Talk:BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita
> !! Examples of mu'i nai Usage > > mi gleki le nu tavla do mu'i nai le cmalu temci > I like talking to you, regardless of the short amount of time.
Add {kei} before {mu'i}, presumably.
> !! Examples of se mu'i nai Usage
>
> Artificial:
>
> di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji
> Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.
Something wrong in the translation here. {se mu'i} is "motivated by...", not "results in..."
"Sometimes, I eat not to end my hunger."?
> !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage > > .i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi .e lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei ki'unai loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba je'urbai > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, and the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but telling the simple truths which some day science will substantiate.
If anything, this should be {ki'u}, not {ki'u nai}:
"It is not the case that: (I purpose being pilloried ... because I am telling the simple truths)"
> !! Examples of se ki'u Usage
>
> .i mi ca gunka penmi seki'u le nu masno spuda (Slightly modified.)
> I am at a work meeting, which is the reason for my slow replies.
"Thereby" could be added as a keyword here:
"I am at a work meeting, thereby replying slowly."
> !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage > > .i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai zekri > Regardless of that motivation, I will defend the noble Lojban language against word-shape crimes.
That's {i se ki'u nai ku}. With {bo} it means something like:
"That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language against word-shape crimes."
> !! Examples of fau Usage > > Artificial: > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.
That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2", but {cusku} means "x1 expresses something with x2", so what you want to say is:
mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka "I express (something) with my standing up, the event that eating is over."
> !! Examples of se sau Usage
>
> .i pe'u ko sanli vi le serti se sau le nu mi do badgau (Slightly modified.)
> Please stand at the stairs, which is required for my defending you.
{pe'u do'o} or just {e'o}.
{badgau} means "x1 makes x2 defend x3 from x4", not "x1 defends x2 from x3".
> !! Examples of se ja'e nai Usage
>
> Artificial:
>
> mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce
> I walk regardless of the fact that I own a car.
It would make more sense with {na ponse}. Nobody would expect that owning a car results in walking, so what's the point of denying it?
> !! Examples of va'o Usage > > .i va'o le nu rodo na kakne le nu damba bau lo lojban. kei pe'u ko na damba > Under the conditions of y'all not being able to fight in lojban, please don't fight.
s/lo/la s/pe'u/pe'u do'o/ or {e'o}, and then you need {kei kei}.
Better re-order:
e'o ko na damba va'o lo nu ro do na kakne lo nu damba bau la lojban
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Taking this because bancus said I could.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:34:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > !! Examples of mu'i nai Usage > > > > mi gleki le nu tavla do mu'i nai le cmalu temci > > I like talking to you, regardless of the short amount of time. > > Add {kei} before {mu'i}, presumably.
Done.
> > !! Examples of se mu'i nai Usage > > > > Artificial: > > > > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji > > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending. > > Something wrong in the translation here. {se mu'i} is "motivated > by...",
Umm, no it's not.
> not "results in..."
It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results in".
In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia.
Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...".
> > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage > > > > .i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi .e > > lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei ki'unai > > loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba je'urbai > > > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, and > > the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but telling > > the simple truths which some day science will substantiate. > > If anything, this should be {ki'u}, not {ki'u nai}: > > "It is not the case that: (I purpose being pilloried ... because I > am telling the simple truths)"
I ain't touching this one. bancus? (I think xorxes is right, though).
> > !! Examples of se ki'u Usage > > > > .i mi ca gunka penmi seki'u le nu masno spuda (Slightly modified.) > > > > I am at a work meeting, which is the reason for my slow replies. > > "Thereby" could be added as a keyword here: > > "I am at a work meeting, thereby replying slowly."
Done.
> > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage > > > > .i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai > > zekri > > > > Regardless of that motivation, I will defend the noble Lojban > > language against word-shape crimes. > > That's {i se ki'u nai ku}. With {bo} it means something like: > > "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language > against word-shape crimes."
Ah, so it is.
Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or neither?
> > !! Examples of fau Usage > > > > Artificial: > > > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka > > > > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over. > > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2", but {cusku} > means "x1 expresses something with x2",
I still don't agree, nor do I find your statement to make much sense.
> so what you want to say is: > > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka > > "I express (something) with my standing up, the event that eating > is over."
That seems totally non-sensical to me. You can't express an event.
> > !! Examples of se sau Usage > > > > .i pe'u ko sanli vi le serti se sau le nu mi do badgau > > (Slightly modified.) > > > > Please stand at the stairs, which is required for my defending > > you. > > {pe'u do'o} or just {e'o}.
.e'o
> {badgau} means "x1 makes x2 defend x3 from x4", not "x1 defends x2 > from x3".
fi added.
> > !! Examples of se ja'e nai Usage > > > > Artificial: > > > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce > > > > I walk regardless of the fact that I own a car. > > It would make more sense with {na ponse}. Nobody would expect that > owning a car results in walking, so what's the point of denying > it?
Umm, what?
Oh, I see. My problem was with the English implications of "regardless".
Does this work?:
mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce
I walk, but not because I don't own a car.
I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car.
> > !! Examples of va'o Usage > > > > .i va'o le nu rodo na kakne le nu damba bau lo lojban. kei > > pe'u ko na damba > > > > Under the conditions of y'all not being able to fight in lojban, > > please don't fight. > > s/lo/la
> Better re-order: > > e'o ko na damba va'o lo nu ro do na kakne lo nu > damba bau la lojban
Done.
-Robin
> > > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji > > > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending. > > It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results > in". > > In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia. > > Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...".
So, "sometimes, I eat but this does not motivate (me) to stop being hunger"?
