bruna} can be true if I have no siblings, or that {lo} is still

> > definable in terms of {da} (which presumably you don't want).

>

> I don't want either of those two options. I want {lo} to be as

> context sensitive as {zo'e} is.

Ok I think I understand your {lo}.

ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

ca zo'e noi nicte ku'o zo'e noi cinfo cu kalte zo'e noi cidja

One possible meaning:

ca zo'e = loi nicte noi nicte ku'o

zo'e = loi cinfo noi cinfo cu kalte

zo'e = loi cidja noi cidja

At night lions hunt for food.

(Which is, btw, how I'd probably say it in oldlo: {ca loi nicte loi

cinfo cu kalte loi cidja}).

The sentence could of course mean a number of other things, including

"Last evening, Larry the Lion was hunting for some cheeseburgers".

Correct?

This leaves us still having a problem, however, for pavyseljirna.

In your {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu ...} example, what is {zo'e}

in {zo'e noi pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu}?

> > > lo'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be lo broda e no lo na broda

> > > le'i broda = lo'i ro le broda

> > > la'i broda = lo'i ro la broda

> >

> > I don't think you need "cmaci".

>

> But then it could be any group, even a group that can carry pianos!

I don't think a selcmi can ever carry a piano---I think every selcmi

is a set, and sets never pick up pianos.

...

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAznGIDrrilS51AZ8RAltwAJ9and17ftMVv5dEhCo5ga32d5MKTACgnXU8

1RSk55DIsHn8Df4ltT94B4s=

=7lYn

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 15:54 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

...

> 13:54 secau ro nu farlu kei lo cpare cu na vlipymau binxo

...

> As I think about it I don't understand how secau should work with

> this context though. It hurts my head. That ro might-should be

> lo....

I think {ro} is correct, now.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAzxhRDrrilS51AZ8RAhVXAKCD5+Gw871/GtEI9i4K2SdtxdL73gCgoa/N

AfHRRXAIWYoRqaR2DVvi4sY=

=PRWl

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:06 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Since {la'i djan} is the set of things that I name John, I can't

> tell the difference.

That is, the set of {things I name "John"}, not (the set of things) (that I

name "John").

> Now I am saying that it would be

> even more regular if outer of lei/lai/le'i/la'i were treated as

> true quantifiers.

That would be all right and even a Good Thing if it weren't for

backward compatibility issues.

--

Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML John Cowan

Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker [email protected]

saying "No information items inside". http://www.reutershealth.com

--Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT

Jordan:

> 13:54 secau ro nu farlu kei lo cpare cu na vlipymau binxo

>

> (From a conversation between me and you about rock climbing, and

> about you falling off a cliff).

>

> That is: it's false that, without falling, any climber can become

> better. I was attempting to convey the common saying "if you're

> not falling, you're not progressing".

I don't see any problem with XS-lo in that sentence. On the

contrary, it very much looks like a general statement about

climbers. I would use lo instead of ro though:

secau lo nu farlu kei lo cpare na vlipymau binxo

Without falling a climber doesn't get better.

Or, if you pefer: "It is not the case that climbers get better

without falling".

Using {ro} with claxu is too much precision in my view: most

events of falling are irrelevant to the situation at hand, the

climber doesn't really lack each of them one by one, the lack

is of falling in general.

But as far as {lo} is concerned, that usage is perfectly

acceptable, and indeed preferrable to {su'o cpare}. With

{su'o cpare, the sentence becomes:

secau ro nu farlu kei su'o cpare cu na vlipymau binxo

It is not the case that for every falling there is at least

one climber that gets better by lacking it.

Probably not what was intended. To get what was intended you'd need

to move the su'o in front of the ro. So the sentence in fact uses

XS-lo, not {su'o lo}.

> As I think about it I don't understand how secau should work with

> this context though. It hurts my head. That ro might-should be

> lo....

If that sentence makes your head hurt, imagine what it does to

someone less proficient in handling quantifiers. No quantifiers,

no pain.

> Dunno if that helps you, but personally I'm not too concerned with

> past usage, since it is so frequently incorrect.

Yes, and so will future usage be unless we provide a way to

talk without going into instances when we don't need to go

into instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT

Cowan:

<>

I guess I misunderstood the significance of the 1+ yout previous message gave my earlier characterization of {le'e}, which was essentially that of "stereotype."



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > Since {la'i djan} is the set of things that I name John, I can't

> > tell the difference.

>

> That is, the set of {things I name "John"}, not (the set of things) (that I

> name "John").

Yes:

la'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be ro la broda e no lo na cmima be la broda

> > Now I am saying that it would be

> > even more regular if outer of lei/lai/le'i/la'i were treated as

> > true quantifiers.

>

> That would be all right and even a Good Thing if it weren't for

> backward compatibility issues.

Fair enough, they stay as they are then.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT

Jordan:

> (Which is, btw, how I'd probably say it in oldlo: {ca loi nicte loi

> cinfo cu kalte loi cidja}).

Using loi (as we're defining it) would suggest that the lions hunt in

packs, the food is also an aggregate, and I'm not sure what it would

mean for nights to consider them as applying together. But you are

probably thinking of another of the many meanings of loi, something

closer to generic, so yes.

> The sentence could of course mean a number of other things, including

> "Last evening, Larry the Lion was hunting for some cheeseburgers".

>

> Correct?

Well, I'd say it wouldn't mean that, but it could hold when that

is the case. But let's not start with the meaning of "mean" again.

> This leaves us still having a problem, however, for pavyseljirna.

> In your {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu ...} example, what is {zo'e}

> in {zo'e noi pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu}?

Unicorns, of course. The BPFK doesn't have to rule on the truth

of such sentences, just on their meaning, which I think is clear.

The truth will vary depending on context and ontology.

> I don't think a selcmi can ever carry a piano---I think every selcmi

> is a set, and sets never pick up pianos.

a selcmi as opposed to a se cmima, right? But it does no harm to

specify cmaci selcmi and thus avoid that discussion.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:07 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:11:08PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> John E Clifford scripsit:

> > A> I may be taking "sterotypical" too seriously here. It is the one

> > that makes sense. Since a {le} grouping is always something thrown

> > together by my decision (or someone's or..) the notion of "typical"

> > does not generally apply.

> >

> > B> Just say — in English; Lojban isn't up to it yet — that it

> > means pretty much what "typical" or "stereotypical" means in

> > Englsih, hard as that is to specify.

>

> Definitely not. "le'e" is very different from "stereotypical".

Umm, *WHAT*?

Perhaps you meant "lo'e" there?

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:31 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > Definitely not. "le'e" is very different from "stereotypical".

>

> Umm, *WHAT*?

>

> Perhaps you meant "lo'e" there?

I did not.

Look, "stereotypical" in English has to do with what the community thinks,

not what you yourself think. It's part of the stereotype of Californians

(among Easterners, at least) that they're flakes. I recognize the

objective existence of this stereotype, but I know it's false. So I

would not affirm "le'e prenrkalifornia cu -is-a-flake".

The use of "stereotypical" for "le'e" is an artefact of history.

--

A witness cannot give evidence of his John Cowan

age unless he can remember being born. [email protected]

--Judge Blagden http://www.ccil.org/~cowan



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 18:31 GMT


> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:11:08PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> > Definitely not. "le'e" is very different from "stereotypical".

>

> Umm, *WHAT*?

>

> Perhaps you meant "lo'e" there?

{le'e} is defined as "typical among the group that the speaker

has in mind, as perceived by the speaker".

"stereotypical" is a keyword, very possibly a bad choice of keyword.

I understand that's CLL's (and John's) position and that's how

it is currently defined in the proposal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:04 GMT

Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the rest? Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others to some sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?

[email protected] wrote:Re: BPFK Section: gadri

da'i being used for subjunctive

> If AndR were here he'd say he doesn't like {da'i} used in this way.

> I think he wanted it for the "supposing ..." of logical proofs.

It doesn't much matter what AndR thinks. Bob has explicitely stated, as Archivist,

that subjunctives are the purpose of da'i.

I can dig up the post if you like.

This is why I'm not very concerned about modal logic, by the way.

-Roibn



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:04 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:35:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the rest?

> Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others to some

> sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?

What other ones were you worried about? The most basic modal logic

seems to only contain "It is possible that" and "It is necessary that",

which seems like da'i and da'inai to me.

-Robin


PA broda != PA lo broda?


Posted by rab.spir on Tue 15 of June, 2004 21:07 GMT posts: 152

Why does the table have different meanings for "PA broda" and "PA lo broda"? Aren't these defined to be the same thing?

-- Rob



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:07:28PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> PA broda != PA lo broda?

>

> Why does the table have different meanings for "PA broda" and "PA lo

> broda"? Aren't these defined to be the same thing?

It's a sneaky trick.

PA lo broda == PA mupli be lo broda

Note that "PA mupli" is of the form "PA broda".

PA broda == PA da poi ke'a broda

So:

PA lo broda == PA da poi ke'a mupli be lo broda

Which is still word-for-word equal to "PA da poi ke'a broda", but it

seems to me to be a distinction that doesn't make a difference.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT

> PA broda != PA lo broda?

> Why does the table have different meanings for "PA broda" and "PA lo broda"?

> Aren't these defined to be the same thing?

They end up the same, but I need to take {PA broda} as basic

for the definitions not to be circular. {PA broda} is

defined as {PA da poi ke'a broda} independently of any

gadri definitions. {PA lo broda} ends up being equivalent

to it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Does CLL-lo really have an implied "anywhere", "anytime"?

No, of course not. The tense of the bridi within the sumti is vague.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan

Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:

"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"

El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:34:13PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:13:46PM -0700, [email protected]

> wrote:

> > su'o da worries

> ...

> > 3. I'd like to know if CLL {lo} + {na} has ever demonstrably been

> > used correctly outside of examples. I can't find any, including in

> > Jordan's translations. I can find plenty of examples of {lo}

> > without {na}, and I can find plenty of examples of {lo} + {na} used

> > to mean "A broda is not brode", for some unspecified broda, which is

> > an obvious xorlo interpretation. I have yet to find {lo} + {na}

> > used to mean "There is no broda that brodes". If there is such a

> > case in actual usage, I'd like to know about it.

>

> I found this in my IRC logs:

>

> 13:54 secau ro nu farlu kei lo cpare cu na vlipymau binxo

>

> (From a conversation between me and you about rock climbing, and about

> you falling off a cliff).

>

> That is: it's false that, without falling, any climber can become

> better. I was attempting to convey the common saying "if you're not

> falling, you're not progressing".

That works (ignoring the secau + ro issue). However, it works *better*

with xorlo, IMO.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:49:48AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > For example, in CLL {lo broda cu na brode} means that there are *NO*

> > brodas, anywhere, that brode. None at all. This is a consequence

> > of what "da" and "na" mean.

>

> Does CLL-lo really have an implied "anywhere", "anytime"? Can't CLL-lo

> be interpreted as {lo broda cu na nau brode} for example? "It is not

> the case that at least one broda is brodeing here&now", i.e. "No broda

> is brodeing here and now"?

Correct, although that's not how I'd interpret it a bare negation.

> > In xorlo, the meaning of {lo broda cu na brode} is, of course,

> > determined by context. There is nothing requiring it to mean the

> > same thing as the CLL version, since xorlo is not quantified (i.e.

> > does not imply "da").

>

> Right, but I don't think the difference is as drastic as you make it

> sound.

I'm beginning to agree.

More importantly from my POV, realizing that CLL lo is the *only* CLL

article that has logical quantification effects makes me care a lot less

about what those effects have caused in the past.

> And it is not even clear that CLL doesn't allow XS-lo as a possible

> interpretation. CLL says: "There are rules for each of the 11

> descriptors specifying what the implicit values for the inner and

> outer quantifiers are. They are meant to provide sensible default

> values when context is absent, not necessarily to prescribe hard and

> fast rules." So XS-lo is hardly a big break from that.

Indeed. I keep forgetting about that part.

> > I'm a little worried about this, so here's what I'd like:

> >

> > 1. I'd like the Impact section to mention this issue explicitely.

>

> The negative impact section says:

> "It is conceivable that some usages become more vague than intended if

> the default quantifiers played an important role in some expression,

> but it is hard to determine. If someone finds examples where this

> happens please report them."

>

> I believe that's a fair assessment of the negative impact, but I

> can change it if you suggest a different wording.

It's quite fair, but I'd like "(in particular, interactions between {lo}

treated as {su'o da} and {na})" somewhere please.

Very minor issue, though.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 15 of June, 2004 23:18 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Jordan:

> > This leaves us still having a problem, however, for pavyseljirna. In

> > your {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu ...} example, what is {zo'e} in

> > {zo'e noi pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu}?

>

> Unicorns, of course. The BPFK doesn't have to rule on the truth of

> such sentences, just on their meaning, which I think is clear. The

> truth will vary depending on context and ontology.

I want to repeat that just because It's Important.

It is *NOT* the BPFK's job to rule on the truth or falsity of a

particular sentence. It just doesn't make sense in general.

For example, I'm thinking of running a Lojbanic RPG in a fantasy

universe. By definition, most of what we say will be things than an

independent observer, without context, would pronounce as

counterfactual.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 02:50 GMT

This only applies if you can say what you want without quantifiers. Are there such cases? Your apparent instance is not one, of course.

B> Are there cases? Frinstance? None so far.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

A>If that sentence makes your head hurt, imagine what it does to

someone less proficient in handling quantifiers. No quantifiers,

no pain.

B>Yes, and so will future usage be unless we provide a way to

talk without going into instances when we don't need to go

into instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 02:50 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

...

> > This leaves us still having a problem, however, for pavyseljirna.

> > In your {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu ...} example, what is {zo'e}

> > in {zo'e noi pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu}?

>

> Unicorns, of course. The BPFK doesn't have to rule on the truth

> of such sentences, just on their meaning, which I think is clear.

> The truth will vary depending on context and ontology.

But what's "Unicorns" in Lojban? You can't answer "lo pavyseljirna",

because then your {zo'e} is meaningless, and your formalism is thus

pretty bad.

This truth/falsity ruling thing is a red herring: your sentence

itself says that they are *ranmi* danlu---i.e. it is implying they

don't really exist, anyway. So it's obviously not taking place in

some context like a story, or where someone thinks that pavyseljirna

really do exist.

> > I don't think a selcmi can ever carry a piano---I think every selcmi

> > is a set, and sets never pick up pianos.

>

> a selcmi as opposed to a se cmima, right? But it does no harm to

> specify cmaci selcmi and thus avoid that discussion.

Both {selcmi} and {se cmima}, imho. If you want to say that the

members of {le se cmima} picked up a piano, you need {lu'a}.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAz7dxDrrilS51AZ8RAvUoAJwN0UmXqrKXveWzMVoAD6JYbBgjpACfY634

YRVe9J0pHySohFKTMoOrbMI=

=W2it

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 03:03 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:43:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:35:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> > Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the rest?

> > Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others to some

> > sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?

>

> What other ones were you worried about? The most basic modal logic

> seems to only contain "It is possible that" and "It is necessary that",

> which seems like da'i and da'inai to me.

Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

{da'i} and {da'inai} most certainly don't work. Even if you think

{da'i} means that it is contrary to fact, all {da'inai} means is

that it is not contrary to fact. I.e. that it is true in *this*

world (which has nothing to do with whether it is true in other

worlds---much less *all* of the other accessible worlds.).

{da'i} doesn't work as a modal "possible" either---many things which

are contrary to fact will still not be true in any of the accessible

worlds for the type of "possible" that is being considered.

Even if you don't like {da'i} for the "supposing ..." of proofs

(which there is some usage of), it makes a very poor implementation

of counterfactual conditionals (even though that usage is in CLL).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAz7mADrrilS51AZ8RApsGAKCRDm+ys6/sG0wDoKKnGeeFE9yP8QCfV9Lw

iWCU3/UrVVyY5tqfrunHxDw=

=R+Av

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT

Jordan:

> But what's "Unicorns" in Lojban? You can't answer "lo pavyseljirna",

> because then your {zo'e} is meaningless, and your formalism is thus

> pretty bad.

"Unicorns" is {lo pavyseljirna}, i.e. that which fits the x1 of

pavyseljirna. {zo'e} is as meaningless as it gets, it just signals

the presence of a value in an argument place, nothing else. {zo'e}

adds no semantic content to the definition of {lo broda}, it is merely

a syntactic device to indicate that {lo broda} is a sumti. The whole

semantic content is provided exclusively by {broda}.

> This truth/falsity ruling thing is a red herring: your sentence

> itself says that they are *ranmi* danlu---i.e. it is implying they

> don't really exist, anyway. So it's obviously not taking place in

> some context like a story, or where someone thinks that pavyseljirna

> really do exist.

Right. We can talk in Lojban (like in any other language) about things

that don't exist in the world. Some people say such talk is nonsensical,

other people find it meaningful. All the BPFK has to define is that

{lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} means "unicorns are white" and that

{su'o pavyseljirna cu blabi} means "at least one unicorn is white".

If you want or don't want to claim that unicorns are white (in English

or in Lojban) it's up to you, not up to the BPFK. The examples in the

wiki page are not meant to be true claims, just Lojban sentences with

a corresponding English translation. The sentence "unicorns are white",

from the point of view of the BPFK, is of the same kind as the sentence

"rabbits are white".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT

Thanx. I asked the question without really thinking about the answer, but, as you point out, {da'i} allows us to postulate even impossible things and certainly thing not in alternate (accessible possible) worlds, so that {da'i} something is not the same as saying it is possible nor obviously useful in getting to that. I don't see how it will work for other kinds of modalities than alethic (necessary-possible), although we have devices for some of them: temporal and deontic (obligatory-permitted) in at least a crude form. I think that, with some adjustments — mainly involving scope, {da'i} can be made to work for counterfactuals. Especially if we also get generality dealt with successfully.

The Stanford sites are good ones; I often use their piece on Syllogistic when thinking about quantifiers (of course, there is also www.abelard.org/category/category.htm#index for the other side)

Jordan DeLong wrote:

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:43:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:35:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> > Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the rest?

> > Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others to some

> > sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?

>

> What other ones were you worried about? The most basic modal logic

> seems to only contain "It is possible that" and "It is necessary that",

> which seems like da'i and da'inai to me.

Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

{da'i} and {da'inai} most certainly don't work. Even if you think

{da'i} means that it is contrary to fact, all {da'inai} means is

that it is not contrary to fact. I.e. that it is true in *this*

world (which has nothing to do with whether it is true in other

worlds---much less *all* of the other accessible worlds.).

{da'i} doesn't work as a modal "possible" either---many things which

are contrary to fact will still not be true in any of the accessible

worlds for the type of "possible" that is being considered.

Even if you don't like {da'i} for the "supposing ..." of proofs

(which there is some usage of), it makes a very poor implementation

of counterfactual conditionals (even though that usage is in CLL).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAz7mADrrilS51AZ8RApsGAKCRDm+ys6/sG0wDoKKnGeeFE9yP8QCfV9Lw

iWCU3/UrVVyY5tqfrunHxDw=

=R+Av

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT

But surely saying what a sentence means involves minimally saying how to determine whether it is true (in theory at least), so the questions about the referents or lack of them is not irrelevant. To find whether rabbits are white, I look at as many rabbits as I can (and maybe read up on rabbit genetics and the like). What do I do for the same question about unicorns?

Jorge Llambías wrote:Jordan:

> But what's "Unicorns" in Lojban? You can't answer "lo pavyseljirna",

> because then your {zo'e} is meaningless, and your formalism is thus

> pretty bad.

"Unicorns" is {lo pavyseljirna}, i.e. that which fits the x1 of

pavyseljirna. {zo'e} is as meaningless as it gets, it just signals

the presence of a value in an argument place, nothing else. {zo'e}

adds no semantic content to the definition of {lo broda}, it is merely

a syntactic device to indicate that {lo broda} is a sumti. The whole

semantic content is provided exclusively by {broda}.

> This truth/falsity ruling thing is a red herring: your sentence

> itself says that they are *ranmi* danlu---i.e. it is implying they

> don't really exist, anyway. So it's obviously not taking place in

> some context like a story, or where someone thinks that pavyseljirna

> really do exist.

Right. We can talk in Lojban (like in any other language) about things

that don't exist in the world. Some people say such talk is nonsensical,

other people find it meaningful. All the BPFK has to define is that

{lo pavyseljirna cu blabi} means "unicorns are white" and that

{su'o pavyseljirna cu blabi} means "at least one unicorn is white".

If you want or don't want to claim that unicorns are white (in English

or in Lojban) it's up to you, not up to the BPFK. The examples in the

wiki page are not meant to be true claims, just Lojban sentences with

a corresponding English translation. The sentence "unicorns are white",

from the point of view of the BPFK, is of the same kind as the sentence

"rabbits are white".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 14:32 GMT

pc:

> But surely saying what a sentence means involves minimally saying how to

> determine whether it is true (in theory at least), so the questions about the

> referents or lack of them is not irrelevant. To find whether rabbits are

> white, I look at as many rabbits as I can (and maybe read up on rabbit

> genetics and the like). What do I do for the same question about unicorns?

I would suggest reading up on mythology, but only on a personal

basis, not as a BPFK commisioner.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 05:51:23AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> Jordan:

> > But what's "Unicorns" in Lojban? You can't answer "lo pavyseljirna",

> > because then your {zo'e} is meaningless, and your formalism is thus

> > pretty bad.

>

> "Unicorns" is {lo pavyseljirna}, i.e. that which fits the x1 of

> pavyseljirna. {zo'e} is as meaningless as it gets, it just signals

> the presence of a value in an argument place, nothing else. {zo'e}

> adds no semantic content to the definition of {lo broda}, it is merely

> a syntactic device to indicate that {lo broda} is a sumti. The whole

> semantic content is provided exclusively by {broda}.

{zo'e} is not meaningless, it is unspecified. All {zo'e}s have a

referent.

If you're suggesting {lo pavyseljirna} expands to {zo'e [[=%20lo%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Epavyseljirna|= lo

pavyseljirna]] noi ke'a pavyseljirna}, you're not giving any additional

clarity in your formal definition.

> > This truth/falsity ruling thing is a red herring: your sentence

> > itself says that they are *ranmi* danlu---i.e. it is implying they

> > don't really exist, anyway. So it's obviously not taking place in

> > some context like a story, or where someone thinks that pavyseljirna

> > really do exist.

>

> Right. We can talk in Lojban (like in any other language) about things

> that don't exist in the world.

...

You missed my point. I agree with all of that.

The issue here is a sentence like {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu},

where the speaker probably does not believe {da pavyseljirna} is

true, not a sentence like {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi}, where she

more likely does.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA0GAFDrrilS51AZ8RAtSFAJsGFKep326yOWE1slCTr44WxRLASACdE3dV

sqGU9cP9EiE40Tcpml/Y/EU=

=9sSX

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Jordan:

> {zo'e} is not meaningless, it is unspecified. All {zo'e}s have a

> referent.

A referent which must be glorked from context, yes, and which

does not necessarily have spatio-temporal existence in this world.

{zo'e} itself does not contribute anything to let you glork its

referent.

> If you're suggesting {lo pavyseljirna} expands to {zo'e [[=%20lo%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20pavyseljirna|= lo

> pavyseljirna]] noi ke'a pavyseljirna}, you're not giving any additional

> clarity in your formal definition.

{lo pavyseljirna} expands to {zo'e noi ke'a pavyseljirna}. So you are

told by the noi clause that the referent of zo'e in this case fits the

x1 of pavyseljirna, but that info is obviously not contained in zo'e

itself.

> > Right. We can talk in Lojban (like in any other language) about things

> > that don't exist in the world.

> ...

>

> You missed my point. I agree with all of that.

>

> The issue here is a sentence like {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu},

> where the speaker probably does not believe {da pavyseljirna} is

> true, not a sentence like {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi}, where she

> more likely does.

In {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu} the speaker does not believe

{da poi zasti cu pavyseljirna}, but does believe {da poi na zasti

cu pavyseljirna}. {da} need not always be restricted to zasti,

though in many situations we do assume that we are so restricting

it. (In other situations we assume {da poi prenu} as in {noda zvati

le kumfa}.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:58:58PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:38:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Jordan:

> ...

> > > This leaves us still having a problem, however, for pavyseljirna.

> > > In your {lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu ...} example, what is

> > > {zo'e} in {zo'e noi pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu}?

> >

> > Unicorns, of course. The BPFK doesn't have to rule on the truth of

> > such sentences, just on their meaning, which I think is clear. The

> > truth will vary depending on context and ontology.

>

> But what's "Unicorns" in Lojban? You can't answer "lo pavyseljirna",

> because then your {zo'e} is meaningless, and your formalism is thus

> pretty bad.

I don't follow that even a little bit.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:07:44PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:43:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:35:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> > > Well, {da'i} takes care of one kind of modality; what about the

> > > rest? Is it the case that, in Lojban, we can reduce all the others

> > > to some sort of contrary-to-fact conditionals?

> >

> > What other ones were you worried about? The most basic modal logic

> > seems to only contain "It is possible that" and "It is necessary

> > that", which seems like da'i and da'inai to me.

>

> Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

That's exactly what I was working from.

> {da'i} and {da'inai} most certainly don't work. Even if you think

> {da'i} means that it is contrary to fact, all {da'inai} means is that

> it is not contrary to fact. I.e. that it is true in *this* world

> (which has nothing to do with whether it is true in other

> worlds---much less *all* of the other accessible worlds.).

You would have to fudge da'inai a bit, true, but it's not like we have a

ton of past usage holding us back on that point. :-P

> {da'i} doesn't work as a modal "possible" either---many things which

> are contrary to fact will still not be true in any of the accessible

> worlds for the type of "possible" that is being considered.

I don't follow you. Bear in mind that we have the ability to tighten

down the definition of both da'i and da'inai.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Check out also:

http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=72

and neighbouring topics.

{ka'e} and {bi'ai} (or {su'omu'ei} and {romu'ei}) are "possible"

and "necessary", at least for some type of modality.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

Stable authoritative lists of new cmavo are a bit hard to come by. {ka'e} is still given as "can, be able to" in the old one and so needs a subject; that is, it is a mistake for {kakne}. It is about ability, not possibility. Whether {bu'ai} corresponds I am not sure-- indeed, I am not sure just what would play necessity to {ka'e} sense of possibility: "do compulsively?" The compounds on {mu'ei} quantify over possible worlds and so work at least in S5 systems (with an accessibility relation both transitive and symmetric) and maybe for more if we restrict worlds to the accessible ones. There also the strange "modal tenses": "can but hasn't" "can and has" (redundant), and "hasn't and maybe can't" (the {na'e} of the preceding) and I don't know what to do with those, except to note that they are based on ability again (so predicates), not on possibility per se. We also have in UI words for permission and obligation, but those are operational — used to give permission or impose

obligation, not to describe what is permitted or obligatory. We also have brivla for permission and obligation but the first relies on an authority to give the permission and the second does not, suggesting they belong to different systems. The {curmi} style matches the {kakne} pattern and is appropriate for one sense. {bilga} is closer to modal-operator pattern and might often be replaced by such a critter (I don't suppose that {bu'ai} is from {bilga} in some weird way). In any event, the problems seems to be being dealt with at some level — and without {da'i}.

Llambías wrote:

Check out also:

http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=72

and neighbouring topics.

{ka'e} and {bi'ai} (or {su'omu'ei} and {romu'ei}) are "possible"

and "necessary", at least for some type of modality.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 16 of June, 2004 20:34 GMT

pc:

> Stable authoritative lists of new cmavo are a bit hard to come by. {ka'e} is

> still given as "can, be able to" in the old one and so needs a subject; that

> is, it is a mistake for {kakne}. It is about ability, not possibility.

The link I gave points to this, from And:

The gloss of {ka'e} as "innately capable of" cannot be wholly correct,

because "innately capable of" is a relationship between X and a

property. But CAhA does not work thus, as can be seen most easily

when applied to a selbri with more than one sumti place. In translating

{ka'e} as "can", we mean it in the sense used in (1) rather than (2).

(1) The mud can get 18 inches deep in this field.

= "It can happen that the mud gets 18 inches deep..."

(2) I can run a mile in just under 5 minutes.

= "I have the ability to run a mile...."

If {ka'e} does not (quite) mean "innately capable of", what does

it mean? Some sort of possibility, obviously, but why then the

non-obvious & somewhat misleading glosses? I suggest the purpose

of the glosses is to allow things like (3) while excluding things

like (4).

(3) The mud could have been as much as 18 inches deep yesterday.

On%20a%20reading%20different%20from%20(4):%20 "Nothing intrinsic to the way the world is prevented the mud from

being deep"." rel="">On a reading different from (4): "It could have happened that...",

"Nothing intrinsic to the way the world is prevented the mud from

being deep".

(4) The mud may have been as much as 18 inches deep yesterday.

On a Standard English reading: "I don't know that the mud wasn't deep".

In technical terminology, {ka'e} expresses 'root' rather than

'epistemic' modality. That is, it's not about how (im)perfect the

speaker's knowledge is; it's about dividing up alternative states

of the world into those that are possible and those that are

impossible, where 'possible' means something like 'consistent with

the way the world actually is'.

I suggest that the above statement is as consistent with CLL and

usage as possible.

> Whether {bu'ai} corresponds I am not sure-- indeed, I am not sure just what

> would play necessity to {ka'e} sense of possibility: "do compulsively?"

{bi'ai} is {na ka'e na}. It can't be about doing because, like ka'e,

it applies to a selbri, not to an agent.

> We also have in UI words for

> permission and obligation, but those are operational — used to give

> permission or impose

> obligation, not to describe what is permitted or obligatory.

I take {ei} to mean "it ought to be the case that...", and I don't

see why {e'a} can't be "it is permitted that...". They show the

speaker's take on things, of course, but how else could it be?

> (I don't suppose that {bu'ai} is

> from {bilga} in some weird way).

(It's bi'ai actually.) I don't know, but it does look like it was

bilga-inspired. There is no strict connection though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 00:06 GMT

A> Yes, that is more like what is needed, but the examples I have seen pretty clearly put it as the agent-ability kind of usage ({kakne} in short). So, I have elcted to ignore {ka'e} and go for a possibility proper de novo. &'s "compatible with the laws of nature" is, of course a more restricted sense of "possible" than the full logical form. It is a useful one, maybe enough so to rate a separate modality.

B> I assumed {bi'ai} would be that to {ka'e} and it seems to me that — for the given definition of {ka'e} — "do compulsively" is about right. The notion from &'s {ka'e} — roughly "holds in all worlds in which the current laws hold" — is very important, the root of the notion of a law of nature and its consequences. It might be seen as mildly circular though.

C> Those would be the useful readings for doing modal logic. On the other hand, the words seem to be in the midst of words with distinct performative force, words sayiing which change the status of objects and events (assuming the speaker meets certain requirements, blah blah blah). Of course, generic "let it be that" and "it shall now be that" could be used ro converta any of these (or just about anything else) into a performative. {ei} and {e'a} may just be those two generics (the gloss on {ei} clearly say "grants permission," which seems to force my reading. But then we toss out glosses all the time, since some of them are so clearly wrong from the get--go: {ka'e}, say).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Stable authoritative lists of new cmavo are a bit hard to come by. {ka'e} is

> still given as "can, be able to" in the old one and so needs a subject; that

> is, it is a mistake for {kakne}. It is about ability, not possibility.

A>The link I gave points to this, from And:

The gloss of {ka'e} as "innately capable of" cannot be wholly correct,

because "innately capable of" is a relationship between X and a

property. But CAhA does not work thus, as can be seen most easily

when applied to a selbri with more than one sumti place. In translating

{ka'e} as "can", we mean it in the sense used in (1) rather than (2).

(1) The mud can get 18 inches deep in this field.

= "It can happen that the mud gets 18 inches deep..."

(2) I can run a mile in just under 5 minutes.

= "I have the ability to run a mile...."

If {ka'e} does not (quite) mean "innately capable of", what does

it mean? Some sort of possibility, obviously, but why then the

non-obvious & somewhat misleading glosses? I suggest the purpose

of the glosses is to allow things like (3) while excluding things

like (4).

(3) The mud could have been as much as 18 inches deep yesterday.

On%20a%20reading%20different%20from%20(4):%20"Nothing intrinsic to the way the world is prevented the mud from

being deep"." rel="">On a reading different from (4): "It could have happened that...",

"Nothing intrinsic to the way the world is prevented the mud from

being deep".

(4) The mud may have been as much as 18 inches deep yesterday.

On a Standard English reading: "I don't know that the mud wasn't deep".

In technical terminology, {ka'e} expresses 'root' rather than

'epistemic' modality. That is, it's not about how (im)perfect the

speaker's knowledge is; it's about dividing up alternative states

of the world into those that are possible and those that are

impossible, where 'possible' means something like 'consistent with

the way the world actually is'.

I suggest that the above statement is as consistent with CLL and

usage as possible.

> Whether {bu'ai} corresponds I am not sure-- indeed, I am not sure just what

> would play necessity to {ka'e} sense of possibility: "do compulsively?"

B>{bi'ai} is {na ka'e na}. It can't be about doing because, like ka'e,

it applies to a selbri, not to an agent.

> We also have in UI words for

> permission and obligation, but those are operational — used to give

> permission or impose

> obligation, not to describe what is permitted or obligatory.

C>I take {ei} to mean "it ought to be the case that...", and I don't

see why {e'a} can't be "it is permitted that...". They show the

speaker's take on things, of course, but how else could it be?

> (I don't suppose that {bu'ai} is

> from {bilga} in some weird way).

(It's bi'ai actually.) I don't know, but it does look like it was

bilga-inspired. There is no strict connection though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 00:07 GMT

pc:

> I assumed {bi'ai} would be that to {ka'e} and it seems to me that — for

> the given definition of {ka'e} — "do compulsively" is about right.

Yes, ignoring the psychological overtones. "x1 can't help but do x2".

Ducks can swim and can't-help-but breathe.

The conjugate of bilga seems to be zifre: {bilga lo nu} = {na zifre

lo nu na} and vice versa. (Assuming their x3's can be conciliated.)

It would be interesting to get a list of these conjugate pairs

(or up to quartets sometimes) compiled somewhere. I recently

discovered rau = na-du'e-na = na-mo'a, and all the variations.

> The

> notion from &'s {ka'e} — roughly "holds in all worlds in which the current

> laws hold" — is very important, the root of the notion of a law of nature

> and its consequences. It might be seen as mildly circular though.

But no more circular than any other notion of necessity, it would

seem. Something is necessary if it holds in all possible worlds, and

a possible world is a world where all necessary things hold.

> Those would be the useful readings for doing modal logic. On the other

> hand, the words seem to be in the midst of words with distinct performative

> force, words sayiing which change the status of objects and events (assuming

> the speaker meets certain requirements, blah blah blah). Of course, generic

> "let it be that" and "it shall now be that" could be used ro converta any of

> these (or just about anything else) into a performative. {ei} and {e'a} may

> just be those two generics (the gloss on {ei} clearly say "grants

> permission," which seems to force my reading. But then we toss out glosses

> all the time, since some of them are so clearly wrong from the get--go:

> {ka'e}, say).

That's a good idea: {ju'a e'a} vs {ca'e e'a}. {e'a} by itself can be

either, depending on context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 01:37 GMT

A> Yes, that is a less judgmental reading.

B> I am not sure which meaning of "conjugate" you have in mind. {zifre}, or at least "free" seems to involve not merely a lack of obligation to abstain but also a lack of obligation to do, so defining {zifre} from {bilga} is more complex. But {bilga} from {zifre} seems to work better as a simple dual, like the classic modalities (but they are equivalences). The other cases are nice, extending the negation boundary moves, from more or less fixed quantifiers to the more subjective (all of the need, like {rau} a place for purpose, but have no way of hooking the phrase on at the moment. Something else for the To-Do list).

C>We don't need that all necessary things happen in a possible world; only that it is maximally consistent (that it non-contradictory and dealing with every atomic expression- true or false). To be sure, this does guarantee that every necessary expression is in there, but that is not defining. In fact, there could be a situation (something possibly less than a world because less than maximal) in which every necessary truth held but that not a possible world: a word with all the tautologies but no atomic sentences (or their negations) at all, for the easy example.

D> I'm not really recommending this — but would if it help-ed deontic logic. The critters have other uses in pragmatics generally. I'm not sure that thos are the words I would pick either, though they seem relatively useless most of the time as they are not specified.

pc:

> I assumed {bi'ai} would be that to {ka'e} and it seems to me that — for

> the given definition of {ka'e} — "do compulsively" is about right.

A>Yes, ignoring the psychological overtones. "x1 can't help but do x2".

Ducks can swim and can't-help-but breathe.

B>The conjugate of bilga seems to be zifre: {bilga lo nu} = {na zifre

lo nu na} and vice versa. (Assuming their x3's can be conciliated.)

It would be interesting to get a list of these conjugate pairs

(or up to quartets sometimes) compiled somewhere. I recently

discovered rau = na-du'e-na = na-mo'a, and all the variations.

> The

> notion from &'s {ka'e} — roughly "holds in all worlds in which the current

> laws hold" — is very important, the root of the notion of a law of nature

> and its consequences. It might be seen as mildly circular though.

C>But no more circular than any other notion of necessity, it would

seem. Something is necessary if it holds in all possible worlds, and

a possible world is a world where all necessary things hold.

> Those would be the useful readings for doing modal logic. On the other

> hand, the words seem to be in the midst of words with distinct performative

> force, words sayiing which change the status of objects and events (assuming

> the speaker meets certain requirements, blah blah blah). Of course, generic

> "let it be that" and "it shall now be that" could be used ro converta any of

> these (or just about anything else) into a performative. {ei} and {e'a} may

> just be those two generics (the gloss on {ei} clearly say "grants

> permission," which seems to force my reading. But then we toss out glosses

> all the time, since some of them are so clearly wrong from the get--go:

> {ka'e}, say).

D>That's a good idea: {ju'a e'a} vs {ca'e e'a}. {e'a} by itself can be

either, depending on context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Thu 17 of June, 2004 10:07 GMT

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:26:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> > PA broda != PA lo broda?

> > Why does the table have different meanings for "PA broda" and "PA lo broda"?

> > Aren't these defined to be the same thing?

>

> They end up the same, but I need to take {PA broda} as basic

> for the definitions not to be circular. {PA broda} is

> defined as {PA da poi ke'a broda} independently of any

> gadri definitions. {PA lo broda} ends up being equivalent

> to it.

Okay.

Are these meanings compositional? I'm writing the beginning of my

Lojban-processing program (incidentally, great gobs of thanks to Robin for his

parser), and I'm having a heck of a time deciding what to do with gadri, even

if I don't care whether I get CLL-lo or XS-lo or something else.

Basically, can I assign some meaning to "PA broda" or the unquantified

sumti-tail "broda", and then modify that meaning when it's inside "le" or "lo"

(or possibly leave it completely unmodified for "lo"), and then modify that

meaning when there is an outer quantifier (or an elided one - basically any

case but bare "PA broda")? Or do I need to treat all of the definitions of how

the articles interact with quantifiers as special cases?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

Rob:

> Basically, can I assign some meaning to "PA broda" or the unquantified

> sumti-tail "broda", and then modify that meaning when it's inside "le" or

> "lo"

> (or possibly leave it completely unmodified for "lo"), and then modify that

> meaning when there is an outer quantifier (or an elided one - basically any

> case but bare "PA broda")? Or do I need to treat all of the definitions of

> how

> the articles interact with quantifiers as special cases?

I'm not sure what you do when you "assign some meaning". Do you mean

an English translation, or something else?

{PA broda} means that whatever follows this argument (i.e. is under

the scope of the quantifier) happens PA times, each time with a

different broda as argument. The {lo} in {lo PA broda} nullifies

the quantification effect of PA, now the PA brodas are packed into

one argument, so what follows is not PA relationships but one.

{PA lo PA1 broda} is again like {PA broda}, but now each of the

PA arguments is itself a pack of PA1 brodas.

{le PA broda} also packs PA brodas into one argument, but as with

{le broda} it is a certain one you have in mind rather than any

group of PA brodas. In {PA le PA1 broda}, each of the PA arguments

distributed in what follows is a member of the group of PA1 brodas

that you have in mind.

Is that compositional? The gadri packs what follows into a single

argument. The outer quantifier PA distributes what follows into PA

relationships, selecting from instances if what follows is {lo},

from members if what follows is {le}/{la}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

pc:

> The other cases are

> nice, extending the negation boundary moves, from more or less fixed

> quantifiers to the more subjective (all of the need, like {rau} a place for

> purpose, but have no way of hooking the phrase on at the moment. Something

> else for the To-Do list).

Perhaps something like:

mi terve'u lo rau plise ku noi ro prenu ka'e citka pa ke'a

I buy enough apples, that each person can eat one.

but I don't know if this can be made general enough.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

Again, I wouldn't use {noi} since this is not incidental but the pattern is right. I'd also use {ro le} reather than {ro} since the intention is surely (well, as surely as can be without context) not to feed the world but rather some in-mind (and probably in-context) group.

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> The other cases are

> nice, extending the negation boundary moves, from more or less fixed

> quantifiers to the more subjective (all of the need, like {rau} a place for

> purpose, but have no way of hooking the phrase on at the moment. Something

> else for the To-Do list).

Perhaps something like:

mi terve'u lo rau plise ku noi ro prenu ka'e citka pa ke'a

I buy enough apples, that each person can eat one.

but I don't know if this can be made general enough.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

pc:

> Again, I wouldn't use {noi} since this is not incidental but the pattern is

> right.

Yes, noi doesn't quite do it. Does poi work?

mi na terve'u lo rau plise ku poi ro le prenu ka'e citka pa ke'a

I didn't buy enough apples, that each of the people can eat one.

=?

mi terve'u lo mo'a plise ku poi me'i le prenu ka'eku citka pa ke'a

I bought too few apples, that not all of the people can eat one.

That seems to work, but that's only when rau/mo'a are inner quantifiers,

(and we have to repeat the negation inside the condition as well).

With {rau} as an outer quantifier, {poi} won't do it, because the

purpose applies to the whole group. Perhaps a new cmavo of selma'o

NOI.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

I think the rpurpose applies to the quantifier, not the group: it is "enough-to-feed-everyone apples" not "enough apples-to-feed-everyone," though — now that I look at it — the other is not too bad. I should think that the tag is the same through all the examples — it is the purpose not the upshot that counts here, so no negation is needed in the added clause. I think all this may well mean we need a new NOI since the others attach too much to the sumti as a whole.

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> Again, I wouldn't use {noi} since this is not incidental but the pattern is

> right.

Yes, noi doesn't quite do it. Does poi work?

mi na terve'u lo rau plise ku poi ro le prenu ka'e citka pa ke'a

I didn't buy enough apples, that each of the people can eat one.

=?

mi terve'u lo mo'a plise ku poi me'i le prenu ka'eku citka pa ke'a

I bought too few apples, that not all of the people can eat one.

That seems to work, but that's only when rau/mo'a are inner quantifiers,

(and we have to repeat the negation inside the condition as well).

With {rau} as an outer quantifier, {poi} won't do it, because the

purpose applies to the whole group. Perhaps a new cmavo of selma'o

NOI.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such proposals.

John E Clifford wrote:

I think the rpurpose applies to the quantifier, not the group: it is "enough-to-feed-everyone apples" not "enough apples-to-feed-everyone," though — now that I look at it — the other is not too bad. I should think that the tag is the same through all the examples — it is the purpose not the upshot that counts here, so no negation is needed in the added clause. I think all this may well mean we need a new NOI since the others attach too much to the sumti as a whole.

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

mi na terve'u lo rau plise ku poi ro le prenu ka'e citka pa ke'a

I didn't buy enough apples, that each of the people can eat one.

=?

mi terve'u lo mo'a plise ku poi me'i le prenu ka'eku citka pa ke'a

I bought too few apples, that not all of the people can eat one.

That seems to work, but that's only when rau/mo'a are inner quantifiers,

(and we have to repeat the negation inside the condition as well).

With {rau} as an outer quantifier, {poi} won't do it, because the

purpose applies to the whole group. Perhaps a new cmavo of selma'o

NOI.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

pc:

> What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a

> collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such

> proposals.

fi'o tags apply to a selbri (whether directly or by adding an argument

place), so it's not exactly that. We could of course then attach it to

the sumti {pe be'au lo nu ...}, but it has the same problem of poi:

either it has to modify the whole group {lo rau broda}, or else it

modifies each of the rau broda separately, which is not what is wanted.

....

> I should think that the

> tag is the same through all the examples — it is the purpose not the upshot

> that counts here, so no negation is needed in the added clause.

If the clause modifies the group, the negation is needed:

(An enough-some of apples) such that it can feed everyone.

(A too-few-some of apples) such that it can't feed everyone.

{lo rau/mo'a broda ku poi} work like that.

> I think all

> this may well mean we need a new NOI since the others attach too much to the

> sumti as a whole.

I think so, too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:05 GMT

So we need not only a new NOI but one with a special rule for interpreting it, regardless of how the grammar happens to group it (something along this line may help with the other NOI, too. To-Do List!) for what is wanted is clearly "enough/too little/too much for ...". not what you — quite correctly — offer under the present regime.

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a

> collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such

> proposals.

fi'o tags apply to a selbri (whether directly or by adding an argument

place), so it's not exactly that. We could of course then attach it to

the sumti {pe be'au lo nu ...}, but it has the same problem of poi:

either it has to modify the whole group {lo rau broda}, or else it

modifies each of the rau broda separately, which is not what is wanted.

.....

> I should think that the

> tag is the same through all the examples — it is the purpose not the upshot

> that counts here, so no negation is needed in the added clause.

If the clause modifies the group, the negation is needed:

(An enough-some of apples) such that it can feed everyone.

(A too-few-some of apples) such that it can't feed everyone.

{lo rau/mo'a broda ku poi} work like that.

> I think all

> this may well mean we need a new NOI since the others attach too much to the

> sumti as a whole.

I think so, too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


More things to fix


Posted by noras on Fri 18 of June, 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 23

I support xorxes effort (especially after discussions with John Cowan). I am really close to a "yes" on the ideas. The wording has me concerned.

However:

1. On "lo": "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, lo can be omitted." I thought PA broda = PA da poi broda. Does PA lo broda also mean PA da poi broda? I thought we were disassociating these two.

2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished from these definitions, so that the expressions without an explicit outer quantifier are constants, i.e. they are not quantified expressions. ". Does this mean I can't say "le cukta poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if there are 3 of them? If I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

3. I think the effort to formally define the gadri was a wonderful idea; but, unless I've missed some important explanation, I can't accept this wording. I'll comment using the "in mind" version, since that's not really changing.

"le PA broda" = "le PAmei be fi lo broda ...": No. A "PAmei" is a mass (a "lei") and not a "le". "remei" is a pair; "cimei" is a trio. See above about how it affects distributions. Also, it is not the PAmei-ing that may not so, it is the broda-ing, so that "lo" would need to be a "le"; "le ci nanmu in "le ci nanmu cu ninmu" is not "the threesome made up of those that really are men".

"PA1 le broda" = "PA1 cmima be le broda": It should be something like "PA1 cmima be le'i broda" (PA1 members of the *SET* ...". However, then this and "le'i broda" wind up giving circular definitions.

"lei broda cu brode" = "le broda cu kansu'i lo ka ce'u brode". I could go with this, I suppose, but I don't particularly like it. How about "lo girzu be fi le broda cu brode"? I'm not sure which piece(s) is/are the "in-mind, doesn't-have-to-be-true" one(s).

"lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda". I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read it, the use of "common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to be used for "is a common occurrence/property among", but rather that some group have a property "in common" (that is, they ALL have it). I am willing to be corrected on this if I misunderstand it.

"PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode". The "PA lo broda" is PA instances of "lo broda", each of which helps doing brode. But in the definition section, An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of such a group. This implies that the result is a number of groups.

Very minor point - just a comment; doesn't really need a change. Since this is a formal definition, I don't like the "mi" and "do" for whose in-mind-ness it is. If the "le" is in a quote, it is not the speaker's in-mind-ness but the in-mind-ness of the one who originally uttered the quoted piece.

4. I don't like the stuff on substance. Maybe someone can explain better.

"To refer to substances, lo/le/la without any quantifier are appropriate. The number {tu'o} could be used as inner quantifier to emphasize that no cardinality applies.

'le nanmu cu se snuti ija'ebo lo tu'o gerku cu kuspe le klaji

The guy had an accident and there was dog all over the road.'"

I see this as "the guy had an accident and so dogs are all over the road." (he was a dog-catcher?). If not, then that teacher-substance (in "cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni") is dividing up student-substance - very messy.

A subsWhen dividing up a group of individuals, the units of division are obvious, and cannot be further subdivided into the same thing; when dividing up a substance, it's otherwise.

5. The proposal, even in though it's in the comments, is not appropriate, in my opinion. It certainly doesn't sound like a final wording, which is what we're trying to vote in.

mi'e noras



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:29:30PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> More things to fix I support xorxes effort (especially after

> discussions with John Cowan). I am really close to a "yes" on the

> ideas. The wording has me concerned.

>

> However:

>

> 1. On "lo": "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner

> quantifier, lo can be omitted." I thought PA broda = PA da poi broda.

It does.

> Does PA lo broda also mean PA da poi broda?

Effectively, yes.

> I thought we were disassociating these two.

No. Only lo without quantifiers is completely generic.

> 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished from

> these definitions, so that the expressions without an explicit outer

> quantifier are constants, i.e. they are not quantified expressions. ".

> Does this mean I can't say "le cukta poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if

> there are 3 of them?

Of course you can say that.

> If I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

EXactly what it means now, as far as I can tell.

snip things other people can deal with

> 5. The proposal, even in though it's in the comments, is not

> appropriate, in my opinion. It certainly doesn't sound like a final

> wording, which is what we're trying to vote in.

I have no idea what this means at all.

"The comments" may refer to the comments section of the page, which

contains 5 comments that people put there instead of using the Discuss

link, and should be ignored. Or it may refer to the Discuss section, I

have no idea.

Assuming that "The proposal" referse to the entirety of the gadri

proposal, though, I'm lost, because that is certainly not in the

commonts or discuss section of anything.

If you are saying that the wording of the proposal, in general, doesn't

sound final enough, well, I've already done a complete pass of editing.

You are welcome to do the same.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 01:55 GMT

At 05:37 PM 6/17/04 -0700, Robin wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:29:30PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

snip

> > 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished from

> > these definitions, so that the expressions without an explicit outer

> > quantifier are constants, i.e. they are not quantified expressions. ".

> > Does this mean I can't say "le cukta poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if

> > there are 3 of them?

>

>Of course you can say that.

>

> > If I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

>

>EXactly what it means now, as far as I can tell.

Could you expand on that? Does "nago'i" mean none of the books are blue or

that not all of the books are blue?

>snip things other people can deal with

>

> > 5. The proposal, even in though it's in the comments, is not

> > appropriate, in my opinion. It certainly doesn't sound like a final

> > wording, which is what we're trying to vote in.

>

>I have no idea what this means at all.

>

>"The comments" may refer to the comments section of the page, which

>contains 5 comments that people put there instead of using the Discuss

>link, and should be ignored. Or it may refer to the Discuss section, I

>have no idea.

>

>Assuming that "The proposal" referse to the entirety of the gadri

>proposal, though, I'm lost, because that is certainly not in the

>commonts or discuss section of anything.

>

>If you are saying that the wording of the proposal, in general, doesn't

>sound final enough, well, I've already done a complete pass of editing.

>You are welcome to do the same.

>

>-Robin

Sorry. I meant the "It has been proposed" about lo'e se in the Notes on

the proposal page. The final version of this proposal page should not have

wording about a separate proposal; it is or it isn't.

--

mi'e noras [email protected]

Nora LeChevalier



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 03:09 GMT

noras:

> 1. On "lo": "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,

> lo can be omitted." I thought PA broda = PA da poi broda. Does PA lo broda

> also mean PA da poi broda? I thought we were disassociating these two.

What we are disassociating is {lo broda} from {su'o lo broda}.

{su'o lo broda} remains equivalent to {su'o broda}. Bare

{lo broda} is not quantified.

> 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished from these

> definitions, so that the expressions without an explicit outer quantifier are

> constants, i.e. they are not quantified expressions. ". Does this mean I

> can't say "le cukta poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if there are 3 of them? If

> I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

{le cukta} is the thing or things described as 'cukta'. There is no

problem with it being a group of things. The difference with CLL is

that it is not quantified, it is not a claim about each of the books,

{ro le cukta}, it is for a claim about the books, however many, as a

single referent.

> 3. I think the effort to formally define the gadri was a wonderful idea; but,

> unless I've missed some important explanation, I can't accept this wording.

> I'll comment using the "in mind" version, since that's not really changing.

>

> "le PA broda" = "le PAmei be fi lo broda ...": No. A "PAmei" is a mass (a

> "lei") and not a "le". "remei" is a pair; "cimei" is a trio. See above

> about how it affects distributions.

{le} is used for groups too. Quantifiers on {le} quantify over the

members of the group. A bare {le broda} is not a quantified expression.

> Also, it is not the PAmei-ing that may

> not so, it is the broda-ing, so that "lo" would need to be a "le"; "le ci

> nanmu in "le ci nanmu cu ninmu" is not "the threesome made up of those that

> really are men".

{le cimei be fi lo broda} is {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u

cimei be fi lo broda}: "that which I describe as a threesome of brodas".

That's {le ci broda}.

> "PA1 le broda" = "PA1 cmima be le broda": It should be something like "PA1

> cmima be le'i broda" (PA1 members of the *SET* ...". However, then this and

> "le'i broda" wind up giving circular definitions.

{cmima} accepts groups as the x2. {ci le bi ctuca} means "three members

of the group of eight teachers I have in mind", i.e. three of the eight

teachers.

> "lei broda cu brode" = "le broda cu kansu'i lo ka ce'u brode". I could go

> with this, I suppose, but I don't particularly like it. How about "lo girzu

> be fi le broda cu brode"? I'm not sure which piece(s) is/are the "in-mind,

> doesn't-have-to-be-true" one(s).

{le broda} is a group. {lei} just emphasizes that the brodeing is done

collectively and not by each member on its own.

> "lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda".

> I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read it, the use of

> "common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to be used for "is a common

> occurrence/property among", but rather that some group have a property "in

> common" (that is, they ALL have it). I am willing to be corrected on this if

> I misunderstand it.

The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the absolute

sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

> "PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode". The "PA

> lo broda" is PA instances of "lo broda", each of which helps doing brode.

> But in the definition section, An outer quantifier can be used to quantify

> over instances of such a group. This implies that the result is a number of

> groups.

Yes, that's the intent. Perhaps I should change it to {PA lo su'ore broda}?

But I don't think we need to forbid one-member groups, even though probably

we won't have much to say about them as opposed to individuals.

> Very minor point - just a comment; doesn't really need a change. Since this

> is a formal definition, I don't like the "mi" and "do" for whose in-mind-ness

> it is. If the "le" is in a quote, it is not the speaker's in-mind-ness but

> the in-mind-ness of the one who originally uttered the quoted piece.

If it is in a quote you can't change it for its definition, otherwise you

would be misquoting.

> 4. I don't like the stuff on substance. Maybe someone can explain better.

>

> "To refer to substances, lo/le/la without any quantifier are appropriate. The

> number {tu'o} could be used as inner quantifier to emphasize that no

> cardinality applies.

> 'le nanmu cu se snuti ija'ebo lo tu'o gerku cu kuspe le klaji

> The guy had an accident and there was dog all over the road.'"

>

> I see this as "the guy had an accident and so dogs are all over the road."

But if it's "dogs", why {tu'o}?

> (he was a dog-catcher?). If not, then that teacher-substance (in "cimai lo

> ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni") is dividing up student-substance -

> very messy.

Well, that interpretation is not impossible, though it is not the first

that comes to mind. That's no different from CLL-lo though, is it?

> A subsWhen dividing up a group of individuals, the units of division are

> obvious, and cannot be further subdivided into the same thing; when dividing

> up a substance, it's otherwise.

Right, that's why tu'o can be used to indicate substance: it is not really

composed of any number of individuals.

> 5. The proposal, even in though it's in the comments, is not appropriate, in

> my opinion. It certainly doesn't sound like a final wording, which is what

> we're trying to vote in.

You mean about {tu'o}? It's there mainly as a reminder to discuss it

when we get to tu'o.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 03:09 GMT

noras:

> > > "le cukta poi cpana le kajna cu blanu"

> > > there are 3 of them?

> > > If I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

>

> Could you expand on that? Does "nago'i" mean none of the books are blue or

> that not all of the books are blue?

Neither. It just says that "the books" are not blue. It is not

about the individual books. To say either of the others you need

to quantify explicitly: {noboi cy go'i} "none of the books is blue"

or {me'iboi cy go'i} "not all the books are blue".

> I meant the "It has been proposed" about lo'e se in the Notes on

> the proposal page. The final version of this proposal page should not have

> wording about a separate proposal; it is or it isn't.

It is not part of the definition, but I don't know how else I could

mention it. I am neither in favor nor against leaving it there, so

I will do whatever people prefer. Do you request that I remove it?

Pierre, would you mind terribly if I do? Anyone else?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


ru'a vs. da'i


[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Fri 18 of June, 2004 12:54 GMT posts: 143

Here's one way to tell the difference between ru'a and da'i. Suppose someone asks "xu broda" and someone else answers "ru'a". Then suppose the answer had been "da'i". One means approximately "yes"; the other "no".

mu'o mi'e xod



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT

Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>pc:

>

>

>>What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a

>>collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such

>>proposals.

>>

>>

>

>fi'o tags apply to a selbri (whether directly or by adding an argument

>place), so it's not exactly that. We could of course then attach it to

>the sumti {pe be'au lo nu ...}, but it has the same problem of poi:

>either it has to modify the whole group {lo rau broda}, or else it

>modifies each of the rau broda separately, which is not what is wanted.

>

>

I suspect that what's really the problem here is that the "enough for

what purpose" place is (or should be) actually a place of {rau} and not

the selbri or anything else. But since {rau} is just a number, there's

no grammatical way of sticking it in. {rau} as a number is too handy to

eliminate; maybe it just isn't powerful enough for this case, and you

need to use a full bridi with {banzu} to get it. {mi terve'u rau plise}

{.i pau banzu ma} {.i banzu lo nu ro le prenu...} or some such.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT

Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>noras:

>

>

>>"lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda".

>>I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read it, the use of

>>"common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to be used for "is a common

>>occurrence/property among", but rather that some group have a property "in

>>common" (that is, they ALL have it). I am willing to be corrected on this if

>>I misunderstand it.

>>

>>

>

>The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the absolute

>sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

>

>

Then you *are* using {mutce} to make {kampu} *less* {kampu}. I didn't

object before because I hadn't read the definition of {kampu}, which is

decidedly absolute. It is thus the wrong selbri to use here. It does

not mean what you want. This is Lojban, and {kampu} needs to have a

single meaning.

I think you're after something more like {tolrirci}.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT

xod:

> ru'a vs. da'i

> Here's one way to tell the difference between ru'a and da'i. Suppose someone

> asks "xu broda" and someone else answers "ru'a". Then suppose the answer had

> been "da'i". One means approximately "yes"; the other "no".

Hm. I more or less agree, except that whereas I can think of

contexts where {ru'a} might be a reasonable answer to {xu broda},

I can't think of a context for {da'i} as a reasonable answer.

For example, say I'm about to leave a room with no windows to

the outside and I'm carrying an umbrella. Someone asks

{xu carvi}, I answer {ru'a}. I don't know whether or not it

is raining, but for whatever reason I'm assuming that it is.

On the other hand, answering {da'i} to a {xu broda} is like

answering "yes it is, in never-never land", or "it would be".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT

I don't get this one at all: "supposing" means "no" and "I postulate" means "yes"? {da'i} introduces conditions possibly contrary to fact, so using it means that the item in view is probably not true? But {ru'a} is almost as contrary to fact; it requires at least that I am unsure and so am making an assumptiion or a postulation to get on with whatever is at ahnd.

[email protected] wrote:ru'a vs. da'i

Here's one way to tell the difference between ru'a and da'i. Suppose someone asks "xu broda" and someone else answers "ru'a". Then suppose the answer had been "da'i". One means approximately "yes"; the other "no".

mu'o mi'e xod



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:15 GMT

Right, except that I think it is worthwhile trying to find a way to attach the purpose even to sumti (or the quantifier, rather).

"Mark E. Shoulson" wrote:Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>pc:

>

>

>>What we want is {se banzu}, I think: {fi'o se banzu}. But it needs a

>>collapsed form of course. {be'au}, say (I haven't looked at the lsit of such

>>proposals.

>>

>>

>

>fi'o tags apply to a selbri (whether directly or by adding an argument

>place), so it's not exactly that. We could of course then attach it to

>the sumti {pe be'au lo nu ...}, but it has the same problem of poi:

>either it has to modify the whole group {lo rau broda}, or else it

>modifies each of the rau broda separately, which is not what is wanted.

>

>

I suspect that what's really the problem here is that the "enough for

what purpose" place is (or should be) actually a place of {rau} and not

the selbri or anything else. But since {rau} is just a number, there's

no grammatical way of sticking it in. {rau} as a number is too handy to

eliminate; maybe it just isn't powerful enough for this case, and you

need to use a full bridi with {banzu} to get it. {mi terve'u rau plise}

{.i pau banzu ma} {.i banzu lo nu ro le prenu...} or some such.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT

~mark:

> I suspect that what's really the problem here is that the "enough for

> what purpose" place is (or should be) actually a place of {rau} and not

> the selbri or anything else.

Yep.

> But since {rau} is just a number, there's

> no grammatical way of sticking it in. {rau} as a number is too handy to

> eliminate; maybe it just isn't powerful enough for this case, and you

> need to use a full bridi with {banzu} to get it. {mi terve'u rau plise}

> {.i pau banzu ma} {.i banzu lo nu ro le prenu...} or some such.

Yes, but it would not be unreasonable to have a member of NOI

for this role. {noi} and {poi} already act differently with

respect to quantifiers. In {PA ko'a poi broda} poi acts first,

to restrict the set over which the quantifier runs.

In {PA ko'a noi broda} the quantifier acts first, and noi

applies to each of the things that the quantifier has selected.

So it would not be unreasonable to have a third option, that

acts together with the quantifier, indeed to characterize

the quantifier itself.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT

Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>For example, say I'm about to leave a room with no windows to

>the outside and I'm carrying an umbrella. Someone asks

>{xu carvi}, I answer {ru'a}. I don't know whether or not it

>is raining, but for whatever reason I'm assuming that it is.

>

>

Or if in the same room someone walks in from the outside shaking an

umbrella, you could also answer {ru'a}, right? Possibly {ja'o} as well.

~mark



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT

~mark:

> Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

> >The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the absolute

> >sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

> >

> Then you *are* using {mutce} to make {kampu} *less* {kampu}.

If kampu were absolute, there would be no more or less kampu,

there would only be kampu and na kampu.

By using mutce I am saying kampu is not absolute, not making it

less so.

I propose {rolcmiselkai} for the more restricted and specific

"x1 is a property of every member of x2"

> I didn't

> object before because I hadn't read the definition of {kampu}, which is

> decidedly absolute. It is thus the wrong selbri to use here. It does

> not mean what you want. This is Lojban, and {kampu} needs to have a

> single meaning.

The non-absolute meaning is the most useful one. Also, Lojban gismu

tend to favour the wider readings rather than restricted ones.

> I think you're after something more like {tolrirci}.

That has a different place structure though, it is about a particular

member, not between a property and a set. {tolrirci} is similar

or the same as {fadni}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT

~mark:

> Or if in the same room someone walks in from the outside shaking an

> umbrella, you could also answer {ru'a}, right? Possibly {ja'o} as well.

Yes, I'd say {ja'o} is better in that case.

In one case I assume it is raining, and so I act accordingly.

In the other case I observe something, and then I conclude it

is raining. But I suppose the assumption could be justified by

a previous conclusion.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT

Nicely put. Didn't we have a "Let it be so" performative a while back? Apply now.

Jorge Llambías wrote:~mark:

> I suspect that what's really the problem here is that the "enough for

> what purpose" place is (or should be) actually a place of {rau} and not

> the selbri or anything else.

Yep.

> But since {rau} is just a number, there's

> no grammatical way of sticking it in. {rau} as a number is too handy to

> eliminate; maybe it just isn't powerful enough for this case, and you

> need to use a full bridi with {banzu} to get it. {mi terve'u rau plise}

> {.i pau banzu ma} {.i banzu lo nu ro le prenu...} or some such.

Yes, but it would not be unreasonable to have a member of NOI

for this role. {noi} and {poi} already act differently with

respect to quantifiers. In {PA ko'a poi broda} poi acts first,

to restrict the set over which the quantifier runs.

In {PA ko'a noi broda} the quantifier acts first, and noi

applies to each of the things that the quantifier has selected.

So it would not be unreasonable to have a third option, that

acts together with the quantifier, indeed to characterize

the quantifier itself.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:16 GMT

For Vermonters and the like, what is concluded from the observation is that it has just been raining and that conclusion underlies the assumption that it still is.

Jorge Llambías wrote:~mark:

> Or if in the same room someone walks in from the outside shaking an

> umbrella, you could also answer {ru'a}, right? Possibly {ja'o} as well.

Yes, I'd say {ja'o} is better in that case.

In one case I assume it is raining, and so I act accordingly.

In the other case I observe something, and then I conclude it

is raining. But I suppose the assumption could be justified by

a previous conclusion.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 17:59 GMT

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:26:25AM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> I didn't object before because I hadn't read the definition of

> {kampu}, which is decidedly absolute.

You're joking, right?

x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set x2

(complete set)

Neither "common" nor "general" are absolute at all.

-Robin


About the default quantifiers


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 18:29 GMT posts: 14214

I just want to point something out about the default quantifiers: they didn't actually work.

Taking a version of Nora's example from today: "le cukta cu na blanu". Let's say we're talking about three books.

Expanding this with the default quantifiers, we have "ro le su'o cukta cu na blanu"; "all of the at least one things I am calling books are not blue".

What does this mean?

Well, "na" means "it is not the case that", so: "it is not the case that all of the at least one things I am calling books are not blue" == "Not all of the books are blue", right?

Wrong.

"na" is a logical negator. "ro le su'o cukta" is never defined as having any conversion whatsoever to "da", or any other logical variable or statement. The "ro" cannot be affected by logical negation in the normal fashion because it is not quantifying over a logical variable.

What is it, then, and what does the sentence mean?

I have no idea. I honestly don't think there's any way to tell from the book. The best I can do is say that it's *probably* a logical constant.

To put this in to actual predicate logic:

Define "cukta" as the three books I am talking about.

ForAll(cukta) makes no sense, so we just have:

~Blue(cukta)

To put it another way, imagine we have the object Andy, and the predicate Strong. We can't say "ForAll(Andy): Strong(Andy)", because you can't say "For every object we call Andy", in predicate logic or in English, and still be making any sense.

What does "Strong(Andy)" mean? Depends on how you want to define Andy. If you want to define Andy as "All people named Andy", then you have to accept that "Strong(Andy)" has no clear meaning.

It is possible to say that the "ro" in "ro le su'o cukta" is intended to clarify the definition of the constant "le cukta" (if one accepts that "le cukta" is a constant) to refer to only the entire group of books, but that's something of a mis-use of ro, and it's not clearly defined that way in the book.

In other words, even with the implicit quantifiers (or, for that matter, *explicit* quantifiers), I don't know exactly what "ro le su'o cukta" means in CLL Lojban.

By contrast, every quantified expression in xorlo is clearly reducible to "da", and hence can be quantified over. The meaning of "le cukta cu na blanu" in xorlo is vague, and depends on how the speaker is defining "le cukta" with respect to that sentence, but that was *always* true.

On the other hand, the meaning of "ro le su'o cukta cu na blanu" in xorlo has a clearly defined logical meaning: "ro da poi ke'a cmima be le su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu na blanu". It could actually reduce more than that, but you get the idea. This very clearly, using basic predicate logic, means "Not all of the (things I am calling) books are blue" == "At least one of the books are not blue", which is what we expected in the first place.

In other words, despite all of the talk about constants, we probably already had them anyways, and it's actually *easier* to get to logical quantification now than it was before.

Some places that talk about constants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic

http://www.scms.rgu.ac.uk/staff/smc/teaching/kbp3/kbp3/node5.html

http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~sci/math/gunson/courses/info3130/logic2.htm

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> In other words, even with the implicit quantifiers (or, for that matter,

> *explicit* quantifiers), I don't know exactly what "ro le su'o cukta" means

> in CLL Lojban.

I think we (or at least some of us) have always taken it to mean

{ro da poi cmima le'i su'o cukta}. I don't know how explicit CLL

is about this (not very, probably) but I'm pretty sure that was

the intention.

> In other words, despite all of the talk about constants, we probably already

> had them anyways, and it's actually *easier* to get to logical quantification

> now than it was before.

I would put it this way: we already had them in practice, though not

necessarily in theory. I doubt {la} was ever used as {ro la} quantifying

over a non-singleton set, and {le broda} was almost always used to

refer to a single thing. In cases where {le broda} was used to refer

to more than one thing, I would say odds are even that the default

quantifier was used wrongly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT

Robin Powell scripsit:

> Well, "na" means "it is not the case that", so: "it is not the case

> that all of the at least one things I am calling books are not blue" ==

> "Not all of the books are blue", right?

Well, to go to the original example, "The men left the room" means that

all of them left, in ordinary usage, i.e. this dialogue is sensible:

A. The men left the room.

B. No, Joe remained inside.

So indeed "le nanmu na cliva le kumfa" means that *not all* (perhaps some,

perhaps none) of the men left the room.

> To put it another way, imagine we have the object Andy, and the

> predicate Strong. We can't say "ForAll(Andy): Strong(Andy)", because

> you can't say "For every object we call Andy", in predicate logic or

> in English, and still be making any sense.

Sure you can. "Cowan" usually refers to just me in this context, but

in other contexts, "the ones I call 'Cowan'" is a perfectly sensible

interpretation: la kau,n cu stedu se kerfa means that *each* of the Cowans

(in this context, my family) has hair.

> In other words, even with the implicit quantifiers (or, for that matter,

> *explicit* quantifiers), I don't know exactly what "ro le su'o cukta"

> means in CLL Lojban.

Each of the things (whose number cannot be zero) that you describe as a chair.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan

Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration

is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was

under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than

two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.

--Specht v. Netscape



Posted by pycyn on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT posts: 2388

Huh?

I just can't follow this all the way through, but to take points along the way — whatever they may add up to.

A> Does this mean there is not one in CLL or there is not one in the archives (about six, I think)? To be sure, there are disagreements about exactly how it goes, but not enough to say that the form has no logical meaning. The easiest (what {me} seems to have been created for at times) is {ro da poi me le su'o cukta cu blanu}, where {le su'o cukta} names a set defined in extension (those three guys, pointing).

B> Well, it is an irregular notation, but pretty clearly it is just a restricted quantifier restricted to cukta. And so perfectly fitting to go into the blank in ~IsBlue (not standard either). Folks that came up from the middle of the 20th century tend to use variables to tie thing together, so All x Cukta(x) Blue(x), where the part in square brackets is the restricted quantifier.

C> Why can't you say that — in logic, English and Lojban? You actually did in English and, under some interpetation of symbolism, in logic. I don't imagine the Lojban is much worse.

D> I don't think {le cukta} is properly a constant, though it comes closer than most things in Lojban. If it is a constant then it names a (distributive) group, just thesort of thing a quantifier like {ro} goes into. Your description of PA1 {ro} is much closer to that for PA2 {ro}.

E> Actually, on some versions of xorlo (I forget which one is in force today), some quantifier expressions are impenetrable and others are clearly wrong.

F> If this happens to work at all (doubtful) it would be because several weirdities cancelled eachother out in the process. It appears to be circular to begin with.

G> So far, xorxes examples of constants either aren't or are at the cost of getting things wrong or by virtue of everything following from a contradiction. No language has logical constants (even including logic, it turned out — if you ignore variables) and Lojban is not likely to be the first. Nor do they serve any purpose that needs being served.

[email protected] wrote:

About the default quantifiers

I just want to point something out about the default quantifiers: they didn't actually work.

Taking a version of Nora's example from today: "le cukta cu na blanu". Let's say we're talking about three books.

Expanding this with the default quantifiers, we have "ro le su'o cukta cu na blanu"; "all of the at least one things I am calling books are not blue".

What does this mean?

Well, "na" means "it is not the case that", so: "it is not the case that all of the at least one things I am calling books are not blue" == "Not all of the books are blue", right?

Wrong.

A>"na" is a logical negator. "ro le su'o cukta" is never defined as having any conversion whatsoever to "da", or any other logical variable or statement. The "ro" cannot be affected by logical negation in the normal fashion because it is not quantifying over a logical variable.

What is it, then, and what does the sentence mean?

I have no idea. I honestly don't think there's any way to tell from the book. The best I can do is say that it's *probably* a logical constant.

To put this in to actual predicate logic:

Define "cukta" as the three books I am talking about.

B>ForAll(cukta) makes no sense, so we just have:

~Blue(cukta)

C>To put it another way, imagine we have the object Andy, and the predicate Strong. We can't say "ForAll(Andy): Strong(Andy)", because you can't say "For every object we call Andy", in predicate logic or in English, and still be making any sense.

What does "Strong(Andy)" mean? Depends on how you want to define Andy. If you want to define Andy as "All people named Andy", then you have to accept that "Strong(Andy)" has no clear meaning.

D>It is possible to say that the "ro" in "ro le su'o cukta" is intended to clarify the definition of the constant "le cukta" (if one accepts that "le cukta" is a constant) to refer to only the entire group of books, but that's something of a mis-use of ro, and it's not clearly defined that way in the book.

In other words, even with the implicit quantifiers (or, for that matter, *explicit* quantifiers), I don't know exactly what "ro le su'o cukta" means in CLL Lojban.

E>By contrast, every quantified expression in xorlo is clearly reducible to "da", and hence can be quantified over. The meaning of "le cukta cu na blanu" in xorlo is vague, and depends on how the speaker is defining "le cukta" with respect to that sentence, but that was *always* true.

F>On the other hand, the meaning of "ro le su'o cukta cu na blanu" in xorlo has a clearly defined logical meaning: "ro da poi ke'a cmima be le su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu na blanu". It could actually reduce more than that, but you get the idea. This very clearly, using basic predicate logic, means "Not all of the (things I am calling) books are blue" == "At least one of the books are not blue", which is what we expected in the first place.

G>In other words, despite all of the talk about constants, we probably already had them anyways, and it's actually *easier* to get to logical quantification now than it was before.

Some places that talk about constants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic

http://www.scms.rgu.ac.uk/staff/smc/teaching/kbp3/kbp3/node5.html

http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~sci/math/gunson/courses/info3130/logic2.htm

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:32PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> Huh? I just can't follow this all the way through, but to take points

> along the way — whatever they may add up to.

If you can't take the time to find or use a mail program that allows

your replies to be readable, I can't take the time to read what you

write.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 03:28:25PM -0400, [email protected]

wrote:

> Robin Powell scripsit:

>

> > Well, "na" means "it is not the case that", so: "it is not the case

> > that all of the at least one things I am calling books are not blue"

> > == "Not all of the books are blue", right?

>

> Well, to go to the original example, "The men left the room" means

> that all of them left, in ordinary usage,

"in ordinary usage", i.e. it must be understood from context, which is

my point.

> i.e. this dialogue is sensible:

>

> A. The men left the room.

>

> B. No, Joe remained inside.

>

> So indeed "le nanmu na cliva le kumfa" means that *not all* (perhaps

> some, perhaps none) of the men left the room.

In ordinary usage, absolutely.

> > To put it another way, imagine we have the object Andy, and the

> > predicate Strong. We can't say "ForAll(Andy): Strong(Andy)",

> > because you can't say "For every object we call Andy", in predicate

> > logic or in English, and still be making any sense.

>

> Sure you can. "Cowan" usually refers to just me in this context, but

> in other contexts, "the ones I call 'Cowan'" is a perfectly sensible

> interpretation: la kau,n cu stedu se kerfa means that *each* of the

> Cowans (in this context, my family) has hair.

Again, understood from context. You're violently agreeing with me, sort

of.

My point was that you cannot have logical quantification over a

constant. ForAll(Cowan) makes no sense. x s.t. x is named Cowan:

ForAll(x), which is what you are talking about, makes sense.

> > In other words, even with the implicit quantifiers (or, for that

> > matter, *explicit* quantifiers), I don't know exactly what "ro le

> > su'o cukta" means in CLL Lojban.

>

> Each of the things (whose number cannot be zero) that you describe as

> a chair.

Yes. But that is not logical quantification, and as such the

interactions between "na" and "ro da" (for example) are not guaranteed

to hold, but must bow to the current context.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:02:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > In other words, even with the implicit quantifiers (or, for that

> > matter, *explicit* quantifiers), I don't know exactly what "ro le

> > su'o cukta" means in CLL Lojban.

>

> I think we (or at least some of us) have always taken it to mean {ro

> da poi cmima le'i su'o cukta}. I don't know how explicit CLL is about

> this (not very, probably) but I'm pretty sure that was the intention.

The CLL makes an explicit connection between "lo" and "da poi". It

makes not such connection between "da" (or any other logical variable or

context) and any of the other articles.

While you may have understood it that way, you had no basis for doing

so.

> > In other words, despite all of the talk about constants, we probably

> > already had them anyways, and it's actually *easier* to get to

> > logical quantification now than it was before.

>

> I would put it this way: we already had them in practice, though not

> necessarily in theory.

Right.

> I doubt {la} was ever used as {ro la} quantifying over a non-singleton

> set, and {le broda} was almost always used to refer to a single thing.

> In cases where {le broda} was used to refer to more than one thing, I

> would say odds are even that the default quantifier was used wrongly.

Indeed.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > Well, to go to the original example, "The men left the room" means

> > that all of them left, in ordinary usage,

>

> "in ordinary usage", i.e. it must be understood from context, which is

> my point.

Can you give me a context in which "The men left the room" is interpreted

otherwise?

--

But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some

reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains.

I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful

service. --Gandalf John Cowan



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:15:59PM -0400, [email protected]

wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

>

> > > Well, to go to the original example, "The men left the room" means

> > > that all of them left, in ordinary usage,

> >

> > "in ordinary usage", i.e. it must be understood from context, which

> > is my point.

>

> Can you give me a context in which "The men left the room" is

> interpreted otherwise?

I'm not sure it matters, because that's an English sentence and we're

not talking about English, but I'll try.

"The men entered with the prisoner, a man named John Doe. The prisoner

was hung up by his ankles, and then the men left the room to watch the

torture through a one-way window."

Sorry, but it was the first thing that came to mind.

One assumes that the prisoner did *not* leave the room.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> "The men entered with the prisoner, a man named John Doe. The prisoner

> was hung up by his ankles, and then the men left the room to watch the

> torture through a one-way window."

Surely the first clause excludes the prisoner from "the men". You don't say

"The Supreme Court justices entered with the Chief Justice".

--

There is / One art John Cowan

No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com

To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 05:27:16PM -0400, [email protected]

wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

>

> > "The men entered with the prisoner, a man named John Doe. The

> > prisoner was hung up by his ankles, and then the men left the room

> > to watch the torture through a one-way window."

>

> Surely the first clause excludes the prisoner from "the men".

Of course. That would be *context*. You're violently agreeing with me

again.

> You don't say "The Supreme Court justices entered with the Chief

> Justice".

Why not?

"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was on trial for purjery. The

The Supreme Court justices entered the court room with the Chief Justice

today, to show their support."

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:

> At 05:37 PM 6/17/04 -0700, Robin wrote:

> >On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:29:30PM -0700, [email protected]

> >wrote:

>

> snip

>

> > > 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished

> > > from these definitions, so that the expressions without an

> > > explicit outer quantifier are constants, i.e. they are not

> > > quantified expressions. ". Does this mean I can't say "le cukta

> > > poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if there are 3 of them?

> >

> >Of course you can say that.

> >

> > > If I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it

> > > mean?

> >

> >EXactly what it means now, as far as I can tell.

>

> Could you expand on that? Does "nago'i" mean none of the books are

> blue or that not all of the books are blue?

I expanded on that in another, very long, post, but basically it depends

entirely on how the person who originally said "le cukta" defined it in

their head.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:54:06PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:

> Sorry. I meant the "It has been proposed" about lo'e se in the Notes

> on the proposal page. The final version of this proposal page should

> not have wording about a separate proposal; it is or it isn't.

Umm, huh?

Suggested usage conventions occur all over CLL; why should this be

different?

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:45:02PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> noras:

> > I meant the "It has been proposed" about lo'e se in the Notes on the

> > proposal page. The final version of this proposal page should not

> > have wording about a separate proposal; it is or it isn't.

>

> It is not part of the definition, but I don't know how else I could

> mention it. I am neither in favor nor against leaving it there, so I

> will do whatever people prefer. Do you request that I remove it?

> Pierre, would you mind terribly if I do? Anyone else?

I don't care about it eiter way, but I don't see any reason to remove

it. The CLL is full of suggested usage conventions; this seems no

different.

-Robin


Because I Hate Myself


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sun 20 of June, 2004 09:00 GMT posts: 14214

Just for interest's sake, here's a *complete* decomposition according to the current xorlo rules.

BTW, xorxes: Please make it clear with the formal definitions that "be" attachments are carried through successive reductions.

ro le su'o cutka cu na blanu

.i se du'i bo

ro cmima be le su'o cukta cu na blanu

.i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be le su'o cukta cu na blanu

.i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be le su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu blanu

.i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu blanu

.i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka ce'u su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu blanu

.i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka ce'u su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no zo'e noi ke'a na cukta cu blanu

That's marginally frightening. Let's see.

For All X, such that X is a member of something which I describe to you as something which has the property of being an at-least-one-some of a set of somethings which are books and nothing which is not a book; X is blue.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sun 20 of June, 2004 09:19 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:00:52AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka

> ce'u su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu blanu

>

> .i se du'i bo

>

> ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka

> ce'u su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no zo'e noi ke'a na cukta cu

> blanu

My apologies, there was a minor error in that step with "no lo na

cukta".

Starting from the line I have up at the top, repeated here:

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka ce'u

su'o mei be fi lo cukta e no lo na cukta cu blanu

..i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka

ce'u su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no lo na cukta cu blanu

..i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka

ce'u su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no mupli be lo na cukta cu

blanu

..i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka ce'u

su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no mupli be zo'e noi ke'a na cukta

cu blanu

..i se du'i bo

ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka ce'u

su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no da poi ke'a mupli be zo'e noi

ke'a na cukta cu blanu

So, the correct English is:

For All X, such that X is a member of something which I describe to you

as something which has the property of being an at-least-one-some taken

from a set of somethings which are books and zero Y, such that Y is an

example of something that is not a book: X is blue.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Sun 20 of June, 2004 15:48 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

[ro le su'o cukta cu blanu]

> ro da poi ke'a cmima be zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu zo'e noi ke'a ka ce'u

> su'o mei be fi zo'e noi ke'a cukta e no da poi ke'a mupli be zo'e noi

> ke'a na cukta cu blanu

>

> So, the correct English is:

>

> For All X, such that X is a member of something which I describe to you

> as something which has the property of being an at-least-one-some taken

> from a set of somethings which are books and zero Y, such that Y is an

> example of something that is not a book: X is blue.

Good thing we have the compact form available!

(Your original sentence had {na blanu}, but that doesn't affect

the rest.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:30:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> noras:

> > "lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro

> > broda". I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read it,

> > the use of "common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to be used

> > for "is a common occurrence/property among", but rather that some

> > group have a property "in common" (that is, they ALL have it). I am

> > willing to be corrected on this if I misunderstand it.

>

> The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the

> absolute sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

I have no idea where you all are conjuring this "absolute kampu" from:

kampu kau common

x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among

members of set x2 (complete set)

I'm not sure how much more clear it could be that kampu is not absolute.

If you want to make it less absolute, for whatever bizarre reason, use

"cafne", not "mutce".

> > "PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode".

> > The "PA lo broda" is PA instances of "lo broda", each of which helps

> > doing brode. But in the definition section, An outer quantifier can

> > be used to quantify over instances of such a group. This implies

> > that the result is a number of groups.

>

> Yes, that's the intent. Perhaps I should change it to {PA lo su'ore

> broda}? But I don't think we need to forbid one-member groups, even

> though probably we won't have much to say about them as opposed to

> individuals.

I agree; no su'ore please.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 06:11:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> The proposal as it stands can be read from the proposal page:

>

> PA le'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA le broda enai lo na cmima be le broda

> PA la'i broda = lo cmaci selcmi be PA la broda enai lo na cmima be la broda

> PA lei broda cu brode = lo PA le broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

> PA lai broda cu brode = lo PA la broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u brode

>

> (where PA can be fractional as per And's treatment of fractional

> quantifiers). This definition gives the CLL interpretation of

> fractional quantifiers.

