ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{jbocre/en}}
[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
#'''du'u''', '''ka''' and '''si'o''' are logically identical. They all express '''n'''-adic relations, where '''n''' is the number of overt or covert '''ce'u''' within the abstraction. A proposition is a 0-adic relation. A property is a 1-adic relation.
#The difference between '''du'u''', '''ka''' and '''si'o''' is purely grammatical, and concerns the interpretation of elided sumti.
#In '''du'u''' abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as '''zo'e'''.
#In '''ka''' abstractions that contain one or more overt '''ce'u''', all elided sumti are interpreted as '''zo'e'''.
#In '''ka''' abstractions that contain no overt '''ce'u''', the default interpretation is that exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as '''ce'u''' and the rest are interpreted as '''zo'e'''. If contextual factors are sufficiently strong, the default can be overridden, and more than one elided sumti is interpreted as '''ce'u''' according to the demands of the discourse context.
* Original version: In '''ka''' abstractions that contain no overt '''ce'u''', exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as '''ce'u''' and the rest are interpreted as '''zo'e'''.
#In a '''ka''' abstraction in which an elided sumti is interpreted as ''' ce'u''', the sumti is normally the leftmost empty sumti, unless this default is overridden by strong contextual factors.
#In '''si'o''' abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as '''ce'u'''.


'''Tense grammar simplification proposal''', by [[User:xorxes|xorxes]]
*[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
 
*:With the modification proposed on the list by xorxes (5: at least one '''ce'u''', except where context strongly indicates more than one, as in '''simxu'''), I think this is eminently sensible, and does not break existing usage.
=== Current grammar: ===
**[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
 
**:It arguably even makes sense of [[jbocre: Michael Helsem|Michael's]] use of '''si'o'''. That is, it makes formerly iffy usage valid.
^
**[[User:John Clifford|pc]]:
 
**:But is an egregious waste of cmavo space for no purpose whatsoever.  Assuming for the nonce that '''ce'u''' is actually meant to be used in the way typically done here (the list calls it a pseudo-quantifier -- whatever that means -- not a bound variable, after all), then the only logical way to deal with it is to make it everywhere explicit and then fudge back as context allows, not to have a passle of rules using up cmavo like peanuts at a beer party.
tense-modal = simple-tense-modal # | FIhO # selbri /FEhU#/
**:So, I suggest that '''du'u''' is the standard form for propositions and thus putting '''ce'u''' in it creates properties and relation, depending on how many you put in. '''ka''' on the other hand is the the qualitative version of '''ni''', giving properties of the enclosed event (another way to do adverbs, if you will). '''si'o''' seems to be about mental or mentalistic critters, complete thoughts or ideals or the corresponding partials related to properties and relations. On Zipfean ground, '''ka''' and '''du'u''' might well be interchanged, though that might affect some mnemonics.
 
**[[User:xod|xod]]:
simple-tense-modal = [[jbocre: NAhE|NAhE]] [[jbocre: SE|SE]] BAI [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] [[jbocre: KI|KI]]
**:This scheme is logically consistent but breaks existing usage too much to get adopted now.
 
----
| [[jbocre: NAhE|NAhE]] (time [[jbocre: space|space]]  space [[jbocre: time|time]]) & CAhA [[jbocre: KI|KI]]
*[[User:xod|xod]]:
 
*:There are problems with number five. First, it breaks existing usage (which is unfixably broken) because the Book itself shows that '''ka '''without '''ce'u''' could mean  there is one implicit '''ce'u''', or alternatively that there is no '''ce'u''' at all and the intended relationship is an abstraction of a quality fulfilled by a given sumti (not "height", but "my cat's height"), which should really be expressed using '''jei''', not '''ka'''. Agreeing upon an accepted tradition for the interpretation of ka without ce'u will only encourage people to perform that abomination. Instead, we should do what we can to discourage it and advise people to be explicit.
| KI
*:When it was discussed in that massive Lojban list thread, (5) seemed to be the best compromise between past usage, current usage, and the need to have something that wouldn't break down too badly. Purists can avoid '''ka''' altogether; [[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] no longer uses it.
 