Does eating ever motivate someone to stop being hungry? Is one hungry by volition?
> > > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage > > > > > > .i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai > > > zekri > > > > > With {bo} it means something like: > > > > "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language > > against word-shape crimes." > > Ah, so it is. > > Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or neither?
Asserted.
What is negated is the causal relationship with the preceding sentence.
> > > !! Examples of fau Usage
> > >
> > > Artificial:
> > >
> > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka
> > >
> > > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.
> >
> > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2", but {cusku}
> > means "x1 expresses something with x2",
>
> I still don't agree, nor do I find your statement to make much
> sense.
The x2 of cusku is paradigmatically a text. A text is not something you express, it is something you say in order to express something else. The keyword "express" for {cusku} is misleading.
You say "thank you" to express gratitude. You say "I am done eating" to express that you are done eating. You don't express words, you express something _with_ words.
> > so what you want to say is: > > > > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka > > > > "I express (something) with my standing up, the event that eating > > is over." > > That seems totally non-sensical to me. You can't express an event.
Right, you express _with_ an event, just as you express _with_ words.
{cusku} means "x1 expresses with x2", not "x1 expresses x2".
> > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce > > > > It would make more sense with {na ponse}. > > Does this work?: > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce > > I walk, but not because I don't own a car.
Yes.
> I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car.
That would be slightly different.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
-- > > > > !! Examples of fau Usage > > > > > > Artificial: > > > > > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku > le du'u mo'u citka > > > > > > With the event of standing up, I express > that the eating is over. > > > > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 > expresses x2", but {cusku} > > means "x1 expresses something with x2",
This is very strange; can someone give me the history of what would lead someone to say such a thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as what is expressed or said; not whatever the alternative here claimed is.
> I still don't agree, nor do I find your > statement to make much > sense. > > > so what you want to say is: > > > > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu > mo'u citka > > > > "I express (something) with my standing up, > the event that eating > > is over." > > That seems totally non-sensical to me. You > can't express an event. > And what here says "in the event of," "if I should finish eating, I express (something by) standing up" ???
> > The x2 of cusku is paradigmatically a text. A > text is not > something you express, it is something you say > in > order to express something else. The keyword > "express" > for {cusku} is misleading.
This last clainm is certainly true, on the basis of this discussion > > You say "thank you" to express gratitude. > You say "I am done eating" to express that you > are done eating. > You don't express words, you express something > _with_ words. > > > > so what you want to say is: > > > > > > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu > mo'u citka > > > > > > "I express (something) with my standing up, > the event that eating > > > is over." > > > > That seems totally non-sensical to me. You > can't express an event. > > Right, you express _with_ an event, just as you > express _with_ > words. > > {cusku} means "x1 expresses with x2", not "x1 > expresses x2".
This is certainly false according to the present glossary. Now, whether "express" and "say" are totally different categories is open to some dispute. We tend to think of means of expressions (things said or done) as transparent to their message, which they often are not, so we need some devise to explain them — what seems to be going on here. In any case, a word that had a place for the means of expression and no place for what was expressed would be useless, the oposite meaning would be useful, however. And notice that {cusku} has a place for the means of expression, but it is 4, not 2 (don't take "medium" in too modern a sense). (In that sense the present sentence is kinda dumb, since the extra place is redundant.)
On 6/8/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > > > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 > > expresses x2", but {cusku} > > > means "x1 expresses something with x2", > > This is very strange; can someone give me the > history of what would lead someone to say such a > thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as what > is expressed or said; not whatever the > alternative here claimed is.
Mine has:
x1 (agent) expresses/says x2 (sedu'u/text/lu'e concept) for audience x3 via expressive medium x
So x2 is clearly marked as for what is said (se du'u/text/lu'e concept), not what is expressed by that (du'u/meaning of text/concept).
Besides, {cusku} is always used with a text in x2.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:05:40PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji > > > > > > > > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger > > > > ending. > > > > It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results > > in". > > > > In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia. > > > > Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...". > > So, "sometimes, I eat but this does not motivate (me) to stop > being hunger"?
There's supposed to be a lo nu in there. Whoops.
di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai lo nu mi co'u xagji
Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.
> Does eating ever motivate someone to stop being hungry? Is one > hungry by volition?
No, actually. Whoops. I guess that would be se ri'a nai.
Suggestions?
> > > > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage > > > > > > > > .i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo > > > > vlatai zekri > > > > > > > With {bo} it means something like: > > > > > > "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language > > > against word-shape crimes." > > > > Ah, so it is. > > > > Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or > > neither? > > Asserted. > > What is negated is the causal relationship with the preceding > sentence.
Then I've changed my mind; I stand by my translation, except s/motivation/reason/
Regardless of that reason, I defend the noble Lojban language against word-shape crimes.
"That" being the provious sentence. I also removed "will".
> > > > !! Examples of fau Usage > > > > > > > > Artificial: > > > > > > > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka > > > > > > > > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.
s/du'u/se du'u/
> > > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce > > > > > > It would make more sense with {na ponse}. > > > > Does this work?: > > > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce > > > > I walk, but not because I don't own a car. > > Yes. > > > I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car. > > That would be slightly different.
How so? The causal relationship is not asserted. That's "regardless".
-Robin
John E Clifford scripsit:
> This is very strange; can someone give me the > history of what would lead someone to say such a > thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as what > is expressed or said; not whatever the > alternative here claimed is.
The point is that "express" is ambiguous in English; we express sentences, and we also express propositions by uttering sentences. Lojban takes the first view exclusively.