>

> I am now saying that it would be better to define them as:

>

> PA le'i broda = PA cmima be le'i broda

> PA la'i broda = PA cmima be la'i broda

> PA lei broda cu brode = PA cmima be lei broda

> PA lai broda cu brode = PA cmima be lai broda

>

> With these definitions, the old meaning of {pa fi'u re lei broda} is

> recovered with {lo pa fi'u re lei broda}, and the old meaning of {pa

> fi'u re le'i roda} is recovered with {lo'i pa fi'u re le'i broda} or

> its equivalent {lo'i pa fi'u re le broda}.

How much usage would be changed, do you know?

What was the old meaning of {pa lei broda} ?

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Outer and inner quantifiers

>

> Inner quanifiers give the cardinality of the referent of a sumti. We

> don't need to know what the matrix bridi is in order to understand the

> inner quantifier. It has an internal function with respect to its

> sumti.

What's a matrix bridi?

> Outer quantifiers tell us how many times the matrix bridi is satisfied

> (by members or instances of the referent of the sumti). They have an

> external function with respect to the sumti they quantify.

>

> The exception to the above rules, in the proposal as it stands now, are

> the outer quantifiers of le'i/la'i/lei/lai, which act in fact as inner

> quantifiers (this is easy to see from the formal definitions). It would

> be nice if this were fixed.

Just looking for exceptional patterns, I see what you're saying.

> I would propose that outer quantifiers for these quantify over

> members, just as is the case for le/la. The idea behind the current

> definitions is that you can say {pimu lei prenu} for "half of the

> people (taken as a group)". To say the same thing with the fixed

> definition you would have to say {lo pimu lei prenu}. And similarly

> {lo'i pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members of {le'i

> prenu}. I think this additional {lo} is a small price to pay for the

> big gain in consistency.

Can you give some before and after examples?

As I asked elsewhere, do you know how much usage is affected?

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:11:04PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 01:38 PM 6/9/04 -0700, Robin wrote:

> >For any *fixed* context, including the binding of the constant (which

> >is only in the speaker's head), "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" implies

> >that "naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise" is false (assuming I

> >understand naku, which is false).

> >

> >However, there is nothing the requires the speaker to maintain the

> >binding of the constant from one statement to the next, and that's

> >where the problem is.

> >

> >There is nothing wrong with the following interchange:

> >

> >A: lo curnu cu nenri le plise

> >

> >B: .i ma curnu

> >

> >A: ro curnu poi nenri le plise .iji'a naku lo curnu cu nenri le plise

> >

> >B: .i .oisai ma curnu

> >

> >A: ro curnu poi na nenri le plise

> >

> >My question is, is "lo curnu cu nenri le plise" false if there is, in

> >fact, no worm in the apple? I believe that it is false in that case,

> >but I'd like others' opinions. Assuming I'm right, the above

> >exchange is only sensible if there is at least one worm in the apple.

> >

> >Now, if it was "lo curnu cu nenri *lo* plise", that would be

> >different.

>

> Picked this message at random. This is not a comment on xorlo.

Well, as it's xorlo that we're talking about, I don't see how it can not

be.

> Your example "ma curnu" suggests to me the negation example of "The

> present king of France is bald" vs The present king of France is not

> bald".

>

> At which point I'll ask (to fit the example) if your questions make

> sense (and have answers) if you replace curnu by crida (I'm thinking

> maybe Tinker Bell here, but I'm likewise thinking "unicorn" and

> "present king of France".

I don't know; that's really up to context, and who's asking.

The goal of the BPFK to produce a language, not an epistemology.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:13:00PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> About lo'e

>

> While everybody seems to be happy with the definition of lo'e,

> there is at least one issue about it that we haven't addressed

> yet.

>

> Roughly speaking, we are defining lo'e such that

> {lo'e broda cu brode} means:

>

> lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

> The property of brodeing is very common among brodas

> (I use mutce to relativise "kampu", which seems to require

> that it apply to every member of x2, while lo'e is less strict

> than that.)

I don't agree with your interpretation of {kampu}; {mutce kampu} makes

perfect sense to me without explanation, as {kampu} is obviously not

absolute.

> So far so good. But what if the matrix predicate is more

> complex?

Matrix predicate? That would be the predicate that the sumti the gadri

is making is part of?

> We want the quantifier in {lo'e broda cu kanla reda}

> to remain inside the property:

>

> lo ka reda zo'u ce'u kanla da cu mutce kampu lo'e broda

>

> Question 1: is {lo'e broda cu kanla reda} equivalent to

> {reda zo'u lo'e broda cu kanla da}?

OK, that'll get confusing, so I'm doing

{lo'e remna cu se kanla reda}.

(I'm assuming you meant "se kanla").

lo'e remna cu se kanla reda

..i se du'i bo

lo ka ce'u se kanla re da cu mutce kampu lo'i ro remna

..i se du'i bo

lo ka ce'u se kanla re da cu mutce kampu lo'i ro de poi ke'a remna

Hmm. What does "lo'i ro da poi ..." mean? I'm not totally sure, and I

don't see an expansion for that kind of expression at all.

Regardless, I think the answer to the original question is yes, because

the first "da" that occurs in the expansion is that of "re da". That'll

change when the first "lo" is expanded, but I don't think in a way that

matters (as it's part of the same clause).

> What about tense? Is {lo'e broda pu ca'o brode}

>

> lo ka ce'u pu ca'o brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

>

> or

>

> lo ka ce'u brode cu pu ca'o mutce kampu lo'i broda

I would assume from the expansions that it's the former; tense is

carried with the selbri.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Thursday 10 June 2004 15:13, [email protected] wrote:

> > What about tense? Is {lo'e broda pu ca'o brode}

> >

> > lo ka ce'u pu ca'o brode cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

> >

> > or

> >

> > lo ka ce'u brode cu pu ca'o mutce kampu lo'i broda

> >

> > In other words, "the typical lion used to roam the savanna

> > unimpeded" or "the typical lion used to be a cub"?

>

> lo'e cinfo pu cifnu. For the other meaning, you say {lo'e pu broda}.

That makes sense, actually, but isn't what I would assume from the

expansions. I think it would be worth updating the expansions to make

it clear that all whole-bridi tenses *stay* whole-bridi tenses, if

that's what's wanted (and I think it is).

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:08 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> What's a matrix bridi?

The bridi for which the sumti is an argument, as opposed to the

selbri that gets converted into a sumti by the gadri.

> > I would propose that outer quantifiers for these quantify over

> > members, just as is the case for le/la. The idea behind the current

> > definitions is that you can say {pimu lei prenu} for "half of the

> > people (taken as a group)". To say the same thing with the fixed

> > definition you would have to say {lo pimu lei prenu}. And similarly

> > {lo'i pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the members of {le'i

> > prenu}. I think this additional {lo} is a small price to pay for the

> > big gain in consistency.

>

> Can you give some before and after examples?

I can't think of any with le'i. With lei:

Now:

le kumfa cu culno pimu lei prenu

le kumfa cu culno pa fi'u re lei prenu

The room is full with half of the people

Suggested:

le kumfa cu culno lo pimu lei prenu

le kumfa cu culno lo pa fi'u re lei prenu

The room is full with half of the people

Without {lo}, the sentences would say that one out of every

two of the persons fills the room by themself.

> As I asked elsewhere, do you know how much usage is affected?

I suspect very little. I don't think fractional quantifiers

have seen much usage.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Mon 21 of June, 2004 16:09 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> I think it would be worth updating the expansions to make

> it clear that all whole-bridi tenses *stay* whole-bridi tenses, if

> that's what's wanted (and I think it is).

I could write:

lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu

lo'i ro broda

But that's only the beginning. What about {na}, now? Is

{lo'e broda na brode}:

lo ka ce'u na brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda

or

lo ka ce'u brode cu na mutce kampu lo'i ro broda

They are different claims. And then what about {lo'e broda

cu brode lo'i brodi}? Is that:

lo ka ce'u brode lo'i brodi cu mutce kampu lo'i broda

or

lo ka lo'e broda cu brode ce'u cu mutce kampu lo'i brodi

or

lo ka ce'u brode ce'u cu mutce kampu lo'i broda pi'u lo'i brodi

or something else?

That's the difficulty of contextual definitions. I would not

want to settle for any one possibility without some better

understanding of what we want to use lo'e for, i.e. lots of

examples more complex than {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by djorden on Tue 22 of June, 2004 02:20 GMT posts: 17

I'm withdrawing my vote due to lack of time to think about this

issue.

I'm less against it now that xorlo seems to have an actual defined

meaning. But I'm not convinced enough to vote in favor.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA14s7DrrilS51AZ8RAm8tAJ9oNZCg8YZyGUayIyu1wphwyCWxcgCgvg/l

o+Q5uveW1Wqk1g3SoUB0MvA=

=WjD6

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by noras on Wed 23 of June, 2004 02:09 GMT posts: 23

At 06:45 PM 6/20/04 -0700, Robin wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:30:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > noras:

> > > "lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro

> > > broda". I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read it,

> > > the use of "common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to be used

> > > for "is a common occurrence/property among", but rather that some

> > > group have a property "in common" (that is, they ALL have it). I am

> > > willing to be corrected on this if I misunderstand it.

> >

> > The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the

> > absolute sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

>

>I have no idea where you all are conjuring this "absolute kampu" from:

>

> kampu kau common

>

> x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among

> members of set x2 (complete set)

>

>I'm not sure how much more clear it could be that kampu is not absolute.

>

>If you want to make it less absolute, for whatever bizarre reason, use

>"cafne", not "mutce".

I think it's a misunderstanding based on the several meanings of "common".

From www.merriam-webster.com on "common":

2 a : belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all

members of a group b :

belonging equally to two or more mathematical entities common base> c : having two or more branches

3 a : occurring or appearing frequently : FAMILIAR b : of

the best known kind c : VERNACULAR 2

4 a : WIDESPREAD, GENERAL b : characterized by a lack of

privilege or special status c : just satisfying accustomed

criteria : ELEMENTARY

Based on the presence of "universal" in the lojban meaning, I was using

meaning #2 (and lojbab agrees that that was what was intended when it was

written); "universal" is absolutely absolute. If Jane, Mary and Tom have a

friend "in common", they EACH have that friend or else that friend is not

held "in common". I think those arguing for "more" are using meaning #3 or #4.

The applicable meaning of "general" (also from www.merriam-webster.com):

4 : belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals : GENERIC

And, for "universal":

1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively

without limit or exception.

and

4 a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all

values of a variable b : denoting every member of a class

Note that one meaning they all have in common is the absolute one.

--

mi'e noras [email protected]

Nora LeChevalier



Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT posts: 1912

I changed the lo'e/le'e formal definitions to:

lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e lo'i broda

le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e le'i broda ma'i mi

"The property of being brode is universal among the members of most

sets of broda." This way we don't need to argue about the exact

semantics of kampu. What counts as "most" is of course contextual.

Is that satisfactory for everyone?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by rab.spir on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I changed the lo'e/le'e formal definitions to:

>

> lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e lo'i broda

> le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e le'i broda ma'i mi

>

> "The property of being brode is universal among the members of most

> sets of broda." This way we don't need to argue about the exact

> semantics of kampu. What counts as "most" is of course contextual.

Among the members of most sets? Not among a set of most of the members? That

doesn't seem right.

For example, if 80% of jvugis broda, then most jvugis broda, but most sets of

jvugis do not universally broda (most sets have at least one jvugi that doesn't

broda).

How about "...lo'i so'e broda" instead of "...so'e lo'i broda"?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT posts: 2388

Well, typicality is even less than generality a matter of counting. So many brodas are untypical in one way or another that there relation to brodes doesn't count for much. Further, spreading it over the subsets and demanding universality in each subset tends to increase the significance of the nonbrodes: in a set of four items, for example, if only one fails to be a brode, then almost half the subset fail to be pure brode (7/15 — assume we can ignore the null set). Of course, four is too small a group to have a typical member, probably, but the pattern continues: in a set of 5 members, 16 of the 31 subsets fail this condition with a single nonbroda in the set; two brings it up to 24 out of 31. And so on.

While some of the unnumber quantifiers are pretty vague, {so'e} means (at least) "more than half," so it fails pretty early on with even a single exception.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

I changed the lo'e/le'e formal definitions to:

lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e lo'i broda

le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e le'i broda ma'i mi

"The property of being brode is universal among the members of most

sets of broda." This way we don't need to argue about the exact

semantics of kampu. What counts as "most" is of course contextual.

Is that satisfactory for everyone?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:19 GMT posts: 2388

This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition, with 2, 15.

Rob Speer wrote:On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I changed the lo'e/le'e formal definitions to:

>

> lo'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e lo'i broda

> le'e broda cu brode = lo ka ce'u brode cu kampu so'e le'i broda ma'i mi

>

> "The property of being brode is universal among the members of most

> sets of broda." This way we don't need to argue about the exact

> semantics of kampu. What counts as "most" is of course contextual.

Among the members of most sets? Not among a set of most of the members? That

doesn't seem right.

For example, if 80% of jvugis broda, then most jvugis broda, but most sets of

jvugis do not universally broda (most sets have at least one jvugi that doesn't

broda).

How about "...lo'i so'e broda" instead of "...so'e lo'i broda"?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 1912

Rob:

> For example, if 80% of jvugis broda, then most jvugis broda, but most sets of

> jvugis do not universally broda (most sets have at least one jvugi that

> doesn't

> broda).

Ouch. Right.

> How about "...lo'i so'e broda" instead of "...so'e lo'i broda"?

I'll go with {lo'i su'oso'e broda} just in case.

The le'e case stays as {su'oso'e le'i}, because in this case the

outer quantifier counts members not sets.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 1912


> This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of

> most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition,

> with 2, 15.

Hmm.

OK, I'm going back to {mutce kampu} unless someone comes up with

a better way to say common/general in a non-absolute sense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 2388

{su'o} is redundant in {su'o so'e} since {so'e}, like {su'o} sets a lower limit.

If numbers are only marginally significant for "typical," they would appear to play no role at all in "stereotypical." You might as well sa "all" and be done with it.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Rob:

> For example, if 80% of jvugis broda, then most jvugis broda, but most sets of

> jvugis do not universally broda (most sets have at least one jvugi that

> doesn't

> broda).

Ouch. Right.

> How about "...lo'i so'e broda" instead of "...so'e lo'i broda"?

I'll go with {lo'i su'oso'e broda} just in case.

The le'e case stays as {su'oso'e le'i}, because in this case the

outer quantifier counts members not sets.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 2388

See the second revision of my definition of "intersection>" It is not right, of course, but it indicates the kinds of factors that go into such questions — if we are going to be precise and not just "generally" or "typically" and let our illformed intuitions carry over from English.

Jorge Llambías wrote:--- John E Clifford wrote:

> This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of

> most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition,

> with 2, 15.

Hmm.

OK, I'm going back to {mutce kampu} unless someone comes up with

a better way to say common/general in a non-absolute sense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 10:12:20PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:

> At 06:45 PM 6/20/04 -0700, Robin wrote:

> >On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:30:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > > noras:

> > > > "lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro

> > > > broda". I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read

> > > > it, the use of "common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to

> > > > be used for "is a common occurrence/property among", but rather

> > > > that some group have a property "in common" (that is, they ALL

> > > > have it). I am willing to be corrected on this if I

> > > > misunderstand it.

> > >

> > > The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the

> > > absolute sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

> >

> >I have no idea where you all are conjuring this "absolute kampu"

> >from:

> >

> > kampu kau common

> >

> > x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set

> > x2 (complete set)

> >

> >I'm not sure how much more clear it could be that kampu is not

> >absolute.

> >

> >If you want to make it less absolute, for whatever bizarre reason,

> >use "cafne", not "mutce".

>

> I think it's a misunderstanding based on the several meanings of

> "common".

>

> From www.merriam-webster.com on "common":

>

> 2

>

> a : belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by

> all members of a group

>

> b : belonging equally to two or more mathematical entities > with a common base>

>

> c : having two or more branches

>

> 3

>

> a : occurring or appearing frequently : FAMILIAR

>

> b : of the best known kind

>

> c : VERNACULAR 2

>

> 4

>

> a : WIDESPREAD, GENERAL

>

> b : characterized by a lack of privilege or special status > people>

>

> c : just satisfying accustomed criteria : ELEMENTARY

>

> Based on the presence of "universal" in the lojban meaning, I was

> using meaning #2 (and lojbab agrees that that was what was intended

> when it was written);

That's impossible, assuming you mean meaning 2a or 2b. Both meaning 2a

and meaning 2b are *things* one has in common, not properties.

Of the things you quoted from MW, the only things that relate to

properites are 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4c, so you'll have to pick among those.

> "universal" is absolutely absolute.

Of course, but it's only one of the key words, and you're ignoring

"general", which directly contradicts your theory.

> If Jane, Mary and Tom have a friend "in common", they EACH have that

> friend or else that friend is not held "in common". I think those

> arguing for "more" are using meaning #3 or #4.

Your theory fits neither the keyword 'general' nor the keyword

'universan'. Seriously: try to talk about the same kind of thing

(sharing a identical relationship to an object) using either the word

"general" or the word "universal".

> The applicable meaning of "general" (also from

> www.merriam-webster.com): 4 : belonging to the common nature of a

> group of like individuals : GENERIC

Which relates to properties, not relationships or objects. You've just

argued against yourself.

Furthermore, you had to go all the way to meaning 4 to get it.

What about these:

1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole

2 : involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class,

kind, or group

3 : not confined by specialization or careful limitation

All of which fit my meaning of kampu more than yours.

> And, for "universal":

>

> 1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or

> distributively without limit or exception.

That's only one keyword.

> Note that one meaning they all have in common is the absolute one.

Oh you *MUST* be joking!

What happened to "gismu are defined as broadly as possible", hmm?

Among other things, that argument means that cribe cannot refer to teddy

bears.

By that logic, "vorme" has no meaning, because "doorway" and "gateway"

have no definitions in common at all (one is a place you put a door, the

other is a place you put a gate).

Nor do any of the chemical words, because they have the option of both

"containing" the chemical and "being a quantity of" the chemical; if we

require that all they words in the definition have something in common,

we're left with either nothing or something that is a superset of

itself.

In short:

1. "kampu" cannot possibly mean "common" as in "we share a friend in

common" as written.

2. If you are going to say that "kampu" only applies to characteristics

that *every* member of the set shares, you've just broken the gismu

generality tenet, as well as making the word utterly useless. We

already have "simxu mintu" and friends.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> See the second revision of my definition of "intersection>" It is not right,

> of course, but it indicates the kinds of factors that go into such questions

> — if we are going to be precise and not just "generally" or "typically" and

> let our illformed intuitions carry over from English.

I'm willing to go along with any proposal for lo'e/le'e,

I just don't think these cmavo are worth the trouble they

cause. What I have now is as close as I could make it to the

traditional/CLL definitions. Your "intersection" definition

is interesting, but I don't see how it helps to decide in

a particular case whether to use lo'e or not, since the

calculations are all theoretical and there is no way to

carry them out. I wouldn't know how to write the Lojban

for it either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 2388

Hell, writing any of this in Lojban is a real miracle. I am amazed at how much you have managed to transfer (this does not mean that I think you have it right, mind) and congratulate you on your efforts and your results. As for the formula, it has so much wiggle room in it that you can defend a case with just about any data (but you do need more than, say, three — happenstance, coincidence, trend — cases). The point is in the factors involved, not in the actual numbers.

pc:

> See the second revision of my definition of "intersection>" It is not right,

> of course, but it indicates the kinds of factors that go into such questions

> — if we are going to be precise and not just "generally" or "typically" and

> let our illformed intuitions carry over from English.

I'm willing to go along with any proposal for lo'e/le'e,

I just don't think these cmavo are worth the trouble they

cause. What I have now is as close as I could make it to the

traditional/CLL definitions. Your "intersection" definition

is interesting, but I don't see how it helps to decide in

a particular case whether to use lo'e or not, since the

calculations are all theoretical and there is no way to

carry them out. I wouldn't know how to write the Lojban

for it either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> {su'o} is redundant in {su'o so'e} since {so'e}, like {su'o} sets a lower

> limit.

There seem to be (at least) two interpretations for how {so'e} works.

One interpretation says that so'e is a regular member of the

so'u-so'o-so'i-so'e-so'a series, such that so'u is some

indefinite number greater than no and less than so'o,

so'o is some indefinite number greater than so'u and less

than so'i, so'i is some indefinite number greater than so'o

and less than so'e, so'e is some indefinite number greater

than so'i and less than so'a, and so'a is some indefinite

number greater than so'e and less than ro. Under this

interpretation (which is CLL's as far as I can tell) so'e

does not just set a lower limit but an upper one as well.

{su'o so'e} opens it upwards, {su'e so'e} downwards.

The second interpretation takes the keywords more seriously,

and so is probably the one more favoured by usage. Under this

interpretation, so'u, so'o and so'i are "absolute" indefinite

numbers, meaning that they can be any number including ro

("many" could be all there is, "several" could be all there is,

"few" could be all there is.) so'e is "most", i.e. sufficiently

more than half, and so'a is "da'a so'u", "all but a few". I can't

really tell whether under this interpretation so'e can be ro.

Can "most" be all there is? It would seem that so'a ("almost all")

cannot be all there is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 24 of June, 2004 00:21 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:53:32PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> There seem to be (at least) two interpretations for how {so'e} works.

Believe me, that's on my list of things for the BPFK to straighten out.

My personal preference is that "pi so'X" is "X amount out of the total

(mass or group of objects or whatever)" and "so'X" is [[what%20you%20would%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eexpect%20the%20keyword%20X%20to%20mean|what you would

expect the keyword X to mean]] number of objects, but we'll deal with

that later.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of June, 2004 02:26 GMT posts: 2388

Oops! I either missed or forgot page 440 of CLL, which does give the fivefold division of the space from 1 to all. It does say that it *allows up to* five divisions, so the pattern is not compulsory. I expect that {so'e} is the most used and is used for ordinary "most" as per the wordlists. I haven't seen enough cases of {so'e} to check and the others are used even less. If we take the Englsih — the key words — somewhat seriously — but CLL says explicitly not to (a piece of advise that would be useful more often, since it seems to apply more often than listed) — then we get a somewhat different ordering: a few generally includes several (though may not if the class is small enough to make several be a relatively clear number (8 is traditional), "many" is the complement of "a few" (actually6, of few, that is, many takes in all just as few take in none), most goes from squeakily over one half up to an including all, and, as you note, "almost all" comes from all but 1 down to

all but a few. There seem to be two or more systems here: "many -few- a few -almost all" can be defined from "few" and "all." "Most" is firmly anchored in counting the whole set and divding by 2 and seeing whether there are more or less. "Several" floats free — it is a high few or a low many. I have to admit that I rather like the fivefold division, however. It takes us into the kind of appropriate accuracy for "generality" (Use "most")

and so on (compare the two-way division suggested for separating {su'o} from {lo}). But I do not think that these are bounded in both directions in general. "Few" runs all the way down to 0, "a few" to 1, "most" goes up from 50.0% through "all" and so is the upper level of "some" (under which they all lie). "Many" starts well below "most" ( the upper bound on "(a) few") but seems to run all the way up (note that using these intermediates when the right answer is "all" is frowned upon if you know what the answer is, but allowed if you only later find it out). "Almost all" is bounded both ways by all-1 at the top and "all-many" at the bottom( that is, just the first place that "all - a few" no longer applies). And several still floats free around the "a few - many" break, probably a few more but, obviously, less than a few less. It would be nice to figure out what the pragmatics of these are: what information is the speaker meaning to give (and what withhold) by each of the, what

is the hearer entitled to infer from the speaker using one of them, under what circumstances can one be called out for using one, and so on (I find it hard to believe that no one has dome this for English (which, it seems to me, has more of these critters than most other languages).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {su'o} is redundant in {su'o so'e} since {so'e}, like {su'o} sets a lower

> limit.

There seem to be (at least) two interpretations for how {so'e} works.

One interpretation says that so'e is a regular member of the

so'u-so'o-so'i-so'e-so'a series, such that so'u is some

indefinite number greater than no and less than so'o,

so'o is some indefinite number greater than so'u and less

than so'i, so'i is some indefinite number greater than so'o

and less than so'e, so'e is some indefinite number greater

than so'i and less than so'a, and so'a is some indefinite

number greater than so'e and less than ro. Under this

interpretation (which is CLL's as far as I can tell) so'e

does not just set a lower limit but an upper one as well.

{su'o so'e} opens it upwards, {su'e so'e} downwards.

The second interpretation takes the keywords more seriously,

and so is probably the one more favoured by usage. Under this

interpretation, so'u, so'o and so'i are "absolute" indefinite

numbers, meaning that they can be any number including ro

("many" could be all there is, "several" could be all there is,

"few" could be all there is.) so'e is "most", i.e. sufficiently

more than half, and so'a is "da'a so'u", "all but a few". I can't

really tell whether under this interpretation so'e can be ro.

Can "most" be all there is? It would seem that so'a ("almost all")

cannot be all there is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by rab.spir on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:39 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:00:00PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition, with 2, 15.

I said "a set", not "all sets". What matters is that there exists AT LEAST ONE

set of most of the broda such that everything in it has that property.

--

Rob Speer



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:43:04AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > > I would propose that outer quantifiers for these quantify over

> > > members, just as is the case for le/la. The idea behind the

> > > current definitions is that you can say {pimu lei prenu} for "half

> > > of the people (taken as a group)". To say the same thing with the

> > > fixed definition you would have to say {lo pimu lei prenu}. And

> > > similarly {lo'i pimu le'i prenu} for a set with half of the

> > > members of {le'i prenu}. I think this additional {lo} is a small

> > > price to pay for the big gain in consistency.

> >

> > Can you give some before and after examples?

>

> I can't think of any with le'i. With lei:

>

> Now:

> le kumfa cu culno pimu lei prenu

> le kumfa cu culno pa fi'u re lei prenu

> The room is full with half of the people

>

> Suggested:

> le kumfa cu culno lo pimu lei prenu

> le kumfa cu culno lo pa fi'u re lei prenu

> The room is full with half of the people

>

> Without {lo}, the sentences would say that one out of every

> two of the persons fills the room by themself.

It does? Wouldn't it be more like "Half a person, out of this mass

people, fills the room"?

Does "pimu le ci prenu" in xorlo mean "Half a person, out of a group of

three people"?

What does "pa lei prenu" mean in xorlo? "One out of this mass of

people"?

What does it mean in old-lo, if anything?

> > As I asked elsewhere, do you know how much usage is affected?

>

> I suspect very little. I don't think fractional quantifiers

> have seen much usage.

Pending your response to my comments, I'm willing to support that,

provided you do some legwork on looking for past usage.

I'd offer to do it myself except, umm, I'm not going to. :-)

I'm working on making the Search box on lojban.org have the mailing

lists in it; that should be done by tomorrow. Right now it doesn't work

at all.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT posts: 2388

But this is a remarkably weak condition. It comes down to "most of the things have the property" which why not say rather than going through subsets and the like?

Rob Speer wrote:On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:00:00PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets of most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the condition, with 2, 15.

I said "a set", not "all sets". What matters is that there exists AT LEAST ONE

set of most of the broda such that everything in it has that property.

--

Rob Speer



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 25 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 09:06:16AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > I think it would be worth updating the expansions to make it clear

> > that all whole-bridi tenses *stay* whole-bridi tenses, if that's

> > what's wanted (and I think it is).

>

snip many examples of how complicated this gets

Ack.

OK, the problem of "these transformations don't always work" if you go

for complicated enough examples is probably not fixable.

In that case, I'd like a note that says "The meaning of these

transformations may not be preserved with more complicated expressions".

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.

"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple

inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased.

http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi



Posted by xorxes on Fri 25 of June, 2004 04:18 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> > Now:

> > le kumfa cu culno pimu lei prenu

> > le kumfa cu culno pa fi'u re lei prenu

> > The room is full with half of the people

> >

> > Suggested:

> > le kumfa cu culno lo pimu lei prenu

> > le kumfa cu culno lo pa fi'u re lei prenu

> > The room is full with half of the people

> >

> > Without {lo}, the sentences would say that one out of every

> > two of the persons fills the room by themself.

>

> It does? Wouldn't it be more like "Half a person, out of this mass

> people, fills the room"?

>

> Does "pimu le ci prenu" in xorlo mean "Half a person, out of a group of

> three people"?

No, it is supposed to mean "half of the three people", "one out of

every two of the three people", not very meaningful with these

particular choice of numbers.

But whatever it means I would think will be decided when we do

quantifiers, not when we do gadri. My preference is for fractional

quantifiers to work as proposed by And:

Quantifier expressions

XS& proposes that, at least for the outer quantifier of lo and le, quantifier

expressions are underlyingly fractional/rational (i.e. expressing

fractions/ratios), as follows (brackets mark elidable defaults):

PA (fi'u ro)

"PA (out of all)"

PA1 fi'u PA2 = piPA

"PA1 out of every PA2, PA1 per PA2"

(ro fi'u) ro(PA) = ro(PA) (fi'u ro)

"each of all PA"

Because ot the "(pa) fi'u" convention:

(pa) fi'u PA2

"one out of every PA2, one per PA2"

(pa) fi'u roPA2

"one out of all PA2"

As a new abbreviatory convention, fi'u could be elidable between PA and ro:

PA1 (fi'u) roPA2

"PA1 out of all PA2" (= CLL {PA1 lo PA2})

Finally, the more complex expressions

PA1 fi'u PA2 ro PA3

(pa) fi'u PA2 ro PA3

piPA ro PA3

could be used for things like "three quarters of all 200". "75% of the over

five hundred graduates from our college find jobs in the first 3 months after

graduation": {pi ze mu ro za'u mu no no -graduates from our college ...".

These fractional quantifiers can be collectivized:

"I am among exactly one group of half my (dozen) friends"

mi nenri pa lo pimu (rogai) lo pendo be mi

> What does "pa lei prenu" mean in xorlo? "One out of this mass of

> people"?

{lei} is not really part of xorlo. I gave it a definition as close

as I could make it to what it means in CLL, just because I had to

give it one. In pure xorlo there would be no {lei}.

> What does it mean in old-lo, if anything?

{pa lei prenu} is not defined in CLL, but using And's proposal,

it is {pa fi'u ro lei prenu} and means "a fraction of lei prenu

consisting of a single prenu".

> > > As I asked elsewhere, do you know how much usage is affected?

> >

> > I suspect very little. I don't think fractional quantifiers

> > have seen much usage.

>

> Pending your response to my comments, I'm willing to support that,

> provided you do some legwork on looking for past usage.

I don't care that much one way or the other, but I thought it

would be better to make outer quantifiers more systematic.

> I'd offer to do it myself except, umm, I'm not going to. :-)

>

> I'm working on making the Search box on lojban.org have the mailing

> lists in it; that should be done by tomorrow. Right now it doesn't work

> at all.

OK, I'll see what comes out tomorrow.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by rab.spir on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:18 GMT posts: 152

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:12:37PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> But this is a remarkably weak condition. It comes down to "most of the things have the property" which why not say rather than going through subsets and the like?

Well, of course it means most of the things have the property, that's the

point. I don't know why sets are involved; I assumed there was a good reason

for xorxes to define it that way.

What do you think it should mean? (Note: nobody wants to count subsets.)

--

Rob Speer



Posted by pycyn on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT posts: 2388

Well, as you know if you have been following all this, I don't think it is a counting matter at all. But if it were, I suppose it would be just {so'o broda cu brode}, however that then would expand in something like xorxes' system. The bare statement of this sort makes its inadequacy very clear.

Rob Speer wrote:On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:12:37PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> But this is a remarkably weak condition. It comes down to "most of the things have the property" which why not say rather than going through subsets and the like?

Well, of course it means most of the things have the property, that's the

point. I don't know why sets are involved; I assumed there was a good reason

for xorxes to define it that way.

What do you think it should mean? (Note: nobody wants to count subsets.)

--

Rob Speer



Posted by lojbab on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT posts: 162

At 02:06 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

>--- John E Clifford wrote:

> > This suggestion is actually worse: there are from a set of five, 16 sets=

of

> > most of the broda (more than 2.5). With one non-brode 11 fail the=20

> condition,

> > with 2, 15.

>

>Hmm.

>

>OK, I'm going back to {mutce kampu} unless someone comes up with

>a better way to say common/general in a non-absolute sense.

The following two are all relative commons, and comparative and=20

superlatives can be used effectively with them:

cafne for common/frequent

fadni for common/ordinary

Then there is

ckaji leka piso'i vo'a broda

(or piso'a, or piso'e)

which gives several degrees of generality

Finally some generalizations are conveyed by sucta and others by tarmi;=20

these usually are idealizations rather than necessarily being properties of=

=20

any specific example. In the abstract, birds fly, even though some birds=20

do not, and a "bird in flight" is a recognized tarmi even though one will=20

never see an ostrich in that position/shape.

No idea if these help, since I cannot follow the argument.

--=20

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by lojbab on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT posts: 162

At 02:30 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > "universal" is absolutely absolute.

>

>Of course, but it's only one of the key words, and you're ignoring

>"general", which directly contradicts your theory.

A general property of triangles is that they have 3 sides. General

properties in mathematics (and software) are those shared by an entire

class of objects, not merely a relatively large number of them.

> > If Jane, Mary and Tom have a friend "in common", they EACH have that

> > friend or else that friend is not held "in common". I think those

> > arguing for "more" are using meaning #3 or #4.

>

>Your theory fits neither the keyword 'general' nor the keyword

>'universan'. Seriously: try to talk about the same kind of thing

>(sharing a identical relationship to an object) using either the word

>"general" or the word "universal".

A general property of the members of the set {Jane, Mary, and Tom} is

friendship with X.

I would understand that as a claim that each of the three is to some degree

a friend of X.

> > The applicable meaning of "general" (also from

> > www.merriam-webster.com): 4 : belonging to the common nature of a

> > group of like individuals : GENERIC

>

>Which relates to properties, not relationships or objects. You've just

>argued against yourself.

kampu is about properties.

>Furthermore, you had to go all the way to meaning 4 to get it.

>

>What about these:

>

>1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole

matches universal

>2 : involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class,

>kind, or group

matches universal

>3 : not confined by specialization or careful limitation

>

>All of which fit my meaning of kampu more than yours.

not limited, means that they apply to all, matches universal

> > And, for "universal":

> >

> > 1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or

> > distributively without limit or exception.

>

>That's only one keyword.

>

> > Note that one meaning they all have in common is the absolute one.

>

>Oh you *MUST* be joking!

No, she wasn't.

>What happened to "gismu are defined as broadly as possible", hmm?

>

>Among other things, that argument means that cribe cannot refer to teddy

>bears.

Of course they can. Both of them are "bears" in some sense and both are

"ursoids" in some sense.

>By that logic, "vorme" has no meaning, because "doorway" and "gateway"

>have no definitions in common at all (one is a place you put a door, the

>other is a place you put a gate).

A door is a gate is a door in the abstract sense.

>Nor do any of the chemical words, because they have the option of both

>"containing" the chemical and "being a quantity of" the chemical; if we

>require that all they words in the definition have something in common,

>we're left with either nothing or something that is a superset of

>itself.

So obviously we are faced with the limitations of English in defining words

within 100 characters.

>In short:

>

>1. "kampu" cannot possibly mean "common" as in "we share a friend in

>common" as written.

Yes it can, because the property of being a friend to X is universal to

both of us.

The property of being opposed to al Qaeda is not universal or common to

citizens of the US, or a general property of them, because a few citizens

apparently support al Qaeda.

But we do start seeing a breakdown here, is that it is some sense a general

property of fish that they cannot live on land, but then there exist

lungfish that can. For that we may wish to invoke the ideal fish, which

would probably use sucta, or perhaps fadni. Or we can decide that a

lungfish is not really a fish, and delve into fuzzy logic.

>2. If you are going to say that "kampu" only applies to characteristics

>that *every* member of the set shares, you've just broken the gismu

>generality tenet, as well as making the word utterly useless. We

>already have "simxu mintu" and friends.

We also have words for relative commonality as opposed to the absolute.

Nora did not mention it BTW, but kampu, as defined is closely akin to x2 of

girzu, a defining property of a group. Probably not identical (if only

because girzu has more places), but very similar.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by xorxes on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:19 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab:

> The following two are all relative commons, and comparative and=20

> superlatives can be used effectively with them:

>

> cafne for common/frequent

>

> fadni for common/ordinary

Wrong place structure for what is wanted.

We need "property x1 is very common among the members of x2"

(Is cafne temporal only?)

> Then there is

>

> ckaji leka piso'i vo'a broda

> (or piso'a, or piso'e)

>

> which gives several degrees of generality

But that's like defining lo'e = so'i/so'e/so'a, isn't it?

=lo'i broda cu ckaji leka piso'i vo'a brode

=piso'i lo'i broda cu brode

=so'i broda cu brode

> Finally some generalizations are conveyed by sucta and others by tarmi;=20

> these usually are idealizations rather than necessarily being properties of=

> any specific example. In the abstract, birds fly, even though some birds=20

> do not, and a "bird in flight" is a recognized tarmi even though one will=20

> never see an ostrich in that position/shape.

But how would you say those in Lojban?

lo tarmi be lo cipni cu vofli?

lo sucta be lo cipni cu vofli?

> No idea if these help, since I cannot follow the argument.

All we need is some way of saying "propery x1 is typical/common

among members of of x2".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab:

> Nora did not mention it BTW, but kampu, as defined is closely akin to x2 of

> girzu, a defining property of a group. Probably not identical (if only

> because girzu has more places), but very similar.

x1 of kampu is not a defining property of set x2, if by

defining property we understand a property such that

anything and everything that has that property is a

member of the set.

It would be useful to have a brivla for "x1 is the defining

property of set x2", but kampu, whether absolute or not, is

not it.

I can't really tell from the wording of the gi'uste whether

x2 of girzu is a defining property of x1 of girzu. Is it

intended to be?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> I can't really tell from the wording of the gi'uste whether

> x2 of girzu is a defining property of x1 of girzu. Is it

> intended to be?

Yes, it is.

--

Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan

wise wives welcome the spring [email protected]

by moving the Unix. http://www.reutershealth.com

--ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

(see unix3image.gif)



Posted by xorxes on Fri 25 of June, 2004 19:30 GMT posts: 1912


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > I can't really tell from the wording of the gi'uste whether

> > x2 of girzu is a defining property of x1 of girzu. Is it

> > intended to be?

>

> Yes, it is.

girzu gir gri group

x1 is group/cluster/team showing common property (ka) x2 due

to set x3 linked by relations x4

[also collection, team, comprised of, comprising; members x3

(a specification of the complete membership) comprise group x1;

In that case "showing common property" should be replaced by

"with defining property", or something like that.

What are the relations x4?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by pycyn on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 2388

As we used to say in Philosophy of Science classes (quoting I know not whom) "Science is not concerned with three-legged dogs>"

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Finally some generalizations are conveyed by sucta and others by tarmi;=20

these usually are idealizations rather than necessarily being properties of=

=20

any specific example. In the abstract, birds fly, even though some birds=20

do not, and a "bird in flight" is a recognized tarmi even though one will=20

never see an ostrich in that position/shape.

No idea if these help, since I cannot follow the argument.



Posted by pycyn on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 2388

A> We may have to rewrite a little — it is not the preoerty per se that occurs but the event of some object of the class having that property (there is only one ka broda — maybe,, but say so for now — but it is frequently locused. I suspect this goes back in part to an old {ka} {du'u} distinction.).

B> Which is at least occasionally right, whereas other attempts are not demonstrably so.

C> I don't get these either {lo nu lo cipni cu vofli ku tarmi lo cipni} (there miust be an anticipatory pronoun so I don't have to repeat {lo cifni) in the abstract.)

D> So, make a lujvo; there seems to be no shortage of candidates for the basic tanru.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

lojbab:

> The following two are all relative commons, and comparative and=20

> superlatives can be used effectively with them:

>

> cafne for common/frequent

>

> fadni for common/ordinary

A>Wrong place structure for what is wanted.

We need "property x1 is very common among the members of x2"

(Is cafne temporal only?)

> Then there is

>

> ckaji leka piso'i vo'a broda

> (or piso'a, or piso'e)

>

> which gives several degrees of generality

B>But that's like defining lo'e = so'i/so'e/so'a, isn't it?

=lo'i broda cu ckaji leka piso'i vo'a brode

=piso'i lo'i broda cu brode

=so'i broda cu brode

> Finally some generalizations are conveyed by sucta and others by tarmi;=20

> these usually are idealizations rather than necessarily being properties of=

> any specific example. In the abstract, birds fly, even though some birds=20

> do not, and a "bird in flight" is a recognized tarmi even though one will=20

> never see an ostrich in that position/shape.

C>But how would you say those in Lojban?

lo tarmi be lo cipni cu vofli?

lo sucta be lo cipni cu vofli?

> No idea if these help, since I cannot follow the argument.

D>All we need is some way of saying "propery x1 is typical/common

among members of of x2".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 2388

A> Probably not quite enough; that's just mingling: all Persian cats are in the set of cats, but they are in it because they are cats, not because they are Persian cats (clearer examples would require thought - sorry)

B> Lordy, {girzu} is obscure in a fairly novel way; I was expecting something like {-mei}, where you can't tell what the members are members of. But, hey, here is a common property (in the "all have it" sense). I think (I don't know what 3 and 4 do). It does seem to be defining — it is what brings the group together (unless 3 and 4 do something along this line), whereas {kampu1} is just another property that seems to occur often in the group once assembled.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

lojbab:

> Nora did not mention it BTW, but kampu, as defined is closely akin to x2 of

> girzu, a defining property of a group. Probably not identical (if only

> because girzu has more places), but very similar.

B>x1 of kampu is not a defining property of set x2, if by

defining property we understand a property such that

anything and everything that has that property is a

member of the set.

It would be useful to have a brivla for "x1 is the defining

property of set x2", but kampu, whether absolute or not, is

not it.

I can't really tell from the wording of the gi'uste whether

x2 of girzu is a defining property of x1 of girzu. Is it

intended to be?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Fri 25 of June, 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> Ack.

>

> OK, the problem of "these transformations don't always work" if you go

> for complicated enough examples is probably not fixable.

>

> In that case, I'd like a note that says "The meaning of these

> transformations may not be preserved with more complicated expressions".

I added a note to that effect.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Sun 27 of June, 2004 00:35 GMT posts: 2388

2 other, closely related, standard ways of dealing with denotationless sumti, embarassingly left out of an earlier list. The Lojban way (at least semi-official): use of a denotationless sumti (at least recto — under an even number of negations) takes the conversation into talking about a world in which the sumti is not denotationless. The other explains this: every denotationless sumti occurs in an (implicit or explicit) opaque context, "Common lore has it that" (or something like that) uif nothing else.As noted the last has the virtue of explaining the one before and brings denotationless sumti under an existing problem, opaque contexts, where they can be dealt with like everything els, in terms of intensions rather than extensions. And it is even usually plausible. But the implausible cases are the hardest, those involving {zasti} and {xanri} and the like.



Posted by pycyn on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:14 GMT posts: 2388

Elaboration and combination of earlier proposals:

lo broda cu brode

su'o broda cu brode

su'o da poi broda cu brode

su'o da ge da broda gi da brode

Technically these are all equivalent with one another, however they are used rather differently (have been in fact and now will be by design). {lo broda} is used to make general claims about brodas over time and space — presumably more than occasionally and widely distributed (for brodas), occasional exceptions don't undercut the claim nor will an occasional agreement establish it. (su'o broda} is the coimplement of this, about occasional events, limited in time or space; the appropriate way, for example, to introduce characters in a story, rather than make claims about a kind. {su'o da} is literal, more than one, and is carried through in a totally literal logical manner. The difference between {poi broda} and {ge broda} is between restricted aand unrestricted qunatifers, which, for particular quantifers, is nugatory. In logic they behave differently under negation: the first is a restricted quantifier and thus universal have existential impot; the second is unrestricted and

thus import free — for brodas.

Incidentally, the {su'o} in {su'o da} should not be omitted, since {da} alone has been (and should be) used for exemplary and formulaic purposes — not unlike "x" and "a broda" in formalistic English.

ro lo broda cu brode

ro broda cu brode

ro da poi broda cu brode

ro da ganai da broda gi da brode

The pattern here matches that above: {ro lo broda} is again a general claim but admitting an unspecified number of exceptions. When derived from {naku lo broda} by negation transfer, it is practically indistinguishable from {lo broda naku}. {ro broda} behaves similarly on the local level. {ro da} is literal, allowing no exceptions and with the usual distinctions between restricted and unrestricted forms.

Note: {no} also fits into this pattern, allowing appropriately distributed exceptions for the ones without explicit variables and not with those with variables.

Real numbers, alone or modified to parameters, are all literal, as precise as permitted, but still — in the first two uses — differentiated between general and occasional ("One lion eats one gnu" vs. "A lion ate a gnu").

The {so'V} series are precisings of the {ro}-{su'o} axis, general, occasional or literal as the case may be (some of unrestricted literals are virtually useless, of course). {so'e} stands out in this list as having a precise lower bound — 50%, though not an upper. {so'u} starts from 1 and runs to {so'i}, {so'o} overlaps {so'u} and {so'i} — not going as far down as the former nor as far up as the latter (probably not even as fara as {so'e}). {so'a} is basically {da'a so'u}. But in the first two patterns each is taken generally or occasionally. [[%7Bso'u%7D%20and%20%7Bso'e%7D%20are%20almost%20duals:%20The%20real%20dual%20of%20%7Bso'e%7D%20allows%20the%20zero%20case%20(|{so'u} and {so'e} are almost duals: The real dual of {so'e} allows the zero case ("few" rather than "a few" in english), so is {na'e so'e naku} rather than {naku so'u naku}.]]



Posted by pycyn on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:14 GMT posts: 2388

My head having reemerged into daylight, I correct this to:

{so'e} and {so'u} are amost contradictories. The real contradictory of {so'e} would be something that said few (possibly no), while {so'u} says (apparently) few but definitely some. Similarly, the apparent contradictory of {so'u} is "many or none." It would seem natural to change {so'u} to "few" rather than "a few" and so fit the pattern. On the other hand, we already have an expression for "few": {naku so'e} and the existential import is often more useful than {e su'o} (or whatever the appropriate form is in the context) suggests.

{so'u} and {so'e} are almost duals: The real dual of {so'e} allows the zero case ("few" rather than "a few" in english), so is {na'e so'e naku} rather than {naku so'u naku}.]



Posted by xorxes on Mon 28 of June, 2004 21:26 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Incidentally, the {su'o} in {su'o da} should not be omitted, since {da} alone

> has been (and should be) used for exemplary and formulaic purposes — not

> unlike "x" and "a broda" in formalistic English.

I agree with that bit. For example:

Principles. You can't say A is made of B or vice versa. All mass

is interaction. --Richard Feynman

lo jicmu zo'u je'unai da de marji gi'a se marji ije ro marji

cu nu gaursi'u --sei la ritcrd feinman cu cusku

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 29 of June, 2004 19:23 GMT posts: 1912

An interesting analysis can be made if we first write the

standard quantifiers in terms of pa:

ro = za'u da'apa

no = me'i pa

su'o = su'o pa

me'i = su'e da'apa

This scheme can be generalized by writing X instead of pa:

za'u da'aX (> X')

me'i X (< X)

su'o X (>= X)

su'e da'aX (<= X')

where X' is da'aX, the complement of X.

If we set X=the minimum required number, then its complement

X'= the maximum allowed number. Then we have the rau-series:

du'e = za'u da'aX = more than the maximum allowed number = too many

mo'a = me'i X = less than the minimum required number = too few

rau = su'o X = at least the minimum required number = enough

me'idu'e = su'e da'aX = at most the maximum allowed number = not too many

If we set X=so'u "a few", then X'= so'a "almost all" = "all but a few".

Then we have:

za'u so'a "virtually all"

me'i so'u "virtually no"

su'o so'u "some" ("more than one" to the extent that "a few" is more than one)

su'e so'a "not all" ("with more than one exception" to the extent that "a few"

is more than one)

which is very similar to the standard su'o-series, with a slight

strengthening of the particulars and corresponding weakening of

the universals.

If we now move to X=so'o "several", let's say "a significant number",

and X' = "all but a significant number", then we have:

za'u da'a so'o "practically all" (an insignificant number of exceptions)

me'i so'o "practically no" (less than a significant number)

su'o so'o "some, at least a significant number"

su'e da'a so's "not all, by a significant number"

Now we may consider X=pimu (50%). Then X'=pimu (50%) also, and

we have:

za'u pimu "more than 50%"

me'i pimu "less than 50%"

su'o pimu "at least 50%"

su'e pimu "at most 50%"

If we define so'i as za'uso'u je me'iso'a, "more than a few and

less than almost all", then its complement da'aso'i is also so'i.

(This does not quite correspond to the English "many", which

probably doesn't have an upper bound or if it does it's only

by implicature, but Lojban is already weird in that all numbers

are exact, so that "50% do" entails "50% don't", and we also

already have so'u and so'a with both lower and upper bounds, so

let's say so'i is like that too.) Then for the so'i-series

we have:

za'u so'i "more than many", one sense of "most"?

me'i so'i "less than many", "few"

su'o so'i "at least many", "many"

su'e so'i "at most many", "not all by a long shot"

Let's say that a minority is more than none but less than 50%,

and a majority is understood as more than 50% but less than all.

If so'e is "a majority" then da'a so'e is "a minority".

Then for X=so'e:

za'u da'a so'e "more than a minority"

me'i so'e "less than a majority"

su'o so'e "at least a majority"

su'e da'a so'e "at most a minority"

For X=da'aso'e, we seem to replicate the basic su'o-series:

za'u so'e "more than a majority" =? ro

me'i da'aso'e "less than a minority" =? no

su'o da'aso'e "at least a minority" =? su'o

su'e so'e "at most a majority" =? me'i

One possibility is to define so'o as da'aso'e. Then we would

have:

ro = da'a no

me'i = da'a su'o

du'e = da'a mo'a

me'idu'e = da'a rau

so'a = da'a so'u

so'e = da'a so'o

so'i = da'a so'i

so'o = da'a so'e

so'u = da'a so'a

rau = da'a me'idu'e

mo'a = da'a du'e

su'o = da'a me'i

no = da'a ro

All these series show how the quantifiers behave when passing

through negation boundaries.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of June, 2004 19:23 GMT posts: 2388

A> In this case, "complement" seems to mean "polar opposite," as far down from all as X is up from 0 (or the opposite)

B> this seems to be another sense of "complement" since these concepts are not generally symmetrical in the way previously described. That is, the maximum number allowed is not usually all minus the minimum number needed, assuming this makes any sense. But the pattern — this detail aside — does seem to go through.

C> A nice suggestion; "several" was in danger of being practically useless but calling it "a significant number" saves it. Of course, what number is significant varies on the basis of any number of factors and is even occasionally very precise (statistical comparisons, for example). But it is also usually pretty vague, like the others (including "all" often).

D> But negation (contradictory opposite) is never mentioned here. The relations are for the most part either polar or contrary. I suppose that these formulae would help wortk out what negation does do, but they don't show it.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

An interesting analysis can be made if we first write the

standard quantifiers in terms of pa:

ro = za'u da'apa

no = me'i pa

su'o = su'o pa

me'i = su'e da'apa

This scheme can be generalized by writing X instead of pa:

za'u da'aX (> X')

me'i X (< X)

su'o X (>= X)

su'e da'aX (<= X')

A>where X' is da'aX, the complement of X.

B>If we set X=the minimum required number, then its complement

X'= the maximum allowed number. Then we have the rau-series:

du'e = za'u da'aX = more than the maximum allowed number = too many

mo'a = me'i X = less than the minimum required number = too few

rau = su'o X = at least the minimum required number = enough

me'idu'e = su'e da'aX = at most the maximum allowed number = not too many

If we set X=so'u "a few", then X'= so'a "almost all" = "all but a few".

Then we have:

za'u so'a "virtually all"

me'i so'u "virtually no"

su'o so'u "some" ("more than one" to the extent that "a few" is more than one)

su'e so'a "not all" ("with more than one exception" to the extent that "a few"

is more than one)

which is very similar to the standard su'o-series, with a slight

strengthening of the particulars and corresponding weakening of

the universals.

C>If we now move to X=so'o "several", let's say "a significant number",

and X' = "all but a significant number", then we have:

za'u da'a so'o "practically all" (an insignificant number of exceptions)

me'i so'o "practically no" (less than a significant number)

su'o so'o "some, at least a significant number"

su'e da'a so's "not all, by a significant number"

Now we may consider X=pimu (50%). Then X'=pimu (50%) also, and

we have:

za'u pimu "more than 50%"

me'i pimu "less than 50%"

su'o pimu "at least 50%"

su'e pimu "at most 50%"

If we define so'i as za'uso'u je me'iso'a, "more than a few and

less than almost all", then its complement da'aso'i is also so'i.

(This does not quite correspond to the English "many", which

probably doesn't have an upper bound or if it does it's only

by implicature, but Lojban is already weird in that all numbers

are exact, so that "50% do" entails "50% don't", and we also

already have so'u and so'a with both lower and upper bounds, so

let's say so'i is like that too.) Then for the so'i-series

we have:

za'u so'i "more than many", one sense of "most"?

me'i so'i "less than many", "few"

su'o so'i "at least many", "many"

su'e so'i "at most many", "not all by a long shot"

Let's say that a minority is more than none but less than 50%,

and a majority is understood as more than 50% but less than all.

If so'e is "a majority" then da'a so'e is "a minority".

Then for X=so'e:

za'u da'a so'e "more than a minority"

me'i so'e "less than a majority"

su'o so'e "at least a majority"

su'e da'a so'e "at most a minority"

For X=da'aso'e, we seem to replicate the basic su'o-series:

za'u so'e "more than a majority" =? ro

me'i da'aso'e "less than a minority" =? no

su'o da'aso'e "at least a minority" =? su'o

su'e so'e "at most a majority" =? me'i

One possibility is to define so'o as da'aso'e. Then we would

have:

ro = da'a no

me'i = da'a su'o

du'e = da'a mo'a

me'idu'e = da'a rau

so'a = da'a so'u

so'e = da'a so'o

so'i = da'a so'i

so'o = da'a so'e

so'u = da'a so'a

rau = da'a me'idu'e

mo'a = da'a du'e

su'o = da'a me'i

no = da'a ro

D>All these series show how the quantifiers behave when passing

through negation boundaries.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> A> In this case, "complement" seems to mean "polar opposite," as far down

> from all as X is up from 0 (or the opposite)

I mean that if X is the number that do, the complement of X is the

number that don't. So X and its complement add up to all.

> B> this seems to be another sense of "complement" since these concepts are

> not generally symmetrical in the way previously described. That is, the

> maximum number allowed is not usually all minus the minimum number needed,

> assuming this makes any sense. But the pattern — this detail aside — does

> seem to go through.

My thinking was: if X is the minimum number required that do, then

its complement is the maximum number allowed that don't. We could

simply set X = "the right number". Then it's complement is also

"the right number", though it will be a different right number, X is

the right number that do, and X' the right number that don't, which

will be the remaining.

> D> But negation (contradictory opposite) is never mentioned here. The

> relations are for the most part either polar or contrary. I suppose that

> these formulae would help wortk out what negation does do, but they don't

> show it.

In all cases:

za'uda'aX = me'iX naku = naku su'oX naku = naku su'eda'aX

In other words, the contradictory pairs are:

{za'uda'aX} and {su'eda'aX}

{me'iX} and {su'oX}

The complementaries are:

{za'uda'aX} and {me'iX}

{su'oX} and {su'eda'aX}

The duals are:

{za'uda'aX} and {su'oX}

{me'iX} and {su'eda'aX}

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT posts: 2388

A'> That does clear that up; thanks. I assume this is going to flow through the rest of the cases:X' is the number of things that don't when X of them do. This added infornation makes the list more coherent. It makes me wonder if there are trivial details of this sort missing from other expositions that did not quite jell. But for now, this seems to work out all right, though a little more step by step on the last runs, when negation actually does appear, would sirely not be out of place.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A> In this case, "complement" seems to mean "polar opposite," as far down

> from all as X is up from 0 (or the opposite)

A'>I mean that if X is the number that do, the complement of X is the

number that don't. So X and its complement add up to all.

> B> this seems to be another sense of "complement" since these concepts are

> not generally symmetrical in the way previously described. That is, the

> maximum number allowed is not usually all minus the minimum number needed,

> assuming this makes any sense. But the pattern — this detail aside — does

> seem to go through.

My thinking was: if X is the minimum number required that do, then

its complement is the maximum number allowed that don't. We could

simply set X = "the right number". Then it's complement is also

"the right number", though it will be a different right number, X is

the right number that do, and X' the right number that don't, which

will be the remaining.

> D> But negation (contradictory opposite) is never mentioned here. The

> relations are for the most part either polar or contrary. I suppose that

> these formulae would help wortk out what negation does do, but they don't

> show it.

In all cases:

D'>za'uda'aX = me'iX naku = naku su'oX naku = naku su'eda'aX

In other words, the contradictory pairs are:

{za'uda'aX} and {su'eda'aX}

{me'iX} and {su'oX}

The complementaries are:

{za'uda'aX} and {me'iX}

{su'oX} and {su'eda'aX}

The duals are:

{za'uda'aX} and {su'oX}

{me'iX} and {su'eda'aX}

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com



Posted by xorxes on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:48 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> But for now, this seems to work out all right, though a

> little more step by step on the last runs, when negation actually does

> appear, would sirely not be out of place.

The contradictory pairs:

{me'iX} and {su'oX}

Either "less than X" or "at least X" must be true,

and they can't both be true.

{za'uda'aX} and {su'eda'aX}

Either "more than X'" or "at most X'" must be true,

and they can't both be true.

The complementaries are:

{su'oX} and {su'eda'aX}

If "at least X do" then "at most all but X don't",

and vice versa. In other words, the limit between the

do's and the don't's is at X or beyond.

{za'uda'aX} and {me'iX}

Here the limit between the do's and the don'ts is

before X.

The duals are:

{za'uda'aX} and {su'oX}

{me'iX} and {su'eda'aX}

These follow from the previous pairs. The dual is the

contrary of the complement (or the complement of the

contrary, which turns out the same).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 29 of June, 2004 21:49 GMT posts: 1912

Jorge Llambías:

> The duals are:

> {za'uda'aX} and {su'oX}

> {me'iX} and {su'eda'aX}

>

> These follow from the previous pairs. The dual is the

> contrary of the complement (or the complement of the

> contrary, which turns out the same).

Those should have been "contradictory" rather than "contrary".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT posts: 2388

A "contradictory of the complement" I'm not sure what a contrary would be; I guess the "greater than" and "less than" without the "or equal" (and the subcontraries would be when both have the equality included).

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> But for now, this seems to work out all right, though a

> little more step by step on the last runs, when negation actually does

> appear, would sirely not be out of place.

The contradictory pairs:

{me'iX} and {su'oX}

Either "less than X" or "at least X" must be true,

and they can't both be true.

{za'uda'aX} and {su'eda'aX}

Either "more than X'" or "at most X'" must be true,

and they can't both be true.

The complementaries are:

{su'oX} and {su'eda'aX}

If "at least X do" then "at most all but X don't",

and vice versa. In other words, the limit between the

do's and the don't's is at X or beyond.

{za'uda'aX} and {me'iX}

Here the limit between the do's and the don'ts is

before X.

The duals are:

{za'uda'aX} and {su'oX}

{me'iX} and {su'eda'aX}

A>These follow from the previous pairs. The dual is the

contrary of the complement (or the complement of the

contrary, which turns out the same).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by noras on Wed 30 of June, 2004 03:40 GMT posts: 23

At 07:30 PM 6/17/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:

>noras:

> > 1. On "lo": "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,

> > lo can be omitted." I thought PA broda = PA da poi broda. Does PA lo

> broda

> > also mean PA da poi broda? I thought we were disassociating these two.

>

>What we are disassociating is {lo broda} from {su'o lo broda}.

>{su'o lo broda} remains equivalent to {su'o broda}. Bare

>{lo broda} is not quantified.

Oh. OK. Got it, now.

> > 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished from these

> > definitions, so that the expressions without an explicit outer

> quantifier are

> > constants, i.e. they are not quantified expressions. ". Does this mean I

> > can't say "le cukta poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if there are 3 of

> them? If

> > I can, then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

>

>{le cukta} is the thing or things described as 'cukta'. There is no

>problem with it being a group of things. The difference with CLL is

>that it is not quantified, it is not a claim about each of the books,

>{ro le cukta}, it is for a claim about the books, however many, as a

>single referent.

What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

It appears that "le" now defaults to be non-distributive. How does this

differ from "lei"?

> > 3. I think the effort to formally define the gadri was a wonderful

> idea; but,

> > unless I've missed some important explanation, I can't accept this

> wording.

> > I'll comment using the "in mind" version, since that's not really changing.

> >

> > "le PA broda" = "le PAmei be fi lo broda ...": No. A "PAmei" is a mass (a

> > "lei") and not a "le". "remei" is a pair; "cimei" is a trio. See above

> > about how it affects distributions.

>

>{le} is used for groups too. Quantifiers on {le} quantify over the

>members of the group. A bare {le broda} is not a quantified expression.

Yes, "le" is sometimes used for groups. But it is also sometimes used for

distributed individuals. A PAmei is the former, and cannot be the latter.

> > Also, it is not the PAmei-ing that may

> > not so, it is the broda-ing, so that "lo" would need to be a "le"; "le ci

> > nanmu in "le ci nanmu cu ninmu" is not "the threesome made up of those that

> > really are men".

>

>{le cimei be fi lo broda} is {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u

>cimei be fi lo broda}: "that which I describe as a threesome of brodas".

>That's {le ci broda}.

>

I think of it more as "zo'e noi ke'a te cimei gi'e se skicu mi do lo ka

ce'u broda": "those, which are 3, and are each described by me to you

as something which brodas".

> > "PA1 le broda" = "PA1 cmima be le broda": It should be something like "PA1

> > cmima be le'i broda" (PA1 members of the *SET* ...". However, then

> this and

> > "le'i broda" wind up giving circular definitions.

>

>{cmima} accepts groups as the x2. {ci le bi ctuca} means "three members

>of the group of eight teachers I have in mind", i.e. three of the eight

>teachers.

You are correct that the definition of {cmima} says the x2 may be a group.

> > "lei broda cu brode" = "le broda cu kansu'i lo ka ce'u brode". I could go

> > with this, I suppose, but I don't particularly like it. How about "lo

> girzu

> > be fi le broda cu brode"? I'm not sure which piece(s) is/are the "in-mind,

> > doesn't-have-to-be-true" one(s).

>

>{le broda} is a group. {lei} just emphasizes that the brodeing is done

>collectively and not by each member on its own.

If {lei} emphasizes that the brodeing is done collectively, what then does

{le broda} do in contrast? Does "le broda" in "le broda cu kansu'i ..."

emphasize (in contrast to {lei}) that each member is, on its own, helping?

> > "lo'e broda cu brode" = "lo ka ce'u brode cu mutce kampu lo'i ro broda".

> > I've seen other comments about that "kampu". As I read it, the use of

> > "common" in the "kampu" definition isn't meant to be used for "is a common

> > occurrence/property among", but rather that some group have a property "in

> > common" (that is, they ALL have it). I am willing to be corrected on

> this if

> > I misunderstand it.

>

>The {mutce} is there to make sure we don't take {kampu} in the absolute

>sense, which wouldn't make sense with {mutce}.

>

> > "PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u

> brode". The "PA

> > lo broda" is PA instances of "lo broda", each of which helps doing brode.

> > But in the definition section, An outer quantifier can be used to quantify

> > over instances of such a group. This implies that the result is a

> number of

> > groups.

>

>Yes, that's the intent. Perhaps I should change it to {PA lo su'ore broda}?

>But I don't think we need to forbid one-member groups, even though probably

>we won't have much to say about them as opposed to individuals.

PA lo broda = PA broda (= PA da poi broda?) - correct? So I still get that

PA individuals are kansi'u-ing, not that PA groups are.

> > Very minor point - just a comment; doesn't really need a change. Since

> this

> > is a formal definition, I don't like the "mi" and "do" for whose

> in-mind-ness

> > it is. If the "le" is in a quote, it is not the speaker's in-mind-ness but

> > the in-mind-ness of the one who originally uttered the quoted piece.

>

>If it is in a quote you can't change it for its definition, otherwise you

>would be misquoting.

>

> > 4. I don't like the stuff on substance. Maybe someone can explain better.

> >

> > "To refer to substances, lo/le/la without any quantifier are

> appropriate. The

> > number {tu'o} could be used as inner quantifier to emphasize that no

> > cardinality applies.

> > 'le nanmu cu se snuti ija'ebo lo tu'o gerku cu kuspe le klaji

> > The guy had an accident and there was dog all over the road.'"

> >

> > I see this as "the guy had an accident and so dogs are all over the road."

>

>But if it's "dogs", why {tu'o}?

"...lo/le/la WITHOUT ANY QUANTIFIER are appropriate. ... {tu'o} COULD be

used as inner quantifier to EMPHASIZE ..." emphasis mine. Sounded to me

like you were saying the "tu'o" is superfluous and that it could be either

"lo tu'o gerku" or "lo gerku" and mean the same thing.

> > (he was a dog-catcher?). If not, then that teacher-substance (in "cimai lo

> > ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni") is dividing up

> student-substance -

> > very messy.

>

>Well, that interpretation is not impossible, though it is not the first

>that comes to mind. That's no different from CLL-lo though, is it?

I admit that "lo" is probably the broken-est of the descriptors. But

that's what we're trying to fix, no?

> > A subsWhen dividing up a group of individuals, the units of division are

> > obvious, and cannot be further subdivided into the same thing; when

> dividing

> > up a substance, it's otherwise.

>

>Right, that's why tu'o can be used to indicate substance: it is not really

>composed of any number of individuals.

>

> > 5. The proposal, even in though it's in the comments, is not

> appropriate, in

> > my opinion. It certainly doesn't sound like a final wording, which is what

> > we're trying to vote in.

>

>You mean about {tu'o}? It's there mainly as a reminder to discuss it

>when we get to tu'o.

No, I meant "It has been proposed that lo'e se ...". I won't put up a

fight about it, but I don't like a proposal that defines something special

for lo'e that may amount to an exception to the normal meaning. Maybe it's

just the wording ("proposal"). If you mean it seems that "lo'e se ..."

sounds like it would mean that (that is, what was proposed) based on the

meaning of lo'e and the se-place involved, I'd have no problem.

--

mi'e noras [email protected]



Posted by xorxes on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT posts: 1912

Nora:

> What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

Nothing was broken about {lo} as such either. What was broken,

or at least had too many holes, was the system of gadri as a whole.

As for {le}, in actual use it is almost always used to refer

to a single individual, so that the quantifier is fairly irrelevant.

The idea is that with the proposed system, any sumti that is not

explicitly quantified is simply not quantified at all.

> It appears that "le" now defaults to be non-distributive. How does this

> differ from "lei"?

Very little. In fact, with the proposed system, lo/le/la are the

only gadri you ever need to use. loi/lei/lai/lo'e/le'e can be used

for flourish, but it is never wrong to use the basic lo/le/la.

(lo'i/le'i/la'i are a different story, they should be redundant

too, but for that the gismu list should be less strict than it

apparently is with set place structures.)

> >{le cimei be fi lo broda} is {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u

> >cimei be fi lo broda}: "that which I describe as a threesome of brodas".

> >That's {le ci broda}.

>

> I think of it more as "zo'e noi ke'a te cimei gi'e se skicu mi do lo ka

> ce'u broda": "those, which are 3, and are each described by me to you

> as something which brodas".

CLL says that the inner quantifier is part of the description

(Chapter 6, end of Section 7):

Note that the inner quantifier of le, even when exact, need not

be truthful: le ci nanmu means what I describe as three men,

not three of what I describe as men. This follows from the rule

that what is described by a le description represents the speaker's

viewpoint rather than the objective way things are.

> If {lei} emphasizes that the brodeing is done collectively, what then does

> {le broda} do in contrast? Does "le broda" in "le broda cu kansu'i ..."

> emphasize (in contrast to {lei}) that each member is, on its own, helping?

{le} emphasizes nothing in that respect. It says the group is a

specific one that the speaker has in mind, but it says nothing about

how the members of the group enter into the external relationship. To

say that the relationship holds for each member, we simply say {ro le}.

In other words {le} does not contrast with {lei}, it is a more general

form that covers {lei}. General forms are a good thing, because they

let you not be precise when you don't want to, don't need to, or for

whatever reason can't be precise.

> > > "PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u

> > brode".

> PA lo broda = PA broda (= PA da poi broda?) - correct? So I still get that

> PA individuals are kansi'u-ing, not that PA groups are.

Right. I'll change that to {PA lo su'o broda}.

> > > 'le nanmu cu se snuti ija'ebo lo tu'o gerku cu kuspe le klaji

> > > The guy had an accident and there was dog all over the road.'"

> > >

> > > I see this as "the guy had an accident and so dogs are all over the

> road."

> >

> >But if it's "dogs", why {tu'o}?

>

> "...lo/le/la WITHOUT ANY QUANTIFIER are appropriate. ... {tu'o} COULD be

> used as inner quantifier to EMPHASIZE ..." emphasis mine. Sounded to me

> like you were saying the "tu'o" is superfluous and that it could be either

> "lo tu'o gerku" or "lo gerku" and mean the same thing.

{lo gerku} is the vaguest form, it covers anything that gerkus,

including {lo tu'o gerku}. {lo tu'o gerku} says that we are talking

of stuff gerku rather than individual gerku.

> No, I meant "It has been proposed that lo'e se ...". I won't put up a

> fight about it, but I don't like a proposal that defines something special

> for lo'e that may amount to an exception to the normal meaning. Maybe it's

> just the wording ("proposal"). If you mean it seems that "lo'e se ..."

> sounds like it would mean that (that is, what was proposed) based on the

> meaning of lo'e and the se-place involved, I'd have no problem.

I don't really want to put up a fight about it either. I'll change

"It has been proposed" to something else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT posts: 2388

xorxes' proposal, which previously seemed to me to be merely inept — often not quite saying what he meant to say — now appears to me to be thoroughly destructive. That it begins with the unsupported claim that the gadri system as it stands is in need of total overhaul we are used to — and apparently accept for the most part. That the fundamental distinctions of the system — distributive group, collective group, and set — are fundamentally wrongheaded and to be done away with — or at least suppressed — is an aspect that had not been so apparent before. To be sure, those distinctions have caused many people many problems, but there is no evi9dence presented that this is for reasons other than mis (or inadequate) understanding. And what is suggested is not another (arguably better) way of dealing with the differences involved, but simply ignoring them in many cases. To do so, of course, leaves the meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into the (still

permitted) details hopelessly vague. Does {lo broda cu brode} mean that each member of some group of broda brodes, or that some group does so collectively, or (as is allowed) that gobs of broda-substance does or that some group of groups (or its members) does so (collectively or distibutively again). I am sure that there are other possibilities that I have missed but that will turn up as questions continue.

So back to my original questions:What exactly is wrong with the current gadri system? Are the problems one that the gadri system should be used to solve? What are the minimal modification needed to solve the gadri-appropriate problems? Are they so many as to suggest the need for a total revision? How would a systematic revision to met these needs proceed? Absent the answer to the first problem, I don't quite see the need for any of this; absent the answers to successive ones, the need for indeed the desirability of the proposed changes are impossible to evaluate, let alone comment intelligibly upon, other than to ask what they mean or to say that that this one or that one is unsightly in itself.

This "process" has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a realistic Square One> I strongly recommend against any vote until the case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last however many years.



Posted by xorxes on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> To do so, of

> course, leaves the meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into

> the (still

> permitted) details hopelessly vague.

Vagueness should not be a problem. We allow vagueness in tenses,

for example, and there is no reason not to allow vagueness in

other places as well.

> Does {lo broda cu brode} mean that

> each member of some group of broda brodes, or that some group does so

> collectively, or (as is allowed) that gobs of broda-substance does or that

> some group of groups (or its members) does so (collectively or distibutively

> again). I am sure that there are other possibilities that I have missed but

> that will turn up as questions continue.

Yes, there sure are other possibilities: is the brodeing going on

now, in the past, a mere possibility, a number of times, a single time,

continuously, intermittently? All is left to context. When context does

not clear that up, and it is important to do so, the speaker has said

too little.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT posts: 2388

A> Vagueness is always a problem if it prevents you from knowing how to evaluate a claim. Assuming that we do allow the sort of vagueness (virtually total) that you suggest, either the bare forms will rarely if ever be used — making the change both pointless and difficulty-making (how do we now say what the simple forms used to mean?) — or they will be used for some particular purpose rather than the intended vagueness — meaning that the change has not been effected at all (but rather some other, uncontrolled change — which has already happened after all).

B> Well, I meant (of course) other meanings for {lo broda}, but, assuming that these changes in the overall sentence operators can be alleviated by context, I wonder how context is going to separate out between, say, distributive and collective groups (if I were going to make a radical change, I would get rid of the idea that Lojban gadri-sumit — indeed most sumti — refer primarily to groups rather than individuals) without basically asking which was meant-- not an ideal move in a language game (since it marks a failure of at least one participant to play the game). There are cases, of course, where it can reasonably be expected to be clear but it seems that far more of the {lo} cases require the asking.

When, by the way, did this new vagueness enter your proposal; it is not there in the earlier published version — or, at least, not made explicit. Is it likely — since the group was asked to vote on the proposal with this at best implicit — that other unseen changes will emerge after the vote is completed?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> To do so, of

> course, leaves the meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into

> the (still

> permitted) details hopelessly vague.

A>Vagueness should not be a problem. We allow vagueness in tenses,

for example, and there is no reason not to allow vagueness in

other places as well.

> Does {lo broda cu brode} mean that

> each member of some group of broda brodes, or that some group does so

> collectively, or (as is allowed) that gobs of broda-substance does or that

> some group of groups (or its members) does so (collectively or distibutively

> again). I am sure that there are other possibilities that I have missed but

> that will turn up as questions continue.

B>Yes, there sure are other possibilities: is the brodeing going on

now, in the past, a mere possibility, a number of times, a single time,

continuously, intermittently? All is left to context. When context does

not clear that up, and it is important to do so, the speaker has said

too little.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Well, I meant (of course) other meanings for {lo broda}, but, assuming

> that these changes in the overall sentence operators can be alleviated by

> context, I wonder how context is going to separate out between, say,

> distributive and collective groups

Perhaps you could provide a problem sentence?

> When, by the way, did this new vagueness enter your proposal; it is not there

> in the earlier published version — or, at least, not made explicit. Is it

> likely — since the group was asked to vote on the proposal with this at best

> implicit — that other unseen changes will emerge after the vote is

> completed?

The voting can always be reopened if new issues arise, that's contemplated

in the rules.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:52 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

>So back to my original questions:What exactly is wrong with the current gadri system? Are the problems one that the gadri system should be used to solve? What are the minimal modification needed to solve the gadri-appropriate problems?

>

Is this March?! Restarting back to the beginning of the discussion as if

the entire thing had never happened is ridiculous. These questions have

been answered so many times that at this point re-asking them now is

simply not reasonable.

>This "process" has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a realistic Square One> I strongly recommend against any vote until the case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last however many years.

>

>

Perhaps after every long and fruitful discussion, the participants all

developed amnesia. Or would your desired standards of discourse require

fifty more years of Sisyphean struggle to achieve progress?

--

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla



Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT posts: 2388

A> Hey, I am not proposing changes. It is your job to show that the changes don't ruin things already taken care of, and that they solve other problems. Since I don't yet see the boundaries of the vagueness permitted (I am not sure there won't be news in the next mailing) it is hard to find a case. but imagine that the time is come to pay some men for their work and that they are to be paid in some proportionate way for piecework. What then does {lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} mean? (one man? one pipe?, several men separately? several pieces of pipe? seveeral men together? a load of pipes? ....).

BTW, the problem of precising sumti and predicates is a rather different one from that of fixing tense (in the broad sense). The one is to figure out what to look for, the other where to look. the latter is obviously useless until the former has been taken care of.

B> True; but after a certain point, the decisions made at the beginning cannot be retacted only modified from the already major changes. Better not to change until you are reasonably clear why your changing and where you are going.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Well, I meant (of course) other meanings for {lo broda}, but, assuming

> that these changes in the overall sentence operators can be alleviated by

> context, I wonder how context is going to separate out between, say,

> distributive and collective groups

A>Perhaps you could provide a problem sentence?

> When, by the way, did this new vagueness enter your proposal; it is not there

> in the earlier published version — or, at least, not made explicit. Is it

> likely — since the group was asked to vote on the proposal with this at best

> implicit — that other unseen changes will emerge after the vote is

> completed?

B>The voting can always be reopened if new issues arise, that's contemplated

in the rules.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT posts: 2388

A> You might as well ask if it 1998. The questions have been around since at least then and are still unanswered. Every supposed problem has been shown not to be one or to have a simpler solution, every proposed solution has been shown not to solve its propblem or to do so in a way that creates new problems or to be incoherent (so that the other questions cannot be answered definitively). And yet we are still where we were then. the hope is that if we start from scratch (again, if you will), this time we will get somewhere on a solid footing.

B> Well, yes, amnesia seems to help. It is to avoid another 50 years that I am suggesting that things be done right for once. Stop with the side issues and stick to the main ones: what is needed? where ought it be? how to provide it? does it work? is there a demonstrably better way? what problems does it raise? and so on. Probably working step-by-step is also a good idea, at least until somone ses a big program that draws the steps together into one.

John E Clifford wrote:

>So back to my original questions:What exactly is wrong with the current gadri system? Are the problems one that the gadri system should be used to solve? What are the minimal modification needed to solve the gadri-appropriate problems?

>

A>Is this March?! Restarting back to the beginning of the discussion as if

the entire thing had never happened is ridiculous. These questions have

been answered so many times that at this point re-asking them now is

simply not reasonable.

>This "process" has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a realistic Square One> I strongly recommend against any vote until the case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last however many years.

>

>

B>Perhaps after every long and fruitful discussion, the participants all

developed amnesia. Or would your desired standards of discourse require

fifty more years of Sisyphean struggle to achieve progress?

--

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla



Posted by xorxes on Wed 30 of June, 2004 18:53 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Hey, I am not proposing changes. It is your job to show that the changes

> don't ruin things already taken care of,

Everything that could be said can still be said.

> and that they solve other problems.

Many examples have been provided.

> Since I don't yet see the boundaries of the vagueness permitted

The boundary of {lo broda} is that it brodas. That's all.

>(I am not

> sure there won't be news in the next mailing) it is hard to find a case. but

> imagine that the time is come to pay some men for their work and that they

> are to be paid in some proportionate way for piecework. What then does {lo

> nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} mean? (one man? one pipe?, several men separately?

> several pieces of pipe? seveeral men together? a load of pipes? ....).

lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu iseki'ubo ei mi pleji lo jdini ny lo nu go'i

i mi nitcu lo rupnu be li xo i ci le nanmu ba'o bevri re tubnu ije

re le nanmu ba'o bevri ci tubnu i ai mi pleji lo rupnu be li mu

fo lo nu ba'o bevri pa tubnu iseki'ubo mi nitcu lo rupnu be li xano

What's wrong with that? How would you propose one should say it instead?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:21 GMT posts: 2388

A> But hardly of problems solved, since half the cases weren't problems and the other half did not solve the ones there were. I think a list might be in order here: this problem reputed to be solved by this change.

Well, as I said "never quite saying what was meant." There is nothing to object to in what you write because it is just what would be said in the old fashion, not even moving away from the "general" {lo} to some more specific form. Where then are the chanages you talk about? Are they only in muddled "explanations" (like "Mr. Broda"), when the facts remain unchanged? Or have I merely happened upon a case where there is no change but another case would would show some real difference? It is again for you to say what your changes are and what they accomplish; I have takne you at your word but now seems a time to cash in your claims.

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> Hey, I am not proposing changes. It is your job to show that the changes

> don't ruin things already taken care of,

Everything that could be said can still be said.

> and that they solve other problems.

A>Many examples have been provided.

> Since I don't yet see the boundaries of the vagueness permitted

The boundary of {lo broda} is that it brodas. That's all.

>(I am not

> sure there won't be news in the next mailing) it is hard to find a case. but

> imagine that the time is come to pay some men for their work and that they

> are to be paid in some proportionate way for piecework. What then does {lo

> nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} mean? (one man? one pipe?, several men separately?

> several pieces of pipe? seveeral men together? a load of pipes? ....).

lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu iseki'ubo ei mi pleji lo jdini ny lo nu go'i

i mi nitcu lo rupnu be li xo i ci le nanmu ba'o bevri re tubnu ije

re le nanmu ba'o bevri ci tubnu i ai mi pleji lo rupnu be li mu

fo lo nu ba'o bevri pa tubnu iseki'ubo mi nitcu lo rupnu be li xano

What's wrong with that? How would you propose one should say it instead?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:21 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> I think a list might be in

> order here: this problem reputed to be solved by this change.

The most significant problems solved are generic claims and

intensional contexts. An additional problem is that we often

get quantifier orders wrong when quantification is not really

significant, a problem that does not arise in the absence of

quantifiers.

> There is nothing to

> object to in what you write because it is just what would be said in the old

> fashion, not even moving away from the "general" {lo} to some more specific

> form.

Why did you present {lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} as a problem

case, then?

> Where then are the chanages you talk about? Are they only in muddled

> "explanations" (like "Mr. Broda"), when the facts remain unchanged? Or have

> I merely happened upon a case where there is no change but another case would

> would show some real difference? It is again for you to say what your

> changes are and what they accomplish; I have takne you at your word but now

> seems a time to cash in your claims.

Saying {ai mi pleji su'o rupnu be li mu fo lo nu ba'o bevri pa tubnu}

would not be equivalent to the {lo} version I gave.

{mi nitcu su'o rupnu be li xo} would also not be equivalent.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 01 of July, 2004 00:22 GMT posts: 2388

A> The problem of generic claims has not been solved by your proposal, since there would then be a definition of that claim that made sense and none has appeared. On the other hand, the problem did not really arise, since — by your own claim — the simple answer was just to use {lo} for the general case and {su'o} for the other (no changes needed, just a usage note).

I am unclear what the intensional context problem was, since the solution seems to be just to leave out the {tu'a], thereby removing the only visible mark of opaque contexts. So now there is a new problem with them — that there is no visible sign that they are opaque. The solution to that part seems to be just to revise the wordlist to mark opque places. To be sure, there are a number of opaque contexts that did not normally use {tu'a}, but nothing has been done to set them out or other wise deal with them. It almost appears that the solution to opaque contexts is to deny that they exist.

There was no quantification problem other than people not taking tht time to figure out where the quantifiers go. As for not needing them, I have yet to see a case where they did not play a role — having the wrong one makes true intentions false or false true. That is, it does not yet appear that dropping overt PA1 gets rid of covert ones. Some of the supposed examples seem to make this point as well: they come out wrong.

B> Because, in your rhetoric, it would have been very vague indeed. Yet you took it simply in the old sense, which was not forced by any context other than the old rules.

C>Why not? What is different about the concept of a rupnu (which is what is active in an intensional context like {ai}) between the two ways of bringin it in?

D> Again, why not? To be sure, neither one on the old rules would say what you meant to say, but they would be equally screwed up in the same way (what sort of event is how many rupnu? — I didn't comment on that since it was not the issue, I thought).

pc:

> I think a list might be in

> order here: this problem reputed to be solved by this change.

A>The most significant problems solved are generic claims and

intensional contexts. An additional problem is that we often

get quantifier orders wrong when quantification is not really

significant, a problem that does not arise in the absence of

quantifiers.

> There is nothing to

> object to in what you write because it is just what would be said in the old

> fashion, not even moving away from the "general" {lo} to some more specific

> form.

B>Why did you present {lo nanmu cu bevri lo tubnu} as a problem

case, then?

> Where then are the chanages you talk about? Are they only in muddled

> "explanations" (like "Mr. Broda"), when the facts remain unchanged? Or have

> I merely happened upon a case where there is no change but another case would

> would show some real difference? It is again for you to say what your

> changes are and what they accomplish; I have takne you at your word but now

> seems a time to cash in your claims.

C>Saying {ai mi pleji su'o rupnu be li mu fo lo nu ba'o bevri pa tubnu}

would not be equivalent to the {lo} version I gave.

D>{mi nitcu su'o rupnu be li xo} would also not be equivalent.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT posts: 2388

Remind me why this was a gadri problem in the first place. English, for example, does not use special gadri here but only those (almost all of them) that it uses for other cases as well. The clear marks of generality in other languages seem more often to be predicative or adverbial ("generally," tanru with {kampu} perhaps) or tense/modal (somewhere in the history of Loglan-Lojban there was a cmavo meaning "in general,"

{nai}d to "in [particular" — or maybe it was the other way 'round; I don't know what happened to it. {su'a} seems to be in a different area.) The gadrio solution does work for most cases, however.