----
| CUhE
*[[User:xod|xod]]:
 
*:And secondly, look how '''ni '''has been forgotten. It's almost completely neglected in the above discussion because it's redundant, only providing a quantitative mirror for '''ka'''. Well, sufficiently determined nerds like us can and usually do think of qualities as quantities, so we really don't need both.
time = ZI & time-offset ... & ZEhA [[jbocre: PU [jbocre: NAI|NAI]] & interval-property ...
*[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
 
*:I've just thrice rewritten a paragraph trying to work out what you're trying to say, but I give up. Can you explain? Maybe move explanation to a separate wiki page & link to it from here?
time-offset = PU [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] [[jbocre: ZI|ZI]]
 
space = VA & space-offset ... & space-interval & (MOhI space-offset)
 
space-offset = FAhA [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] [[jbocre: VA|VA]]
 
space-interval = [[jbocre: VEhA & VIhA) [jbocre: FAhA [jbocre: NAI|NAI]]) & space-int-props
 
space-int-props = (FEhE interval-property) ...
 
interval-property = number ROI [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] TAhE [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] | ZAhO [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]]
 
^
 
=== Proposed grammar: ===
 
^
 
tense-modal = ([[jbocre: NAhE|NAhE]] [[jbocre: SE|SE]] tag-unit [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] #) ...
 
tag-unit = BAI
 
| CAhA
 
| CUhE
 
| KI
 
| ZI
 
| PU
 
| VA
 
| [[jbocre: MOhI|MOhI]] FAhA
 
| ZEhA
 
| VEhA
 
| VIhA
 
| [[jbocre: FEhE|FEhE]] number ROI
 
| [[jbocre: FEhE|FEhE]] TAhE
 
| [[jbocre: FEhE|FEhE]] ZAhO
 
| FIhO # selbri /FEhU/
 
^
 
=== Rationale: ===
 
==== SE-conversion ====
 
Every tag-unit can be used as a tag, and therefore as a connective. It is arbitrary and inconvenient that SE is currently disallowed with some tags.
 
==== NAhE ====
 
{NAhE PU}, {NAhE CAhA} and {NAhE PU CAhA} are all allowed, but{NAhE PU NAhE CAhA} is not. This is arbitrary and inconvenient. Similarly for other combinations.
 
==== Order of units ====
 
{co'a na'o broda} "starting to typically broda" is allowed, but {na'o co'a broda} "typically starting to broda" is not. It will be accepted by the parser, but parsed as {na'oku co'a broda}. Similarly for all other order restrictions. Note: arbitrary combinations of tag-units are already allowed in selbri-tags as long as there is an intervening {ja'a}, for example: {na'o ja'a co'a broda} is allowed, without ku's.
 
==== NAI ====
 
There's no good reason to allow it selectively here and there instead of everywhere.
 
==== Backwards compatibility ====
 
Fully compatible. Everything currently grammatical remains grammatical.
 
--------------------
 
=== Notes ===
 
#In the original proposal I had kept PU [[jbocre: ZI|ZI]], FAhA [[jbocre: VA|VA]], ZEhA[[jbocre: PU|PU]], VEhA [[jbocre: FAhA|FAhA]] and VIhA [[jbocre: FAhA|FAhA]] as separate forms because I thought their compound meaning might follow special compositional rules. I don't think that is the case, though. Just as the Imaginary Journey composition follows the ordinary left-to-right scope rule, these componds follow the rule too. For example {ze'u pu} indicates a long duration of an event in the past of some reference point, where the event is in the past for the whole duration.
 
#Originally I had only redefined the simple-tense-modal, but since the exclusion of FIhO-modals from the general case was due to the LR(1) restriction which no longer applies, we can now generalize the full tense-modal.  
 
--------------------
 
(comments)
 
And's:
 
SE: Absolutely, yes.
 
NAhE: Yes.
 
Order: Is {lo na'o(ku) co'a broda} grammatical? If not, then that is an argument in favour of your proposal. If it is grammatical, then I think it would be better if all selbri tags were instead sumti tags, since otherwise we have a syntactic distinction with no semantic import.
 
*{lo na'oku co'a broda} is not grammatical. {lo na'o ja'a co'a broda} is grammatical. But having to remember for which combinations you need to insert ja'a is absurd.
**OK, then. I am in favour.
 