-- May the hair on your toes never fall out! John Cowan --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [email protected]
On 6/8/05, John.Cowan wrote: > The point is that "express" is ambiguous in English; we express > sentences, and we also express propositions by uttering sentences. > Lojban takes the first view exclusively.
English is not all that ambiguous though:
"says a sentence" 991 hits "expresses a sentence" 20 hits
"expresses a proposition" 869 hits "says a proposition" 29 hits
So I think English pretty clearly distinguishes "to express (a meaning)" from "to say (something with meaning)", i.e. One says lo valsi/lo se smuni to express lo se valsi/lo smuni. It is Lojban that muddles things by using both words as glosses of {cusku}.
The problem is that Lojban does not have a good clear way of saying "x1 (person) expresses/puts forth (meaning) x2 with words/symbols x3".
{jarco} could be used, but it covers much more ground, because expression is done through a symbol, but showing can be direct. We need a good lujvo for "express".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
wrote: > John E Clifford scripsit: > > > This is very strange; can someone give me the > > history of what would lead someone to say > such a > > thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as > what > > is expressed or said; not whatever the > > alternative here claimed is. > > The point is that "express" is ambiguous in > English; we express > sentences, and we also express propositions by > uttering sentences. > Lojban takes the first view exclusively.
Well, that seems authoritative and is coherent with the comments in the word list, but it provides evidence that the people who devised the definitions sometimes worked in the deep darkness of their own lower colons. By this definition, {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a description of one: not a translation, not a summary, not an indirect quotation. By the xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation. This latter is unfortunate, since we need an "according to" sort of evidential expression now that the same xorxesian reasoning has removed {du'o} from that use to the relatively useless "as known by." The former is also unfortunate as it deprives us of a natural direct way to express indirect discourse. To be sure, {cusku lo se du'u} is not that much longer than {cusku lo du'u}, but is conceptually more complex, having to go explicitly by way of the actual expressions used [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed up the definition of {du'u} is. By that definition a complete sentence would have the format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u} and the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be li ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse, needless (I hope) to say. While in deep structure a sentence can be a NP, at the surface they always require some sort of overt mark. The expressions seems always to have been used — even in CLL --parallel to the other abstractors in the form "x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as a relation between a bridi and a sentence. This makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian rules, though this is not a BAI, so the rules may not apply] My impression is that {cusku} has been used more loosely, that it has not been treated as a mere generalization of {bacru} and {ciska}, tied to physical presentation rather than to what is intended by that presentation. There is also the logical problem that burying a quantifier in a predicates is almost always a mistake (or a deliberate cheat) and {cusku} now means, as xorxes points out, "x1 expresses something by saying x2...." I assume that {pinka} is restricte in the same way. I would suggest loosening both of these a bit.
> On 6/8/05, John.Cowan > wrote: > > The point is that "express" is ambiguous in > English; we express > > sentences, and we also express propositions > by uttering sentences. > > Lojban takes the first view exclusively. > > English is not all that ambiguous though: > > "says a sentence" 991 hits > "expresses a sentence" 20 hits > > "expresses a proposition" 869 hits > "says a proposition" 29 hits > > So I think English pretty clearly distinguishes
This seems to make it clear that English does; should Lojban? Apparently at some point the thinking was that it should not but that all should be reduced to the English "say." But the English data given is questionable: is it really the case that we say "He says "..."" 50 times as often as "He says that ..."? (I admit that "He expresses "..."" does strike me as perverse.) I really doubt it. And that is the issue here, I suppose.
> "to express (a meaning)" from "to say > (something > with meaning)", i.e. One says lo valsi/lo se > smuni > to express lo se valsi/lo smuni. It is Lojban > that > muddles things by using both words as glosses > of > {cusku}. > > The problem is that Lojban does not have a good > clear way of saying "x1 (person) expresses/puts > forth > (meaning) x2 with words/symbols x3". > > {jarco} could be used, but it covers much more > ground, > because expression is done through a symbol, > but > showing can be direct. We need a good lujvo for > "express". > Yes, we need a predicate to introduce indirect discourse and maybe the whole range of symbolic . speech (usually the finger, it seems). {cusku} seems to have about the right structure, just the wrong restriction (and the medium might be more important than the audience).
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:09:10AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > {jarco} could be used, but it covers much more ground, because > expression is done through a symbol, but showing can be direct. We > need a good lujvo for "express".
smuni + cusku, I think.
-Robin
wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:09:10AM -0300, Jorge > Llamb?as wrote: > > {jarco} could be used, but it covers much > more ground, because > > expression is done through a symbol, but > showing can be direct. We > > need a good lujvo for "express". > > smuni + cusku, I think. > So {smucku}, but how to fit the places together? x1 is {cusku1} the expresser x3 is {cusku3} and {smuni3} the hearer/interpreter x4 might be {cusku4 or 2} and {smuni2}}, the place for the means of expressing (it should probably be 3 and audience 4) x2 = {smuni1} Cute. But now how do we express an emotion or the like, not a meaning (or is "meaning" in {smuni} fairly broad?)
On 6/9/05, John E Clifford wrote: > By this definition, > {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a > description of one: not a translation, not a > summary, not an indirect quotation.
Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up writing things like {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u} because cusku can't apparently quote a translation of what was said.
> By the > xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be > inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation.
Not so, thanks to the {se du'u} contraption: {ko'a cusku lo se du'u brode} can be reformulated as {brode cu'u ko'a} without violating the xorxesian BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute but merely as a guide in any case.