John E Clifford wrote:

A> The problem of generic claims has not been solved by your proposal, since there would then be a definition of that claim that made sense and none has appeared. On the other hand, the problem did not really arise, since — by your own claim — the simple answer was just to use {lo} for the general case and {su'o} for the other (no changes needed, just a usage note).



Posted by xorxes on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT posts: 1912

I am not proposing a special gadri for general claims. {lo} can

be used for general claims, but it is not restricted to be used

in general claims only. le/la can be used in general claims about

an individual one has in mind, of course (as in "John dances

wonderfully well"). I probably wouldn't use {le ractu} to talk

about rabbits in the way we can use "the rabbit" in English, but

in the end it all boils down to context.

In terms of logic, the essence of the proposed gadri system,

as I see it, is that terms that are not explicitly quantified

are used as constants ("logical proper names", if that's what

they are properly called). You seem to think that constants

should not be allowed as part of the logical machinery of Lojban.

How different is a Lojban with constants from a Lojban

without constants? Probably not very, but a lot of things are

easier to say with constants, usually less precisely, but we

don't always need or want precision. And when we do need or want

precision, we have it at our disposal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT posts: 2388

As usual, I do wish you would decide what you are doing — or be clearer about it. OK, {lo} is not always a general claim and we can make general claims using other gadri. so, in what sense does your proposal "solve" the general claims "problem," as claimed for it?

Lojban has lpns of course — variables within the scope of their quantifiers (and the free-floating ones suggested earlier) are such. Otherwise, simple Lojban's terms seems always to be about (at least potential) pluralities and that opens the need for quantifiers. For, if there are more than one thing invvolved, we need to know whether all those referred to take part or only some of them. And that — even if we do not really care what the answer is — affects the behavior of negation and of other quantifiers. We could make such terms lpns, I suppose, by any of a variety of tricks, but the results of these would be

that sentences either did not mean what they seemed to mean or did not do so in any natural way, and, in either case, some useful things would go unsaid. There will be a few anomolous cases however we do this, and dealing weith them should take up a minute or two, but is not worth any fancy effort. (For example, there is an occasional sense of "women" under which "all men love women" converts salve veritatem into "women are loved by all men." I personally am inclined to take this as evidence that {prami2} should be intensional, but admit that that seems a desperate measure to most people — though there is other evidence as well that love is always under a concept, not an extension.)

The main difference between constantless Lojban (i.e, the one we have) and constanted Lojban is, as noted, just that in the latter some sentences will be either misleading or convoluted in interpretation and incapable of saying some useful things, all of which will contrast with the (relatively) transparent interpretation and full range of coverage of the current language.

Making life simple is not the point of Lojban. It isn't even making language precise. But the underlying philopshy does seem to be that — as much as feasible — the underlying logic should be on the or near the surface. Some inherent factors go against this, of course — the difficulty in getting singulars, for example, and (I think) the totally count nature of the grammar. But given those (and some others) we can do pretty well, except that looking for lpns is doomed, if not to failure, then to unnecessary difficulties.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

I am not proposing a special gadri for general claims. {lo} can

be used for general claims, but it is not restricted to be used

in general claims only. le/la can be used in general claims about

an individual one has in mind, of course (as in "John dances

wonderfully well"). I probably wouldn't use {le ractu} to talk

about rabbits in the way we can use "the rabbit" in English, but

in the end it all boils down to context.

In terms of logic, the essence of the proposed gadri system,

as I see it, is that terms that are not explicitly quantified

are used as constants ("logical proper names", if that's what

they are properly called). You seem to think that constants

should not be allowed as part of the logical machinery of Lojban.

How different is a Lojban with constants from a Lojban

without constants? Probably not very, but a lot of things are

easier to say with constants, usually less precisely, but we

don't always need or want precision. And when we do need or want

precision, we have it at our disposal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 01 of July, 2004 18:43 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:22:27AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> As usual, I do wish you would decide what you are doing — or be

> clearer about it.

Oh, believe me, we all have our little wishes.

-Robin



Posted by lojbab on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 162

At 07:03 AM 6/30/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

>xorxes' proposal, which previously seemed to me to be merely inept —

>often not quite saying what he meant to say — now appears to me to be

>thoroughly destructive. That it begins with the unsupported claim that

>the gadri system as it stands is in need of total overhaul we are used to

>-- and apparently accept for the most part.

I think that there was general agreement on that back when Nick was trying

to concoct an acceptable proposal. I accept that some sort of overhaul is

needed. I'm unconvinced that this is the right one, but haven't got any

better ideas since I don't really understand everyone else's issues.

>That the fundamental distinctions of the system — distributive group,

>collective group, and set — are fundamentally wrongheaded and to be done

>away with — or at least suppressed — is an aspect that had not been so

>apparent before.

I think what is rearing its possibly ugly head is one fundamental design

concept - that of metaphysical parsimony. In theory, we would like some

sort of generic article that conveys no more than we want it to convey, and

which does not imply number. Jorge also seems to want the same general

article to not imply which of those three fundamental distinctions are

intended; I believe that we've hit the limit on how metaphysically

parsimonious we can be.

Given that we have the lu'a/lu'i/lu'o distinction in that selma'o and

corresponding distinctions in the gadri, and corresponding distinctions in

the place structure of "#+mei" and some other selbri, I am reluctant to

assume that at this point we can parsimonize the triple distinction

away. Rather, what sometimes seems to be the case is that a fourth

distinction is needed, between the mass and the undivided collective

The fact that Jorge can claim that people only used "le" for singulars

could mean that we simply don't have speakers yet who can dispense with the

singular/plural distinction. In that case, they really want to use "lei"

to be parsimonious, so Jorge has more or less made "lei" the default

meaning of "le". Our choice of default quantifiers on lei and loi was

meant to handwave over the collective/mass/(substance) distinction, but

apparently hasn't satisfied people to be a sufficient handwave.

On the "lo" side, we keep going back and forth between the existential

import of the description. The original language made that distinction by

having lo broda NOT mean da poi broda, to claim veridicality of the

description, but not necessarily that something of that description

exists. You and Cowan among others bought into a change in this back in

Nov/Dec 1994, in which I deferred to your expertise, with reluctance. Yet

the argument keeps coming back.

The easiest solution to that one at this point, given CLL, would probably

be to have "lo broda" ambiguous as to whether it has existential import,

with a UI cmavo modifying it making the distinction if necessary. Perhaps

da'i would be sufficient, and that issue could disappear.

And indeed, my preferred solution to gadri would be to elucidate all of the

"features" that we feel are necessary to be distinguished (I always liked

those discussions that used "+/-specific" and other standard linguistic

"feature" presentation - we might need to add a "ospecific" for

indeterminate given metaphysical parsimony), and then use UI cmavo to turn

these features on and off, rather than relying on tricks involving the

presence, absence, and possible meaningfulness of specific vs default

quantifiers.

But I wasn't the one to write the current proposal. I don't like it, and

would vote "no", but I can't live up to Robin's requirements for a "no"

vote, so I haven't bothered to make him explicitly remove it (or me). (If

Robin is willing to take this comment as sufficient justification for a

"no" vote, I will register that vote).

> To be sure, those distinctions have caused many people many problems,

> but there is no evidence presented that this is for reasons other than

> mis (or inadequate) understanding. And what is suggested is not another

> (arguably better) way of dealing with the differences involved, but

> simply ignoring them in many cases. To do so, of course, leaves the

> meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into the (still

> permitted) details hopelessly vague.

That is the supposed extreme ideal of metaphysical parsimony.

I think it goes too far, and it doesn't really address the problems.

We want to make certain distinctions; we need to agree on what they are

first, and express them in some standard logical or linguistic

notation. THEN, we can see how the current language maps to those desired

distinctions and remap them so as to get a result that is consistent, makes

sense, and allows everything to be said.

This is why I've wanted the existing language defined, even with all its

flaws and loose ends, before we consider proposals. Most of the discussion

of the gadri proposal, to the extent, I've been able to follow it, has been

based on ignoring the existing language because it isn't adequate, and yet

trying to define a new proposal based on the inadequate specification of

the old. As a result, we continually discover some new facet of the new

proposal that hasn't necessarily been considered.

>So back to my original questions: What exactly is wrong with the current

>gadri system?

My understanding is that there are some distinctions that people want to

make, that cannot be clearly made. What they are is a separate question

from how we make them work, and the current process jams those two steps

together.

>Are the problems one that the gadri system should be used to solve? What

>are the minimal modification needed to solve the gadri-appropriate

>problems? Are they so many as to suggest the need for a total revision?

>How would a systematic revision to met these needs proceed? Absent the

>answer to the first problem, I don't quite see the need for any of this;

>absent the answers to successive ones, the need for --indeed the

>desirability of — the proposed changes are impossible to evaluate, let

>alone comment intelligibly upon, other than to ask what they mean or to

>say that that this one or that one is unsightly in itself.

>

>This "process" has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a

>realistic Square One> I strongly recommend against any vote until the

>case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the

>proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last

>however many years.

Let's stop spelling out the proposal, and make the requirements

clear. Once we do that, I suspect that the solution will fall out rather

more easily, AND it will be clearly documented as to what the change impact

will be (I accept that there will be some change impact against the current

language).

I designed Lojban based on understanding a set of requirements, and then

finding a design to meet those requirements. The current mechanism of

proposing changes without agreeing on the set of requirements that

justifies a change from the status quo (which itself may not be well enough

defined), is calculated to sow problems.

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:28:07PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Let's stop spelling out the proposal, and make the requirements clear.

"Let's"?

  • You* are welcome to do so, if you wish.

> Once we do that, I suspect that the solution will fall out rather more

> easily,

More easily than the current elevent to one vote?

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



Posted by lojbab on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 162

At 12:44 PM 6/30/04 -0400, xod wrote:

>John E Clifford wrote:

> >So back to my original questions:What exactly is wrong with the current

> gadri system? Are the problems one that the gadri system should be used

> to solve? What are the minimal modification needed to solve the

> gadri-appropriate problems?

> >

>

>Is this March?! Restarting back to the beginning of the discussion as if

>the entire thing had never happened is ridiculous. These questions have

>been answered so many times that at this point re-asking them now is

>simply not reasonable.

Robin has said that people should not have to read the discussion, that the

proposal should have all the information needed to understand its

parameters, without having to reask the questions.

Obviously that is not the case. (Which is the problem with combining the

language description process with the language repair/change process).

>Perhaps after every long and fruitful discussion, the participants all

>developed amnesia. Or would your desired standards of discourse require

>fifty more years of Sisyphean struggle to achieve progress?

If we cannot write a proposal that is clear enough on SOME level of

linguistic/logical/pragmatic discourse to render the need for discussion

unnecessary, we haven't done the job yet.

One solution was the Elephant, which would have documented all the roads

not taken, but it hasn't materialized. Thus it has to be in the proposal,

or we'll just be doing this again next year.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:12:11AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> lojbab:

> > The following two are all relative commons, and comparative and

> > superlatives can be used effectively with them:

> >

> > cafne for common/frequent

> >

> > fadni for common/ordinary

>

> Wrong place structure for what is wanted. We need "property x1 is very

> common among the members of x2"

zilfadni should do it.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:35:29PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 12:44 PM 6/30/04 -0400, xod wrote:

> >John E Clifford wrote:

> > >So back to my original questions:What exactly is wrong with the

> > >current

> > gadri system? Are the problems one that the gadri system should be

> > used to solve? What are the minimal modification needed to solve

> > the gadri-appropriate problems?

> > >

> >

> >Is this March?! Restarting back to the beginning of the discussion as

> >if the entire thing had never happened is ridiculous. These questions

> >have been answered so many times that at this point re-asking them

> >now is simply not reasonable.

>

> Robin has said that people should not have to read the discussion,

> that the proposal should have all the information needed to understand

> its parameters, without having to reask the questions.

No, I did *NOT* say that.

I said the first part, but I never said *anything* about not reasking

the questions.

In fact, I kept saying to you and Nora (over, and over, and over) that

you should read the proposal and then come and ask any questions you

might have.

> Obviously that is not the case.

The only thing that is obvious to me is that PC is no longer capable of

making himself understood to the vast majority of humanity. I think

xorxes should get a medal for putting up with him as well as he has.

> >Perhaps after every long and fruitful discussion, the participants

> >all developed amnesia. Or would your desired standards of discourse

> >require fifty more years of Sisyphean struggle to achieve progress?

>

> If we cannot write a proposal that is clear enough on SOME level of

> linguistic/logical/pragmatic discourse to render the need for

> discussion unnecessary, we haven't done the job yet.

The only people still asking questions are Nora, who is pointing out

relevant things, and PC, who makes no sense whatsoever.

No-one else, except maybe you and Jordan, feels the current proposal is

insufficient in itself (although I admit that I need to re-review it,

and so does John).

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:52:44AM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 02:30 PM 6/23/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > "universal" is absolutely absolute.

> >

> >Of course, but it's only one of the key words, and you're ignoring

> >"general", which directly contradicts your theory.

>

> A general property of triangles is that they have 3 sides. General

> properties in mathematics (and software) are those shared by an entire

> class of objects, not merely a relatively large number of them.

I don't see the word 'property' anywhere in the definition of kampu.

Unfortunately, dictionary.com agrees with you WRT to general, and I just

don't care enough to argue this anymore.

As far as I know, no-one has been using kampu to mean what you are

claiming it means, but you say that was the intention. So we're at an

impasse.

I'm willing to let it go given a good replacement (which will then be

added to the Notes for kampu on jbovlaste). I think zilfadni probably

does it, but I dunno.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- John Cowan wrote:

> > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> >

> > > I can't really tell from the wording of the gi'uste whether x2 of

> > > girzu is a defining property of x1 of girzu. Is it intended to be?

> >

> > Yes, it is.

>

> girzu gir gri group

>

> x1 is group/cluster/team showing common property (ka) x2 due to set x3

> linked by relations x4

>

> [also collection, team, comprised of, comprising; members x3 (a

> specification of the complete membership) comprise group x1;

>

> In that case "showing common property" should be replaced by "with

> defining property", or something like that.

>

> What are the relations x4?

Once that question has been answered, I'll update jbovlaste.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:40:11PM -0400, Nora LeChevalier wrote:

> At 07:30 PM 6/17/04 -0700, xorxes wrote:

> >noras:

> > > 2. I'm still resistant to the "Default quantifiers are abolished

> > > from these definitions, so that the expressions without an

> > > explicit outer quantifier are constants, i.e. they are not

> > > quantified expressions. ". Does this mean I can't say "le cukta

> > > poi cpana le kajna cu blanu" if there are 3 of them? If I can,

> > > then if you then say "nago'i" just what does it s it mean?

> >

> >{le cukta} is the thing or things described as 'cukta'. There is no

> >problem with it being a group of things. The difference with CLL is

> >that it is not quantified, it is not a claim about each of the books,

> >{ro le cukta}, it is for a claim about the books, however many, as a

> >single referent.

>

> What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

> It appears that "le" now defaults to be non-distributive. How does

> this differ from "lei"?

In the process of trying to understand the question, I came across this:

http://philosophy.syr.edu/Chapter1(406).pdf

HTML:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-LOJzF4N0dMJ:philosophy.syr.edu/Chapter1(406).pdf+non-distributive&hl=en

Full book:

http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html

Perhaps we should all read this and come back later? :-)

The first chapter seems (I have not read it carefully) to boil down to

"You need something like xorlo to say many useful things".

Anyways, it differs from lei in that "le ci nanmu" is the three men I

have in mind, considered as individuals but treated as one thing for

purposes of this, but "lei ci nanmu" is a group of three men, presumably

with some defining characteristic that makes them a group (such as

physical proximity).

> Yes, "le" is sometimes used for groups. But it is also sometimes used

> for distributed individuals.

Really? With full observation of the implications? You have examples

from real usage I trust?

I may not understand what you mean by "distributed individuals"; can you

clarify?

> >{le cimei be fi lo broda} is {zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u

> >cimei be fi lo broda}: "that which I describe as a threesome of

> >brodas". That's {le ci broda}.

>

> I think of it more as "zo'e noi ke'a te cimei gi'e se skicu mi do lo

> ka ce'u broda": "those, which are 3, and are each described by me

> to you as something which brodas".

"te cimei" makes them into a mass, and then turns them back into

individuals; why take that double-step?

> If {lei} emphasizes that the brodeing is done collectively, what then

> does {le broda} do in contrast? Does "le broda" in "le broda cu

> kansu'i ..." emphasize (in contrast to {lei}) that each member is, on

> its own, helping?

That's how I would take it, yes.

> > > "PA loi broda cu brode" = "PA lo broda cu kansi'u lo ka ce'u

> > > brode". The "PA lo broda" is PA instances of "lo broda", each of

> > > which helps doing brode. But in the definition section, An outer

> > > quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of such a group.

> > > This implies that the result is a number of groups.

> >

> >Yes, that's the intent. Perhaps I should change it to {PA lo su'ore

> >broda}? But I don't think we need to forbid one-member groups, even

> >though probably we won't have much to say about them as opposed to

> >individuals.

>

> PA lo broda = PA broda (= PA da poi broda?) - correct? So I still get

> that PA individuals are kansi'u-ing, not that PA groups are.

da can't bind to groups?

-Robin


And now for something completely different...


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 01:53 GMT posts: 14214

After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

.i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

poi ke'a ve cusku dei

Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 13:12 GMT posts: 2388

"I read almost all damned e-mail about the BPFK changing the articles and alas I got the only shirt/harvest such that it is the medium for saying this sentence."

Asking about whether a {po'o} is right is like waving a red flag in a bull-full corral. In this case the logic and the traditional idiom (I suppose it is the "shirt" that is meant) both suggest "All I got was this shirt"-- the one that expresses this very sentence (nice one that!) : {ro da zo'u ganai mi se prali (that is good too) da gi da creka co ve cusku dei}

This can surely be shortened a bit (and there is the problem whether {dei} covers what is in fact two sentences — under one definition of "sentence"). ??{ro prali be mi cu creka co ve cusku dei}??

[email protected] wrote:

And now for something completely different...

After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

..i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

poi ke'a ve cusku dei

Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Fri 02 of July, 2004 13:12 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab:

> This is why I've wanted the existing language defined, even with all its

> flaws and loose ends, before we consider proposals.

CURRENT:

lo broda = su'o da poi ke'a broda

le broda = ro da poi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda

la broda = ro da poi zo broda ke'a mi cmene

PROPOSED:

lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

le broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda

la broda = zo'e noi zo broda ke'a mi cmene

That's the basic change. The other part is the inner quantifier of lo,

which I can spell out as well if you want me too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 2388

Aside from (or because of) the incoherence of {zo'e noi}, I don't see what the change amounts to. I guess the idea is that {zo'e} is not a quantified variable — or is one who quantifier is out of the frame — and so behaves like a logical proper name. But, of course, that is not the {zo'e} of CLL and the new one has not yet been specified. Thus the new definition starts a stage late in the game. How is {zo'e} defined? Then we can see what the new definitions for the gadri mean. I suspect that the definition of {zo'e} will make the use of {noi} — in the present sense — solecistic as well, so maybe a definition of it is called for too. And, as noted often before, I don't see how any of this gets us further toward any of the purported goals of this proposal — generality, opacity, or ease of usage around quantifiers and negations — without violating things which are presumably meant not to change, like obedience to standard logic or the ordinary meanings of words.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

lojbab:

> This is why I've wanted the existing language defined, even with all its

> flaws and loose ends, before we consider proposals.

CURRENT:

lo broda = su'o da poi ke'a broda

le broda = ro da poi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda

la broda = ro da poi zo broda ke'a mi cmene

PROPOSED:

lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

le broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda

la broda = zo'e noi zo broda ke'a mi cmene

That's the basic change. The other part is the inner quantifier of lo,

which I can spell out as well if you want me too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 2388

So, if we go back half a decade or so, we will find that at that time we all (I suppose roughly a dozen people actively involved) agreed that the language as then constituted needed revision in its gadri structure (to stick to the present point). But since then so many proposals and so much discussion has gone on that it is no longer clear that the language we are talking about now is the same as the one back then nor is it clear that the problems back then have not been dealt with one way or another since (I take the "generality" issue as a prime case, since xorxes — inter alia perhaps — seems to have dealt with that at the usage level quite throroughly, leaving only the explanations to catch up).

We have a metaphysical tension in Lojban. As noted, it has about as atomic a metaphysics as possible this side of Buddhism, yet is has great difficulty in saying something about unquestionable individuals of a fundamental sort (sets and collectives, which are clearly — even if not in Lojban metaphysics — less fundamental are (or were up until some recent aspects of proposals) clearly individual), except by using variables. (Notice, by the way, that the suggestion that we need something for substance is — in the sense suggested — very unlojbanic; the lojbanic analog is a predicate "... is a chunk of the substance that makes up ...", the second gap being filled with some reference to a number of things of some sort. Not, in short, the mass-noun sort of notion that the suggestion usually envisions — not even a numberless item (the suggested {tu'o}) nor even a gadri-ish notion. I suppose that, given that predicate, the gadri of choice would be {loi}.) In this background, it seems

that any suggestion that involves — as part of the meaning of an expression — an unnumbered (much less an unnumberable) assemblage of the ontological atoms — or , horrors, an assemblage that ignored the atoms altogether — needs must be achievable only by severe wrenching of the language, perhaps a total restructuring and not merely of the gadri. So, in this context, one form of the question is whether the things that some find trouble in saying now — assuming that they really have to be said — can be said without getting into this massive change in the whole core of the language. And it appears that, at least for the issue of generality — which is what the proposals purports to be mainly about (though with ramifications that are not immediately apparent under that heading) — the answer is yes: we can distinguish between what an expression means and how it is used. There are a variety of expressions that *mean* "some so-and-sos are such-and-such," but they can be used in a

variety of ways to serve quite different purposes: generality, particularity, precision, hand-waving, and the like.

So far as I can see, no current proposal recommends going (back?) to a non-existential {lo}; that is, {lo broda cu brode} is not automatically true if there are no brodas. Nor even sometimes true in that case (in transparent contexts — however determined). That is, the "some" bound seems undisturbed even if every other numerical notion is rejected. The notion of a new individual that — in this world references — requires that some manifestations exists, but that also has reference of the same sort in other worlds is a metaphysically complex (though obviously not totally unlojbanic) way to get some result wantd. The problem has been with all these suggestions (Mr., species, property, mereological sum) that more have been asked of them than can be given without getting into contradictions. And — generally at least — without all that is asked they cannot do the whole job for which they are designed: they fail to be general in the way wanted, or they do not escape from

negation or quantifier scope problems, or they do not behave unchanged from this world to another. And so on. And, in the areas that they do work, the task can be achieved by simpler means, albeit different ones in different areas.

As far as describing the langauge goe, we have CLL. While it may not describe the actual state of the language at any time, it does describe an idealized form of the language. It thus provides a place to start, against which to describe what we think the language should be. The null-reform would be to make the language actually conform to CLL, which — it is generally agreed — it never has done. Then other proposals can be weighed against that proposal. We have elected to proceed piecemeal (as we almost certainly have to) and I assume that at some point — perhaps several — along the way we will check to see whether what we have done so far is coherent or capable of further simplification of one area in the light of what has been done in another. But for now, let us look at gadri, keeping in mind that some of the issues there (maybe most) may also impinge on other things: modals, brivla vocabulary, and quantifiers to cite three factors that have already emerged.

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

At 07:03 AM 6/30/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

>xorxes' proposal, which previously seemed to me to be merely inept —

>often not quite saying what he meant to say — now appears to me to be

>thoroughly destructive. That it begins with the unsupported claim that

>the gadri system as it stands is in need of total overhaul we are used to

>-- and apparently accept for the most part.

I think that there was general agreement on that back when Nick was trying

to concoct an acceptable proposal. I accept that some sort of overhaul is

needed. I'm unconvinced that this is the right one, but haven't got any

better ideas since I don't really understand everyone else's issues.

>That the fundamental distinctions of the system — distributive group,

>collective group, and set — are fundamentally wrongheaded and to be done

>away with — or at least suppressed — is an aspect that had not been so

>apparent before.

I think what is rearing its possibly ugly head is one fundamental design

concept - that of metaphysical parsimony. In theory, we would like some

sort of generic article that conveys no more than we want it to convey, and

which does not imply number. Jorge also seems to want the same general

article to not imply which of those three fundamental distinctions are

intended; I believe that we've hit the limit on how metaphysically

parsimonious we can be.

Given that we have the lu'a/lu'i/lu'o distinction in that selma'o and

corresponding distinctions in the gadri, and corresponding distinctions in

the place structure of "#+mei" and some other selbri, I am reluctant to

assume that at this point we can parsimonize the triple distinction

away. Rather, what sometimes seems to be the case is that a fourth

distinction is needed, between the mass and the undivided collective

The fact that Jorge can claim that people only used "le" for singulars

could mean that we simply don't have speakers yet who can dispense with the

singular/plural distinction. In that case, they really want to use "lei"

to be parsimonious, so Jorge has more or less made "lei" the default

meaning of "le". Our choice of default quantifiers on lei and loi was

meant to handwave over the collective/mass/(substance) distinction, but

apparently hasn't satisfied people to be a sufficient handwave.

On the "lo" side, we keep going back and forth between the existential

import of the description. The original language made that distinction by

having lo broda NOT mean da poi broda, to claim veridicality of the

description, but not necessarily that something of that description

exists. You and Cowan among others bought into a change in this back in

Nov/Dec 1994, in which I deferred to your expertise, with reluctance. Yet

the argument keeps coming back.

The easiest solution to that one at this point, given CLL, would probably

be to have "lo broda" ambiguous as to whether it has existential import,

with a UI cmavo modifying it making the distinction if necessary. Perhaps

da'i would be sufficient, and that issue could disappear.

And indeed, my preferred solution to gadri would be to elucidate all of the

"features" that we feel are necessary to be distinguished (I always liked

those discussions that used "+/-specific" and other standard linguistic

"feature" presentation - we might need to add a "ospecific" for

indeterminate given metaphysical parsimony), and then use UI cmavo to turn

these features on and off, rather than relying on tricks involving the

presence, absence, and possible meaningfulness of specific vs default

quantifiers.

But I wasn't the one to write the current proposal. I don't like it, and

would vote "no", but I can't live up to Robin's requirements for a "no"

vote, so I haven't bothered to make him explicitly remove it (or me). (If

Robin is willing to take this comment as sufficient justification for a

"no" vote, I will register that vote).

> To be sure, those distinctions have caused many people many problems,

> but there is no evidence presented that this is for reasons other than

> mis (or inadequate) understanding. And what is suggested is not another

> (arguably better) way of dealing with the differences involved, but

> simply ignoring them in many cases. To do so, of course, leaves the

> meaning of virtually every sentence that does not go into the (still

> permitted) details hopelessly vague.

That is the supposed extreme ideal of metaphysical parsimony.

I think it goes too far, and it doesn't really address the problems.

We want to make certain distinctions; we need to agree on what they are

first, and express them in some standard logical or linguistic

notation. THEN, we can see how the current language maps to those desired

distinctions and remap them so as to get a result that is consistent, makes

sense, and allows everything to be said.

This is why I've wanted the existing language defined, even with all its

flaws and loose ends, before we consider proposals. Most of the discussion

of the gadri proposal, to the extent, I've been able to follow it, has been

based on ignoring the existing language because it isn't adequate, and yet

trying to define a new proposal based on the inadequate specification of

the old. As a result, we continually discover some new facet of the new

proposal that hasn't necessarily been considered.

>So back to my original questions: What exactly is wrong with the current

>gadri system?

My understanding is that there are some distinctions that people want to

make, that cannot be clearly made. What they are is a separate question

from how we make them work, and the current process jams those two steps

together.

>Are the problems one that the gadri system should be used to solve? What

>are the minimal modification needed to solve the gadri-appropriate

>problems? Are they so many as to suggest the need for a total revision?

>How would a systematic revision to met these needs proceed? Absent the

>answer to the first problem, I don't quite see the need for any of this;

>absent the answers to successive ones, the need for --indeed the

>desirability of — the proposed changes are impossible to evaluate, let

>alone comment intelligibly upon, other than to ask what they mean or to

>say that that this one or that one is unsightly in itself.

>

>This "process" has been going on for years now, but has yet to get to a

>realistic Square One> I strongly recommend against any vote until the

>case has been developed up to the norms of intelligent discourse and the

>proposal fully spelled out. I am not holding my breat, given the last

>however many years.

Let's stop spelling out the proposal, and make the requirements

clear. Once we do that, I suspect that the solution will fall out rather

more easily, AND it will be clearly documented as to what the change impact

will be (I accept that there will be some change impact against the current

language).

I designed Lojban based on understanding a set of requirements, and then

finding a design to meet those requirements. The current mechanism of

proposing changes without agreeing on the set of requirements that

justifies a change from the status quo (which itself may not be well enough

defined), is calculated to sow problems.

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 143

[email protected] wrote:

>And now for something completely different...

>

>After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

>

> mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

> po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

> .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

> poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>

>Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

>

>-Robin

>

>

>

..i mi stidi lu li'o

na prali na'ebo le dei creku

li'u .onai lu li'o

prali po'o le dei creku

--

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 2388

1 shares with my suggestion (and perhaps the original) the feature of being true even if I get NOTHING. 2 seems to say that there is only one such shirt (although it might only be that there is only one relevant to this shirt, which would be OK).

xod wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

>And now for something completely different...

>

>After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

>

> mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

> po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

> .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

> poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>

>Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

>

>-Robin

>

>

>

..i mi stidi lu li'o

na prali na'ebo le dei creku

li'u .onai lu li'o

prali po'o le dei creku

<>



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

>1 shares with my suggestion (and perhaps the original) the feature of being true even if I get NOTHING.

>

He GOT the shirt, so I don't understand the need for considering a

counterfactual.

>2 seems to say that there is only one such shirt (although it might only be that there is only one relevant to this shirt, which would be OK).

>

>

I read po'o as affecting the preceding word, hence, "profit-only", not

"only shirt".

>xod wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:

>

>

>

>>And now for something completely different...

>>

>>After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

>>

>>mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

>>po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

>>.i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

>>poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>>

>>Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

>>

>>-Robin

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>.i mi stidi lu li'o

>na prali na'ebo le dei creku

>li'u .onai lu li'o

>prali po'o le dei creku

>

><>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla



Posted by xorxes on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 1912

> mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

> po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

> .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

> poi ke'a ve cusku dei

mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri

i ro prali be mi cu me dei creka

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Fri 02 of July, 2004 16:41 GMT posts: 143

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> =20

>

>> mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

>> po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

>> .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

>> poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>> =20

>>

>

>mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri=20

>i ro prali be mi cu me dei creka

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

> =20

>

..uu krinu terpa tu'o gadri

--=20

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society=

.. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its fl=

ag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by t=

he forces of tyranny."

Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 14214

Sorry, you still haven't learned how to quote properly, so I still won't

talk to you.

-Robin

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:12:54PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

some top-posted crap



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:02:06AM -0400, xod wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:

>

> >And now for something completely different...

> >

> >After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

> >

> > mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

> > po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

> > .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

> > poi ke'a ve cusku dei

> >

> >Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

>

> .i mi stidi lu li'o

> na prali na'ebo le dei creku

> li'u .onai lu li'o

> prali po'o le dei creku

mi troci le nu simsa lo glico .i ku'i mi nelci lu se prali po'o le dei

creku li'u to zo se cu se nitcu toi

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:23:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

>

> > mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

> > po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

> > .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

> > poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>

> mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri

> i ro prali be mi cu me dei creka

zo'o fu'e .oi ro da cu stidi Everyone's a critic.

..i ku'i cinri

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:00:45AM -0400, xod wrote:

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>

> >> mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

> >> po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

> >> .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

> >> poi ke'a ve cusku dei

> >>

> >

> >mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri=20

> >i ro prali be mi cu me dei creka

> >

> >mu'o mi'e xorxes

>

> .uu krinu terpa tu'o gadri

..u'isai le mi se cusku cu te zu'e vasru so'i xorlo gadri

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 2388

1 says "not gain something other than the shirt" — it does NOT say "gain the shirt" He might have not gained anything at all.

2 misses the mark completely then saying the only thing was gaining the shirt, not the only gain was the shirt (though I suppose, depending on what the affect is, the otehr is at least possible).

xod wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

>1 shares with my suggestion (and perhaps the original) the feature of being true even if I get NOTHING.

>

He GOT the shirt, so I don't understand the need for considering a

counterfactual.

>2 seems to say that there is only one such shirt (although it might only be that there is only one relevant to this shirt, which would be OK).

>

>

I read po'o as affecting the preceding word, hence, "profit-only", not

"only shirt".

>xod wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:

>

>

>

>>And now for something completely different...

>>

>>After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

>>

>>mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

>>po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

>>.i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

>>poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>>

>>Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

>>

>>-Robin

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>.i mi stidi lu li'o

>na prali na'ebo le dei creku

>li'u .onai lu li'o

>prali po'o le dei creku

>

><>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

Justice Stevens, Rumsfeld v. Padilla



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 2388

xod wrote:

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> =20

>

>> mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

>> po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

>> .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

>> poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>> =20

>>

>

>mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri=20

>i ro prali be mi cu me dei creka

>

>mu'o mi'e xorxes

> =20

>

..uu krinu terpa tu'o gadri

?? "Lo, the poor guy, reasonably afraid of articles??



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

>1 says "not gain something other than the shirt" — it does NOT say "gain the shirt" He might have not gained anything at all.

>

>

True.

>

>2 misses the mark completely then saying the only thing was gaining the shirt, not the only gain was the shirt (though I suppose, depending on what the affect is, the otehr is at least possible).

>

>

po'o is a bit unclear. If affecting prali, then I take it to mean the

only relevant case of prali was what is listed; the shirt.

>xod wrote:

>John E Clifford wrote:

>

>

>

>>1 shares with my suggestion (and perhaps the original) the feature of being true even if I get NOTHING.

>>

>>

>>

>

>He GOT the shirt, so I don't understand the need for considering a

>counterfactual.

>

>

>

>

>>2 seems to say that there is only one such shirt (although it might only be that there is only one relevant to this shirt, which would be OK).

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>I read po'o as affecting the preceding word, hence, "profit-only", not

>"only shirt".

>

>

>

>

>>xod wrote:

>>[email protected] wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>>And now for something completely different...

>>>

>>>After we're all done, I suggest making a shirt that says:

>>>

>>>mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

>>>po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

>>>.i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

>>>poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>>>

>>>Is that an OK place to put the po'o?

>>>

>>>-Robin

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>.i mi stidi lu li'o

>>na prali na'ebo le dei creku

>>li'u .onai lu li'o

>>prali po'o le dei creku

>>

>><>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

--

Though the tomb itself will be off-limits, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and a bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former president and petition his intervention in prayer.



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

>xod wrote:

>Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>

>

>

>>=20

>>

>>

>>

>>>mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri

>>>po le nu la baupla fuzykamni cu casnu lo gadri

>>>.i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku

>>>poi ke'a ve cusku dei

>>>=20

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri=20

>>i ro prali be mi cu me dei creka

>>

>>mu'o mi'e xorxes

>>=20

>>

>>

>>

>

>.uu krinu terpa tu'o gadri

>

>

>?? "Lo, the poor guy, reasonably afraid of articles??

>

>

>

Yes, justifiably afraid of the gadri ooze. Though I prefer to read it in

the original Lojban; I find that some of the pithy flavor is lost in the

translation.

--

Though the tomb itself will be off-limits, the general public will be allowed access to a nearby altar and a bronze idol of Reagan, where Republican pilgrims may come to worship the former president and petition his intervention in prayer.



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:38:28PM -0400, xod wrote:

> John E Clifford wrote:

>

> >xod wrote: Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> >>>mi pu tcidu so'a .o'onai skami selmri po le nu la baupla fuzykamni

> >>>cu casnu lo gadri .i je .ui nai mi se prali le po'o creku poi ke'a

> >>>ve cusku dei =20

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>mi mo'u tcidu so'a gadri nu casnu selmri=20 i ro prali be mi cu me

> >>dei creka

> >>

> >

> >.uu krinu terpa tu'o gadri

> >

> >

> >?? "Lo, the poor guy, reasonably afraid of articles??

>

> Yes, justifiably afraid of the gadri ooze. Though I prefer to read it

> in the original Lojban; I find that some of the pithy flavor is lost

> in the translation.

Oh, I thought you were expressing fear that xorxes' version had included

no gadri... Oops.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



Posted by Anonymous on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT

> >2 misses the mark completely then saying the only thing was gaining the shirt, not the only gain was the shirt (though I suppose, depending on what the affect is, the otehr is at least possible).

> >

> >

>

> po'o is a bit unclear. If affecting prali, then I take it to mean the

> only relevant case of prali was what is listed; the shirt.

Hmmm, I took it to mean that prali is the only relevant case. That is, "I only

gained the shirt (as opposed to creating it, wearing it, or doing anything else

with it)".

I think the po'o has to be linked to the x1 of prali, so maybe something like {

mi se prali le dei creka ku po'o }

And none of this indicates that this shirt is "lousy". Maybe an appropriately

placed (but where?) .ionai.

--

Adam Lopresto

http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.

You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless.

For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:48:15PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:

> I think the po'o has to be linked to the x1 of prali, so maybe

> something like { mi se prali le dei creka ku po'o }

I thought that le UI broda == le broda ku UI ?

> And none of this indicates that this shirt is "lousy". Maybe an

> appropriately placed (but where?) .ionai.

I was thinking "mabla creka", actually.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 18:11 GMT posts: 2388

This makes sense; someone should write it up formally (along with the uses of {po'o} in other contexts).

xod wrote:

po'o is a bit unclear. If affecting prali, then I take it to mean the

only relevant case of prali was what is listed; the shirt.



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 19:36 GMT posts: 2388

xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>>xod:

>>.uu krinu terpa tu'o gadri

>

>

>?? "Lo, the poor guy, reasonably afraid of articles??

<the original Lojban; I find that some of the pithy flavor is lost in the

translation.>>

Yes it does, though, as noted, the idea of gadri (or any other kind of ) goo is unlojbanic.



Posted by pycyn on Fri 02 of July, 2004 19:36 GMT posts: 2388

Your second version is more what I would have expected. But, note, I have a several decade stand disapproving of {po'o} in favor of the usual logic form (at least until {po'o} gets explicitly defined from that form — or otherwise explained than by vague appeals to English usage).

"Adam D. Lopresto" wrote:> >2 misses the mark completely then saying the only thing was gaining the shirt, not the only gain was the shirt (though I suppose, depending on what the affect is, the otehr is at least possible).

> >

> >

>

> po'o is a bit unclear. If affecting prali, then I take it to mean the

> only relevant case of prali was what is listed; the shirt.

Hmmm, I took it to mean that prali is the only relevant case. That is, "I only

gained the shirt (as opposed to creating it, wearing it, or doing anything else

with it)".

I think the po'o has to be linked to the x1 of prali, so maybe something like {

mi se prali le dei creka ku po'o }

And none of this indicates that this shirt is "lousy". Maybe an appropriately

placed (but where?) .ionai.

--

Adam Lopresto

http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.

You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless.

For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.



Posted by rab.spir on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 152

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:28:07PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > Let's stop spelling out the proposal, and make the requirements clear.

>

> "Let's"?

>

> *You* are welcome to do so, if you wish.

So you just shot down the most reasonable request I've heard from lojbab in a

long time with a one-liner. I think you should give a bit more regard to what

he said. The gadri proposal keeps sloshing around, so if I knew _why_ you were

doing what you're doing it would help clarify things.

I could certainly make *my* requirements clear:

  • Make {lo PA broda} have some useful meaning.
  • Create a one reasonable way to express intensionality.
  • Clarify {lo'e} and {le'e}.
  • Clarify the meanings of all quantifiers.
  • Make the meanings have at least some semblance of compositionality.
  • Leave anything not involved in the above requirements alone.

But the proposal has satisfied those requirements in the past, and then broken

them and moved on, so you have different requirements than I do.

> > Once we do that, I suspect that the solution will fall out rather more

> > easily,

>

> More easily than the current elevent to one vote?

My vote is still dubious. If the vote were to become binding in a couple of

days (is it?) I think I would switch to NO just because it's still so unclear.

My issue is this: I got no indication, from reading the proposal, that the new

gadri - even {le} - mix up individuals and masses. And now that you mention

that they do, I don't like it. Why would you do that? I thought individuals vs.

mass was one distinction that we know how to use.

I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against its current

fuzziness, and the fact that it could alter {le}, which in my opinion is not

broken. I am also vaguely opposed to outer quantifiers on {lo} working

differently than on {le} — even if it is slightly more useful, it's not

compositional.

I will also point out on general principle that an 11-to-1 vote is not as

remarkable as you are saying, given how strongly you are discouraging people

from voting NO.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by rab.spir on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 152

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

>

> le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

>

> This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

And now it becomes clear what you're trying to "fix" about le.

If you don't mean that there are six bites, then don't quantify six bites. Use

{lei}.

Is this really in the proposal? Is it hidden in the "zo'e noi"? I'll give you

the chance to clarify before I swing my vote back to NO again.

Here's why I object in particular. Consider the sentence without {le}s:

ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

Unless the new proposal is vastly more fucked up than I think, then this is a

very specific statement. To break it down:

{ci gerku cu broda} means that exactly three dogs, in the given context, each

broda. If one of the dogs is named Spot, then {la spat. broda} is necessarily

true.

{ko'a cu batci re nanmu} means that ko'a bites exactly two men. If one of the

men is named Bob, then {ko'a batci la bab.} is necessarily true.

Therefore, if {broda} is assigned to {batci re nanmu} or {ko'a} is assigned to

{ci gerku}, yielding {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, you have to get exactly six

bites.

{le} should not change this except to make them a specific three dogs and two

men.

{lei}, on the other hand, makes the arguments into a mass, to get your desired

meaning.

--

Rob Speer



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:08:13PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:28:07PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > > Let's stop spelling out the proposal, and make the requirements

> > > clear.

> >

> > "Let's"?

> >

> > *You* are welcome to do so, if you wish.

>

> So you just shot down the most reasonable request I've heard from

> lojbab in a long time with a one-liner. I think you should give a bit

> more regard to what he said.

I don't see a request, I see a suggestion phrased as "we" when I have no

indication that Bob intends to do any of the work.

I find that sort of pussyfooting offensive.

> The gadri proposal keeps sloshing around, so if I knew _why_ you were

> doing what you're doing it would help clarify things.

I'm not doing anything. Ask xorxes. :-)

I will add my requirements to yours, though. Thanks for actually doing

the work (unlike Bob).

> I could certainly make *my* requirements clear:

>

> * Make {lo PA broda} have some useful meaning.

Check. (Meaning both "I agree" and "The current proposal seems to do

that").

> * Create a one reasonable way to express intensionality.

s/a one/a/ ?

Check.

> * Clarify {lo'e} and {le'e}.

Check.

> * Clarify the meanings of all quantifiers.

Check.

> * Make the meanings have at least some semblance of compositionality.

I don't think any version of the gadri has ever had this. Unless you're

just talking about the meanings of the *quantifiers*? Can you expand on

what you mean here?

> * Leave anything not involved in the above requirements alone.

I agree with this. I don't know if it's true in the current proposal,

but I suspect it may not be given the change to "le broda", which we can

discuss elsewhere.

I think that's a lovely set of requirements.

Other requirements I have:

  • Consistency
  • Lack of change to previous meanings.

If my requirements were ordered, lack of change would be near the top,

and consistency very near the bottom.

> But the proposal has satisfied those requirements in the past, and

> then broken them and moved on, so you have different requirements than

> I do.

In what way, exactly, are your requirements not currently met?

> > > Once we do that, I suspect that the solution will fall out rather

> > > more easily,

> >

> > More easily than the current elevent to one vote?

>

> My vote is still dubious. If the vote were to become binding in a

> couple of days (is it?)

No. I will give advance warning.

> I think I would switch to NO just because it's still so unclear.

  • Unclear*? My god, it's a veritable tome of clarity!

> My issue is this: I got no indication, from reading the proposal, that

> the new gadri - even {le} - mix up individuals and masses. And now

> that you mention that they do, I don't like it. Why would you do that?

Because I screwed up?

Where did I indicate this? Any such indication was my fault, not

xorxes' or the proposal's.

> I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against its

> current fuzziness,

  • What* fuzziness? All the gadri are rigorously defined for the first

time ever, for crying out loud! What's fuzzy?

> and the fact that it could alter {le}, which in my opinion is not

> broken.

Other thread.

> I am also vaguely opposed to outer quantifiers on {lo} working

> differently than on {le} — even if it is slightly more useful, it's

> not compositional.

Oh, that's what you mean by compositional. OK.

> I will also point out on general principle that an 11-to-1 vote is not

> as remarkable as you are saying, given how strongly you are

> discouraging people from voting NO.

......

I find that very offensive.

What I've been doing is insisting that people only vote No if they've

actually tried to understand the proposal and have specific arguments

against it, which they then share with us.

The goal here is consensus. It is impossible to acheive consensus if

people just say "This sucks".

If you think I am foolish to believe that this would happen, I will

happily point out to you the places it has *already* *occured*.

If you think that I am doing something to discourage reasoned,

clearly articulated No votes, please let me know, because that's very

much not what I want to be doing.

FWIW, my vote would be No right now, because I haven't done a review of

the Formal Definitions or the Summary, if I didn't have control of the

timing of the process. :-) Similarily, my initial vote was No until I

had read the entire proposal with a fine-toothed eye. Other people are

welcome to act in the same manner.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

> >

> > le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

> >

> > This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

>

> And now it becomes clear what you're trying to "fix" about le.

>

> If you don't mean that there are six bites, then don't quantify six

> bites. Use {lei}.

I had no idea until this discussion occured that such a sentence *was*

quantifying six bites.

I suggest that before getting upset about this issue, you see if you can

find *any* past usage that is not an example sentence that relies on

that effect. Something that no-one ever gets right isn't a feature,

it's a bug.

> Is this really in the proposal? Is it hidden in the "zo'e noi"? I'll

> give you the chance to clarify before I swing my vote back to NO

> again.

I'm pretty sure it's hiding in the le PAmei, actually. But yeah, the

zo'e noi likely breaks it too.

le ci gerku ==

le ci mei be fi lo gerku e no lo na gerku ==

zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u ci mei be fi lo gerku e no lo na

gerku

Unless you can get "su'o da" out of "ci mei", I think that does it.

> Here's why I object in particular. Consider the sentence without

> {le}s:

>

> ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

>

> Unless the new proposal is vastly more fucked up than I think, then

> this is a very specific statement. To break it down:

>

> {ci gerku cu broda} means that exactly three dogs, in the given context, each

> broda. If one of the dogs is named Spot, then {la spat. broda} is necessarily

> true.

>

> {ko'a cu batci re nanmu} means that ko'a bites exactly two men. If one of the

> men is named Bob, then {ko'a batci la bab.} is necessarily true.

>

> Therefore, if {broda} is assigned to {batci re nanmu} or {ko'a} is assigned to

> {ci gerku}, yielding {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, you have to get exactly six

> bites.

OK, that all makes sense to me.

> {le} should not change this except to make them a specific three dogs

> and two men.

Here's where I disagree. My disagreement boils down to "I don't think

le broda == su'o da *anything*. I think le is much more vague than

that. I think it always has been.". However, many other people

disagree with me.

> {lei}, on the other hand, makes the arguments into a mass, to get your desired

> meaning.

OK. For the record, I'm not at all attached to this issue one way or

the other.

I'm curious as to why you're upset about this effect WRT le and not lo.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 2388

Well, not necessarily only six bites but only six bitings (biter-bit pairs). A real dog would chew a bit, getting several bites on each man. What is more unclear is how many men there have to be: are the men picked out before the dogs — as it were — and so each bitten by all of the dogs or does each dog get a (possibly overlapping with other dogs') pair? That probably needs some sorting out (a convention in all likelihood) but not a total rehash of {le}.

Rob Speer wrote:On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

>

> le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

>

> This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

And now it becomes clear what you're trying to "fix" about le.

If you don't mean that there are six bites, then don't quantify six bites. Use

{lei}.

Is this really in the proposal? Is it hidden in the "zo'e noi"? I'll give you

the chance to clarify before I swing my vote back to NO again.

Here's why I object in particular. Consider the sentence without {le}s:

ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

Unless the new proposal is vastly more fucked up than I think, then this is a

very specific statement. To break it down:

{ci gerku cu broda} means that exactly three dogs, in the given context, each

broda. If one of the dogs is named Spot, then {la spat. broda} is necessarily

true.

{ko'a cu batci re nanmu} means that ko'a bites exactly two men. If one of the

men is named Bob, then {ko'a batci la bab.} is necessarily true.

Therefore, if {broda} is assigned to {batci re nanmu} or {ko'a} is assigned to

{ci gerku}, yielding {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, you have to get exactly six

bites.

{le} should not change this except to make them a specific three dogs and two

men.

{lei}, on the other hand, makes the arguments into a mass, to get your desired

meaning.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by rab.spir on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 152

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against its

> > current fuzziness,

>

> *What* fuzziness? All the gadri are rigorously defined for the first

> time ever, for crying out loud! What's fuzzy?

At this point, the biggest part I see that is fuzzy is whether the {PAmei} in

the definitions for "PA lo/le broda" refers to individuals or a mass. I would

prefer that it referred to individuals, because otherwise I don't see how "PA

loi/lei broda" is any different.

> If you think that I am doing something to discourage reasoned,

> clearly articulated No votes, please let me know, because that's very

> much not what I want to be doing.

I believe at one point you said that every No vote should come with a

counter-proposal. Making a counter-proposal is *hard*: obviously many months of

work have gone into the current proposal, and it's far easier for one person to

decide that something is undesirable or unclear in the proposal, than it is to

actually correct or clarify that part of the proposal without breaking

something else.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by JohnCowan on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 149

Rob Speer scripsit:

> I believe at one point you said that every No vote should come with a

> counter-proposal. Making a counter-proposal is *hard*: obviously many months of

> work have gone into the current proposal, and it's far easier for one person to

> decide that something is undesirable or unclear in the proposal, than it is to

> actually correct or clarify that part of the proposal without breaking

> something else.

A counterproposal doesn't have to be a full replacement proposal; it can take

the form of an amendment to the existing proposal.

--

Go, and never darken my towels again! John Cowan

--Rufus T. Firefly www.ccil.org/~cowan



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:48:10PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> Rob Speer scripsit:

>

> > I believe at one point you said that every No vote should come with

> > a counter-proposal. Making a counter-proposal is *hard*: obviously

> > many months of work have gone into the current proposal, and it's

> > far easier for one person to decide that something is undesirable or

> > unclear in the proposal, than it is to actually correct or clarify

> > that part of the proposal without breaking something else.

>

> A counterproposal doesn't have to be a full replacement proposal; it

> can take the form of an amendment to the existing proposal.

That was certainly my intention.

If, on the other hand, what Rob is saying boils down to me making the

members of the BPFK do some actual work before they vote, then, umm,

guilty as charged.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:39:04PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against

> > > its current fuzziness,

> >

> > *What* fuzziness? All the gadri are rigorously defined for the

> > first time ever, for crying out loud! What's fuzzy?

>

> At this point, the biggest part I see that is fuzzy is whether the

> {PAmei} in the definitions for "PA lo/le broda"

You mean in the definitions for "lo/le PA broda", yes?

> refers to individuals or a mass. I would prefer that it referred to

> individuals, because otherwise I don't see how "PA loi/lei broda" is

> any different.

PAmei is pretty clearly a mass. I'm agnostic as to the effects of that.

What do *you* think "lo ci broda" is? It's pretty clearly a group of

some kind, isn't it?

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 2388

A> How about (parallelling {le}) "all the members of some PA-membered group of broda"? Or just "some PA-membered group of broda" (I'm not sure what kind of group is meant)? Anything — I take it — but "some members of the group of all broda, which has PA members"

B>I don't get this one. We express intensionality almost exclusively by using predicates (etc.) that contain opaque positions ({nitcu2} most famously). Do you mean (as I would take it) that we should have some mark for when such contexts come along other than knowing the definition of the predicate involved? Good idea.

C>I'm not sure this is feasible. The two are inherently obscure — of the "I know it when I see it" sort. {le'e} is a liittle easier — it is what the speaker takes it that sociey generally thinks is the usual, typical, common behavior of the group under discussion — i.e., of the members of that group. {lo'e} is the actual such behavior (except that it is not necessarily how the critters generally behave: typical lions aare female but lions are not generally female; stereotypical ones are male, BTW). I'm not sure we can get much closer short of working out details in each individual case.

D> What ones are obscure? The {so'V} series is inherently vague, although I think it is cleareer now then it was a week ago. Even "several" seems to have a relatively clear content. The rest seem to be pretty much what they seem to be. That does not, of course, answer all the questions about when to use which one, but even that is coming into focus.

E> Not sure what this means: that the role that a sumti plays in a sentence be systematically derivable from its meaning in isolation? that the meaning of one sumti is systematically related to the meaning of others syntactically similar to it ({le} and {lo} to one another and each to the corresponding {lV(")i}, say)> Somehthing else or more?

F> Amen, but lotsa luck! (The reformation disease is virtually unstoppable.)

G>Well, if you mean the current proposal, XS or so, the best that can be said is that it has claimed to do these things and then, on examination, turned out not to when taken as a whole. Hence the continued revision (though the proponents often seem not to notice the problems even when they are pointed out.)

H> Is this more than the fact that Lojban does not regularly distinguish between singular and plural, which, combined with its atomic metaphysics, creates an array of muddles (trying to treat grouips as individuals, for example)?

I> Can you isolte what it is you like from the dross around it? Maybe with a clear center, something could be done it make it work. Much of the incoherence of the present propsoal (well, the last few dozen versions certainly) has been that it tries to solve too many problems with one device — and the problems require incompatible solutions (and some of them are only problems in a rather remote sense anyhow).

Rob Speer wrote:

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:28:07PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > Let's stop spelling out the proposal, and make the requirements clear.

>

> "Let's"?

>

> *You* are welcome to do so, if you wish.

So you just shot down the most reasonable request I've heard from lojbab in a

long time with a one-liner. I think you should give a bit more regard to what

he said. The gadri proposal keeps sloshing around, so if I knew _why_ you were

doing what you're doing it would help clarify things.

I could certainly make *my* requirements clear:

A>* Make {lo PA broda} have some useful meaning.

B>* Create a one reasonable way to express intensionality.

C>* Clarify {lo'e} and {le'e}.

D>* Clarify the meanings of all quantifiers.

E>* Make the meanings have at least some semblance of compositionality.

F>* Leave anything not involved in the above requirements alone.

G>But the proposal has satisfied those requirements in the past, and then broken

them and moved on, so you have different requirements than I do.

> > Once we do that, I suspect that the solution will fall out rather more

> > easily,

>

> More easily than the current elevent to one vote?

My vote is still dubious. If the vote were to become binding in a couple of

days (is it?) I think I would switch to NO just because it's still so unclear.

H>My issue is this: I got no indication, from reading the proposal, that the new

gadri - even {le} - mix up individuals and masses. And now that you mention

that they do, I don't like it. Why would you do that? I thought individuals vs.

mass was one distinction that we know how to use.

I>I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against its current

fuzziness, and the fact that it could alter {le}, which in my opinion is not

broken. I am also vaguely opposed to outer quantifiers on {lo} working

differently than on {le} — even if it is slightly more useful, it's not

compositional.

I will also point out on general principle that an 11-to-1 vote is not as

remarkable as you are saying, given how strongly you are discouraging people

from voting NO.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 2388

A> I miss getting this back channel. The rigorous definitions don't work because they are incoherent and inadequate — and often just plain wrong.

B> You have a high tolerance level. But I thought it was {lo PA broda} that went over to {PAmei}, not {PA lo broda}. In any case, {PAmei} is defined as a mass. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost what a mass is — or, rather, we have at least three ideas, incompatible with one another. Clarifying that would be useful. But it immediately raises the issue of how to deal with the other two that the one picked (or three if we find a better one). And there are just enough cases to justify the claim that each of them has a right to be expressed.

Rob Speer wrote:

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against its

> > current fuzziness,

>

A>> *What* fuzziness? All the gadri are rigorously defined for the first

> time ever, for crying out loud! What's fuzzy?

B>At this point, the biggest part I see that is fuzzy is whether the {PAmei} in

the definitions for "PA lo/le broda" refers to individuals or a mass. I would

prefer that it referred to individuals, because otherwise I don't see how "PA

loi/lei broda" is any different.

> If you think that I am doing something to discourage reasoned,

> clearly articulated No votes, please let me know, because that's very

> much not what I want to be doing.

I believe at one point you said that every No vote should come with a

counter-proposal. Making a counter-proposal is *hard*: obviously many months of

work have gone into the current proposal, and it's far easier for one person to

decide that something is undesirable or unclear in the proposal, than it is to

actually correct or clarify that part of the proposal without breaking

something else.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by lojbab on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 162

At 04:59 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:35:29PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > At 12:44 PM 6/30/04 -0400, xod wrote:

> > >John E Clifford wrote:

> > > >So back to my original questions:What exactly is wrong with the

> > > >current

> > > gadri system? Are the problems one that the gadri system should be

> > > used to solve? What are the minimal modification needed to solve

> > > the gadri-appropriate problems?

> > > >

> > >

> > >Is this March?! Restarting back to the beginning of the discussion as

> > >if the entire thing had never happened is ridiculous. These questions

> > >have been answered so many times that at this point re-asking them

> > >now is simply not reasonable.

> >

> > Robin has said that people should not have to read the discussion,

> > that the proposal should have all the information needed to understand

> > its parameters, without having to reask the questions.

>

>No, I did *NOT* say that.

>

>I said the first part, but I never said *anything* about not reasking

>the questions.

>

>In fact, I kept saying to you and Nora (over, and over, and over) that

>you should read the proposal and then come and ask any questions you

>might have.

You are correct that I mis-summarized what you've said. You encouraged us

to ask any questions that we wanted, not worrying about whether they had

been asked and answered before, but you also said that ultimately the

proposal needed to stand on its own, without recourse to reading any

discussion. I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

> > Obviously that is not the case.

>

>The only thing that is obvious to me is that PC is no longer capable of

>making himself understood to the vast majority of humanity.

I guess I am in the minority, as is Jorge, or he couldn't answer him.

>No-one else, except maybe you and Jordan, feels the current proposal is

>insufficient in itself (although I admit that I need to re-review it,

>and so does John).

It is not that I feel the proposal is "insufficient". I think it is WRONG,

being an unjustified change to the baseline that potentially will open up

new questions as bothersome as the old ones. I think that there is

justification for some change to the gadri baseline, but not this (these)

change (s), but don't feel competent to propose one myself, and I wouldn't

deign to try under a time deadline.

I admire the effort that Jorge has put into the proposal, and the patience

with which he has defended it, even though I don't agree with it. It is

even plausible that I could live with it, at least until the next gadri war

breaks out probably about a year from now because nothing really has been

settled.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by lojbab on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 162

At 05:06 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>I don't see the word 'property' anywhere in the definition of kampu.

(blink)

x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set x2

(complete set)

^^^^^^^

Better clean your glasses %

)

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:47:32PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 04:59 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >No-one else, except maybe you and Jordan, feels the current proposal

> >is insufficient in itself (although I admit that I need to re-review

> >it, and so does John).

>

> It is not that I feel the proposal is "insufficient". I think it is

> WRONG, being an unjustified change to the baseline that potentially

> will open up new questions as bothersome as the old ones. I think

> that there is justification for some change to the gadri baseline, but

> not this (these) change (s), but don't feel competent to propose one

> myself, and I wouldn't deign to try under a time deadline.

If you think it's wrong, but you can't say why, I'd say we're at an

impasse, wouldn't you?

Come on, Bob. Do you seriously expect us to just drop the whole thing

until some nebulous future date when you can tell us what you think is

wrong with the current proposal?

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:49:52PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 05:06 PM 7/1/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >I don't see the word 'property' anywhere in the definition of kampu.

>

> (blink)

>

> x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal

> ^^^^^^^^

Looking in the wrong place. Oops.

-Robin



Posted by lojbab on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 162

At 01:41 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:08:13PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > So you just shot down the most reasonable request I've heard from

> > lojbab in a long time with a one-liner. I think you should give a bit

> > more regard to what he said.

>

>I don't see a request, I see a suggestion phrased as "we" when I have no

>indication that Bob intends to do any of the work.

I've basically decided that I will not commit to doing any work under a

time deadline. Your modus operandi is for deadline driven consensus, and

that is within your power as jatna; but it greatly reduces my possible

contribution. I'll complain, but I'll abide.

> > The gadri proposal keeps sloshing around, so if I knew _why_ you were

> > doing what you're doing it would help clarify things.

>

>I'm not doing anything.

You are doing the pushing, and expressing impatience (and insulting people)

> > * Leave anything not involved in the above requirements alone.

>

>I agree with this. I don't know if it's true in the current proposal,

Keep this admission in mind.

>If my requirements were ordered, lack of change would be near the top,

>and consistency very near the bottom.

Having accepted change, the fix should be more consistent than what it

replaces which apparently was inconsistent.

> > I think I would switch to NO just because it's still so unclear.

>

>*Unclear*? My god, it's a veritable tome of clarity!

Reread your damning admission two quotes above. If you don't know whether

what has been changed meets the above requirements, it isn't clear.

It MAY have greater clarity to some new person unburdened by the baggage of

the past language; I can't say. But it is a change, and Jorge can define

precisely what the change is, and we still don't know what it

means. Partly this is true because it is phrased as a set of definitions,

and not as a set of changes to definitions, each justified by a problem it

solves. Partly it is true because, as pc said, the new definition relies

on some undetermined meaning of "zo'e" and "noi" which apparently leads

Jorge to believe that it will result in whatever it is the proposal results in.

Alas, we are not yet capable of dealing with definitions of lojban in

lojban. Or at least I'm not.

> > My issue is this: I got no indication, from reading the proposal, that

> > the new gadri - even {le} - mix up individuals and masses. And now

> > that you mention that they do, I don't like it. Why would you do that?

>

>Because I screwed up?

>

>Where did I indicate this? Any such indication was my fault, not

>xorxes' or the proposal's.

xorxes has said (I think) in response to me that unmarked le means lei and

thus means mass. You in your example did NOT want it to be decomposed into

individuals, which is what it used to do.

> > I am in favor of the general idea of this proposal; I am against its

> > current fuzziness,

>

>*What* fuzziness? All the gadri are rigorously defined for the first

>time ever, for crying out loud! What's fuzzy?

The rigorous definitions, which are rigorously defined in terms of fuzzy

concepts that we obviously don't all understand the same way.

> > I am also vaguely opposed to outer quantifiers on {lo} working

> > differently than on {le} — even if it is slightly more useful, it's

> > not compositional.

>

>Oh, that's what you mean by compositional. OK.

I think he means that the whole is a sum of its parts.

> > I will also point out on general principle that an 11-to-1 vote is not

> > as remarkable as you are saying, given how strongly you are

> > discouraging people from voting NO.

>

>.....

>

>I find that very offensive.

>

>What I've been doing is insisting that people only vote No if they've

>actually tried to understand the proposal and have specific arguments

>against it, which they then share with us.

You've also insisted on an alternate proposal, and you insist on all these

things under what in community terms is extreme time pressure. I read

email every 2 to 3 days, as does Nora, and we literally have no clue

whether we will get on and find that you've closed the vote on us. You

surprised (.i'a.io) me the other night by calling to ask if Nora had more

comments.

>The goal here is consensus. It is impossible to acheive consensus if

>people just say "This sucks".

Not in a timely manner, and timeliness seems more important than real

consensus right now. If not for your perceived need to "show the community

we can get something done", we should table gadri, and work on some other

things including "zo'e" and "noi"

>If you think that I am doing something to discourage reasoned,

>clearly articulated No votes, please let me know, because that's very

>much not what I want to be doing.

You won't get anything clearly articulated from me in the midst of a heated

debate.

>FWIW, my vote would be No right now, because I haven't done a review of

>the Formal Definitions or the Summary, if I didn't have control of the

>timing of the process. :-)

We don't know that, except by the fact that you say so. The vote as we see

it is 11 to 1, but it is not really. You say that you need to re review,

and that John also has said so, and I've said that I would vote "no" but am

not willing to meet your terms for voting no, and Rob isn't sure whether

what he has voted yes on really says what he thought it did.

You'll be able to declare consensus any time you choose. But you won't

really have consensus in fact.

But you are jatna .iocai

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by lojbab on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT posts: 162

At 02:01 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > Therefore, if {broda} is assigned to {batci re nanmu} or {ko'a} is

> assigned to

> > {ci gerku}, yielding {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, you have to get

> exactly six

> > bites.

>

>OK, that all makes sense to me.

>

> > {le} should not change this except to make them a specific three dogs

> > and two men.

>

>Here's where I disagree. My disagreement boils down to "I don't think

>le broda == su'o da *anything*. I think le is much more vague than

>that. I think it always has been.". However, many other people

>disagree with me.

I think this is may be what Rob means by compositionality. If "ci gerku"

means something, then "le ci gerku" should mean something that is composed

of the meanings of "ci gerku" and "le".

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:45:00PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 02:01 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > > {le} should not change this except to make them a specific three

> > > dogs and two men.

> >

> >Here's where I disagree. My disagreement boils down to "I don't

> >think le broda == su'o da *anything*. I think le is much more vague

> >than that. I think it always has been.". However, many other people

> >disagree with me.

>

> I think this is may be what Rob means by compositionality. If "ci

> gerku" means something, then "le ci gerku" should mean something that

> is composed of the meanings of "ci gerku" and "le".

That's definately not what compositionality means.

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/compositionality.html

-Robin



Posted by lojbab on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT posts: 162

At 02:48 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>What do *you* think "lo ci broda" is? It's pretty clearly a group of

>some kind, isn't it?

In the current language as I understand it, it is a description of at least

one of the exactly three brodas that exists in the universe. ci lo broda

would mean some three of the however many brodas that exist in the universe.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:32 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:51:30PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 02:48 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >What do *you* think "lo ci broda" is? It's pretty clearly a group of

> >some kind, isn't it?

>

> In the current language as I understand it, it is a description of at

> least one of the exactly three brodas that exists in the universe. ci

> lo broda would mean some three of the however many brodas that exist

> in the universe.

I'm sorry, I meant "le ci broda".

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 00:33 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:41:38PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 01:41 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:08:13PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > > So you just shot down the most reasonable request I've heard from

> > > lojbab in a long time with a one-liner. I think you should give a

> > > bit more regard to what he said.

> >

> >I don't see a request, I see a suggestion phrased as "we" when I have

> >no indication that Bob intends to do any of the work.

>

> I've basically decided that I will not commit to doing any work under

> a time deadline.

That's your choice. You could have said "I would appreciate it if

you..." and I would have had no problems.

> Your modus operandi is for deadline driven consensus,

You would prefer that I let things stagnate for another decade?

> > > The gadri proposal keeps sloshing around, so if I knew _why_ you

> > > were doing what you're doing it would help clarify things.

> >

> >I'm not doing anything.

>

> You are doing the pushing, and expressing impatience (and insulting

> people)

True, but not relevant; you snipped half my response.

> > > * Leave anything not involved in the above requirements alone.

> >

> >I agree with this. I don't know if it's true in the current

> >proposal,

>

> Keep this admission in mind.

I will, but bear in mind that I've said about four times in the last day

alone that I haven't yet done a review of certain parts of the proposal.

> >If my requirements were ordered, lack of change would be near the

> >top, and consistency very near the bottom.

>

> Having accepted change, the fix should be more consistent than what it

> replaces which apparently was inconsistent.

That would be nice, but it's not my prime concern.

> > > I think I would switch to NO just because it's still so unclear.

> >

> >*Unclear*? My god, it's a veritable tome of clarity!

>

> Reread your damning admission two quotes above. If you don't know

> whether what has been changed meets the above requirements, it isn't

> clear.

I've already said several times that I have a review I still have to do.

> It MAY have greater clarity to some new person unburdened by the

> baggage of the past language; I can't say. But it is a change, and

> Jorge can define precisely what the change is, and we still don't know

> what it means.

  • PLEASE* *STOP* *SAYING* *WE*.

I reject my inclusion in that pronoun.

> Partly this is true because it is phrased as a set of

> definitions, and not as a set of changes to definitions, each

> justified by a problem it solves.

We had no similar definitions before.

> Partly it is true because, as pc said, the new definition relies on

> some undetermined meaning of "zo'e" and "noi" which apparently leads

> Jorge to believe that it will result in whatever it is the proposal

> results in.

I'm willing to consider putting KOhA and/or NOI into the current

checkpoint if people can demonstrate that it's important. So far, PC is

the only person I see worrying about zo'e.

> Alas, we are not yet capable of dealing with definitions of lojban in

> lojban.

We?

> Or at least I'm not.

Better.

> > > I will also point out on general principle that an 11-to-1 vote is

> > > not as remarkable as you are saying, given how strongly you are

> > > discouraging people from voting NO.

> >

> >.....

> >

> >I find that very offensive.

> >

> >What I've been doing is insisting that people only vote No if they've

> >actually tried to understand the proposal and have specific arguments

> >against it, which they then share with us.

>

> You've also insisted on an alternate proposal, and you insist on all

> these things under what in community terms is extreme time pressure.

Perhaps you've forgotten the timeline I laid out?

I saw what happened when we tried to do everything at once: nothing at

all.

> I read email every 2 to 3 days, as does Nora,

I'm sorry that you two feel overwhelmed by keeping up with your e-mail,

but I don't consider your inability to do so my problem.

Furthermore, while I am willing to believe Nora about the every two to

three days thing, I am *not* willing to believe you. Google Groups has

77 usenet posts from you since June 28th, and more than one from each

day.

> and we literally have no clue whether we will get on and find that

> you've closed the vote on us. You surprised (.i'a.io) me the other

> night by calling to ask if Nora had more comments.

I really am trying very, very hard to include either or both of you as I

can. I last mailed Nora last Wednesday, and have yet to receive a

response.

Normally when I don't receive a response to a mail in five days, I

assume it never arrived or that the person doesn't care to talk to me.

The amount of restraint I require to not send her multiple mails per day

at this point is a continous source of stress for me.

> >The goal here is consensus. It is impossible to acheive consensus if

> >people just say "This sucks".

>

> Not in a timely manner, and timeliness seems more important than real

> consensus right now.

Define "timeliness". I'm sorry, but thus far I have no evidence that if

we wait for you we will *ever* stop waiting. I'm not willing to put

this on hold for a year or two for you.

If you want to put forward a concrete length of time you need, feel

free, and we'll discuss it.

> If not for your perceived need to "show the community we can get

> something done", we should table gadri, and work on some other things

> including "zo'e" and "noi"

Again with the "we"!

Are you offering to shepherd either of those sections?

> >FWIW, my vote would be No right now, because I haven't done a review

> >of the Formal Definitions or the Summary, if I didn't have control of

> >the timing of the process. :-)

>

> We don't know that, except by the fact that you say so. The vote as

> we see it is 11 to 1, but it is not really. You say that you need to

> re review, and that John also has said so, and I've said that I would

> vote "no" but am not willing to meet your terms for voting no, and Rob

> isn't sure whether what he has voted yes on really says what he

> thought it did.

>

> You'll be able to declare consensus any time you choose. But you

> won't really have consensus in fact.

You can believe whatever insulting things you would like to believe, but

thus far no-one has come back after the previous checkpoints and said,

"Hey, wait a minute, I wasn't ready / I misread / my vote's wrong" or

whatever. Until someone does, I'd call that comment a straw-man.



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT posts: 2388

In the interest of trying to become intelligible to Robin and so, eventually, to ordinary people (though why we would want ordinary people to vote on these matters — or why they would want to — escapes me), I send for this piece of xorxean analysis.

"The typical lion eats gnus"

{lo'e cinfo cu citka lo baknrgnu}

(I suspect gnus are not as nearly cows as they are sheep or goats or deer, but they look like cows to me (pi,er will tell us if the info is needed). I also suspect that the compound is wrong. Neither of these points is relefant at the moment.)

{lo ka ce'u citka lo baknrgnu cu mutce kampu lo'i cinfo}

{lo ka ce'u citka zo'e noi baknrgnu cu mutce kampu lo'i cinfo}

Who is this thing (a gnu, BTW) eating whom is a common property of lions? {zo'e} has to be an individual (since that is, amazingly, all that we have the {ko'a brode} pattern for as an undefined notion) and a fundamental individual (i.e., not a collective, group, set or abstraction). The identity of the referent of {zo'e} has to be worked out before the beginning of the sentence, since all the information in the sentence assumes we have found him already. To be sure, this {zo'e} is inside a property description (that is, in an opaque context) so the poor whatever (who happens also to be a gnu) may not be any real one in this world. But it must be in the world of the property and it is just as nonsensical there. However:

{lo ka ce'u citka zo'e noi baknrgnu cu mutce kampu lo cmaci selcmi be lo cinfo e no lo na cinfo}, that is:

{...skipping to the good stuff... zo'e noi cmaci selcmi lo cinfo e no lo na cinfo}

{... zo'e noi cmaci selcmi zo'e noi cinfo e no lo na cinfo}

Now, we would have exspected that what was involved was generally something a larger set than a singleton, but {zo'e} has — since it is subject in a fundamental preidation — to be an individual and a basic one at that, indeed a lion. The notion of a property being common in a singleton is not very clear — and it is certainly not what the original meant (even ignoring problems with {mutce kampu}). Of course, there may be other things in the set, apparently, by what comes after, each a lion. But there is no reason here to think that the set includes *all* lions or even a representative bunch: it contains zo'e and no non-lions, so any cluster that satisfies that will do, from singleton zo'e on up. Of course, since we already know what set it is, namely that earlier zo'e, we can check what it has in it . And, I suppose that the speaker gets to pick the set (the picks are all outside the sentence frame — like {le}s) s/he can pick the set of all (and only) lions.

{...zo'e noi cmaci selcmi zo'e noi br

{... zo'e noi cinfo e no mupli be lo na cinfo}

{....e no mupli be zo'e noi na cinfo}

So, since zo'e is the only example of zo'e, it is not in the set. zo'e is not a lion, so at least one non-lion is not in the set. Of course, that does not mean that other non-lions won't be there — conmtrary to yet another intention of the original claim.

All of these problems (and just plain sillinesses) can be avoided, but doing so in a way that applies to all the cases ends up reducing {lo broda} back to {su'o da poi broda} (or something else with exactly the same logic, if you want to split hairs).

This is a significant part of what I mean by saying that the aproposal is incoherent, doesn't do what it sets out to do and is just plain wrong.



Posted by djorden on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT posts: 17

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:01:02PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

> > >

> > > le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

> > >

> > > This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

> >

> > And now it becomes clear what you're trying to "fix" about le.

> >

> > If you don't mean that there are six bites, then don't quantify six

> > bites. Use {lei}.

>

> I had no idea until this discussion occured that such a sentence *was*

> quantifying six bites.

>

> I suggest that before getting upset about this issue, you see if you can

> find *any* past usage that is not an example sentence that relies on

> that effect. Something that no-one ever gets right isn't a feature,

> it's a bug.

No way.

You didn't have any idea that that sentence quantified six bites,

because you never bothered to learn it properly. It's very clearly

documented in chapter 16 of the refgram.

Have you read CLL cover to cover? Maybe a re-read is worth your

time?

You can't blame the language when the problem (in this case) is

that people simply didn't bother to learn how it works. It's not a

bug if the language doesn't work the way an English speaker might

guess it works.

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA5hRfDrrilS51AZ8RAlqCAJ9Q0ztGOlImAKxEja1Izk8o0vFfawCfYbLB

RflN1QxkCJdR2bcHIXM8/go=

=K50y

---END PGP SIGNATURE---



Posted by Anonymous on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT

On Friday 02 July 2004 20:43, John E Clifford wrote:

> {lo'e cinfo cu citka lo baknrgnu}

> (I suspect gnus are not as nearly cows as they are sheep or goats or deer,

> but they look like cows to me (pi,er will tell us if the info is needed).

> I also suspect that the compound is wrong. Neither of these points is

> relefant at the moment.)

They're neither; they're in Hippotraginae. Cows are Bovinae and sheep and

goats are both Caprinae. But I call another Hippotragina {baknrkobu} (or

{letcue}), so {baknrgnu} is fine with me (though {bakrgnu} is a bit easier to

say).

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 03 of July, 2004 05:56 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:05:19PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:01:02PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:21:53PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:45:36PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > > > What was broken about "le" that warrants a change?

> > > >

> > > > le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu == *exactly* six bites.

> > > >

> > > > This is very far from what I would mean by such a statement.

> > >

> > > And now it becomes clear what you're trying to "fix" about le.

> > >

> > > If you don't mean that there are six bites, then don't quantify

> > > six bites. Use {lei}.

> >

> > I had no idea until this discussion occured that such a sentence

> > *was* quantifying six bites.

> >

> > I suggest that before getting upset about this issue, you see if you

> > can find *any* past usage that is not an example sentence that

> > relies on that effect. Something that no-one ever gets right isn't

> > a feature, it's a bug.

>

> No way.

>

> You didn't have any idea that that sentence quantified six bites,

> because you never bothered to learn it properly. It's very clearly

> documented in chapter 16 of the refgram.

I'm fully aware.

> Have you read CLL cover to cover?

Yes.

> Maybe a re-read is worth your time?

Without a doubt.

> You can't blame the language when the problem (in this case) is that

> people simply didn't bother to learn how it works. It's not a bug if

> the language doesn't work the way an English speaker might guess it

> works.

We've had this difference of opinion before. I'm not wedded to my point

of view, but I still disagree with you.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 2388

Hmmm, Goat-horse. Not too bad for antelope generally but I never would have thought of horses in connection with the relatively plodding gnu. Maybe I should have thought of elands instead. But then, I suppose that the names don't have much evolutionary significance.

Pierre Abbat wrote:On Friday 02 July 2004 20:43, John E Clifford wrote: > {lo'e cinfo cu citka lo baknrgnu}

> (I suspect gnus are not as nearly cows as they are sheep or goats or deer,

> but they look like cows to me (pi,er will tell us if the info is needed).

> I also suspect that the compound is wrong. Neither of these points is

> relefant at the moment.)

They're neither; they're in Hippotraginae. Cows are Bovinae and sheep and

goats are both Caprinae. But I call another Hippotragina {baknrkobu} (or

{letcue}), so {baknrgnu} is fine with me (though {bakrgnu} is a bit easier to

say).

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 2388

John E Clifford wrote:

<<{....e no mupli be zo'e noi na cinfo}

So, since zo'e is the only example of zo'e, it is not in the set. zo'e is not a lion, so at least one non-lion is not in the set. Of course, that does not mean that other non-lions won't be there — conmtrary to yet another intention of the original claim.>>

OK, so this is a little unfair. the {zo'e} here is probably forced bu {mupli} to be a property. But then saying that it is not a lion seems otiose, since lions aren't properties nor properties lions — even incidentally.



Posted by xorxes on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 1912

Rob Speer:

> Here's why I object in particular. Consider the sentence without {le}s:

>

> ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

>

> Therefore, if {broda} is assigned to {batci re nanmu} or {ko'a} is assigned

> to

> {ci gerku}, yielding {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, you have to get exactly

> six

> bites.

No, just at least six bites. You could have, in addition to

{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, {ci gerku cu batci mu nanmu},

{vo gerku cu batci pa nanmu}, {no gerku cu batci vo nanmu},

and {so'i gerku cu batci ci nanmu}. The sentence only tells

you haw many dogs bit exactly two men, it says nothing about

how many dogs bit any other number of men. This is an unfortunate

effect of quantifier being strictly scoped by order of

appearance, there are a couple of wiki pages that deal with

this (and ideas on how to solve what pc would undoubtedly call

a nonproblem). This proposal does not change this, since it is

not really about gadri but rather about quantifiers.

> {le} should not change this except to make them a specific three dogs and two

> men.

{ro le ci gerku cu batci ro le re nanmu} is a very different claim,

quantifier-wise. Much simpler, in fact, and it does require

exactly six bitings. The proposal does not change that claim.

{le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu}, under the proposal, is an even

simpler claim, as it only talks about one relationship that exists

between certain three dogs I have in mind and certain two men. No

details are provided about how exactly the members of these two groups

enter into the relationship.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> {lo ka ce'u citka zo'e noi baknrgnu cu mutce kampu lo'i cinfo}

> Who is this thing (a gnu, BTW) eating whom is a common property of lions?

> {zo'e} has to be an individual (since that is, amazingly, all that we have

> the {ko'a brode} pattern for as an undefined notion) and a fundamental

> individual (i.e., not a collective, group, set or abstraction).

Here is where we diverge. There is no rule that says that zo'e

can't be a collective, a group, a set, an abstraction or anything

else. In fact in almost every sentence it plays one of these roles,

given the prevalence of hardly ever filled "by standard" and

"under conditions" places.

> {...skipping to the good stuff... zo'e noi cmaci selcmi lo cinfo e no lo na

> cinfo}

> {... zo'e noi cmaci selcmi zo'e noi cinfo e no lo na cinfo}

> Now, we would have exspected that what was involved was generally something a

> larger set than a singleton, but {zo'e} has — since it is subject in a

> fundamental preidation — to be an individual and a basic one at that, indeed

> a lion. The notion of a property being common in a singleton is not very

> clear — and it is certainly not what the original meant (even ignoring

> problems with {mutce kampu}).

The definition I gave for {lo'e broda} has {lo'i ro broda}.

I am not really interested in defending the definition I gave for

{lo'e}, I am willing to change it to whatever you propose if people

like it. But your analysis is plain wrong. the correct expansion

following the definitions, is:

lo'e cinfo cu citka lo baknrgnu}

= lo ka ce'u citka zo'e noi baknrgnu cu kampu lo'i ro cinfo

and {lo'i ro cinfo} is {lo cmaci selcmi be ro cinfo e no lo na cinfo}.

> But there is no reason

> here to think that the set includes *all* lions or even a representative

> bunch: it contains zo'e and no non-lions, so any cluster that satisfies that

> will do, from singleton zo'e on up.

Wrong.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 2388

A> Remember that in Lojban, sets, collectives and abstractions are also individuals. In this case, zo'e must be a fundamental individual because it is (even incidentally) a gnu, and gnus are not collectives, sets, abstractions, etc. zo'e is always the approipriate sort of thing for its environment (which leads later to problems when the environment makes differing demands on it). Later in this sentence, zo'e will be a property, aas I note, and elsewhere a set. This is about this one case only.

B> <> (cut and paste), not altered in corrections.

C>I am sorry I missed what you meant but I can only go by what you said. Your change gets rid of the gratuitous snarl about getting the wrong set but leaves us with either an undefined term (there is no definition given for {PA broda}) or, if {PA broda} is just {PA lo broda}leaves us once again — at the end of {ro mupli be zo'e noi cinfo}) with a property that is a lion (though only incidentally). That is, of course, just flat wrong, sp the change actually makes the case worse.

D> Well, there is no reason in your latest revision (which I can hardly be expected to have predicted — even knowing that you needed it, and much more besides. However, the gist is right, since it is now a set with impossible members: instances of a property which is a lion.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {lo ka ce'u citka zo'e noi baknrgnu cu mutce kampu lo'i cinfo}

> Who is this thing (a gnu, BTW) eating whom is a common property of lions?

> {zo'e} has to be an individual (since that is, amazingly, all that we have

> the {ko'a brode} pattern for as an undefined notion) and a fundamental

> individual (i.e., not a collective, group, set or abstraction).

A>Here is where we diverge. There is no rule that says that zo'e

can't be a collective, a group, a set, an abstraction or anything

else. In fact in almost every sentence it plays one of these roles,

given the prevalence of hardly ever filled "by standard" and

"under conditions" places.

> {...skipping to the good stuff... zo'e noi cmaci selcmi lo cinfo e no lo na

> cinfo}

> {... zo'e noi cmaci selcmi zo'e noi cinfo e no lo na cinfo}

> Now, we would have exspected that what was involved was generally something a

> larger set than a singleton, but {zo'e} has — since it is subject in a

> fundamental preidation — to be an individual and a basic one at that, indeed

> a lion. The notion of a property being common in a singleton is not very

> clear — and it is certainly not what the original meant (even ignoring

> problems with {mutce kampu}).

B>The definition I gave for {lo'e broda} has {lo'i ro broda}.

C>I am not really interested in defending the definition I gave for

{lo'e}, I am willing to change it to whatever you propose if people

like it. But your analysis is plain wrong. the correct expansion

following the definitions, is:

lo'e cinfo cu citka lo baknrgnu}

= lo ka ce'u citka zo'e noi baknrgnu cu kampu lo'i ro cinfo

and {lo'i ro cinfo} is {lo cmaci selcmi be ro cinfo e no lo na cinfo}.

