new-fi'o: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| broda fi'o brode ko'a|| ||broda xoi ke'a zo'u ko'a brode | | broda fi'o brode ko'a|| ||broda xoi ke'a zo'u ko'a brode | ||
|} | |} | ||
With the experimential new-'''zi'e''' ('''zi'ei''' for conformist alternative) in front of the '''fi'o''', '''{zi'e(i) fi'o broda}''', the scope simply becomes that of [[new soi|(new-)'''soi''']] instead. *** A new-zi'e page will be created | With the experimential new-'''zi'e''' ('''zi'ei''' for conformist alternative) in front of the '''fi'o''', '''{zi'e(i) fi'o broda}''', the scope simply becomes that of [[new soi|(new-)'''soi''']] instead. *** A new-zi'e page will be created eventually *** | ||
An earlier version of this proposal used '''{broda xoi ke'a fa ko'a brode do'e ke'a}''' as the definition. La Ctefá'o now prefers the zo'u-version instead to allow the broadest, sensical meaning possible. | An earlier version of this proposal used '''{broda xoi ke'a fa ko'a brode do'e ke'a}''' as the definition. La Ctefá'o now prefers the zo'u-version instead to allow the broadest, sensical meaning possible. | ||
Additionally, the author relies on a simplified form of adverbial clauses such that '''{broda xoi/soi ke'a brode} == {lo su'u broda cu brode}''' for simple sentences (where '''xoi'''/'''soi''' scope are identical). *** More about xoi vs soi coming some time *** | |||
But in other words, '''fi'o''' is now a short-hand form of '''xoi''' ((new-)'''soi''', with new-'''zi'e'''). If you need to be very specific with how the '''ke'a''' relates inside the '''xoi''', then use '''xoi''' directly instead. | But in other words, '''fi'o''' is now a short-hand form of '''xoi''' ((new-)'''soi''', with new-'''zi'e'''). If you need to be very specific with how the '''ke'a''' relates inside the '''xoi''', then use '''xoi''' directly instead. | ||
Do not use '''fi'o''' if the intended relation is not easily grasped/glorked from '''ke'a zo'u'''! And if you really do need the '''.i joi''' semantics for something then simply use '''.i joi''' directly instead. | Do not use '''fi'o''' if the intended relation is not easily grasped/glorked from '''ke'a zo'u'''! And if you really do need the '''.i joi''' semantics for something then simply use '''.i joi''' directly instead. | ||
Now | Now that we have the sumtcita using a '''xoi'''-based-'''fi'o''', why not just define all of them ('''PU''', '''ZAhO''', '''FAhA''', '''BAI''', '''NA''', etc) using '''xoi''' directly instead of vague '''fi'o'''-definitions! | ||
| Line 30: | Line 29: | ||
na: | na: | ||
{na broda} -> {na zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a} | {na broda} -> {na zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a} -> {lo su'u broda cu se natfe zo'e} -> {zo'e natfe lo su'u broda} | ||
{broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a} | {broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a} -> {lo su'u broda cu se natfe ko'a} -> {ko'a natfe lo su'u broda} | ||
ja'a: | ja'a: | ||
{ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e to'e natfe | {ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a} ---> {zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda} | ||
{broda ja'a ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a tolna'e ke'a} ---> {ko'a tolna'e lo su'u broda} | |||
Keep in mind that NA defaults to ja'a if unspecified (which happens a lot), just like UI defaults to ja'ai, a simple claim can be expanded as such: | |||
{.i broda} -> {.i ja'a broda} -> {zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda} | |||
Representing how all bridi are, at their very core, truth claims. | |||
And remember, logical assertion is now *implemented* with natfe/tolna'e, so any and all claims eventually end up there. | |||
{zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda} -> {zo'e ja'a tolna'e lo su'u ja'a broda} | |||
Yes, a claim about something being true is itself a claim, and so on. | |||
natfe - x1 (du'u) contradicts/denies/refutes/negates x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3. | |||
tolna'e - x1 (du'u) confirms/corroborates/verifies(/affirms) x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3 | |||
Revision as of 22:39, 22 June 2015
 | This page contains discussions of experimental/scientific/philosophical/logical aspects of Lojban that are non-official and not for everyday usage. You've been warned. |
A proposal by la Ctefá'o to re-define fi'o based on xoi:
Old Definition
| broda fi'o brode ko'a | broda .i joi ko'a brode |
New Definition:
| broda fi'o brode ko'a | broda xoi ke'a zo'u ko'a brode |
With the experimential new-zi'e (zi'ei for conformist alternative) in front of the fi'o, {zi'e(i) fi'o broda}, the scope simply becomes that of (new-)soi instead. *** A new-zi'e page will be created eventually ***
An earlier version of this proposal used {broda xoi ke'a fa ko'a brode do'e ke'a} as the definition. La Ctefá'o now prefers the zo'u-version instead to allow the broadest, sensical meaning possible.
Additionally, the author relies on a simplified form of adverbial clauses such that {broda xoi/soi ke'a brode} == {lo su'u broda cu brode} for simple sentences (where xoi/soi scope are identical). *** More about xoi vs soi coming some time ***
But in other words, fi'o is now a short-hand form of xoi ((new-)soi, with new-zi'e). If you need to be very specific with how the ke'a relates inside the xoi, then use xoi directly instead. Do not use fi'o if the intended relation is not easily grasped/glorked from ke'a zo'u! And if you really do need the .i joi semantics for something then simply use .i joi directly instead.
Now that we have the sumtcita using a xoi-based-fi'o, why not just define all of them (PU, ZAhO, FAhA, BAI, NA, etc) using xoi directly instead of vague fi'o-definitions!
NA (ref http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/na-as-tag)
na:
{na broda} -> {na zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a} -> {lo su'u broda cu se natfe zo'e} -> {zo'e natfe lo su'u broda}
{broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a} -> {lo su'u broda cu se natfe ko'a} -> {ko'a natfe lo su'u broda}
ja'a:
{ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a} ---> {zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda}
{broda ja'a ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a tolna'e ke'a} ---> {ko'a tolna'e lo su'u broda}
Keep in mind that NA defaults to ja'a if unspecified (which happens a lot), just like UI defaults to ja'ai, a simple claim can be expanded as such:
{.i broda} -> {.i ja'a broda} -> {zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda}
Representing how all bridi are, at their very core, truth claims.
And remember, logical assertion is now *implemented* with natfe/tolna'e, so any and all claims eventually end up there.
{zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda} -> {zo'e ja'a tolna'e lo su'u ja'a broda}
Yes, a claim about something being true is itself a claim, and so on.
natfe - x1 (du'u) contradicts/denies/refutes/negates x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3.
tolna'e - x1 (du'u) confirms/corroborates/verifies(/affirms) x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3
PU (as single tenses only)
pu:
{pu broda} -> {pu zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a purci zo'e}
{broda pu ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a purci ko'a}
ca:
{ca broda} -> {ca zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a cabna zo'e}
{broda ca ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a cabna ko'a}
ba:
{ba broda} -> {ba zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi zo'e}
{broda ba ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi ko'a}
FAhA
TODO
ZAhO
BIG TODO
BAI
HUGE TODO