> [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed
> up the definition of {du'u} is. By that
> definition a complete sentence would have the
> format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u} and
> the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be li
> ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse, needless
> (I hope) to say. While in deep structure a
> sentence can be a NP, at the surface they always
> require some sort of overt mark. The expressions
> seems always to have been used — even in CLL
> --parallel to the other abstractors in the form
> "x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as a
> relation between a bridi and a sentence.
Not sure what definition you're looking at. {NU [bridi] KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri. The selbri {du'u [bridi] kei} has two places, the first one for the proposition and the second one for a sentence that expresses the proposition. For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i} Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e klama" and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed by that sentence.
> This > makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian rules, > though this is not a BAI, so the rules may not > apply]
No idea what you mean, but probably the "rules" for BAI don't apply to abstractors, no.
> My impression is that {cusku} has been > used more loosely, that it has not been treated > as a mere generalization of {bacru} and {ciska}, > tied to physical presentation rather than to what > is intended by that presentation.
I don't think {cusku} is much used other than in {cusku lu ... li'u}, {cusku di'u}, {cusku di'e}, and {cusku lo se du'u ...}, and in the totally made up {cusku la apasionatas}. What other usages do you have in mind?
> I assume that {pinka} is restricte > in the same way.
{pinka} has the advantage of having an "about" place, so the frequent {te pinka}, "x1 comments about x2", is not about a text. {di'e pinka ...} is also relatively common.
> I would suggest loosening both > of these a bit.
You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning x2"?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On 6/9/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > But now how do we express an emotion or > the like, not a meaning (or is "meaning" in > {smuni} fairly broad?)
lo nu ko'a gleki cu smuni lo nu ko'a cisma "Ko'a's happiness is the meaning of ko'a's smiling."
la djan smusku lo nu gleki kei mi'a lo nu cisma "John expresses his happiness to us by 'saying' a smile."
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:21:53PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/9/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > By this definition, {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a > > description of one: not a translation, not a summary, not an > > indirect quotation. > > Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up writing things like > {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u} because cusku can't > apparently quote a translation of what was said.
For the record: later in the story I don't bother; I simply wanted to make it painfully clear what was going on in the first parts of the story.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > By this definition, > > {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a > > description of one: not a translation, not a > > summary, not an indirect quotation. > > Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up > writing things > like {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u} > because cusku > can't apparently quote a translation of what > was said.
I'll take your word for what Robin wrote, but the
point remains.
> > By the > > xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be > > inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation. > > Not so, thanks to the {se du'u} contraption: > {ko'a cusku lo se du'u brode} can be > reformulated > as {brode cu'u ko'a} without violating the > xorxesian > BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute > but merely as a guide in any case.
If they are only meant as guides, why do you keep insisting on taking them literally when simpler and more direct reading make more sense practically? Loosen up and be practical.
> > > [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed > > up the definition of {du'u} is. By that > > definition a complete sentence would have the > > format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u} > and > > the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be > li > > ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse, > needless > > (I hope) to say. While in deep structure a > > sentence can be a NP, at the surface they > always > > require some sort of overt mark. The > expressions > > seems always to have been used — even in CLL > > --parallel to the other abstractors in the > form > > "x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as > a > > relation between a bridi and a sentence. > > Not sure what definition you're looking at. > {NU [bridi] KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri.
Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF [BRIDI]" and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION [BRIDI] EXPRESSED BY X2" So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the fact that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence, presumably quoted to make it available for use. It could be argued that it goes the other way, of course, but it must be one or the other to make any sense at all (even the bad sense it makes). As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 IS THE PROPOSITION THAT [BRIDI]" and never as described. It has, in fact never been used as a relation so far as I can tell.
> The selbri {du'u [bridi] kei} has two places, > the > first one for the proposition and the second > one for > a sentence that expresses the proposition. > For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i} > Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e > klama" > and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed > by > that sentence. > Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a bridi since it is a replacement for a sumti. {di'u} or some such thing could be used in the second place, since it refers to a sentence.
> > This > > makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian > rules, > > though this is not a BAI, so the rules may > not > > apply] > > No idea what you mean, but probably the "rules" > for BAI don't apply to abstractors, no.
I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation (definition to the contrary notwithstanding) {se du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.
> > My impression is that {cusku} has been > > used more loosely, that it has not been > treated > > as a mere generalization of {bacru} and > {ciska}, > > tied to physical presentation rather than to > what > > is intended by that presentation. > > I don't think {cusku} is much used other than > in {cusku lu ... li'u}, {cusku di'u}, {cusku > di'e}, and > {cusku lo se du'u ...}, and in the totally made > up > {cusku la apasionatas}. What other usages do > you > have in mind?
{cusku lo du'u [bridi}} "said that [bridi]"
> > I assume that {pinka} is restricted > > in the same way. > > {pinka} has the advantage of having an "about" > place, > so the frequent {te pinka}, "x1 comments about > x2", > is not about a text. {di'e pinka ...} is also > relatively > common. > > > I would suggest loosening both > > of these a bit. > > You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between > "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning > x2"?
I'm not sure that I agree it is ambiguous — in Lojban, but yes: "say" in the full "ambiguity" of the English.
> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > But now how do we express an emotion or > > the like, not a meaning (or is "meaning" in > > {smuni} fairly broad?) > > lo nu ko'a gleki cu smuni lo nu ko'a cisma > "Ko'a's happiness is the meaning of ko'a's > smiling." > > la djan smusku lo nu gleki kei mi'a lo nu cisma > "John expresses his happiness to us by 'saying' > a smile." Okay, then. And do {ko'a smusku le du'u ko'a gleki kei mi'a lo nu cisma} or {... mia lo nu bacru li mi gleki li'u} also work?