> But there is no reason

> here to think that the set includes *all* lions or even a representative

> bunch: it contains zo'e and no non-lions, so any cluster that satisfies that

> will do, from singleton zo'e on up.

D>Wrong.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 2388

Jorge Llambías wrote:Rob Speer:

> Here's why I object in particular. Consider the sentence without {le}s:

>

> ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

>

> Therefore, if {broda} is assigned to {batci re nanmu} or {ko'a} is assigned

> to

> {ci gerku}, yielding {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, you have to get exactly

> six

> bites.

A>No, just at least six bites. You could have, in addition to

{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}, {ci gerku cu batci mu nanmu},

{vo gerku cu batci pa nanmu}, {no gerku cu batci vo nanmu},

and {so'i gerku cu batci ci nanmu}. The sentence only tells

you haw many dogs bit exactly two men, it says nothing about

B>how many dogs bit any other number of men. This is an unfortunate

effect of quantifier being strictly scoped by order of

appearance, there are a couple of wiki pages that deal with

this (and ideas on how to solve what pc would undoubtedly call

a nonproblem). This proposal does not change this, since it is

not really about gadri but rather about quantifiers.

> {le} should not change this except to make them a specific three dogs and two

> men.

C>{ro le ci gerku cu batci ro le re nanmu} is a very different claim,

quantifier-wise. Much simpler, in fact, and it does require

exactly six bitings. The proposal does not change that claim.

{le ci gerku cu batci le re nanmu}, under the proposal, is an even

simpler claim, as it only talks about one relationship that exists

between certain three dogs I have in mind and certain two men. No

details are provided about how exactly the members of these two groups

enter into the relationship.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

A> Whoa. In the event in question, there are only six bites (or bitings). This event may occur in proximity with other events in which ther are other bitings or as a part of a larger event, a bite-fest, say. So, unless your point is, as mine was, that dogs tend to get in more than one bite when they bite someone, it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

B> While I agree that we need devices for allowing afterthought repositioning of quantifiers, I don't see that this is a problem here in any of the versions. It may be that there is some other order that would produce some other results, but thsi one works just fine for this case. There are also all the cases we could get by changing gadri — from ({lo}) to {loi} or {le} to {lei} for example. Most of the proposal for quantifier reordering I have seen (but I have admittedly not looked at the wiki pages in a long time) seem to be as unwieldy as the anaphora rules (present, past, and proposed). the only non-problem involved with quantifiers is that some people don't like having the quantifiers not turn up where they want them after they have not taken the time to figure out where that is and write accordingly. Leapers would help that — if they figured things out soon enough — but this is not obviously a flaw ain the language, just in the linguist.

C> I can see that the claims are different, but how is one simpler than the other (neither of them ultimately make sense under your understanding)? One is about members of a mass drawn from (I'm sure you intend) a set of things called..., the other a number of loci of (I suppose) the property of being a ... The look to be about the same in complexity. The third {le ci gerku} case is a little simpler; it is about the mass itself, so we skip the members (it does not in fact talk about dogs and men, but about masses of such — admittedly probably chosen because of their members).



Posted by xorxes on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> A> Remember that in Lojban, sets, collectives and abstractions are also

> individuals.

Yes. That's why I don't know what you meant by:

> > and a fundamental

> > individual (i.e., not a collective, group, set or abstraction).

> In this case, zo'e must be a fundamental individual because it

> is (even incidentally) a gnu, and gnus are not collectives, sets,

> abstractions, etc. zo'e is always the approipriate sort of thing for its

> environment

Yes. For example, {lo'e baknrgnu cu baknrgnu}. {lo'e baknrgnu} is one

example of an appropriate thing for the x1 if {baknrgnu}.

> B> <> (cut

> and paste), not altered in corrections.

I assume you are not looking at the wiki page. This was corrected thanks

to a comment from someone. Please look at the latest version of the page

if you are going to make disparaging comments about it.

> C>I am sorry I missed what you meant but I can only go by what you said.

> Your change gets rid of the gratuitous snarl about getting the wrong set but

> leaves us with either an undefined term (there is no definition given for {PA

> broda}) or, if {PA broda} is just {PA lo broda}leaves us once again — at the

> end of {ro mupli be zo'e noi cinfo}) with a property that is a lion (though

> only incidentally). That is, of course, just flat wrong, sp the change

> actually makes the case worse.

{PA broda} is defined in the wiki page as {PA da poi ke'a broda}.

> D> Well, there is no reason in your latest revision (which I can hardly be

> expected to have predicted — even knowing that you needed it, and much more

> besides.

You didn't need to predict anything, just look at the latest version

of the page. You can't expect me to get everything right the first

time I write it, that's why we have the process of discussion and

correction. Those two things (the definition of PA broda and the

ro in {lo'i ro broda}) have been there for long.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by xorxes on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu},

>

> A> Whoa. In the event in question, there are only six bites (or bitings).

> This event may occur in proximity with other events in which ther are other

> bitings or as a part of a larger event, a bite-fest, say.

{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} is incompatible with

{re gerku cu batci re nanmu}, with {vo gerku cu batci re nanmu},

and with {any-number-but-ci gerku cu batci re annmu}, but it

says nothing about the number of dogs that bite other than

two nanmu.

> C> I can see that the claims are different, but how is one simpler than the

> other (neither of them ultimately make sense under your understanding)?

I'm surprised that you don't consider a claim with a ci and a re

quantifier much more complex than one with just two ro quantifiers.

Written in terms of basic quantifiers the first is much more complex.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by lojbab on Sat 03 of July, 2004 20:45 GMT posts: 162

At 05:15 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:41:38PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > >I don't see a request, I see a suggestion phrased as "we" when I have

> > >no indication that Bob intends to do any of the work.

> >

> > I've basically decided that I will not commit to doing any work under

> > a time deadline.

>

>That's your choice. You could have said "I would appreciate it if

>you..." and I would have had no problems.

Neither of us seems to be particularly good in conveying ourselves with

utmost politeness.

> > Your modus operandi is for deadline driven consensus,

>

>You would prefer that I let things stagnate for another decade?

I would prefer a third alternative, but there is no provision for

discussing alternatives, and the decision is up to you.

> > > > The gadri proposal keeps sloshing around, so if I knew _why_ you

> > > > were doing what you're doing it would help clarify things.

> > >

> > >I'm not doing anything.

> >

> > You are doing the pushing, and expressing impatience (and insulting

> > people)

>

>True, but not relevant; you snipped half my response.

I'm am just surmising why comments appear to be aimed at you rather than Jorge.

> > > > I think I would switch to NO just because it's still so unclear.

> > >

> > >*Unclear*? My god, it's a veritable tome of clarity!

> >

> > Reread your damning admission two quotes above. If you don't know

> > whether what has been changed meets the above requirements, it isn't

> > clear.

>

>I've already said several times that I have a review I still have to do.

Then how can you claim it to be a tome of clarity?

> > It MAY have greater clarity to some new person unburdened by the

> > baggage of the past language; I can't say. But it is a change, and

> > Jorge can define precisely what the change is, and we still don't know

> > what it means.

>

>*PLEASE* *STOP* *SAYING* *WE*.

>

>I reject my inclusion in that pronoun.

Given the negative sentence, until "we" reach consensus, the statement is

correct.

> > Partly this is true because it is phrased as a set of

> > definitions, and not as a set of changes to definitions, each

> > justified by a problem it solves.

>

>We had no similar definitions before.

We had CLL before, which being written in English rather than half in

undefined Lojban, is more understandable to some of us.

> > Partly it is true because, as pc said, the new definition relies on

> > some undetermined meaning of "zo'e" and "noi" which apparently leads

> > Jorge to believe that it will result in whatever it is the proposal

> > results in.

>

>I'm willing to consider putting KOhA and/or NOI into the current

>checkpoint if people can demonstrate that it's important. So far, PC is

>the only person I see worrying about zo'e.

I'm worried about any reference to words that are yet undefined. I used to

think I understood the language (whether I really did or not). Given the

proposed change, I won't any more. And no amount of defining the words in

Lojban will help that in the least.

> > Alas, we are not yet capable of dealing with definitions of lojban in

> > lojban.

>

>We?

Again a negative sentence applied to the collective. If some of us can't,

then "we" can't.

> > >What I've been doing is insisting that people only vote No if they've

> > >actually tried to understand the proposal and have specific arguments

> > >against it, which they then share with us.

> >

> > You've also insisted on an alternate proposal, and you insist on all

> > these things under what in community terms is extreme time pressure.

>

>Perhaps you've forgotten the timeline I laid out?

>

>I saw what happened when we tried to do everything at once: nothing at

>all.

So instead, we've been arguing for weeks about the most contentious issue

in the language, and still getting nothing done at all. And the odds are

that even if you are able to declare a consensus, the issues will come up

at least one more time before the rest of the language is done, because

there isn't really a consensus, just a group forcing their way through and

a bunch of others who are ranging from avoidance to silence to acquiescence

because the rules don't really give any other choice.

> > I read email every 2 to 3 days, as does Nora,

>

>I'm sorry that you two feel overwhelmed by keeping up with your e-mail,

>but I don't consider your inability to do so my problem.

>

>Furthermore, while I am willing to believe Nora about the every two to

>three days thing, I am *not* willing to believe you.

>Google Groups has

>77 usenet posts from you since June 28th, and more than one from each

>day.

I'm sure it does. Usenet isn't email.

> > and we literally have no clue whether we will get on and find that

> > you've closed the vote on us. You surprised (.i'a.io) me the other

> > night by calling to ask if Nora had more comments.

>

>I really am trying very, very hard to include either or both of you as I

>can. I last mailed Nora last Wednesday, and have yet to receive a

>response.

I'm not sure she knows one was expected, since she posted to the

forum. I'll tell her.

>Normally when I don't receive a response to a mail in five days, I

>assume it never arrived or that the person doesn't care to talk to me.

>The amount of restraint I require to not send her multiple mails per day

>at this point is a continous source of stress for me.

You can send her multiple mails. She is capable of deleting them if they

are bothersome. %^)

> > >The goal here is consensus. It is impossible to acheive consensus if

> > >people just say "This sucks".

> >

> > Not in a timely manner, and timeliness seems more important than real

> > consensus right now.

>

>Define "timeliness". I'm sorry, but thus far I have no evidence that if

>we wait for you we will *ever* stop waiting. I'm not willing to put

>this on hold for a year or two for you.

You shouldn't "for me"; I don't really matter in the long run. But when

two someones vote "no", you COULD go on to something different. After

you've gone round on all the topics, if someone still hasn't formulated

their objections, they can't complain about not having had time.

When multiple people express heartburn about a proposal, as clearly people

have, then no matter how you force the vote count to go, there isn't really

consensus, and it will come back to haunt you/us to assert that there

is. On this particular issue (gadri), we've thought there was consensus at

least a couple of times before - 1994 and 1997, and there apparently

wasn't. Having the definition set out for people to contemplate as they

review the rest of the language MAY help us reach consensus. Your

agreement for some sort of second pass at the end MAY enable a real

consensus to emerge then. You don't have one now.

>If you want to put forward a concrete length of time you need, feel

>free, and we'll discuss it.

See above. I'm not prepared to make specific commitments on a deadline

(and that is one reason why I will not volunteer to shepherd anything. If

I had been in Jorge's role in this discussion, I would probably have

quit). Given that I would hope (and expect) that discussion would move on

to something else while things were stalled on this one, the ability of me

and others to focus on this while paying attention to a discussion on some

other topic is questionable.

> > If not for your perceived need to "show the community we can get

> > something done", we should table gadri, and work on some other things

> > including "zo'e" and "noi"

>

>Again with the "we"!

>

>Are you offering to shepherd either of those sections?

How could I do that AND come up with an alternative proposal on this AND

follow a discussion on some third topic?

> > You'll be able to declare consensus any time you choose. But you

> > won't really have consensus in fact.

>

>You can believe whatever insulting things you would like to believe,

I'm sorry that you feel insulted, since I am NOT insulting you. It's a

tough job, and I'm sure you are doing it as best you know how. I have

ideas on how it could be done better, but I don't have to make them

work. With time and thought, I may be able to come up with something that

you could accept, but not if the fact that I'm unhappy is taken as an insult.

>but

>thus far no-one has come back after the previous checkpoints and said,

>"Hey, wait a minute, I wasn't ready / I misread / my vote's wrong" or

>whatever.

None of those would be a comment indicating lack of consensus. Consensus

is a group phenomenon, not a bunch of individual ones. When issues aren't

especially contentious, people may accept the consensus merely to keep

things moving. But that only works until things stop flying by so fast

that people have a chance to think. I wonder if anyone has had time to

even LOOK at the previous checkpoints amidst the current turmoil - not that

there is necessarily anything wrong with them.

Ah, well. I won't settle anything by writing more in this email. I'm

trying to share what little wisdom I acquired in trying to steer the

project for 16 years, and one item I've learned, is that when the time

isn't ripe, nothing will happen.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by pycyn on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT posts: 2388

E> Metaphysical claim: individuals that are not either collectives of other individuals nor abstractions from their preoperties and actions. To be sure, we can analyze even these to be collections, but I am here using an obvious albeit informal sense. They are things like lions and gnus and people.

F>But {lo'e baknrgnu} is just the sort of thing for which {ko'a broda} has a derivative meaning, not at all the same as that for {ko'a broda} proper — or here {zo'e broda}. At the bottom, no such thing as the referent of {lo'e broda} plays any role in the situation at issue.

G> while I worry a bit that you ever thought the older definition was correct, I wrote this up a couple of days agao and the pages has been changed since then. Sorry about that — but notice that definition makes the situation even worse.

H> Well, of course you want to makes some distinction among the various "some brodas" and I should have checked to see if you had spelled it out somewhere. So now we have {lo'i ro cinfo} => {lo cmaci selcmi be ro broda} => {lo cmaci selcmi be ro da poi broda} which actually works! The other problems with the sentence remain however. You don't seem to changed the definition of {no lo na broda} lately for example (though I expect you will).

I> But I should be able to expect you get at least a sizable number of things right. Not so, alas.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

E> A> Remember that in Lojban, sets, collectives and abstractions are also

> individuals.

Yes. That's why I don't know what you meant by:

> > and a fundamental

> > individual (i.e., not a collective, group, set or abstraction).

> In this case, zo'e must be a fundamental individual because it

> is (even incidentally) a gnu, and gnus are not collectives, sets,

> abstractions, etc. zo'e is always the approipriate sort of thing for its

> environment

F>Yes. For example, {lo'e baknrgnu cu baknrgnu}. {lo'e baknrgnu} is one

example of an appropriate thing for the x1 if {baknrgnu}.

> B> <> (cut

> and paste), not altered in corrections.

G>I assume you are not looking at the wiki page. This was corrected thanks

to a comment from someone. Please look at the latest version of the page

if you are going to make disparaging comments about it.

> C>I am sorry I missed what you meant but I can only go by what you said.

> Your change gets rid of the gratuitous snarl about getting the wrong set but

> leaves us with either an undefined term (there is no definition given for {PA

> broda}) or, if {PA broda} is just {PA lo broda}leaves us once again — at the

> end of {ro mupli be zo'e noi cinfo}) with a property that is a lion (though

> only incidentally). That is, of course, just flat wrong, sp the change

> actually makes the case worse.

H>{PA broda} is defined in the wiki page as {PA da poi ke'a broda}.

> D> Well, there is no reason in your latest revision (which I can hardly be

> expected to have predicted — even knowing that you needed it, and much more

> besides.

I>You didn't need to predict anything, just look at the latest version

of the page. You can't expect me to get everything right the first

time I write it, that's why we have the process of discussion and

correction. Those two things (the definition of PA broda and the

ro in {lo'i ro broda}) have been there for long.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by pycyn on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT posts: 2388

D> How incompatible? These just talk about other events — as I took your comment to be. These are all particular quantifiers at the end of it all and so different at each occurrence. We can't say of exactly the same event that it is three on two and also four on three, but we can certainly say those of two different events. I guess I don't get your point. Mine was just that *in the event described* there are six bitings, whatever happens around it.

E> True enough, I suppose — but if we are going back to basic quantifiers, then the {ci} in {ci le gerku} and {le ci gerku} have to be dealt with (well, maybe not the latter but that takes us into the complications of descriptions, which is almost as bad).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu},

>

> A> Whoa. In the event in question, there are only six bites (or bitings).

> This event may occur in proximity with other events in which ther are other

> bitings or as a part of a larger event, a bite-fest, say.

D>{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} is incompatible with

{re gerku cu batci re nanmu}, with {vo gerku cu batci re nanmu},

and with {any-number-but-ci gerku cu batci re annmu}, but it

says nothing about the number of dogs that bite other than

two nanmu.

> C> I can see that the claims are different, but how is one simpler than the

> other (neither of them ultimately make sense under your understanding)?

E>I'm surprised that you don't consider a claim with a ci and a re

quantifier much more complex than one with just two ro quantifiers.

Written in terms of basic quantifiers the first is much more complex.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 04:30:18PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 05:15 PM 7/2/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> >On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:41:38PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > > >I don't see a request, I see a suggestion phrased as "we" when I

> > > >have no indication that Bob intends to do any of the work.

> > >

> > > I've basically decided that I will not commit to doing any work

> > > under a time deadline.

> >

> >That's your choice. You could have said "I would appreciate it if

> >you..." and I would have had no problems.

>

> Neither of us seems to be particularly good in conveying ourselves

> with utmost politeness.

This is very true.

Look, it's really simple: you come in to the BPFK forums every once in a

while to tell me how everything we're doing stinks.

This bothers me. A lot. Way more than I've expressed.

I'm sick of how angry it makes me, so from now on I'm just not going to

worry about it. If you have constructive ideas, please share them, but

I'll mostly be skimming your posts from now on.

> > > >What I've been doing is insisting that people only vote No if

> > > >they've actually tried to understand the proposal and have

> > > >specific arguments against it, which they then share with us.

> > >

> > > You've also insisted on an alternate proposal, and you insist on

> > > all these things under what in community terms is extreme time

> > > pressure.

> >

> >Perhaps you've forgotten the timeline I laid out?

> >

> > > >The goal here is consensus. It is impossible to acheive

> > > >consensus if people just say "This sucks".

> > >

> > > Not in a timely manner, and timeliness seems more important than

> > > real consensus right now.

> >

> >Define "timeliness". I'm sorry, but thus far I have no evidence that

> >if we wait for you we will *ever* stop waiting. I'm not willing to

> >put this on hold for a year or two for you.

>

> You shouldn't "for me"; I don't really matter in the long run. But

> when two someones vote "no", you COULD go on to something different.

> After you've gone round on all the topics, if someone still hasn't

> formulated their objections, they can't complain about not having had

> time.

I could, and indeed I may very well do exactly that.

> When multiple people express heartburn about a proposal, as clearly

> people have, then no matter how you force the vote count to go, there

> isn't really consensus, and it will come back to haunt you/us to

> assert that there is. On this particular issue (gadri), we've thought

> there was consensus at least a couple of times before - 1994 and 1997,

> and there apparently wasn't. Having the definition set out for people

> to contemplate as they review the rest of the language MAY help us

> reach consensus. Your agreement for some sort of second pass at the

> end MAY enable a real consensus to emerge then. You don't have one

> now.

The only no vote from a commissioner is Nora's. That's consensus minus

one, which has been the defining standard of the BPFK from the

beginning.

But I do se your point.

> > > If not for your perceived need to "show the community we can get

> > > something done", we should table gadri, and work on some other

> > > things including "zo'e" and "noi"

> >

> >Again with the "we"!

> >

> >Are you offering to shepherd either of those sections?

>

> How could I do that AND come up with an alternative proposal on this

> AND follow a discussion on some third topic?

You've said many, many times that we should be doing everything at once.

That's what doing everything thing at once entails.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Sun 04 of July, 2004 02:15 GMT posts: 2388

So, this time not trying to be fancy and go for the big absurdity, let me stick to the small stuff:

"Lions eat meat" (general)

{lo cinfo cu citka lo rectu} (assumed the same)

{zo'e noi ke'a cinfo cu citka zo'e noi rectu}

"A selected thing which happens to be a lion eats another selected thing which happens to be a piece of meat" (very particular, although imprecise)

Must we play Telephone every time we try to understand what is said in a precise way. Note that neither zo'e is even a lo'e, since they are incidentally — not definitionally — lion or chop, as the case might be. But they are a lion and a piece of meat, so ordinary individuals of those sorts, not collectives or sets or abstractions. So, how were they selected (or at least the lion — the meat might be selected from what the lion actually ate) so that their (or at least its) behavior was general among lions (meat bits)?

This is a mechanical conversion of what xorxes has regularly said was the way to make a general claim under his scheme. It doesn't do that. So, is there a secret non-mechanical way to expand sentences back to basics? If so, what is it? Tell us before we vote (and what were the "definitions" for then?) Or is it that {lo broda cu brode} is not really the way to give generalities in xorsban, despite what has been said over and over. Then how do we do it (this being the chiefmost advantage of the new system)? How does that come out from its parts? Or is it, finally, that {zo'e} has some new, mysterious, contextually shifting meaning (and {noi} and {ke'a broda} too to make it work) which always works out to give the right meaning for a given intention, even when there are no syntactic — or even semantic — clues in the sentence involved? Or is it really the case that this proposal is just crap, as it is prima facie and on the various detailed examinations so far. (I apologize

for expressing surprise that a piece of the last analysis worked out right. It was, of course, merely something borrowed whole hog from CLL Lojban, which ain't broke.)



Posted by lojbab on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT posts: 162

At 03:56 PM 7/3/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 04:30:18PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > Neither of us seems to be particularly good in conveying ourselves

> > with utmost politeness.

>

>This is very true.

>

>Look, it's really simple: you come in to the BPFK forums every once in a

>while to tell me how everything we're doing stinks.

>

>This bothers me. A lot. Way more than I've expressed.

One reason I haven't posted more often. I know it bothers you. I don't see

any easy solutions, so I try to say nothing most of the time.

> > When multiple people express heartburn about a proposal, as clearly

> > people have, then no matter how you force the vote count to go, there

> > isn't really consensus, and it will come back to haunt you/us to

> > assert that there is. On this particular issue (gadri), we've thought

> > there was consensus at least a couple of times before - 1994 and 1997,

> > and there apparently wasn't. Having the definition set out for people

> > to contemplate as they review the rest of the language MAY help us

> > reach consensus. Your agreement for some sort of second pass at the

> > end MAY enable a real consensus to emerge then. You don't have one

> > now.

>

>The only no vote from a commissioner is Nora's. That's consensus minus

>one, which has been the defining standard of the BPFK from the

>beginning.

No. That is da'apa vote. If there was consensus, then people wouldn't be

saying, as you did today, that you might change your vote to a "no" because

you haven't reviewed something. Consensus comes from "consent". If

someone still MIGHT change their vote to "no" they haven't really

consented. Someone who gripes a lot, but hasn't explicitly voted also

hasn't consented.

>But I do se your point.

I know you do. You are a smart guy, and when you and I get past taking

offense with how the other says something, we usually agree, or when we

don't, we reach consensus.

> > >Again with the "we"!

> > >

> > >Are you offering to shepherd either of those sections?

> >

> > How could I do that AND come up with an alternative proposal on this

> > AND follow a discussion on some third topic?

>

>You've said many, many times that we should be doing everything at once.

>That's what doing everything thing at once entails.

Yep. And doing everything at once, may mean that nothing gets really DONE

for a while, especially when only a couple of people are willing to

shepherd. I understand the dilemma.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by rab.spir on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT posts: 152

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:48:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> What do *you* think "lo ci broda" is? It's pretty clearly a group of

> some kind, isn't it?

I think it means "three brodas", but I don't think that the three brodas

act as a mass unless you stick a mass article or conversion on there.

Now, I start to see the point of massifying, because this is basically the same

as "ci lo broda" or "ci broda". So, the proposal goes, this should be a mass.

And then {le ci broda} should probably act the same way.

But that changes a meaningful use of {le}, which is why it worries me. I want

to be able to refer to "the three brodas", as individuals, and it seems the

only way I have left to say this is {lu'a le ci broda}.

(Or does {ci le ci broda} / {ro le ci broda} do the same thing?)

But there's another solution which has the same expressive power and leaves

more usage alone, and that's to use {loi} and {lei} for masses, and leave {lo}

with a bit of redundancy.

Basically, I favor consistency over usefulness. So here's what I'd propose:

{ci lo broda} = {lo ci broda} = {ci broda} = 3 brodas

(Perhaps {lo ci broda} is subtly different because it doesn't have an outer

quantifier. Don't ask me how these things work.)

{re lo ci broda} = 2 out of some 3 brodas (kind of useless)

{ci le broda} = 3 of the things that I refer to as "broda"

{le ci broda} = the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

{re le ci broda} = 2 of the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

In all of the above, changing {lo} to {loi} or {le} to {lei} means that the

things referred to act as a mass.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by rab.spir on Sun 04 of July, 2004 05:36 GMT posts: 152

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > I think this is may be what Rob means by compositionality. If "ci

> > gerku" means something, then "le ci gerku" should mean something that

> > is composed of the meanings of "ci gerku" and "le".

>

> That's definately not what compositionality means.

>

> http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/compositionality.html

Perhaps I'm using a slightly broader definition of compositionality; what Bob

said is what I'd like. I think this even mostly fits under the definition you

quoted, though. I'll elaborate a bit.

What I would really like is to be able to define a function for every

grammatical structure in Lojban (the ones in question here are sumti-5 and

sumti-6, I believe) that maps from the meanings of its parts to the meaning of

the whole, without having to look into the parts. An example of where this

breaks in the current proposal: {re lo ci gerku} parses like this (IIRC,

because I'm not looking in the grammar, and also glossing over things):

sumti5:

quantifier: re

sumti6:

LE: lo

sumti5:

quantifier: ci

sumti-tail: gerku

In understanding the outermost sumti5, I shouldn't have to care whether the

sumti6 in it is a lo-phrase or le-phrase. Under the current proposal, if it's a

lo-phrase, my result is two instances of the whole sumti6, while if it's a

le-phrase, my result is two members of the sumti6.

Now, my ulterior motive here is that I actually _am_ writing functions that do

this, for a computer program that has some basic understanding of Lojban. (This

is also why I started caring about the formal grammar). But I think that the

consistency I ask for is generally a desirable thing anyway.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Sun 04 of July, 2004 18:32 GMT

On Saturday 03 July 2004 10:11, John E Clifford wrote:

> Hmmm, Goat-horse. Not too bad for antelope generally but I never would

> have thought of horses in connection with the relatively plodding gnu.

> Maybe I should have thought of elands instead. But then, I suppose that

> the names don't have much evolutionary significance.

There's an animal called Boselaphus tragocamelus, which means ox-deer

goat-camel. There's also Ovibos, the musk ox, which I call in Lojban baklanme

(it's in the sheep/goat subfamily, not the cow subfamily).

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 14:48 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> How incompatible?

As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

The first entails the negation of the second.

OTOH, {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu ije ci gerku cu batci

ci nanmu} is perfectly fine.

> These just talk about other events — as I took your comment

> to be. These are all particular quantifiers at the end of it all and

> so different at each occurrence. We can't say of exactly the same

> event that it is three on two and also four on three,

Why not? {pa lo nu ge ci gerku cu batci re nanmu gi

vo gerku cu batci ci nanmu}: "a single event of three dogs

bite two men and four dogs bite three men". Nothing odd

about that.

> but we can certainly say those of two different events. I

> guess I don't get your point. Mine was just that *in the

> event described* there are six bitings, whatever happens

> around it.

We can't guarantee that, all we can guarantee is that in the

event described there are at least six bitings. Another way of

saying the same thing is this:

da'a ci gerku cu batci me'ire ja za'ure nanmu

All but three dogs bite less than two or more than two men.

We are saying the same thing, and it is more clear that we

don't require there to be exactly six bitings, just at least six.

> True enough, I suppose — but if we are going back to basic

> quantifiers, then the {ci} in {ci le gerku} and {le ci gerku}

> have to be dealt with

We were comparing {ci gerku} and {ro le ci gerku}. The ci

in {ci le gerku} works like the ci in {ci gerku}, i.e. as a quantifier.

They only differ in the things they quantify over. The inner ci

does not function as an ordinary quantifier.

> (well, maybe not the latter but that takes us into the

> complications of descriptions, which is almost as bad).

Inner quantifiers are always cardinalities, be it of mathematical

sets or just of groups.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 18:38 GMT posts: 1912

Rob:

> But there's another solution which has the same expressive power and leaves

> more usage alone, and that's to use {loi} and {lei} for masses, and leave

> {lo}

> with a bit of redundancy.

XS leaves almost all usage alone. What usages are you thinking of

that this solution would leave alone and XS doesn't?

As for expressive power, XS allows you to not make the

distributive/non-distributive distinction if you don't

want to, while this solution seems to force you to make it

in all cases. This seems to be less expressive power.

> Basically, I favor consistency over usefulness. So here's what I'd propose:

>

> {ci lo broda} = {lo ci broda} = {ci broda} = 3 brodas

> (Perhaps {lo ci broda} is subtly different because it doesn't have an outer

> quantifier. Don't ask me how these things work.)

> {re lo ci broda} = 2 out of some 3 brodas (kind of useless)

(This would be {re lu'a lo ci broda} in XS, BTW.)

> {ci le broda} = 3 of the things that I refer to as "broda"

> {le ci broda} = the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

> {re le ci broda} = 2 of the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

>

> In all of the above, changing {lo} to {loi} or {le} to {lei} means that the

> things referred to act as a mass.

This would seem to violate your ideal of compositionality, because

the function of outer quantifiers could be changed by what follows.

It is somewhat less expressive than XS because, for example, it

doesn't deal with "five groups of 4 students", which XS would do

as {mu lo vo tadni}.

You can make XS compositional in your sense simply by defining

{le PA broda} as "the group of PA broda I have in mind, with

its members available for quantification", and {lo PA broda}

as "a generic group of PA broda, with its instances available for

quantification". Outer quantifiers then quantify over whatever

the following sumti has available for quantification.

This won't work for {lei} and {lai} as defined (though that could

be easily fixed), but your definitions are not compositional for

them either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT posts: 2388

A> In what way? not To what extent? But if they are this badly off then how it is accomplished does not matter. I still don't see it, however.

B> Not logically incompatible anyhow; the particular quantifiers involved can't be identified with one another. As for {broda ije na broda}, depending on context etc. this may or may not work: e.g., a broda and his friend, a non-broda, walk into a bar and the bertender says the above pair of observatives:"Look, a broda and a non-broda." If we move on to collpase these two sentences into a single predication, then of course, it is contradictory.

C> Here is where it gets real murky. How does this differ from the one above, other than that the second quantifier is different rather than the first? And why does that nake a difference? They are in any case not (necessarily) the same dogs or people — any of the four groups.

D> OK, a single *non-compound* event, that is an event that does not contain another event at the same level (and I can see this won't stand up to much pressure — and (ahah!)I don't need it to anyhow). Quite right, but note that the quantifiers are still distinct, which means that a necessary condition for contradiction has not occurred.

E: Well, yes, the original does talk about exactly three and exactly two, but why then the different treatments of the two quantifiers (all but 3 vs. either more or less than 2?. It seems that there should be something enormously profound here, but I am not getting it at all. I see this all as meaning that your expansion in terms of "all but" and "not exactly" is not accurately equivalent, though, if you think it is, it does account for the different treatment earlier. but now how do you explain this different treatment? I don't see how saying what some things did do affects what other things do or what we can about what they do.

F>Again, I can't help but read this as saying only that this event might be part of a larger one in which other bitings went on — or, of course, that the dogs gnawed rather than one clean bite apiece.

G> The inner quantifier works on a different field than the outer, but it works in exactly the same way. Indeed, in a fully expanded form it even works on the same field, on the preidcate "is a member of a" (where a has been identifed earlier in the expansion as the group in question). It turns up at the head of a non-restrictive relative clause.

H> And this is different from numerical quantifiers how?

[email protected] wrote:

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

pc:

A:> How incompatible?

B>As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

The first entails the negation of the second.

C>OTOH, {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu ije ci gerku cu batci

ci nanmu} is perfectly fine.

> These just talk about other events — as I took your comment

> to be. These are all particular quantifiers at the end of it all and

> so different at each occurrence. We can't say of exactly the same

> event that it is three on two and also four on three,

D>Why not? {pa lo nu ge ci gerku cu batci re nanmu gi

vo gerku cu batci ci nanmu}: "a single event of three dogs

bite two men and four dogs bite three men". Nothing odd

about that.

> but we can certainly say those of two different events. I

> guess I don't get your point. Mine was just that *in the

> event described* there are six bitings, whatever happens

> around it.

E>We can't guarantee that, all we can guarantee is that in the

event described there are at least six bitings. Another way of

saying the same thing is this:

da'a ci gerku cu batci me'ire ja za'ure nanmu

All but three dogs bite less than two or more than two men.

F>We are saying the same thing, and it is more clear that we

don't require there to be exactly six bitings, just at least six.

> True enough, I suppose — but if we are going back to basic

> quantifiers, then the {ci} in {ci le gerku} and {le ci gerku}

> have to be dealt with

G>We were comparing {ci gerku} and {ro le ci gerku}. The ci

in {ci le gerku} works like the ci in {ci gerku}, i.e. as a quantifier.

They only differ in the things they quantify over. The inner ci

does not function as an ordinary quantifier.

> (well, maybe not the latter but that takes us into the

> complications of descriptions, which is almost as bad).

H>Inner quantifiers are always cardinalities, be it of mathematical

sets or just of groups.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by pycyn on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT posts: 2388

Since XS — insofar as it is repesented in last Saturday's version on the wiki — is seriously defective at even the simplest level and has at least some problems at level thereafeter (except when it simply is the old usage — occasionally murked up to look new), claiming greater expressibility (indeed, any expressibility at all other than what it borrows from the old stuff) seems beside the point (which is more polite than saying "is clearly false.")

A> XS allows you to proceed apparently as if you were failing to make the distinction, but that ends you up saying the wrong thing in enough cases to suggest some revision is still needed in XS.

B> Is this a feature or a bug?

C> Surely {vomei} has not disappeared in rab's system. As for XS, the functions of both inner and outer quantifiers change depending on the gadri involved.

D> Rob, doing something else, can do whatever he wants, I suppose. You, doing XS, did not define your terms thusly — or rather did at that level but screwed up at the lower level, with {lo} and, to a lesser extent, {le}.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Rob:

> But there's another solution which has the same expressive power and leaves

> more usage alone, and that's to use {loi} and {lei} for masses, and leave

> {lo}

> with a bit of redundancy.

XS leaves almost all usage alone. What usages are you thinking of

that this solution would leave alone and XS doesn't?

A>As for expressive power, XS allows you to not make the

distributive/non-distributive distinction if you don't

want to, while this solution seems to force you to make it

in all cases. This seems to be less expressive power.

> Basically, I favor consistency over usefulness. So here's what I'd propose:

>

> {ci lo broda} = {lo ci broda} = {ci broda} = 3 brodas

> (Perhaps {lo ci broda} is subtly different because it doesn't have an outer

> quantifier. Don't ask me how these things work.)

> {re lo ci broda} = 2 out of some 3 brodas (kind of useless)

B>(This would be {re lu'a lo ci broda} in XS, BTW.)

> {ci le broda} = 3 of the things that I refer to as "broda"

> {le ci broda} = the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

> {re le ci broda} = 2 of the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

>

> In all of the above, changing {lo} to {loi} or {le} to {lei} means that the

> things referred to act as a mass.

This would seem to violate your ideal of compositionality, because

the function of outer quantifiers could be changed by what follows.

C>It is somewhat less expressive than XS because, for example, it

doesn't deal with "five groups of 4 students", which XS would do

as {mu lo vo tadni}.

D>You can make XS compositional in your sense simply by defining

{le PA broda} as "the group of PA broda I have in mind, with

its members available for quantification", and {lo PA broda}

as "a generic group of PA broda, with its instances available for

quantification". Outer quantifiers then quantify over whatever

the following sumti has available for quantification.

This won't work for {lei} and {lai} as defined (though that could

be easily fixed), but your definitions are not compositional for

them either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT

[email protected] scripsit:

> As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

> The first entails the negation of the second.

Your point is correct, but your formulation of it is wrong. In the

above sentence, there is no reason to think that the two halves of

the conjunction refer to the same event.

--

Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN John Cowan

in any language. --Allen Brown [email protected]



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Not logically incompatible anyhow; the particular quantifiers involved

> can't be identified with one another.

{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu ije re gerku cu batci re nanmu}

is as logically incompatible as {pa gerku cu batci re nanmu

ije no gerku cu batci re nanmu}.

> Here is where it gets real murky. How does this differ from the one

> above, other than that the second quantifier is different rather than the

> first?

They differ crucially. Remember that the second quantifier is within

the scope of the first. This means that the predicate that the variable

quantified by the first quantifier must satisfy is changed when the

second quantifier is changed: different predicates need not be satisfied

by the same number of dogs. But if the second quantifier is not changed,

we have both times the same predicate, and so it is at least odd to claim

that the same predicate is satisfied by two different number of dogs when

nothing else is changed. It is like saying {ci gerku cu blabi ije

re gerku cu blabi}. Of course we can always shift context from one

to the next to fix the anomaly, but no context change is needed in the

other case.

> Well, yes, the original does talk about exactly three and exactly two,

> but why then the different treatments of the two quantifiers (all but 3 vs.

> either more or less than 2?.

Because the second is under the scope of the first.

ci da re de

= ci da naku naku re de

= da'aci da me'ire ja za'ure de

where {ci da naku} = {da'aci da} and {naku re de} = {me'ire ja za'ure de}

> It seems that there should be something

> enormously profound here, but I am not getting it at all.

Just that negation from the left is different from negation

from the right.

> I see this all as

> meaning that your expansion in terms of "all but" and "not exactly" is not

> accurately equivalent, though, if you think it is, it does account for the

> different treatment earlier. but now how do you explain this different

> treatment? I don't see how saying what some things did do affects what other

> things do or what we can about what they do.

When you quantify over a domain, you make a claim about everything

in the domain, both the things that do and the things that don't.

> Again, I can't help but read this as saying only that this event might be

> part of a larger one in which other bitings went on — or, of course, that

> the dogs gnawed rather than one clean bite apiece.

Of course, {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} does not give the full info

on the batci that take place from the dogs to the men of the

domain, it only gives partial information. That's why I say it

requires at least six bitings. In no sense does it restrict the

event to exactly six bitings.

{ro le ci gerku cu batci ro le re nanmu} does give full info on

the bitings from dogs to men in the domain, and it says that the

six potential bitings all do occur.

> The inner quantifier works on a different field than the outer, but it

> works in exactly the same way. Indeed, in a fully expanded form it even

> works on the same field, on the preidcate "is a member of a" (where a has

> been identifed earlier in the expansion as the group in question). It turns

> up at the head of a non-restrictive relative clause.

Perhaps it does, but it is a more complex clause. Indeed it is

probably a clause of the form "se cmima PA broda e no da poi na broda",

(as I had to use in my formal definitions) so not a straightforward

quantification.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:46 GMT posts: 1912

John Cowan:

> > As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> > ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

> > The first entails the negation of the second.

>

> Your point is correct, but your formulation of it is wrong. In the

> above sentence, there is no reason to think that the two halves of

> the conjunction refer to the same event.

Doesn't {ije} at least suggest that? How would you formulate so that

they are claimed of the same event?

I take it that {ci gerku e re gerku cu batci re nanmu} is

equivalent to {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu ije re gerku cu

batci re nenmu}, isn't it?

In any case, the important point is that we can have that

the number of dogs that bite two men is three even when the

total number of bitings is more than six.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 12:32, John Cowan wrote:

> [email protected] scripsit:

> > As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> > ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

> > The first entails the negation of the second.

>

> Your point is correct, but your formulation of it is wrong. In the

> above sentence, there is no reason to think that the two halves of

> the conjunction refer to the same event.

Even if they do refer to the same event, they don't have to have the same

sumti. I could see a dog and a cat together and remark {gerku .ije na gerku}.

In {gerku gi'e na gerku}, however, they share x1, but this can still be true:

{gerku la sankt. bernard. gi'e na gerku la dotco lange'u}. {gerku je na

gerku} is false.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 1912

pier:

> Even if they do refer to the same event, they don't have to have the same

> sumti. I could see a dog and a cat together and remark {gerku .ije na gerku}.

>

> In {gerku gi'e na gerku}, however, they share x1, but this can still be true:

>

> {gerku la sankt. bernard. gi'e na gerku la dotco lange'u}. {gerku je na

> gerku} is false.

Couldn't it be understod as {gerku (be la sankt. bernard.) jenai gerku

(be la dotco lange'u)}? (It seems that {na} is not grammatical there,

but you can make the same point with {nai}.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 2388

It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a different way:

For three dogs and two men, each dog bit both ot the men on this occasion.

For three dog, each bit two men on this occasion

There are exactly three dogs and exactly three men (altogether ever) such that each dog bit each man

There are exactly three dogs (altogether ever) who each bit two men.

I confess that I cannot work out either which one the Lojban is — or even which broader type it is (1-2) v (3-4) or (1-3) v (2-4) — nor what XS says it is nor how — in either system, to say the other three in distinctiive ways.

John Cowan wrote:

[email protected] scripsit:

> As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

> The first entails the negation of the second.

Your point is correct, but your formulation of it is wrong. In the

above sentence, there is no reason to think that the two halves of

the conjunction refer to the same event.

--

Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN John Cowan

in any language. --Allen Brown [email protected]



Posted by pycyn on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 2388

A> I agree; that is , not at all. See comments to Cowan just sent.

B> As nice a statement of the problem as I could ask for. Yes one is in the scope of the other, but both are particulars and both can be fronted, and for fronted particulars the order is irrelevant — in Logic. In short, what is the derivation of this sentence: inserting EG and 2N into {batci} or 3G into {batci re nanmu}? And is this a particular claim or a general on — independently of the first issue?

C> Got it. You are in the 2-4 camp; actually all the way to 4 apparently.

D> But the question is, how did you get to that place for the negation in the first place?

E> that seems rather extreme. If I say that some dog barked, I am surely NOT saying that none of the other dogs barked. I just don't care about them. Even if I specify that it was just one dog I am interested in — the one who barking I heard or that awakened me or whatever.

F> Now I don't get it again. This seems to be moving away from 4 toward 2 and then beyond that to I can't figure out what.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Not logically incompatible anyhow; the particular quantifiers involved

> can't be identified with one another.

A>{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu ije re gerku cu batci re nanmu}

is as logically incompatible as {pa gerku cu batci re nanmu

ije no gerku cu batci re nanmu}.

> Here is where it gets real murky. How does this differ from the one

> above, other than that the second quantifier is different rather than the

> first?

B>They differ crucially. Remember that the second quantifier is within

the scope of the first. This means that the predicate that the variable

quantified by the first quantifier must satisfy is changed when the

second quantifier is changed: different predicates need not be satisfied

by the same number of dogs. But if the second quantifier is not changed,

we have both times the same predicate, and so it is at least odd to claim

that the same predicate is satisfied by two different number of dogs when

nothing else is changed. It is like saying {ci gerku cu blabi ije

re gerku cu blabi}. Of course we can always shift context from one

to the next to fix the anomaly, but no context change is needed in the

other case.

> Well, yes, the original does talk about exactly three and exactly two,

> but why then the different treatments of the two quantifiers (all but 3 vs.

> either more or less than 2?.

C>Because the second is under the scope of the first.

ci da re de

= ci da naku naku re de

= da'aci da me'ire ja za'ure de

where {ci da naku} = {da'aci da} and {naku re de} = {me'ire ja za'ure de}

> It seems that there should be something

> enormously profound here, but I am not getting it at all.

D>Just that negation from the left is different from negation

from the right.

> I see this all as

> meaning that your expansion in terms of "all but" and "not exactly" is not

> accurately equivalent, though, if you think it is, it does account for the

> different treatment earlier. but now how do you explain this different

> treatment? I don't see how saying what some things did do affects what other

> things do or what we can about what they do.

E>When you quantify over a domain, you make a claim about everything

in the domain, both the things that do and the things that don't.

> Again, I can't help but read this as saying only that this event might be

> part of a larger one in which other bitings went on — or, of course, that

> the dogs gnawed rather than one clean bite apiece.

F>Of course, {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} does not give the full info

on the batci that take place from the dogs to the men of the

domain, it only gives partial information. That's why I say it

requires at least six bitings. In no sense does it restrict the

event to exactly six bitings.

{ro le ci gerku cu batci ro le re nanmu} does give full info on

the bitings from dogs to men in the domain, and it says that the

six potential bitings all do occur.

> The inner quantifier works on a different field than the outer, but it

> works in exactly the same way. Indeed, in a fully expanded form it even

> works on the same field, on the preidcate "is a member of a" (where a has

> been identifed earlier in the expansion as the group in question). It turns

> up at the head of a non-restrictive relative clause.

Perhaps it does, but it is a more complex clause. Indeed it is

probably a clause of the form "se cmima PA broda e no da poi na broda",

(as I had to use in my formal definitions) so not a straightforward

quantification.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 2388

On the 2 reading, we have dogs A, B, C: A bites man D and A bites man E, B bites man F and B bites man G. C bites man H and C bites manI. Some of themen bitten by different dogs may be the same, but that doesn't affect the overall biting count, which looks like 6 to me. What ones have I missed?

Jorge Llambías wrote:John Cowan:

> > As incompatible as it can get. {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> > ije re gerku cu batci re nenmu} is as false as {broda ije na broda}.

> > The first entails the negation of the second.

>

> Your point is correct, but your formulation of it is wrong. In the

> above sentence, there is no reason to think that the two halves of

> the conjunction refer to the same event.

Doesn't {ije} at least suggest that? How would you formulate so that

they are claimed of the same event?

I take it that {ci gerku e re gerku cu batci re nanmu} is

equivalent to {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu ije re gerku cu

batci re nenmu}, isn't it?

In any case, the important point is that we can have that

the number of dogs that bite two men is three even when the

total number of bitings is more than six.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 17:06, John E Clifford wrote:

> It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence

> {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a

> different way: For three dogs and two men, each dog bit both ot the men on

> this occasion. For three dog, each bit two men on this occasion

> There are exactly three dogs and exactly three men (altogether ever) such

> that each dog bit each man There are exactly three dogs (altogether ever)

> who each bit two men. I confess that I cannot work out either which one the

> Lojban is — or even which broader type it is (1-2) v (3-4) or (1-3) v

> (2-4) — nor what XS says it is nor how — in either system, to say the

> other three in distinctiive ways.

I understand it as "For three dogs, each bit two men." Whether it's on this

occasion or ever is unspecified. To say "There are three dogs and two men

such that the dogs bit the men" (only two men got bitten, instead of up to

six), say {ci gerku ce'e re nanmu cu batci}.

phma

--

cire cilce carce jarco ce'e reci cilce carce cu jarco

..i cire cilce carce jarco cu jarco reci cilce carce

..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 152

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:17:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Rob:

> > But there's another solution which has the same expressive power and leaves

> > more usage alone, and that's to use {loi} and {lei} for masses, and leave

> > {lo}

> > with a bit of redundancy.

>

> XS leaves almost all usage alone. What usages are you thinking of

> that this solution would leave alone and XS doesn't?

Well, this is something it's pretty difficult to show usage of — you can't

tell if the writer really meant to refer to individuals.

Here's one example (from Alice, chapter 8):

le ci purdykurji cu sezre'o ja'e le nu le flira cu cpana le loldi

The three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces.

My understanding is that XS would require these to be masses, and then I'd read

that as "the three gardeners instantly threw one another flat upon their

faces".

Are you saying, though, that "le ci purdykurji" is not marked for whether it's

a mass or individuals? I don't get that from reading the proposal. I suppose

that would be more reasonable.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence {ci

> gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a different

> way:

There are more than these four ways to read the English sentence, but I

thought the Lojban one was clear. XS and CLL agree on this one. I will

give the XS version for your four readings.

> For three dogs and two men, each dog bit both ot the men on this occasion.

lo ci gerku lo re nanmu zo'u ro lu'a gy cu batci ro lu'a ny

> For three dog, each bit two men on this occasion

lo ci gerku zo'u ro lu'a gy cu batci re nanmu

> There are exactly three dogs and exactly three men (altogether ever) such

> that each dog bit each man

roci gerku cu batci rore nanmu

> There are exactly three dogs (altogether ever) who each bit two men.

roci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> I confess that I cannot work out either which one the Lojban is — or even

> which broader type it is (1-2) v (3-4) or (1-3) v (2-4) — nor what XS says

> it is nor how — in either system, to say the other three in distinctiive

> ways.

None of those correspond to the CLL and XS reading of {ci gerku cu batci

re nanmu}, which is: "for exactly three dogs (i.e. no more and no less than

three dogs) it is the case that for exactly two men (i.e. no more and no

less than two men) the dog bites the man".

The negation of this sentence says that either more than three or less

than three dogs bite exactly two men.

(Your 2 comes closest to this meaning, I think, but I'm not sure if

your "for three dogs" means "for some three dogs" or "for one and only

one group of three dogs". If the latter, then that's what CLL and XS

give.)

A sixth possible reading would be:

{ci gerku cu batci su'o nanmu ije re nanmu cu se batci su'o gerku}

"exactly three dogs bite at least one man, and exactly two men are

bitten by at least two dogs". I suspect this would be the most useful

one, though the expansion is somewhat complex.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> If I say that some dog barked, I am surely

> NOT saying that none of the other dogs barked.

Of course. {su'o gerku cu cmoni} is equivalent to

{me'iro gerku naku cmoni}, "not all dogs didn't bark".

But if you say {pa gerku cu cmoni}, "exactly one dog barked",

then you are saying {da'apa gerku naku cmoni}, "all dogs but

one didn't bark".

The case at hand is like the latter. This is what we mean when

we say that numbers in Lojban are "exact".

> I just don't care about them.

> Even if I specify that it was just one dog I am interested in — the one who

> barking I heard or that awakened me or whatever.

You seem to be saying that {pa gerku cu cmoni} says that at least one

dog barks, and that we can say nothing about all other dogs from that?

How would it differ from {su'o gerku cu cmoni}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> On the 2 reading, we have dogs A, B, C: A bites man D and A bites man E, B

> bites man F and B bites man G. C bites man H and C bites manI. Some of

> themen bitten by different dogs may be the same, but that doesn't affect the

> overall biting count, which looks like 6 to me. What ones have I missed?

All other dogs that are not A, B and C. If dog J bit men K, L and M, then

{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} still holds, because dog J does not add to the

count of dogs that bit exactly two men. The number of bitings in this case

is already at least 9.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by lojbab on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 162

At 11:17 AM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

>As for expressive power, XS allows you to not make the

>distributive/non-distributive distinction if you don't

>want to, while this solution seems to force you to make it

>in all cases. This seems to be less expressive power.

While in general I prefer to remove the need to force distinctions, your=20

loss of expressive power means adding words in order to make the=

distinction.

In any case, adding expressive power goes beyond fixing what is broken, and=

=20

hence is an unnecessary change.

>Rob:

> > Basically, I favor consistency over usefulness. So here's what I'd=

propose:

> >

> > {ci lo broda} =3D {lo ci broda} =3D {ci broda} =3D 3 brodas

> > (Perhaps {lo ci broda} is subtly different because it doesn't have an=

=20

> outer

> > quantifier. Don't ask me how these things work.)

> > {re lo ci broda} =3D 2 out of some 3 brodas (kind of useless)

>

>(This would be {re lu'a lo ci broda} in XS, BTW.)

>

> > {ci le broda} =3D 3 of the things that I refer to as "broda"

> > {le ci broda} =3D the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

> > {re le ci broda} =3D 2 of the 3 things that I refer to as "broda"

> >

> > In all of the above, changing {lo} to {loi} or {le} to {lei} means that=

the

> > things referred to act as a mass.

>

>This would seem to violate your ideal of compositionality, because

>the function of outer quantifiers could be changed by what follows.

>

>It is somewhat less expressive than XS because, for example, it

>doesn't deal with "five groups of 4 students", which XS would do

>as {mu lo vo tadni}.

What is wrong with "mu lo tadni vomei", which was designed specifically for=

=20

this purpose?

I can see two answers. One is that the x1 of mei currently says "mass",=20

but we will need to be changing mei no matter what since we are adding new=

=20

distinctions to the language, and mei needs to handle them all (we will=20

also add to the lu'a series)

The second is prejudice against anything tanru, although in this case there=

=20

is a very strong convention of meaning.

lojbab

--=20

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 1912

pier:

> I understand it as "For three dogs, each bit two men." Whether it's on this

> occasion or ever is unspecified.

"For some three dogs", or "for three and only three dogs"?

What if there is a fourth dog that bit two dogs, would {ci gerku cu

batci re nanmu} still hold? (No in CLL and XS.)

What if the fourth dog bit five men, would {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu}

still hold? (Yes in CLL and XS.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> What if there is a fourth dog that bit two dogs, would {ci gerku cu

> batci re nanmu} still hold? (No in CLL and XS.)

That is, provided the fourth dog is within the current event and not

in some different event altogether. Otherwise, all such claims would be

false of necessity, since dog-bites-dog goes on all the time everywhere.

And of course there are no objective boundaries between events: speaker

intent is all.

--

John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [email protected]

All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:47 GMT posts: 1912

John Cowan:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

>

> > What if there is a fourth dog that bit two dogs, would {ci gerku cu

> > batci re nanmu} still hold? (No in CLL and XS.)

>

> That is, provided the fourth dog is within the current event and not

> in some different event altogether. Otherwise, all such claims would be

> false of necessity, since dog-bites-dog goes on all the time everywhere.

> And of course there are no objective boundaries between events: speaker

> intent is all.

Indeed. {ci gerku} is "three of all dogs". In no way does it entail

that three dogs is all the dogs there are within the current event.

To say that, we have:

roci gerku cu batci re nanmu

All three dogs bite two men each.

That indeed says that there are only three dogs in all, and that

each of them bites two men. In that case, the claim is about exactly

six bitings. But {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} has no such restriction.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT posts: 1912

Rob:

> Here's one example (from Alice, chapter 8):

>

> le ci purdykurji cu sezre'o ja'e le nu le flira cu cpana le loldi

> The three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces.

>

> My understanding is that XS would require these to be masses, and then I'd

> read

> that as "the three gardeners instantly threw one another flat upon their

> faces".

"Threw one another" would use {rersi'u}.

> Are you saying, though, that "le ci purdykurji" is not marked for whether

> it's

> a mass or individuals?

Yes. It's a group. It does not specify how its members enter into the

relationship, whether distributively or not.

> I don't get that from reading the proposal. I suppose

> that would be more reasonable.

That's the intent. You're welcome to suggest a more clear wording

if you consider it necessary.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by lojbab on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT posts: 162

At 02:21 PM 7/6/04 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

>E> that seems rather extreme. If I say that some dog barked, I am surely=

=20

>NOT saying that none of the other dogs barked. I just don't care about=20

>them. Even if I specify that it was just one dog I am interested in --=20

>the one who barking I heard or that awakened me or whatever.

>

>Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> > I see this all as

> > meaning that your expansion in terms of "all but" and "not exactly" is=

not

> > accurately equivalent, though, if you think it is, it does account for=

the

> > different treatment earlier. but now how do you explain this different

> > treatment? I don't see how saying what some things did do affects what=

=20

> other

> > things do or what we can about what they do.

>

>E>When you quantify over a domain, you make a claim about everything

>in the domain, both the things that do and the things that don't.

I hate to make a messy question worse with another traditional messy=20

example. We have two visions of quantification; how does each resolve

lo jubme cu tuple voda

and the related

lo jubme cu jorne vo lo tuple (lo vo tuple?)

doctor "vo lo tuple" however necessary to work with the proposal.

lojbab

--=20

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by xorxes on Tue 06 of July, 2004 23:48 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab:

> I hate to make a messy question worse with another traditional messy

> example. We have two visions of quantification; how does each resolve

> lo jubme cu tuple voda

"A table is leg of four things"? :-)

In XS {lo jubme cu se tuple voda} (out of the blue) would say

something like "tables have four legs". In context it could be

less general.

In CLL it says "at least one table has four legs".

> and the related

> lo jubme cu jorne vo lo tuple (lo vo tuple?)

> doctor "vo lo tuple" however necessary to work with the proposal.

"table joins with four legs"

Again, it may be a general statement about tables, or simply that

tables can have four legs, or that some do, but the four

legs bit is not problematic, and it doesn't change with the proposal.

You probably are thinking of {voda tuple lo jubme}, which indeed

is weird in CLL, because it says that exactly four things are leg

to some table (not necessarily the same table for each thing).

In XS the claim is more vague: "four things are leg of table",

equivalent to {lo jubme cu se tuple voda}, "table has as leg four

things".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT posts: 2388

Yeah, the "on this occasion" - "altogether ever" bit just tried to express my sense of particulariyt — generality. I think what it really is is that 3 and 4 have uniqueness conditions: "and every dog that bit two men is one of thesse three and every man bitten by two dogs is one of these (or every man bitten by one of these dogs is one of these)" but this is not really one-time — general, since the whole might be tensed in just about any way.

I tend to forget some of the stranger ins and outs of formal Lojban grammar; does {ce'e} just make the two arguments fir in one place? Oh, that can't be it, since just juxtaposition would do that. So, does it make a compound argument that then functions as a what? Lord knows what this comes to in logic (and the fact that apparently some of these take Piercean graphs doesn't help at all)

..

Pierre Abbat wrote: On Tuesday 06 July 2004 17:06, John E Clifford wrote:

> It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence

> {ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a

> different way: For three dogs and two men, each dog bit both ot the men on

> this occasion. For three dog, each bit two men on this occasion

> There are exactly three dogs and exactly three men (altogether ever) such

> that each dog bit each man There are exactly three dogs (altogether ever)

> who each bit two men. I confess that I cannot work out either which one the

> Lojban is — or even which broader type it is (1-2) v (3-4) or (1-3) v

> (2-4) — nor what XS says it is nor how — in either system, to say the

> other three in distinctiive ways.

I understand it as "For three dogs, each bit two men." Whether it's on this

occasion or ever is unspecified. To say "There are three dogs and two men

such that the dogs bit the men" (only two men got bitten, instead of up to

six), say {ci gerku ce'e re nanmu cu batci}.

phma

--

cire cilce carce jarco ce'e reci cilce carce cu jarco

..i cire cilce carce jarco cu jarco reci cilce carce

..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco



Posted by pycyn on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT posts: 2388

Thanks.

I am not sure I recognize {roci} and {rore} but I assume that they mean something like English "all three of them."

Of cxourse, I worry when someone says that XS means so and so, since these claims turn out to be unreliable at various point, but in this case it seems to make one possible sense, even if not one that I thought of or can quite fathom yet.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> It turns out that there are roughly four ways to read the the Ursentence {ci

> gerku cu batci re nanmu} and we are, apparently each reading it a different

> way:

There are more than these four ways to read the English sentence, but I

thought the Lojban one was clear. XS and CLL agree on this one. I will

give the XS version for your four readings.

> For three dogs and two men, each dog bit both ot the men on this occasion.

lo ci gerku lo re nanmu zo'u ro lu'a gy cu batci ro lu'a ny

> For three dog, each bit two men on this occasion

lo ci gerku zo'u ro lu'a gy cu batci re nanmu

> There are exactly three dogs and exactly three men (altogether ever) such

> that each dog bit each man

roci gerku cu batci rore nanmu

> There are exactly three dogs (altogether ever) who each bit two men.

roci gerku cu batci re nanmu

> I confess that I cannot work out either which one the Lojban is — or even

> which broader type it is (1-2) v (3-4) or (1-3) v (2-4) — nor what XS says

> it is nor how — in either system, to say the other three in distinctiive

> ways.

None of those correspond to the CLL and XS reading of {ci gerku cu batci

re nanmu}, which is: "for exactly three dogs (i.e. no more and no less than

three dogs) it is the case that for exactly two men (i.e. no more and no

less than two men) the dog bites the man".

The negation of this sentence says that either more than three or less

than three dogs bite exactly two men.

(Your 2 comes closest to this meaning, I think, but I'm not sure if

your "for three dogs" means "for some three dogs" or "for one and only

one group of three dogs". If the latter, then that's what CLL and XS

give.)

A sixth possible reading would be:

{ci gerku cu batci su'o nanmu ije re nanmu cu se batci su'o gerku}

"exactly three dogs bite at least one man, and exactly two men are

bitten by at least two dogs". I suspect this would be the most useful

one, though the expansion is somewhat complex.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 07 of July, 2004 01:31 GMT posts: 2388

A>Not quite equivalent in my view, since if there are no dogs, the first is false and the second true. But that is hairsplitting.

B> Ahah! It's the exactly, which is here taken not to mean "this is the exact figure" but rather "no other number applies in this situation." I can see that but wonder if we ever mean that or at least if that is what we are most likely to mean. When we get to quantifiers per se we should have some fun indeed.

C> I took it in the other sense: precision, not exclusion.

D>I think the easiest way to make my point (though it is a little off) is to contrast {pa gerku cu cmoni} with {ji'i re gerku cu cmoni}. The first might be a response to the utterance of the other or just made before hand to cut off the other.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> If I say that some dog barked, I am surely

> NOT saying that none of the other dogs barked.

A>Of course. {su'o gerku cu cmoni} is equivalent to

{me'iro gerku naku cmoni}, "not all dogs didn't bark".

B>But if you say {pa gerku cu cmoni}, "exactly one dog barked",

then you are saying {da'apa gerku naku cmoni}, "all dogs but

one didn't bark".

C>The case at hand is like the latter. This is what we mean when

we say that numbers in Lojban are "exact".

> I just don't care about them.

> Even if I specify that it was just one dog I am interested in — the one who

> barking I heard or that awakened me or whatever.

D>You seem to be saying that {pa gerku cu cmoni} says that at least one

dog barks, and that we can say nothing about all other dogs from that?

How would it differ from {su'o gerku cu cmoni}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 07 of July, 2004 05:45 GMT posts: 2388

And now I see another aspect of this, roughly our old friends the two kinds of quantifiers though it can't be exactly the same. My first response is to say that dog J isn't in this event so what he does does not change this one. He can even bite two men and it doesn't change this case, only moves to another case. But I see that the consensus is that the Lojban does not mean this. It is not too clear what does mean this nor quie how the Lojban comes to mean what i does mean (apparently rules about what is the predicate - these seeming SisP format and in what order things are added. A good mark for the different possibilities is needed and the variants so far don't cut it).

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> On the 2 reading, we have dogs A, B, C: A bites man D and A bites man E, B

> bites man F and B bites man G. C bites man H and C bites manI. Some of

> themen bitten by different dogs may be the same, but that doesn't affect the

> overall biting count, which looks like 6 to me. What ones have I missed?

All other dogs that are not A, B and C. If dog J bit men K, L and M, then

{ci gerku cu batci re nanmu} still holds, because dog J does not add to the

count of dogs that bit exactly two men. The number of bitings in this case

is already at least 9.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by lojbab on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT posts: 162

At 04:46 PM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

>lojbab:

> > I hate to make a messy question worse with another traditional messy

> > example. We have two visions of quantification; how does each resolve

> > lo jubme cu tuple voda

>

>"A table is leg of four things"? :-)

>

>In XS {lo jubme cu se tuple voda} (out of the blue) would say

>something like "tables have four legs". In context it could be

>less general.

>

>In CLL it says "at least one table has four legs".

The intent (from the ancient Loglan era) is that this is the way to say "A=

=20

table has 4 legs", and the Loglan/Lojban says that it has EXACTLY four=20

legs, hence your discussion of quantifiers with pc reminded me of it. I=20

was looking for a formulation that a) works and b) uses gadri, so that we=20

have another old example to look at besides the men biting the dogs (or=20

whatever).

>You probably are thinking of {voda tuple lo jubme}, which indeed

>is weird in CLL, because it says that exactly four things are leg

>to some table (not necessarily the same table for each thing).

The goal is to make the claim that tables have 4 legs. Or maybe that a=20

particular table has 4 legs. We could have lots of fun and make it "Most"=

=20

(so'e") tables have 4 legs. So how do you say it with your proposal?

lojbab

--=20

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:49:17PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> At 04:46 PM 7/6/04 -0700, Jorge "Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> >lojbab:

> > > I hate to make a messy question worse with another traditional

> > > messy example. We have two visions of quantification; how does

> > > each resolve lo jubme cu tuple voda

> >

> >"A table is leg of four things"? :-)

> >

> >In XS {lo jubme cu se tuple voda} (out of the blue) would say

> >something like "tables have four legs". In context it could be less

> >general.

> >

> >In CLL it says "at least one table has four legs".

>

> The intent (from the ancient Loglan era) is that this is the way to

> say "table has 4 legs", and the Loglan/Lojban says that it has EXACTLY

> four legs, hence your discussion of quantifiers with pc reminded me of

> it. I was looking for a formulation that a) works and b) uses gadri,

> so that we have another old example to look at besides the men biting

> the dogs (or whatever).

In CLL Lojban, it encodes the "exactly four" part, as it does in xorlo,

but it does *NOT* say "tables have four legs" in CLL Lojban. This means

it probably does not say "table has four legs", whatever that means.

In xorlo it probably means "tables have four legs", dependent on

context. As xorxes says, in cLL it says "at least one table has four

legs.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Thu 08 of July, 2004 16:10 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab:

> We could have lots of fun and make it "Most"=

> (so'e") tables have 4 legs. So how do you say it with your proposal?

so'e jubme cu se tuple vo da

which is just as in CLL. Quantified terms remain mostly unchanged from

CLL (the exception being when there is an inner quantifier with lo).

The difference is only with unquantified terms, which CLL doesn't

quite have.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 13 of July, 2004 14:23 GMT posts: 2388

My internet access for the next while will be intermittent and sporadic. I leave you with the following bits of advice:

Scrap XS as such

Save from it the useful stuff:

The quantifiers on {lo} behave just like the quantifiers on {le}; specifically, the internal quantifier is the size of group of interest, not of the whole of the whatsises.

While for the most part the various “some”s are materially equivalent, except for good reasons, {lo} forms are preferred in stating generalities, hypotheticals and intensional contexts.

Find some way to say that the set of things called `broda/brod’ has n members in a pattern as close as possible to that for {leo} and {le}

Let variables ({da} etc.) appear without quantifiers rather than taking the bare forms as particularly quantified. Use these for variables in conversation and mathematics.

Reasons for scrapping XS:

Although the explanations have varied somewhat over the years, they have all been inadequate:

1. the tales of {lo} have failed to meet even the minimal conditions for being {lo} (XS has it about some selected individual, not about the commonality)

2. they have not – and cannot, since it is not a gadri matter (it affects all gadri) – solve the purported problem of generality

3. they cannot solve the “problem” of intensional contexts (see wiki Intensional contexts)

4. as long as Lojban sumti stand primarily for groups of some kind, they will always have implicit quantifiers and thus the problems that that entails will occur. The claim to have escaped those problems is simply false. A possible source for it is discussed in the notes on more rational explanations of Lojban sentences

5. All of the “problems” that XS claims to solve and that are solvable can be solved more simply, though not by one single change.

Here are some alternate suggestions about gadri. They no doubt need work, though I can’t see the problems yet – I may even be mistaken in thinking that I have gotten rid of all the obvious errors.

In the following `AxSx Px’ is the universal affirmativequantifier restricted to S and, as is usual for universal affirmative quantifiers in logic, has existential import for Ss. Replacing `A’ by `I’ gives the particular affirmative, which also has existential import (in the Lojban I use – for technical work only — the pattern {su’oro}, {za’uno}, {su’eno}, and {me’iro} for the restricted quantifiers). ‘E’, the universal negative, and O the particular negative do not import. In ‘p & q the bracketted conjunct is a leaper, that is, whatever happens to p in the cousrse of things, q will still be conjoined to the result. In particular, ~(p & q) is ~p & q. `A inc* B’ is short for ‘Ax x in A x in B,’ “A is included in B and non-empty” in unrestricted terms. ‘(Sx)’ is the standard particular quantifier of logic, (Ax) the universal. ‘(nx)’ is the standard numerical quantifier “there are exactly n things such that they;” nx Sx the corresponding restricted on

Given that:

{lo broda cu brode} means:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (Sw) w in x

I don’t actually need the last bit but it helps set the pattern. In most situations, this will collapse to something without mention of sets

{le broda cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{la broda/brod cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{lo n broda cu brode} means:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode [& (nw) w in x ]

{le n broda cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{la n broda/brod cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

This lojban construction is not legal in the sense intended so I am using this for however we work out how to say that the set of things called `brods/brod’ has n members.

{n lo broda cu brode} means:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] [n z in x] z brode [& (Sw) w in x ]

{n le broda cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{n la broda/brod cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{n lo m broda cu brode} means:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] [nz z in x] z brode [& (mw) w in x ]

{n le m broda cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{n la m broda/brod cu brode} is for some objects w1, …, wn (n >0)

[Ix x = {wi : 1= '

{lo’i broda cu brode}:[Ix x inc {y: y broda}] x brode

{lo’i n broda cu brode}: [Ix x inc {y: y broda}] x brode [& (n z) z member x]

{n lo’i broda cu brode}: [Ix x inc {y: y broda}][Iz z inc x] z brode & (nw) w member z

{n lo’i m broda cu brode}: [Ix x inc {y: y broda}][Iz zinc x] z brode [& (mw) w member x][&(nu) u member z]

{le’i broda cu brode}: for y1, …yn (n>0),

[[Ix%20x=%7Byi:1=%3C%20I=%3Cn%7D|Ix x={yi:1=< I= x brode [&]] Az z member x I describe z as “broda”]

others in the obvious ways from this. {la’i} is the same except the final clause is “I call z {broda/brod}”

{loi broda cu brode}: [[Ix%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ix x inc* {y: y broda}]] x kansi’u lo nu brode & (Sz) z member x

({kansi’u} to be defined as the right thing as that become clearer, but x1 is a set, x2 an abstract – I think event, xorxes has property – and the relation among the elements is not reciprocity but rather cooperation: each does something pointing toward the event and, as a result of all the things they do, the event occurs. There are elements of {zukte} and {gasnu} here but we can’t always ascribe purpose, since those involved may not be agents or what they achieve may not be what they set out to do. Bits of {jalge} and {jmima} enter as well, but a good analytic compound has not yet appeared. Nor have I a nicer metaphor – in the usual sense.)

{n loi broda cu brode}[[Ix%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ix x inc* {y: y broda}]]Iz z inc* x z kansi’u lo nu brode & (nw) w member z

and so on in the obvious ways.

Xorxes {lo’e} and {le’e} look about as good as we can get without a better treatment of the notions involved – not gadri at a safe bet. I might prefer {lo ro broda} for the range of the commonality. And, of course, there is something with “probably” that might work.



Posted by xorxes on Wed 14 of July, 2004 12:47 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> {lo n broda cu brode} means:

>

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

>

> {n lo broda cu brode} means:

>

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode & (Sw) w in x

So you would have {lo ci gerku} = {ci lo gerku} = {su'oci gerku}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 14 of July, 2004 14:49 GMT posts: 2388

Gee, I don't think so. Let's see. {lo n broda cu brode} says that all the members (of which there are n) of some set of broda brode. {n lo broda cu brode} says that some n members of some set of brodas brode. Each of these does imply that n brodas brode (I am less sure about the {su'o ci}; that depends upon just how you read 'n x' and I am still playing with that, though coming around to the exclusivist point of view (with limited classes, to be sure — not all the brodas in the whole world, but all the relevant ones for now: the class x in the {n lo} case)). I see that, taken in isolation, one version does imply the other (take the given set just to be the set of those brodas who brode). However, when the scope grows — as it likely will in real discourse — they ought to be different: in one case, x can contain nonbrodeing broda, but not in the other, for example, or just more than n zs altogether (important for the {m lo n broda cu brode} cases). In general, notice, I tend

to dislike trying to translate sumti (for example) in isolation, that is, outside a full predication, since some aspects come out only in the totality. And, as here, even a single predication may not be enough.

I do note that (Sw) w in x probably should be [[(%3E=n)%20w%20w%20in%20x|(>=n) w w in x]] to avoid another round of problems.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {lo n broda cu brode} means:

>

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

>

> {n lo broda cu brode} means:

>

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode & (Sw) w in x

So you would have {lo ci gerku} = {ci lo gerku} = {su'oci gerku}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Wed 14 of July, 2004 14:49 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Gee, I don't think so. Let's see. {lo n broda cu brode} says that all the

> members (of which there are n) of some set of broda brode. {n lo broda cu

> brode} says that some n members of some set of brodas brode.

But aren't those two materially equivalent?

> Each of these

> does imply that n brodas brode

That (at least) n brodas brode, yes.

And "at least n brodas brode" implies each of them, doesn't it?

> (I am less sure about the {su'o ci}; that

> depends upon just how you read 'n x' and I am still playing with that, though

> coming around to the exclusivist point of view (with limited classes, to be

> sure — not all the brodas in the whole world, but all the relevant ones for

> now: the class x in the {n lo} case)). I see that, taken in isolation, one

> version does imply the other (take the given set just to be the set of those

> brodas who brode). However, when the scope grows — as it likely will in

> real discourse — they ought to be different: in one case, x can contain

> nonbrodeing broda, but not in the other, for example, or just more than n zs

> altogether (important for the {m lo n broda cu brode} cases). In general,

> notice, I tend

> to dislike trying to translate sumti (for example) in isolation, that is,

> outside a full predication, since some aspects come out only in the totality.

> And, as here, even a single predication may not be enough.

OK, let me rephrase then. You would have {lo ci gerku cu bacru},

{ci lo gerku cu bacru} and {su'oci gerku cu bacru} to be materially

equivalent, right?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 14 of July, 2004 20:36 GMT posts: 2388

Without further context, yes (with caveats about {su'oci}. they will differ, I think, in longer contexts where the sumti continue to play a role and in negations. But I have only done rough checks on this, so I am expecting surprises.

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> Gee, I don't think so. Let's see. {lo n broda cu brode} says that all the

> members (of which there are n) of some set of broda brode. {n lo broda cu

> brode} says that some n members of some set of brodas brode.

But aren't those two materially equivalent?

> Each of these

> does imply that n brodas brode

That (at least) n brodas brode, yes.

And "at least n brodas brode" implies each of them, doesn't it?

> (I am less sure about the {su'o ci}; that

> depends upon just how you read 'n x' and I am still playing with that, though

> coming around to the exclusivist point of view (with limited classes, to be

> sure — not all the brodas in the whole world, but all the relevant ones for

> now: the class x in the {n lo} case)). I see that, taken in isolation, one

> version does imply the other (take the given set just to be the set of those

> brodas who brode). However, when the scope grows — as it likely will in

> real discourse — they ought to be different: in one case, x can contain

> nonbrodeing broda, but not in the other, for example, or just more than n zs

> altogether (important for the {m lo n broda cu brode} cases). In general,

> notice, I tend

> to dislike trying to translate sumti (for example) in isolation, that is,

> outside a full predication, since some aspects come out only in the totality.

> And, as here, even a single predication may not be enough.

OK, let me rephrase then. You would have {lo ci gerku cu bacru},

{ci lo gerku cu bacru} and {su'oci gerku cu bacru} to be materially

equivalent, right?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Wed 14 of July, 2004 20:36 GMT posts: 1912

> {lo n broda cu brode} means:

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

> {n lo broda cu brode} means:

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

pc:

> Without further context, yes (with caveats about {su'oci}.

What kind of caveats? In both cases all you assert is that there

is at least one subset (not the same subset in each case, but that

doesn't change much), so the existence of other subsets is not

precluded.

> they will differ,

> I think, in longer contexts where the sumti continue to play a role

I suppose that if you have an anaphora that points to the

{lo broda} part in {n lo broda} it will differ from one that

points to {lo n broda}.

> and in

> negations.

How would the negations be applied?

Would {lo n broda na brode} mean:

~ [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

or:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] ~ Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

?

Would {n lo broda na brode} mean:

~ [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

or:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] ~ n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

?

> But I have only done rough checks on this, so I am expecting

> surprises.

It seems that if they are to differ under negation, you would

have to make different choices for where the negation applies

in each case. In both cases the first choice gives:

naku su'o n broda cu brode = me'i n broda cu brode

and the second choice gives in both cases:

naku ro broda cu brode ije su'o n da broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 14 of July, 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 2388

A>The caveats are because I had not really worked out the details and am still unsure about what all these quantifiers (they are not quite the ones of logic, after all) commit me to. Since you have interpreted them for me, I have to withdraw the caveat; things work as you suggest.

B> Exactly. the fact that it is somehwre between painfully hard and impossible to get current Lojban to come up with such anaphora — of either sort, but I want referential just now — brings us back, as so often, to the anaphora system the system in Lojban I most willingly admit is broken (well, it never did work, so I suppose it is not more broken than a stone is dead). The best I can get is to {n lo broda} and that is just the usual unrelaiable or unusable Lojban type rules.

C> I would say negation over the whole thing, eventually reducing to

[[Ax%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D%20&%20(nw)%20w%20in%20x|Ax x inc* {y: y broda} & (nw) w in x]] Iz zin x ~z brode. This means that the formulation needs a bit more work. I'll try to get back to it. BTW this amounts to saying (as one would expect) that there are fewer than n brodas that brode.

D>[Ax x inc* {y: y broda} & [[(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x|(>=n w) w in x]] ][>

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> {lo n broda cu brode} means:

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

> {n lo broda cu brode} means:

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

pc:

> Without further context, yes (with caveats about {su'oci}.

A>What kind of caveats? In both cases all you assert is that there

is at least one subset (not the same subset in each case, but that

doesn't change much), so the existence of other subsets is not

precluded.

> they will differ,

> I think, in longer contexts where the sumti continue to play a role

B>I suppose that if you have an anaphora that points to the

{lo broda} part in {n lo broda} it will differ from one that

points to {lo n broda}.

> and in

> negations.

How would the negations be applied?

C>Would {lo n broda na brode} mean:

~ [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

or:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] ~ Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

?

D>Would {n lo broda na brode} mean:

~ [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

or:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] ~ n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

?

> But I have only done rough checks on this, so I am expecting

> surprises.

It seems that if they are to differ under negation, you would

have to make different choices for where the negation applies

in each case. In both cases the first choice gives:

naku su'o n broda cu brode = me'i n broda cu brode

and the second choice gives in both cases:

naku ro broda cu brode ije su'o n da broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 14 of July, 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 2388

E>Oops! Delete the negation sign:

>[Ax x inc* {y: y broda} & [[(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x|(>=n w) w in x]] ][>

John E Clifford wrote:

A>The caveats are because I had not really worked out the details and am still unsure about what all these quantifiers (they are not quite the ones of logic, after all) commit me to. Since you have interpreted them for me, I have to withdraw the caveat; things work as you suggest.

B> Exactly. the fact that it is somehwre between painfully hard and impossible to get current Lojban to come up with such anaphora — of either sort, but I want referential just now — brings us back, as so often, to the anaphora system the system in Lojban I most willingly admit is broken (well, it never did work, so I suppose it is not more broken than a stone is dead). The best I can get is to {n lo broda} and that is just the usual unrelaiable or unusable Lojban type rules.

C> I would say negation over the whole thing, eventually reducing to

[[Ax%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D%20&%20(nw)%20w%20in%20x|Ax x inc* {y: y broda} & (nw) w in x]] Iz zin x ~z brode. This means that the formulation needs a bit more work. I'll try to get back to it. BTW this amounts to saying (as one would expect) that there are fewer than n brodas that brode.

E>D>[Ax x inc* {y: y broda} & [[(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x|(>=n w) w in x]] ][>

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> {lo n broda cu brode} means:

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

> {n lo broda cu brode} means:

> [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

pc:

> Without further context, yes (with caveats about {su'oci}.

A>What kind of caveats? In both cases all you assert is that there

is at least one subset (not the same subset in each case, but that

doesn't change much), so the existence of other subsets is not

precluded.

> they will differ,

> I think, in longer contexts where the sumti continue to play a role

B>I suppose that if you have an anaphora that points to the

{lo broda} part in {n lo broda} it will differ from one that

points to {lo n broda}.

> and in

> negations.

How would the negations be applied?

C>Would {lo n broda na brode} mean:

~ [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

or:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] ~ Az in x z brode & (nw) w in x

?

D>Would {n lo broda na brode} mean:

~ [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

or:

[[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] ~ n z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=n%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=n w) w in x]]

?

> But I have only done rough checks on this, so I am expecting

> surprises.

It seems that if they are to differ under negation, you would

have to make different choices for where the negation applies

in each case. In both cases the first choice gives:

naku su'o n broda cu brode = me'i n broda cu brode

and the second choice gives in both cases:

naku ro broda cu brode ije su'o n da broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 15 of July, 2004 01:44 GMT posts: 1912

All right, then except for the candidates for anaphorization

they may present, we would have that the following forms would

be equivalent:

PA lo (su'oPA) broda

= (ro) lo PA broda

= su'oPA broda

where the bracketed parts are defaults.

The nice thing about this system is that it makes {lo} work just

like {le} (and almost like {la}). But it has a lot of redundant

forms, and it breaks with the traditional identification of

{PA lo broda} and {PA broda}. (Also, I don't like that it doesn't

admit unquantified terms, but you see that as a virtue, of course.)

BTW, what happens with {no lo broda}? If your definitions for n

includes n = 0, then {no lo broda cu brode} and {lo no broda cu brode}

would seem to be tautological (always true by definition):

> > {lo no broda cu brode} means:

> > [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (no w) w in x

> > {no lo broda cu brode} means:

> > [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] no z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=no%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=no w) w in x]]

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 15 of July, 2004 01:44 GMT posts: 2388

A> Well, it is the anaphorization and the pragmatic patterns of usage that distinguish them even now, so that doesn't bother me much.

B> Well, as you know, I am still not perfectly sure about the {su'o} part but, if it does hold, then I have to go back to my usage — and others ' — of {PA broda}. When I do, I am unsure that it has ever been used to mean "exactly two out of all the brodas there are" but rather means there were two of them and that is all I want to talk about just now. That is an empirical question (though the CLL rdicts carry some weight, of course).

I don't like having quantified terms either, but since the Lojban world is constructed as it is, we can't do without them in some cases. And it is just those cases where we want to use {lo}.

C>{lo no broda cu brode} is automatically false, both the restriction (inc*) on I and the fact that the second is A require that the set have members (existential import). As for {no lo broda cu brode}, the final clause is as always redundant and causes no more problem in this case than in others (it is always more than 0 members). Neither is true by definition, the first because it is false by definition, the second because it could be false — if some member of the set brode'd. The {no lo} case just says that at least one broda doesn't brode. This is also different from {no broda}, its subaltern in fact. So here is a nice situation for breaking the equivalences, though I have to admit that the {no lo} is counterintuitive (the {lo no} case just shows that the default internal quantifier is in fact {su'o}, as prescribed).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

A>All right, then except for the candidates for anaphorization

they may present, we would have that the following forms would

be equivalent:

PA lo (su'oPA) broda

= (ro) lo PA broda

= su'oPA broda

where the bracketed parts are defaults.

The nice thing about this system is that it makes {lo} work just

like {le} (and almost like {la}). But it has a lot of redundant

B>forms, and it breaks with the traditional identification of

{PA lo broda} and {PA broda}. (Also, I don't like that it doesn't

admit unquantified terms, but you see that as a virtue, of course.)

C>BTW, what happens with {no lo broda}? If your definitions for n

includes n = 0, then {no lo broda cu brode} and {lo no broda cu brode}

would seem to be tautological (always true by definition):

> > {lo no broda cu brode} means:

> > [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (no w) w in x

> > {no lo broda cu brode} means:

> > [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] no z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=no%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=no w) w in x]]

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Mon 19 of July, 2004 17:56 GMT posts: 2388

The problem with {no lo broda cu brode} is that {no} is a different kind of number (more so even than {so'V}). Most numbers begin in full logical form with a series of particular quantifiers but {no} begins with a negation. I think that that negation has to be taken into account, so that {no lo broda cu brode} must be treated as {naku su'o lo broda cu brode} and thus ultimately [[Ax%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ax x inc* {y: y broda}]]Az z in x( ~z brode) v ~(Sw) w in {y: y broda} but it is hard to see exactly how to get there. So, another revision of the definitions (as it stands, we have either the vacuous '& (Sw) w in x' or the impossible (so droppable 'v ~(Sw) w in x') . This will however restore the equivalence between this form and {no broda cu brode}.

