considered harmful

From Lojban
Revision as of 16:45, 4 November 2013 by Gleki (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please don't use this page unless you really have to; surely there's a better BPFK Sections PFK Section for it?

  • We really need to nail down how masses and sets interact with brivla. For example, a very non-English sentence but: "this shirt is red in a way that fits with these 4 other shirts (call them c, d, f, and g)" is not {ti jbini cy .e dy .e fy .e gy lo ka xunre}, because that distributes to {ti jbini cy lo ka xunre}
    • If the group of shirts has a name, say "tibble", does {ti jbini la .tibl. lo ka xunre} work? Why or why not?
    • If I point at them; {ti jbini ta lo ka xunre}, does that work? How? What have I pointed at, exactly?
      • Yes, you have pointed at this shirt with "ti" and at those other shirts with "ta".
    • Does a set work here? Since a basic operation on sets in a mathematical context is "for each x in X ...", it seems like it should; {ti jbini cy ce dy ce fy ce gy lo ka xunri}, if you call the set of 4 shirts X, is "for every x in X, there exists a y in X such that redness(ti) is between redness(x) and redness(y)". This is completely standard mathematical idiom, and I (rlpowell) rather like it.
      • You can easily do that with plural reference: "ro da poi me ta zo'u su'o de poi me ta zo'u da ti de bancu lo ka ce'u xunre". No need to make "ta" a set. (Nice definition of "jbini", BTW. I just added it to jbovlaste.) mi'e xorxes
    • Does a mass work here? It seems to me (rlpowell) that saying "no" gives us an opportunity to make sets useful and to nail down what masses are. In that way, sets become "thing that is not distributive, with the default operation upon them being 'for each x,...' with ... left to context". Masses, on the other hand, become "thing that is not distributive, with the default operation upon them being 'all of the members collectively ...'". Maybe even just "for all x, x is a participant in ...". Something that makes {lei tadni cu sruri le dinju} work, anyways. I don't think {loi ratcu cu cmalu} is in any way useful or needs to be held on to, though; that's what {lo'e} is for. Let alone the whole {loi ratcu cu bunre .i je loi ratcu cu xekri}; that shit is just silly.
  • It would probably be a very good idea to disambiguate "cmene" and "cmevla", renaming the CMENE rule in the morphology CMEVLA, and noting both words (and the differences among them) in the revised CLL.
  • Decide on what to do about "observatives". I suggest removing them completely (a bridi without an explicit x1 is no different from any other place being left as an implicit zo'e, and gets no special treatment). At the absolute least, decide among the different criteria stated. Is it "no sumti before the selbri" or "missing x1", or something else? {broda fa ko'a} and {fe ko'e broda} are test cases.
  • Formalize a mechanism for fu'ivla rafsi
  • CLL section 8.6, around examples 6.8 and 6.9 says that {lo prenu noi blabi} asserts in passing that all people are white. This is as bad as only having five cows in the universe.
  • More issues with masses/sets and the rest of the language; also with poi/da/po'u in general:
    • What does "da po'u mu bakni" mean, if anything? Is it a mass?
    • What does "da poi gunma mu bakni" mean, if anything? Is it a mass?
    • Can "da" be a mass? If so, how does that interact with the rest of the logical connectives and so on?
    • What does "da po'u ko'a .e ko'e" mean?
    • How about "da poi mu mei fi lo bakni" (or mu bakni, whatever)?
      • An option with all of the above is to just say "numbers don't exit poi or po'u, period, and da is always distributive", so the examples mean the same thing as "da poi bakni" in most of those cases.
  • There's a rather large bug in the books explanation of distributivity (or is there? need to check) in as much as goatleg/numerical exactness implies that everything logically distributable distributes to actual objects with an "and no others" at the end, so {mi viska re prenu} is actually {mi viska pa da poi prenu .i je mi viska pa de poi prenu .i je ro da zo'u da na du pa de .i je ro de zo'u de na du pa di .i je ro di zo'u mi na viska di}. Or something like that; there are two particular things that I saw that are people, and they are distinct from each other, and I saw no things that aren't them.
  • Replace spelling error 'elidable' with 'elidible' throughout Lojban material