On 6/9/05, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute > > but merely as a guide in any case. > > If they are only meant as guides, why do you keep > insisting on taking them literally when simpler > and more direct reading make more sense > practically? Loosen up and be practical.
I take them literally because I meant them literally.
The "rule" goes something like this: When the underlying selbri of a BAI has an available place suitable for a bridi, the most natural interpretation for the added place is given by the relationship established by the underlying selbri between that place and the main bridi in the available suitable place.
Not all underlying selbri have a suitable place for a bridi, so this rule is not always applicable.
Which example do you have in mind where a "more direct" reading makes more sense? How can you have a more direct reading than that?
For those cases where the underlying selbri has no available place for a bridi, I find that the most natural interpretation for {broda BAI ko'a} is something like {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a BAPLI}, where BAI is fi'o BAPLI.
> > Not sure what definition you're looking at. > > {NU bridi KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri. > > Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS > STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF BRIDI" > and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION BRIDI EXPRESSED > BY X2"
{nu...kei} has a single place and {du'u...kei} has two places, that's a difference.
> So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the fact > that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence, > presumably quoted to make it available for use.
I think you are confused here. A sumti can refer to anything at all, in particular it can refer to a bridi, just like "proposition" is a noun in English that refers to a proposition.
> It could be argued that it goes the other way, of > course, but it must be one or the other to make > any sense at all (even the bad sense it makes).
The bridi goes in x1 and the sentence in x2, that's how it has always been and that's what the definition says.
> As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 IS > THE PROPOSITION THAT BRIDI" and never as > described.
"x1 is the proposition that bridi as expressed in sentence x2", yes.
> It has, in fact never been used as a > relation so far as I can tell.
NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they are almost always used as descriptions, yes, but "never" is a bit strong.
> > > The selbri {du'u bridi kei} has two places, > > the > > first one for the proposition and the second > > one for > > a sentence that expresses the proposition. > > For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i} > > Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e > > klama" > > and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed > > by > > that sentence. > > > Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a bridi > since it is a replacement for a sumti.
Of course {ko'a} can refer to a bridi, whyever not?
> {di'u} or > some such thing could be used in the second > place, since it refers to a sentence.
Yes. And {ko'i} can also be assigned to refer to a sentence.
> I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation > (definition to the contrary notwithstanding) {se > du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.
{du'u bridi kei} is a two-place relation, and can be converted with SE like any other selbri.
Other NU's with more than one place include ni, li'i, pu'u and probably some other I'm forgetting.
> > You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between > > "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning > > x2"? > > I'm not sure that I agree it is ambiguous — in > Lojban, but yes: "say" in the full "ambiguity" of > the English.
"Say" in English can be used for indirect speech, but not for the full range of "express". You can say "I express feelings" but hardly "I say feelings". For indirect speech we already have {lo se du'u}, so cusku already does cover the full range of English "say". It doesn't cover "express" though.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > BAI rule, which was never meant as an > absolute > > > but merely as a guide in any case. > > > > If they are only meant as guides, why do you > keep > > insisting on taking them literally when > simpler > > and more direct reading make more sense > > practically? Loosen up and be practical. > > I take them literally because I meant them > literally.
But it is fairly clear that the original intention ofthe dictionary writers was not literal. Hence the conflicts, changes, and additions of nonsense.
> The "rule" goes something like this: When the > underlying > selbri of a BAI has an available place suitable > for a bridi, the > most natural interpretation for the added place > is given by > the relationship established by the underlying > selbri between > that place and the main bridi in the available > suitable place. > > Not all underlying selbri have a suitable place > for a bridi, > so this rule is not always applicable.
And occasionally results in garbage even when applicable.
> Which example do you have in mind where a "more > direct" reading > makes more sense? How can you have a more > direct reading than > that?
So, "more direct" is a bad choice of words: try "more natural or useful." The two classic cases so far have been {du'o}, which functioned nicely as "according to" and now has been shifted by literalness to "as is known by," which has very little use, and {ri'anai} which worked pretty well for "despite" and now has been shifted to some negative causal matter (rarely used) and "despite" taken over by a more literally correct but unwieldy complex.
> For those cases where the underlying selbri has > no available > place for a bridi, I find that the most natural > interpretation > for {broda BAI ko'a} is something like {lo nu > broda cu nu ko'a BAPLI}, > where BAI is fi'o BAPLI. > > > > Not sure what definition you're looking at. > > > {NU bridi KEI} converts a bridi to a > selbri. > > > > Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS > > STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF > BRIDI" > > and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION BRIDI > EXPRESSED > > BY X2" > > {nu...kei} has a single place and {du'u...kei} > has two places, > that's a difference.
But {du'u} is never — I couldn't find a case -- used in this way, but rather as a simple predicate with a bridi expression incorporated into structure, exactly like {nu} in fact.
> > So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the > fact > > that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence, > > presumably quoted to make it available for > use. > > I think you are confused here. A sumti can > refer to anything at all, > in particular it can refer to a bridi, just > like "proposition" is a noun in > English that refers to a proposition.
The point is, what is the natureal sumti to refewr to a bridi (taking this in the non-linguistic sense). We can call it anything, but at some point we have to give it a structural name. Since we cannot at this point use {du'u} (circularity is messy and it won't work in this case anyhow) we are left with a sentence (bridi in the linguistic sense) as the only strutural way to refer to a bridi. But sentences are not sumti, and so cannot go in the x1 position of {du'u}. Similarly, x2 has to refer to a sentence and the best structural way to do that is with a quote. This is a sumti at least, but I have never seen it used; we say {du'u ko'a co'e} not {du'u li ko'a co'e li'u}. And, more forcefully, we do not use {le du'u be ...} just {le du'u ...}. We can almost always avoid these problems, of course, by calling the proposition "Alfred" and the sentence "Bruce" and by pointing (at the sentence at least) when asked to identify it (notice that {ko'a} can't be assigned structurally), but in fact we don't do that at all. I think, in short, that the definition should be rewritten to reflect our uniform usage.