John E Clifford wrote:

C>{lo no broda cu brode} is automatically false, both the restriction (inc*) on I and the fact that the second is A require that the set have members (existential import). As for {no lo broda cu brode}, the final clause is as always redundant and causes no more problem in this case than in others (it is always more than 0 members). Neither is true by definition, the first because it is false by definition, the second because it could be false — if some member of the set brode'd. The {no lo} case just says that at least one broda doesn't brode. This is also different from {no broda}, its subaltern in fact. So here is a nice situation for breaking the equivalences, though I have to admit that the {no lo} is counterintuitive (the {lo no} case just shows that the default internal quantifier is in fact {su'o}, as prescribed).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

C>BTW, what happens with {no lo broda}? If your definitions for n

includes n = 0, then {no lo broda cu brode} and {lo no broda cu brode}

would seem to be tautological (always true by definition):

> > {lo no broda cu brode} means:

> > [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] Az in x z brode & (no w) w in x

> > {no lo broda cu brode} means:

> > [[I%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|I x inc* {y: y broda}]] no z in x z brode [[&%20(%3E=no%20w)%20w%20in%20x%20|& (>=no w) w in x]]

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Specific, in-mind, veridical?


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 20 of July, 2004 23:01 GMT posts: 14214

Something I've often felt the lack of was an article that was both veridical and referred to something in particular that I have in mind.

There's definately no way to do this in CLL without something like "lo cribe poi mi pensi" or something like that.

Obviously, new lo, being muddy, handles this, but is there any other way in xorlo to get specifically to a veridical, in-mind thing without using a trick like the above?

I don't see that there is, and this is something I'd very much like. Not sure that I'm suggesting any action, just throwing this out there.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT posts: 14214

Going through old mail. Very late. I'm mostly going to only respond to

those things that I agree are problems, instead of shooting down old

stuff, but I felt the need to add my voice on this one.

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:18:42PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> There are also examples of real usage that are invalidated, aside from

> the above example sentences. At this point I'm less concerned about

> the effects things have on existing usage, since most existing usage

> is wrong anyway. But on IRC Robin seemed to be of the opinion that

> this change to {lo} did not invalidate existing usage, which does not

> seem to me to be the case:

>

> My translation of Carver's "Little Things":

> lojbo: do bersa lo malpre

> xorlo: You are a son of bitches (in general).

> Or more englishy: Bitches are your mother.

> old-lo: There is a bitch who is your mother.

> Your mother's a bitch.

No. Ignoring the fact that I have no idea where "bitch" came from, nor

"mother":

old-lo: There exists *at* *least* *one* bitch who is your mother.

You are the child of one or more bitches.

xorlo: You are a son of a bitch, or a bunch of bitches, or the set of

bitches, or the idea of bitches, or Mr. Bitch. Which one? Who knows.

Yay context.

The desired meaning is clearly not "lo malpre" under CLL lo. It may be

"pa malpre", I suppose. As it stands, though, "lo malpre" is closer to

the desired meaning under xorlo than CLL lo.

> Nick's aesop stuff:

> lojbo: .i lo lorxu noi xagji ku'o ca lenu viska loi vanjba noi

> dandu lo tricu cu djica lenu cpacu ra gi'e naka'e cpacu

> xorlo: Foxes are hungry and when they see some grapes

> dangling from trees want to take them but can't.

> old-lo: A fox, who was hungry, upon seeing some grapes in a tree

> wanted to take them, but couldn't.

No. *One* *or* *more* foxes. As before, xorlo matches the English

given for old-lo better than old-lo actually does. To get the specific

English given for the old-lo translation, one wants "pa lorxu".

Actually, what one wants in this case is a veridical, in-mind gadri,

which AFAICT we don't have. I opine that this is, by far, the most

needed case for gadri.

> >From my translation of Ambrose Bierce's "The Man and the Snake":

>

> lojbo: lo since cu nenri lo sipna kumfa

> xorlo: Snakes are inside of bedrooms.

> old-lo: There is a snake for whom there is a bedroom containing him.

Still wrong; see above.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> Specific, in-mind, veridical?

Maybe {le je'u broda} could be used for this, adding veridicality

to {le}, or {lo XXX broda}, where XXX is some UI that adds

specificity/in-mindedness to {lo}. I can't find anything suitable

for this among the existing UIs though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:30:42PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > Specific, in-mind, veridical?

>

> Maybe {le je'u broda} could be used for this, adding veridicality to

> {le},

That's not a bad idea.

> or {lo XXX broda}, where XXX is some UI that adds

> specificity/in-mindedness to {lo}. I can't find anything suitable for

> this among the existing UIs though.

Some possibilities:

se'i

ca'e

..i'u

po'o

sa'e

se'o (that's a joke, son)

za'a

I admit to being more than a little worried about this issue, because

I'm convinced that the *vast* majority of the usage of "le" up to the

present date, and most of the usage of "lo", is in fact intended to be

in-mind and veridical. I think this is obvious, but if people want me

to back it up I will.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:02 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> I admit to being more than a little worried about this issue, because

> I'm convinced that the *vast* majority of the usage of "le" up to the

> present date, and most of the usage of "lo", is in fact intended to be

> in-mind and veridical. I think this is obvious, but if people want me

> to back it up I will.

I don't doubt {lo} is sometimes used as +specific. As for {le}, the way

I see it, once you have specificity veridicality becomes almost

irrelevant. The selbri is used as a description meant to help the

listener identify the thing that the speaker has in mind, so in most

cases the referent will satisfy the selbri, the most helpful descriptions

are usually those that really apply to the thing described, but that

doesn't make {le} +veridical. I don't see how you would show that a

given use of {le} was intended as +veridical. To do that you would have

to show that the speaker would consider the sentence false if for some

reason it turned out that the intended referent did not satisfy the

description. It would not be enough to show that the intended referent

does in fact satisfy the description, because that works for both

+veridical and -veridical {le}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by djorden on Wed 21 of July, 2004 12:03 GMT posts: 17

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:16:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

...

> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:18:42PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> > There are also examples of real usage that are invalidated, aside from

> > the above example sentences. At this point I'm less concerned about

> > the effects things have on existing usage, since most existing usage

> > is wrong anyway. But on IRC Robin seemed to be of the opinion that

> > this change to {lo} did not invalidate existing usage, which does not

> > seem to me to be the case:

> >

> > My translation of Carver's "Little Things":

> > lojbo: do bersa lo malpre

> > xorlo: You are a son of bitches (in general).

> > Or more englishy: Bitches are your mother.

> > old-lo: There is a bitch who is your mother.

> > Your mother's a bitch.

>

> No. Ignoring the fact that I have no idea where "bitch" came from, nor

> "mother":

malglico in the back-translation on my part. That was the original,

but I think I left gender out when I translated it to lojban for

some reason (maybe to reduce sexism). This was already discussed....

> old-lo: There exists *at* *least* *one* bitch who is your mother.

> You are the child of one or more bitches.

snipped more ranting about su'o

I don't understand why you think that breaks it. One is a valid

number for "at least one".

IIRC, I said explicitly that I was ignoring the possible plurality

when translating to English earlier in that thread, because it is

irrelevant.

All oldlo is, is the existential quantifier from logic. A sentence

such as "Your mother is a bitch" in logic will be represented in

terms of existential quantification (or maybe a russellian

"the"-operator thingie, but that's neither here nor there).

--

Jordan DeLong

[email protected]


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Wed 21 of July, 2004 15:38 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

(on {no lo broda cu brode}.)

> This will however restore the equivalence between this form

> and {no broda cu brode}.

Another quantifier that you may need to give a special definition

for is {ro}. If you use your general definition for n, you get

that {ro lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to

{su'o lo broda cu brode}. (And {lo ro broda cu brode} would

seem to require that everything be a broda.)

Also {su'e n broda cu brode} and {me'i n broda cu brode}

would seem to require special definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by pycyn on Wed 21 of July, 2004 22:52 GMT posts: 2388

Yes, so I have noticed. while playing around with the definitions to see what I could change from restricted to non-restricted quantifiers (and thus get rid of redundant clauses), I came upon the anomaly of {ro lo} and {su'o lo). Again they make a difference in larger contexts but seem odd here. Perhaps the definitions of {lo} tout court should use {su'o} rather than {ro} at that point. One of the places that restricted quantifiers annot generally be eliminated is in the specification of the n in {n lo}, since, for {ro} and the {su'V} (and arguably the {so'V}) series the sizes are relative to the set (and so are the members that fulfill the size). I am not sure what additional problems you have in mind for {su'e} and {me'i}. They permit but do not require the value 0, which conflicts with the import of the restricted quantifier, thus making the sentence containing the expression contradictory in that case, even though it is in fact possible. This is a classic forked stick and,

after some little — not a lot given my roaming state — I have not come up with a totally satisfactory solution, one that gets both the treatment of {ro} etc. right and allows that {me'i n lo} may be true, even if the group gets down to 0. So far the efforts have not been very illuminating, so anyone coming from a different direction would be very welcomed. Generally right now I am sticking with the solution for {ro} etc., since that seems both basic and common, but the 0 problem does still haunt me. The best I have at the moment is to define only for n>0 and treat the 0 case separately and — in the cases of {me'i} and the like — disjunctively. Very messy — although ultimately correct. Just inelegant to the point of being barely intelligible.

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

pc:

(on {no lo broda cu brode}.)

> This will however restore the equivalence between this form

> and {no broda cu brode}.

Another quantifier that you may need to give a special definition

for is {ro}. If you use your general definition for n, you get

that {ro lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to

{su'o lo broda cu brode}. (And {lo ro broda cu brode} would

seem to require that everything be a broda.)

Also {su'e n broda cu brode} and {me'i n broda cu brode}

would seem to require special definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> One of the places that restricted quantifiers annot generally

> be eliminated is in the specification of the n in {n lo}, since, for {ro} and

> the {su'V} (and arguably the {so'V}) series the sizes are relative to the set

> (and so are the members that fulfill the size). I am not sure what

> additional problems you have in mind for {su'e} and {me'i}.

According to the definition, {su'eci lo broda cu brode} means

"There is at least one set of broda such that at most three of its

members are brode". This is always true (as long as at least one

broda exists) even if for example there are 300 broda and all of

them brode. All you need do is pick a set of broda with one, two

or three members and it will be such a set. Not very intuitive.

Similarly for {me'ici lo broda cu brode}.

> They permit but

> do not require the value 0, which conflicts with the import of the restricted

> quantifier, thus making the sentence containing the expression contradictory

> in that case, even though it is in fact possible.

The problem is that {su'eci lo} and {me'ici lo} also permit values

higher than 3. You want to apply the same modification that you gave

for 0, namely: "for every set of broda, at most three of its members

brode". The same modification would seem to work to make {ro lo broda}

work like {ro broda}: "for every set of broda, all of its members brode".

Then you have two classes of quantifiers, the ones that apply to

some set of broda, and the ones that apply to every set of broda:

Class 1:

me'iro

su'o(pa), su'ore, su'oci, ...

za'uno, za'ure, za'uci...

Class 2:

ro

no, su'epa, su'ere, su'eci

me'ipa, me'ire, me'ici

which are of course the contradictories of those in class 1:

ro = naku me'iro

no = naku su'o

su'epa = naku za'upa

su'ere = naku za'ure

....

me'ipa = naku su'opa

me'ire = naku su'ore

....

So far so good, for each of those quantifiers we have that

{Q lo broda cu brode} reduces to {Q broda cu brode} with the

appropriate definition.

Now, what about the "exact" quantifiers: pa, re, ci...? Normally we

would define "exactly three" as "su'oci je su'eci", "at least three and

at most three", and applying this definition you do get {ci lo broda

cu brode} equivalent to {ci broda cu brode}. But the way you have

defined it, you get {ci lo broda cu brode} to be equivalent to

{su'oci broda cu brode}. So you don't really take {ci lo broda} as

"exactly three broda", but as "(at least) three broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by pycyn on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT posts: 2388

Well, that is the way that Lojban is set up (and Loglan before it): primary reference is to pluralities, which means roughly sets given the equipment we have (there is no Lojban notion of a plurality as such, only collectives and sets). So, we always do start off with a(n unspecified in the case of {lo}) set and then deal with its members. So {ro lo broda} does not mean the same as {ro broda] but is merely all of some non-empty subset of brodas. Not tidy but do we really want to go the other way. To be sure, the CLL {lo} does take {ro} as the assumed internal quantifier and so the subset is always the whole set unless otherwise specified. and we could go back to that, though it is markedy less useful — in longer contexts — than this one which makes such a muck in short contexts. the same sorts of remarks apply to the other quantifiers as well — everything else is parasitic on the original {lo broda} which is (now — as generally agreed) an unspecified plurality of broda,

exactly paralleling {le} except for specificity and veridicality. {me'i ci lo broda} does not permit values higher than three *in the set in question*, only in brodas overall. This may be pretty uninteresting (because easily fulfilled) in the short scope but may be very important in the long range — where we learn, for example, that there are 32 members to that set, half of whom brodi, though none of those that brode. And so on.

Note that I did not give the change you propose to the 0 case, rather I took the 0 case as the negation of the "some" case. that does give universals in place of particulars *once you push the negations through* but not as basic to the definitions.

And of course I do not want {PA lo broda} to reduce to {PA broda} absolutely, even if they are materially equivalent in short contexts, because I want to be able to pick up on the {lo broda} separately in longer situations. Perhaps we should look at those longer situations to be sure that this is going to work out right; but most of them are presently unsayable — or not reliably sayable — in Lojban, so it is hard to do cases.

As for your last point — about exact quantifiers — again the problems are about context. The quantifiers are exact only for members of a given (though unspecified) set. If that set is not referred to again, then it disappears and we get a — possibly false — claim about all the brodas, the "at least" claim that you propose. That is, from my point of view, a {n broda} case, not the {n lo broda} case we began with.

Now it may turn out that none of this works. It is, however, what Lojban prescribes, so we should try to do our best with it. If it does not work, we have to redo some central part of Lojban, probably reinstituting the singular-plural-mass distinction that the rest of Lojban metaphysics suggests. In short, I'll not be surprised if we do have to make these changes, but so far nothing has been said — except pointing to problems like the 0 cases of {me'i} — to lead me to see any necessity for going that way. (Well, and the fact that it would make life at lot simpler for all us SAE natives to deal with what happens in Lojban.)

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> One of the places that restricted quantifiers annot generally

> be eliminated is in the specification of the n in {n lo}, since, for {ro} and

> the {su'V} (and arguably the {so'V}) series the sizes are relative to the set

> (and so are the members that fulfill the size). I am not sure what

> additional problems you have in mind for {su'e} and {me'i}.

According to the definition, {su'eci lo broda cu brode} means

"There is at least one set of broda such that at most three of its

members are brode". This is always true (as long as at least one

broda exists) even if for example there are 300 broda and all of

them brode. All you need do is pick a set of broda with one, two

or three members and it will be such a set. Not very intuitive.

Similarly for {me'ici lo broda cu brode}.

> They permit but

> do not require the value 0, which conflicts with the import of the restricted

> quantifier, thus making the sentence containing the expression contradictory

> in that case, even though it is in fact possible.

The problem is that {su'eci lo} and {me'ici lo} also permit values

higher than 3. You want to apply the same modification that you gave

for 0, namely: "for every set of broda, at most three of its members

brode". The same modification would seem to work to make {ro lo broda}

work like {ro broda}: "for every set of broda, all of its members brode".

Then you have two classes of quantifiers, the ones that apply to

some set of broda, and the ones that apply to every set of broda:

Class 1:

me'iro

su'o(pa), su'ore, su'oci, ...

za'uno, za'ure, za'uci...

Class 2:

ro

no, su'epa, su'ere, su'eci

me'ipa, me'ire, me'ici

which are of course the contradictories of those in class 1:

ro = naku me'iro

no = naku su'o

su'epa = naku za'upa

su'ere = naku za'ure

....

me'ipa = naku su'opa

me'ire = naku su'ore

....

So far so good, for each of those quantifiers we have that

{Q lo broda cu brode} reduces to {Q broda cu brode} with the

appropriate definition.

Now, what about the "exact" quantifiers: pa, re, ci...? Normally we

would define "exactly three" as "su'oci je su'eci", "at least three and

at most three", and applying this definition you do get {ci lo broda

cu brode} equivalent to {ci broda cu brode}. But the way you have

defined it, you get {ci lo broda cu brode} to be equivalent to

{su'oci broda cu brode}. So you don't really take {ci lo broda} as

"exactly three broda", but as "(at least) three broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by pycyn on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT posts: 2388

Thank you. It seems that the division into two types of quantifiers, or rather quantifiers and their negations, does solve the problem about {me'i} and the like, just as it did that for {no}. The details that xorxes give are not yet quite right, being based on a misreading of what I said before, I think. Now that leaves just the issue of {ro lo} and {su'o lo} amounting to the same thing in the short course and I think the best thing to say there is: in the short course all manner of unseemly things can happen, as witness the collapse of {lo broda} to {su'o broda} in the short scope. It does seem, however, that things would look better if {lo broda} were defined with some member of the set brodeing rather than with all, saving that for {ro lo broda}. The problem in the short scope remains but things are clearer further along .

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc:

> One of the places that restricted quantifiers annot generally

> be eliminated is in the specification of the n in {n lo}, since, for {ro} and

> the {su'V} (and arguably the {so'V}) series the sizes are relative to the set

> (and so are the members that fulfill the size). I am not sure what

> additional problems you have in mind for {su'e} and {me'i}.

According to the definition, {su'eci lo broda cu brode} means

"There is at least one set of broda such that at most three of its

members are brode". This is always true (as long as at least one

broda exists) even if for example there are 300 broda and all of

them brode. All you need do is pick a set of broda with one, two

or three members and it will be such a set. Not very intuitive.

Similarly for {me'ici lo broda cu brode}.

> They permit but

> do not require the value 0, which conflicts with the import of the restricted

> quantifier, thus making the sentence containing the expression contradictory

> in that case, even though it is in fact possible.

The problem is that {su'eci lo} and {me'ici lo} also permit values

higher than 3. You want to apply the same modification that you gave

for 0, namely: "for every set of broda, at most three of its members

brode". The same modification would seem to work to make {ro lo broda}

work like {ro broda}: "for every set of broda, all of its members brode".

Then you have two classes of quantifiers, the ones that apply to

some set of broda, and the ones that apply to every set of broda:

Class 1:

me'iro

su'o(pa), su'ore, su'oci, ...

za'uno, za'ure, za'uci...

Class 2:

ro

no, su'epa, su'ere, su'eci

me'ipa, me'ire, me'ici

which are of course the contradictories of those in class 1:

ro = naku me'iro

no = naku su'o

su'epa = naku za'upa

su'ere = naku za'ure

....

me'ipa = naku su'opa

me'ire = naku su'ore

....

So far so good, for each of those quantifiers we have that

{Q lo broda cu brode} reduces to {Q broda cu brode} with the

appropriate definition.

Now, what about the "exact" quantifiers: pa, re, ci...? Normally we

would define "exactly three" as "su'oci je su'eci", "at least three and

at most three", and applying this definition you do get {ci lo broda

cu brode} equivalent to {ci broda cu brode}. But the way you have

defined it, you get {ci lo broda cu brode} to be equivalent to

{su'oci broda cu brode}. So you don't really take {ci lo broda} as

"exactly three broda", but as "(at least) three broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 01:45 GMT posts: 14214

I herewith explicate my gadri requirements (because that was a good

idea, my reaction notwithstanding). OK, this is more a wish-list than a

requirements list, but still. I agree with just about everything the

other person who posted a requirements list said; this is *in*

  • addition*. Or, rather, it's another angle of attack.

I want to be able to say all the following types of things. I would

like to be able to pick an element out of each group, *OR* to be

agnostic about the value of that group. Please note that I'm not asking

for gadri for each of these things; I'm fine with UI tags or whatever

modifying the meaning of the gadri.

Let me know if I'm missed anything.

  • Specificity
    • The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without

implication of veridicality).

  • A specific thing(s), but I have no particular one in mind (i.e. "su'o

da").

  • The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality. Note that this is
  • not* si'o; that relates to a whole relationship, not merely the x1

thing.

  • Existence
    • su'o da, or something like it: insisting that the thing really does

exist.

  • Imaginary, or otherwise fundamentally non-existant (with respect to

the current semantic space).

  • Used to exist (which I think is just "pu", but this needs to be

addressed so that we can so "a doctor" and make it clear that

agnosticism about the tense means that all the doctors having been

killed isn't much relevant).

massive explication of the logic of what we call masses; we seem to

agree with him on most points.

  • Indentification
    • By Name
    • By Descriptive selbri
  • Accuracy / Veridicality
    • Contained identifier is intended to objectively describe the thing
    • contained identifier is innaccurate / untruthful / nonce in some

fashion known to the speaker

So, for example, I want to be able to say "The idea of the thing that

I'm naming Foo, which is a mass, and may not objectively match what

other people call foo, and is definately imaginary" in, say, 7 syllables

or less. I also want to be able to be completely generic, or any other

combination. I believe we have the tools to do this, and my ideas

change less usage than xorlo whilst (I believe) keeping the most

important property (a truly generic option), but my proposal will

probably wait till tomorrow at least.

Remember again that each category above has an invisible "none of the

above" entry. "None of the above" for *all* of these is xorlo. That's

fine, and in fact having a truly inspecific gadri seems obviously

Lojbanic to me, but I want to be able to specifically select all of

these options. I'm not sure how yet, but I have some ideas brewing.

Please note that the gadri solution cannot, and *MUST* not, talk about

semantic truth. There are contexts in which saying {su'o da poi

pavyseljirna cu ca ca'a bajra} is *perfectly* *reasonable*, and, in

fact, a true statement (fictional contexts, so far as I know, but those

are still valid contexts). As xorxes says, it is not our job to

determine truth or falsity, only to state what something means.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 15:44 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Thank you. It seems that the division into two types of quantifiers, or

> rather quantifiers and their negations, does solve the problem about {me'i}

> and the like, just as it did that for {no}. The details that xorxes give are

> not yet quite right, being based on a misreading of what I said before, I

> think.

Which details did I get wrong?

A simpler way of putting it is this. We divide quantifiers in two

groups: group 1 consists of those quantifiers of the form {za'u n}

or {da'a za'u n}, for integer n, and group 2 consist of those

quantifiers of the form {su'e n} or {da'a su'e n}, for integer n.

The second group simply consists of the negations of the first group,

because {su'e n} = {naku za'u n}, and {da'a za'u n} = {naku da'a su'e n}

for integer n.

The first group sets a lower bound, and so finding some set whose

members satisfy the claim is enough. The second group, being the

negatives of the first, deny the existence of such a set, or, in other

words require an examination of every set.

Notice that {no} = {su'e no} and {ro} = {da'a su'e no} are both

in group 2, while {su'o} = {za'u no} and {me'i ro} = {da'a za'u no}

are both in group 1.

> Now that leaves just the issue of {ro lo} and {su'o lo} amounting to

> the same thing in the short course

Only if you keep the group 1 definition for {ro}, but there doesn't

seem to be any motivation for doing that, as {ro} clearly falls in

the group 2 paradigm.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 22 of July, 2004 15:44 GMT posts: 2388

A> You seem to be saying that I had changed the quantifier at the beginning from "some" to "all," whereas I had merely passed the negation through. So, the plan works only for negative cases (of course, anything can be negative with the right primitives, but I think I was clear about what was primitive — {su'o} in the exemplary case).

B> For a variety of historical reasons (in both logic and Lojban) I would take the defining base as {su'o} and define everything else in terms of it (well, everything that fits anyhow — or that historically is not so primitive. So, I keep {ro} as positive, for example.) I hadn't thought about "all but" but I suppose that just has the negative content chunk: "all but n are" is just "n are not." Tidy!

C> I am not sure that there is no reason for keeping {ro} as positive, but I haven't run through all the cases to see if it makes a difference in the end result. I am working, for the most past, with a fairly clear idea of what the results should be and trying to find formulae that achieve these results. At first glance, taking {ro lo broda cu brode} as something like {naku su'o lo broda cu naku brode} is going to give the wrong result, precisely because it does not give me {lo broda} to carry over to furture bridi places — and the other cases may fail in this way as well. Of course, I do have some freedom here about where to put the negation sign in and that may clean up the problem. That is, the above suggested reading is not the relevant one but rather "[Ix x inc* {y:y broda} & ~Iy y in x ~y brode", which seems OK at a glance. In this sense, then, your formula are slightly misleading, since they wortk with too short an overt context, but are correct when properly

contextualized. Of course, we still need to say a bit about negations of {lo} bridi and that will be more complex now than it was. I'll have to check to see whether the results are still right with these changes. I think, btw, that the explcit form of what is wanted is probably {na'e Q lo broda}, where Q is a positive quantifier, but that needs to be worked through as well.

pc:

> Thank you. It seems that the division into two types of quantifiers, or

> rather quantifiers and their negations, does solve the problem about {me'i}

> and the like, just as it did that for {no}. The details that xorxes give are

> not yet quite right, being based on a misreading of what I said before, I

> think.

A>Which details did I get wrong?

B>A simpler way of putting it is this. We divide quantifiers in two

groups: group 1 consists of those quantifiers of the form {za'u n}

or {da'a za'u n}, for integer n, and group 2 consist of those

quantifiers of the form {su'e n} or {da'a su'e n}, for integer n.

The second group simply consists of the negations of the first group,

because {su'e n} = {naku za'u n}, and {da'a za'u n} = {naku da'a su'e n}

for integer n.

The first group sets a lower bound, and so finding some set whose

members satisfy the claim is enough. The second group, being the

negatives of the first, deny the existence of such a set, or, in other

words require an examination of every set.

Notice that {no} = {su'e no} and {ro} = {da'a su'e no} are both

in group 2, while {su'o} = {za'u no} and {me'i ro} = {da'a za'u no}

are both in group 1.

> Now that leaves just the issue of {ro lo} and {su'o lo} amounting to

> the same thing in the short course

C>Only if you keep the group 1 definition for {ro}, but there doesn't

seem to be any motivation for doing that, as {ro} clearly falls in

the group 2 paradigm.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:03 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> * Specificity

> ** The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without

> implication of veridicality).

le is -veridical, which means it has no implication of veridicality.

lo is +veridical, which means that it implies veridicality.

> * Kind

> ** Individual

> ** Set

> ** Mass / Plurality; see http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for a

> massive explication of the logic of what we call masses; we seem to

> agree with him on most points.

"Kind" has been used to label what you call "the idea of a thing", so

using it here for something else can cause confusion.

Also, it seems to me that the distinction you want to make is:

  • Distributivity
    • Distributive
    • Non-distributive

Set is independent of the above distinction, you can have

distributive and non-distributive properties of sets. For

example: "each set of brodas has at least one broda as a member"

is distributive, whereas "two sets can have an empty intersection"

is non-distributive for "two sets" (it makes no sense to say that

each of two sets has an empty intersection by itself).

The set gadri are an unfortunate accident of Lojban history, they

don't really exist in JCB's Loglan. This glorious reification of

sets to the point of assigning them their own gadri just makes

some predicates harder to use. For example, in Lojban you don't

choose from a group of things, you have to choose from a set.

Silly, really, as it adds nothing to choosing from a group,

except the complication of having to remember that that

particular place, x3 of cuxna, can only take a set.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by pycyn on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:24 GMT posts: 2388

Boy, I wish I had gotten Robin's note; I have been trying to track down this book for a couple of years — since I first heard that it was in prep. Based on the early reports (I don't have time to read it just now — nor prolonged acess to a computer, nor any to a printer), we have done fairly well in Lojban, but there are some refinements that might prove useful (the questions about gadri being prominent). As for the matter of sets; it was not a mistake in its context; it was rather an attempt to bring some system the the muddle Loglan contained, wherein we could never tell from one occurrence to the next what sort of entity we were dealing with (or, rather, in which JCB took the properties of various types of entities and used whichever one was handiest for the object he had in mind — even though they did not always fit together coherently). Hopefully this text lives up to its promise to provide a better answer — essentially a way to deal with pluralities both distributively

and collectively without having to introduce sets — or even collectives (it appears — a very rapid glance — to work with the predicates not the terms). Note that McKay does seem to be separating pluralities from masses in the mass-noun sense.

Has "kind" really been used for "the idea of the thing" sense, as opposed to some sort of realization of that ideal — or some combination. I know that "species" has, and for the other senses as well. Well, Lojban (following Loglan) has a history of wcrewed up terminology (witness "mass" here).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin:

> * Specificity

> ** The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without

> implication of veridicality).

le is -veridical, which means it has no implication of veridicality.

lo is +veridical, which means that it implies veridicality.

> * Kind

> ** Individual

> ** Set

> ** Mass / Plurality; see http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for a

> massive explication of the logic of what we call masses; we seem to

> agree with him on most points.

"Kind" has been used to label what you call "the idea of a thing", so

using it here for something else can cause confusion.

Also, it seems to me that the distinction you want to make is:

  • Distributivity
    • Distributive
    • Non-distributive

Set is independent of the above distinction, you can have

distributive and non-distributive properties of sets. For

example: "each set of brodas has at least one broda as a member"

is distributive, whereas "two sets can have an empty intersection"

is non-distributive for "two sets" (it makes no sense to say that

each of two sets has an empty intersection by itself).

The set gadri are an unfortunate accident of Lojban history, they

don't really exist in JCB's Loglan. This glorious reification of

sets to the point of assigning them their own gadri just makes

some predicates harder to use. For example, in Lojban you don't

choose from a group of things, you have to choose from a set.

Silly, really, as it adds nothing to choosing from a group,

except the complication of having to remember that that

particular place, x3 of cuxna, can only take a set.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:32 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:13:47AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> Boy, I wish I had gotten Robin's note;

If you didn't, it's not my fault.

The following is my record of the servers at your ISP receiving the mail,

addressed to your account. Any problems beyond that point are not my concern;

I suggest you take it up with them.

You can check the web forum for what you missed.

-Robin

2004-07-21 21:02:07 1BnUmV-0007KO-6v <= [email protected] U=rlpowell P=local S=1393 [email protected]

2004-07-21 21:02:10 1BnUmV-0007KO-6v => |/usr/local/ecartis/ecartis -s wikidiscuss R=system_aliases T=address_pipe

2004-07-21 21:02:10 1BnUmV-0007KO-6v Completed

2004-07-21 21:02:09 1BnUmX-0007KU-ON <= [email protected] H=chain.digitalkingdom.org [64.81.49.134] P=esmtp S=1878 [email protected]

2004-07-21 21:02:21 1BnUmX-0007KU-ON => rlpowell R=procmail T=procmail_pipe

2004-07-21 21:02:23 1BnUmX-0007KU-ON => lojbab R=procmail T=procmail_pipe

snip

2004-07-21 21:02:30 1BnUmX-0007KU-ON => [email protected] R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=sbcmx1.prodigy.net 207.115.63.75



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 16:57 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:49:11AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > * Specificity

> > ** The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without

> > implication of veridicality).

>

> le is -veridical, which means it has no implication of veridicality.

I thought the le explicitely denied veridicality?

> lo is +veridical, which means that it implies veridicality.

Right.

> > * Kind

> > ** Individual

> > ** Set

> > ** Mass / Plurality; see http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for a

> > massive explication of the logic of what we call masses; we seem to

> > agree with him on most points.

>

> "Kind" has been used to label what you call "the idea of a thing", so

> using it here for something else can cause confusion.

Fair. How about "Type"?

> Also, it seems to me that the distinction you want to make is:

>

> * Distributivity

> ** Distributive

> ** Non-distributive

Is that a distinction in addition to the ones I made, or is it intended

to replace one of them? If so, which one?

> Set is independent of the above distinction, you can have distributive

> and non-distributive properties of sets. For example: "each set of

> brodas has at least one broda as a member" is distributive, whereas

> "two sets can have an empty intersection" is non-distributive for "two

> sets" (it makes no sense to say that each of two sets has an empty

> intersection by itself).

What does that have to do with articles? It seems to me that

distributivess is a property solely of the predication.

> Silly, really, as it adds nothing to choosing from a group,

> except the complication of having to remember that that

> particular place, x3 of cuxna, can only take a set.

I am quite happy to trust my listener to auto-convert.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 17:40 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> >

> > le is -veridical, which means it has no implication of veridicality.

>

> I thought the le explicitely denied veridicality?

{le broda} is overwhelmingly used for things that really

are broda, so I don't understand why you would think that.

> > "Kind" has been used to label what you call "the idea of a thing", so

> > using it here for something else can cause confusion.

>

> Fair. How about "Type"?

>

> > Also, it seems to me that the distinction you want to make is:

> >

> > * Distributivity

> > ** Distributive

> > ** Non-distributive

>

> Is that a distinction in addition to the ones I made, or is it intended

> to replace one of them? If so, which one?

Replace.

Individual -> Distributive

Mass -> Non-distributive

Set -> oblivion

> > Set is independent of the above distinction, you can have distributive

> > and non-distributive properties of sets. For example: "each set of

> > brodas has at least one broda as a member" is distributive, whereas

> > "two sets can have an empty intersection" is non-distributive for "two

> > sets" (it makes no sense to say that each of two sets has an empty

> > intersection by itself).

>

> What does that have to do with articles? It seems to me that

> distributivess is a property solely of the predication.

What do sets have to do with articles, for that matter.

In Lojban, distributivity is indicated by the gadri/quantifier.

{ro le ci broda cu brode} is distributive, the property of brodeing

is claimed of each of the three broda. {lei ci broda cu brode}

is non-distributive, the property of brodeing is claimed of the

three brodas together, not of each of them by itself. This works

for both CLL and XS.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



[[user19|xod]] Posted by xod on Thu 22 of July, 2004 17:40 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>I admit to being more than a little worried about this issue, because

>I'm convinced that the *vast* majority of the usage of "le" up to the

>present date, and most of the usage of "lo", is in fact intended to be

>in-mind and veridical. I think this is obvious, but if people want me

>to back it up I will.

>

>

Sure. le is the gadri you're looking for. It's not so much that le is

certainly non-veridical, but that it's suitable for both veridical and

non-veridical cases.

--

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism czar under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, says the Iraq war "accelerated terrorism" by "metastasizing" Al Qaeda.



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 18:10 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> B> For a variety of historical reasons (in both logic and Lojban) I would

> take the defining base as {su'o} and define everything else in terms of it

I think we can define all the quantifiers that are based on integers

and su'o/su'e/me'i/za'u/da'a (this includes {ro} through {da'a})

in terms of {su'o(pa)}, negation and identity.

> (well, everything that fits anyhow — or that historically is not so

> primitive. So, I keep {ro} as positive, for example.)

I see. Keeping {ro} as positive messes up a lot of things though.

> I hadn't thought

> about "all but" but I suppose that just has the negative content chunk: "all

> but n are" is just "n are not." Tidy!

Yes. {da'a} keeps positive quantifiers positive and negative ones

negative, i.e. if X is positive so is da'aX. Only the predicate gets

negated.

> C> I am not sure that there is no reason for keeping {ro} as positive, but I

> haven't run through all the cases to see if it makes a difference in the end

> result.

The main reason seems to be elegance and simplicity. You can of course

define it in a different way, but there should be a reason for going

against the most obvious definition.

> I am working, for the most past, with a fairly clear idea of what

> the results should be and trying to find formulae that achieve these results.

> At first glance, taking {ro lo broda cu brode} as something like {naku su'o

> lo broda cu naku brode} is going to give the wrong result, precisely because

> it does not give me {lo broda} to carry over to furture bridi places — and

> the other cases may fail in this way as well.

None of the negative quantifiers give you a {lo broda} to take outside

the negation, the way you are setting things up, so {ro} is not special

in this regard.

> Of course, I do have some

> freedom here about where to put the negation sign in and that may clean up

> the problem. That is, the above suggested reading is not the relevant one

> but rather "[Ix x inc* {y:y broda} & ~Iy y in x ~y brode", which seems OK

> at a glance. In this sense, then, your formula are slightly misleading,

> since they wortk with too short an overt context, but are correct when

> properly

> contextualized.

No, I meant them in the other reading. If you take them with this reading,

then why treat {no} differently? Why wouldn't {no} simply be:

"[Ix x inc* {y:y broda}] & ~[Iy y in x] y brode"

(The doubled ['s are necessary so that the formula doen't turn into

a link in the wiki.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:25 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin:

> > Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > >

> > > le is -veridical, which means it has no implication of

> > > veridicality.

> >

> > I thought the le explicitely denied veridicality?

>

> {le broda} is overwhelmingly used for things that really are broda, so

> I don't understand why you would think that.

OK. You're right.

> > > "Kind" has been used to label what you call "the idea of a thing",

> > > so using it here for something else can cause confusion.

> >

> > Fair. How about "Type"?

> >

> > > Also, it seems to me that the distinction you want to make is:

> > >

> > > * Distributivity

> > > ** Distributive

> > > ** Non-distributive

> >

> > Is that a distinction in addition to the ones I made, or is it

> > intended to replace one of them? If so, which one?

>

> Replace.

>

> Individual -> Distributive

> Mass -> Non-distributive

> Set -> oblivion

A set is a perfectly valid mathematical construct. It's much too late

to drop them out of the language, even if I wanted to (which, btw, I do

not).

So:

  • Distributivity
    • Distributive
    • Non-distributive
  • Property Transference
  • Set-wise; result has only properties such as cardinality, number, and

so on

  • Mass-wise; result has all properites borne by any of the entities contained

That'll make things harder for me, but I think it can be done.

> > > Set is independent of the above distinction, you can have

> > > distributive and non-distributive properties of sets. For example:

> > > "each set of brodas has at least one broda as a member" is

> > > distributive, whereas "two sets can have an empty intersection" is

> > > non-distributive for "two sets" (it makes no sense to say that

> > > each of two sets has an empty intersection by itself).

It seems to me, by the way, that the latter is "lei re le'i broda", or

similar. Actually, it's "lei re se cmima", but that's cheating for

purposes of this discussion.

> > What does that have to do with articles? It seems to me that

> > distributivess is a property solely of the predication.

>

> What do sets have to do with articles, for that matter.

>

> In Lojban, distributivity is indicated by the gadri/quantifier. {ro le

> ci broda cu brode} is distributive, the property of brodeing is

> claimed of each of the three broda. {lei ci broda cu brode} is

> non-distributive, the property of brodeing is claimed of the three

> brodas together, not of each of them by itself. This works for both

> CLL and XS.

You're right.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:25 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> > Set -> oblivion

>

> A set is a perfectly valid mathematical construct. It's much too late

> to drop them out of the language, even if I wanted to (which, btw, I do

> not).

Yeah, I know we can't drop them now.

> > > > Set is independent of the above distinction, you can have

> > > > distributive and non-distributive properties of sets. For example:

> > > > "each set of brodas has at least one broda as a member" is

> > > > distributive, whereas "two sets can have an empty intersection" is

> > > > non-distributive for "two sets" (it makes no sense to say that

> > > > each of two sets has an empty intersection by itself).

>

> It seems to me, by the way, that the latter is "lei re le'i broda", or

> similar. Actually, it's "lei re se cmima", but that's cheating for

> purposes of this discussion.

Well, that depends on how you define {re le'i broda}, I suppose.

That wouldn't work with the definitions for quantifiers on sets

as currently on the page.

{lei/loi re lo'i broda} would work, though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:26 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Boy, I wish I had gotten Robin's note; I have been trying to track down this

> book for a couple of years — since I first heard that it was in prep.

Robin had already posted the link in another message about a month ago.

Very nice book! It's very useful for understanding the distributive/

non-distributive distinction, but I'm not sure we can take anything

for Lojban directly, as the explicit formulas get too wordy.

> Has "kind" really been used for "the idea of the thing" sense, as opposed to

> some sort of realization of that ideal — or some combination.

I don't think so, but that's not what I said anyway. I said "Kind"

had been used for what Robin called "the idea of the thing" in his

message.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 22 of July, 2004 19:54 GMT posts: 2388

A> Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss list.

B>"xorxes

"Kind" has been used to label what you call "the idea of a thing", so

using it here for something else can cause confusion."

Does this mean that robn is using "the idea of a thing" in some very strange way? If so, how (since I don't have his message to check).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Boy, I wish I had gotten Robin's note; I have been trying to track down this

> book for a couple of years — since I first heard that it was in prep.

A>Robin had already posted the link in another message about a month ago.

Very nice book! It's very useful for understanding the distributive/

non-distributive distinction, but I'm not sure we can take anything

for Lojban directly, as the explicit formulas get too wordy.

> Has "kind" really been used for "the idea of the thing" sense, as opposed to

> some sort of realization of that ideal — or some combination.

B>I don't think so, but that's not what I said anyway. I said "Kind"

had been used for what Robin called "the idea of the thing" in his

message.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 22 of July, 2004 20:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:50:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A> Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss

> list.

Nope, it was in wikidiscuss.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1552&comments_maxComments=1&comments_style=commentStyle_threaded

Unfortunately, the times listed there are not accurate, however I am

willing to show you all of my server records for that day relating

e-mails sent by me to wikidiscuss with your ISP's mail sever's receipt

of said e-mails.

The problem is not on my end, as I said earlier today.

Someone please forward this on to PC privately, along with the mail I

sent earlier today showing that the problem was not on my end, as he

seems to have problems with mail sent by me. Perhaps he has kill-filed

me and forgotten?

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Thu 22 of July, 2004 20:08 GMT posts: 2388

Oops! Being used to xorxes getting it right, I did not check carefully his attacks on some of my cases and so came to think that they were problematic. In fact, they are not:

{n lo broda cu brode} is always "[[Ix%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ix x inc* {y: y broda}]] nz z in x z brode" (where n z Fz requires there be an F regardless of what n is — is this a change? I'm a bit confused at the moment, but I think it is, though I seem to think I already had "(Sw)w in x" too. And it is entailed by inc*). So, the separation of positive and negative quantifiers — interesting as it is — is not needed here at all. And {no lo broda cu brode} does not collapse at all to {no broda cu brode} but at worst to {me'i(ro) broda cu brode}. And, of course, not even that when larger contexts come along. And, more importantly, {no lo broda cu brode} is not {naku (su'o) lo broda cu brode}. And similarly with whatever we choose to define as negative quantifiers.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> B> For a variety of historical reasons (in both logic and Lojban) I would

> take the defining base as {su'o} and define everything else in terms of it

I think we can define all the quantifiers that are based on integers

and su'o/su'e/me'i/za'u/da'a (this includes {ro} through {da'a})

in terms of {su'o(pa)}, negation and identity.

> (well, everything that fits anyhow — or that historically is not so

> primitive. So, I keep {ro} as positive, for example.)

I see. Keeping {ro} as positive messes up a lot of things though.

> I hadn't thought

> about "all but" but I suppose that just has the negative content chunk: "all

> but n are" is just "n are not." Tidy!

Yes. {da'a} keeps positive quantifiers positive and negative ones

negative, i.e. if X is positive so is da'aX. Only the predicate gets

negated.

> C> I am not sure that there is no reason for keeping {ro} as positive, but I

> haven't run through all the cases to see if it makes a difference in the end

> result.

The main reason seems to be elegance and simplicity. You can of course

define it in a different way, but there should be a reason for going

against the most obvious definition.

> I am working, for the most past, with a fairly clear idea of what

> the results should be and trying to find formulae that achieve these results.

> At first glance, taking {ro lo broda cu brode} as something like {naku su'o

> lo broda cu naku brode} is going to give the wrong result, precisely because

> it does not give me {lo broda} to carry over to furture bridi places — and

> the other cases may fail in this way as well.

None of the negative quantifiers give you a {lo broda} to take outside

the negation, the way you are setting things up, so {ro} is not special

in this regard.

> Of course, I do have some

> freedom here about where to put the negation sign in and that may clean up

> the problem. That is, the above suggested reading is not the relevant one

> but rather "[Ix x inc* {y:y broda} & ~Iy y in x ~y brode", which seems OK

> at a glance. In this sense, then, your formula are slightly misleading,

> since they wortk with too short an overt context, but are correct when

> properly

> contextualized.

No, I meant them in the other reading. If you take them with this reading,

then why treat {no} differently? Why wouldn't {no} simply be:

"[Ix x inc* {y:y broda}] & ~[Iy y in x] y brode"

(The doubled ['s are necessary so that the formula doen't turn into

a link in the wiki.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 22:02 GMT posts: 1912


> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:50:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> > A> Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss

> > list.

>

> Nope, it was in wikidiscuss.

>

>

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1552&comments_maxComments=1&comments_style=commentStyle_threaded

>

> Unfortunately, the times listed there are not accurate, however I am

> willing to show you all of my server records for that day relating

> e-mails sent by me to wikidiscuss with your ISP's mail sever's receipt

> of said e-mails.

>

> The problem is not on my end, as I said earlier today.

>

> Someone please forward this on to PC privately, along with the mail I

> sent earlier today showing that the problem was not on my end, as he

> seems to have problems with mail sent by me. Perhaps he has kill-filed

> me and forgotten?

>

> -Robin

>

>

>

I'm forwarding it publicly, because it's easier, sorry about the noise. :-)

I don't have the other mail at hand, but it can always be found in

the discussion forum of the wiki.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 22 of July, 2004 22:51 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> {n lo broda cu brode} is always "[[Ix%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ix x inc* {y: y broda}]] nz z in x z

> brode" (where n z Fz requires there be an F regardless of what n is — is

> this a change?

No, that's what you had. As a matter of mere editing, it would be better

if you wrote it as: "[Ix x inc* {y: y broda}] [nz z in x] z brode".

Without the doubled ['s, the brackets disappear and the formula

appears as a very odd external link in the wiki forum.

> I'm a bit confused at the moment, but I think it is, though I

> seem to think I already had "(Sw)w in x" too. And it is entailed by inc*).

Yes, and you said at the time that you added this last bit, even though it

was not really necessary, just to fit the pattern. You do need a bit like

that when dealing with inner quantifiers.

> So, the separation of positive and negative quantifiers — interesting as it

> is — is not needed here at all. And {no lo broda cu brode} does not

> collapse at all to {no broda cu brode} but at worst to {me'i(ro) broda cu

> brode}.

Right. That observation was what led you to modify the definition for {no}.

My point was that if you do modify it for {no} you should also modify it for

the other negatives, just to be consistent. But if you don't modify it for

{no}, you don't need to modify it for anything else.

You just get odd equivalences:

{no lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to {me'i broda cu brode}.

{ro lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to {su'o broda cu brode}.

{su'e ci lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to {su'o da broda}.

And so on.

If those equivalences don't bother you, then there is nothing to modify.

> And, of course, not even that when larger contexts come along. And,

> more importantly, {no lo broda cu brode} is not {naku (su'o) lo broda cu

> brode}. And similarly with whatever we choose to define as negative

> quantifiers.

Agreed then.

Now moving on to inner quantifiers. You had for {lo n broda cu brode}:

[[I x inc* {y: y broda}] [Az in x] z brode & (nw) w in x

The last bit seems to fail for some quantifiers. ("Nothing is in x"?

"everything is in x"? "All but three things are in x"?) Probably you

need to change it to "& [n w in {y: y broda}] w in x" or something

like it.

BTW, it might be a good idea to put the proposal in a wiki page, which

you can modify as you fix the details, so that we don't need to go

searching for past messages to find the definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by pycyn on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:06 GMT posts: 2388

Interesting! I get a fair sample of Robin's mails but clearly miss some — I see the replies but not the originals. I have nothing in my kill file so far as the report on it goes. But then Yahoo has demonstrated recently — one of the reasons I am off just now is that I am having my computer worked on to get around some Yahoo peculiarities — oddities and an indifference to correcting them.

Jorge Llambías wrote:--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:50:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> > A> Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss

> > list.

>

> Nope, it was in wikidiscuss.

>

>

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1552&comments_maxComments=1&comments_style=commentStyle_threaded

>

> Unfortunately, the times listed there are not accurate, however I am

> willing to show you all of my server records for that day relating

> e-mails sent by me to wikidiscuss with your ISP's mail sever's receipt

> of said e-mails.

>

> The problem is not on my end, as I said earlier today.

>

> Someone please forward this on to PC privately, along with the mail I

> sent earlier today showing that the problem was not on my end, as he

> seems to have problems with mail sent by me. Perhaps he has kill-filed

> me and forgotten?

>

> -Robin

>

>

>

I'm forwarding it publicly, because it's easier, sorry about the noise. :-)

I don't have the other mail at hand, but it can always be found in

the discussion forum of the wiki.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388

One of the reasons why I don't put it on the wiki page is that the wiki page regularly eats up established terminology to do relatively useless things (that countless other markup languages manage to do without messing with the standard stuff). When I have something comfortable enough to let stand for a while, I'll take the trouble to conform it to the peculiar wiki rules, but until then the translation problem is more trouble than it is worth.

B> None of these equivalences seem odd to me. {n lo broda} is about members of lo broda, which need not be all the things that broda, which is what {n broda} is about. Given that, the material equivalences make sense in the limited contexts. But do not (I think — I wish we could make actual example in Lojban that were guaranteed correct) carry over to larger contexts; part of the oddity comes from just such unconscious carry-overs.

C> I not sure I get this one. Is there nothing essential here about brodeing? No, because it might be that none do. Similarly there is nothing essential — at this point — about three, since it might be less, even none. So, taking all that away, we left with just that something brodas. But can we get back? Sure, just take the {su'e ci} always to be {no}. And, unless every broda brodes, we can always find a set that satisfies the condition. But what if every broda does brode? Well, you can't get a set of brodas with no brodes, but you can get one with only one — take any singleton of a broda. Which reminds me that I apparently need a note to the effect that, for {n lo broda} {lo broda} has to have at least n members. This is worth saying overtly since it helps make the conditions of falsity clear even though it is implicit already. Not that that makes any difference in the {su'e ci} case.

D> Yes. I think it was trying to work that out that got us started on the other problems. I think just relativizing to n w w broda is going to be enough. The case of {lo no broda}

remains contradictory, though (as it should).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {n lo broda cu brode} is always "[[Ix%20x%20inc*%20%7By:%20y%20broda%7D|Ix x inc* {y: y broda}]] nz z in x z

> brode" (where n z Fz requires there be an F regardless of what n is — is

> this a change?

No, that's what you had. As a matter of mere editing, it would be better

if you wrote it as: "[Ix x inc* {y: y broda}] [nz z in x] z brode".

Without the doubled ['s, the brackets disappear and the formula

appears as a very odd external link in the wiki forum.

> I'm a bit confused at the moment, but I think it is, though I

> seem to think I already had "(Sw)w in x" too. And it is entailed by inc*).

Yes, and you said at the time that you added this last bit, even though it

was not really necessary, just to fit the pattern. You do need a bit like

that when dealing with inner quantifiers.

> So, the separation of positive and negative quantifiers — interesting as it

> is — is not needed here at all. And {no lo broda cu brode} does not

> collapse at all to {no broda cu brode} but at worst to {me'i(ro) broda cu

> brode}.

Right. That observation was what led you to modify the definition for {no}.

My point was that if you do modify it for {no} you should also modify it for

the other negatives, just to be consistent. But if you don't modify it for

{no}, you don't need to modify it for anything else.

B>You just get odd equivalences:

{no lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to {me'i broda cu brode}.

{ro lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to {su'o broda cu brode}.

C>{su'e ci lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to {su'o da broda}.

And so on.

If those equivalences don't bother you, then there is nothing to modify.

> And, of course, not even that when larger contexts come along. And,

> more importantly, {no lo broda cu brode} is not {naku (su'o) lo broda cu

> brode}. And similarly with whatever we choose to define as negative

> quantifiers.

Agreed then.

Now moving on to inner quantifiers. You had for {lo n broda cu brode}:

[[I x inc* {y: y broda}] [Az in x] z brode & (nw) w in x

D>The last bit seems to fail for some quantifiers. ("Nothing is in x"?

"everything is in x"? "All but three things are in x"?) Probably you

need to change it to "& [n w in {y: y broda}] w in x" or something

like it.

BTW, it might be a good idea to put the proposal in a wiki page, which

you can modify as you fix the details, so that we don't need to go

searching for past messages to find the definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/



Posted by pycyn on Fri 23 of July, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 2388

In an amzingly fast reply (roughly24 hours better than its prvious record) Yahoo is given me a correction for this problem (without, of course, explaining what the problem is or why it is there). Hopefully, I'll see all of Robin's pieces (but why did I get some and not others) and maybe some other folks for whom I have spotty records.

Interesting! I get a fair sample of Robin's mails but clearly miss some — I see the replies but not the originals. I have nothing in my kill file so far as the report on it goes. But then Yahoo has demonstrated recently — one of the reasons I am off just now is that I am having my computer worked on to get around some Yahoo peculiarities — oddities and an indifference to correcting them.

Jorge Llambías wrote: --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:50:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> > A> Apparently in some back channel message, not in the wikidiscuss

> > list.

>

> Nope, it was in wikidiscuss.

>

>

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_parentId=1552&comments_maxComments=1&comments_style=commentStyle_threaded

>

> Unfortunately, the times listed there are not accurate, however I am

> willing to show you all of my server records for that day relating

> e-mails sent by me to wikidiscuss with your ISP's mail sever's receipt

> of said e-mails.

>

> The problem is not on my end, as I said earlier today.

>

> Someone please forward this on to PC privately, along with the mail I

> sent earlier today showing that the problem was not on my end, as he

> seems to have problems with mail sent by me. Perhaps he has kill-filed

> me and forgotten?

>

> -Robin

>

>

>

I'm forwarding it publicly, because it's easier, sorry about the noise. :-)

I don't have the other mail at hand, but it can always be found in

the discussion forum of the wiki.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sun 25 of July, 2004 06:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:09PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> I believe we have the tools to do this, and my ideas change less usage

> than xorlo whilst (I believe) keeping the most important property (a

> truly generic option), but my proposal will probably wait till

> tomorrow at least.

Here it is:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal

More (many more) conversion formula are needed, but that's the gist.

I need to know if there's enough support for this idea that it might be

able to acheive consensus; if so, I'll make it better.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Sun 25 of July, 2004 21:14 GMT posts: 2388

I think the idea of sorting out the various factors involved is a good one – the ongoing struggles with {le} show what happens when unrelated notions (well, historically related but not conceptually) get jumbled together — and Robin’s sketch is a good start. Within that general approbation, however, some specific points call for comment. There is also a general question about whether gadri is the right place to deal with some of these notions.

I am not clear about what a “completely generic article” would be. There is no plausible sense in which xorlo is one, but my sense of what is plausible is conditioned by my own background and that is not quite the same as others’ so I may be missing an opportunity here. So far as I can tell, there is nothing less precise that {su’o da poi} or {lo} as I have been expanding it in the latest version (“there is a nonempty subset of the set of broda some of whose members …”), but maybe something else – or more – is meant. But that notion plays only a small part in all this, so specifying it (is LX meant to be used somewhere outside the semantic metachat?) may be insignificant.

2. Personal specificity. I take this to be one aspect of {le} (+specific – or is it +definite?). So {sa’e} marks cases where we pick the particular object(s) referred to before picking how to describe them, as opposed to {sa’e cu’i}, which lets the fact that they satisfy some predication select them. I don’t suppose that merely thinking about them – as opposed to, say, selecting them for discussion – is really enough, but it seems a minimum condition here.

What is odd is insisting that they actually broda, adding veridicality to {le} – which is nice to have but seems to be mixing matters again, since there being broda is not essential to picking them out. It seems more natural to do specific here and then veridical as another step (thus allowing unbrodaed {lo broda} as well). I don’t see {sa’e nai} at all, at least partly because I don’t have a clear idea of what “The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality” means, they being – for me – three totally different notions (a concept, a summary thingoid, and a context respectively). I am also not sure how a feature like specificity can have a neutral – as opposed to being unmarked – dimension; what is more unspecific than unspecific? I am not even clear what is meant here but I guess it is something about not even being about unspecified particular things and also carrying over into intensional contexts. As noted, nothing does that, for various logical reasons, and all the things

that do one or the other turn out to be very specific, quite independently of my choices.

Existence. On good Gricean grounds, we can hold that we never talk about nonexistents and so that talk apparently of that sort must be understood as being either about something else that does exist or about another world in which the subject does exist. The latter is clearly not a gadri matter but a modal one – shifting worlds. The former is also not purely a gadri matter but rather one of picking the right sumti content (and perhaps gadri as well): talking about properties or events or whatever rather than about lower level things. As expected, most of the cases discussed here are mucking about in intensional contexts and should be dealt with there rather than in gadri (though admittedly Lojbanists have shown an inability to grasp this notion and work with it, suffering from – apparently, acute SAEitis). Xorxes’ suggestion to use {je’u} to indicate veridicality with {le} (and, presumably, {je’unai} with {lo} for non-veridicality – a trickier move) seems a better use of the

cmavo.

Distributivity. A purely terminological comment: this use of “distributive” seems 180 off of the standard (an old Lojban problem) and is closer to (maybe even just is) ordinary “collective.” This does seem to be a gadri issue (though one could argue, on SAE grounds at least, that it is better dealt with in the predicates than in the terms). So, aside from the terminology, this discussion looks OK.

Property Transference. I am not perfectly clear about how this differs from the above. One is about the kind of object we are dealing with: set mass or group (or individual?) and the other is about how the properties of these object are related to the properties of the individuals that comprise them. But, as far as I can see, what type of object we are dealing with is determined by the way the properties of individuals and totalities are related: a (set) totality considered independently of the properties of the individuals or those properties come in only in identifying set or relating it to others; b (mass1) property of totality is only properties achieved by the collaborative properties of individual members; c (mass2) properties of totality is the logical some of the properties of the members (i.e., total has whatever property a member has alone or a mass1 of members has); d (basic case?) totality has whatever property all the members have individually. There have been

other possibilities suggested but this seems to be the main ones and Lojban has – more or less – gadri for them, albeit it is not clear exactly how to use most of them.

Identification. No problems here, given the earlier preselect- postselect distinction.

Accuracy/veridicality. No problem, but xorxes’ suggestion seems more efficient. Of course, making this distinction obligatory would ruin a large chunk of literature and conversation generally, but I suppose all these critters are optional.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal



Posted by xorxes on Fri 30 of July, 2004 06:59 GMT posts: 1912

Robin wrote:

> http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html

>

> Perhaps we should all read this and come back later? :-)

Yes, we should make it a required reading, at least the first

three chapters (the rest is interesting too but it gets too

technical for our purposes).

I finally understand what {jo'u} means. {jo'u} is to {lo}

as {joi} is to {loi} and {.e} is to {ro}:

la alis .e la djan = ro le re prenu

la alis joi la djan = lei re prenu

la alis jo'u la djan = le re prenu

So for example:

la alis .e la djan cu nonspe

Alice and John are single.

ro le re prenu cu nonspe

Each of the two people is single.

la alis joi la djan cu lafti le jubme

Alice and John together lift the table.

lei re prenu cu lafti le jubme

The two people together lift the table.

But what if we want to say both things in the same sentence?

We can't say {la alis .e la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme},

because that would say that each of them lifted the table.

We can't really say {la alis joi la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti

le jubme}, because that says that they are single together.

So we say:

la alis jo'u la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme

Alice and John are single and lifted the table.

le re prenu cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme

The two people are single and lifted the table.

which is noncommital as to distributivity.

McKay makes use of the relation "among" as a fundamental relation

in his semantics. He gives as examples:

Chicago and Los Angeles are among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Houston is among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston are among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

where the English "and" here would correspond to Lojban {jo'u}, because

it admits both the distributive (.e) and the non-distributive (joi)

readings depending on the predicate.

Now, CLL gives:

10.2) la BALtazar. cu me le ci nolraitru

Balthazar is one-of-the-referents-of ``the three kings.

Balthazar is one of the three kings.

10.3) la kaspar. cu me le ci nolraitru

Caspar is one of the three kings.

10.4) la melxi,or. cu me le ci nolraitru

Melchior is one of the three kings.

I conclude that {me} is essentially McKay's "among" relation.

{ko'a me ko'e} means that the referents of {ko'a} are among

the referents of {ko'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 11:26 GMT posts: 2388

But some of the later chapters are more relevant to the present section, since they deal inter alia with gadri. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how little needs to be changed to accommodate plurality in place of sets and groups. JCB and the creators of Lojban disagree (except in details "is among" rather than "is a member of," for example) only in placing the distributive-or-not distinction in the term rather than in the predicate and in handling plurality with sets and selike things, rather than just several whatsises.

McKay's objections to singularism (i.e. handling concrete pluarality with single abstract clumpings) can each be easily met by any logician in the business. The trouble is that each rebuttal makes a different change in what is said (no one would use McKay's renditions, which are obviously meant to add ridicule to reasonable arguments) and it is not clear that they can all be used at once. McKay's system makes one change and handles all the problems (that he raises — obviously the ones he can solve. Others may be known or come along.) So we need to consider what he says. The question of where to put the mark of distributivity is less clearcut. McKay puts it on the predicate because the same subject may be taken as distributed and not in the same sentence. The argument for the subject is that the same predicate (as far as we can tell) may be distributive one time and not another, sometimes even with the same apparent subject. McKay's solution makes sense for a logical system,

but not necessarily for a language (see the run around he has to use to deal with the problem that leads to the subject solution). The linguistically most efficient solution would seem to be a mixture: some predicates are always non-distributive (the {mei} set, for example), others never are. For the remaining, the choice between {lV} and {lVi} shows what isd wanted — and the shifting cases can be dealt with one or two tags (either one for collective and one for distributive, or one for opposite distributivity — the first is preferable, since we have to deal with variables as well as {lV} pluralities). And the definition within plurality of singularity can be a bit tricky — but on the way gets rid of — or gets out of the way — several messy quantifier cases.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin wrote:

> http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html

>

> Perhaps we should all read this and come back later? :-)

Yes, we should make it a required reading, at least the first

three chapters (the rest is interesting too but it gets too

technical for our purposes).

I finally understand what {jo'u} means. {jo'u} is to {lo}

as {joi} is to {loi} and {.e} is to {ro}:

la alis .e la djan = ro le re prenu

la alis joi la djan = lei re prenu

la alis jo'u la djan = le re prenu

So for example:

la alis .e la djan cu nonspe

Alice and John are single.

ro le re prenu cu nonspe

Each of the two people is single.

la alis joi la djan cu lafti le jubme

Alice and John together lift the table.

lei re prenu cu lafti le jubme

The two people together lift the table.

But what if we want to say both things in the same sentence?

We can't say {la alis .e la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme},

because that would say that each of them lifted the table.

We can't really say {la alis joi la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti

le jubme}, because that says that they are single together.

So we say:

la alis jo'u la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme

Alice and John are single and lifted the table.

le re prenu cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme

The two people are single and lifted the table.

which is noncommital as to distributivity.

McKay makes use of the relation "among" as a fundamental relation

in his semantics. He gives as examples:

Chicago and Los Angeles are among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Houston is among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston are among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

where the English "and" here would correspond to Lojban {jo'u}, because

it admits both the distributive (.e) and the non-distributive (joi)

readings depending on the predicate.

Now, CLL gives:

10.2) la BALtazar. cu me le ci nolraitru

Balthazar is one-of-the-referents-of ``the three kings.

Balthazar is one of the three kings.

10.3) la kaspar. cu me le ci nolraitru

Caspar is one of the three kings.

10.4) la melxi,or. cu me le ci nolraitru

Melchior is one of the three kings.

I conclude that {me} is essentially McKay's "among" relation.

{ko'a me ko'e} means that the referents of {ko'a} are among

the referents of {ko'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 15:07 GMT posts: 2388

I always look forward to the next revision of the Gadri page, in the hope that it will clean up the earlier mess and, this time, that it will show some use of the book by McKay to which we have all been directed. Alas, none of this has happened in the latest (as of Aug 7) version. If anything the muck has gotten deeper and thicker and the clarifying power of McKay’s logic has been put to little fruitful use.

But first, what is still or finally correct on this page is the vast majority of it, at least in some places. The problems center on {lo} and its congeners {loi} and {lo’i}. And, of course, on the putative examples, which are too complex to be of any use to someone seeking information or a template to apply (some of them also seem to be wrong, even for the murky concepts being illustrated.

The initial specification of {lo} still speaks of generic individuals (which have instances!) and gets most of the details equally wrong. Of course, none of this fits with the “formal definition” of {lo}, which speaks of a particular individual (or individuals, if we go along with McKay, although that is not indicated) which is selected God knows how (I suppose it is in mind for the speaker and contextually grocked by the hearer). It is, in short, merely {le} with guaranteed (rather than practical) veridicality, satisfying the predicate but not even picked for that – as the earlier description seems to require. (The definitions of {le}, although they do not fit together perfectly, are at least readable as being more or less to the same effect and could be brought together fairly easily.)

To recall what is odd about “generic reference,” we begin with the question of what it means. It might mean reference to the genus (or species or whatever) Broda, since the reference has to be a broda and Broda is not generally a broda. The note to the effect that {lo broda} is a constant (presumably a logical proper name, an expression without internal quantifiers and so transparent to both quantifiers and negation) does support this interpretation, however. Of course, it also self-destructs if we try moving either quantifiers or negations around it.

It might mean forming locutions that describe general properties of brodas; that is, it might not be in itself a reference to anything but, like {lo’e} and {le’e} sumti, be part of a larger complex utterance that lays down generalities without citing cases. But the use of the locution with quantifiers and the talk of instances, makes this unlikely, even though the other specifications about {lo} show that these structures are not analytic – that is, that {lo broda} is not related to {lo n broda} or {n lo broda} in the same way as the corresponding {le} expressions are interrelated. The “formal definition” again does not fit this nor is any other presentation in terms of already defined notions (or even linguistic intuitions) offered. The notes also say that (lo broda} and {lo n broda} (and apparently the same patterns for {le} and beyond) are constants and this would not fit a general reading for that would mean that that “not generally” means “generally not” and “generally

something” means the same as “something generally,” neither of which holds generally. Other than these interpretations, “generic reference” is as mysterious as the impossible “generic individual.”

Both the specification and the “formal definition” perpetuate what must be taken as a major change in the meaning of {lo n broda} to now be {lo n-mei be lo broda}, a generic reference to an individual or group of n-ads of brodas, rather than to the expected generic reference to n-ads of brodas. That is, it continues to break the parallelism with {le}, with which the only justified difference is over specificity (and the dependent veridicality issue). Of course, the parallelism is broken immediately by the difference between {n lo broda} – which gives n instances (whatever these are, given we do not know what the type is) and n members (which, admittedly, is not much better, given that we don’t have sets here and we don’t know much about groups. Here McKay would have been invaluable.

Of course, the {lo} definition here seems to deviate from CLL in allowing that {lo broda} is not about all broda but some brodas brought together conceptually for some present expository purpose, parallel to {le} again. This, however, seems a useful move and is quite clear (although not reflected in the “formal definition”). But does this definition make that shift? To be sure, the implicit internal quantifier is no longer {ro} (or, officially, anything else, although it cannot, presumably, be {no}). But the notion of generic reference or individuals suggests that, even if not all broda are referred to, all play some role. And certainly, in neither description nor definition is any account taken of some intermediate between all and one. Indeed, the generic reference is said to be to “any individual or groups that fits as the first argument” But if {lo broda cu brode} is true, this means the same as {ro broda cu brode} (by a trivial calculation) and that meaning of “generic”

does certainly not seem to be intended. (The same change is made more explicitly for {le’i} where {le’i broda} refers no longer to the set of all broda but to some currently interesting subset McKay would effectually eliminate almost every need for this notion even. It is also made with {loi}, where it seems to work – largely because of the way the description is written. But the ‘formal definition” uses {lo} again and is unduly complex in a way that McKay could alleviate.)

The uncertainty about what the description means and likewise for the very different “definition” and which of them (or some mean between) we are to follow casts doubt on the rest of this proposal, since mention is made in many later definitions to {lo broda}. When we started we could presumably assume that everyone understood what {a broda} meant, where a is a constant referring to an individual (or some individuals, following McKay). Whatever new predications are introduced then must be explained (even if not quite defined) in terms of that locution or others already introduced. But {lo broda cu brode} has not been successfully introduced and so we cannot truly claim to understand any locution that involves it.

Finally, this proposal tries to deal with substances and reaches the point of equating a substance as one kind of collective activity of some of the things composed of that substance – as it clearly is for “mass nouns” like {djacu}. This seems to work as far as it goes, although one would expect that, for count nouns, it is more parts of those objects than the objects themselves that are involved. Still this is a step along the way and, like the definitions for {lo’e} and {le’e}, useful starting places for development. Uses of {lo} in all cases aside.

Following McKay in holding that logical proper names always refer to some (not necessarily – but not excluding – one) and taking the fundamental predications {a C-broda} to be of some objects, a, collectively, and {a D-broda} for the same a distributively. We start with one essential predicate, always collective at the right end, distributive at the left, “among,” where x is among y just in case x and y are each some things and every thing in x (among x) is also among y (this doing to those among something is the standard mark of distributivity).

We need the notion of an individual, which in this case is when “some” is just “one” It would be nice to avoid quantifiers that go on indefinitely so the following is an approximation (which seems to work)

“a 1-ad” is short for “Ax: x among a a among x”

We have a theorem (which might be a definition but for the distributive nature of “1among”):

“a D-broda” iff “Ax: x among a and x 1-ad x broda.” We can go recursively: given “n-ad,” “a n+1-ad” is “Ix: x among a(x n-ad & Ay: y among a & y not among x y 1-ad)”. Similarly,

“a =<1-ad” is just “a 1-ad” (since there are no empty pluralities) and “a >=1-ad” is just

Ix: x among a x 1-ad.” This last formula generalizes to all finite integers. Given “a =< n-ad,” “a =Ax: x among a either x =

Some places are always D (like 1among) others are always C (like among2) most can be either as the case requires. For variables, there needs to be a flag to say how the predication is to be taken, so we will assume this, though it is not yet lexed. Some constructions default one or the other distributivity, marked (D) or (C) but the defaults can be overcome in various ways (by the requirement of the predicate place, by the D- or C- mark. The marks are left off when either will work.

Then we have for {lo broda cu brode} just “Ix: x (D)broda x D-brode” this contrasts with {loi broda cu brode} in the way you would expect: “Ix: x (D)broda x C-brode” and with {le} (and parallelly {lei}: {le broda cu brode} is, for some x, “x D-I describe them as broda & x D-brode”

The numeric cases (here for the {lo} set, the {le} and {la} follow mutatis mutandis) have to be divided according to type of quantifier, integer (i), fractional (f) or relative (r);

{lo i broda cu brode} = “Ix: x broda x D-brode & x i-ad” On the other side, we come closer to the older definitions involving sets:

{i lo broda cu brode} is “Ix: x D-brodaIy: y among x y D-brode & y i-ad.”

The fractional quantifiers are like this except depending on the number of the basic plurality:

{lo f broda cu brode} is “Ix: x broda x brode & Ay: y broda if Az: z brodaz among y & y i-ad then x h(f times n)-ad” (where h is a rounding function – all of this properly fuzzied).

{f lo broda cu brode} “Ix: x brodaIy: y among x y brode & if x i-ad then y h(f times n)-ad”

Relative quantifiers have, of course, to be related to the overarching plurality:

{lo r broda cu brode} is “Ix: x broda x brode & ry: y broda & y 1-ad y among x” and

{r lo broda cu brode} is “Ix: x broda Iy: y among x y brode & r z: z among x & z 1-ad z among y”

The earlier “a n-ad” is demonstrably the same as “n x: x 1-ad x among a,” so these could all be brought into something close to a single pattern.

These definitions incorporate several suggestions from the other proposals running around, those that seem fruitful. One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode} is “Ix: x are called “q brod” x brode” so there is no way to insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}. We need a mark to indicate that what follows it, insofar as it is a quantifier (and this can be defined lexically, I think), is a cardinal for the plurality. Since this mark needs to be something that cannot be absorbed into a name, this involves recycling {doi} after {la}, where it cannot otherwise occur.

Posted by xorxes on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 20:32 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> And, of course, on the putative examples, which

> are too complex to be of any use to someone seeking information or a template

> to apply (some of them also seem to be wrong, even for the murky concepts

> being illustrated.

I'm open to add any examples that you would consider useful, please

suggest some. If you point out which ones you think are wrong, and

how you would fix them, that would be helpful too.

> The notes also say that (lo broda} and {lo n broda} (and apparently the same

> patterns for {le} and beyond) are constants and this would not fit a general

> reading for that would mean that that “not generally” means “generally not”

> and “generally

> something” means the same as “something generally,” neither of which holds

> generally.

I would do "not generally" as {na ta'e}, and "generally not"

as {ta'e na}, at least for one sense of "generally". {na'o} might

give another sense, though I'm not very clear on the difference

between {ta'e} and {na'o}.

> Some places are always D (like 1among) others are always C (like among2) most

> can be either as the case requires. For variables, there needs to be a flag

> to say how the predication is to be taken, so we will assume this, though it

> is not yet lexed.

In XS, there is an optional flag: An outer quantifier indicates

a distributive predication, loi/lei/lo'u indicate collective:

le ci cribe cu broda (distributivity not indicated)

ro le ci cribe cu broda (distributive)

lei ci cribe cu broda (collective)

> One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode}

Actually, {la q brod}, a quantifier with a CMENE, is not grammatical

at the moment. But what you say does apply to {la q broda}.

> is “Ix: x are called “q brod” x brode” so there is no way to

> insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}.

There's always {lo q la broda}, which also works with {la brod}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 21:40 GMT posts: 2388

A> Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode} cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly its most basic.

B> this is where I am trying to figure out what the Hell "generic reference" and "generic individual" mean. so, the hypothesis is the often proclaimed one that {lo} is used to indicate generality. If you mean to show generality by an external marker (as I think you should) then the objection does not hold; it is in fact a part of the argument that {lo} doesn't work in that way. I am not sure that the forms you pick are the best ones, however: {ta'e} is fundamentally about individuals (groups don't really have habits though they may cultivate them in their members) and we have noted that the typical is not the general (the typical lion is female, but lions are not generally female). Habitual action is also action no longer thought about and that is not generally true of actions, even thouse gnerally performed (and of course there a re general states but no habitual ones — or only rather metaphrically so).

C> I am not sure why outer quantifiers have to signal distributive predication: six students might be shipmates as easily as the students are. And, of course, your marks do not help for moving back and forth between C and D, nor with variables generally. Well, apparently you can get away with {lo da} so maybe there is. I take the simple gadri as differentiated by distributivity into {lV} and {lVi}, which seems to be the usual pattern in Lojban, and external quantifiers merely take some of the brodas among the ones first mentioned but keep the mentiooned distributivity.

D> In {la q brod} q functions merely phonologically as part of the name, but not as a quantifier. The suggestion is to allow some expression involving q to go into that place and function as a quantifier in {la brod}

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> And, of course, on the putative examples, which

> are too complex to be of any use to someone seeking information or a template

> to apply (some of them also seem to be wrong, even for the murky concepts

> being illustrated.

A>I'm open to add any examples that you would consider useful, please

suggest some. If you point out which ones you think are wrong, and

how you would fix them, that would be helpful too.

> The notes also say that (lo broda} and {lo n broda} (and apparently the same

> patterns for {le} and beyond) are constants and this would not fit a general

> reading for that would mean that that “not generally” means “generally not”

> and “generally

> something” means the same as “something generally,” neither of which holds

> generally.

B>I would do "not generally" as {na ta'e}, and "generally not"

as {ta'e na}, at least for one sense of "generally". {na'o} might

give another sense, though I'm not very clear on the difference

between {ta'e} and {na'o}.

> Some places are always D (like 1among) others are always C (like among2) most

> can be either as the case requires. For variables, there needs to be a flag

> to say how the predication is to be taken, so we will assume this, though it

> is not yet lexed.

C>In XS, there is an optional flag: An outer quantifier indicates

a distributive predication, loi/lei/lo'u indicate collective:

le ci cribe cu broda (distributivity not indicated)

ro le ci cribe cu broda (distributive)

lei ci cribe cu broda (collective)

> One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode}

D>Actually, {la q brod}, a quantifier with a CMENE, is not grammatical

at the moment. But what you say does apply to {la q broda}.

> is “Ix: x are called “q brod” x brode” so there is no way to

> insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}.

There's always {lo q la broda}, which also works with {la brod}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by xorxes on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 21:41 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> A> Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode}

> cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be

> met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one

> to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly

> its most basic.

This is not meant to be a textbook though. I will add a simple

{lo broda cu brode} as a first example then, but with no context

to give it meaning, I'm not sure how helpful it can be.

> If you mean to show generality

> by an external marker (as I think you should) then the objection does not

> hold; it is in fact a part of the argument that {lo} doesn't work in that

> way.

I don't want to claim that {lo} marks generality. Only that it can

be used to make general claims. In those claims, generality can be

marked explicity (by ta'e or whatever is more appropriate) or left

to context.

>I am not sure that the forms you pick are the best ones, however:

> {ta'e} is fundamentally about individuals (groups don't really have habits

> though they may cultivate them in their members)

I don't think ta'e can be used to mark the habits of one of the

arguments. It should say something about the event as a whole.

For example:

lo cipni ta'e vofli ga'u le zdani

Birds habitually fly above the house.

This is not to say that some bird or birds are in the habit of flying

above the house, but rather that habitually it is the case that

birds fly above the house. It is no more the habit of birds to fly over

than it is the habit of the house to be flown over.

> I take the simple gadri as differentiated by

> distributivity into {lV} and {lVi}, which seems to be the usual pattern in

> Lojban, and external quantifiers merely take some of the brodas among the

> ones first mentioned but keep the mentiooned distributivity.

But then you don't have the possibility to not mark distributivity

when you don't want to.

> D> In {la q brod} q functions merely phonologically as part of the name,

As I said, {la q brod} is ungrammatical in current Lojban.

The parser will reject {la ci djan}. It will accept {la ci bakni},

and the meaning restriction is as you say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 22:41 GMT posts: 2388

1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of context would make some of the current examples clearer.

2. Well, this is a much more sensible claim, although {lo} is surely not unique in this respect — {su'o da poi} works as well, for example. So we are still stuck with "generic reference" and "generic individual."

3. I suppose some people sometimes do talk that way in English, but one would hope that Lojban did not force. On the other hand, in this sense, {ta'e} looks much better for "generally" but the gloss is terrible (it seems to parallel the case of {ka'e} when used for "possible."}

4. But I don't generally want not to mark it, although I want to use actual marks as little as possible. If it is important not to mark it, I can use quantified variables, which are not marked.

5. Yup. OK, {la .qbrod.} then. I thought I had seen a case of the other form but can't find it now. In any case, the internal quantifier would be nice for symmetry if nothing else. Ahah! what I can find is {la ci cribe} read as "Three-Bears" not "three Bears" so do we need the change everywhere after {la}?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A> Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode}

> cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be

> met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one

> to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly

> its most basic.

1.>This is not meant to be a textbook though. I will add a simple

{lo broda cu brode} as a first example then, but with no context

to give it meaning, I'm not sure how helpful it can be.

> If you mean to show generality

> by an external marker (as I think you should) then the objection does not

> hold; it is in fact a part of the argument that {lo} doesn't work in that

> way.

2>I don't want to claim that {lo} marks generality. Only that it can

be used to make general claims. In those claims, generality can be

marked explicity (by ta'e or whatever is more appropriate) or left

to context.

>I am not sure that the forms you pick are the best ones, however:

> {ta'e} is fundamentally about individuals (groups don't really have habits

> though they may cultivate them in their members)

3>I don't think ta'e can be used to mark the habits of one of the

arguments. It should say something about the event as a whole.

For example:

lo cipni ta'e vofli ga'u le zdani

Birds habitually fly above the house.

This is not to say that some bird or birds are in the habit of flying

above the house, but rather that habitually it is the case that

birds fly above the house. It is no more the habit of birds to fly over

than it is the habit of the house to be flown over.

> I take the simple gadri as differentiated by

> distributivity into {lV} and {lVi}, which seems to be the usual pattern in

> Lojban, and external quantifiers merely take some of the brodas among the

> ones first mentioned but keep the mentiooned distributivity.

4>But then you don't have the possibility to not mark distributivity

when you don't want to.

> D> In {la q brod} q functions merely phonologically as part of the name,

5>As I said, {la q brod} is ungrammatical in current Lojban.

The parser will reject {la ci djan}. It will accept {la ci bakni},

and the meaning restriction is as you say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by xorxes on Mon 09 of Aug., 2004 23:28 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> 1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure

> how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of

> context would make some of the current examples clearer.

Which examples do you find unclear? I tried to pick sentences that

more or less showed what they were about. With a sentence of the

form {lo broda cu brode} that is harder to do. I have now added

{lo rozgu cu xunre}, "Roses are red."

> 3. I suppose some people sometimes do talk that way in English, but one

> would hope that Lojban did not force. On the other hand, in this sense,

> {ta'e} looks much better for "generally" but the gloss is terrible (it seems

> to parallel the case of {ka'e} when used for "possible."}

We should fix the keyword for {ta'e} then. I can't really tell if

"habitually" is terrible in this sense, but I'm fairly certain that

being a tense it can't be about the habits of just one of the arguments.

> 4. But I don't generally want not to mark it, although I want to use actual

> marks as little as possible. If it is important not to mark it, I can use

> quantified variables, which are not marked.

That's all backwards from my point of view. Quantified terms have always

been taken as distributive as far as I understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

http://messenger.yahoo.com

Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 2388

A. "Roses are red" is a good place to start; "Students surround the building" (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.

B. Unfortunately, we have {ka'e} a personal tense (well, modal) as a model. Hopefully, when we get around to it, this will be changed to "possibly" and all other cases of {ka'e} will be shifted to {kakne}, where they have always belonged.

C. Gee. did we read the same CLL and proposed revisions and McKay? As I said, six students can surround a building just as well as students or six of the students. {ci loi broda} is supposed, using the old terminology, to be a subgroup of {loi broda} but with three members, just as {ci lo broda} is a subwhatever-we-called-it-before-McKay with three members. And similarly, three things (unspecified) can do/be collectively or distributively. That was the whole point — and the main problem — with the old group-non-group distinction. {ci da} is distributieve in the old system only because we did not have a way to take it collectively; now we do and we can correct the omission.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> 1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure

> how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of

> context would make some of the current examples clearer.

A>Which examples do you find unclear? I tried to pick sentences that

more or less showed what they were about. With a sentence of the

form {lo broda cu brode} that is harder to do. I have now added

{lo rozgu cu xunre}, "Roses are red."

> 3. I suppose some people sometimes do talk that way in English, but one

> would hope that Lojban did not force. On the other hand, in this sense,

> {ta'e} looks much better for "generally" but the gloss is terrible (it seems

> to parallel the case of {ka'e} when used for "possible."}

B>We should fix the keyword for {ta'e} then. I can't really tell if

"habitually" is terrible in this sense, but I'm fairly certain that

being a tense it can't be about the habits of just one of the arguments.

> 4. But I don't generally want not to mark it, although I want to use actual

> marks as little as possible. If it is important not to mark it, I can use

> quantified variables, which are not marked.

C>That's all backwards from my point of view. Quantified terms have always

been taken as distributive as far as I understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

http://messenger.yahoo.com

Posted by xorxes on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 01:09 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> A. "Roses are red" is a good place to start; "Students surround the

> building" (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And

> then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.

I'll add:

lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

"Students are surrounding the building and yelling."

To show that {lo tadni} is non-commital about distributivity.

> And similarly,

> three things (unspecified) can do/be collectively or distributively. That

> was the whole point — and the main problem — with the old group-non-group

> distinction. {ci da} is distributieve in the old system only because we did

> not have a way to take it collectively; now we do and we can correct the

> omission.

Well, that's not how we've been doing it so far. I'm not sure the

conservative Lojban community can handle such a shift, but you can

always try.

How do you do specific reference with no specification for distributivity?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 03:09 GMT posts: 2388

A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal and neither has Lojban characteristically (in the explanations, not in the text, of course, since it did not have the wherewithal before).This is a nice case: I would have said {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e D krixa}, where D is the yet unlexed distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that is messier).

B. We did not have the theoretical framework before, but we did have the pattern — where else did the {lo}-{loi} distinction come from? As for the conservative community, look at all the changes you have made (many without any foundation at all) with scarcely a murmur of protest.

C. A fair question to which I don't have an immediate answer. How do we do specific references now with something like a bound variable? I am not too worried about that however since I don't think we often want to be without marks of distributivity.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A. "Roses are red" is a good place to start; "Students surround the

> building" (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And

> then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.

A>I'll add:

lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

"Students are surrounding the building and yelling."

To show that {lo tadni} is non-commital about distributivity.

> And similarly,

> three things (unspecified) can do/be collectively or distributively. That

> was the whole point — and the main problem — with the old group-non-group

> distinction. {ci da} is distributieve in the old system only because we did

> not have a way to take it collectively; now we do and we can correct the

> omission.

B>Well, that's not how we've been doing it so far. I'm not sure the

conservative Lojban community can handle such a shift, but you can

always try.

C>How do you do specific reference with no specification for distributivity?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 03:13 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal

That would be the whole point of xorlo, though.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 12:40 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> This is a nice case: I would have said

> {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e D krixa}, where D is the yet unlexed

> distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that

> is messier).

But how do you tell which place of krixa D applies too? Consider

something like {loi broda loi brode cu brodi gi'e D brodo}.