NAI: Certainly the status quo seems arbitrary. But IMO NAI is a Bad Thing when it contributes to logical form, because it doesn't follow the usual scope rules. Allowing NAI everywhere is probably better than allowing it arbitrarily, but better would be to disallow it everywhere except for places where na can't do the job.
 
*NAI only affects the meaning of the previous word. For example {ru'inai} means "intermittently". It follows the usual scope rule for UIs, the scope is always the previous word. If you prefer, the complex word+nai is a new word with a new meaning. The new meaning is not strictly compositional, but it is usually easy to guess.
**So it functions like NAhE, then? I agree the status quo is an ugly mess, but the risk of fixing it by allowing NAI anywhere is that we end up with a semantic mess. Are we (BF) really going to say for every cmavo what it means when followed by NAI? Or is it like a tanru, dependent on glorking?
 
***I will restrict it, for the purposes of this proposal, to words in tags. NAI is already allowed after most of them anyway, so we already have to do that.

Revision as of 08:07, 13 December 2013

And Rosta:

  1. du'u, ka and si'o are logically identical. They all express n-adic relations, where n is the number of overt or covert ce'u within the abstraction. A proposition is a 0-adic relation. A property is a 1-adic relation.
  2. The difference between du'u, ka and si'o is purely grammatical, and concerns the interpretation of elided sumti.
  3. In du'u abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as zo'e.
  4. In ka abstractions that contain one or more overt ce'u, all elided sumti are interpreted as zo'e.
  5. In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, the default interpretation is that exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e. If contextual factors are sufficiently strong, the default can be overridden, and more than one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u according to the demands of the discourse context.
  • Original version: In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e.
  1. In a ka abstraction in which an elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u, the sumti is normally the leftmost empty sumti, unless this default is overridden by strong contextual factors.
  2. In si'o abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as ce'u.
  • nitcion:
    With the modification proposed on the list by xorxes (5: at least one ce'u, except where context strongly indicates more than one, as in simxu), I think this is eminently sensible, and does not break existing usage.
    • And Rosta:
      It arguably even makes sense of Michael's use of si'o. That is, it makes formerly iffy usage valid.
    • pc:
      But is an egregious waste of cmavo space for no purpose whatsoever. Assuming for the nonce that ce'u is actually meant to be used in the way typically done here (the list calls it a pseudo-quantifier -- whatever that means -- not a bound variable, after all), then the only logical way to deal with it is to make it everywhere explicit and then fudge back as context allows, not to have a passle of rules using up cmavo like peanuts at a beer party.
      So, I suggest that du'u is the standard form for propositions and thus putting ce'u in it creates properties and relation, depending on how many you put in. ka on the other hand is the the qualitative version of ni, giving properties of the enclosed event (another way to do adverbs, if you will). si'o seems to be about mental or mentalistic critters, complete thoughts or ideals or the corresponding partials related to properties and relations. On Zipfean ground, ka and du'u might well be interchanged, though that might affect some mnemonics.
    • xod:
      This scheme is logically consistent but breaks existing usage too much to get adopted now.

  • xod:
    There are problems with number five. First, it breaks existing usage (which is unfixably broken) because the Book itself shows that ka without ce'u could mean there is one implicit ce'u, or alternatively that there is no ce'u at all and the intended relationship is an abstraction of a quality fulfilled by a given sumti (not "height", but "my cat's height"), which should really be expressed using jei, not ka. Agreeing upon an accepted tradition for the interpretation of ka without ce'u will only encourage people to perform that abomination. Instead, we should do what we can to discourage it and advise people to be explicit.
    When it was discussed in that massive Lojban list thread, (5) seemed to be the best compromise between past usage, current usage, and the need to have something that wouldn't break down too badly. Purists can avoid ka altogether; And Rosta no longer uses it.

  • xod:
    And secondly, look how ni has been forgotten. It's almost completely neglected in the above discussion because it's redundant, only providing a quantitative mirror for ka. Well, sufficiently determined nerds like us can and usually do think of qualities as quantities, so we really don't need both.
  • And Rosta:
    I've just thrice rewritten a paragraph trying to work out what you're trying to say, but I give up. Can you explain? Maybe move explanation to a separate wiki page & link to it from here?