> > It could be argued that it goes the other > way, of > > course, but it must be one or the other to > make > > any sense at all (even the bad sense it > makes). > > The bridi goes in x1 and the sentence in x2, > that's how it has > always been and that's what the definition > says.
But it has never been done that way, even in CLL.
> > As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 > IS > > THE PROPOSITION THAT BRIDI" and never as > > described. > > "x1 is the proposition that bridi as > expressed in sentence x2", > yes.
Never ever done (well, if you find a case, let me know).
> > It has, in fact never been used as a > > relation so far as I can tell. > > NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they > are almost > always used as descriptions, yes, but "never" > is a bit > strong.
Frinstance?
> > > > > The selbri {du'u bridi kei} has two > places, > > > the > > > first one for the proposition and the > second > > > one for > > > a sentence that expresses the proposition. > > > For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei > ko'i} > > > Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e > > > klama" > > > and {ko'a} refers to the proposition > expressed > > > by > > > that sentence. > > > > > Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a > bridi > > since it is a replacement for a sumti. > > Of course {ko'a} can refer to a bridi, whyever > not?
I meant that it cannot be assigned a bridi
directly, by the natural structural description
because that natural description is not a sumti.
> > {di'u} or > > some such thing could be used in the second > > place, since it refers to a sentence. > > Yes. And {ko'i} can also be assigned to refer > to a sentence. > > > I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation > > (definition to the contrary notwithstanding) > {se > > du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not. > > {du'u bridi kei} is a two-place relation, and > can be converted > with SE like any other selbri. > > Other NU's with more than one place include ni, > li'i, pu'u > and probably some other I'm forgetting.
{jei, si'o, su'u and zu'o}
Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since the others do not involve linguistic items in the same way. The "bridi" in the definition does not refer — as it appears to on first reading -- to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that point in the whole, a convention used for all the abstracts but different from the one used for, say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not very well) in a different way and several other places where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on places or on meanings (which is also done elsewhere with parentheses). So, while you are reworking cmavo definitions it might be a good idea to revise and standardize these indicators. The present "system" is ambiguous to the point of occasionally being misleading (as just demonstrated).
On 6/10/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > > It has, in fact never been used as a > > > relation so far as I can tell. > > > > NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they > > are almost > > always used as descriptions, yes, but "never" > > is a bit > > strong. > > Frinstance?
For instance:
-----------------------------
On 4/8/05, John E Clifford wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford
> > wrote:
> > > The suggestion to put it into abstract form,
> > {nu}
> > > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it is
> > hard
> > > to see what the appropriate sentences would
> > be;
> > > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti.
> >
> > ko'a nu la suzan klama
> > i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
> > i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
> > i la suzan sruma ko'i
>
> Nice!
---------------------------
... > Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the > definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since the > others do not involve linguistic items in the > same way. The "bridi" in the definition does > not refer — as it appears to on first reading -- > to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that point > in the whole, a convention used for all the > abstracts
Right.
> but different from the one used for, > say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not very > well) in a different way
True.
> and several other places > where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on > places or on meanings (which is also done > elsewhere with parentheses).
True. The gi'uste conventions are not very systematic.
> So, while you are > reworking cmavo definitions it might be a good > idea to revise and standardize these indicators.
Yes.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
> On 6/10/05, John E Clifford
> wrote:
> > > > It has, in fact never been used as a
> > > > relation so far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > NU's are hardly ever used as relations,
> they
> > > are almost
> > > always used as descriptions, yes, but
> "never"
> > > is a bit
> > > strong.
> >
> > Frinstance?
>
> For instance:
>
>
-----------------------------
> On 4/8/05, John E Clifford
> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford
> > > wrote:
> > > > The suggestion to put it into abstract
> form,
> > > {nu}
> > > > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it
> is
> > > hard
> > > > to see what the appropriate sentences
> would
> > > be;
> > > > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti.
> > >
> > > ko'a nu la suzan klama
> > > i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
> > > i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
> > > i la suzan sruma ko'i
> >
> > Nice!
>
This is an example of getting {ko'V} to apply to
abstractions, but not of {du'u} used overtly as a
relation (I forget what the point of the
discussion was — not that it matters here).
> > ... > > Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the > > definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since > the > > others do not involve linguistic items in the > > same way. The "bridi" in the definition > does > > not refer — as it appears to on first > reading -- > > to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that > point > > in the whole, a convention used for all the > > abstracts > > Right. > > > but different from the one used for, > > say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not > very > > well) in a different way > > True. > > > and several other places > > where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on > > places or on meanings (which is also done > > elsewhere with parentheses). > > True. The gi'uste conventions are not very > systematic. > > > So, while you are > > reworking cmavo definitions it might be a > good > > idea to revise and standardize these > indicators. > > Yes. > I would suggest for these cases that are schematic (abstractors and MOI and MAI and problably some others) that you give the full schema: "numbermoi = x1 in the numberth item member of set x2 ordered by rule x3" and so on and have a uniform way of indicating what needs to be suppied to get a meaningful expression. So, in the instant case "du'u bridi = x1 is the proposition that bridi as exprssed in the sentence x2" or some such.
> > > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage > > > > > > .i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi .e > > > lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei ki'unai > > > loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba je'urbai > > > > > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, and > > > the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but telling > > > the simple truths which some day science will substantiate.
This example is the only one stopping me from voting for this section. It makes no sense to me. Here is a proposed alternative:
la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi ki'u lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo gubni jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because he is a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his public office to solicit sexual favors."
I also have qualms about this example:
> .i ni'i ma do krici > By what logic do you believe (that)?
but I won't push it if nobody else cares.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:
> I also have qualms about this example: > >> .i ni'i ma do krici >> By what logic do you believe (that)? > > but I won't push it if nobody else cares.
Jorge, your criticisms are usually sound. For this reason, please do explain to us why you dislike the example.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengevter. Forutsatt at ingen p basen p Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen
On 6/10/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > I also have qualms about this example: > > > >> .i ni'i ma do krici > >> By what logic do you believe (that)? > > > > but I won't push it if nobody else cares. > > Jorge, your criticisms are usually sound. For this reason, please do > explain to us why you dislike the example.
The English suggests (at least to me) that the logic asked for are the logical reasons {do} has for believeing something, but the question as posed in Lojban is not about {do}'s reasons, it is about some fact from which {do krici} will logically follow. "From what premise does it logically follow that you believe?" What kind of answer is expected to that?
I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that you believe that?".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the > (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what > are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that > you believe that?".
Boy, yeah, I don't think that second one was intended.
Fixing.
-Robin
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:52:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage > > > > > > > > .i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi > > > > .e lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei > > > > ki'unai loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba > > > > je'urbai > > > > > > > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, > > > > and the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but > > > > telling the simple truths which some day science will > > > > substantiate. > > This example is the only one stopping me from voting for this > section. It makes no sense to me. Here is a proposed alternative:
I believe it was selected because it was Actual Usage.
> la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi ki'u > lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo gubni > jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu > > "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because he is > a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his public > office to solicit sexual favors."
I assume this is artificial?
-Robin
On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:52:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage > > > > > > > > > > .i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi > > > > > .e lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei > > > > > ki'unai loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba > > > > > je'urbai > > > > > > > > > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, > > > > > and the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but > > > > > telling the simple truths which some day science will > > > > > substantiate. > > > > This example is the only one stopping me from voting for this > > section. It makes no sense to me. Here is a proposed alternative: > > I believe it was selected because it was Actual Usage.
To me {ki'unai} there makes no sense, even with the "despite" meaning.
> > > la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi ki'u > > lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo gubni > > jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu > > > > "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because he is > > a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his public > > office to solicit sexual favors." > > I assume this is artificial?
The English was grabbed from some news item, the Lojban is a translation. Does that count as artificial? Isn't the other one a translation as well? I would be very surprised if the Lojban was the original and the English was a translation, so the two pieces seem to be of the same kind.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the > > (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what > > are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that > > you believe that?". > > Boy, yeah, I don't think that second one was intended. > > Fixing.
But my point was that the second one is not a correct reading of the Lojban, even though that's probably what was intended.
ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u
Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma}
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the > > > (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what > > > are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that > > > you believe that?". > > > > Boy, yeah, I don't think that second one was intended. > > > > Fixing. > > But my point was that the second one is not a correct reading > of the Lojban, even though that's probably what was intended. > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma} > > mu'o mi'e xorxes
I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u}, although I admit the English gloss leaves much to be desired. I never said I'd make a good commissioner. zo'o
-- Theodore Reed
On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed wrote: > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u > > > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma} > > I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u}, although I > admit the English gloss leaves much to be desired. I never said I'd make > a good commissioner. zo'o
But what answer can one give to that? Why would anyone be interested in asking that? So even if the English gloss was perfectly clear, I don't think it's a good example simply because the question just sounds too unlikely.
In any case, I'm not withholding my vote for this example but for the {ki'u nai} one.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:33:55AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e > > > di'u > > > > > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma} > > > > I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u}, > > although I admit the English gloss leaves much to be desired. I > > never said I'd make a good commissioner. zo'o > > But what answer can one give to that?
lo du'u mi nibli le du'u li pa su'i pa du li re
> Why would anyone be interested in asking that?
I'm interested in the chain of logical reasoning in others' beliefs all the time.
-Robin
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:43:03AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi > > > ki'u lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo > > > gubni jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu > > > > > > "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because > > > he is a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his > > > public office to solicit sexual favors." > > > > I assume this is artificial? > > The English was grabbed from some news item, the Lojban is a > translation. Does that count as artificial? Isn't the other one a > translation as well? I would be very surprised if the Lojban was > the original and the English was a translation, so the two pieces > seem to be of the same kind.
Sorry, I mean "made up for this purpose". The other example previously existed and was not made up solely for BPFK usage. Marked as such.
Done.