Does D distribute loi broda, loi brode, both?

If you really want a distributive gadri, why not use {lo'i}?

Then we could have {lo'i} for distributive, {loi} for

collective, and {lo} for unspecified.

> How do we do

> specific references now with something like a bound variable?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I meant mixed distributivity

things like:

le ci nanmu poi bevri le pipno cu dasni lo mapku

The three men carrying the piano are wearing hats.

le ci nanmu poi dasni lo mapku cu bevri le pipno

The three men wearing hats are carrying the piano.

> I am not too

> worried about that however since I don't think we often want to be without

> marks of distributivity.

I have needed it often enough in usage that I noticed it as a problem.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 12:40 GMT posts: 2388

Well, it's nice to know someone has figured out the point of xorlo, but, since the issue of distributivity could only have been raised in the last month or so, I doubt it is the point. The point seems (as far as it has stood still long enough to register) to get something that is indefinite without using quantifiers — not a very likely project to succeed (and it hasn't).

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal

That would be the whole point of xorlo, though.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:40 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Well, it's nice to know someone has figured out the point of xorlo, but,

> since the issue of distributivity could only have been raised in the last

> month or so, I doubt it is the point.

The issue of distributivity did not come out of reading McKay. It has

been there all the time.

> The point seems (as far as it has

> stood still long enough to register) to get something that is indefinite

> without using quantifiers — not a very likely project to succeed (and it

> hasn't).

The point has always been that {lo} adds nothing other than

converting a selbri into a sumti, putting the semantic content

of the x1 of the converted selbri into the slot that it fills.

{lo} adds no info about distributivity or quantification.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:40 GMT posts: 2388

A>Well, {lo} v {loi} carries the first clue, but D goes between the sumti and the selbri to mark the relevant item (details need some work, to be sure).

The issue of what to do with {lo'i} is an interesting one; it surely is not needed for sets if we go along this path, since almost all the preactical work with sets (that is, everything outside of mathematics) would be done with plurality. But making it the distributive gadri is just wrong headed; we already have {lo} which has been distributive since 1955 (in various guises). Maybe {lo'i} can be neutral — if a need for a neutral can be found.

B> Sorry if I misunderstood your question. Along with a distributive marker goes a collective one as well:. C, for now. The definitional component of a quantifier phrase is assumed distributive (I think that is how it will work out — these phrases are "usually" kinds which are inherently distributive). So the first example would be {le ci nanmu poi C bevri le pipno cu dasni lo mapku} (I am assuming you mean that they carried the piano together, else where would be the problem) and the second {lei ci nanmu poi dasni lo mapku cu bevri le pipno}. The {le} v {lei} exactly matches the pattern from {lo}.

C> Frinstance? This was never a problem very near ones consciousness before, I would have thought, and when it did arise I am sure we assumed that {lo} would do, since it was not clearly {loi}. The clearest cases I can think of would be where we simply do not know which way it went and the difference makes a difference (paying the piano movers, say). Are there others? My inclination, if the need really is that strong is to introduce a fairly lengthy neutral marker,CVV'V for emergencies. This would be useful even if we said (as McKay would have it) that the default distributivity is collective.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> This is a nice case: I would have said

> {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e D krixa}, where D is the yet unlexed

> distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that

> is messier).

A>But how do you tell which place of krixa D applies too? Consider

something like {loi broda loi brode cu brodi gi'e D brodo}.

Does D distribute loi broda, loi brode, both?

If you really want a distributive gadri, why not use {lo'i}?

Then we could have {lo'i} for distributive, {loi} for

collective, and {lo} for unspecified.

> How do we do

> specific references now with something like a bound variable?

B>I'm not sure I understand the question. I meant mixed distributivity

things like:

le ci nanmu poi bevri le pipno cu dasni lo mapku

The three men carrying the piano are wearing hats.

le ci nanmu poi dasni lo mapku cu bevri le pipno

The three men wearing hats are carrying the piano.

> I am not too

> worried about that however since I don't think we often want to be without

> marks of distributivity.

C>I have needed it often enough in usage that I noticed it as a problem.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 13:41 GMT posts: 2388

CLL by implication, at lerast, makes {lo} distributive (the only mode we had then) and {loi} collective by a devious mechanism that took groups (or masses or whatefver we called them in a given week) as peculiar individuals (not real individuals but not sets either), somehow related to their members to collect their activities into a single focus. I suppose that the more accurate way of putting this is that Lojban was naturally singularist and that {lo} went with what each of its members did and {loi} went with what the collective did, but each with what a single thing did. So, the distributive did not arise as such and the collective arose in a very different way. My suggestion merely carries that pattern over to an improved theory. In a word, {lo} was not neutral but merely default, which was distributive (as we would say now). I suppose that the issue of distributivity came down then — as now — to whether to use {lo} or {loi} and the answer was simply to use {loi} if it was

clearly distributive and otherwise {lo}, even though that might get things wrong from time to time. So again here is a more accurate approach. As so often, there ae some things that we cannot get away from (quantifiers and intensions, to name a couple often at issue) and simply not mentioning them does not eliminate them but only throws onto either default conditions or chaos (actually, usually saying total argle-bargle).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> Well, it's nice to know someone has figured out the point of xorlo, but,

> since the issue of distributivity could only have been raised in the last

> month or so, I doubt it is the point.

The issue of distributivity did not come out of reading McKay. It has

been there all the time.

> The point seems (as far as it has

> stood still long enough to register) to get something that is indefinite

> without using quantifiers — not a very likely project to succeed (and it

> hasn't).

The point has always been that {lo} adds nothing other than

converting a selbri into a sumti, putting the semantic content

of the x1 of the converted selbri into the slot that it fills.

{lo} adds no info about distributivity or quantification.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:40 GMT posts: 2388

{ko'a lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi}

He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.

This will be a bad example because the unfamiliarity of {ciboi} is going distract the reader from the {lo}. The translation shows that this is meant to be a particular case, but no part of the environemnt implies that. This might be a general rule, a habit even of his. I suppose further context would settle the matter. Notice that, in what follows, the clear cases are all generalities.

{ca ro nu mi rere'u catlu lo skina kei mi cpacu ro lo se cusku poi mi na cpacu ca lo pamoi}

Every time I see a movie for the second time I get all this dialogue that I missed the first time.

This is pretty clear, though it could be a particular case but for the {ro}.

{ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu}

Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

It is not hard to imagine this as about a particular case; indeed, it is almost certainly generally used to mean "You should show forebearance to me"

{ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu}

But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

A muddle. It seems to be about an occasion but then not. More context needed to be sure.

{ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja}

At night lions hunt for food.

Easily a restricted case, “some nights some lions …”

{lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi}

One picture is worth a thousand words.

Which one? (Ambiguous also in written English).

{deÂ’I li 960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42}

In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

Which one? I disagree with the use of {lo n broda} for {lo n-mei be lo broda} or so (but this is illustrating your proosal which includes that – mistakenly, I think).

{cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni}

Step 3: The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

Well, here I donÂ’t agree with this use of {lo vo tadni}. Also, of course, it could be a general report as well as a set of instructions.

{lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci bidju e lo kucysni}

The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.

{lo n F} again. The first two {lo} appear to be better as {la}

{o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi}

Caution! There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden.

Here is a case where the {lo} is probably misleading, except for the relation to the quantifier-bridi pattern. If the {lo} were taken seriously (especially if it were {lo mu xagji sofybakni}, this would sound like a general claim about the garden.

{lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270}

Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and weigh about 270lbs.

Again, why not a report about particular punching bags. I suppose the parenthesis makes that less plausible, though it too could find a place in talking about, say, the punching bags in a gymn.

{lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u}

Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a horn coming out of their foreheads.

This one, of course, is totally confusing. Even if we assume (and this is the worse choice here) that {ranmi1} creates an opaque place, that information is not readily available yet. Thus this example leads one to believe (as I rather think you intend it to, consequences be damned) {lo} that expressions somehow pass unchanged into intensional contexts or replace the need for them. Not so, alas. Barring some clue to the contrary, this sentence is false and leads to at least three invalid inferences: to the conclusions that there is something that is mythical, that there is a unicorn that is mythical and that centaurs are mythical (since the set of cenaturs is coextensive with the set of unicorns in this world).

Mainly, in spite of claiming that {lo} is not for stating generalities, the examples, with one (or maybe two) exceptions assume that the general is intended. I don’t disagree with this, but don’t quite see why you are adverse to saying so. I don’t think it is part of the meaning of {lo} – it would be hard to specify, as various attempts have shown – but it is significant for its use.

Of course, this assumes that the translations adequately reflect what the Lojban says (or the Lojban what the English says) and this is hard to know for sure, given the one fuzzy and one inapplicable specification of that meaning. All are clearly wrong for the “formal definition” and it is impossible to tell for the specification that heads these examples – until some sense is made of “generic reference” and “generic individual.” I suppose that – your claims to the contrary notwithstanding – this amounts to saying that {lo} is used to state genralities. Some cases of {su’o da poi} to contrasdt with these examples would then be useful, as would afew clear cases when {lo} can nonetheless be used for particular cases.

I note that the simple case you add is almost certainly another generality.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Which examples do you find unclear? I tried to pick sentences that

more or less showed what they were about. With a sentence of the

form {lo broda cu brode} that is harder to do. I have now added

{lo rozgu cu xunre}, "Roses are red."



Posted by xorxes on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:41 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> {ko'a lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi}

> He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.

> This will be a bad example because the unfamiliarity of {ciboi} is going

> distract the reader from the {lo}.

The examples are not meant to be basic Lojban, just ordinary Lojban.

> The translation shows that this is meant

> to be a particular case, but no part of the environemnt implies that.

Good point, thanks. I'll add {pu}, which makes it a bit more definite.

> {lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci bidju e

> lo kucysni}

> The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with

> three additional beads and a Crucifix.

> {lo n F} again. The first two {lo} appear to be better as {la}

That's what the capitalization suggests in English, yes. But I'm

not very confortable with using {la} to name generic objects.

> Mainly, in spite of claiming that {lo} is not for stating generalities,

Where do I claim that? I don't think {lo} is only for stating

generalities, but it is perfectly usable for stating generalities.

> the

> examples, with one (or maybe two) exceptions assume that the general is

> intended. I donÂ’t disagree with this, but donÂ’t quite see why you are

> adverse to saying so.

I am not at all adverse to saying so.

> I don’t think it is part of the meaning of {lo} – it

> would be hard to specify, as various attempts have shown – but it is

> significant for its use.

Indeed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 17:41 GMT posts: 2388

A> Well, for most of the people using this now, {ciboi} is surprising enough to cause a pause. But that is because most people can't even do basic Lojban.

B> Hey, if you can stomach generic objects (whatever they are), you can allow that they have names. {la} is after all just a form of {le} semantically, so if {le} can deal with generic objects, so can {la} (but I am not sure that {le} can so maybe you are right).

C> My point is that these examples only make sense if {lo} is used to state a generality. Since there are generally no contextual clues that that is what is meant, the working assumption is that {lo} implicates generality. As noted, it takes an additional bit to show that that is not intended. As I have said, I have no problem with that, but I think you should be a bit more up front about it — and include more examples both of non-general cases to show what counts as countering the implicature. And, of course, some cases (somewhere but cross-referenced) of clearly non-genral usages with {su'o da poi}.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> {ko'a lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi}

> He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.

> This will be a bad example because the unfamiliarity of {ciboi} is going

> distract the reader from the {lo}.

A>The examples are not meant to be basic Lojban, just ordinary Lojban.

> The translation shows that this is meant

> to be a particular case, but no part of the environemnt implies that.

Good point, thanks. I'll add {pu}, which makes it a bit more definite.

> {lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci bidju e

> lo kucysni}

> The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with

> three additional beads and a Crucifix.

> {lo n F} again. The first two {lo} appear to be better as {la}

B>That's what the capitalization suggests in English, yes. But I'm

not very confortable with using {la} to name generic objects.

> Mainly, in spite of claiming that {lo} is not for stating generalities,

C>Where do I claim that? I don't think {lo} is only for stating

generalities, but it is perfectly usable for stating generalities.

> the

> examples, with one (or maybe two) exceptions assume that the general is

> intended. I donÂ’t disagree with this, but donÂ’t quite see why you are

> adverse to saying so.

I am not at all adverse to saying so.

> I don’t think it is part of the meaning of {lo} – it

> would be hard to specify, as various attempts have shown – but it is

> significant for its use.

Indeed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 20:02 GMT posts: 1912

I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

I am giving up the idea of quantifying over groups with {lo}.

This means {ci lo vo tadni} means "three of four students"

instead of "three groups of four students".

This brings {lo} more in line with {le} and {la}. The other

meaning can be obtained, with the proposed definition for

{mei}, as {PA1 lo PA2mei be lo broda}.

I don't think there will be much opposition to this move, as

several people expressed their preference for {lo} being

treated like {le} in this respect, but if someone objects,

please speak up.

Two of the lo-examples were changed with this: those are

the "five groups of four students" and the "seven groups of

seven beads" examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by pycyn on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 2388

Thank you; that helps. Now, about generic reference and generic individuals...

[email protected] wrote:Re: BPFK Section: gadri

I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

I am giving up the idea of quantifying over groups with {lo}.

This means {ci lo vo tadni} means "three of four students"

instead of "three groups of four students".

This brings {lo} more in line with {le} and {la}. The other

meaning can be obtained, with the proposed definition for

{mei}, as {PA1 lo PA2mei be lo broda}.

I don't think there will be much opposition to this move, as

several people expressed their preference for {lo} being

treated like {le} in this respect, but if someone objects,

please speak up.

Two of the lo-examples were changed with this: those are

the "five groups of four students" and the "seven groups of

seven beads" examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:31:43AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > > I think this is may be what Rob means by compositionality. If "ci

> > > gerku" means something, then "le ci gerku" should mean something

> > > that is composed of the meanings of "ci gerku" and "le".

> >

> > That's definately not what compositionality means.

> >

> > http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/compositionality.html

>

> Perhaps I'm using a slightly broader definition of compositionality;

> what Bob said is what I'd like.

I believe that the latest version is what you want; do you agree?

Well, except for LA, where the inner quantifier gets eaten by the name.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:02:44PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

>

> I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

And then you made another one today, although it was mostly

clarification, and largely my fault.

The problem that I have is that we seem to have lost "PA lo broda" and

friends. Oh, not, it's now there as "PA sumti".

IIRC, you promised us that "PA lo broda" gave us back "PA da poi broda";

the current proposal doesn't do anything like that. This seems bad.

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 2388

"Gave back" as "covered it nicely" or as "opened it up to new — or more clearly old — uses?" the alst gadri proposal doesn't obviously do either.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:02:44PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

>

> I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

And then you made another one today, although it was mostly

clarification, and largely my fault.

The problem that I have is that we seem to have lost "PA lo broda" and

friends. Oh, not, it's now there as "PA sumti".

IIRC, you promised us that "PA lo broda" gave us back "PA da poi broda";

the current proposal doesn't do anything like that. This seems bad.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 1912

Robin Lee Powell:

> > I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

>

> And then you made another one today, although it was mostly

> clarification, and largely my fault.

I'm still doing some cleaning up, so I'm saving the changes as

"minor" until I have a definitive version.

> The problem that I have is that we seem to have lost "PA lo broda" and

> friends. Oh, not, it's now there as "PA sumti".

Right. Outer quantification is becoming practically a footnote

on gadri, as it should be.

> IIRC, you promised us that "PA lo broda" gave us back "PA da poi broda";

> the current proposal doesn't do anything like that. This seems bad.

PA lo broda = PA me lo broda

= PA da poi ke'a me lo broda

= PA da poi ke'a broda

= PA broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 2388

Unless {PA me lo broda} is already explained separately, the string of identities at the bottom is circular, since {PA me lo broda} is otherwise a case of {PA broda}.

(One of the cute things from McKay is getting rid of those numerical quantifiers in favor of predicates — I suppose they are mildly modified PAmei — "is PA in number." so we don't carry all those quantifiers involved in numbers on for ever and ever but just have tidy particulars and closed little predicates.)

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin Lee Powell:

> > I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

>

> And then you made another one today, although it was mostly

> clarification, and largely my fault.

I'm still doing some cleaning up, so I'm saving the changes as

"minor" until I have a definitive version.

> The problem that I have is that we seem to have lost "PA lo broda" and

> friends. Oh, not, it's now there as "PA sumti".

Right. Outer quantification is becoming practically a footnote

on gadri, as it should be.

> IIRC, you promised us that "PA lo broda" gave us back "PA da poi broda";

> the current proposal doesn't do anything like that. This seems bad.

PA lo broda = PA me lo broda

= PA da poi ke'a me lo broda

= PA da poi ke'a broda

= PA broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:56:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell:

> > The problem that I have is that we seem to have lost "PA lo broda"

> > and friends. Oh, not, it's now there as "PA sumti".

>

> Right. Outer quantification is becoming practically a footnote on

> gadri, as it should be.

Fair.

And well done for making everything shorter.

> > IIRC, you promised us that "PA lo broda" gave us back "PA da poi

> > broda"; the current proposal doesn't do anything like that. This

> > seems bad.

>

> PA lo broda = PA me lo broda

> = PA da poi ke'a me lo broda

> = PA da poi ke'a broda

And there you lose me. Where did "me lo" go? I mean, it's perfectly

reasonable, but I don't think it's formalized anywhere.

> = PA broda

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:23:42PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:56:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Robin Lee Powell:

> > > The problem that I have is that we seem to have lost "PA lo broda"

> > > and friends. Oh, not, it's now there as "PA sumti".

> >

> > Right. Outer quantification is becoming practically a footnote on

> > gadri, as it should be.

>

> Fair.

>

> And well done for making everything shorter.

BTW, very minor request: list selma'o, please. The format you use on

your other pages seems good to me.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Unless {PA me lo broda} is already explained separately, the string of

> identities at the bottom is circular, since {PA me lo broda} is otherwise a

> case of {PA broda}.

{me lo broda} is a selbri, so {PA me lo broda} is just another

case of {PA } = {PA da poi ke'a }.

{me} is explained in the numerical selbri section. It is

essentially McKay's "Among" relationship.

> (One of the cute things from McKay is getting rid of those numerical

> quantifiers in favor of predicates — I suppose they are mildly modified

> PAmei — "is PA in number." so we don't carry all those quantifiers involved

> in numbers on for ever and ever but just have tidy particulars and closed

> little predicates.)

I'm not especially worried about numerical quantifiers, they work

(as far as the proposal goes) just as the basic quantifiers, {ro}

or {su'o}. But I think it's important to disentangle referring

(unquantified) expressions from quantified terms.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> > PA lo broda = PA me lo broda

> > = PA da poi ke'a me lo broda

> > = PA da poi ke'a broda

>

> And there you lose me. Where did "me lo" go? I mean, it's perfectly

> reasonable, but I don't think it's formalized anywhere.

{me} is the converse of {lo}: it changes a sumti into a selbri

just as {lo} changes a selbri into a sumti. Any referrent or

referrents of the sumti will satisfy the resulting selbri.

{me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. There's a full formalization

there if you want it. I'm not translating it into Lojban for the

time being. Maybe some day.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:38:35PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > > PA lo broda = PA me lo broda

> > > = PA da poi ke'a me lo broda

> > > = PA da poi ke'a broda

> >

> > And there you lose me. Where did "me lo" go? I mean, it's

> > perfectly reasonable, but I don't think it's formalized anywhere.

>

> {me} is the converse of {lo}: it changes a sumti into a selbri just as

> {lo} changes a selbri into a sumti. Any referrent or referrents of the

> sumti will satisfy the resulting selbri.

Seems fine to me; write it down somewhere, please, since you have ME as

well.

(Private context: You do understand that this conversion defeats the

purpose of removing MEI, right?)

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:06 GMT posts: 1912

Robin Lee Powell:

> > {me} is the converse of {lo}: it changes a sumti into a selbri just as

> > {lo} changes a selbri into a sumti. Any referrent or referrents of the

> > sumti will satisfy the resulting selbri.

>

> Seems fine to me; write it down somewhere, please, since you have ME as

> well.

I will. What I already wrote amounts to that, though.

> (Private context: You do understand that this conversion defeats the

> purpose of removing MEI, right?)

That meaning of {me} is strictly CLL's. I'm not proposing

any change there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:06 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:12:20PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> Robin Lee Powell:

> > (Private context: You do understand that this conversion defeats the

> > purpose of removing MEI, right?)

>

> That meaning of {me} is strictly CLL's. I'm not proposing any change

> there.

The CLL never defined "me lo" == "". It's a minor point; don't worry

about it.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> The CLL never defined "me lo" == "". It's a minor point; don't worry

> about it.

I know you probably don't mean to say that "me lo" can always be

automatically replaced by "", but just for the record: it can't.

For example {me lo mi broda} is very different from {mi broda},

and {me lo PA broda} is very different from {PA broda}.

Even when {me lo} can be eliminated, as in {me lo broda}, you

have to be careful with things like terminators and other stuff

that may need to be added.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT posts: 2388

Although my English-flavored intuitions clearly see {lo} as being natural for making general comments, McKay points out that from the logical point of view, it is the quantifier expressions {Q da poi} that moore naturally perform this role. Or more accuarately, he goes to some length to show that descriptions (definite in his case, but the arguments expands easily) are more context sensitive that quantifiers are — and that insofar as descriptions are defined in terms of quantifiers the domain of the quantifiers has to be significantly restricted for each description. Even the initial expression, e.g., "a man walked into a bar" is already restricting the domain to that man and that bar and, as such, would more logically be involve {lo nanmu} and {lo barja} rather than {da poi nanmu} and {da poi barja} although those would be correct as well. Later in the story, the range of quantifiers would have to be taken in everchanging ways, which does not happen in generalities.

I 'm sure the opposite position is now too firmly entrenched in Lojban, so I'll set this aside for LoCCan III.



Posted by xorxes on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Although my English-flavored intuitions clearly see {lo} as being natural for

> making general comments, McKay points out that from the logical point of

> view, it is the quantifier expressions {Q da poi} that moore naturally

> perform this role.

Can you point me to where he points this out? He says in chapter 7:

"I will develop an account that treats 'the' as a quantifier that can

be analyzed in terms of the existential and universal quantifiers, and

I will not include separate treatment of a distinctive referential

description. (If you think that there are referential descriptions


expressions.

Lojban does not have Russell's 'the' quantifier, although of course

it can provide the expanded form in terms of {ro} and {su'o}.

> Or more accuarately, he goes to some length to show that

> descriptions (definite in his case, but the arguments expands easily) are

> more context sensitive that quantifiers are — and that insofar as

> descriptions are defined in terms of quantifiers the domain of the

> quantifiers has to be significantly restricted for each description.

But he only considers quantified expressions, so I don't think he

is contrasting quantifiers with something else.

> Even

> the initial expression, e.g., "a man walked into a bar" is already

> restricting the domain to that man and that bar and, as such, would more

> logically be involve {lo nanmu} and {lo barja} rather than {da poi nanmu}

> and {da poi barja} although those would be correct as well.

Lojban lore usually suggests using {le} in that situation.

> Later in the

> story, the range of quantifiers would have to be taken in everchanging ways,

> which does not happen in generalities.

>

> I 'm sure the opposite position is now too firmly entrenched in Lojban, so

> I'll set this aside for LoCCan III.

I'm not sure I'm clear on which are the two positions you're describing.

As I see it, Lojban outer quantifiers have always been treated as

ordinary distributive quantifiers (except for those marked with

{pi}: piro, piso'i, pisu'o, etc.).

Terms not explicitly quantified have been traditionally defined

in theory as having some implicit ordinary distributive quantifier,

but in practice often used differently.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 2388

A> The discussion runs — with asides-- through chapters 8 -10 (well, in 10 the asides predominate). Of course, he only treats descriptions that can be wholy treated in terms of quantifiers, but what he says clearly applies (and more so) to {le} and {lo}, which involve some pragmatic factors as well (indeed, his remarks suggest that all descriptors in natural languages contain such pragmatic factors).

B> The history of LoCCan (I & II) quantifiers is as follows. JCB originally had just the Russellian iota ({le} in the old system, or at least its precursor). But first the no-case failure bugged him, so he allowed occasional misfires (even McKay acknowledges that, in natural languages, we overlook failed descrpitions that get the right thing: the description of {le} ought to be "refers to particular objects selected by speaker and/or context. If the right objects are picked out by the hearer on the basis of the description, the fact that they does not exactly meet the predicate is ignored." rather than saying that the predicate involved is "I describe as..."). The JCB was frustrated by the non-uniqueness failure, so he allowed plural satisfiers (and from there the plurality spread — often unnoticed until a crunch case, and both JCB and the later developers then patched things up as best they could within a singularist framework). But, pragmatics aside, the core of {le} and

{lo} has been A and I (or A and E in the other system) and everything hs focused on that, even the informal masses (or whatever) were conceived of as objects analogous to sets though with different propreties (in particular, being able to do things ). Quantifiers were indeed usually used in these cases even as part of distribution formulae (which did not look like such because of the different underlying logic). In short, {le} is a Russellian plural descriptor adapted pragmatically to real language.

C>He only considered quantifier expressions because, for him, there are ultimately only quantifiers. But within that one can — and he does — separate descriptors off and then discuss the contextual effects on them (which, to be sure, turn up as effects on the quantifiers within them).

D> Depends on the date of the lore, I suspect. Since you are a significant part (point several?) of the current usage, I yield to uou on that. In the past, however, the habits have sometimes also been {lo} for the first time, {le} there after (reading {lo} as essentially a calque of English "a(n)") or {su'o da poi} first and then {le}. Ultimately the point is the same however it is done.

E> The two positions are that {lo} is for generalities and {da poi} for occasional versus just the opposite assignment. I take it that current Lojban (i.e. you) hold to the first postition (always allowing other uses in marked cases, of course).

F> Well, outer quantifiers have clearly been partitive but the distribution issue is less clear: {Q loi}, for example, seems still to have mainly a collective sense. As McKay makes clear, the distributivity is a characteristic of the predicate (place) and in the past all predicate places were distributive by default — even the collectives were distributed (in a totally degenerate sense) into a mass.

G> Yes, and for the most part pretty clearly wrongly. That is they end up saying something different from what was (so far as we can tell now) intended (ignoring quantifiers does not make them go away).

pc:

> Although my English-flavored intuitions clearly see {lo} as being natural for

> making general comments, McKay points out that from the logical point of

> view, it is the quantifier expressions {Q da poi} that moore naturally

> perform this role.

A>Can you point me to where he points this out? He says in chapter 7:

"I will develop an account that treats 'the' as a quantifier that can

be analyzed in terms of the existential and universal quantifiers, and

I will not include separate treatment of a distinctive referential

description. (If you think that there are referential descriptions


expressions.

B>Lojban does not have Russell's 'the' quantifier, although of course

it can provide the expanded form in terms of {ro} and {su'o}.

> Or more accuarately, he goes to some length to show that

> descriptions (definite in his case, but the arguments expands easily) are

> more context sensitive that quantifiers are — and that insofar as

> descriptions are defined in terms of quantifiers the domain of the

> quantifiers has to be significantly restricted for each description.

C>But he only considers quantified expressions, so I don't think he

is contrasting quantifiers with something else.

> Even

> the initial expression, e.g., "a man walked into a bar" is already

> restricting the domain to that man and that bar and, as such, would more

> logically be involve {lo nanmu} and {lo barja} rather than {da poi nanmu}

> and {da poi barja} although those would be correct as well.

D>Lojban lore usually suggests using {le} in that situation.

> Later in the

> story, the range of quantifiers would have to be taken in everchanging ways,

> which does not happen in generalities.

>

> I 'm sure the opposite position is now too firmly entrenched in Lojban, so

> I'll set this aside for LoCCan III.

E>I'm not sure I'm clear on which are the two positions you're describing.

F>As I see it, Lojban outer quantifiers have always been treated as

ordinary distributive quantifiers (except for those marked with

{pi}: piro, piso'i, pisu'o, etc.).

G>Terms not explicitly quantified have been traditionally defined

in theory as having some implicit ordinary distributive quantifier,

but in practice often used differently.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> In short, {le} is a Russellian

> plural descriptor adapted pragmatically to real language.

CLL-le can't be McKay's plural 'the', because CLL-le is always

distributive and McKay's plural 'the' is not.

I said before that Lojban doesn't have Russell's singular 'the', but

now I think it does: it's {ropa}, "all one". I suppose it's just not

used much because it sounds so weird. I have used it for "the only".

> E> The two positions are that {lo} is for generalities and {da poi} for

> occasional versus just the opposite assignment. I take it that current

> Lojban (i.e. you) hold to the first postition (always allowing other uses in

> marked cases, of course).

One important distinction is that {da} is a singular variable,

whereas {lo} can be plural. {da} can't be used for McKay's

capital letter variables.

> F> Well, outer quantifiers have clearly been partitive but the distribution

> issue is less clear: {Q loi}, for example, seems still to have mainly a

> collective sense.

But always as {pi Q loi}. Non-pi quantifiers are always distributive.

> As McKay makes clear, the distributivity is a

> characteristic of the predicate (place) and in the past all predicate places

> were distributive by default — even the collectives were distributed (in a

> totally degenerate sense) into a mass.

Any non-distributive predicate can have a distributive reading as well,

obviously, so we still need to have distributive quantifiers. We could

do away with singular variables, the way McKay does, but then we would

need extremely long formulas to say simple things. So we can't just adopt

McKay's formalism wholesale.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 23:36 GMT posts: 14214

I've proposed zilfadni for a common property, and clarified the definition of kampu.

xorxes has agreed to use zilfadni in his definitions.

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/zilfadni

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT posts: 2388

A. I don't suppose that the gadri controls the distributivity; that is, in McKay anyhow, a feature of predicate places. Now, I was suggesting a set of codings that would reduce the need to keep saying D or C for every place, and I said let {lo} default to D, but in a C place it would be C (place trumps code).

{ropa} won't do as a descriptor since it has the wrong structure — not a very good reason, assuming that descriptors are quantifiers. Why not vice versa as well? I suppose that the ultimate answer would be pragmatic, but that is a bit too nebulous to do much with yet.

B. Actually it can without much mucking about (as I said, JCB et al built better than they knew). As it is now, {lo} and the like can be instances of {ro da poi} and generate {su'o da poi} (which movess can be explained in other ways than as simple inferences, to be sure). Remember that, in McKay, singular variables are just special cases of plural variables.

C> I could have sworn that I read your definitions differently — not that that would prove much about what you meant. In any case, in my version {Q loi} is still collective, just some of the things among {loi}. And {pi Q loi} is the same, got at in a different way. This seems in accord with a lot of chat and maybe even some usage.

D> Well, in fact many non-distributive predicates (e.g. "are shipmates", "are meeting") do not have distributive readings, though there are related distributive predicates ("is involved in..."), We don't have distributive quantifiers because distributivity is not a feature of quantifiers but of predicate places. We may indeed I think should allow both kinds of predicates with a minimum of fuss, so I proposed a set of readings (not yet all that ar needed) that accomplish McKay's goals without all of his formalism {no "distributive quantifier," in his sense: a quantifier complex that guarantees that the place is treated as distributive within a purely collective system; some but not many actual C and D markers; separating C and D in the terms, not always in the predicates on the surface level). I agree that McKay's actual formalism won't do — except in a metalanguage, perhaps — but Lojban is 2/3 of the way home without any significant grammatical changes (and not that much

semantically).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> In short, {le} is a Russellian

> plural descriptor adapted pragmatically to real language.

A>CLL-le can't be McKay's plural 'the', because CLL-le is always

distributive and McKay's plural 'the' is not.

I said before that Lojban doesn't have Russell's singular 'the', but

now I think it does: it's {ropa}, "all one". I suppose it's just not

used much because it sounds so weird. I have used it for "the only".

> E> The two positions are that {lo} is for generalities and {da poi} for

> occasional versus just the opposite assignment. I take it that current

> Lojban (i.e. you) hold to the first postition (always allowing other uses in

> marked cases, of course).

B>One important distinction is that {da} is a singular variable,

whereas {lo} can be plural. {da} can't be used for McKay's

capital letter variables.

> F> Well, outer quantifiers have clearly been partitive but the distribution

> issue is less clear: {Q loi}, for example, seems still to have mainly a

> collective sense.

C>But always as {pi Q loi}. Non-pi quantifiers are always distributive.

> As McKay makes clear, the distributivity is a

> characteristic of the predicate (place) and in the past all predicate places

> were distributive by default — even the collectives were distributed (in a

> totally degenerate sense) into a mass.

D>Any non-distributive predicate can have a distributive reading as well,

obviously, so we still need to have distributive quantifiers. We could

do away with singular variables, the way McKay does, but then we would

need extremely long formulas to say simple things. So we can't just adopt

McKay's formalism wholesale.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT posts: 2388

Another step toward dealing with the pseudogadri, but still a long way from home. I doubt that a definition is really possible and we will eventually fall back on an essay on the appropriate occasions for use.

[email protected] wrote:

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

I've proposed zilfadni for a common property, and clarified the definition of kampu.

xorxes has agreed to use zilfadni in his definitions.

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/zilfadni

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 15:51 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> B. Actually it can without much mucking about (as I said, JCB et al built

> better than they knew). As it is now, {lo} and the like can be instances of

> {ro da poi} and generate {su'o da poi} (which movess can be explained in

> other ways than as simple inferences, to be sure). Remember that, in McKay,

> singular variables are just special cases of plural variables.

I admit it is tempting to treat da, de, di as plural variables, so we

should at least consider it and see how things would work, but even

McKay retains a separate notation for singular variables which he

uses even after showing how they can be obtained from plural ones.

Singular variables do make some expressions shorter, so I'm not sure

we want to just do away with them completely.

Another problem I see at this point is that we have only {ro} to cover

two (or three) plural quantifiers.

As the proposal stands now, McKay's plural quantifiers are basically

the proposal's inner quantifiers, (inner ro is his lambda quantifier)

and the proposal's outer quantifiers are the usual singular quantifiers,

i.e. they quantify over singular variables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT posts: 2388

1> the separate notation is explicitly just a shorthand; it call always be rewritten in plural quantifier form. The number of occasions where it makes a difference are very few and we could always deal with them, probably — this being language not logic — more briefly than McKay's formulae (I haven't thought about how exactly to do this in detail, since there are some more interesting and central questions to work through).

2> A large part of the difference between the two "alls" seems to be just the difference already in Lojban between "all+" and "all-," that is, the ubiquitous issue of existrential import. So we have that one covered. McKay comes down wisely on the side of "all+" in general. But there are some cases (with non-cumulative predicates as the domain of the quantifier — these are all restricted quantification) where the importing conditions make for problems, namely that it requires that there is one list (as it were) of all things that are F, where as, while there are may be several lists of things that are F, because F is non-cumlative, the single list does not follow. "all-" defined as the dual of the particular quantifier, avoids the problem by looking only at all the separate lists. ("all+" in this sense — which is somewhat stronger than our usual one — can't be defined in terms of "all-" and the opposite definition, while possible is not worth the effort. McKay thinks that

cases involving on distributive predicates call for "all-" but the case that he offers to support this involves a fallacy.) What is the (possible) third? An all for singular variables? But the other two collapse for singulars so we can use either (different situations seem to make one or the other more natural.)

3> I don't follow this. How are inner quantifiers lambda? Oh, they are +, while the outer can take 0 as a value. That is true but not the pressing issue beh9ind the distinction.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> B. Actually it can without much mucking about (as I said, JCB et al built

> better than they knew). As it is now, {lo} and the like can be instances of

> {ro da poi} and generate {su'o da poi} (which movess can be explained in

> other ways than as simple inferences, to be sure). Remember that, in McKay,

> singular variables are just special cases of plural variables.

1. I admit it is tempting to treat da, de, di as plural variables, so we

should at least consider it and see how things would work, but even

McKay retains a separate notation for singular variables which he

uses even after showing how they can be obtained from plural ones.

Singular variables do make some expressions shorter, so I'm not sure

we want to just do away with them completely.

2>Another problem I see at this point is that we have only {ro} to cover

two (or three) plural quantifiers.

3>As the proposal stands now, McKay's plural quantifiers are basically

the proposal's inner quantifiers, (inner ro is his lambda quantifier)

and the proposal's outer quantifiers are the usual singular quantifiers,

i.e. they quantify over singular variables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> 1> the separate notation is explicitly just a shorthand; it call always be

> rewritten in plural quantifier form.

Right, and in using the language we very much need shorthands.

> The number of occasions where it makes

> a difference are very few and we could always deal with them, probably --

> this being language not logic — more briefly than McKay's formulae (I

> haven't thought about how exactly to do this in detail, since there are some

> more interesting and central questions to work through).

Maybe, but I don't have a clear picture of how it would all work

for the moment, so for now I stay with what I do understand.

> 2> A large part of the difference between the two "alls" seems to be just

> the difference already in Lojban between "all+" and "all-," that is, the

> ubiquitous issue of existrential import.

The two "all"s that differ significantly are the one that just

says you are talking about all the individuals in a group, vs the

one that says that you talk about all possible combinations of

individuals in a group. The first one is just a proportional

quantifier. The second one is the dual of E, which he needs to

define explicitly, as it doesn't fit his general definition of

quantifiers. He uses a capital lambda for the first (with an E

exponent for the case of existential import) and an inverted A for

the dual of E.

> 3> I don't follow this. How are inner quantifiers lambda?

{lo ro broda} is "all the brodas together" (that's what he

uses capital lambda for), not "all brodas any way you take them"

(that's the inverted A.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by rab.spir on Wed 18 of Aug., 2004 04:35 GMT posts: 152

The one issue I have left with this proposal is the use of "mi" in definitions.

Is it intended that, for example, a conversation could go like this:

i mi viska le gerku (I see something which I describe as a dog.)

i go'i ra'o (I see something which I describe as a dog, too.)

I think most users wouldn't expect "ra'o" to apply to a "le" phrase. Perhaps I'm taking the "mi" too literally, but I wonder why it's there at all. Use voi - that's what it's there for.

- Rob


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 31 of Aug., 2004 00:20 GMT posts: 14214

Something that just came up talking to clsn. He wanted a way to say "leave it open so birds can eat the grain" without the fuzziness of xorlo.

After some thought, I realized that what appears to be gadri-based inspecificity ("birds") actually is a completely seperate issue. The Right Way to translate this is:

"... curmi lo nu da'i su'o cipni ka'e citka"

or similar, because the reason that it's inspecific is that we have no idea if it will actually happen. If it *does* happen, then we definately have {su'o cipni cu citka}.

-Robin


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 11 of Sep., 2004 17:58 GMT posts: 14214

Been going over the examples under "lo", because I've heard a number of people asking how to do the more specific, less general versions of various xorlo things. Here's my re-do of all of them. The goal was to use something other than non-outer-quantified "lo" in all cases. It might be worthwile, xorxes, to stick some of these, possible with modifications (some of my changes are a bit silly) into the other sections; le and lo'e in particular.

BTW, I'd really like to se an example in every section with both inner and outer quantifiers, no matter how artificial it is.

BTW2, here's a list of words in the "lo" section examples that don't seem to be in jbovlaste:

  • xanlai
  • cmananba
  • bidjylinsi
  • kucysni
  • sofybakni
  • pukmau

Here's the re-dos:

  • lo rozgu cu xunre
  • Roses are red.
  • le'e rozgu cu xunre
  • xu ro lo rozgu cu xunre i na go'i i mu'a su'o lo rozgu cu pelxu
  • Is every rose red? No, some roses are yellow, for example.
  • Already specific.
  • lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa
  • Students are surrounding the building and yelling.
  • loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa
  • ko'a pu lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi
  • He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.
  • ko'a pu lebna pa lo xanlai pe loi su'o cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi
  • ca ro nu mi rere'u catlu lo skina kei mi cpacu ro lo se cusku poi mi na cpacu ca lo pamoi
  • ("ro lo se cusku" is wrong here, unless the speaker claims that the third time they learn nothing; pi so'i seems better)
  • Every time I see a movie for the second time I get all this dialogue that I missed the first time.
  • ca ro nu mi re re'u catlu pa lo skina kei mi cpacu pi so'i lo se cusku poi mi na cpacu ca le pa moi
  • ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu
  • Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.
  • ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu prenu
  • ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu
  • But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.
  • ku'i ui nai mi na viska su'o lo lanme pa'o su'o lo bitmu be fo su'o lo tanxe i ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu
  • ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja
  • At night lions hunt for food.
  • ca lo'e nicte lo'e cinfo cu kalte su'o lo cidja
  • lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi
  • One picture is worth a thousand words.
  • pa lo pa pixra cu se vamji ki'o lo valsi - uninteresting
  • de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42
  • In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.
  • de'i li 1960 pa re lo sovda cu fepni li 42 - uninteresting
  • cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu lo mu gunma be lo vo tadni
  • Step 3: The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.
  • cimai le ctuca cu fendi lei selctu mu lo gunma be vo lo tadni
  • lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze gunma be lo ze bidju be'o e ji'a ci bidju e lo kucysni
  • The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.
  • ro lo bidjylinsi pe le ze seldri cu se pagbu ze gunma be ze lo bidju be'o e ji'a ci lo bidju e pa lo kucysni
  • o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
  • Caution! There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden.
  • o'i mu lo xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
  • lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270
  • Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and weigh about

270lbs.

  • lo'e sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno tu'o lo djacu o nai tu'o lo canre to tu'o lo djacu cu pukmau ki'u ro lo nu slilu tolcando toi g

i'e bunda li ji'i 270

  • This assumes a friendly definition of "tu'o". "ro lo nu" is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.
  • lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u
  • Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a horn coming out of their foreheads.
  • lo'e pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu ro lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi pa lo jirna cu cpana pa lo mebri be ce'u
  • "le'e" would do just as well, IMO. "ro lo nu" is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.

Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Sat 25 of Sep., 2004 16:10 GMT posts: 1912

{lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja} can be translated into English

in many different ways:

A man enters a bar

Men enter a bar

A man enters bars

Men enter bars

Men entered a bar

and so on. Sometimes it will make little difference, for example

"It happens all the time that a man enters a bar" and

"it happens all the time that men enter bars" are hardly

different. In other cases we need more context to determine

what the best translation is.

Similarly, "a man walks into a bar" can be translated in many

different ways into Lojban:

lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja

le nanmu cu nerkla lo barja

lo nanmu cu nerkla le barja

le nanmu cu nerkla le barja

le bi'u pa nanmu cu nerkla le bi'u pa barja

and so on. There is no Right Translation, it depends on the

context, and sometimes it won't make much difference. I would

use {le nanmu} when the story is about the man, and {le barja}

when the story is about the bar. If the bar is just part of the

scenery, I would use {lo barja}. If the man is just part of the

scenery, I would use {lo nanmu} (for example, "a man walks

into a bar, then another man walks in, then another one, and

soon the bar is so crowded that ..." In this case the speaker

doesn't have a certain man in mind, so {lo nanmu} would

make more sense.

So there is no one-to-one correspondence between English and

Lojban sentences, nothing new about that.

In logic terms, I would write {lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja}

as nerkla(N, B-), where N and B are constants. The negation

of that would be ¬nerkla(N,B) wherever in the sentence naku

appears, because there is nothing to interact with the negation.

I undestand pc would rather write it as:

[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

where Q is a complex quantifier, maybe context dependant.

In this case, naku might have different effects depending on

where it appears in the sentence:

¬[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

[Qx: nanmu(x)] ¬[Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] ¬nerkla(x,y)

These may or may not be equivalent depending on what Q is.

Some quantifiers commute with negation, most don't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by xorxes on Fri 08 of Oct., 2004 16:09 GMT posts: 1912

I entered this definition for {selcmi} in jbovlaste:

x1 se cmima ro lo me x2 me'u e no lo na me x2

This means that {selcmi} would now be slightly different

from {se cmima}:

selcmi: x1 is the/a set whose members are x2

se cmima: x1 is a set that has x2 among its members

This is a useful distinction, and it allows us to

simplify considerably the definitions of lo'i/le'i/la'i,

which are now just like those of loi/lei/lai:

loi [PA] broda = lo gunma be lo [PA] broda

lei [PA] broda = lo gunma be le [PA] broda

lai [PA] broda = lo gunma be la [PA] broda

lo'i [PA] broda = lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda

le'i [PA] broda = lo selcmi be le [PA] broda

la'i [PA] broda = lo selcmi be la [PA] broda

(If we could define {lo'e} and {le'e} this way with

suitable predicates, it would be nice.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 1912

Rob:

> The one issue I have left with this proposal is the use of "mi" in

> definitions.

>

> Is it intended that, for example, a conversation could go like this:

>

> i mi viska le gerku (I see something which I describe as a dog.)

> i go'i ra'o (I see something which I describe as a dog, too.)

>

> I think most users wouldn't expect "ra'o" to apply to a "le" phrase.

Well, yes, but the second speaker will be describing the same thing

as the first with the same description. I don't see a problem with this.

> Perhaps

> I'm taking the "mi" too literally, but I wonder why it's there at all. Use

> voi - that's what it's there for.

But {voi} is being defined as restrictive, so {voi ke'a broda} is

not equivalent to {noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda}.

Besides, what about {la}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:35:05PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> The one issue I have left with this proposal is the use of "mi" in

> definitions.

>

> Is it intended that, for example, a conversation could go like this:

>

> i mi viska le gerku (I see something which I describe as a dog.)

>

> i go'i ra'o (I see something which I describe as a dog, too.)

Well, of course. Unless the second user is hostile, they'll be looking

at the same dog, but I have no idea why you would want to *require*

that. For example, what if they're talking on the phone? With any

version of "le", I would still have no problems with that conversation,

but I'd never think they were talking about the same dog!

> I think most users wouldn't expect "ra'o" to apply to a "le" phrase.

> Perhaps I'm taking the "mi" too literally,

I think so, yes.

More importantly, you're assuming that the state you describe isn't true

  • now*, and I see no evidence that you're correct on that point.

In other words, as far as I know "le" is fundamentally observer-biased.

It is only out of politeness that when I say "le broda" after you say

"le broda" it refers to the same thing.

However, "skicu" without "mi" or "do" would be just fine as far as I'm

concerned.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214

Why is this here?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:12:27AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> An interesting analysis can be made if we first write the

> standard quantifiers in terms of pa:

>

> ro = za'u da'apa

> no = me'i pa

> su'o = su'o pa

> me'i = su'e da'apa

>

> This scheme can be generalized by writing X instead of pa:

very long snipped

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 1912


> Why is this here?

Rhetorical question? That's where the discussion took us.

I had not started the quantifiers page at that point.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

>

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:12:27AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> >

> > An interesting analysis can be made if we first write the

> > standard quantifiers in terms of pa:

> >

> > ro = za'u da'apa

> > no = me'i pa

> > su'o = su'o pa

> > me'i = su'e da'apa

> >

> > This scheme can be generalized by writing X instead of pa:

> very long snipped

>

> -Robin

>

>

>

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

http://messenger.yahoo.com



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:45:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>

> > Why is this here?

>

> Rhetorical question?

No; I honestly couldn't remember.

> That's where the discussion took us. I had not started the

> quantifiers page at that point.

Ah. You may want to copy it over.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> Something that just came up talking to clsn. He wanted a way to say "leave

> it open so birds can eat the grain" without the fuzziness of xorlo.

One possibility:

ko ta stagau lo ka kalri ija'ebo lo cipni ka'e citka le gurni

> After some thought, I realized that what appears to be gadri-based

> inspecificity ("birds") actually is a completely seperate issue. The Right

> Way to translate this is:

>

> "... curmi lo nu da'i su'o cipni ka'e citka"

>

> or similar, because the reason that it's inspecific is that we have no idea

> if it will actually happen. If it *does* happen, then we definately have

> {su'o cipni cu citka}.

Usually there isn't one single Right Way to translate a sentence. I don't

see a problem with your version. It's less literal than mine but it gets

the meaning across. With {ka'e}, it doesn't matter if it actually

happens (ca'a) or not anyway. {ka'e} just says that the situation is

compatible with the actual world. We can also say:

mi ta pu stagau lo ka kalri ija'ebo lo cipni ba'o citka le gurni

I left it open, so birds ate the grain.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> * lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze gunma be lo ze bidju be'o e ji'a ci bidju e lo kucysni

> * The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.

> * ro lo bidjylinsi pe le ze seldri cu se pagbu ze gunma be ze lo bidju be'o e ji'a ci lo bidju e pa lo kucysni

s/ze gunma/ze lo gunma/

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> BTW2, here's a list of words in the "lo" section examples that don't seem to be in jbovlaste:

>

> * xanlai

> * cmananba

> * bidjylinsi

> * kucysni

> * sofybakni

Also:

  • vamrai
  • vamtolrai

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:27:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> > BTW2, here's a list of words in the "lo" section examples that don't seem to be in jbovlaste:

> >

> > * xanlai

> > * cmananba

> > * bidjylinsi

> > * kucysni

> > * sofybakni

>

> Also:

>

> * vamrai

> * vamtolrai

  • selcra, sort of.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 12:09:55PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:27:47AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> > > BTW2, here's a list of words in the "lo" section examples that don't seem to be in jbovlaste:

> > >

> > > * xanlai

> > > * cmananba

> > > * bidjylinsi

> > > * kucysni

> > > * sofybakni

> >

> > Also:

> >

> > * vamrai

> > * vamtolrai

>

> * selcra, sort of.

  • jecra'a
  • fi'ortu'a
  • glipre
  • gligugde

I think that's all of them. :-)

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:03 GMT posts: 14214

As may be obvious, I'm re-reviewing gadri with my usual fine-toothed

comb. I'm done, and I must say that having used xorlo for a few

weeks, I *strongly* prefer the resulting language.

Other issues:

MAJOR: The definitions for "lo", "le" and "la" talk about

individuals only, but zo'e clearly can be a set or a group as well,

and I don't think individuals only was the intention, since the

notes talk about substances.

An example in le:

  • ko punji le sicni ja'e lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai

only parses in the PEG parser, because of the bi'o "ambiguity".

(The sentence is not, in fact, in any way ambiguous, but LR(1) can't

handle it). You might as well put the "ku" in.

All other examples parse in jbofihe. I can't absolutely guarantee

that they parse in the way intended, but I've had no troubles

reading them thus far.

In la:

  • la ci bakni ku poi gusta bu'u la kaiapois cu banli ge lo ka vanbi gi lo ka cidja

The "ku" is not required. Doesn't mean you should remove it, but I

wanted to point this out.

"It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or a cmevla into a sumti"

s/cmevla/cmene/; "la rab.spir" is converting a cmene, but two cmevla.

In loi:

"An outer quantifier can be used to select a subgroup and indicate its cardinality."

This sounds to me like "re loi ci bidju" is "A two-some out of a

three-some of beads", but with the current formal definitions it's

actually "two individual beads out of a three-some of beads". The

same basical problem exists with lei, lo'i, and le'i.

The question is, does the outer quantifier of l*i and l*'i select

individuals or groups and sets, resp.? I think the CLL articles do

the latter, and by default we should stick with what they do (of

course).

As as stylistic note, in:

  • loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

In l*i - "loi" and l*'i you have "possibly as a fraction of the

cardinality of the group", but not in "loi". Given the formal

definitions, I'm pretty sure this is an error.

Stylistic issue:

  • ma cnano lo junta lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena

I suggest "ca lo nu jbena" or "po ca ...".

Mistake:

  • doi turni do so'i da na fadni la'i kenedis ma'i lo jecra'a

s/fadni/se fadni/

In lo'e and le'e:

  • indicates that the individuals or groups that

individuals, groups or sets.

  • An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group

or individuals or sets, no?

In the formal definitions:

  • gi'e klani li PA lo broda

In what way is "lo broda" a scale, let alone a si'o?

The definition of "le" makes the inner quantifier non-veridical

(because there is no kei or vau before the gi'e); was this intended?

jbovlaste's "selcmi" could use some work.

Why are the lo'i and le'i definitions so complicated? What's wrong

with "lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda"?

I don't like "ma'i mi" very much; I suggest pe'i.

Not so sure that the pi PA do what you want. Assuming that "pi mu

loi remna" should be "half of all people", here's a breakdown:

  • pi mu loi remna
  • loi mu me lo remna

Uhh, yeah, that's pretty wrong. Perhaps you meant to carry the pi?

Please make it clear that "tu'o" and "lo'e se" are usage convention

suggestions.

The lo'e/le'e questions scare me, so I didn't read them.

I didn't bother to read the examples in the positive impact section

this time.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT posts: 2388

The recent spate of activity suggests that it is

the first version of the two or three xorlos that

is being considered. Good; that one is only

obscure, not a major shift from historic Lojban.

It might make matters a little clearer to remove

the other stated one and the third that xorxes

seems to be using.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> BTW, I'd really like to se an example in every section with both inner and

> outer quantifiers, no matter how artificial it is.

  • We don't really know what quantifiers do to {lo'e} and {le'e}.
  • I am not making up any examples with outer quantifiers on la/lai/la'i, if

anyone wants to suggest something I will add it, but under protest.

  • I think outer quantifiers on loi/lei/lo'i/le'i are somewhat underspecified.

Should they always be fractionals? Unless there's more discussion, I prefer to

leave the question open for the time being, at least until we do the section on

quantifiers.

> Here's the re-dos:

(I'm adding some the ones I don't comment on.)

> * lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> * Students are surrounding the building and yelling.

> * loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

Does that say that they yell in unison?

> * ko'a pu lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi

> * He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.

> * ko'a pu lebna pa lo xanlai pe loi su'o cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi

Do you want me to add this for {loi}? I don't see that the added

precision gets us anything.

> * ca ro nu mi rere'u catlu lo skina kei mi cpacu ro lo se cusku poi mi na

> cpacu ca lo pamoi

> * ("ro lo se cusku" is wrong here, unless the speaker claims that the third

> time they learn nothing; pi so'i seems better)

> * Every time I see a movie for the second time I get all this dialogue that I

> missed the first time.

> * ca ro nu mi re re'u catlu pa lo skina kei mi cpacu pi so'i lo se cusku poi

> mi na cpacu ca le pa moi

Good point. I changed it to {lo so'i se cusku}. I don't want to add

fractionals yet, before we define them.

> * ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> * Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

> * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu prenu

We have not defined multiple {lo'e}s in one sentence. There are at least

three possible interpretations suggested for this in the notes. If we

are to give examples, we should settle on one of them (or some other one).

> * ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe i ju'ocu'i mi

> milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

> * But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a

> little like the grown-ups.

> * ku'i ui nai mi na viska su'o lo lanme pa'o su'o lo bitmu be fo su'o lo

> tanxe i ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu

Do you want this for {lo'e}?

> * ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

> * At night lions hunt for food.

> * ca lo'e nicte lo'e cinfo cu kalte su'o lo cidja

Multiple {lo'e} undefined.

> * lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> * One picture is worth a thousand words.

> * pa lo pa pixra cu se vamji ki'o lo valsi - uninteresting

And not the same meaning at all. It says that exactly one picture

is such that there are exactly 1000 words such that the picture

is worth each word.

> * de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

> * In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

> * de'i li 1960 pa re lo sovda cu fepni li 42 - uninteresting

And very strange. It says that in 1960 there were exactly twelve

eggs that cost 42 cents (each). All other eggs must have cost

something else.

> * cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu lo mu gunma be lo vo tadni

> * Step 3: The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four

> students.

> * cimai le ctuca cu fendi lei selctu mu lo gunma be vo lo tadni

It is not clear that each group can be a te fendi by itself. The

te fendi are the five groups together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT posts: 152

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 10:58:06AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> * de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

> * In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

> * de'i li 1960 pa re lo sovda cu fepni li 42 - uninteresting

That can't be right. That says that, in 1960, there were 12 (and only 12) eggs

that cost 42 cents each. Though the English could be saying that, that's not

how anyone interprets it.

I would say:

de'i li 1960 lo'e pare sovda cu fepni li 42

And that's a good example of inner quantifiers on lo'e. (It's also an example

of a case where lo'e can't simply be replaced by so'e.)

If you want that without lo'e, I suppose you could say:

de'i li 1960 so'e lo pare sovda cu fepni li ji'i 42

In 1960, most dozens of eggs cost about 42 cents.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:04 GMT posts: 1912


> Other issues:

>

> MAJOR: The definitions for "lo", "le" and "la" talk about

> individuals only, but zo'e clearly can be a set or a group as well,

> and I don't think individuals only was the intention, since the

> notes talk about substances.

An individual can be anything, including a group, a set, a substance,

a number, etc. {lo broda} can refer to one or more individuals.

{lo'i broda} can refer only to those individuals that are sets.

{loi broda} can refer only to those individuals that are groups ('masses').

> * ko punji le sicni ja'e lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai

>

> only parses in the PEG parser, because of the bi'o "ambiguity".

>

> (The sentence is not, in fact, in any way ambiguous, but LR(1) can't

> handle it). You might as well put the "ku" in.

Unless we are disallowing {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai}, I prefer to

leave it out. Otherwise we should add every terminator everywhere.

> In la:

>

> * la ci bakni ku poi gusta bu'u la kaiapois cu banli ge lo ka vanbi gi lo ka

> cidja

>

> The "ku" is not required. Doesn't mean you should remove it, but I

> wanted to point this out.

It is required, otherwise the relative clause is swallowed as part of

the name.

> "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or a cmevla into a

> sumti"

>

> s/cmevla/cmene/; "la rab.spir" is converting a cmene, but two cmevla.

On the other hand, zo broda can be a cmene, but it is not a cmevla.

How about:

"It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or any string

of cmevla into a sumti"

> In loi:

>

> "An outer quantifier can be used to select a subgroup and indicate its

> cardinality."

>

> This sounds to me like "re loi ci bidju" is "A two-some out of a

> three-some of beads", but with the current formal definitions it's

> actually "two individual beads out of a three-some of beads". The

> same basical problem exists with lei, lo'i, and le'i.

Yes. What should we do about it, if anything?

  • Have special rules for {PA sumti} when sumti is a mass or a set?
  • Have special rules but only when it starts with loi/lei/lai/lo'i/le'i/la'i

etc, but not when it is a mass/set and starts with something else {lo gunma},

{lo selcmi}, {ko'a}, etc?

  • Use outer quantifiers always the same. (We still have not defined fractional

quantifiers, which is the only thing CLL uses for submasses/subgroups anyway.)

> The question is, does the outer quantifier of l*i and l*'i select

> individuals or groups and sets, resp.? I think the CLL articles do

> the latter, and by default we should stick with what they do (of

> course).

I don't think CLL says what {ci lo'i gerku} or {ci loi gerku} is, does it?

I would have them be three sets of dogs and three groups of dogs.

That's what the formal definitions give now.

> As as stylistic note, in:

>

> * loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

>

> I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

Not quite the same thing. That would say that the tourists come

from each part of the world, but most tourists come from just

one part.

> In l*i - "loi" and l*'i you have "possibly as a fraction of the

> cardinality of the group", but not in "loi". Given the formal

> definitions, I'm pretty sure this is an error.

This is incomplete. The formal definitions don't really deal with

fractional quantifiers, because we have not defined them yet. I have

made a tentative suggestion that {pi} makes the term non-distributive,

but I'm not completely sure that's what we want.

> Stylistic issue:

>

> * ma cnano lo junta lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena

>

> I suggest "ca lo nu jbena" or "po ca ...".

{be ca lo nu jbena}? What's wrong with it as it stands?

> Mistake:

>

> * doi turni do so'i da na fadni la'i kenedis ma'i lo jecra'a

>

> s/fadni/se fadni/

x1 is the member, x2 the property, isn't it?

> In lo'e and le'e:

>

> * indicates that the individuals or groups that

>

> individuals, groups or sets.

I'm just removing "groups". It's not clear inner quantifiers can

be used anyway.

>

> In the formal definitions:

>

> * gi'e klani li PA lo broda

>

> In what way is "lo broda" a scale, let alone a si'o?

Do you really want me to change it to {lo se gradu be lo broda}?

I have no idea what a {si'o} is supposed to be.

> The definition of "le" makes the inner quantifier non-veridical

> (because there is no kei or vau before the gi'e); was this intended?

Yes, that's what CLL has.

> Why are the lo'i and le'i definitions so complicated? What's wrong

> with "lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda"?

The set containing three brodas and nine brodes is {lo selcmi be

lo ci broda}. But that's not what {lo'i ci broda} is. We need to

specify that three broda, and nothing else are the members.

The problem is that there is no good gismu for "x1 is a set with

members x2 (full membership)", parallel to {gunma} for masses.

> I don't like "ma'i mi" very much; I suggest pe'i.

I'm changing it then. Anybody objects?

> Not so sure that the pi PA do what you want. Assuming that "pi mu

> loi remna" should be "half of all people", here's a breakdown:

>

> * pi mu loi remna

> * loi mu me lo remna

>

> Uhh, yeah, that's pretty wrong. Perhaps you meant to carry the pi?

{piPA} was meant to cover indefinites only {piro}, {piso'i}, etc.

I'm removing any mention of them until the quantifier section is done.

> Please make it clear that "tu'o" and "lo'e se" are usage convention

> suggestions.

Done.

> The lo'e/le'e questions scare me, so I didn't read them.

Don't worry. Just don't use lo'e/le'e and everything is fine.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT posts: 1912


> I would say:

> de'i li 1960 lo'e pare sovda cu fepni li 42

>

> And that's a good example of inner quantifiers on lo'e. (It's also an example

> of a case where lo'e can't simply be replaced by so'e.)

The formal definition for {lo'e} doesn't handle inner quantifiers.

I suppose it could be extended to cover that.

> If you want that without lo'e, I suppose you could say:

>

> de'i li 1960 so'e lo pare sovda cu fepni li ji'i 42

> In 1960, most dozens of eggs cost about 42 cents.

Remember we are now defining {so'e lo pare sovda} as most of

a dozen eggs, not as most dozens.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:02:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- Rob Speer wrote:

> > If you want that without lo'e, I suppose you could say:

> >

> > de'i li 1960 so'e lo pare sovda cu fepni li ji'i 42 In 1960,

> > most dozens of eggs cost about 42 cents.

>

> Remember we are now defining {so'e lo pare sovda} as most of a

> dozen eggs, not as most dozens.

de'i li 1960 so'e roi lo pa re sovda li'o

Not that that makes things more specific. Just for the record.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:54:40PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > Other issues:

> >

> > MAJOR: The definitions for "lo", "le" and "la" talk about

> > individuals only, but zo'e clearly can be a set or a group as

> > well, and I don't think individuals only was the intention,

> > since the notes talk about substances.

>

> An individual can be anything, including a group, a set, a

> substance, a number, etc. {lo broda} can refer to one or more

> individuals. {lo'i broda} can refer only to those individuals that

> are sets. {loi broda} can refer only to those individuals that are

> groups ('masses').

Gaaah. That doesn't match my understanding of the word "individual"

at all, but I certainly can't think of a better word. Can you put

this in the Notes, please?

> > * ko punji le sicni ja'e lo porsi be lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai

> >

> > only parses in the PEG parser, because of the bi'o "ambiguity".

> >

> > (The sentence is not, in fact, in any way ambiguous, but LR(1)

> > can't handle it). You might as well put the "ku" in.

>

> Unless we are disallowing {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai}, I prefer

> to leave it out. Otherwise we should add every terminator

> everywhere.

Umm, {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai} is illegal in the current

language as defined, so yeah, I'd say we're disallowing it.

(you were right about the ku in ci bakni)

> > "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or a cmevla

> > into a sumti"

> >

> > s/cmevla/cmene/; "la rab.spir" is converting a cmene, but two

> > cmevla.

>

> On the other hand, zo broda can be a cmene, but it is not a

> cmevla. How about:

>

> "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or any string

> of cmevla into a sumti"

Done.

> > In loi:

> >

> > "An outer quantifier can be used to select a subgroup and

> > indicate its cardinality."

> >

> > This sounds to me like "re loi ci bidju" is "A two-some out of a

> > three-some of beads", but with the current formal definitions

> > it's actually "two individual beads out of a three-some of

> > beads". The same basical problem exists with lei, lo'i, and

> > le'i.

>

> Yes. What should we do about it, if anything?

>

> * Have special rules for {PA sumti} when sumti is a mass

> or a set?

>

> * Have special rules but only when it starts with

> loi/lei/lai/lo'i/le'i/la'i etc, but not when it is a mass/set and

> starts with something else {lo gunma}, {lo selcmi}, {ko'a}, etc?

>

> * Use outer quantifiers always the same. (We still have not

> defined fractional quantifiers, which is the only thing CLL uses

> for submasses/subgroups anyway.)

If the CLL never defines whether "re lei broda" is a two-some or a

pair of individuals, I say leave the formal definitions as they are

and clean up the word definitions.

> > The question is, does the outer quantifier of l*i and l*'i

> > select individuals or groups and sets, resp.? I think the CLL

> > articles do the latter, and by default we should stick with what

> > they do (of course).

>

> I don't think CLL says what {ci lo'i gerku} or {ci loi gerku} is,

> does it?

Not that I can see.

> I would have them be three sets of dogs and three groups of dogs.

> That's what the formal definitions give now.

ci da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo gerku

Three things which are among those things which are groups of dogs.

Yes, you're right. This means that my characterization of "re loi

ci bidju" was wrong, even though you agreed with it, and that the

written definition is wrong-er than I thought:

  • re loi ci bidju
  • re da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci bidju

That's two groups of three beads, if I'm not completely out of my

mind, which is a whole different kettle of monkeys. This does,

however, make the fractional stuff follow quite painlessly:

  • pi mu da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci bidju

Half of something which is a group of three beads (guess we've got

a broken bead!).

The disadvantage is that now the outer quantifiers of lo and le do

different things than the outer quantifiers of loi, lo'i, lei and

le'i.

> > As as stylistic note, in:

> >

> > * loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

> >

> > I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

>

> Not quite the same thing. That would say that the tourists come

> from each part of the world, but most tourists come from just one

> part.

I have no idea what you're talking about. In particular, I have no

idea where "most tourists" entered the equation. Can you break it

down for me?

> > In l*i - "loi" and l*'i you have "possibly as a fraction of the

> > cardinality of the group", but not in "loi". Given the formal

> > definitions, I'm pretty sure this is an error.

>

> This is incomplete. The formal definitions don't really deal with

> fractional quantifiers, because we have not defined them yet. I

> have made a tentative suggestion that {pi} makes the term

> non-distributive, but I'm not completely sure that's what we want.

This has nothing to do with my problem, which is that "loi" is the

odd man out.

> > Stylistic issue:

> >

> > * ma cnano lo junta lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena

> >

> > I suggest "ca lo nu jbena" or "po ca ...".

>

> {be ca lo nu jbena}? What's wrong with it as it stands?

Because it's only talking about the infants that have just been

born, relative to the current time of the speaker, no?

> > Mistake:

> >

> > * doi turni do so'i da na fadni la'i kenedis ma'i lo jecra'a

> >

> > s/fadni/se fadni/

>

> x1 is the member, x2 the property, isn't it?

It is, yes. Whoops, miscounted places. Sorry.

> > In the formal definitions:

> >

> > * gi'e klani li PA lo broda

> >

> > In what way is "lo broda" a scale, let alone a si'o?

>

> Do you really want me to change it to {lo se gradu be lo broda}?

Actually, I'd prefer something with kancu. Probably we should make

zilkancu to drop the agent place.

I hope you agree that as defined, "klani li re lo gerku" makes no

sense. "A quantity of two on the scale of dogs"? TF?

> I have no idea what a {si'o} is supposed to be.

An idea. lo si'o junta — the scale of gravity. lo si'o se kancu

-- the scale of countable objects.

> > Why are the lo'i and le'i definitions so complicated? What's

> > wrong with "lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda"?

>

> The set containing three brodas and nine brodes is {lo selcmi be

> lo ci broda}.

I disagree; from cmima:

[[x1%20may%20be%20a%20complete%20or%20incomplete%20list%20of%20members;%20x2%20is%20normally%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Emarked%20by%20la'i/le'i/lo'i,%20defining%20the%20set%20in%20terms%20of%20its%20common%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Eproperty(ies),%20though%20it%20may%20be%20a%20complete%20enumeration%20of%20the%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Emembership|x1 may be a complete or incomplete list of members; x2 is normally

marked by la'i/le'i/lo'i, defining the set in terms of its common

property(ies), though it may be a complete enumeration of the

membership]];

The x2 is a complete specification, or a property that completely

specifies. OTOH, gunma (which you pointed at for comparison) says

no such thing. I should probably clear this up one way or the other

in the two definitions.

> I'm removing any mention of them until the quantifier section is

> done.

Lovely idea.

> > The lo'e/le'e questions scare me, so I didn't read them.

>

> Don't worry. Just don't use lo'e/le'e and everything is fine.

There are some cases where I like them, unfortunately.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:05 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:09:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> Robin:

> > BTW, I'd really like to se an example in every section with both

> > inner and outer quantifiers, no matter how artificial it is.

>

> * We don't really know what quantifiers do to {lo'e} and {le'e}.

Sorry, I forgot to explicitely exclude those.

> * I am not making up any examples with outer quantifiers on

> la/lai/la'i, if anyone wants to suggest something I will add it,

> but under protest.

Why under protest? It seems pretty simple to me. {mi pendo ci la

djan} == "I have three friends named John".

> * I think outer quantifiers on loi/lei/lo'i/le'i are somewhat

> underspecified.

Quite.

> Should they always be fractionals? Unless there's

> more discussion, I prefer to leave the question open for the time

> being, at least until we do the section on quantifiers.

We're discussing this issue's ass off in the other thread, as of my

last post. Let's try to remember to come back to the issues of

adding examples later, OK?

> > * lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> > * Students are surrounding the building and yelling.

> > * loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

>

> Does that say that they yell in unison?

You can yell non-distributively without yelling in unison. IMO.

> > * ko'a pu lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi

> > * He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.

> > * ko'a pu lebna pa lo xanlai pe loi su'o cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi

>

> Do you want me to add this for {loi}?

If you don't mind.

> I don't see that the added precision gets us anything.

It wasn't intended to, except by way of example. None of these

were.

> > * ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> > * Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

> > * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu prenu

>

> We have not defined multiple {lo'e}s in one sentence.

Aww, crap. Fortunately, this one's easy to solve:

  • ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu ro lo makcu prenu

> If we are to give examples, we should settle on one of them (or

> some other one).

When the language has had, say, a dozen conversationally fluent

speakers that talk to each other on a regular basis for at least,

say, 5 years, it'll be worth re-visiting that issue, but not IMO

one second before.

> > * ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe i ju'ocu'i mi

> > milxe simsa lo makcu prenu

> > * But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a

> > little like the grown-ups.

> > * ku'i ui nai mi na viska su'o lo lanme pa'o su'o lo bitmu be fo su'o lo

> > tanxe i ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu

>

> Do you want this for {lo'e}?

If you please.

> > * ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja

> > * At night lions hunt for food.

> > * ca lo'e nicte lo'e cinfo cu kalte su'o lo cidja

>

> Multiple {lo'e} undefined.

Gah.

  • ca so'i lo nicte lo'e cinfo cu kalte su'o lo cidja

Thinking about it more, I'm not even sure what {ca lo'e nicte} means

under the current formal definitions.

> > * lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> > * One picture is worth a thousand words.

> > * pa lo pa pixra cu se vamji ki'o lo valsi - uninteresting

>

> And not the same meaning at all. It says that exactly one picture

> is such that there are exactly 1000 words such that the picture is

> worth each word.

Oh.

  • lo'e pixra cu se vamji ji'i ki'o lo valsi

> > * de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42

> > * In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.

> > * de'i li 1960 pa re lo sovda cu fepni li 42 - uninteresting

>

> And very strange. It says that in 1960 there were exactly twelve

> eggs that cost 42 cents (each). All other eggs must have cost

> something else.

Sigh.

  • de'i li 1960 so'e loi pa re lo'e sovda cu fepni li 42

Depending on what "so'e loi pa re broda" means, which we're still

talking about.

> > * cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu lo mu gunma be lo vo tadni

> > * Step 3: The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four

> > students.

> > * cimai le ctuca cu fendi lei selctu mu lo gunma be vo lo tadni

>

> It is not clear that each group can be a te fendi by itself. The

> te fendi are the five groups together.

  • cimai le ctuca cu fendi lei selctu ro loi mu lo gunma be vo lo tadni

Again, depending on {ro loi mu}. More trouble than it's worth,

certainly.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT posts: 1912


> If the CLL never defines whether "re lei broda" is a two-some or a

> pair of individuals, I say leave the formal definitions as they are

> and clean up the word definitions.

I have changed to:

"A fractional outer quantifier can be used to select a subgroup

and indicate its cardinality as a fraction of the cardinality

of the group."

which is what CLL has, and I make no mention of ordinary

quantifiers as yet.

> > I would have them be three sets of dogs and three groups of dogs.

> > That's what the formal definitions give now.

>

> ci da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo gerku

>

> Three things which are among those things which are groups of dogs.

> Yes, you're right. This means that my characterization of "re loi

> ci bidju" was wrong, even though you agreed with it,

When was that? The definition of {loi} was changed from

a non-distributive plural to a reified group. Your characterization

was probably correct for the previous definition.

> and that the

> written definition is wrong-er than I thought:

>

> * re loi ci bidju

> * re da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci bidju

>

> That's two groups of three beads, if I'm not completely out of my

> mind, which is a whole different kettle of monkeys.

That's what I would take it to be with reifying loi, yes.

I'd like to hear John Cowan's opinion on this.

> This does,

> however, make the fractional stuff follow quite painlessly:

>

> * pi mu da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci bidju

>

> Half of something which is a group of three beads (guess we've got

> a broken bead!).

{pi mu da} is not well defined yet. "Half a bead" is still a thing,

a whole da, even if not a whole bead.

> The disadvantage is that now the outer quantifiers of lo and le do

> different things than the outer quantifiers of loi, lo'i, lei and

> le'i.

Why? They always quantify over the things that {LE broda} refers to.

It's just that those things are not brodas in the case of loi and

lo'i, but groups or sets of brodas.

> > > As as stylistic note, in:

> > > * loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

> > > I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

> >

> > Not quite the same thing. That would say that the tourists come

> > from each part of the world, but most tourists come from just one

> > part.

>

> I have no idea what you're talking about. In particular, I have no

> idea where "most tourists" entered the equation. Can you break it

> down for me?

With {ro lo pagbu} you would be saying:

"Tourists gather here from Japan, and tourists gather here from Australia,

and tourists gather here from Timbooktoo, and...", each independently,

but I think what we want to say is that they gather from all over the

place together.

> > > * ma cnano lo junta lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena

> > >

> > > I suggest "ca lo nu jbena" or "po ca ...".

> >

> > {be ca lo nu jbena}? What's wrong with it as it stands?

>

> Because it's only talking about the infants that have just been

> born, relative to the current time of the speaker, no?

I don't know, does it have to? Wouldn't that require {nau}?

> > > * gi'e klani li PA lo broda

> > Do you really want me to change it to {lo se gradu be lo broda}?

>

> Actually, I'd prefer something with kancu. Probably we should make

> zilkancu to drop the agent place.

{gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda}?

> I hope you agree that as defined, "klani li re lo gerku" makes no

> sense. "A quantity of two on the scale of dogs"? TF?

"A quantity of two with dogs as units". I take the x3 of klani

to be the units. If we must take it as a scale, then {gradu}

will convert from units (which is what we have) to a scale.

> > I have no idea what a {si'o} is supposed to be.

> An idea. lo si'o junta — the scale of gravity. lo si'o se kancu

> — the scale of countable objects.

What is the scale of gravity? What is the scale of countable objects?

Is {lo si'o se kancu} different from {lo si'o kancu}?

> > > Why are the lo'i and le'i definitions so complicated? What's

> > > wrong with "lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda"?

> >

> > The set containing three brodas and nine brodes is {lo selcmi be

> > lo ci broda}.

>

> I disagree; from cmima:

>

> [[x1%20may%20be%20a%20complete%20or%20incomplete%20list%20of%20members;%20x2%20is%20normally%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20marked%20by%20la'i/le'i/lo'i,%20defining%20the%20set%20in%20terms%20of%20its%20common%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20property(ies),%20though%20it%20may%20be%20a%20complete%20enumeration%20of%20the%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20membership|x1 may be a complete or incomplete list of members; x2 is normally

> marked by la'i/le'i/lo'i, defining the set in terms of its common

> property(ies), though it may be a complete enumeration of the

> membership]];

>

> The x2 is a complete specification, or a property that completely

> specifies.

The x2 of cmima, yes. The x2 of selcmi, i.e. the x1 of cmima, is

for one or more of the members. To define the set we need to give

all the members, and say that they are all the members.

> OTOH, gunma (which you pointed at for comparison) says

> no such thing. I should probably clear this up one way or the other

> in the two definitions.

"x1 is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of

components x2, considered jointly"

Can you really read that as:

"x1 is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of

components x2, among other thing, considered jointly"

Hopefully not, but if it can, then I will need to fix the

definitions of loi and lei to:

loi [PA] broda

| lo gunma be lo [PA] broda e no lo na me lo [PA] broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > If the CLL never defines whether "re lei

> broda" is a two-some or a

> > pair of individuals, I say leave the formal

> definitions as they are

> > and clean up the word definitions.

>

> I have changed to:

>

> "A fractional outer quantifier can be used to

> select a subgroup

> and indicate its cardinality as a fraction of

> the cardinality

> of the group."

>

> which is what CLL has, and I make no mention of

> ordinary

> quantifiers as yet.

>

> > > I would have them be three sets of dogs and

> three groups of dogs.

> > > That's what the formal definitions give

> now.

> >

> > ci da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo gerku

> >

> > Three things which are among those things

> which are groups of dogs.

> > Yes, you're right. This means that my

> characterization of "re loi

> > ci bidju" was wrong, even though you agreed

> with it,

>

> When was that? The definition of {loi} was

> changed from

> a non-distributive plural to a reified group.

> Your characterization

> was probably correct for the previous

> definition.

>

> > and that the

> > written definition is wrong-er than I

> thought:

> >

> > * re loi ci bidju

> > * re da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci bidju

> >

> > That's two groups of three beads, if I'm not

> completely out of my

> > mind, which is a whole different kettle of

> monkeys.

>

> That's what I would take it to be with reifying

> loi, yes.

> I'd like to hear John Cowan's opinion on this.

>

> > This does,

> > however, make the fractional stuff follow

> quite painlessly:

> >

> > * pi mu da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci

> bidju

> >

> > Half of something which is a group of three

> beads (guess we've got

> > a broken bead!).

>

> {pi mu da} is not well defined yet. "Half a

> bead" is still a thing,

> a whole da, even if not a whole bead.

>

> > The disadvantage is that now the outer

> quantifiers of lo and le do

> > different things than the outer quantifiers

> of loi, lo'i, lei and

> > le'i.

>

> Why? They always quantify over the things that

> {LE broda} refers to.

> It's just that those things are not brodas in

> the case of loi and

> lo'i, but groups or sets of brodas.

If someone had asked me up to a week or so ago

what {ci lo'i broda} meant. I would have said "a

group of three things selected from lo'i broda"

and similarly, {pici lo'i broda} would be a mass

of brodas which numbered 30% of whatever the

number of lo'i broda was. And similarly for

{loi} — and {lo}for that matter (since it too is

a group, albeit distributive). That is, outer

quantifiers are partitive — taking subsets,

subgroups or subsums (or, for plurals

"subpluralities" — not that those are

individuals in themselves). If asked, I would

have said that this developed partly from CLL and

mainly from discussions between & and xorxes a

few years ago, which (I thought) arrived at a

consensus. xorxes now rejects that (apparent)

consensus in favor of a new notion (well, new in

my consciousness at least)which seems to be an

extension of his recent — but not dropped --

idea that {ci lo mu broda} is for three groups of

five broda, rather than a group of three out of a

group of five. I think the same reasoning that

led to dropping thisd change would apply to

xorxes' latest innovation: it is covered by

another expression which is of more appropriate

length (and clarity) for the purpose and it ruins

a paralellism among the gadri. Could we work

with plurals rather than sets or groups, this

problem would disappear, of course, since rather

than partitives by inclusion we would have

partitives by amongness (however formally these

are similar) and so the whole "another type of

individual" would disappear (assuming we made the

transition appropriately).

> > I hope you agree that as defined, "klani li

> re lo gerku" makes no

> > sense. "A quantity of two on the scale of

> dogs"? TF?

>

> "A quantity of two with dogs as units". I take

> the x3 of klani

> to be the units. If we must take it as a scale,

> then {gradu}

> will convert from units (which is what we have)

> to a scale.

>

> > > I have no idea what a {si'o} is supposed to

> be.

> > An idea. lo si'o junta — the scale of

> gravity. lo si'o se kancu

> > — the scale of countable objects.

This makes a nice point relative to another of

Robin's questions: what counts (literally) as an

individual is relative to the predicate involved

in one sense. For all of the relations among

groups/sets/sums/plurals the individual is the

bottom of the pyramid: the thing in a larger

reality but without any such things in it (a

member that has not members in sets, for example)

and that will be different for different

predicates: the set of rats counts by rats, the

set of rat cells counts by cells, the set of rat

families counts by families — what is a part

(but not of the appropriate sense) of an

individual in one case is an individual in

another. On the other hand, the logical root

meaning of an individual is what can be the

referent of a variable ("to be is to be the value

of a variable") and in Lojban, that includes

individuals an any ordianrty sense at all but

also sets, groups, abstractions of several sorts,

and probably things not yet considered — any

value of a sumti.

BTW, one virtue of adopting plural quantification

would be that, since we no longer needed sets and

groups to deal with quantifier issues (a dealing

that is now done in logically syterious ways), at

least the {lV'i} set would be freed up and could

be used for those enduring entities which remain

the same even with a change of "members." We

cannot at the moment say in anything like a

correct and easy fashion that, say, the tiger

species is increasing or General Motors is

getting smaller. The best presently possible is

tocompare the sets (or whatever) at two different

times — and perhaps hopefully extrapolate

through the gap.



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:06 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:25:18AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > If the CLL never defines whether "re lei broda" is a two-some or

> > a pair of individuals, I say leave the formal definitions as

> > they are and clean up the word definitions.

>

> I have changed to:

>

> "A fractional outer quantifier can be used to select a subgroup

> and indicate its cardinality as a fraction of the cardinality of

> the group."

>

> which is what CLL has, and I make no mention of ordinary

> quantifiers as yet.

So we come back after quantifiers then, or just leave it alone?

> > > I would have them be three sets of dogs and three groups of

> > > dogs. That's what the formal definitions give now.

> >

> > ci da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo gerku

> >

> > Three things which are among those things which are groups of

> > dogs. Yes, you're right. This means that my characterization of

> > "re loi ci bidju" was wrong, even though you agreed with it,

>

> When was that?

This same e-mail thread. You snipped too much:

Me:

> In loi:

>

> "An outer quantifier can be used to select a subgroup and indicate its

> cardinality."

>

> This sounds to me like "re loi ci bidju" is "A two-some out of a

> three-some of beads", but with the current formal definitions it's

> actually "two individual beads out of a three-some of beads". The

> same basical problem exists with lei, lo'i, and le'i.

You:

Yes. What should we do about it, if anything?

This implies that you agree that the current formal definition leads to "two

individual beads out of a three-some of beads" rather than "two groups of three

beads", which is what I just said above.

> The definition of {loi} was changed from a non-distributive plural

> to a reified group. Your characterization was probably correct for

> the previous definition.

This whole discussion was after that change.

> > and that the written definition is wrong-er than I thought:

> >

> > * re loi ci bidju

> > * re da poi ke'a me lo gunma be lo ci bidju

> >

> > That's two groups of three beads, if I'm not completely out of

> > my mind, which is a whole different kettle of monkeys.

>

> That's what I would take it to be with reifying loi, yes. I'd like

> to hear John Cowan's opinion on this.

Me too.

> > The disadvantage is that now the outer quantifiers of lo and le

> > do different things than the outer quantifiers of loi, lo'i, lei

> > and le'i.

>

> Why? They always quantify over the things that {LE broda} refers

> to. It's just that those things are not brodas in the case of loi

> and lo'i, but groups or sets of brodas.

re lo ci broda == two brodas

re loi ci broda == six brodas

Looks very different to me, although I think I see your point.

> > > > As as stylistic note, in:

> > > > * loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

> > > > I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

> > >

> > > Not quite the same thing. That would say that the tourists

> > > come from each part of the world, but most tourists come from

> > > just one part.

> >

> > I have no idea what you're talking about. In particular, I have

> > no idea where "most tourists" entered the equation. Can you

> > break it down for me?

>

> With {ro lo pagbu} you would be saying:

>

> "Tourists gather here from Japan, and tourists gather here from

> Australia, and tourists gather here from Timbooktoo, and...", each

> independently, but I think what we want to say is that they gather

> from all over the place together.

