User:Gleki/xorlo as seen by La Gleki: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 69: Line 69:
{{gl|le zarci|one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-in-this-UD-as being-a-market}}
{{gl|le zarci|one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-in-this-UD-as being-a-market}}


Other explanations of '''le'' above are fine whether or not they are useful to turn Lojban into a colloquial language to be used to bake cookies. Namely,
Other explanations of '''le''' above are fine whether or not they are useful to turn Lojban into a colloquial language to be used to bake cookies. Namely,
* "“le” is quite close in meaning to English “the”" is fine if we assume that "the" is to be used anaphorically/cataphorically/exophorically.
* "“le” is quite close in meaning to English “the”" is fine if we assume that "the" is to be used anaphorically/cataphorically/exophorically.
* "whether or not the listener knows which ones they are" is fine provided that we are using '''le''' anaphorically/cataphorically/exophorically not analyzing its veridicality.
* "whether or not the listener knows which ones they are" is fine provided that we are using '''le''' anaphorically/cataphorically/exophorically not analyzing its veridicality.

Revision as of 09:12, 16 December 2015

zoi by.འཁོར་ལོ།.by.
noi se sance zoi zoi.xorlo.zoi
valsi lu lo xislu li'u lo banbu'odu

Abbrevs

UD
Universe of Discourse

Scope generators

da series, prepositions create scope.

lo bridi can have a prenex that declares da. All da that are not declared in the prenex are inherited from lo bridi from higher levels.

Prepositions, pa da-like and pa broda-like nouns create scope to the right of each of them.

Pure da with its quantification declared in the prenex doesn't create a scope.

lo has top priority scope over the whole UD to the left and to the right of them, they don't scope over each other.

lo

  • This construct doesn't have a prenex thus every usage of it creates a new scope and a new variable.
  • Additionally all its variables have top scope.

lo is the same da poi but it's implicitly declared in an implicit UD-wide prenex.

UD-wide prenex is always implicit. This makes lo unredeclarable with UD.

No matter how much context is given lo can always be rephrased using a da poi prenex wrapped into new scopes

lo plise cu kukte
su'o da poi plise zo'u da kukte

Apples are tasty.

The difference is that lo doesn't require and is not able for any explicit variable declarations.

More examples:

lo pa valsi cu se vamji ko'a
rau da poi valsi zo'u da se vamji ko'a

One word (any word) is worth ko'a.
lo pa bangu noroi jai banzu
no nu pa da bangu cu banzu

One language (any language) is never enough.

lo, da poi, pa broda similarity and differences

The basic and most important similarity is that

  • nothing within UD is able to penetrate the scope of lo.
  • declared da from upper scopes is not able to penetrate the scope of another da declared at levels inner to the first (upper) da. When needed goi-type assignments to intermediate pointers can be used.

Examples:

  • su'o da zo'u da gasnu lo nu su'o da zo'u da brode
    1. da is not able to redeclare the da in da brode because the latter da is explicitly declared in the inner lo bridi.
    2. the scope of da brode is beyond the scope of the first da
  • su'o da zo'u da gasnu lo brode
    1. da is not able to redeclare lo brode (because there are not explicit variables)
    2. the scope of lo brode is beyond the scope of da
  • su'o da zo'u da gasnu pa brode
    1. da is not able to redeclare pa brode (because there are not explicit variables)
    2. the scope of pa brode is within the scope of da

pa broda

  • This construct doesn't have a prenex thus every usage of it creates a new scope and a new variable.

Examples of scope boundaries

Some scopes are shown here with their boundaries marked with [ ... ].

  • nu [mi broda] kei
  • su'o da [broda de]
  • mi na ku [bai ku [klama da]]

le and particularity vs. any-ness

le = non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ...
le zarci = one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-as being-a-market

“le” is quite close in meaning to English “the”...
...“le” ... indicates that the speaker has one or more specific markets in mind (whether or not the listener knows which ones they are). Second, it also indicates that the speaker is merely describing the things he or she has in mind ..., without being committed to the truth of that description.

CLL 1.0

The description of the meaning of le is not very precise. Instead of

le zarci = one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-as being-a-market

I suggest this glossing

le zarci = one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-in-this-UD-as being-a-market

Other explanations of le above are fine whether or not they are useful to turn Lojban into a colloquial language to be used to bake cookies. Namely,

  • "“le” is quite close in meaning to English “the”" is fine if we assume that "the" is to be used anaphorically/cataphorically/exophorically.
  • "whether or not the listener knows which ones they are" is fine provided that we are using le anaphorically/cataphorically/exophorically not analyzing its veridicality.


In CLL 1.0 both da poi and lo can be translated as "some/any". le is opposed to both of them.

Veridicality

lo = at least one of all of those which really are

CLL deals with veridicality when showing lo/le distinction. "veritas" implies knowledge and thus either jetnu2 pr djuno1 and thus requires either epistemology or the subject who knows.

  • for lo "at least one of all of those which really are", the definition provided by CLL, is fine provided that veridicality is explained (even if implicitly or by context) in UD.

Hence, the whole idea of veridicality is correct and only needs paedagogical rephrasings leading to colloquial "logical" Lojban being true.

pre-xorlo expansions of lo, le, la

They were expanded as

  • le:
    • ro le su'o
    • all of the at-least-one described as
  • lo:
    • su'o lo ro
    • at least one of all of those which really are
  • la:
    • ro la su'o
    • all of the at least one named

That's too late to take them into account due to a natural shift in Lojban usage leading to the adoption of [[1]] expansions.

ci gerku and ci lo gerku

By a quirk of Lojban syntax, it is possible to omit the descriptor “lo”, but never any other descriptor, from a description like that of Example 7.5; namely, one which has an explicit outer quantifier but no explicit inner quantifier.

CLL 1.0

After the xorlo reform the expansions are:

ci gerku = ci da poi ke'a gerku
ci lo gerku = ci me lo gerku = ci da poi ke'a me lo gerku

Hence, the difference is only in top-level declarations of dogs somewhere in UD in ci lo gerku construct.

The difference is really subtle to think of any useful difference between them.

Back to CLL 1.0

So given everything above the " lo/da vs. le " distinction described in CLL 1.0 (no matter how awkward or inutile for colloquial usage the description is) is nevertheless fine and useful for the language design and its applications (through translations into Laymen English) in general.

In short it describes the difference between indefinite (lo and da) and definite, id est anaphorical/cataphorical/exophorical distinction.