new-fi'o: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
A proposal by [[User:Ctefaho|la Ctefá'o]] to re-define '''[[BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants|fi'o]]''' based on {{jvs|xoi}}:
A proposal by [[User:Ctefaho|la Ctefá'o]] to re-define '''[[BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants|fi'o]]''' based on {{jvs|xoi}}:


This is all very much a work-in-progress.


Old Definition
Old Definition
Line 12: Line 13:
| 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 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.
Desired Definition: None! No fi'o! No fe'u!


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 ***
La Ctefà'o hopes that all sumtcita and their interactions will one day be well defined.


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.


La Ctefà'o does not consider any clause containing a '''ke'a''' to be fully expandable (in that the '''ke'a''' simply vanishes), and only asks for any users of the xoi-based-sumtcita that the "'''ke'a'''" inside the adverbial clause is considered to fully represent the outer bridi (including relevant '''NU'''), regardless of how you desire to expand it.


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!
The rules for multiple '''xoi'''-clauses in a bridi are the same as those for '''sumtcita''', rightward scope. As for nested '''xoi''', more to come.


With the experimential new-'''zi'e''' in front of any '''sumtcita''' or of '''fi'o''' itself, '''{zi'e(i) fi'o broda}''' the scope simply becomes that of [[new soi|(new-)'''soi''']] instead.


'''NA''' (ref http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/na-as-tag)
But in other words, '''fi'o''' in this idea 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.


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}
So now that we have the sumtcita based on '''xoi'''-based-'''fi'o''', why not just define all of them using '''xoi''' directly instead of vague '''fi'o'''-definitions!




ja'a:
'''NA''' (ref http://selpahi.weebly.com/archive-pre-2014/na-as-tag)


{ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a} ---> {zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda}
na:


{broda ja'a ko'a}       ->           {broda xoi ko'a tolna'e ke'a} ---> {ko'a tolna'e lo su'u broda}
{na broda} -> {na zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e natfe ke'a}


{broda na ko'a}        ->        {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a}


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:


ja'a:


{.i broda} -> {.i ja'a broda} -> {zo'e tolna'e lo su'u broda}
{ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a}
 
 
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.
{broda ja'a ko'a}      ->          {broda xoi ko'a tolna'e ke'a}




Line 61: Line 52:


tolna'e - x1 (du'u) confirms/corroborates/verifies(/affirms) x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3
tolna'e - x1 (du'u) confirms/corroborates/verifies(/affirms) x2 (du'u) under rules/logic x3
La Ctefà'o is of the opinion that any bridi always has a NA attached to it, explicit or implicit, defaulting to ja'a if implicit. La Ctefà'o does not consider it logical, sane or useful for a human language that any bridi should ever hang in a "truth-vacuum" between absolute truth or absolute untruth. Rather, Ctefà'o prefers pragmatic truth, which is the only kind of truth useful to a human language (expressing non-absolute human truths), to be the norm. The implementation above relies on this "pragmatic" truth by claiming that a bridi is either true or false, simply because something (unspecified by default) makes it so. This is nothing you need to accept to use this definition of the NA tags (and you can still always claim absolute truth/untruth whenever you want to with jetnu and appropriate x2/ma'i).






'''PU''' (as single tenses only)
'''PU''' (As single tenses only. Not "hardcoded" to "nau" to allow greater expression)


pu:
pu: "Bridi was in the past of something"


{pu broda} -> {pu zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a purci zo'e}
{pu broda} -> {pu zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a purci zo'e}
Line 73: Line 66:




ca:
ca: "Bridi was simultaneous with something"


{ca broda} -> {ca zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a cabna zo'e}
{ca broda} -> {ca zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a cabna zo'e}
Line 80: Line 73:




ba:
ba: "Bridi is in the future of something"


{ba broda} -> {ba zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi zo'e}
{ba broda} -> {ba zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi zo'e}
Line 88: Line 81:




'''FAhA'''
'''HUGE TODO'''
 
TODO
 
 
'''ZAhO'''
 
BIG TODO
 
 
'''BAI'''
 
HUGE TODO

Revision as of 18:54, 27 June 2015

A proposal by la Ctefá'o to re-define fi'o based on xoi:

This is all very much a work-in-progress.

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

Desired Definition: None! No fi'o! No fe'u!

La Ctefà'o hopes that all sumtcita and their interactions will one day be well defined.


La Ctefà'o does not consider any clause containing a ke'a to be fully expandable (in that the ke'a simply vanishes), and only asks for any users of the xoi-based-sumtcita that the "ke'a" inside the adverbial clause is considered to fully represent the outer bridi (including relevant NU), regardless of how you desire to expand it.

The rules for multiple xoi-clauses in a bridi are the same as those for sumtcita, rightward scope. As for nested xoi, more to come.

With the experimential new-zi'e in front of any sumtcita or of fi'o itself, {zi'e(i) fi'o broda} the scope simply becomes that of (new-)soi instead.

But in other words, fi'o in this idea 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.


So now that we have the sumtcita based on xoi-based-fi'o, why not just define all of them 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}

{broda na ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a natfe ke'a}


ja'a:

{ja'a broda} -> {ja'a zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi zo'e tolna'e ke'a}

{broda ja'a ko'a} -> {broda xoi ko'a tolna'e ke'a}


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

La Ctefà'o is of the opinion that any bridi always has a NA attached to it, explicit or implicit, defaulting to ja'a if implicit. La Ctefà'o does not consider it logical, sane or useful for a human language that any bridi should ever hang in a "truth-vacuum" between absolute truth or absolute untruth. Rather, Ctefà'o prefers pragmatic truth, which is the only kind of truth useful to a human language (expressing non-absolute human truths), to be the norm. The implementation above relies on this "pragmatic" truth by claiming that a bridi is either true or false, simply because something (unspecified by default) makes it so. This is nothing you need to accept to use this definition of the NA tags (and you can still always claim absolute truth/untruth whenever you want to with jetnu and appropriate x2/ma'i).


PU (As single tenses only. Not "hardcoded" to "nau" to allow greater expression)

pu: "Bridi was in the past of something"

{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: "Bridi was simultaneous with something"

{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: "Bridi is in the future of something"

{ba broda} -> {ba zo'e broda} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi zo'e}

{broda ba ko'a} -> {broda xoi ke'a balvi ko'a}


HUGE TODO

Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=new-fi%27o&oldid=115655"