Whereas I prefer what you just described to "Tourists gather here

form the every-place", which is how I read "lo ro pagbu".

> > > > * ma cnano lo junta lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena

> > > >

> > > > I suggest "ca lo nu jbena" or "po ca ...".

> > >

> > > {be ca lo nu jbena}? What's wrong with it as it stands?

> >

> > Because it's only talking about the infants that have just been

> > born, relative to the current time of the speaker, no?

>

> I don't know, does it have to? Wouldn't that require {nau}?

Ask me when we've done PU. It was just a stylistic thing; don't

worry about it.

> > > > * gi'e klani li PA lo broda

> > > Do you really want me to change it to {lo se gradu be lo

> > > broda}?

> >

> > Actually, I'd prefer something with kancu. Probably we should

> > make zilkancu to drop the agent place.

>

> {gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda}?

Yes, that's lovely. Do you want to put it in jbovlaste or should ?

> > I hope you agree that as defined, "klani li re lo gerku" makes

> > no sense. "A quantity of two on the scale of dogs"? TF?

>

> "A quantity of two with dogs as units". I take the x3 of klani to

> be the units.

It's definately not, though, as currently defined.

> If we must take it as a scale,

Well, that *is* the definition.

> then {gradu} will convert from units (which is what we have) to a

> scale.

Which would be fine, but you didn't use that.

> > > I have no idea what a {si'o} is supposed to be.

> > An idea. lo si'o junta — the scale of gravity. lo si'o se

> > kancu — the scale of countable objects.

>

> What is the scale of gravity?

g-force. Used in describing acceleration.

> What is the scale of countable objects?

The natural numbers, I should think.

> Is {lo si'o se kancu} different from {lo si'o kancu}?

Assuming ce'u in the first place, yes.

> > OTOH, gunma (which you pointed at for comparison) says no such

> > thing. I should probably clear this up one way or the other in

> > the two definitions.

>

> "x1 is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of

> components x2, considered jointly"

>

> Can you really read that as:

> "x1 is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of

> components x2, among other thing, considered jointly"

No. Nevermind.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT posts: 1912


> > * I am not making up any examples with outer quantifiers on

> > la/lai/la'i, if anyone wants to suggest something I will add it,

> > but under protest.

>

> Why under protest? It seems pretty simple to me. {mi pendo ci la

> djan} == "I have three friends named John".

More like "I'm friend with exactly three of the Johns".

Out of those I have in mind named John, exactly three are my friends.

"I have three friends named John" is more like {zo djan cu cmene

ci pendo be mi}.

{ci la djan} is not about the name "John" but about those I call John.

Maybe something like:

ci la magdonaldz cu jinbi le mi briju

There are three McDonald's near my office.

That would work better with {lo} rather than {la}, but cmevla

won't take {lo}.

> > > * lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> > > * Students are surrounding the building and yelling.

> > > * loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> >

> > Does that say that they yell in unison?

>

> You can yell non-distributively without yelling in unison. IMO.

The idea of the example was to use a non-distributive and

a distributive predicate together. If {krixa} is not distributive

enough, would you suggest something else? It spoils the example

if I include it for {loi} as well.

> > > * ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> > > * Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

> > > * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu prenu

> >

> > We have not defined multiple {lo'e}s in one sentence.

>

> Aww, crap. Fortunately, this one's easy to solve:

>

> * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu ro lo makcu prenu

It ought to be the case that showing great forbearance to every

adult is common among children?

Certainly not literally, because most children won't ever relate

with most adults.

> > > Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

> > > i ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu

> >

> > Do you want this for {lo'e}?

>

> If you please.

It seems odd to say that my being like them is a very common

property among grown-ups.

> > > * lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> > > * One picture is worth a thousand words.

> > > * pa lo pa pixra cu se vamji ki'o lo valsi - uninteresting

> >

> > And not the same meaning at all. It says that exactly one picture

> > is such that there are exactly 1000 words such that the picture is

> > worth each word.

>

> Oh.

>

> * lo'e pixra cu se vamji ji'i ki'o lo valsi

But you still have a thousand words each being equivalent

to a picture. I think the idea is that the picture is worth

the thousand words together, not each of them separately:

{lo'e pixra cu se vamji loi ki'o valsi

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT posts: 1912


> So we come back after quantifiers then, or just leave it alone?

I think that for ordinary quantifiers, there is no reason

to deviate from {PA sumti} = {PA da poi ke'a me sumti}

for any sumti.

The only question is whether the referents of {loi/lei/lai broda}

are brodas or groups of broda, but once that's settled the quantifier

question will be settled with it.

For fractional quantifiers, I think more discussion is required,

and we can come back and make any adjustment after that if needed.

What I have now is the most conservative view, I think.

> > > > > As as stylistic note, in:

> > > > > * loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le terdi

> > > > > I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

> >

> > With {ro lo pagbu} you would be saying:

> >

> > "Tourists gather here from Japan, and tourists gather here from

> > Australia, and tourists gather here from Timbooktoo, and...", each

> > independently, but I think what we want to say is that they gather

> > from all over the place together.

>

> Whereas I prefer what you just described to "Tourists gather here

> form the every-place", which is how I read "lo ro pagbu".

{lo ro pagbu} is not a single place. It is all parts (of the globe)

considered together. "The every-place" is not very idiomatic English,

but it sounds like a single place.

> > > > > * gi'e klani li PA lo broda

> >

> > {gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda}?

>

> Yes, that's lovely. Do you want to put it in jbovlaste or should ?

It's already there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:31:36AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > So we come back after quantifiers then, or just leave it alone?

>

> I think that for ordinary quantifiers, there is no reason to

> deviate from {PA sumti} = {PA da poi ke'a me sumti} for

> any sumti.

You snipped my stating that

re lo ci bidju == 2 beads

and

re loi ci bidju == 6 beads

That seems a bit confusing to me. Not a serious problem, but I

wanted to make sure it's clear, and it needs to be made clear in the

definitions.

> The only question is whether the referents of {loi/lei/lai broda}

> are brodas or groups of broda, but once that's settled the

> quantifier question will be settled with it.

Clearly groups, I would say. "lo gunma", after all. It would be a

serious break with the CLL for them to be something other than

groups, IMO.

> For fractional quantifiers, I think more discussion is required,

> and we can come back and make any adjustment after that if needed.

> What I have now is the most conservative view, I think.

Agreed.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:09:15AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > > * I am not making up any examples with outer quantifiers on

> > > la/lai/la'i, if anyone wants to suggest something I will add

> > > it, but under protest.

> >

> > Why under protest? It seems pretty simple to me. {mi pendo ci

> > la djan} == "I have three friends named John".

>

> More like "I'm friend with exactly three of the Johns". Out of

> those I have in mind named John, exactly three are my friends.

>

> "I have three friends named John" is more like {zo djan cu cmene

> ci pendo be mi}.

I think you're splitting a very fine hair, there.

> Maybe something like:

>

> ci la magdonaldz cu jinbi le mi briju

> There are three McDonald's near my office.

>

> That would work better with {lo} rather than {la}, but cmevla

> won't take {lo}.

That works.

> > > > * lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> > > > * Students are surrounding the building and yelling.

> > > > * loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> > >

> > > Does that say that they yell in unison?

> >

> > You can yell non-distributively without yelling in unison. IMO.

>

> The idea of the example was to use a non-distributive and a

> distributive predicate together.

Ah, OK. Good point. Break it out, then:

loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju .i so'i le tadni cu krixa

> If {krixa} is not distributive enough, would you suggest something

> else?

s/krixa/krixa so'i da/ makes it clearer; they are shouting many

things, presumably independently.

> > > > * ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu

> > > > * Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.

> > > > * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu prenu

> > >

> > > We have not defined multiple {lo'e}s in one sentence.

> >

> > Aww, crap. Fortunately, this one's easy to solve:

> >

> > * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu ro lo makcu prenu

>

> It ought to be the case that showing great forbearance to every

> adult is common among children?

>

> Certainly not literally, because most children won't ever relate

> with most adults.

Is that relevant? They should show great forebearance to all of

them; they may not get the opportunity to do so in all cases, but

given said opportunity they should take it. There's no tense, after

all.

> > > > Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.

> > > > i ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu

> > >

> > > Do you want this for {lo'e}?

> >

> > If you please.

>

> It seems odd to say that my being like them is a very common

> property among grown-ups.

Sure, but so does "my friend of the cup".

> > > > * lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi

> > > > * One picture is worth a thousand words.

> > > > * pa lo pa pixra cu se vamji ki'o lo valsi - uninteresting

> > >

> > > And not the same meaning at all. It says that exactly one

> > > picture is such that there are exactly 1000 words such that

> > > the picture is worth each word.

> >

> > Oh.

> >

> > * lo'e pixra cu se vamji ji'i ki'o lo valsi

>

> But you still have a thousand words each being equivalent to a

> picture. I think the idea is that the picture is worth the

> thousand words together, not each of them separately: {lo'e pixra

> cu se vamji loi ki'o valsi}

..ie

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT posts: 1912


> You snipped my stating that

>

> re lo ci bidju == 2 beads

>

> and

>

> re loi ci bidju == 6 beads

Yes, and {re lo'i ci bidju} would also involve six beads.

(Or up to six beads, because some could be shared I suppose.)

But although the number of beads involved varies, in all cases

the claim is that two "things" fit that argument place.

> That seems a bit confusing to me. Not a serious problem, but I

> wanted to make sure it's clear, and it needs to be made clear in the

> definitions.

I will add the clarification once we are settled.

If I understand correctly, pc would prefer non-reified loi

(which would just indicate non-distributivity) whereas John and

Robin would rather go with reification (which is closer to what

has been the traditional Lojban approach). I'm not sure if John

agrees with the implications of reification for integer quantifiers.

I don't have a preference either way. Anybody else wants to

offer an opinion?

> > The only question is whether the referents of {loi/lei/lai broda}

> > are brodas or groups of broda, but once that's settled the

> > quantifier question will be settled with it.

>

> Clearly groups, I would say. "lo gunma", after all. It would be a

> serious break with the CLL for them to be something other than

> groups, IMO.

Well, yes, but in CLL each of them refers to a single group or set.

Quantifying over a single thing does not make much sense.

We might stipulate that lei and lai always refer to a single group

that the speaker has in mind, and then integer quantification on

them would be pointless.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

(xorxes)

> > The definition of {loi} was changed from a

> non-distributive plural

> > to a reified group. Your characterization was

> probably correct for

> > the previous definition.

>

> This whole discussion was after that change.

My problem is not when did this change take

place, but when did the one it reverses take

place. {loi} and {lo'i} (and {lo}, for that

matter) have always been groups or sets or some

undefined thing of that sort, since Lojban never

did work out a good way to deal with plurals.

That was the whole point (I thought) of talking

about plural quantification: to get rid of those

critters. Did we do it and then shift back?

Why?

>

> > > The disadvantage is that now the outer

> quantifiers of lo and le

> > > do different things than the outer

> quantifiers of loi, lo'i, lei

> > > and le'i.

> >

> > Why? They always quantify over the things

> that {LE broda} refers

> > to. It's just that those things are not

> brodas in the case of loi

> > and lo'i, but groups or sets of brodas.

Then, since {lo broda} is a group too

(distributive, not collective to be sure, but

taht is about a different matter), why doesn't

{ci lo broda} mean three groups of broda (each

distributive and so perhaps amounting to one

distributive group?)?

As as stylistic note, in:

> > > > > * loi litru ti jmaji lo ro pagbu be le

> terdi

> > > > > I prefer "ro lo pagbu".

> > > >

> > > > Not quite the same thing. That would say

> that the tourists

> > > > come from each part of the world, but

> most tourists come from

> > > > just one part.

> > >

> > > I have no idea what you're talking about.

> In particular, I have

> > > no idea where "most tourists" entered the

> equation. Can you

> > > break it down for me?

> >

> > With {ro lo pagbu} you would be saying:

> >

> > "Tourists gather here from Japan, and

> tourists gather here from

> > Australia, and tourists gather here from

> Timbooktoo, and...", each

> > independently, but I think what we want to

> say is that they gather

> > from all over the place together.

>

> Whereas I prefer what you just described to

> "Tourists gather here

> form the every-place", which is how I read "lo

> ro pagbu".

This looks like a place where a better

understanding of distributive and collective

application of arguments to predicates would be

handy. As I understand it, using {loi litru}

means (barring intervening factors, which there

do not seem to be here) that the tourists are

being taken collectively, whereas both {lo ro

pagbu} and {ro lo pagbu} take the places

distributively (one all the places in lo pagbu,

the other all the places period). This would

indeed then require that the tourist, taken

together came from each place separately. It is

not clear what that would mean, if not that the

mass of them came from each place and that is

clearly not what is wanted. So, I would have

said {loi ro pagbu}, which seems exactly McKay's

"Students come from all over."

> > > > > * gi'e klani li PA lo broda

> > > > Do you really want me to change it to {lo

> se gradu be lo

> > > > broda}?

> > >

> > > Actually, I'd prefer something with kancu.

> Probably we should

> > > make zilkancu to drop the agent place.

> >

> > {gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda}?

>

> Yes, that's lovely. Do you want to put it in

> jbovlaste or should ?

>

> > > I hope you agree that as defined, "klani li

> re lo gerku" makes

> > > no sense. "A quantity of two on the scale

> of dogs"? TF?

> >

> > "A quantity of two with dogs as units". I

> take the x3 of klani to

> > be the units.

>

> It's definately not, though, as currently

> defined.

>

> > If we must take it as a scale,

>

> Well, that *is* the definition.

>

> > then {gradu} will convert from units (which

> is what we have) to a

> > scale.

>

> Which would be fine, but you didn't use that.

>

>

I suspect that, when we have speakers in

sufficient quantity, they will come to xorxes'

point — it is too zipfy not to get picked up.

But for now ...



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> > > > * lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

> > > > * Students are surrounding the building

> and yelling.

> > > > * loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e

> krixa

> > >

> > > Does that say that they yell in unison?

> >

> > You can yell non-distributively without

> yelling in unison. IMO.

>

> The idea of the example was to use a

> non-distributive and

> a distributive predicate together. If {krixa}

> is not distributive

> enough, would you suggest something else? It

> spoils the example

> if I include it for {loi} as well.

"wearing green hats" is often suggested: I don't

think that can be collective.

> > > > * ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu

> prenu

> > > > * Children should show great forbearance

> toward grown-up people.

> > > > * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu

> prenu

> > >

> > > We have not defined multiple {lo'e}s in one

> sentence.

> >

> > Aww, crap. Fortunately, this one's easy to

> solve:

> >

> > * ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu ro lo makcu

> prenu

>

> It ought to be the case that showing great

> forbearance to every

> adult is common among children?

>

> Certainly not literally, because most children

> won't ever relate

> with most adults.

Also, have we gone back to {lo prenu} etc.

defaulting to {lo ro prenu}? Else this means "all

of the adults" selected.



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:09:15AM -0700, Jorge

> Llamb?as wrote:

> >

> > --- Robin:

> > > > * I am not making up any examples with

> outer quantifiers on

> > > > la/lai/la'i, if anyone wants to suggest

> something I will add

> > > > it, but under protest.

> > >

> > > Why under protest? It seems pretty simple

> to me. {mi pendo ci

> > > la djan} == "I have three friends named

> John".

> >

> > More like "I'm friend with exactly three of

> the Johns". Out of

> > those I have in mind named John, exactly

> three are my friends.

> >

> > "I have three friends named John" is more

> like {zo djan cu cmene

> > ci pendo be mi}.

>

> I think you're splitting a very fine hair,

> there.

Could we but say it, what is wanted is {la ci

djan} which struvcturally parallels {le ci

broda}.



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:11PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> Could we but say it, what is wanted is {la ci djan} which

> struvcturally parallels {le ci broda}.

le ci me la djan

-Robin



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:09 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > You snipped my stating that

> >

> > re lo ci bidju == 2 beads

> >

> > and

> >

> > re loi ci bidju == 6 beads

>

> Yes, and {re lo'i ci bidju} would also involve

> six beads.

> (Or up to six beads, because some could be

> shared I suppose.)

>

> But although the number of beads involved

> varies, in all cases

> the claim is that two "things" fit that

> argument place.

>

> > That seems a bit confusing to me. Not a

> serious problem, but I

> > wanted to make sure it's clear, and it needs

> to be made clear in the

> > definitions.

>

> I will add the clarification once we are

> settled.

>

> If I understand correctly, pc would prefer

> non-reified loi

> (which would just indicate non-distributivity)

> whereas John and

> Robin would rather go with reification (which

> is closer to what

> has been the traditional Lojban approach). I'm

> not sure if John

> agrees with the implications of reification for

> integer quantifiers.

> I don't have a preference either way. Anybody

> else wants to

> offer an opinion?

pc is of two minds — or rather answering two

questions: if the question is "What must {loi}

etc. be given Lojban as it is now — before BPFK

become official — then it has to be a group,

reified, if you want to say that (but then

someone owes us a bit about the logic of groups

-- though I think that is pretty straightforward

with a reflexive, transitive, antisymmetric "is

in" and a defined "overlaps," which is not very

interesting for groups, perhaps). If the

question is "What should a revision of Lojban do

with {loi}, my vote is for shifting to plural

quantification and having {loi broda} be the

shorthand for the collective application of

several brodas. This is not the only (or maybe

even the easiest — I need to see some other

ideas developed) way to deal with the

distributive-collective distinction, but it fits

in best with current Lojban.

> > > The only question is whether the referents

> of {loi/lei/lai broda}

> > > are brodas or groups of broda, but once

> that's settled the

> > > quantifier question will be settled with

> it.

> >

> > Clearly groups, I would say. "lo gunma",

> after all. It would be a

> > serious break with the CLL for them to be

> something other than

> > groups, IMO.

>

> Well, yes, but in CLL each of them refers to a

> single group or set.

> Quantifying over a single thing does not make

> much sense.

>

> We might stipulate that lei and lai always

> refer to a single group

> that the speaker has in mind, and then integer

> quantification on

> them would be pointless.

What quantifiers do with groups or sets is just

the tip of the whole question of what groups or

sets do with predicates. Clearly, {lo mlatu cu

fetsi}, does not say the group of cats is female

but rather something like that every cat in the

group is female (or that some are or half are or

whatever you choose). Quantifiers pick up on

this and so {ci lo broda cu brode} would normally

mean (by the same twist) that three brodas in the

group brode. That that should mean that a group

of three brodas from lo broda brode arise from

the very muddled way in which Lojban has to deal

with plurals.



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:09 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:34:11PM -0700, John

> E Clifford wrote:

> > Could we but say it, what is wanted is {la ci

> djan} which

> > structurally parallels {le ci broda}.

>

> le ci me la djan

>

> -Robin

OK, but not as structurally interesting as the

parallelling form would be.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT posts: 1912


> > > > * xanlai

> > > > * cmananba

> > > > * bidjylinsi

> > > > * kucysni

> > > > * sofybakni

> > > * vamrai

> > > * vamtolrai

> > * selcra, sort of.

> * jecra'a

> * fi'ortu'a

> * glipre

> * gligugde

I've changed {kucysni} to {kucyga'asni} ({kucyga'a} was already

in noralujv). I added {xanlai}, {bidjylinsi}, {kucyga'asni} and

{jecra'a} to jbovlaste. I'm not sure what to do about {cmananba}.

I don't think the others need to be added.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> If I understand correctly, pc would prefer non-reified loi (which

> would just indicate non-distributivity) whereas John and Robin

> would rather go with reification (which is closer to what has been

> the traditional Lojban approach). I'm not sure if John agrees with

> the implications of reification for integer quantifiers. I don't

> have a preference either way. Anybody else wants to offer an

> opinion?

"reification" means that "loi ci bidju" is a group of three beads as

a single, group-ish entity, correct? Non-reified, non-distributive

means that "loi ci bidju" is three things, but they can only be

considered as a group?

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:45:34AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- Robin:

> > > > > * xanlai

> > > > > * cmananba

> > > > > * bidjylinsi

> > > > > * kucysni

> > > > > * sofybakni

> > > > * vamrai

> > > > * vamtolrai

> > > * selcra, sort of.

> > * jecra'a

> > * fi'ortu'a

> > * glipre

> > * gligugde

>

> I've changed {kucysni} to {kucyga'asni} ({kucyga'a} was already in

> noralujv). I added {xanlai}, {bidjylinsi}, {kucyga'asni} and

> {jecra'a} to jbovlaste. I'm not sure what to do about {cmananba}.

> I don't think the others need to be added.

I do not consider it acceptable for *any* word used in basic

learning materials or BPFK documents to not be fully defined; this

is why I keep asking you to avoid compound cmavo. Bizarre as this

may seem to you, I've had newbies ask things like "pare'u? What's

that? It doesn't look like other Lojban words, and I can't find it

in my dictionary". I've completely ceased mushing cmavo for this

reason, myself, even in casual writing.

If you don't want to add the others, I'll do it, but I'll be making

up place structures that your examples might not agree with.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT posts: 1912

Robin:

> "reification" means that "loi ci bidju" is a group of three beads as

> a single, group-ish entity, correct?

Right.

reify: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete

or material existence. Latin res, re-, thing

> Non-reified, non-distributive

> means that "loi ci bidju" is three things, but they can only be

> considered as a group?

Considered together rather. We don't invoke the presence of "a group".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:10 GMT posts: 1912


> > > > > > * cmananba

> > > > > > * sofybakni

> > > > > * vamrai

> > > > > * vamtolrai

> > > > * selcra, sort of.

> > > * fi'ortu'a

> > > * glipre

> > > * gligugde

>

> I do not consider it acceptable for *any* word used in basic

> learning materials or BPFK documents to not be fully defined; this

> is why I keep asking you to avoid compound cmavo.

Compound cmavo are not single words! It's just a style of writing

with no effect on meaning or pronunciation.

> Bizarre as this

> may seem to you, I've had newbies ask things like "pare'u? What's

> that? It doesn't look like other Lojban words, and I can't find it

> in my dictionary". I've completely ceased mushing cmavo for this

> reason, myself, even in casual writing.

In fact, cmavo mushing was more prevalent in the past, I think.

I don't see many {lenu}s and {lemi}s anymore. But I'm not sure

it's desirable to fully erradicate it, in some cases (digits,

for instance) I think it is convenient. A newbie will come

across it at one time or another anyway, so why not in learning

materials.

Lujvo is a different issue. I don't expect every lujvo I come across

to appear in a dictionary! The idea of compounding words is that you

can make nonce use of them without them being established words.

It would be extremely weird to have {sofybakni} appear in a dictionary,

for example (unless we already consider the pangram that contains it

as a lojbo cultural item).

> If you don't want to add the others, I'll do it, but I'll be making

> up place structures that your examples might not agree with.

They are all used as descriptions in sumti, so that's unlikely.

{glipre}, {gligugde} and {fi'ortu'a} are taken from CLL.

{selcra} is too obvious, {sofybakni} is absurd.

Lujvo with -rai and -tolrai should be completely regular, so

{vamrai} and {vamtolrai} would have obvious place structures too,

namely:

X-rai: x1 is/are the X-est among x2

X-tolrai: x1 is/are the least X among x2

{cmananba} might be worth adding, I'm just not sure how wide

or narrow to make its meaning, and I'm not sure it's the best

choice for "biscuit". I also hesitate between using cma as a

prefix or as a suffix.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > I do not consider it acceptable for *any* word used in basic

> > learning materials or BPFK documents to not be fully defined; this

> > is why I keep asking you to avoid compound cmavo.

>

> Compound cmavo are not single words! It's just a style of writing

> with no effect on meaning or pronunciation.

But with a noticable effect on comprehension. la kat,rin will attest to this.

But then, I think it's fine to have words be mushed in learning materials at

the level of the BPFK. If a beginner is reading BPFK materials, they're

probably not going to comprehend anything anyway.

> > Bizarre as this

> > may seem to you, I've had newbies ask things like "pare'u? What's

> > that? It doesn't look like other Lojban words, and I can't find it

> > in my dictionary". I've completely ceased mushing cmavo for this

> > reason, myself, even in casual writing.

>

> In fact, cmavo mushing was more prevalent in the past, I think.

> I don't see many {lenu}s and {lemi}s anymore. But I'm not sure

> it's desirable to fully erradicate it, in some cases (digits,

> for instance) I think it is convenient. A newbie will come

> across it at one time or another anyway, so why not in learning

> materials.

As long as it's not in materials intended for beginners.

> Lujvo is a different issue. I don't expect every lujvo I come across

> to appear in a dictionary! The idea of compounding words is that you

> can make nonce use of them without them being established words.

> It would be extremely weird to have {sofybakni} appear in a dictionary,

> for example (unless we already consider the pangram that contains it

> as a lojbo cultural item).

I think {sovybakni} shouldn't be in the dictionary, but most of the others

should. I don't know what we should do with regular rafsi like sel-, -gau, and

-rai: it would be nice if a search interface to jbovlaste would automatically

generate definitions for those, or something like that.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT posts: 152

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Umm, {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai} is illegal in the current

> language as defined, so yeah, I'd say we're disallowing it.

Out of curiosity, does it say in CLL that the YACC parser for Lojban is the

official word on whether a sentence is grammatical? Not just that the parse

trees it gives, when it works, are definitive?

Basically, I think we need to start considering LR conflicts to be limitations

of the parser, and not of the language. In usage, it's not easy to remember to

put a 'ku' there, especially when the reason for it being necessary is so

obscure, and the justification requires concepts like "error tokens",

"preprocessing", and "one-token lookahead", which are not used by humans in

understanding language.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT posts: 152

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 03:02:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > If you want that without lo'e, I suppose you could say:

> >

> > de'i li 1960 so'e lo pare sovda cu fepni li ji'i 42

> > In 1960, most dozens of eggs cost about 42 cents.

>

> Remember we are now defining {so'e lo pare sovda} as most of

> a dozen eggs, not as most dozens.

Ah. Make that {loi} then.

But I will insist that if you don't use {lo'e}, then it should say {li ji'i

42}. The English "A dozen eggs cost 42 cents" does not mean that you will find

most dozens of eggs to cost exactly 42 cents; it's more of an average.

--

Rob Speer



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT posts: 1912


> I don't know what we should do with regular rafsi like sel-, -gau, and

> -rai: it would be nice if a search interface to jbovlaste would automatically

> generate definitions for those, or something like that.

Probably difficult to achieve, but we could at least make a list

somewhere in the wiki with the rafsi that give more or less predictable

place structures:

sel-, ter-, vel-, xel-

tol-, nal-, nol-

-rai, -mau, -me'a, -du'i

-si'u, -kansa, sez-, zil-

The last line are not quite predictable, but almost. Usually

you need to make some choice of place: is {sezdunda}

"x1 gives themself to x2" or "x1 gives themself x2"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:11 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:36:04AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > Umm, {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai} is illegal in the current

> > language as defined, so yeah, I'd say we're disallowing it.

>

> Out of curiosity, does it say in CLL that the YACC parser for

> Lojban is the official word on whether a sentence is grammatical?

Yes.

> Not just that the parse trees it gives, when it works, are

> definitive?

I don't understand the difference.

> Basically, I think we need to start considering LR conflicts to be

> limitations of the parser, and not of the language.

John and I already believe this, as do xorxes and xod AFAIK. That's

why I wrote the PEG parser.

Eventually, the question of whether to formally adopt the PEG

grammar will be put to the BPFK, but we need to do the Magic Words

checkpoint first.

For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, see

http://teddyb.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/index.html

Please be aware that Cowan already approves of this project in

principle, and wants his parser to die in the arse, so the odds of

this becoming the new official grammar are very, very high.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:38:33AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:36:04AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell

> > wrote:

> > > Umm, {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai} is illegal in the current

> > > language as defined, so yeah, I'd say we're disallowing it.

> >

> > Out of curiosity, does it say in CLL that the YACC parser for

> > Lojban is the official word on whether a sentence is

> > grammatical?

>

> Yes.

Actually, what the CLL actually says is:

Chapter 21

Formal Grammars

The following two listings constitute the formal grammar of Lojban.

The first version is written in the YACC language, which is used to

describe parsers, and has been used to create a parser for Lojban

texts. This parser is available from the Logical Language Group. The

second listing is in Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF) and represents

the same grammar in a more human-readable form. (In case of

discrepancies, the YACC version is official.) There is a

cross-reference listing for the EBNF format that shows, for each

selma'o and rule, which rules refer to it.

It has, however, been the opinion of the founders that the YACC is

the highest authority on Lojban grammaticality.

-Robin

--

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"



Posted by JohnCowan on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT posts: 149

Rob Speer scripsit:

> Out of curiosity, does it say in CLL that the YACC parser for Lojban is the

> official word on whether a sentence is grammatical? Not just that the parse

> trees it gives, when it works, are definitive?

The YACC *grammar* with its associated comments is the official word. The

official parser does not fully or correctly implement the official grammar.

> Basically, I think we need to start considering LR conflicts to be limitations

> of the parser, and not of the language. In usage, it's not easy to remember to

> put a 'ku' there, especially when the reason for it being necessary is so

> obscure, and the justification requires concepts like "error tokens",

> "preprocessing", and "one-token lookahead", which are not used by humans in

> understanding language.

Actually, the justification is simply "local unambiguity". Robin's PEG

parser enforces only global unambiguity: in principle it may have to

look all the way down to the end of the input to decide how to parse it.

People don't understand sentences that way either.

(This does not mean that Robin's parser is a Bad Thing, or that the byfy

shouldn't at least consider changing the language definition to be the

PEG grammar, once it's been thoroughly vetted.)

--

They do not preach John Cowan

that their God will rouse them [email protected]

A little before the nuts work loose. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

They do not teach http://www.reutershealth.com

that His Pity allows them --Rudyard Kipling,

to drop their job when they damn-well choose. "The Sons of Martha"



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:12 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:10:09PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> Actually, the justification is simply "local unambiguity".

> Robin's PEG parser enforces only global unambiguity: in principle

> it may have to look all the way down to the end of the input to

> decide how to parse it. People don't understand sentences that way

> either.

Just for the record, it can actually enforce local unambiguity to

any degree you desire.

There's no obvious best cutoff point, however.

-Robin



Posted by lojbab on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:13 GMT posts: 162

Drop in comments without reading the thread first

At 05:41 AM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge wrote:

>--- Robin:

> > > > > > > * cmananba

> > > > > > > * sofybakni

> > > > > > * vamrai

> > > > > > * vamtolrai

> > > > > * selcra, sort of.

> > > > * fi'ortu'a

> > > > * glipre

> > > > * gligugde

> >

> > I do not consider it acceptable for *any* word used in basic

> > learning materials or BPFK documents to not be fully defined; this

> > is why I keep asking you to avoid compound cmavo.

>

>Compound cmavo are not single words! It's just a style of writing

>with no effect on meaning or pronunciation.

>

> > Bizarre as this

> > may seem to you, I've had newbies ask things like "pare'u? What's

> > that? It doesn't look like other Lojban words, and I can't find it

> > in my dictionary". I've completely ceased mushing cmavo for this

> > reason, myself, even in casual writing.

>

>In fact, cmavo mushing was more prevalent in the past, I think.

>I don't see many {lenu}s and {lemi}s anymore. But I'm not sure

>it's desirable to fully erradicate it, in some cases (digits,

>for instance) I think it is convenient. A newbie will come

>across it at one time or another anyway, so why not in learning

>materials.

I don't think that it is a problem in learning materials, because the

editor of said learning materials can be charged with explaining or

defining the words, or teaching the means of understanding them.

>Lujvo is a different issue. I don't expect every lujvo I come across

>to appear in a dictionary! The idea of compounding words is that you

>can make nonce use of them without them being established words.

>It would be extremely weird to have {sofybakni} appear in a dictionary,

>for example (unless we already consider the pangram that contains it

>as a lojbo cultural item).

Precisely. Suggested definition:

"sofybakni": literally, "Soviet bovine", a nonsense word with no defined

place structure [[or%20with%20hypothetical%20place%20structure%20...%20-%20thereby%0A%3Cbr%20/%3Epromoting%20jvajvo%20concepts|or with hypothetical place structure ... - thereby

promoting jvajvo concepts]] used in the classic lojbanic cultural item

random sentence? ...

> > If you don't want to add the others, I'll do it, but I'll be making

> > up place structures that your examples might not agree with.

>

>They are all used as descriptions in sumti, so that's unlikely.

That does not make them non-words. It makes them quasi-nouns. If we don't

want Lojban to become a noun/verb language rather than a predicate

language, lujvo need to have hypothetical place structures, even if they

are mindless jvajvo (I would favor marking hypothetical place structures

for words that have only been used in descriptions as being "hypothetical"

rather than solid, but as much as possible I would only allow fu'ivla to be

allowed as undefined descriptions (considering them as type II borrowings

and thus only partially within the language allows such) - but even they

should be defined in a dictionary, if not with place structures.

Nonce-lujvo need not be formally defined. Any lujvo used in a

quasi-permanent standard for the language (a byfy document or an official

teaching material) is NOT a nonce lujvo (or should not be).

>{glipre}, {gligugde} and {fi'ortu'a} are taken from CLL.

>

>{selcra} is too obvious, {sofybakni} is absurd.

My opinion: Define it (along my suggested lines) or use a different word.

>Lujvo with -rai and -tolrai should be completely regular, so

>{vamrai} and {vamtolrai} would have obvious place structures too,

>namely:

>

>X-rai: x1 is/are the X-est among x2

>X-tolrai: x1 is/are the least X among x2

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, provided that such

generalizations are documented in an updated jvajvo section for CLL, along

with Nick-like explanation in terms of the place structure of traji (i.e

that x2 is the x4 of trajo and what happens to x2 and x3).

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by lojbab on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:13 GMT posts: 162

At 10:36 AM 9/15/04 -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > Umm, {lo vamrai bi'o lo vamtolrai} is illegal in the current

> > language as defined, so yeah, I'd say we're disallowing it.

>

>Out of curiosity, does it say in CLL that the YACC parser for Lojban is the

>official word on whether a sentence is grammatical?

I don't know that it says that in CLL. It is said in the existing baseline

that the YACC grammar is the formal grammar standard for the language. CLL

is NOT the only document that constitutes the baseline; the gismu list, the

cmavo list, and the YACC grammar were all formally baselined as part of the

basic language definition materials, and indeed unlike CLL were released

into the public domain, making them harder to change formally (since we

cannot supersede any theoretical independent uses of public domain

materials that are not under our direct or indirect intellectual property

control)

>Not just that the parse trees it gives, when it works, are definitive?

There is a difference between the YACC grammar, which is considered

definitive, and the official parser, which is a controlled but

non-baselined implementation of that grammar.

>Basically, I think we need to start considering LR conflicts to be limitations

>of the parser, and not of the language.

That would be a significant change in the baseline philosophy, to which I

would be opposed.

At one time, I was willing to see the language redefined in terms of a

longer look-ahead (Doug Landauer, who was the original Loglan YACCer back

in 1976, proposed in the early 90s to create a LALR4 version of YACC that

would allow us to therefore rewrite the grammar in LALR4 terms, possibly

eliminating some of the elidables. But it was never written and it seems

too late now, recognizing that there is some sentiment for Robin's parser

supplanting the official one if it works better (I haven't been paying

attention to the status).

>In usage, it's not easy to remember to

>put a 'ku' there, especially when the reason for it being necessary is so

>obscure,

It is necessary because it is a rule of the official/formal grammar. No

one needs a better rule.

It's a simple rule of grammar - put a ku there unless you know it is not

needed. The elision of the elidable terminators is what there are

inadequate rules for; it is never wrong to leave it in. If an experienced

Lojbanist leaves an elidable out, the less experienced listener still

cannot parse it incorrectly, BECAUSE it can be left out. Sooner or later

everyone comes to get a feel for when they can elide, based on the

experience of seeing under what grammatical conditions others have

successfully elided.

>and the justification requires concepts like "error tokens",

>"preprocessing", and "one-token lookahead", which are not used by humans in

>understanding language.

The "justification", as with most languages, is that "this is a rule of the

language". That we have optional optimizing rules that allow elision in

certain cases (which cannot be easily explained probably because people

haven't done the work needed to explain them in non-technical English - I

started once ages ago, but lost my YACC fluency before I got back to it

after one distraction or another. Someone teaching elision of terminators

should be teaching non-elision first, and then introduce rules for when

elision is allowed. This was the approach in the original textbook, which

I may someday return to.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by lojbab on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:14 GMT posts: 162

At 09:09 AM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>--- Rob:

> > I don't know what we should do with regular rafsi like sel-, -gau, and

> > -rai: it would be nice if a search interface to jbovlaste would

> automatically

> > generate definitions for those, or something like that.

>

>Probably difficult to achieve, but we could at least make a list

>somewhere in the wiki with the rafsi that give more or less predictable

>place structures:

>

>sel-, ter-, vel-, xel-

>tol-, nal-, nol-

>-rai, -mau, -me'a, -du'i

>-si'u, -kansa, sez-, zil-

Per my other post, we have a standard for how to do this officially. Add

proposed sections to the CLL chapter on jvajvo.

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:14 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab wrote:

> >It would be extremely weird to have {sofybakni} appear in a dictionary,

> >for example (unless we already consider the pangram that contains it

> >as a lojbo cultural item).

>

> Precisely. Suggested definition:

> "sofybakni": literally, "Soviet bovine", a nonsense word with no defined

> place structure [[or%20with%20hypothetical%20place%20structure%20...%20-%20thereby%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20promoting%20jvajvo%20concepts|or with hypothetical place structure ... - thereby

> promoting jvajvo concepts]] used in the classic lojbanic cultural item

> random sentence? ...

".o'i mu xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi"

It's not a random sentence, it's a pangram: a sentence that contains

every letter of the alphabet. It was offered as a 'translation' of

"the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog".

> > > If you don't want to add the others, I'll do it, but I'll be making

> > > up place structures that your examples might not agree with.

> >

> >They are all used as descriptions in sumti, so that's unlikely.

>

> That does not make them non-words. It makes them quasi-nouns. If we don't

> want Lojban to become a noun/verb language rather than a predicate

> language, lujvo need to have hypothetical place structures,

Of course, definitely. All I said is that it was unlikely that whatever

place structure Robin came up with might not agree with the examples.

That a word does not appear in the dictionary does not mean it does not

have a place structure. Every brivla has one.

> even if they

> are mindless jvajvo (I would favor marking hypothetical place structures

> for words that have only been used in descriptions as being "hypothetical"

> rather than solid, but as much as possible I would only allow fu'ivla to be

> allowed as undefined descriptions (considering them as type II borrowings

> and thus only partially within the language allows such) - but even they

> should be defined in a dictionary, if not with place structures.

I think every brivla in the dictionary should be defined with a place

structure, and I think that's the idea for jbovlaste.

> Nonce-lujvo need not be formally defined. Any lujvo used in a

> quasi-permanent standard for the language (a byfy document or an official

> teaching material) is NOT a nonce lujvo (or should not be).

If it's used in an example, it can very well be a nonce lujvo. In fact,

I think there should be some examples of nonce usage if the examples

are meant to be representative of actual usage.

> >X-rai: x1 is/are the X-est among x2

> >X-tolrai: x1 is/are the least X among x2

>

> I don't necessarily have a problem with that, provided that such

> generalizations are documented in an updated jvajvo section for CLL, along

> with Nick-like explanation in terms of the place structure of traji (i.e

> that x2 is the x4 of trajo and what happens to x2 and x3).

x2 is {lo ka ce'u X}, x3 DITA :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by lojbab on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:15 GMT posts: 162

At 03:05 PM 9/15/04 -0700, Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>lojbab wrote:

> > >It would be extremely weird to have {sofybakni} appear in a dictionary,

> > >for example (unless we already consider the pangram that contains it

> > >as a lojbo cultural item).

> >

> > Precisely. Suggested definition:

> > "sofybakni": literally, "Soviet bovine", a nonsense word with no defined

> > place structure [[or%20with%20hypothetical%20place%20structure%20...%20-%20thereby%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20%3E%20promoting%20jvajvo%20concepts|or with hypothetical place structure ... - thereby

> > promoting jvajvo concepts]] used in the classic lojbanic cultural item

> > random sentence? ...

>

> ".o'i mu xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi"

>

>It's not a random sentence, it's a pangram: a sentence that contains

>every letter of the alphabet. It was offered as a 'translation' of

>"the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog".

If you use it as an example somewhere in an official document, it de facto

becomes a Lojban cultural item.

> > > > If you don't want to add the others, I'll do it, but I'll be making

> > > > up place structures that your examples might not agree with.

> > >

> > >They are all used as descriptions in sumti, so that's unlikely.

> >

> > That does not make them non-words. It makes them quasi-nouns. If we

> don't

> > want Lojban to become a noun/verb language rather than a predicate

> > language, lujvo need to have hypothetical place structures,

>

>Of course, definitely. All I said is that it was unlikely that whatever

>place structure Robin came up with might not agree with the examples.

>That a word does not appear in the dictionary does not mean it does not

>have a place structure. Every brivla has one.

Agreed. But fu'ivla used only in descriptions may never have one defined

for them other than implicitly the x1 that is invoked.

> > even if they

> > are mindless jvajvo (I would favor marking hypothetical place structures

> > for words that have only been used in descriptions as being "hypothetical"

> > rather than solid, but as much as possible I would only allow fu'ivla

> to be

> > allowed as undefined descriptions (considering them as type II borrowings

> > and thus only partially within the language allows such) - but even they

> > should be defined in a dictionary, if not with place structures.

>

>I think every brivla in the dictionary should be defined with a place

>structure, and I think that's the idea for jbovlaste.

I agree - I am just saying that we should distinguish between place

structures that have been used (i.e. more than the x1 has attested usage,

even if only by use in a converted form) and those that have merely been

hypothesized to put a definition in jvovlaste. A hypothetical place

structure that makes it into a printed (or other official) dictionary may

indeed quickly cease being hypothetical, but usage is the "real" voting

mechanism for a definition.

> > Nonce-lujvo need not be formally defined. Any lujvo used in a

> > quasi-permanent standard for the language (a byfy document or an official

> > teaching material) is NOT a nonce lujvo (or should not be).

>

>If it's used in an example, it can very well be a nonce lujvo. In fact,

>I think there should be some examples of nonce usage if the examples

>are meant to be representative of actual usage.

I don't think that nonce usage should be used in official language

definition, simply because people will take the usage to be

non-nonce. Obviously a section explicitly discussing nonce usage would be

an exception to this.

> > >X-rai: x1 is/are the X-est among x2

> > >X-tolrai: x1 is/are the least X among x2

> >

> > I don't necessarily have a problem with that, provided that such

> > generalizations are documented in an updated jvajvo section for CLL, along

> > with Nick-like explanation in terms of the place structure of traji (i.e

> > that x2 is the x4 of trajo and what happens to x2 and x3).

>

>x2 is {lo ka ce'u X}, x3 DITA :-)

I won't pretend to understand what that means.

lojbab

--

lojbab [email protected]

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group

(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)

Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:15 GMT posts: 1912

lojbab:

> > > >X-rai: x1 is/are the X-est among x2

> > > >X-tolrai: x1 is/are the least X among x2

> > >

> > > I don't necessarily have a problem with that, provided that such

> > > generalizations are documented in an updated jvajvo section for CLL,

> along

> > > with Nick-like explanation in terms of the place structure of traji (i.e

> > > that x2 is the x4 of trajo and what happens to x2 and x3).

> >

> >x2 is {lo ka ce'u X}, x3 DITA :-)

>

> I won't pretend to understand what that means.

Dies In The Arse

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:42:32AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> It has, however, been the opinion of the founders that the YACC is

> the highest authority on Lojban grammaticality.

Sure, but I think that it's the YACC _grammar_ that's the highest authority,

not any particular parser that implements it. Am I wrong?

Specifically, does the Official YACC Grammar say "Thou shalt use one token of

lookahead" anywhere? Wouldn't it be possible to make a parser that implements

that grammer but uses infinite lookahead?

--

Rob Speer



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:12:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Just for the record, it can actually enforce local unambiguity to

> any degree you desire.

>

> There's no obvious best cutoff point, however.

As an example of global unambiguity that the PEG parser still disallows:

le nu le gerku cu batci da se viska mi

(you need a 'cu' before 'se viska')

--

Rob Speer



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:16 GMT

Rob Speer scripsit:

> > It has, however, been the opinion of the founders that the YACC is

> > the highest authority on Lojban grammaticality.

>

> Sure, but I think that it's the YACC _grammar_ that's the highest

> authority, not any particular parser that implements it. Am I wrong?

Correct.

> Specifically, does the Official YACC Grammar say "Thou shalt use one

> token of lookahead" anywhere? Wouldn't it be possible to make a parser

> that implements that grammer but uses infinite lookahead?

Yes, but it wouldn't be official, because the official grammar is a

Yacc (i.e. LALR(1)) grammar.

--

John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com

I must confess that I have very little notion of what [[s.%204%20of%20the%20British%0A%3Cbr%20/%3ETrade%20Marks%20Act,%201938|s. 4 of the British

Trade Marks Act, 1938]] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence

of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if

the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of

equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 17:52, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Precisely. Suggested definition:

> "sofybakni": literally, "Soviet bovine", a nonsense word with no defined

> place structure [[or%20with%20hypothetical%20place%20structure%20...%20-%20thereby%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20promoting%20jvajvo%20concepts|or with hypothetical place structure ... - thereby

> promoting jvajvo concepts]] used in the classic lojbanic cultural item

> random sentence? ...

The place structure is "x1 is a Soviet bovine of species/breed x2". What

animal that is, I don't know; I just flipped through Bovidae on Wikipedia

(omitting Antilopinae, which doesn't have an article, and Caprinae, which is

covered by {kanba} and {lanme}) and nothing jumped out at me.

phma

--

li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:03:58PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> Specifically, does the Official YACC Grammar say "Thou shalt use

> one token of lookahead" anywhere? Wouldn't it be possible to make

> a parser that implements that grammer but uses infinite lookahead?

YACC grammars, by definition, expect one token of look-ahead, but

that's not really relevant.

The YACC grammar, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't actually

parse Lojban, so the question is somewhat irrelevant. The whole

discussion, in fact. The YACC grammar simply doesn't work, period.

In particular, it doesn't implement elidable terminators in any

fashion whatsoever; that's left to attached C code.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:08:36PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:12:28AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > Just for the record, it can actually enforce local unambiguity

> > to any degree you desire.

> >

> > There's no obvious best cutoff point, however.

>

> As an example of global unambiguity that the PEG parser still

> disallows:

>

> le nu le gerku cu batci da se viska mi

>

> (you need a 'cu' before 'se viska')

You didn't actually test this, obviously.

prompt> echo "le nu le gerku cu batci da se viska mi" | myparser

Processing /dev/stdin ...

text

|- sumti6

| |- LE: le

| |- tanruUnit2

| | |- NU: nu

| | |- sumti6

| | | |- LE: le

| | | |- BRIVLA: gerku

| | |- CU: cu

| | |- bridiTail3

| | |- BRIVLA: batci

| | |- KOhA: da

| |- tanruUnit2

| |- SE: se

| |- BRIVLA: viska

|- KOhA: mi

The PEG's lookahead fu is strong.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:18 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:41:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > > > > > > * cmananba

> > > > > > > * sofybakni

> > > > > > * vamrai

> > > > > > * vamtolrai

> > > > > * selcra, sort of.

> > > > * fi'ortu'a

> > > > * glipre

> > > > * gligugde

> >

> > I do not consider it acceptable for *any* word used in basic

> > learning materials or BPFK documents to not be fully defined;

> > this is why I keep asking you to avoid compound cmavo.

>

> Compound cmavo are not single words! It's just a style of writing

> with no effect on meaning or pronunciation.

That's true, but it still confuses newbies. Please bear in mind

that I'm not talking about, or caring about, people who have read

the CLL in this discussion, or even people who have read all of

Nick's lessons.

> Lujvo is a different issue. I don't expect every lujvo I come

> across to appear in a dictionary!

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Well, maybe not;

I don't expect it of every lujvo on IRC, but I expect it in most

other cases. See

http://www.livejournal.com/users/camgusmis/2435.html for an example

of why.

> It would be extremely weird to have {sofybakni} appear in a

> dictionary, for example (unless we already consider the pangram

> that contains it as a lojbo cultural item).

We do now: http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/sofybakni

> {glipre}, {gligugde} and {fi'ortu'a} are taken from CLL.

Then they *really* need to be added. I'll go do that later today,

probably.

> {selcra} is too obvious

I disagree.

> {sofybakni} is absurd.

heh.

> Lujvo with -rai and -tolrai should be completely regular,

  • sigh*

That's not the point.

> so {vamrai} and {vamtolrai} would have obvious place structures

> too, namely:

>

> X-rai: x1 is/are the X-est among x2

> X-tolrai: x1 is/are the least X among x2

>

> {cmananba} might be worth adding, I'm just not sure how wide or

> narrow to make its meaning, and I'm not sure it's the best choice

> for "biscuit". I also hesitate between using cma as a prefix or as

> a suffix.

cracker, biscuit, cookie, is what I would go for. It's pretty

clearly a prefix, IMO.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:19 GMT posts: 1912


> Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Well, maybe not;

> I don't expect it of every lujvo on IRC, but I expect it in most

> other cases. See

> http://www.livejournal.com/users/camgusmis/2435.html for an example

> of why.

I certainly won't oppose anyone adding as many words as they want.

BTW, I don't get the {dai} in your response to broca there. Is it

supposed to indicate that the pity is directed to him? I think

it means it is shared with him, but he did not express pity.

> We do now: http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/sofybakni

OK. I'd give a plain definition "x1 is a Soviet cow of

species/breed x2" and then explain the rest in the notes. I

wouldn't define a word as a nonce word, and "something like"

sounds too informal.

> > {cmananba} might be worth adding, I'm just not sure how wide or

> > narrow to make its meaning, and I'm not sure it's the best choice

> > for "biscuit". I also hesitate between using cma as a prefix or as

> > a suffix.

>

> cracker, biscuit, cookie, is what I would go for. It's pretty

> clearly a prefix, IMO.

How would you define it in lojban?

{x1 cmalu lo ka ce'u nanba x2} or {x1 nanba x2 gi'e cmalu ...}

or something else?

I think the first one is the most direct, but then -cma would

clearly be a suffix.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:19 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 10:26:25PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> You didn't actually test this, obviously.

Darn it. I would swear that in a version of the PEG parser at one point, that

didn't parse. I didn't have access to it to test it at the time.

--

Rob Speer



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:28 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- Robin:

> > That seems a bit confusing to me. Not a serious problem, but I

> > wanted to make sure it's clear, and it needs to be made clear in

> > the definitions.

>

> I will add the clarification once we are settled.

>

> If I understand correctly, pc would prefer non-reified loi (which

> would just indicate non-distributivity) whereas John and Robin

> would rather go with reification (which is closer to what has been

> the traditional Lojban approach). I'm not sure if John agrees with

> the implications of reification for integer quantifiers. I don't

> have a preference either way. Anybody else wants to offer an

> opinion?

John does not have outbound e-mail right now, and asked me to send

this:

I'm troubled by the implication of the examples that "ro lo rozgu cu

xunre" can be read as "every rose is red". "lo rozgu" by itself

refers to some indeterminate number of roses; "ro" as an outer

quantifier would mean "all of that indeterminate number". So "xu ro

lo rozgu cu xunre"? Yes, no, maybe so; the listener can choose roses

as the referents of "lo rozgu" to make any answer plausible.

In short, "lo" with an outer but no inner quantifier should quantify

over everything that satisfies the predicate, not just some random

number of them. This is the CLL reading, and it should be preserved

because it's what is useful.

(Of course "ro rozgu" goes with "ro lo rozgu" in this respect.)

On another note, I think that a non-fractional outer quantifier for

lei and le'i should be interpreted as quantifying over several

groups or sets as the case may be, so "re lei rozgu" means "two

groups of roses." I'm uncertain whether this should apply to loi and

lo'i, but I think that it's consistent with the rules that it

should. This makes a discontinuity between fractional and

non-fractional outer quantifiers, but I can live with that.



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge

> Llamb?as wrote:

> > --- Robin:

> > > That seems a bit confusing to me. Not a

> serious problem, but I

> > > wanted to make sure it's clear, and it

> needs to be made clear in

> > > the definitions.

> >

> > I will add the clarification once we are

> settled.

> >

> > If I understand correctly, pc would prefer

> non-reified loi (which

> > would just indicate non-distributivity)

> whereas John and Robin

> > would rather go with reification (which is

> closer to what has been

> > the traditional Lojban approach). I'm not

> sure if John agrees with

> > the implications of reification for integer

> quantifiers. I don't

> > have a preference either way. Anybody else

> wants to offer an

> > opinion?

pc prefers plurals but recognizes that reified

{loi} and {lei} are needed for current Lojban.

He also notes that they are required for {lo} and

{le} if we are to be vaguely consistent.

> John does not have outbound e-mail right now,

> and asked me to send

> this:

>

> I'm troubled by the implication of the examples

> that "ro lo rozgu cu

> xunre" can be read as "every rose is red". "lo

> rozgu" by itself

> refers to some indeterminate number of roses;

> "ro" as an outer

> quantifier would mean "all of that

> indeterminate number". So "xu ro

> lo rozgu cu xunre"? Yes, no, maybe so; the

> listener can choose roses

> as the referents of "lo rozgu" to make any

> answer plausible.

Well, context will do quite a bit of the work.

Typically when {lo rozgu} is not about all roses

if is about the particular ones that are going to

play a role in the ongoing converation. These

are isolable, identifiable (as much as need be)

and can be checked for color. There are

probllems when something more general is

intended, but not problems that are not also

present in English "Roses are red," with which we

deal appropriately most of the time (including

what in Lojban would be changing the gadri or the

quantifications).

> In short, "lo" with an outer but no inner

> quantifier should quantify

> over everything that satisfies the predicate,

> not just some random

> number of them. This is the CLL reading, and

> it should be preserved

> because it's what is useful.

Whoa! Is this the same speaker as the previous

paragraph, in which he said that {lo rozgu}

refered to some indeterminate number of roses. I

took that to mean "some roses, indeterminate in

number" but also indeterminate in identity until

context applies. That is what is useful: a

contextually specified group of roses — maybe

all roses, maybe just a local few. This would be

hard to get on the old system (well, it is prolix

at least) whereas the old system is easy to get

in this one. And it is the one most used in

normal conversation — we rarely go all the way

up to all roses to get down to the ones at hand.

> (Of course "ro rozgu" goes with "ro lo rozgu"

> in this respect.)

>

> On another note, I think that a non-fractional

> outer quantifier for

> lei and le'i should be interpreted as

> quantifying over several

> groups or sets as the case may be, so "re lei

> rozgu" means "two

> groups of roses." I'm uncertain whether this

> should apply to loi and

> lo'i, but I think that it's consistent with the

> rules that it

> should. This makes a discontinuity between

> fractional and

> non-fractional outer quantifiers, but I can

> live with that.

Well, again, I think we are more likely to need

to talk about subgroups from a group than about

several groups of the same size., And the

discontinuity is annoying.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT posts: 1912


> John does not have outbound e-mail right now, and asked me to send

> this:

....

> In short, "lo" with an outer but no inner quantifier should quantify

> over everything that satisfies the predicate, not just some random

> number of them. This is the CLL reading, and it should be preserved

> because it's what is useful.

{lo broda} is not about some random number of broda, it is

always about the brodas of the context. That doesn't mean the ones

present where the conversation takes place, but the ones that the

conversation is about, of course. These might very well be all the

brodas of the universe that ever existed or ever will exist, but

they need not be that. The danger of definitions that talk about

"everything that satisfies the predicate" without any mention of

context is that we are led to believe that Lojban can only be used

to talk about the whole (actual) universe, and that is obviously

not the case. Lojban is as versatile as other languages, and we can

use the same words in different contexts to refer to different

things.

> On another note, I think that a non-fractional outer quantifier for

> lei and le'i should be interpreted as quantifying over several

> groups or sets as the case may be, so "re lei rozgu" means "two

> groups of roses."

Currently I have:

re lei rozgu = re gunma be le rozgu

Two groups of the roses.

i.e. two things, each of which is a group of the roses.

To refer to two particular groups of roses that I have in mind,

i.e. {le re gunma be lo rozgu} using mass gadri we'd have to say

{le re loi rozgu}.

> I'm uncertain whether this should apply to loi and

> lo'i, but I think that it's consistent with the rules that it

> should.

The way it is now it basically useful only with loi and lo'i:

{re loi rozgu} = {re gunma be lo rozgu} = two groups of roses.

{re lo'i rozgu} = {re selcmi be lo rozgu enai lo na rozgu}

= two sets of roses. For {lei} and {le'i} it is not so useful

because usually there is only one interesting {lo gunma be

le broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:29 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > John does not have outbound e-mail right now,

> and asked me to send

> > this:

> ...

> > In short, "lo" with an outer but no inner

> quantifier should quantify

> > over everything that satisfies the predicate,

> not just some random

> > number of them. This is the CLL reading, and

> it should be preserved

> > because it's what is useful.

>

> {lo broda} is not about some random number of

> broda, it is

> always about the brodas of the context. That

> doesn't mean the ones

> present where the conversation takes place, but

> the ones that the

> conversation is about, of course. These might

> very well be all the

> brodas of the universe that ever existed or

> ever will exist, but

> they need not be that. The danger of

> definitions that talk about

> "everything that satisfies the predicate"

> without any mention of

> context is that we are led to believe that

> Lojban can only be used

> to talk about the whole (actual) universe, and

> that is obviously

> not the case. Lojban is as versatile as other

> languages, and we can

> use the same words in different contexts to

> refer to different

> things.

Amen. A typical use of {lo broda} — the first

time in a conversation — is to introduce into

the context that particular group of broda (or

those particular brodas in plural talk). This

contrasts with {le broda} which takes things

already in the context (explicitly or implicitly)

and put a tag on them: "A man walks into a bar

and says to the bartender..." stars with {lo

nanmu} and {lo barja} since they come out of

nowhere, but once we have a bar, the bartender is

there with {le}.



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:30 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> Amen. A typical use of {lo broda} — the first time in a conversation

> — is to introduce into the context that particular group of broda

> (or those particular brodas in plural talk). This contrasts with

> {le broda} which takes things already in the context (explicitly or

> implicitly) and put a tag on them: "A man walks into a bar and says

> to the bartender..." stars with {lo nanmu} and {lo barja} since they

> come out of nowhere, but once we have a bar, the bartender is there

> with {le}.

IMHO all such uses should be "le"; the first can be "le bi'u" if you

want to be careful. "The" is +definite (the listener is expected to

know the referent), but "le" is +specific (the speaker knows the referent

and is the authority on it), but may be -definite, so it represents

not only "the man" (+specific +definite) but "a certain man"

(+specific -definite), depending on context.

--

Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the John Cowan

portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see [email protected]

it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical, www.ccil.org/~cowan

epical or dramatic? If a man hacking in fury www.reutershealth.com

at a block of wood make there an image of a cow,

is that image a work of art? If not, why not? --Stephen Dedalus



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:30 GMT posts: 2388


> John E Clifford scripsit:

>

> > Amen. A typical use of {lo broda} — the

> first time in a conversation

> > — is to introduce into the context that

> particular group of broda

> > (or those particular brodas in plural talk).

> This contrasts with

> > {le broda} which takes things already in the

> context (explicitly or

> > implicitly) and put a tag on them: "A man

> walks into a bar and says

> > to the bartender..." stars with {lo nanmu}

> and {lo barja} since they

> > come out of nowhere, but once we have a bar,

> the bartender is there

> > with {le}.

>

> IMHO all such uses should be "le"; the first

> can be "le bi'u" if you

> want to be careful. "The" is +definite (the

> listener is expected to

> know the referent), but "le" is +specific (the

> speaker knows the referent

> and is the authority on it), but may be

> -definite, so it represents

> not only "the man" (+specific +definite) but "a

> certain man"

> (+specific -definite), depending on context.

>

Thanks; I always have trouble remembering how

those two interrelate. Yes, {le} is not reliably

"the," though that is a good guess in most cases.

Can the nonspecific {lo} also be definite? I

should think not (why would the hearer have

knowledge of what the speaker is talking about

that the speaker did not have?). But I am not

sure that the specific-not axis is the right (or

only anyhow) divider between {le} and {lo}, if it

has the effect your suggest. I any event, I

think that using {le} for a totally new figure in

a conversation is liable to be misleading, even

if the specificity conditon is met. What is the

hearer to make of it — it is not there in his

context to be picked out, as {le} presumably

requires. This needs some more work, surely.

("a certain" in English is a context leaper, a

particular quantifier that comes from the depths

of a sentence to first place. I doubt that {le}

often functions in this way, though it may.)



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT posts: 2388


> Re: BPFK Section: gadri

>

> {lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja} can be translated

> into English

> in many different ways:

>

> A man enters a bar

> Men enter a bar

> A man enters bars

> Men enter bars

> Men entered a bar

>

> and so on. Sometimes it will make little

> difference, for example

> "It happens all the time that a man enters a

> bar" and

> "it happens all the time that men enter bars"

> are hardly

> different. In other cases we need more context

> to determine

> what the best translation is.

>

> Similarly, "a man walks into a bar" can be

> translated in many

> different ways into Lojban:

>

> lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja

> le nanmu cu nerkla lo barja

> lo nanmu cu nerkla le barja

> le nanmu cu nerkla le barja

> le bi'u pa nanmu cu nerkla le bi'u pa barja

>

> and so on. There is no Right Translation, it

> depends on the

> context, and sometimes it won't make much

> difference. I would

> use {le nanmu} when the story is about the man,

> and {le barja}

> when the story is about the bar. If the bar is

> just part of the

> scenery, I would use {lo barja}. If the man is

> just part of the

> scenery, I would use {lo nanmu} (for example,

> "a man walks

> into a bar, then another man walks in, then

> another one, and

> soon the bar is so crowded that ..." In this

> case the speaker

> doesn't have a certain man in mind, so {lo

> nanmu} would

> make more sense.

>

> So there is no one-to-one correspondence

> between English and

> Lojban sentences, nothing new about that.

>

> In logic terms, I would write {lo nanmu cu

> nerkla lo barja}

> as nerkla(N, B-), where N and B are constants.

> The negation

> of that would be ¬nerkla(N,B) wherever in the

> sentence naku

> appears, because there is nothing to interact

> with the negation.

I imagine that there are cases where this is

appropriate — or something very like it. But it

is surely not right for every occurrence of {lo},

as the variety of English translations

suggests. In particular, however, the negation

transparency proposed works only sporadically, if

at all. To be sure, once we have our lo broda

established, then it is more often the case that

the negation moves about freely, but even then it

is not completely reliable (if several things are

involved, they may not all act in lockstep, so

that even though it is not the case that they do

x it is also not the case that they do not-x:

some do and some don't.

> I undestand pc would rather write it as:

> [Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

>

> where Q is a complex quantifier, maybe context

> dependant.

In particular, this is in terms of plural logic

and so the predication needs to be specified

distributive or collective in each case. In

singular logic, the Q would cover a

quantification over groups and some remarks about

the size of the group and aboout how the

"members" (what do we call the things that

comprise a group?) of the group are related to

the predication. I now (this is too new to me to

be fully absorbed) think that either essentially

or practically, the existential portion of this

gets immediately instantiated (the mathematical

"there is a point, call it a") in most cases (the

source of much of xorxes' "constant," I now

think).

> In this case, naku might have different effects

> depending on

> where it appears in the sentence:

>

> ¬[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

> [Qx: nanmu(x)] ¬[Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

> [Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] ¬nerkla(x,y)

>

> These may or may not be equivalent depending on

> what Q is.

> Some quantifiers commute with negation, most

> don't.

>

Yes, generally not, as one would normally expect:

If it is not the case that a man walked into a

bar, it does not follow that a non-man walked

into a bar or a man walked into a non-bar or, for

that matter that a man non-walked into a bar or

any of the further complications. And that is

the easy case, with all singular terms.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> > In logic terms, I would write {lo nanmu cu

> > nerkla lo barja}

> > as nerkla(N, B-), where N and B are constants.

> > The negation

> > of that would be ¬nerkla(N,B) wherever in the

> > sentence naku

> > appears, because there is nothing to interact

> > with the negation.

>

> I imagine that there are cases where this is

> appropriate — or something very like it. But it

> is surely not right for every occurrence of {lo},

> as the variety of English translations

> suggests.

Yes, that's how I would handle every occurrence of {lo}.

The variety of English translations correspond to the

different constants that would apply in different contexts.

> In particular, however, the negation

> transparency proposed works only sporadically, if

> at all.

When does it not work?

> > In this case, naku might have different effects

> > depending on

> > where it appears in the sentence:

> >

> > ¬[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

> > [Qx: nanmu(x)] ¬[Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

> > [Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] ¬nerkla(x,y)

> >

> > These may or may not be equivalent depending on

> > what Q is.

> > Some quantifiers commute with negation, most

> > don't.

> >

> Yes, generally not, as one would normally expect:

> If it is not the case that a man walked into a

> bar, it does not follow that a non-man walked

> into a bar or a man walked into a non-bar

What do non-men and non-bars got to do with anything.

None of the three expressions have to do with non-men

or non-bars.

> or, for

> that matter that a man non-walked into a bar or

> any of the further complications. And that is

> the easy case, with all singular terms.

If you are taking Q as {su'o}, (i.e. what CLL does),

you would have:

1- It is not the case that any man walks into any bar

2- There is a man that doesn't walk into any bar

3- There is some man and some bar such that the man

does not walk into the bar

Nothing about non-men, non-bars, or non-walkings.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:31 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > > In logic terms, I would write {lo nanmu cu

> > > nerkla lo barja}

> > > as nerkla(N, B-), where N and B are

> constants.

> > > The negation

> > > of that would be ¬nerkla(N,B) wherever in

> the

> > > sentence naku

> > > appears, because there is nothing to

> interact

> > > with the negation.

> >

> > I imagine that there are cases where this is

> > appropriate — or something very like it.

> But it

> > is surely not right for every occurrence of

> {lo},

> > as the variety of English translations

> > suggests.

>

> Yes, that's how I would handle every occurrence

> of {lo}.

> The variety of English translations correspond

> to the

> different constants that would apply in

> different contexts.

>

> > In particular, however, the negation

> > transparency proposed works only

> sporadically, if

> > at all.

>

> When does it not work?

We seem to have different intuitions here. For

me, if I deny that some group does a think, I am

not thereby committed to the group doing

something else, merely that some "members" don't

do it — others may very well. I have a harder

time getting a case of your sort, though I

suppose there must be some. To be sure, if the

"group" has only 1 member, we get the

equ8valence. The case of collective activities

is even harder to piece out; "not-surround the

building" seems to involve too many

presuppositions to be readily worked out — did

they try to surround the building, did they fail

although they had the resources to succeed or did

they lack the resources, whether they tried or

not? If only some of them tried, did the whole

not-surround? And so on. Similarly (though

somewhat simmpler), if the students are not

classmates (because some of them went to

different schools or graduated in different years

or whatever) is the whole group -non-classmates

-- even though some subgroups are classmates. I

suspect some of this is definitional, in which

case my defining would go against the claim that

the whole group are non-classmates. I'd be

tempted to say that best one can get from {naku

lo broda cu brode} would be {su'o lo broda naku

brode} — but that is trivial for collective

predication, even from {lo broda cu C-brode}. As

usual, I see no difference in all of these for

{le} or {loi} or {lei} (taking the i forms as

collective). But then I haven't seen the

compelling cases for the other view yet (putting

them in Lojban hardly helps, since I just read

them differently and deny the equivalence).

> > > In this case, naku might have different

> effects

> > > depending on

> > > where it appears in the sentence:

> > >

> > > ¬[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)]

> nerkla(x,y)

> > > [Qx: nanmu(x)] ¬[Qy: barja(y)]

> nerkla(x,y)

> > > [Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)]

> ¬nerkla(x,y)

> > >

> > > These may or may not be equivalent

> depending on

> > > what Q is.

> > > Some quantifiers commute with negation,

> most

> > > don't.

> > >

> > Yes, generally not, as one would normally

> expect:

> > If it is not the case that a man walked into

> a

> > bar, it does not follow that a non-man walked

> > into a bar or a man walked into a non-bar

>

> What do non-men and non-bars got to do with

> anything.

> None of the three expressions have to do with

> non-men

> or non-bars.

>

> > or, for

> > that matter that a man non-walked into a bar

> or

> > any of the further complications. And that

> is

> > the easy case, with all singular terms.

>

> If you are taking Q as {su'o}, (i.e. what CLL

> does),

> you would have:

>

> 1- It is not the case that any man walks into

> any bar

> 2- There is a man that doesn't walk into any

> bar

> 3- There is some man and some bar such that the

> man

> does not walk into the bar

>

> Nothing about non-men, non-bars, or

> non-walkings.

Well, I was pushing the negation everywhere it

could go in the hope of finding something for

which your move worked. All I found along the

way were cases where you could say {lo broda cu

brode ije lo broda cu naku brode} truthfully and

that didn't seem to meet the problem (though it

created some of its own, obviously)

I will admit that I am less that satisfied with

the way that my version of {lo broda} behaves

under negation, but that does not mean that

negation transparency is better. Of course, in

most cases my {lo broda} is enough more

complicates than what is offered here that some

loopholes might yet emerge.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> We seem to have different intuitions here. For

> me, if I deny that some group does a think, I am

> not thereby committed to the group doing

> something else, merely that some "members" don't

> do it — others may very well.

I definitely agree with the first part: denying that a group,

or anything else for that matter, does something does not

commit one to the group doing something else.

(But you sometimes seem to say that {ko'a naku broda} says

that ko'a does something, when all it says is that it

doesn't do something.)

As for the second part, saying something about a group usually

indirectly says something about its members, but what that is

is not generalizable to all we say about any group. Different

cases are different.

> The case of collective activities

> is even harder to piece out; "not-surround the

> building" seems to involve too many

> presuppositions to be readily worked out — did

> they try to surround the building, did they fail

> although they had the resources to succeed or did

> they lack the resources, whether they tried or

> not?

In any of those cases, they did not surround it. But that doesn't

mean they did do something called "not-surround".

> If only some of them tried, did the whole

> not-surround?

The whole didn't surround. I'm not sure why you write "not-surround"

as if it was a new predicate.

> And so on. Similarly (though

> somewhat simmpler), if the students are not

> classmates (because some of them went to

> different schools or graduated in different years

> or whatever) is the whole group -non-classmates

> — even though some subgroups are classmates.

No. If John and Paul are classmates, and Peter and Robert

are classmates but not with John and Paul, then

John, Paul, Peter and Robert are not classmates.

> I

> suspect some of this is definitional, in which

> case my defining would go against the claim that

> the whole group are non-classmates.

Do you mean {na'e-classmates}?

> > Nothing about non-men, non-bars, or

> > non-walkings.

>

> Well, I was pushing the negation everywhere it

> could go in the hope of finding something for

> which your move worked.

{lo na nanmu} and {lo na barja} might give non-men

and non-bars. But you can't really use naku to turn

the main selbri into a new "non-" relationship.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > We seem to have different intuitions here.

> For

> > me, if I deny that some group does a think, I

> am

> > not thereby committed to the group doing

> > something else, merely that some "members"

> don't

> > do it — others may very well.

>

> I definitely agree with the first part: denying

> that a group,

> or anything else for that matter, does

> something does not

> commit one to the group doing something else.

>

> (But you sometimes seem to say that {ko'a naku

> broda} says

> that ko'a does something, when all it says

> is that it

> doesn't do something.)

No, it says it does something negative. On

initial {naku} (medial {na}) only denies that it

does something positive.

> As for the second part, saying something about

> a group usually

> indirectly says something about its members,

> but what that is

> is not generalizable to all we say about any

> group. Different

> cases are different.

True. Which ones are transparent?

>

> > The case of collective activities

> > is even harder to piece out; "not-surround

> the

> > building" seems to involve too many

> > presuppositions to be readily worked out --

> did

> > they try to surround the building, did they

> fail

> > although they had the resources to succeed or

> did

> > they lack the resources, whether they tried

> or

> > not?

>

> In any of those cases, they did not surround

> it. But that doesn't

> mean they did do something called

> "not-surround".

My point exactly.

> > If only some of them tried, did the whole

> > not-surround?

>

> The whole didn't surround. I'm not sure why you

> write "not-surround"

> as if it was a new predicate.

Because it is in effect a new predicate. Maybe

not noticing this is why you think that

descriptions are transparent, though I don't

quite see how.

> > And so on. Similarly (though

> > somewhat simmpler), if the students are not

> > classmates (because some of them went to

> > different schools or graduated in different

> years

> > or whatever) is the whole group

> -non-classmates

> > — even though some subgroups are classmates.

>

>

> No. If John and Paul are classmates, and Peter

> and Robert

> are classmates but not with John and Paul, then

> John, Paul, Peter and Robert are not

> classmates.

I suppose you mean "Yes," if you are being

consistent.

> > I

> > suspect some of this is definitional, in

> which

> > case my defining would go against the claim

> that

> > the whole group are non-classmates.

>

> Do you mean {na'e-classmates}?

That two, though a different claim.

> > > Nothing about non-men, non-bars, or

> > > non-walkings.

> >

> > Well, I was pushing the negation everywhere

> it

> > could go in the hope of finding something for

> > which your move worked.

>

> {lo na nanmu} and {lo na barja} might give

> non-men

> and non-bars. But you can't really use naku to

> turn

> the main selbri into a new "non-" relationship.

Well, yes I can and necessarily, too. But not

one that follows from a sentential negation when

a descriptor intervenes.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:32 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> --- Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > (But you sometimes seem to say that {ko'a naku

> > broda} says

> > that ko'a does something, when all it says

> > is that it

> > doesn't do something.)

>

> No, it says it does something negative. On

> initial {naku} (medial {na}) only denies that it

> does something positive.

How do you make the distinction in logical notation?

Does -F(a) correspond to a doing something negative,

or a not doing something? How do you represent the

other?

> > As for the second part, saying something about

> > a group usually

> > indirectly says something about its members,

> > but what that is

> > is not generalizable to all we say about any

> > group. Different

> > cases are different.

>

> True. Which ones are transparent?

If transparent means context independent, I don't think any

case is. Or at least I don't have any theory about it.

> > > If only some of them tried, did the whole

> > > not-surround?

> >

> > The whole didn't surround. I'm not sure why you

> > write "not-surround"

> > as if it was a new predicate.

>

> Because it is in effect a new predicate. Maybe

> not noticing this is why you think that

> descriptions are transparent, though I don't

> quite see how.

But is there any difference in saying of some argument

that predicate P does not hold or saying that predicate

not-P holds?

> > No. If John and Paul are classmates, and Peter

> > and Robert

> > are classmates but not with John and Paul, then

> > John, Paul, Peter and Robert are not

> > classmates.

>

> I suppose you mean "Yes," if you are being

> consistent.

No, I do mean "No". In Lojban:

ko'a jo'u ko'e e ke ko'i jo'u ko'o cu -classmates

= ko'a jo'u ko'e cu -classmates ije ko'i jo'u ko'o cu -classmates

does not entail:

ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o cu -classmates

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:33 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > --- Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > > (But you sometimes seem to say that {ko'a

> naku

> > > broda} says

> > > that ko'a does something, when all it

> says

> > > is that it

> > > doesn't do something.)

> >

> > No, it says it does something negative. On

> > initial {naku} (medial {na}) only denies that

> it

> > does something positive.

>

> How do you make the distinction in logical

> notation?

> Does -F(a) correspond to a doing something

> negative,

> or a not doing something? How do you represent

> the

> other?

Various devices (since standard logic is

singular, it only occasionally needs to make the

distinction): In the older tradition, there was

the overline and '. If we purt at least one

argument before the predicate we can distinguish

x~F from ~xF but of course the standard is

\x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and // the mark for

application.

>

> > > As for the second part, saying something

> about

> > > a group usually

> > > indirectly says something about its

> members,

> > > but what that is

> > > is not generalizable to all we say about

> any

> > > group. Different

> > > cases are different.

> >

> > True. Which ones are transparent?

>

> If transparent means context independent, I

> don't think any

> case is. Or at least I don't have any theory

> about it.

No, I meant where does the negation pass through

with out overt effects.

>

> > > > If only some of them tried, did the whole

> > > > not-surround?

> > >

> > > The whole didn't surround. I'm not sure why

> you

> > > write "not-surround"

> > > as if it was a new predicate.

> >

> > Because it is in effect a new predicate.

> Maybe

> > not noticing this is why you think that

> > descriptions are transparent, though I don't

> > quite see how.

>

> But is there any difference in saying of some

> argument

> that predicate P does not hold or saying that

> predicate

> not-P holds?

Well, if you put it that way, it is less clear,

but I don't know just how you would say that.

Perhaps {lo broda zo'u naku by brode}. I was

talking about the difference between {naku lo

broda cu brode} and {lo broda cu naku brode}.

The former does not say of lo broda that it does

not brode, it denies the whole sentence

including, any claims about lo broda being real

and identified as such and such. So it does not

assert a predicate to *hold of* anything. I think

the prenex form and the second of the pair are

equivalent, but that needs a bit of working

through.

> > > No. If John and Paul are classmates, and

> Peter

> > > and Robert

> > > are classmates but not with John and Paul,

> then

> > > John, Paul, Peter and Robert are not

> > > classmates.

> >

> > I suppose you mean "Yes," if you are being

> > consistent.

>

> No, I do mean "No". In Lojban:

>

> ko'a jo'u ko'e e ke ko'i jo'u ko'o cu

> -classmates

> = ko'a jo'u ko'e cu -classmates ije ko'i jo'u

> ko'o cu -classmates

>

> does not entail:

>

> ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o cu

> -classmates

>

I agree with that, but the thing you were saying

"no" to was not that case but rather

"if the students are not

classmates (because some of them went to

different schools or graduated in different years

or whatever) is the whole group -non-classmates

-- even though some subgroups are classmates. I

suspect some of this is definitional, in which

case my defining would go against the claim that

the whole group are non-classmates." Here, we

have {naku loi tadni cu classmates} clearly.

Your principle seemed to me then to require that

implied {loi tadni cu naku classmates}. Now I

am not so sure, since your principle seems to

have faded away somewhere, leaving the notion of

negation transparency aside (quite rightly, too),

though I expect it to reemerge at some other

place.

The other possible point might be to question

whether {naku ko'a jo'u ko'i classmates}

entails {naku ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o

cu classmates}. I think it has to by the logic

of "classmates", which is non-cumulative, but

functions pairwise (opposite of "surrounds").



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:33 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Various devices (since standard logic is

> singular, it only occasionally needs to make the

> distinction): In the older tradition, there was

> the overline and '. If we purt at least one

> argument before the predicate we can distinguish

> x~F from ~xF but of course the standard is

> \x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and // the mark for

> application.

As opposed to ~ \xFx//a, where ~ negates the // ?

> > > > As for the second part, saying something

> > about

> > > > a group usually

> > > > indirectly says something about its

> > members,

> > > > but what that is

> > > > is not generalizable to all we say about

> > any

> > > > group. Different

> > > > cases are different.

> > >

> > > True. Which ones are transparent?

> >

> > If transparent means context independent, I

> > don't think any

> > case is. Or at least I don't have any theory

> > about it.

>

> No, I meant where does the negation pass through

> with out overt effects.

But this doesn't relate to the question of what we can

say about the members from a statement about a group.

If b is a member of a, and F(a) is true, there is nothing

that we can conclude in general about b. F(a) does not

tell us whether F(b) is true or not. This is independent

of negation transparency.

> > But is there any difference in saying of some

> > argument

> > that predicate P does not hold or saying that

> > predicate

> > not-P holds?

>

> Well, if you put it that way, it is less clear,

> but I don't know just how you would say that.

I suppose with the above notation, those would be

\x~Fx//a

We say of a that not-F holds.

\y ~(\xFx//y) //a

We say of a, that it is not the case that F holds of it.

> Perhaps {lo broda zo'u naku by brode}. I was

> talking about the difference between {naku lo

> broda cu brode} and {lo broda cu naku brode}.

Right. I can't still see how they could differ, when {lo broda}

is a constant.

> The former does not say of lo broda that it does

> not brode, it denies the whole sentence

> including, any claims about lo broda being real

> and identified as such and such.

I do understand the difference when {lo broda} is taken

as a quantified term.

> So it does not

> assert a predicate to *hold of* anything. I think

> the prenex form and the second of the pair are

> equivalent, but that needs a bit of working

> through.

Yes, I understand that for you {lo broda} does not

strictly refer (although it can provide a referent by

indirect means), and therefore {naku lo broda cu brode}

is not a claim about the referent of {lo broda}, because

there is no such thing.

> > ko'a jo'u ko'e e ke ko'i jo'u ko'o cu

> > -classmates

> > = ko'a jo'u ko'e cu -classmates ije ko'i jo'u

> > ko'o cu -classmates

> >

> > does not entail:

> >

> > ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o cu

> > -classmates

> >

> I agree with that, but the thing you were saying

> "no" to was not that case but rather

>

> "if the students are not

> classmates (because some of them went to

> different schools or graduated in different years

> or whatever) is the whole group -non-classmates

> — even though some subgroups are classmates. I

> suspect some of this is definitional, in which

> case my defining would go against the claim that

> the whole group are non-classmates." Here, we

> have {naku loi tadni cu classmates} clearly.

> Your principle seemed to me then to require that

> implied {loi tadni cu naku classmates}.

Indeed. {ko'a jo'u ko'i naku -classmates} entails

{ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o naku -classmates},

even though {ko'a jo'u ko'e ja'aku -classmates}, by the

logic of "classmates", not for any general broda.

> Now I

> am not so sure, since your principle seems to

> have faded away somewhere, leaving the notion of

> negation transparency aside (quite rightly, too),

> though I expect it to reemerge at some other

> place.

I certainly have not abandoned negation transparency for

constants, and I interpret every not overtly quantified

term as a constant.

> The other possible point might be to question

> whether {naku ko'a jo'u ko'i classmates}

> entails {naku ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o

> cu classmates}. I think it has to by the logic

> of "classmates", which is non-cumulative, but

> functions pairwise (opposite of "surrounds").

Yes.

But I take:

ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i naku -classmates

and

naku ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i -classmates

to say the same thing, namely that classmates(a) does not

hold, where "a" refers to the three students.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:34 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > Various devices (since standard logic is

> > singular, it only occasionally needs to make

> the

> > distinction): In the older tradition, there

> was

> > the overline and '. If we purt at least one

> > argument before the predicate we can

> distinguish

> > x~F from ~xF but of course the standard is

> > \x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and // the mark

> for

> > application.

>

> As opposed to ~ \xFx//a, where ~ negates the //

> ?

Yes.

> > > > > As for the second part, saying

> something

> > > about

> > > > > a group usually

> > > > > indirectly says something about its

> > > members,

> > > > > but what that is

> > > > > is not generalizable to all we say

> about

> > > any

> > > > > group. Different

> > > > > cases are different.

> > > >

> > > > True. Which ones are transparent?

> > >

> > > If transparent means context independent, I

> > > don't think any

> > > case is. Or at least I don't have any

> theory

> > > about it.

> >

> > No, I meant where does the negation pass

> through

> > with out overt effects.

>

> But this doesn't relate to the question of what

> we can

> say about the members from a statement about a

> group.

> If b is a member of a, and F(a) is true, there

> is nothing

> that we can conclude in general about b.

> F(a) does not

> tell us whether F(b) is true or not. This is

> independent

> of negation transparency.

Well, for example, if F(a) is a case of

distributive predication, then F(b) as well. If

F(a) is collective then we get at least that a is

involved in Fing.

> > > But is there any difference in saying of

> some

> > > argument

> > > that predicate P does not hold or saying

> that

> > > predicate

> > > not-P holds?

> >

> > Well, if you put it that way, it is less

> clear,

> > but I don't know just how you would say that.

>

>

> I suppose with the above notation, those would

> be

>

> \x~Fx//a

>

> We say of a that not-F holds.

>

> \y ~(\xFx//y) //a

That is a horror, though legal I guess.

> We say of a, that it is not the case that F

> holds of it.

>

> > Perhaps {lo broda zo'u naku by brode}. I was

> > talking about the difference between {naku lo

> > broda cu brode} and {lo broda cu naku brode}.

>

>

> Right. I can't still see how they could differ,

> when {lo broda}

> is a constant.

Well, of course that is part of the issue — what

you mean by constant. I have trouble seeing

constant in any other sense than having the same

referent at all occurrences in a given context

(and I have some mild doubts about even that).

That seems to do nothing to aid negation

transfer: {naku le broda cu brode} gives the same

referent to {le broda} as does {le broda cu naku

brode}, but they still aren't equivalent.

> > The former does not say of lo broda that it

> does

> > not brode, it denies the whole sentence

> > including, any claims about lo broda being

> real

> > and identified as such and such.

>

> I do understand the difference when {lo broda}

> is taken

> as a quantified term.

Not quite sure what you mean. If {lo broda} is

"Ex: x GroupAy: y in x y broda" for excample,

then obviously negation passage will affect what

is said using whichever negation transfer rules

you choose.

> > So it does not

> > assert a predicate to *hold of* anything. I

> think

> > the prenex form and the second of the pair

> are

> > equivalent, but that needs a bit of working

> > through.

>

> Yes, I understand that for you {lo broda} does

> not

> strictly refer (although it can provide a

> referent by

> indirect means), and therefore {naku lo broda

> cu brode}

> is not a claim about the referent of {lo

> broda}, because

> there is no such thing.

Yes, that is sometimes a problem, from which I

infer that {lo broda} may mean somewhat different

things in different contexts. But I have not

worked out the details for the odd cases (not

every negation is a problem, for example) yet. I

was hoping this discussion would turn something

up, but it hasn't so far.

> > > ko'a jo'u ko'e e ke ko'i jo'u ko'o cu

> > > -classmates

> > > = ko'a jo'u ko'e cu -classmates ije ko'i

> jo'u

> > > ko'o cu -classmates

> > >

> > > does not entail:

> > >

> > > ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o cu

> > > -classmates

> > >

> > I agree with that, but the thing you were

> saying

> > "no" to was not that case but rather

> >

> > "if the students are not

> > classmates (because some of them went to

> > different schools or graduated in different

> years

> > or whatever) is the whole group

> -non-classmates

> > — even though some subgroups are classmates.

> I

> > suspect some of this is definitional, in

> which

> > case my defining would go against the claim

> that

> > the whole group are non-classmates." Here,

> we

> > have {naku loi tadni cu classmates}

> clearly.

> > Your principle seemed to me then to require

> that

> > implied {loi tadni cu naku classmates}.

>

> Indeed. {ko'a jo'u ko'i naku -classmates}

> entails

> {ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o naku

> -classmates},

> even though {ko'a jo'u ko'e ja'aku

> -classmates}, by the

> logic of "classmates", not for any general

> broda.

>

Yes, this is about "classmates", not, for

example, "surround." And the inference does go

as you suggest in that case. And this latter

intails {naku ko'a jou' ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u ko'o

classmates, now I think on general

considerations.

> > Now I

> > am not so sure, since your principle seems to

> > have faded away somewhere, leaving the notion

> of

> > negation transparency aside (quite rightly,

> too),

> > though I expect it to reemerge at some other

> > place.

>

> I certainly have not abandoned negation

> transparency for

> constants, and I interpret every not overtly

> quantified

> term as a constant.

Yes you do, but that just doesn't work. The

possibility of empty sets alone should be enough

to convince you of that. But even if the group

(or whatever) exists, if fail a property in other

ways than having the complement property just by

having its members not behave uniformly (in some

ratio — take your pick).

> > The other possible point might be to question

> > whether {naku ko'a jo'u ko'i classmates}

> > entails {naku ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i jo'u

> ko'o

> > cu classmates}. I think it has to by the

> logic

> > of "classmates", which is non-cumulative, but

> > functions pairwise (opposite of "surrounds").

>

> Yes.

>

> But I take:

>

> ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i naku -classmates

>

> and

>

> naku ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i -classmates

>

> to say the same thing, namely that

> classmates(a) does not

> hold, where "a" refers to the three students.

You mean the group of them, but I know what the

point is. Suppose {ko'a jo'u ko'e classmates}

and {ko'a cu ko'i naku classmates} and

(automatically, by the logic of "classmates,"

which is symmetric, {ko'e jo'u ko'i naku

classmates}. Then clearly the group are not

(na) classmates, since one of them is not. But

equally, it is not non-classmates, since two

members are classmates. If you don't like this

distribution, pick another; the result is always

the same.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:34 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> > > \x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and // the mark

> > > for application.

> >

> > As opposed to ~ \xFx//a, where ~ negates the //

> > ?

>

> Yes.

So "Fa" and "\xFx//a" are not materially equivalent?

> > > I was

> > > talking about the difference between {naku lo

> > > broda cu brode} and {lo broda cu naku brode}.

> >

> >

> > Right. I can't still see how they could differ,

> > when {lo broda} is a constant.

>

> Well, of course that is part of the issue — what

> you mean by constant. I have trouble seeing

> constant in any other sense than having the same

> referent at all occurrences in a given context

> (and I have some mild doubts about even that).

> That seems to do nothing to aid negation

> transfer: {naku le broda cu brode} gives the same

> referent to {le broda} as does {le broda cu naku

> brode}, but they still aren't equivalent.

That's what I don't understand. How can those two differ,

when {le broda} has a fixed referent?

> > I do understand the difference when {lo broda}

> > is taken

> > as a quantified term.

>

> Not quite sure what you mean. If {lo broda} is

> "Ex: x GroupAy: y in x y broda" for excample,

I think that would be:

[Ex: x Group & [[Ay: y in x] y broda]

Otherwise it looks like a full sentence. (The double [

are just for the wiki.)

> then obviously negation passage will affect what

> is said using whichever negation transfer rules

> you choose.

Indeed. We are agreed about that. If {lo broda}

ia a quantified term, then indeed it is affected

by negation transfer.

> > I certainly have not abandoned negation

> > transparency for

> > constants, and I interpret every not overtly

> > quantified

> > term as a constant.

>

> Yes you do, but that just doesn't work. The

> possibility of empty sets alone should be enough

> to convince you of that.

With {lo broda} as a constant, if {lo broda} fails to refer

then {lo broda cu brode} is not a claim. It is not just

false. Empty sets do not enter into it.

> But even if the group

> (or whatever) exists, if fail a property in other

> ways than having the complement property just by

> having its members not behave uniformly (in some

> ratio — take your pick).

You are saying that a group (or a rope, for that matter)

can surround a building, fail to surround a building, or

do something in between. I'm saying it either surrounds

it or it doesn't.

> Suppose {ko'a jo'u ko'e classmates}

> and {ko'a cu ko'i naku classmates} and

> (automatically, by the logic of "classmates,"

> which is symmetric, {ko'e jo'u ko'i naku

> classmates}.

OK.

> Then clearly the group are not

> (na) classmates, since one of them is not.

The three are not classmates, right. It is not the case

that the three are classmates.

> But

> equally, it is not non-classmates, since two

> members are classmates.

What do you mean by non-classmates?

If you define "X are non-classmates" as "for every

Y among X, it is not the case that Y are classmates",

then sure it is not the case that the three are

non-classmates.

But that definition of "non-classmates" in no way

corresponds to {naku classmates}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:35 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > > > \x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and // the

> mark

> > > > for application.

> > >

> > > As opposed to ~ \xFx//a, where ~ negates

> the //

> > > ?

> >

> > Yes.

>

> So "Fa" and "\xFx//a" are not materially

> equivalent?

I am not sure how you made that leap, but in fact

these two are materially equivalent (in fact they

are necessarily — definitionally — equivalent.

> > > > I was

> > > > talking about the difference between

> {naku lo

> > > > broda cu brode} and {lo broda cu naku

> brode}.

> > >

> > >

> > > Right. I can't still see how they could

> differ,

> > > when {lo broda} is a constant.

> >

> > Well, of course that is part of the issue --

> what

> > you mean by constant. I have trouble seeing

> > constant in any other sense than having the

> same

> > referent at all occurrences in a given

> context

> > (and I have some mild doubts about even

> that).

> > That seems to do nothing to aid negation

> > transfer: {naku le broda cu brode} gives the

> same

> > referent to {le broda} as does {le broda cu

> naku

> > brode}, but they still aren't equivalent.

>

> That's what I don't understand. How can those

> two differ,

> when {le broda} has a fixed referent?

As I say later, the referent is the same, how the

referent applies to the predicate is different.

> > > I do understand the difference when {lo

> broda}

> > > is taken

> > > as a quantified term.

> >

> > Not quite sure what you mean. If {lo broda}

> is

> > "Ex: x GroupAy: y in x y broda" for

> excample,

>

> I think that would be:

>

> [Ex: x Group & [[Ay: y in x] y broda]

>

> Otherwise it looks like a full sentence. (The

> double [

> are just for the wiki.)

OK, though when the rest of the sentence is

tacked on, the two are essentially equivalent.

When the negation passes theough, however, they

give different results and I am not sure which is

the righter one, though I am presently inclined

to think yours is.

> > then obviously negation passage will affect

> what

> > is said using whichever negation transfer

> rules

> > you choose.

>

> Indeed. We are agreed about that. If {lo broda}

> ia a quantified term, then indeed it is

> affected

> by negation transfer.

>

>

> > > I certainly have not abandoned negation

> > > transparency for

> > > constants, and I interpret every not

> overtly

> > > quantified

> > > term as a constant.

> >

> > Yes you do, but that just doesn't work. The

> > possibility of empty sets alone should be

> enough

> > to convince you of that.

>

> With {lo broda} as a constant, if {lo broda}

> fails to refer

> then {lo broda cu brode} is not a claim. It is

> not just

> false. Empty sets do not enter into it.

Well, that is one way to do it. I take it as

simply false (having things that look like claims

but arent is a messiness that logic tries to

avoid wherever possible).

> > But even if the group

> > (or whatever) exists, if fail a property in

> other

> > ways than having the complement property just

> by

> > having its members not behave uniformly (in

> some

> > ratio — take your pick).

>

> You are saying that a group (or a rope, for

> that matter)

> can surround a building, fail to surround a

> building, or

> do something in between. I'm saying it either

> surrounds

> it or it doesn't.

Yes, either it surrounds it or it is not the case

that it surrounds it. this is not the same as it

surrounds it or it non-surrounds it. Actually,

since you seem to to deal well with negated

predicates, I wonder just what you take negation

transparency to allow.

> > Suppose {ko'a jo'u ko'e classmates}

> > and {ko'a cu ko'i naku classmates} and

> > (automatically, by the logic of "classmates,"

> > which is symmetric, {ko'e jo'u ko'i naku

> > classmates}.

>

> OK.

>

> > Then clearly the group are not

> > (na) classmates, since one of them is not.

>

> The three are not classmates, right. It is not

> the case

> that the three are classmates.

>

> > But

> > equally, it is not non-classmates, since two

> > members are classmates.

>

> What do you mean by non-classmates?

Something incompatible with being classmates --

just what is not specified.

> If you define "X are non-classmates" as "for

> every

> Y among X, it is not the case that Y are

> classmates",

> then sure it is not the case that the three are

>

> non-classmates.

>

> But that definition of "non-classmates" in no

> way

> corresponds to {naku classmates}.

Ahah! Just what by you does {naku broda} mean?

If it is just {na broda} in different words, then

I have to admit that {naku lo brode cu broda} and

{lo brode cu naku broda} are equivalent. But

that then has nothing to do with negation

passage, since the negation stays in the same

place logically. However, we are told that this

change affects intervening quantifiers, so there

must in fact be a passage. And if there is,

presumably this will make a difference about

descriptions as well as about quantifiers — and

about any other plural reference as well. What

effect will depend on the nature of the plural

reference — how it is related to the individuals

involved.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:35 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> > > > > \x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and // the

> > mark

> > > > > for application.

> > > >

> > > > As opposed to ~ \xFx//a, where ~ negates

> > the //

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > Yes.

> >

> > So "Fa" and "\xFx//a" are not materially

> > equivalent?

>

> I am not sure how you made that leap, but in fact

> these two are materially equivalent (in fact they

> are necessarily — definitionally — equivalent.

I thought so, but then the contrasting ways of negating

do not make sense. From:

(1) Fa == \xFx//a

we get, negating both sides:

(2) ~Fa == ~\xFx//a

but from (1), replacing F with ~F, we also get:

(3) ~Fa == \x~Fx//a

>From (2) and (3) we then get:

(4) ~\xFx//a == \x~Fx//a

what am I missing?

> > With {lo broda} as a constant, if {lo broda}

> > fails to refer

> > then {lo broda cu brode} is not a claim. It is

> > not just

> > false. Empty sets do not enter into it.

>

> Well, that is one way to do it. I take it as

> simply false (having things that look like claims

> but arent is a messiness that logic tries to

> avoid wherever possible).

It seems to me that having {naku} negate that there

is reference going on is even messier.

> > You are saying that a group (or a rope, for

> > that matter)

> > can surround a building, fail to surround a

> > building, or

> > do something in between. I'm saying it either

> > surrounds

> > it or it doesn't.

>

> Yes, either it surrounds it or it is not the case

> that it surrounds it. this is not the same as it

> surrounds it or it non-surrounds it. Actually,

> since you seem to to deal well with negated

> predicates, I wonder just what you take negation

> transparency to allow.

Suppose ko'a is a given rope and ko'e a given building.

Then there are two possibilities: either ko'a surrounds

ko'e, or that doesn't happen.

ko'a ko'e sruri

ko'a sruri ko'e

sruri fa ko'a ko'e

are all ways of expressing the first possibility.

naku ko'a ko'e sruri

ko'a naku ko'e sruri

ko'a ko'e naku sruri

etc. are all ways of expressing the second possibility.

There isn't a third possibility. Now if ko'a is a group

of people instead of a rope, the same thing applies.

> > What do you mean by non-classmates?

>

> Something incompatible with being classmates --

> just what is not specified.

That sounds like {na'e} to me.

> > If you define "X are non-classmates" as "for

> > every

> > Y among X, it is not the case that Y are

> > classmates",

> > then sure it is not the case that the three are

> > non-classmates.

> >

> > But that definition of "non-classmates" in no

> > way corresponds to {naku classmates}.

>

> Ahah! Just what by you does {naku broda} mean?

{x naku broda} is "\x~Fx"

But as far as I can tell \x~Fx\\a == ~\xFx\\a == ~Fa

> If it is just {na broda} in different words, then

> I have to admit that {naku lo brode cu broda} and

> {lo brode cu naku broda} are equivalent.

OK. That's what it is by me.

> But

> that then has nothing to do with negation

> passage, since the negation stays in the same

> place logically.

Right, it's only a passage in terms of Lojban notation.

> However, we are told that this

> change affects intervening quantifiers, so there

> must in fact be a passage.

Only when there are intervening quantifiers, yes. Terms

without quantifiers are unaffected.

> And if there is,

> presumably this will make a difference about

> descriptions as well as about quantifiers — and

> about any other plural reference as well.

I'm not sure how you deal with descriptions. If they are

some kind of quantifier, then they are affected. As for

plural constants, they are not affected.

> What

> effect will depend on the nature of the plural

> reference — how it is related to the individuals

> involved.

Quantified plural terms will be affected. Constant ones

won't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:36 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > > > > > \x~Fx//a, where \ is a lambda and //

> the

> > > mark

> > > > > > for application.

> > > > >

> > > > > As opposed to ~ \xFx//a, where ~

> negates

> > > the //

> > > > > ?

> > > >

> > > > Yes.

> > >

> > > So "Fa" and "\xFx//a" are not materially

> > > equivalent?

> >

> > I am not sure how you made that leap, but in

> fact

> > these two are materially equivalent (in fact

> they

> > are necessarily — definitionally --

> equivalent.

>

> I thought so, but then the contrasting ways of

> negating

> do not make sense. From:

>

> (1) Fa == \xFx//a

>

> we get, negating both sides:

>

> (2) ~Fa == ~\xFx//a

>

> but from (1), replacing F with ~F, we also get:

>

> (3) ~Fa == \x~Fx//a

>

> From (2) and (3) we then get:

>

> (4) ~\xFx//a == \x~Fx//a

>

> what am I missing?

Nothing. But you have ignored that a is a

singular term and one without internal content

and those are negation transparent. What hold

for them does not hold for plural terms or

singular terms with internal content (which means

basically groups in the Lojban sense — whatever

that may be). In part this is because what Fa

means in that case is derivative from the empty

singular cases (or from plural collective ones,

which are already not transparent) and the

derivationinterferes with the passage of

negations.

>

> > > With {lo broda} as a constant, if {lo

> broda}

> > > fails to refer

> > > then {lo broda cu brode} is not a claim. It

> is

> > > not just

> > > false. Empty sets do not enter into it.

> >

> > Well, that is one way to do it. I take it as

> > simply false (having things that look like

> claims

> > but arent is a messiness that logic tries to

> > avoid wherever possible).

>

> It seems to me that having {naku} negate that

> there

> is reference going on is even messier.

Well, it makes negations with descriptions in

them into disjunctions (or importless negative

universals — which are fundamental), but that

requires no extra apparatus, at most an extra

step. Declarative sentences which are not claims

requires a whole extra appaaratus throughout the

system.

> > > You are saying that a group (or a rope, for

> > > that matter)

> > > can surround a building, fail to surround a

> > > building, or

> > > do something in between. I'm saying it

> either

> > > surrounds

> > > it or it doesn't.

> >

> > Yes, either it surrounds it or it is not the

> case

> > that it surrounds it. this is not the same

> as it

> > surrounds it or it non-surrounds it.

> Actually,

> > since you seem to to deal well with negated

> > predicates, I wonder just what you take

> negation

> > transparency to allow.

>

> Suppose ko'a is a given rope and ko'e a given

> building.

> Then there are two possibilities: either ko'a

> surrounds

> ko'e, or that doesn't happen.

>

> ko'a ko'e sruri

> ko'a sruri ko'e

> sruri fa ko'a ko'e

>

> are all ways of expressing the first

> possibility.

>

> naku ko'a ko'e sruri

> ko'a naku ko'e sruri

> ko'a ko'e naku sruri

>

> etc. are all ways of expressing the second

> possibility.

>

> There isn't a third possibility.

Right, because both ko'a and ko'e are contentless

singulars, basic individuals (for the present

context). If we took the rope to be a collection

of fibers, we could have intermediate cases.

Probably even more so (thank you, William James)

if the building were a collection of bricks etc.

Now if ko'a is

> a group

> of people instead of a rope, the same thing

> applies.

Nope. Now there is a third possibility --

several, in fact, depending upon what the

non-surrounding (and the surrounding for that

matter) involve in terms of the people (I am not

sure about the building).

> > > What do you mean by non-classmates?

> >

> > Something incompatible with being classmates

> --

> > just what is not specified.

>

> That sounds like {na'e} to me.

Well, the difference between {na'e} and {naku} in

prepredicate position has been argued back and

forth without any clear decision. But one

significant thing about {naku} that does not

apply to {na'e} is that its scope contains the

terms that follow it as well as the selbri. So,

one way that the students could not-surround the

Administration Building is by surrounding the

Gymnasium instead. {na'e}only works with the same

remaining terms (I think- but that is part of

another controversy).

> > > If you define "X are non-classmates" as

> "for

> > > every

> > > Y among X, it is not the case that Y are

> > > classmates",

> > > then sure it is not the case that the three

> are

> > > non-classmates.

> > >

> > > But that definition of "non-classmates" in

> no

> > > way corresponds to {naku classmates}.

> >

> > Ahah! Just what by you does {naku broda}

> mean?

>

> {x naku broda} is "\x~Fx"

>

> But as far as I can tell \x~Fx\\a == ~\xFx\\a

> == ~Fa

But this a is the wrong kind of thing for that

equation to hold. It works only for simple

singular terms.

> > If it is just {na broda} in different words,

> then

> > I have to admit that {naku lo brode cu broda}

> and

> > {lo brode cu naku broda} are equivalent.

>

> OK. That's what it is by me.

>

> > But

> > that then has nothing to do with negation

> > passage, since the negation stays in the same

> > place logically.

>

> Right, it's only a passage in terms of Lojban

> notation.

>

> > However, we are told that this

> > change affects intervening quantifiers, so

> there

> > must in fact be a passage.

>

> Only when there are intervening quantifiers,

> yes. Terms

> without quantifiers are unaffected.

Give me a frinstance of a term that is actually

without quantifiers — not just one where we

don't write a quantifier phrase down. This is,

of course, the fundamental problem: you think

there are such with plural referents and I can't

figure out how you are going to manage to have

them. Other than by fiat, logic be damned.

> > And if there is,

> > presumably this will make a difference about

> > descriptions as well as about quantifiers --

> and

> > about any other plural reference as well.

>

> I'm not sure how you deal with descriptions. If

> they are

> some kind of quantifier, then they are

> affected. As for

> plural constants, they are not affected.

>

> > What

> > effect will depend on the nature of the

> plural

> > reference — how it is related to the

> individuals

> > involved.

>

> Quantified plural terms will be affected.

> Constant ones

> won't.

And unicorns are untouched by lack of oxygen too

-- so?



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:36 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> If we took the rope to be a collection

> of fibers, we could have intermediate cases.

> Probably even more so (thank you, William James)

> if the building were a collection of bricks etc.

Well, let's say the rope is made of fibers, and the

building is made of bricks. Either it is the case that

the rope surrounds the building or it is not the case.

If there are uncertain cases (which of course there

may be) they are equally uncertain no matter where

the {naku} (or {ja'aku} for that matter) is located.

Let's say the disposition of the fibers and the bricks

somehow make the claim that the rope surrounds the

building doubtful. Then:

ja'aku ko'a ko'e sruri

ko'a ja'aku ko'e sruri

ko'a ko'e ja'aku sruri

all say the same thing and all are equally doubtful.

And also:

naku ko'a ko'e sruri

ko'a naku ko'e sruri

ko'a ko'e naku sruri

all say the same thing (the negation of the previous claim)

and all share the same degree of uncertainty. The naku

sentences are true to the extent that the ja'aku versions

are false. But the position of {naku} or {ja'aku} doesn't

change that.

> > > Ahah! Just what by you does {naku broda}

> > mean?

> >

> > {x naku broda} is "\x~Fx"

> >

> > But as far as I can tell \x~Fx\\a == ~\xFx\\a

> > == ~Fa

>

> But this a is the wrong kind of thing for that

> equation to hold. It works only for simple

> singular terms.

OK, I take {X naku broda} to be "\X~FX"

and as far as I can tell

\X~FX\\A == ~\XFX\\A == FA

where the arguments can be plural.

I take it you disagree that \X~FX\\A == ~\XFX\\A ?

Do you disagree also with \X FX\\A == FA ?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:37 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > If we took the rope to be a collection

> > of fibers, we could have intermediate cases.

> > Probably even more so (thank you, William

> James)

> > if the building were a collection of bricks

> etc.

>

> Well, let's say the rope is made of fibers, and

> the

> building is made of bricks. Either it is the

> case that

> the rope surrounds the building or it is not

> the case.

> If there are uncertain cases (which of course

> there

> may be) they are equally uncertain no matter

> where

> the {naku} (or {ja'aku} for that matter) is

> located.

>

> Let's say the disposition of the fibers and the

> bricks

> somehow make the claim that the rope surrounds

> the

> building doubtful. Then:

>

> ja'aku ko'a ko'e sruri

> ko'a ja'aku ko'e sruri

> ko'a ko'e ja'aku sruri

>

> all say the same thing and all are equally

> doubtful.

> And also:

>

> naku ko'a ko'e sruri

> ko'a naku ko'e sruri

> ko'a ko'e naku sruri

>

> all say the same thing (the negation of the

> previous claim)

> and all share the same degree of uncertainty.

> The naku

> sentences are true to the extent that the

> ja'aku versions

> are false. But the position of {naku} or

> {ja'aku} doesn't

> change that.

Suppose that the rope is a group of fibers and

the rope goes around the building with a tail

left over. The rope surrounds the building — no

problem. But the fibers of the rope do not (na)

since there are some fibers that are not even

involved in surrounding the building. And the

whole does also not not-surround the building,

since some parts of it do surround and others

don't. How many fibers it takes to bring this

result about I leave to you to pick — anywhere

from 1 to all will do.

>

> > > > Ahah! Just what by you does {naku broda}

> > > mean?

> > >

> > > {x naku broda} is "\x~Fx"

> > >

> > > But as far as I can tell \x~Fx\\a ==

> ~\xFx\\a

> > > == ~Fa

> >

> > But this a is the wrong kind of thing for

> that

> > equation to hold. It works only for simple

> > singular terms.

>

> OK, I take {X naku broda} to be "\X~FX"

>

> and as far as I can tell

>

> \X~FX\\A == ~\XFX\\A == FA

>

> where the arguments can be plural.

>

> I take it you disagree that \X~FX\\A ==

> ~\XFX\\A ?

>

> Do you disagree also with \X FX\\A == FA ?

>

Well, assuming that we have lambda extended to

plurals, then this last would probably be

definitional. So the question now becomes when

is \X FX//A true and we are back where we

started.

Let's go back to {lo rozgu cu xunre) in the

"generalizeation" context you take to be its

natural home (ou can define this however you want

-- though I would like to know a bit more about

it):

If every rose in this and every alternate world

were red, this would clearly be true (if not,

then it just says nothing about roses and is

terribly misleading — as well as being

desperately in need of some explanation).

What about if all the actual roses were red?

What about if no actual roses were red?

What about if no roses in this or any alternate

world were red?

In the last case, it the answer is that it is

true, then again the sentence is at least

misleading and in need of an explanation.

And in the middle:

if all but a few are red?

If only a few are red?

If many are red?

If several are red?

If all but many are red?

If all but several are red?

If most are red?

In each of these cases, if we consider not only

number but also that the cases are relatively

well distributed over the places where roses

grow?

If the answer is sometimes "maybe yes, maybe no"

what makes the difference?



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:37 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> Suppose that the rope is a group of fibers and

> the rope goes around the building with a tail

> left over. The rope surrounds the building — no

> problem.

OK.

> But the fibers of the rope do not (na)

> since there are some fibers that are not even

> involved in surrounding the building. And the

> whole does also not not-surround the building,

> since some parts of it do surround and others

> don't.

OK. It is not the case that the fibers surround the

building. The fibers: they don't surround the building.

lei cilta naku sruri le dinju.

> How many fibers it takes to bring this

> result about I leave to you to pick — anywhere

> from 1 to all will do.

So which of these hold, according to you:

naku lei cilta le dinju cu sruri

lei cilta naku le dinju cu sruri

lei cilta le dinju naku cu sruri

They all say the same thing as far as I can tell:

the threads don't surround the building.

> > I take it you disagree that \X~FX\\A ==

> > ~\XFX\\A ?

> >

> > Do you disagree also with \X FX\\A == FA ?

> >

> Well, assuming that we have lambda extended to

> plurals, then this last would probably be

> definitional.

Right. And the first one follows from this last one.

So this notation won't help to make the distinction

you want to make.

> So the question now becomes when

> is \X FX//A true and we are back where we

> started.

My answer is that there isn't a general answer in terms

of quantification over the referents of A.

> Let's go back to {lo rozgu cu xunre) in the

> "generalizeation" context you take to be its

> natural home (ou can define this however you want

> — though I would like to know a bit more about

> it):

> If every rose in this and every alternate world

> were red, this would clearly be true (if not,

> then it just says nothing about roses and is

> terribly misleading — as well as being

> desperately in need of some explanation).

If every rose in this and every alternate world

were red, then roses would be red, yes.

> What about if all the actual roses were red?

If all the actual roses were red, then actual roses

would be red, yes.

> What about if no actual roses were red?

If no actual roses were red, then roses wouldn't be red,

at least actual roses. I would say:

ganai no lo ca'a rozgu cu xunre gi lo ca'a rozgu naku xunre

Not mentioning the ca'a qualifier right after you mention

it in the conditions would be weird. It would strongly suggest

that you are taking {lo rozgu} as more general than

{lo ca'a rozgu}.

> What about if no roses in this or any alternate

> world were red?

ganai no lo ka'e rozgu cu xunre gi lo ka'e rozgu naku xunre

> In the last case, it the answer is that it is

> true, then again the sentence is at least

> misleading and in need of an explanation.

> And in the middle:

> if all but a few are red?

> If only a few are red?

> If many are red?

> If several are red?

> If all but many are red?

> If all but several are red?

> If most are red?

I'd have to be there. Suppose there's a wall in front of you,

painted red. Is the wall red?

If all but a few spots are red?

If only a few spots are red?

If many spots are red?

If several spots are red?

If all but many spots are red?

If all but several spots are red?

If most spots are red?

There is no definitive answer that will work for all contexts.

I'd need to know for what purpose you want to know if it's red,

for example. the same thing applies to roses in general too.

> In each of these cases, if we consider not only

> number but also that the cases are relatively

> well distributed over the places where roses

> grow?

Also, we may want to consider tense (are the roses the

same color all throughout their existence?), location

(do we take into account ambience illumination?), and

so on for ever. You can't just assign a truth value

to a sentence once and for all and for all contexts.

> If the answer is sometimes "maybe yes, maybe no"

> what makes the difference?

Context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > Suppose that the rope is a group of fibers

> and

> > the rope goes around the building with a tail

> > left over. The rope surrounds the building

> — no

> > problem.

>

> OK.

>

> > But the fibers of the rope do not (na)

> > since there are some fibers that are not even

> > involved in surrounding the building. And the

> > whole does also not not-surround the

> building,

> > since some parts of it do surround and others

> > don't.

>

> OK. It is not the case that the fibers surround

> the

> building. The fibers: they don't surround the

> building.

> lei cilta naku sruri le dinju.

>

> > How many fibers it takes to bring this

> > result about I leave to you to pick --

> anywhere

> > from 1 to all will do.

>

> So which of these hold, according to you:

>

> naku lei cilta le dinju cu sruri

Tgis one seems to fit

> lei cilta naku le dinju cu sruri

This one does not.

> lei cilta le dinju naku cu sruri

This turns out to be the same as the second,

since le dinju is a single thing here.

> They all say the same thing as far as I can

> tell:

> the threads don't surround the building.

>

>

> > > I take it you disagree that \X~FX\\A ==

> > > ~\XFX\\A ?

> > >

> > > Do you disagree also with \X FX\\A == FA ?

> > >

> > Well, assuming that we have lambda extended

> to

> > plurals, then this last would probably be

> > definitional.

>

> Right. And the first one follows from this last

> one.

> So this notation won't help to make the

> distinction

> you want to make.

Well, I don't quite see the derivation there, but

even if there were one, we would be left with the

question of when \X FX//A holds when A is a

plural.

>

> > So the question now becomes when

> > is \X FX//A true and we are back where we

> > started.

>

> My answer is that there isn't a general answer

> in terms

> of quantification over the referents of A.

Well, that is maybe an improvement, though I

think that in any given context there is an

particular answer that works. You seemed to be

saying that quantification is never relevant.

> > Let's go back to {lo rozgu cu xunre) in the

> > "generalizeation" context you take to be its

> > natural home (ou can define this however you

> want

> > — though I would like to know a bit more

> about

> > it):

> > If every rose in this and every alternate

> world

> > were red, this would clearly be true (if not,

> > then it just says nothing about roses and is

> > terribly misleading — as well as being

> > desperately in need of some explanation).

>

> If every rose in this and every alternate world

> were red, then roses would be red, yes.

>

> > What about if all the actual roses were red?

>

> If all the actual roses were red, then actual

> roses

> would be red, yes.

So, {ro lo ro rozgu cu xunre} implies {lo rozgu

cu xunre}

>

> > What about if no actual roses were red?

>

> If no actual roses were red, then roses

> wouldn't be red,

> at least actual roses.

So, {lo rozgu cu xunre} implies {su'o rozgu cu

xunre}

I would say:

>

> ganai no lo ca'a rozgu cu xunre gi lo ca'a

> rozgu naku xunre

>

> Not mentioning the ca'a qualifier right after

> you mention

> it in the conditions would be weird. It would

> strongly suggest

> that you are taking {lo rozgu} as more general

> than

> {lo ca'a rozgu}.

Well, you are telling me how general to take {lo

rozgu}. If it extends beyond actual roses to

those in alternate worlds .

>

> > What about if no roses in this or any

> alternate

> > world were red?

>

> ganai no lo ka'e rozgu cu xunre gi lo ka'e

> rozgu naku xunre

I am a ltittle at a loss about how general you

want {lo rozgu} to be: real roses right now, real

roses now and past, real roses throughout time,

real rose throughout time and in all alternate

worlds. I did ask you to tell me how general you

wanted it to be. Apparently more general than

{ca'a} but less than all possible, so I gather it

is real present and past (and maybe future).

> > In the last case, it the answer is that it is

> > true, then again the sentence is at least

> > misleading and in need of an explanation.

> > And in the middle:

> > if all but a few are red?

> > If only a few are red?

> > If many are red?

> > If several are red?

> > If all but many are red?

> > If all but several are red?

> > If most are red?

>

> I'd have to be there.

Look, this is your claim. You should have some

idea in mind when you made it — or used it as an

example. You are there (or were, at least);

where did you stand on these issues. How am I to

use this as an example, if I don't know what

example it is.

Suppose there's a wall in

> front of you,

> painted red. Is the wall red?

Is this the wall as a simple single object or the

wall as as collective of areas (say)? In either

case it is red if the whole is covered in red

paint.

> If all but a few spots are red?

As a unit, this would depend on the distribution

of the non-red spots, probably. As a collection,

no.

> If only a few spots are red?

No

> If many spots are red?

Distribution in the unit case, no for the

collection case if if only many spots are red.

> If several spots are red?

Same as many.

> If all but many spots are red?

Same as many.

> If all but several spots are red?

Same as many

> If most spots are red?

Same as many

> There is no definitive answer that will work

> for all contexts.

> I'd need to know for what purpose you want to

> know if it's red,

> for example. the same thing applies to roses in

> general too.

I repeat, this is your claim. If it doesn't mean

anything, then say so and we candrop it. If it

does mean something, then you should be able to

answer these questions. You were asked to pick

your context, even.

>

> > In each of these cases, if we consider not

> only

> > number but also that the cases are relatively

> > well distributed over the places where roses

> > grow?

>

> Also, we may want to consider tense (are the

> roses the

> same color all throughout their existence?),

> location

> (do we take into account ambience

> illumination?), and

> so on for ever. You can't just assign a truth

> value

> to a sentence once and for all and for all

> contexts.

Yet again, this is your claim; do whatever you

want.

> > If the answer is sometimes "maybe yes, maybe

> no"

> > what makes the difference?

>

> Context.

>

I meant (as you well know) specific features of

the context that might be relevant. I gather

that you want to be able to appeal to durations

and perhaps environmental factors like light

(though that is about being red, not about lo

rozgu, I would have said — but this is your

case). Fine, set them as you will. Now what are

the answers to the questions?



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> > > if all but a few are red?

> > > If only a few are red?

> > > If many are red?

> > > If several are red?

> > > If all but many are red?

> > > If all but several are red?

> > > If most are red?

> >

> > I'd have to be there.

>

> Look, this is your claim. You should have some

> idea in mind when you made it — or used it as an

> example. You are there (or were, at least);

> where did you stand on these issues. How am I to

> use this as an example, if I don't know what

> example it is.

If you don't understand what "roses are red" means,

I'm afraid I can't help you. If you ask me whether

"roses are red" is true or false, I would be forced

to add precision.

Q: Are roses red?

A1: Yes, some of them are.

A2: No, not all of them are.

A1 and A2 are valid answers to Q. In Lojban:

Q: xu lo rozgu cu xunre

A1: su'o boi ry go'i

A2: naku ro boi ry go'i

Both A1 and A2 are valid answers.

I would take a simple {go'i} in this case as too vague to

be a useful answer. The facts are more complex than

what {lo rozgu cu xunre} expresses.

> I repeat, this is your claim. If it doesn't mean

> anything, then say so and we candrop it.

It does have meaning. It says that certain flowers, namely

roses, are of a certain colour, namely red. That is meaningful.

It doesn't have a very precise meaning in terms of how many

roses, at what time, in what place, in what world, according

to whom, etc. so yes, the meaning is quite vague, but it

does have meaning.

> If it

> does mean something, then you should be able to

> answer these questions.

I'm afraid not. From {lo rozgu cu xunre} I can't give you

a definite answer in terms of quantification of roses, just

as I can't tell you when or where the claim is supposed to

hold. The info is not there.

> > > If the answer is sometimes "maybe yes, maybe

> > > no" what makes the difference?

> >

> > Context.

>

> I meant (as you well know) specific features of

> the context that might be relevant. I gather

> that you want to be able to appeal to durations

> and perhaps environmental factors like light

> (though that is about being red, not about lo

> rozgu, I would have said — but this is your

> case). Fine, set them as you will. Now what are

> the answers to the questions?

You are asking me to fill a small checkbox with a large

paintbrush. {lo rozgu cu xunre} is just not up to the

task of discriminating between the options you give.

It's a statement at a much coarser level. If the distinction

between a few, several, or many is important, we have to

make it by other means. {lo rozgu cu xunre} just doesn't

relate to that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:38 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> pc:

> > > > if all but a few are red?

> > > > If only a few are red?

> > > > If many are red?

> > > > If several are red?

> > > > If all but many are red?

> > > > If all but several are red?

> > > > If most are red?

> > >

> > > I'd have to be there.

> >

> > Look, this is your claim. You should have

> some

> > idea in mind when you made it — or used it

> as an

> > example. You are there (or were, at least);

> > where did you stand on these issues. How am

> I to

> > use this as an example, if I don't know what

> > example it is.

>

> If you don't understand what "roses are red"

> means,

> I'm afraid I can't help you. If you ask me

> whether

> "roses are red" is true or false, I would be

> forced

> to add precision.

Nice dodge. The question was, what did you mean

by it.

> Q: Are roses red?

> A1: Yes, some of them are.

> A2: No, not all of them are.

>

> A1 and A2 are valid answers to Q. In Lojban:

>

> Q: xu lo rozgu cu xunre

> A1: su'o boi ry go'i

> A2: naku ro boi ry go'i

>

> Both A1 and A2 are valid answers.

>

Yes, they and several others — essentially the

the affirmatives and negatives of the questions I

asked. Once again, what did you mean?

> I would take a simple {go'i} in this case as

> too vague to

> be a useful answer. The facts are more complex

> than

> what {lo rozgu cu xunre} expresses.

So the sentence does not express a fact — even a

vague one apparently.

Then why give it as an example of something

useful to say in Lojban using {lo}? Are we to

infer that {lo} is to be used for vague claims

but not alone for more precise ones. Surely

that is not its only or main use.

> > I repeat, this is your claim. If it doesn't

> mean

> > anything, then say so and we can drop it.

>

> It does have meaning. It says that certain

> flowers, namely

> roses, are of a certain colour, namely red.

> That is meaningful.

> It doesn't have a very precise meaning in terms

> of how many

> roses, at what time, in what place, in what

> world, according

> to whom, etc. so yes, the meaning is quite

> vague, but it

> does have meaning.

Namely? That is, yet again, what did you intend

it to mean?

>

> > If it

> > does mean something, then you should be able

> to

> > answer these questions.

>

> I'm afraid not. From {lo rozgu cu xunre} I

> can't give you

> a definite answer in terms of quantification of

> roses, just

> as I can't tell you when or where the claim is

> supposed to

> hold. The info is not there.

That is just about what it means to say that it

is meaningless: we have no way of finding out

whether it is true. It is sure a lousy example.

> > > > If the answer is sometimes "maybe yes,

> maybe

> > > > no" what makes the difference?

> > >

> > > Context.

> >

> > I meant (as you well know) specific features

> of

> > the context that might be relevant. I gather

> > that you want to be able to appeal to

> durations

> > and perhaps environmental factors like light

> > (though that is about being red, not about lo

> > rozgu, I would have said — but this is your

> > case). Fine, set them as you will. Now what

> are

> > the answers to the questions?

>

> You are asking me to fill a small checkbox with

> a large

> paintbrush. {lo rozgu cu xunre} is just not up

> to the

> task of discriminating between the options you

> give.

> It's a statement at a much coarser level. If

> the distinction

> between a few, several, or many is important,

> we have to

> make it by other means. {lo rozgu cu xunre}

> just doesn't

> relate to that.

>

Yes, I would not expect it to make fine

distinctions between say "man" and "most," "few"

OR several, but I would expect it to be able to

distinguish between "some" and "all" as

requirements — and probably "most" as well. I

expect that it distinguishes between the case

where {lo rozgu cu blanu} can also be true from

that where it cannot, say.

It seems to me that this discussion has come

again to the point I recognize from the previous

several goes-round on this general issue, where

further discussion will just be repetitive:

"'tis-'tain't." We are at the same point all of

the previous discussions have reached: xorxes is

unwilling or unable to explain what his prima

facie strange (up to logically impossible) notion

means in concrete and practical terms and

unwilling or unable to either concede or refute

my objections to it. This discussion — perhaps

because it is ending earlier — has been

rhetorically less obnoxious: fewer ad hominem,

fewer strawmans, fewer red herrings, but not more

successful for all that. The positive side has

been the usual negative: a device I worked out to

attempt to provide something intellectually

respectable for xorxes' idea failed to work

completely under testing. However, as usual, the

basic idea does not seem to have been seriously

challenged, so it is till the best chance of

saving something from xorxes' scheme.



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> So the sentence does not express a fact — even a

> vague one apparently.

It does express a vague fact: that roses are red.

> Then why give it as an example of something

> useful to say in Lojban using {lo}?

Because we often express such vague facts.

> Are we to

> infer that {lo} is to be used for vague claims

> but not alone for more precise ones.

No, only that it can be used for vague claims.

> Surely

> that is not its only or main use.

Surely not. That's why there are more examples, some

with more precise claims.

> That is just about what it means to say that it

> is meaningless: we have no way of finding out

> whether it is true. It is sure a lousy example.

If others find it such a lousy example, I will

remove it. I don't think being vague is the same as

being lousy. Sometimes we do want vagueness.

> Yes, I would not expect it to make fine

> distinctions between say "man" and "most," "few"

> OR several, but I would expect it to be able to

> distinguish between "some" and "all" as

> requirements — and probably "most" as well. I

> expect that it distinguishes between the case

> where {lo rozgu cu blanu} can also be true from

> that where it cannot, say.

I don't expect that. I don't think {lo rozgu cu xunre}

tells you anything definitive for all contexts about

{lo rozgu cu blanu}. Just as {le bitmu cu xunre} doesn't

tell you anything definitive about {le bitmu cu blanu}

for all contexts.

> It seems to me that this discussion has come

> again to the point I recognize from the previous

> several goes-round on this general issue, where

> further discussion will just be repetitive:

> "'tis-'tain't."

I agree.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> Thanks; I always have trouble remembering how

> those two interrelate. Yes, {le} is not reliably

> "the," though that is a good guess in most cases.

> Can the nonspecific {lo} also be definite?

Not normally, although it's possible to create -specific +definite

situations when you are parrotting the previous speaker (or are

a parrot, I suppose!):

A: A certain man +specific -definite ...

B: A certain man? -specific +definite

Consider the philosopher's parrot (I forget whose) that was trained

to repeat "I don't understand a word I say".

--

Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan

that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com

--Susan McCarthy (adapted) [email protected]



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:39 GMT posts: 1912


> > Can the nonspecific {lo} also be definite?

>

> Not normally, although it's possible to create -specific +definite

> situations when you are parrotting the previous speaker (or are

> a parrot, I suppose!):

>

> A: A certain man +specific -definite ...

> B: A certain man? -specific +definite

Or how about:

A: I'm here to pick up some papers -specific +definite for Mr Jones.

B: Yes, here they are.

> Consider the philosopher's parrot (I forget whose) that was trained

> to repeat "I don't understand a word I say".

Somewhat (un)related:

"How do I know what I'm thinking until I say it?"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



[[user9|arj]] Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT posts: 953

One minor quibble about your formal definitions, Jorge.

le'e broda cu brode pe'i lo ka ce'u brode cu zilfadni le'i broda

Why are you using pe'i here? I suppose stereotypes need not be your=20

personal opinion; you might as well referring to common, although wrong=

=20

conceptions of the broda in question.

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

- Hvorfor snakker man engelsk p=E5 Internet?

- Har du h=F8rt om minste felles nevner?



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT posts: 1912


> One minor quibble about your formal definitions, Jorge.

>

> le'e broda cu brode pe'i lo ka ce'u brode cu zilfadni le'i broda

>

> Why are you using pe'i here?

I think that was Robin's suggestion, I had {ma'i mi} before.

Your point would still apply though.

> I suppose stereotypes need not be your

> personal opinion; you might as well referring to common, although

> wrong conceptions of the broda in question.

It is not even clear that {le'e} is about stereotypes, that's just

the keyword used. From CLL, I gather that the speaker enters into

{le'e broda} twice: first to select the set that the speaker has in

mind (and which may or may not be actual brodas), and then to assign

a property that the speaker considers typical of that set (which may

or may not actually be typical of the selected set, which in turn

may or may not consist of actual brodas).

This is what CLL says:

5.3) le'e xelso merko

cu gusta ponse

The-stereotypical Greek-type-of American

is-a-restaurant-type-of owner.

Lots of Greek-Americans own restaurants.

Here we are concerned not with the actual set of Greek-Americans, but with the

set of those the speaker has in mind, which is typified by one (real or

imaginary) who owns a restaurant. The word stereotypical is often

derogatory in English, but le'e need not be derogatory in Lojban: it simply

suggests that the example is typical in the speaker's imagination rather than

in some objectively agreed-upon way. Of course, different speakers may disagree

about what the features of the typical lion are (some would include having

a short intestine, whereas others would know nothing of lions' intestines), so

the distinction between lo'e cinfo and le'e cinfo may be very fine.

Furthermore,

5.4) le'e skina cu se finti ne'i la xali,uyd.

The-stereotypical movie is-invented in Hollywood.

is probably true to an American, but might be false (not the stereotype) to

someone living in India or Russia.

I would gladly remove the {pe'i}, but then the considerations

CLL makes about objectively typical and subjectively typical

are lost. {le'i broda} in the definition takes care of the

specificity of the set to be considered, but supposedly {le'e}

also marks the zilfadni claim as particularly belonging to the

speaker (more so than the corresponding claim with lo'e).

Suggestions?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'___

Do you Yahoo!?

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.yahoo.com



[[user9|arj]] Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:44 GMT posts: 953

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> --- Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>> One minor quibble about your formal definitions, Jorge.

>>

>> le'e broda cu brode pe'i lo ka ce'u brode cu zilfadni le'i broda

>>

>> Why are you using pe'i here?

>

>> I suppose stereotypes need not be your

>> personal opinion; you might as well referring to common, although

>> wrong conceptions of the broda in question.

>

> This is what CLL says:

> ...

> Here we are concerned not with the actual set of Greek-Americans, but=

with the

> set of those the speaker has in mind, which is typified by one (real =

or

> imaginary) who owns a restaurant. The word stereotypical is often

> derogatory in English, but le'e need not be derogatory in Lojban:=

it simply

> suggests that the example is typical in the speaker's imagination rat=

her than

> in some objectively agreed-upon way.

It appears that I was wrong in my belief that "stereotypes", in this co=

ntext, refers to stereotypes other than your own.

If we are to go by the CLL, I think the "pe'i" should stand.

My apologies.

--=20

Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=

/

P=E5 hjul er du kj=F8rende.



Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:46 GMT posts: 152

On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 01:14:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> I would gladly remove the {pe'i}, but then the considerations

> CLL makes about objectively typical and subjectively typical

> are lost. {le'i broda} in the definition takes care of the

> specificity of the set to be considered, but supposedly {le'e}

> also marks the zilfadni claim as particularly belonging to the

> speaker (more so than the corresponding claim with lo'e).

>

> Suggestions?

I think that {le'e} should mean "prototypical". In fact, I think I suggested

this for {lo'e} but was told that it would fit {le'e} better.

Basically, my idea would be that what you think of when you think of an

arbitrary dog is {le'e gerku}.

Making a Lojban equivalent for this would probably involve a lujvo meaning "x1

is the prototypical x2 according to x3", or "x1 is x3's prototype of x2s".

--

Rob Speer



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:47 GMT posts: 1912


>

> I think that {le'e} should mean "prototypical". In fact, I think I suggested

> this for {lo'e} but was told that it would fit {le'e} better.

>

> Basically, my idea would be that what you think of when you think of an

> arbitrary dog is {le'e gerku}.

>

> Making a Lojban equivalent for this would probably involve a lujvo meaning

> "x1

> is the prototypical x2 according to x3", or "x1 is x3's prototype of x2s".

le'e broda == lo sucta be lo broda bei tu'a mi

?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:47 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

>

> --- Rob Speer wrote:

> >

> > I think that {le'e} should mean

> "prototypical". In fact, I think I suggested

> > this for {lo'e} but was told that it would

> fit {le'e} better.

> >

> > Basically, my idea would be that what you

> think of when you think of an

> > arbitrary dog is {le'e gerku}.

> >

> > Making a Lojban equivalent for this would

> probably involve a lujvo meaning

> > "x1

> > is the prototypical x2 according to x3", or

> "x1 is x3's prototype of x2s".

>

> le'e broda == lo sucta be lo broda bei tu'a mi

>

> ?

This looks like a(nother) case where trying to

paraphrase a Lojban expression in Lojban gives

the wrong result. In this case, the way to

paraphrase is to connect the phrase with real

brodas and the way they behave. No abstraction

from brodas need have any of the properties we

think of as typical or whatever of brodas. They

will not even be brodas, surely a minimal requirement.


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


Posted by JohnCowan on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 21:44 GMT posts: 149

I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.


Re: BPFK Section: gadri


rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 21:59 GMT posts: 14214

Oops. There seem to be no examples of PA lo PA broda in the lo examples section. This is probably my fault.

xorxes, if you want me to come up with something, let me know.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 22:48 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:

> I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one

> for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked

> complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.

For further explication, John considers lX'e underspecified.

xorxes, are you OK with this?

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 22:48 GMT posts: 1912


> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:

> > I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one

> > for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked

> > complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.

>

> For further explication, John considers lX'e underspecified.

>

> xorxes, are you OK with this?

I agree indeed. I will proceed to split them then.

(And add a PA lo PA example.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.

www.yahoo.com



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 11:16:31AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> --- Robin wrote:

> > > {cmananba} might be worth adding, I'm just not sure how wide

> > > or narrow to make its meaning, and I'm not sure it's the best

> > > choice for "biscuit". I also hesitate between using cma as a

> > > prefix or as a suffix.

> >

> > cracker, biscuit, cookie, is what I would go for. It's pretty

> > clearly a prefix, IMO.

>

> How would you define it in lojban?

>

> {x1 cmalu lo ka ce'u nanba x2} or {x1 nanba x2 gi'e cmalu ...} or

> something else?

>

> I think the first one is the most direct, but then -cma would

> clearly be a suffix.

I actually prefer the second one.

-Robin



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:13:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin:

> > You snipped my stating that

> >

> > re lo ci bidju == 2 beads

> >

> > and

> >

> > re loi ci bidju == 6 beads

>

> Yes, and {re lo'i ci bidju} would also involve six beads. (Or up

> to six beads, because some could be shared I suppose.)

>

> But although the number of beads involved varies, in all cases the

> claim is that two "things" fit that argument place.

>

> > That seems a bit confusing to me. Not a serious problem, but I

> > wanted to make sure it's clear, and it needs to be made clear in

> > the definitions.

>

> I will add the clarification once we are settled.

I just want to double-check: The current consensus (not counting PC)

is that:

re loi ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

means that two groups of three beads each are, *as* *a* *group*,

stretch from here to there, correct? In other words, the outer

quantifier quantifies non-distributively over groups of size

numbered by the inner quantifier?

If I'm correct, maybe you could snarf that example? There's a

shortage of outer + inner examples.

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 1912


> I just want to double-check: The current consensus (not counting PC)

> is that:

>

> re loi ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

>

> means that two groups of three beads each are, *as* *a* *group*,

> stretch from here to there, correct? In other words, the outer

> quantifier quantifies non-distributively over groups of size

> numbered by the inner quantifier?

Not non-distributively. Outer quantifiers are always distributive.

It means the same as:

re lo gunma be lo ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

i.e. "For exactly two x such that x is a group of three beads,

x stretches from here to there."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.

www.yahoo.com



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 21:56 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:25:02PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> > I just want to double-check: The current consensus (not counting

> > PC) is that:

> >

> > re loi ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

> >

> > means that two groups of three beads each are, *as* *a* *group*,

> > stretch from here to there, correct? In other words, the outer

> > quantifier quantifies non-distributively over groups of size

> > numbered by the inner quantifier?

>

> Not non-distributively. Outer quantifiers are always distributive.

> It means the same as:

>

> re lo gunma be lo ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

>

> i.e. "For exactly two x such that x is a group of three beads, x

> stretches from here to there."

OK, so what I said is :

loi re loi ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

Correct?

-Robin



Posted by xorxes on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 21:56 GMT posts: 1912


>

> > > means that two groups of three beads each are, *as* *a* *group*,

> > > stretch from here to there, correct?

>

> loi re loi ci bidju cu tcena ti bi'o ta

>

> Correct?

Yes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.

www.yahoo.com



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 07:15 GMT posts: 14214

This is only a test. Sorry.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:12 GMT

Constants

Some comments on constant terms.

IF X and Z are constant terms, then the following equivalences

always hold:

X na broda == X naku broda == naku X broda == X broda naku

X broda Z == Z se broda X

X broda Z ije X brode Z == X boi Z broda gi'e brode

X broda lo nu Z brode ije ri brodi == X broda lo nu Z brode ije Z brodi

None of the above work in general with terms that carry an

outer quantifier.

With the proposal, every Lojban sumti with no explicit

outer quantifier is a constant (i.e. it carries no implicit quantifier)

and always permits the above transformations. (Even terms

like da behave that way when they are within the scope of

their quantifier and thus carry no outer quantifier. They

can't be manipulated like that when they do carry an outer

quantifier, you must first send the quantifier to a prenex.)

With CLL-defaults, {le broda} and {la broda} are pseudo-constants,

they carry a quantifier but they usually have a single referent, so

the transformations "usually" work. The proposal, by requiring

explicit quantifiers when quantification is intended, makes the

logic of terms much cleaner.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:25 GMT

A few more items

1. Three things on "la" example:

"la ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois cu mutce zabna ge lo vanbi gi

lo cidja" = "The Three Cows Restaurant in Kaiapoi is a wonderful place,

both atmosphere and food-wise."

a) 1st place of zabna is a favorable connotation of x2. So, the

restaurant is a favorable connotation of environments and food? I think

zabna is more correctly used with expressions (la'e zoi gy steadfast gy

cu zanba la'e zo xarnu); that may be why it's so rarely used as the main

brivla.

b) "ci bakni po'u lo gusta pe la kaiapois" is the name (Three Cows Which

Are Restaurants of Kaiapoi). If you want just the "Three Cows", you

need "la ci bakni ku po'u ..."

c) The use of "lo" in "lo gusta" disagrees with what's spelled out in

the table. Per the table at the end, "la" means the speaker has a

specific in mind, and "lo" means the the speaker does not have a

specific in mind (in-mind = "No"). "po'u" means, effectively "poi du";

they are the same one(s). The speaker certainly know which restaurant

it is if he knows it is the one in-mind from "la ci bakni". Either the

example or the table needs to change; I suggest the table.

2. I'm not entirely comfortable with the "lo'i" example:

"ma cnano lo ka makau junta ce'u kei lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" = "What

is the normal weight of a baby at childbirth?"

I think "cnano" is a mathematical thing - average/mean; that means "ni"

would be better than "ka". Also, I read [[past-tense,%20pronounced%20like%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E|past-tense, pronounced like

"red"]] "lo'i cifnu poi cazi jbena" as "a/some set(s) of babies who

were just now born"; this is certainly not the only possible meaning,

but would prefer (not insist on) something clearer. Perhaps "pe ca lo

nu jbena"?

3. In "le'i" example:

"ro le verba pu cuxna pa karda le'i cnita selcra" = "Each child chose a

card from the face-down collection."

x1 crane x2 means x1 is in front (or is THE front) of x2. So selcra is

something that has a front. "cnita selcra", to me, means "beneath type

of thing that has a front; this doesn't bring to mind "face-down". How

about "le'i seke cnita crane". This would be the x2 of "cnita crane"

(x1 cnita crane x2 = "x1 is a beneath-type-of-front of x2"); if would be

the something that has a beneath-type-of-front.

mi'e noras.



Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:29 GMT posts: 2388

But some of the later chapters are more relevant to the present section, since they deal inter alia with gadri. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how little needs to be changed to accommodate plurality in place of sets and groups. JCB and the creators of Lojban disagree (except in details "is among" rather than "is a member of," for example) only in placing the distributive-or-not distinction in the term rather than in the predicate and in handling plurality with sets and selike things, rather than just several whatsises.

McKay's objections to singularism (i.e. handling concrete pluarality with single abstract clumpings) can each be easily met by any logician in the business. The trouble is that each rebuttal makes a different change in what is said (no one would use McKay's renditions, which are obviously meant to add ridicule to reasonable arguments) and it is not clear that they can all be used at once. McKay's system makes one change and handles all the problems (that he raises — obviously the ones he can solve. Others may be known or come along.) So we need to consider what he says. The question of where to put the mark of distributivity is less clearcut. McKay puts it on the predicate because the same subject may be taken as distributed and not in the same sentence. The argument for the subject is that the same predicate (as far as we can tell) may be distributive one time and not another, sometimes even with the same apparent subject. McKay's solution makes sense for a logical system,

but not necessarily for a language (see the run around he has to use to deal with the problem that leads to the subject solution). The linguistically most efficient solution would seem to be a mixture: some predicates are always non-distributive (the {mei} set, for example), others never are. For the remaining, the choice between {lV} and {lVi} shows what isd wanted — and the shifting cases can be dealt with one or two tags (either one for collective and one for distributive, or one for opposite distributivity — the first is preferable, since we have to deal with variables as well as {lV} pluralities). And the definition within plurality of singularity can be a bit tricky — but on the way gets rid of — or gets out of the way — several messy quantifier cases.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

Robin wrote:

> http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html

>

> Perhaps we should all read this and come back later? :-)

Yes, we should make it a required reading, at least the first

three chapters (the rest is interesting too but it gets too

technical for our purposes).

I finally understand what {jo'u} means. {jo'u} is to {lo}

as {joi} is to {loi} and {.e} is to {ro}:

la alis .e la djan = ro le re prenu

la alis joi la djan = lei re prenu

la alis jo'u la djan = le re prenu

So for example:

la alis .e la djan cu nonspe

Alice and John are single.

ro le re prenu cu nonspe

Each of the two people is single.

la alis joi la djan cu lafti le jubme

Alice and John together lift the table.

lei re prenu cu lafti le jubme

The two people together lift the table.

But what if we want to say both things in the same sentence?

We can't say {la alis .e la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme},

because that would say that each of them lifted the table.

We can't really say {la alis joi la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti

le jubme}, because that says that they are single together.

So we say:

la alis jo'u la djan cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme

Alice and John are single and lifted the table.

le re prenu cu nonspe gi'e lafti le jubme

The two people are single and lifted the table.

which is noncommital as to distributivity.

McKay makes use of the relation "among" as a fundamental relation

in his semantics. He gives as examples:

Chicago and Los Angeles are among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Houston is among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston are among Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

where the English "and" here would correspond to Lojban {jo'u}, because

it admits both the distributive (.e) and the non-distributive (joi)

readings depending on the predicate.

Now, CLL gives:

10.2) la BALtazar. cu me le ci nolraitru

Balthazar is one-of-the-referents-of ``the three kings.

Balthazar is one of the three kings.

10.3) la kaspar. cu me le ci nolraitru

Caspar is one of the three kings.

10.4) la melxi,or. cu me le ci nolraitru

Melchior is one of the three kings.

I conclude that {me} is essentially McKay's "among" relation.

{ko'a me ko'e} means that the referents of {ko'a} are among

the referents of {ko'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:30 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

pc:

(on {no lo broda cu brode}.)

> This will however restore the equivalence between this form

> and {no broda cu brode}.

Another quantifier that you may need to give a special definition

for is {ro}. If you use your general definition for n, you get

that {ro lo broda cu brode} is materially equivalent to

{su'o lo broda cu brode}. (And {lo ro broda cu brode} would

seem to require that everything be a broda.)

Also {su'e n broda cu brode} and {me'i n broda cu brode}

would seem to require special definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 22:31 GMT posts: 2388

I think the idea of sorting out the various factors involved is a good one – the ongoing struggles with {le} show what happens when unrelated notions (well, historically related but not conceptually) get jumbled together — and RobinÂ’s sketch is a good start. Within that general approbation, however, some specific points call for comment. There is also a general question about whether gadri is the right place to deal with some of these notions.

I am not clear about what a “completely generic article” would be. There is no plausible sense in which xorlo is one, but my sense of what is plausible is conditioned by my own background and that is not quite the same as others’ so I may be missing an opportunity here. So far as I can tell, there is nothing less precise that {su’o da poi} or {lo} as I have been expanding it in the latest version (“there is a nonempty subset of the set of broda some of whose members …”), but maybe something else – or more – is meant. But that notion plays only a small part in all this, so specifying it (is LX meant to be used somewhere outside the semantic metachat?) may be insignificant.

2. Personal specificity. I take this to be one aspect of {le} (+specific – or is it +definite?). So {sa’e} marks cases where we pick the particular object(s) referred to before picking how to describe them, as opposed to {sa’e cu’i}, which lets the fact that they satisfy some predication select them. I don’t suppose that merely thinking about them – as opposed to, say, selecting them for discussion – is really enough, but it seems a minimum condition here.

What is odd is insisting that they actually broda, adding veridicality to {le} – which is nice to have but seems to be mixing matters again, since there being broda is not essential to picking them out. It seems more natural to do specific here and then veridical as another step (thus allowing unbrodaed {lo broda} as well). I don’t see {sa’e nai} at all, at least partly because I don’t have a clear idea of what “The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality” means, they being – for me – three totally different notions (a concept, a summary thingoid, and a context respectively). I am also not sure how a feature like specificity can have a neutral – as opposed to being unmarked – dimension; what is more unspecific than unspecific? I am not even clear what is meant here but I guess it is something about not even being about unspecified particular things and also carrying over into intensional contexts. As noted, nothing does that, for various logical reasons, and all the things

that do one or the other turn out to be very specific, quite independently of my choices.

Existence. On good Gricean grounds, we can hold that we never talk about nonexistents and so that talk apparently of that sort must be understood as being either about something else that does exist or about another world in which the subject does exist. The latter is clearly not a gadri matter but a modal one – shifting worlds. The former is also not purely a gadri matter but rather one of picking the right sumti content (and perhaps gadri as well): talking about properties or events or whatever rather than about lower level things. As expected, most of the cases discussed here are mucking about in intensional contexts and should be dealt with there rather than in gadri (though admittedly Lojbanists have shown an inability to grasp this notion and work with it, suffering from – apparently, acute SAEitis). Xorxes’ suggestion to use {je’u} to indicate veridicality with {le} (and, presumably, {je’unai} with {lo} for non-veridicality – a trickier move) seems a better use of the

cmavo.

Distributivity. A purely terminological comment: this use of “distributive” seems 180 off of the standard (an old Lojban problem) and is closer to (maybe even just is) ordinary “collective.” This does seem to be a gadri issue (though one could argue, on SAE grounds at least, that it is better dealt with in the predicates than in the terms). So, aside from the terminology, this discussion looks OK.

Property Transference. I am not perfectly clear about how this differs from the above. One is about the kind of object we are dealing with: set mass or group (or individual?) and the other is about how the properties of these object are related to the properties of the individuals that comprise them. But, as far as I can see, what type of object we are dealing with is determined by the way the properties of individuals and totalities are related: a (set) totality considered independently of the properties of the individuals or those properties come in only in identifying set or relating it to others; b (mass1) property of totality is only properties achieved by the collaborative properties of individual members; c (mass2) properties of totality is the logical some of the properties of the members (i.e., total has whatever property a member has alone or a mass1 of members has); d (basic case?) totality has whatever property all the members have individually. There have been

other possibilities suggested but this seems to be the main ones and Lojban has – more or less – gadri for them, albeit it is not clear exactly how to use most of them.

Identification. No problems here, given the earlier preselect- postselect distinction.

Accuracy/veridicality. No problem, but xorxesÂ’ suggestion seems more efficient. Of course, making this distinction obligatory would ruin a large chunk of literature and conversation generally, but I suppose all these critters are optional.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Robin%27s+gadri+Proposal



Posted by xorxes on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:12 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> And, of course, on the putative examples, which

> are too complex to be of any use to someone seeking information or a template

> to apply (some of them also seem to be wrong, even for the murky concepts

> being illustrated.

I'm open to add any examples that you would consider useful, please

suggest some. If you point out which ones you think are wrong, and

how you would fix them, that would be helpful too.

> The notes also say that (lo broda} and {lo n broda} (and apparently the same

> patterns for {le} and beyond) are constants and this would not fit a general

> reading for that would mean that that “not generally” means “generally not”

> and “generally

> something” means the same as “something generally,” neither of which holds

> generally.

I would do "not generally" as {na ta'e}, and "generally not"

as {ta'e na}, at least for one sense of "generally". {na'o} might

give another sense, though I'm not very clear on the difference

between {ta'e} and {na'o}.

> Some places are always D (like 1among) others are always C (like among2) most

> can be either as the case requires. For variables, there needs to be a flag

> to say how the predication is to be taken, so we will assume this, though it

> is not yet lexed.

In XS, there is an optional flag: An outer quantifier indicates

a distributive predication, loi/lei/lo'u indicate collective:

le ci cribe cu broda (distributivity not indicated)

ro le ci cribe cu broda (distributive)

lei ci cribe cu broda (collective)

> One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode}

Actually, {la q brod}, a quantifier with a CMENE, is not grammatical

at the moment. But what you say does apply to {la q broda}.

> is “Ix: x are called “q brod” x brode” so there is no way to

> insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}.

There's always {lo q la broda}, which also works with {la brod}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT posts: 2388

A> Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode} cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly its most basic.

B> this is where I am trying to figure out what the Hell "generic reference" and "generic individual" mean. so, the hypothesis is the often proclaimed one that {lo} is used to indicate generality. If you mean to show generality by an external marker (as I think you should) then the objection does not hold; it is in fact a part of the argument that {lo} doesn't work in that way. I am not sure that the forms you pick are the best ones, however: {ta'e} is fundamentally about individuals (groups don't really have habits though they may cultivate them in their members) and we have noted that the typical is not the general (the typical lion is female, but lions are not generally female). Habitual action is also action no longer thought about and that is not generally true of actions, even thouse gnerally performed (and of course there a re general states but no habitual ones — or only rather metaphrically so).

C> I am not sure why outer quantifiers have to signal distributive predication: six students might be shipmates as easily as the students are. And, of course, your marks do not help for moving back and forth between C and D, nor with variables generally. Well, apparently you can get away with {lo da} so maybe there is. I take the simple gadri as differentiated by distributivity into {lV} and {lVi}, which seems to be the usual pattern in Lojban, and external quantifiers merely take some of the brodas among the ones first mentioned but keep the mentiooned distributivity.

D> In {la q brod} q functions merely phonologically as part of the name, but not as a quantifier. The suggestion is to allow some expression involving q to go into that place and function as a quantifier in {la brod}

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> And, of course, on the putative examples, which

> are too complex to be of any use to someone seeking information or a template

> to apply (some of them also seem to be wrong, even for the murky concepts

> being illustrated.

A>I'm open to add any examples that you would consider useful, please

suggest some. If you point out which ones you think are wrong, and

how you would fix them, that would be helpful too.

> The notes also say that (lo broda} and {lo n broda} (and apparently the same

> patterns for {le} and beyond) are constants and this would not fit a general

> reading for that would mean that that “not generally” means “generally not”

> and “generally

> something” means the same as “something generally,” neither of which holds

> generally.

B>I would do "not generally" as {na ta'e}, and "generally not"

as {ta'e na}, at least for one sense of "generally". {na'o} might

give another sense, though I'm not very clear on the difference

between {ta'e} and {na'o}.

> Some places are always D (like 1among) others are always C (like among2) most

> can be either as the case requires. For variables, there needs to be a flag

> to say how the predication is to be taken, so we will assume this, though it

> is not yet lexed.

C>In XS, there is an optional flag: An outer quantifier indicates

a distributive predication, loi/lei/lo'u indicate collective:

le ci cribe cu broda (distributivity not indicated)

ro le ci cribe cu broda (distributive)

lei ci cribe cu broda (collective)

> One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode}

D>Actually, {la q brod}, a quantifier with a CMENE, is not grammatical

at the moment. But what you say does apply to {la q broda}.

> is “Ix: x are called “q brod” x brode” so there is no way to

> insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}.

There's always {lo q la broda}, which also works with {la brod}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> A> Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode}

> cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be

> met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one

> to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly

> its most basic.

This is not meant to be a textbook though. I will add a simple

{lo broda cu brode} as a first example then, but with no context

to give it meaning, I'm not sure how helpful it can be.

> If you mean to show generality

> by an external marker (as I think you should) then the objection does not

> hold; it is in fact a part of the argument that {lo} doesn't work in that

> way.

I don't want to claim that {lo} marks generality. Only that it can

be used to make general claims. In those claims, generality can be

marked explicity (by ta'e or whatever is more appropriate) or left

to context.

>I am not sure that the forms you pick are the best ones, however:

> {ta'e} is fundamentally about individuals (groups don't really have habits

> though they may cultivate them in their members)

I don't think ta'e can be used to mark the habits of one of the

arguments. It should say something about the event as a whole.

For example:

lo cipni ta'e vofli ga'u le zdani

Birds habitually fly above the house.

This is not to say that some bird or birds are in the habit of flying

above the house, but rather that habitually it is the case that

birds fly above the house. It is no more the habit of birds to fly over

than it is the habit of the house to be flown over.

> I take the simple gadri as differentiated by

> distributivity into {lV} and {lVi}, which seems to be the usual pattern in

> Lojban, and external quantifiers merely take some of the brodas among the

> ones first mentioned but keep the mentiooned distributivity.

But then you don't have the possibility to not mark distributivity

when you don't want to.

> D> In {la q brod} q functions merely phonologically as part of the name,

As I said, {la q brod} is ungrammatical in current Lojban.

The parser will reject {la ci djan}. It will accept {la ci bakni},

and the meaning restriction is as you say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT posts: 2388

1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of context would make some of the current examples clearer.

2. Well, this is a much more sensible claim, although {lo} is surely not unique in this respect — {su'o da poi} works as well, for example. So we are still stuck with "generic reference" and "generic individual."

3. I suppose some people sometimes do talk that way in English, but one would hope that Lojban did not force. On the other hand, in this sense, {ta'e} looks much better for "generally" but the gloss is terrible (it seems to parallel the case of {ka'e} when used for "possible."}

4. But I don't generally want not to mark it, although I want to use actual marks as little as possible. If it is important not to mark it, I can use quantified variables, which are not marked.

5. Yup. OK, {la .qbrod.} then. I thought I had seen a case of the other form but can't find it now. In any case, the internal quantifier would be nice for symmetry if nothing else. Ahah! what I can find is {la ci cribe} read as "Three-Bears" not "three Bears" so do we need the change everywhere after {la}?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A> Well, I would start by dealing with straightforward {lo broda cu brode}

> cases and build to the more complex ones in clearly discussed steps. to be

> met immediately with subordinate clauses and complex sentences might lead one

> to think that {lo} was some advanced part of the language rather than nearly

> its most basic.

1.>This is not meant to be a textbook though. I will add a simple

{lo broda cu brode} as a first example then, but with no context

to give it meaning, I'm not sure how helpful it can be.

> If you mean to show generality

> by an external marker (as I think you should) then the objection does not

> hold; it is in fact a part of the argument that {lo} doesn't work in that

> way.

2>I don't want to claim that {lo} marks generality. Only that it can

be used to make general claims. In those claims, generality can be

marked explicity (by ta'e or whatever is more appropriate) or left

to context.

>I am not sure that the forms you pick are the best ones, however:

> {ta'e} is fundamentally about individuals (groups don't really have habits

> though they may cultivate them in their members)

3>I don't think ta'e can be used to mark the habits of one of the

arguments. It should say something about the event as a whole.

For example:

lo cipni ta'e vofli ga'u le zdani

Birds habitually fly above the house.

This is not to say that some bird or birds are in the habit of flying

above the house, but rather that habitually it is the case that

birds fly above the house. It is no more the habit of birds to fly over

than it is the habit of the house to be flown over.

> I take the simple gadri as differentiated by

> distributivity into {lV} and {lVi}, which seems to be the usual pattern in

> Lojban, and external quantifiers merely take some of the brodas among the

> ones first mentioned but keep the mentiooned distributivity.

4>But then you don't have the possibility to not mark distributivity

when you don't want to.

> D> In {la q brod} q functions merely phonologically as part of the name,

5>As I said, {la q brod} is ungrammatical in current Lojban.

The parser will reject {la ci djan}. It will accept {la ci bakni},

and the meaning restriction is as you say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by xorxes on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> 1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure

> how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of

> context would make some of the current examples clearer.

Which examples do you find unclear? I tried to pick sentences that

more or less showed what they were about. With a sentence of the

form {lo broda cu brode} that is harder to do. I have now added

{lo rozgu cu xunre}, "Roses are red."

> 3. I suppose some people sometimes do talk that way in English, but one

> would hope that Lojban did not force. On the other hand, in this sense,

> {ta'e} looks much better for "generally" but the gloss is terrible (it seems

> to parallel the case of {ka'e} when used for "possible."}

We should fix the keyword for {ta'e} then. I can't really tell if

"habitually" is terrible in this sense, but I'm fairly certain that

being a tense it can't be about the habits of just one of the arguments.

> 4. But I don't generally want not to mark it, although I want to use actual

> marks as little as possible. If it is important not to mark it, I can use

> quantified variables, which are not marked.

That's all backwards from my point of view. Quantified terms have always

been taken as distributive as far as I understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

http://messenger.yahoo.com



Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT posts: 2388

A. "Roses are red" is a good place to start; "Students surround the building" (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.

B. Unfortunately, we have {ka'e} a personal tense (well, modal) as a model. Hopefully, when we get around to it, this will be changed to "possibly" and all other cases of {ka'e} will be shifted to {kakne}, where they have always belonged.

C. Gee. did we read the same CLL and proposed revisions and McKay? As I said, six students can surround a building just as well as students or six of the students. {ci loi broda} is supposed, using the old terminology, to be a subgroup of {loi broda} but with three members, just as {ci lo broda} is a subwhatever-we-called-it-before-McKay with three members. And similarly, three things (unspecified) can do/be collectively or distributively. That was the whole point — and the main problem — with the old group-non-group distinction. {ci da} is distributieve in the old system only because we did not have a way to take it collectively; now we do and we can correct the omission.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> 1. But it is meant to be proposal open to all. As for context, I'm not sure

> how you imagine context is going to affect these sentences. Maybe a bit of

> context would make some of the current examples clearer.

A>Which examples do you find unclear? I tried to pick sentences that

more or less showed what they were about. With a sentence of the

form {lo broda cu brode} that is harder to do. I have now added

{lo rozgu cu xunre}, "Roses are red."

> 3. I suppose some people sometimes do talk that way in English, but one

> would hope that Lojban did not force. On the other hand, in this sense,

> {ta'e} looks much better for "generally" but the gloss is terrible (it seems

> to parallel the case of {ka'e} when used for "possible."}

B>We should fix the keyword for {ta'e} then. I can't really tell if

"habitually" is terrible in this sense, but I'm fairly certain that

being a tense it can't be about the habits of just one of the arguments.

> 4. But I don't generally want not to mark it, although I want to use actual

> marks as little as possible. If it is important not to mark it, I can use

> quantified variables, which are not marked.

C>That's all backwards from my point of view. Quantified terms have always

been taken as distributive as far as I understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

http://messenger.yahoo.com



Posted by xorxes on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:13 GMT posts: 1912

pc:

> A. "Roses are red" is a good place to start; "Students surround the

> building" (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And

> then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.

I'll add:

lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

"Students are surrounding the building and yelling."

To show that {lo tadni} is non-commital about distributivity.

> And similarly,

> three things (unspecified) can do/be collectively or distributively. That

> was the whole point — and the main problem — with the old group-non-group

> distinction. {ci da} is distributieve in the old system only because we did

> not have a way to take it collectively; now we do and we can correct the

> omission.

Well, that's not how we've been doing it so far. I'm not sure the

conservative Lojban community can handle such a shift, but you can

always try.

How do you do specific reference with no specification for distributivity?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



Posted by pycyn on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:14 GMT posts: 2388

A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal and neither has Lojban characteristically (in the explanations, not in the text, of course, since it did not have the wherewithal before).This is a nice case: I would have said {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e D krixa}, where D is the yet unlexed distributive marker (it could be done with the definitional clause but that is messier).

B. We did not have the theoretical framework before, but we did have the pattern — where else did the {lo}-{loi} distinction come from? As for the conservative community, look at all the changes you have made (many without any foundation at all) with scarcely a murmur of protest.

C. A fair question to which I don't have an immediate answer. How do we do specific references now with something like a bound variable? I am not too worried about that however since I don't think we often want to be without marks of distributivity.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc:

> A. "Roses are red" is a good place to start; "Students surround the

> building" (or something reasonably close to this) is a start for {loi}. And

> then the differences come out, either explicitly or implicitly.

A>I'll add:

lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa

"Students are surrounding the building and yelling."

To show that {lo tadni} is non-commital about distributivity.

> And similarly,

> three things (unspecified) can do/be collectively or distributively. That

> was the whole point — and the main problem — with the old group-non-group

> distinction. {ci da} is distributieve in the old system only because we did

> not have a way to take it collectively; now we do and we can correct the

> omission.

B>Well, that's not how we've been doing it so far. I'm not sure the

conservative Lojban community can handle such a shift, but you can

always try.

C>How do you do specific reference with no specification for distributivity?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'__

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:14 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:07:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:

> A. But I don't want {lo} to be non-committal

That would be the whole point of xorlo, though.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:16 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

I have made a significant change to the gadri proposal page.

I am giving up the idea of quantifying over groups with {lo}.

This means {ci lo vo tadni} means "three of four students"

instead of "three groups of four students".

This brings {lo} more in line with {le} and {la}. The other

meaning can be obtained, with the proposed definition for

{mei}, as {PA1 lo PA2mei be lo broda}.

I don't think there will be much opposition to this move, as

several people expressed their preference for {lo} being

treated like {le} in this respect, but if someone objects,

please speak up.

Two of the lo-examples were changed with this: those are

the "five groups of four students" and the "seven groups of

seven beads" examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:19 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

I've proposed zilfadni for a common property, and clarified the definition of kampu.

xorxes has agreed to use zilfadni in his definitions.

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/zilfadni

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:19 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

The one issue I have left with this proposal is the use of "mi" in definitions.

Is it intended that, for example, a conversation could go like this:

i mi viska le gerku (I see something which I describe as a dog.)

i go'i ra'o (I see something which I describe as a dog, too.)

I think most users wouldn't expect "ra'o" to apply to a "le" phrase. Perhaps I'm taking the "mi" too literally, but I wonder why it's there at all. Use voi - that's what it's there for.

- Rob



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:20 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

Something that just came up talking to clsn. He wanted a way to say "leave it open so birds can eat the grain" without the fuzziness of xorlo.

After some thought, I realized that what appears to be gadri-based inspecificity ("birds") actually is a completely seperate issue. The Right Way to translate this is:

"... curmi lo nu da'i su'o cipni ka'e citka"

or similar, because the reason that it's inspecific is that we have no idea if it will actually happen. If it *does* happen, then we definately have {su'o cipni cu citka}.

-Robin



Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:20 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

Been going over the examples under "lo", because I've heard a number of people asking how to do the more specific, less general versions of various xorlo things. Here's my re-do of all of them. The goal was to use something other than non-outer-quantified "lo" in all cases. It might be worthwile, xorxes, to stick some of these, possible with modifications (some of my changes are a bit silly) into the other sections; le and lo'e in particular.

BTW, I'd really like to se an example in every section with both inner and outer quantifiers, no matter how artificial it is.

BTW2, here's a list of words in the "lo" section examples that don't seem to be in jbovlaste:

  • xanlai
  • cmananba
  • bidjylinsi
  • kucysni
  • sofybakni
  • pukmau

Here's the re-dos:

  • lo rozgu cu xunre
  • Roses are red.
  • le'e rozgu cu xunre
  • xu ro lo rozgu cu xunre i na go'i i mu'a su'o lo rozgu cu pelxu
  • Is every rose red? No, some roses are yellow, for example.
  • Already specific.
  • lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa
  • Students are surrounding the building and yelling.
  • loi so'i tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa
  • ko'a pu lebna lo xanlai pe lo cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi
  • He grabbed a handful of biscuits and gave me three.
  • ko'a pu lebna pa lo xanlai pe loi su'o cmananba gi'e dunda ciboi cy mi
  • ca ro nu mi rere'u catlu lo skina kei mi cpacu ro lo se cusku poi mi na cpacu ca lo pamoi
  • ("ro lo se cusku" is wrong here, unless the speaker claims that the third time they learn nothing; pi so'i seems better)
  • Every time I see a movie for the second time I get all this dialogue that I missed the first time.
  • ca ro nu mi re re'u catlu pa lo skina kei mi cpacu pi so'i lo se cusku poi mi na cpacu ca le pa moi
  • ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu
  • Children should show great forbearance toward grown-up people.
  • ei lo'e verba cu mutce fraxu lo'e makcu prenu
  • ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu
  • But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.
  • ku'i ui nai mi na viska su'o lo lanme pa'o su'o lo bitmu be fo su'o lo tanxe i ju'o cu'i mi milxe simsa lo'e makcu prenu
  • ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja
  • At night lions hunt for food.
  • ca lo'e nicte lo'e cinfo cu kalte su'o lo cidja
  • lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi
  • One picture is worth a thousand words.
  • pa lo pa pixra cu se vamji ki'o lo valsi - uninteresting
  • de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42
  • In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.
  • de'i li 1960 pa re lo sovda cu fepni li 42 - uninteresting
  • cimai lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu lo mu gunma be lo vo tadni
  • Step 3: The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.
  • cimai le ctuca cu fendi lei selctu mu lo gunma be vo lo tadni
  • lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze gunma be lo ze bidju be'o e ji'a ci bidju e lo kucysni
  • The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.
  • ro lo bidjylinsi pe le ze seldri cu se pagbu ze gunma be ze lo bidju be'o e ji'a ci lo bidju e pa lo kucysni
  • o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
  • Caution! There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden.
  • o'i mu lo xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi
  • lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270
  • Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and weigh about

270lbs.

  • lo'e sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno tu'o lo djacu o nai tu'o lo canre to tu'o lo djacu cu pukmau ki'u ro lo nu slilu tolcando toi g

i'e bunda li ji'i 270

  • This assumes a friendly definition of "tu'o". "ro lo nu" is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.
  • lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo pa jirna cu cpana lo mebri be ce'u
  • Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a horn coming out of their foreheads.
  • lo'e pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e simlu ro lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi pa lo jirna cu cpana pa lo mebri be ce'u
  • "le'e" would do just as well, IMO. "ro lo nu" is a stretch; IMO only xorlo is appropriate for that usage.


Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:31 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

{lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja} can be translated into English

in many different ways:

A man enters a bar

Men enter a bar

A man enters bars

Men enter bars

Men entered a bar

and so on. Sometimes it will make little difference, for example

"It happens all the time that a man enters a bar" and

"it happens all the time that men enter bars" are hardly

different. In other cases we need more context to determine

what the best translation is.

Similarly, "a man walks into a bar" can be translated in many

different ways into Lojban:

lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja

le nanmu cu nerkla lo barja

lo nanmu cu nerkla le barja

le nanmu cu nerkla le barja

le bi'u pa nanmu cu nerkla le bi'u pa barja

and so on. There is no Right Translation, it depends on the

context, and sometimes it won't make much difference. I would

use {le nanmu} when the story is about the man, and {le barja}

when the story is about the bar. If the bar is just part of the

scenery, I would use {lo barja}. If the man is just part of the

scenery, I would use {lo nanmu} (for example, "a man walks

into a bar, then another man walks in, then another one, and

soon the bar is so crowded that ..." In this case the speaker

doesn't have a certain man in mind, so {lo nanmu} would

make more sense.

So there is no one-to-one correspondence between English and

Lojban sentences, nothing new about that.

In logic terms, I would write {lo nanmu cu nerkla lo barja}

as nerkla(N, B-), where N and B are constants. The negation

of that would be ¬nerkla(N,B) wherever in the sentence naku

appears, because there is nothing to interact with the negation.

I undestand pc would rather write it as:

[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

where Q is a complex quantifier, maybe context dependant.

In this case, naku might have different effects depending on

where it appears in the sentence:

¬[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

[Qx: nanmu(x)] ¬[Qy: barja(y)] nerkla(x,y)

[Qx: nanmu(x)] [Qy: barja(y)] ¬nerkla(x,y)

These may or may not be equivalent depending on what Q is.

Some quantifiers commute with negation, most don't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 01:31 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

I would like this to be split into two parts: a main part, and one for lo'e and le'e only. Then the main part can be marked complete, and lo'e and le'e considered at a later time.



Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 01:31 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: gadri

Oops. There seem to be no examples of PA lo PA broda in the lo examples section. This is probably my fault.

xorxes, if you want me to come up with something, let me know.

-Robin