-Robin
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:33:55AM -0300, Jorge > Llamb?as wrote: > > On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed > wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge > Llamb?as wrote: > > > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo > du'u do krici la'e > > > > di'u > > > > > > > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u > ne ni'i ma} > > > > > > I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do > krici la'e di'u}, > > > although I admit the English gloss leaves > much to be desired. I > > > never said I'd make a good commissioner. > zo'o > > > > But what answer can one give to that? > > lo du'u mi nibli le du'u li pa su'i pa du li re > > > Why would anyone be interested in asking > that? > > I'm interested in the chain of logical > reasoning in others' beliefs > all the time. > I've been trying to figure this discussion out for a while now. I seem to be deterred by three factors. 1) I am not sure what is going to count as the first place of {nibli}, since I don't understand what can logically necessitate (etc.) and event; logic is about words (as the name says). I suppose that this means something like "a claim that x1 takes places entails (etc.) a claim that x2 takes place, according to system x3" So, x1 and x2 are going to be events of some sort. 2) I apparently don't know all the subtleties of modifications in Lojban, so it is not always clear to me what is modifying what in the examples and thus what the differences are among the various options presented. 3) The English glosses help hardly at all, since most of them are ambiguous in ways that cover several of the possibilities here. I take those possibilities to be: A. It is known that x2 is necessitated by something and that you believe you know what that something is; the question now is "What is that thing that you believe necessitates x2": (Lojbans iffy in the extreme even for my shots) {do krici lo du'u ma nibli x2} An answer here would be some piece of evidence you believe and that you believe necessitates x2" (notice that x2 is an even here though a proposition in the original sentence — as x2 of {krici} rather than {nibli}. B. You believe x2. Presumably, you have a reason for this belief and, let us suppose,that reason takes the form of believing that it is necessitated by something else. The question now is "What is that something else, whose necessitating x2 justifies your belief in x2?" An answer would be some piece(s) of evidence you believe. (I despair of getting this right in Lojban sentences involving {nibli} that convey the right associations, since another causal connective will be needed to make it work and I am unsure which to use and how to get the grouping right). C. You believe x2. That you do so is necessitated by something. Now the question is "What necessitates your believing x2?" (Possible answers include that you are perfectly rationa and all the evidence (which is adequate) supports x2.
Now, given {nibli} as written, only the third of these (C) seems to work, for only it deals with events exclusively. I take it that this is what xorxes hold the various examples given all say. xorxes also seems to think that what was intended is B, which deals with propositions on one end at least, hence the need for {la'e} to fit into {nibli}. A seems to artificial to be a likely reading in this contextless presentation, but it would be nice to sort it out as well. It seems what is needed is to distinguish among A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of the {du'u} after {krici} I gather this is something like {do krici lo du'u x2 ni'i ma} B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the scope of {du'u} and {krici} {do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma} (?????????) C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the whole sentence) {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici le du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}
On 6/14/05, John E Clifford wrote: > It seems what is needed is to distinguish among > A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of the > {du'u} after {krici} > I gather this is something like {do krici lo du'u > x2 ni'i ma} > B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the scope > of {du'u} and {krici} > {do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma} (?????????) > C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the > whole sentence) > {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici le > du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}
Yep, that's about it.
I find C an unlikely question, and in any case looking into the dialogue from where the example was taken, it turns out that although C was said {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra}, almost certainly A was intended: {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. (Assuming that's where the example came from, but that's the only one Google finds.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:30:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > I find C an unlikely question, and in any case looking into the > dialogue from where the example was taken, it turns out that > although C was said {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra}, almost > certainly A was intended: {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. > (Assuming that's where the example came from, but that's the only > one Google finds.)
That's where it came from, yeah.
-Robin
On 6/14/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:30:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > I find C an unlikely question, and in any case looking into the > > dialogue from where the example was taken, it turns out that > > although C was said {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra}, almost > > certainly A was intended: {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. > > (Assuming that's where the example came from, but that's the only > > one Google finds.) > > That's where it came from, yeah.
The fact that in English question words always have to be fronted probably had to do with the mix-up.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my believing not the reason I believed to hold.
> On 6/14/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > It seems what is needed is to distinguish > among > > A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of > the > > {du'u} after {krici} > > I gather this is something like {do krici lo > du'u > > x2 ni'i ma} > > B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the > scope > > of {du'u} and {krici} > > {do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma} > (?????????) > > C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the > > whole sentence) > > {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici > le > > du'u x2 kei ni'i ma} > > Yep, that's about it. > > I find C an unlikely question, and in any case > looking > into the dialogue from where the example was > taken, it > turns out that although C was said {ni'i ma do > krici lo > du'u gendra}, almost certainly A was intended: > {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. (Assuming > that's where > the example came from, but that's the only one > Google > finds.) > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >
On 6/14/05, John E Clifford wrote: > Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my > believing not the reason I believed to hold.
That was my guess without seeing the context, but with context, I'd say it's A:
ko'a: ba'e na gendra ko'e: ni'i ma ko'a: ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra
mu'o mi'e xorxes
> On 6/14/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my > > believing not the reason I believed to hold. > > That was my guess without seeing the context, > but > with context, I'd say it's A: > > ko'a: ba'e na gendra > ko'e: ni'i ma > ko'a: ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra
I'm not as confident as you are, partly because I am now aving a considerable problem separating the two. Indeed, in a person acting rationally they would hardly be different: does kohe believe "It is grammatical because it tests out on the parser (say)" or does he believe "It is grammatical" because it test out on the parser? Assuming he has run the parser test (or whatever), I don't see how to separate the two cases empirically. But it is clear that C. is wrong (although, as noted, "Because it tests out on the parser; whatever does that is grammatical; and I always follow the conclusions of valid inferences from true premises" is a good answer).
> Examples of ni'i Usage > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human.
Strictly, there is a premise missing here. "Plato dies" follows logically from "Plato is human" and "all humans die", but not just from "Plato is human".
..i la platos mrobi'o ni'i lo du'u ge py remna gi ro remna cu morsi
> Examples of ni'i ma Usage > > .i ni'i ma do krici > By what logic do you believe (that)?
That doesn't ask for logical support for the belief though, just logical support for the fact that you believe. A logically valid answer would be, for example {lo du'u ro krici}. "Everybody believes (that) logically entails that you believe (that)".
To ask "What makes you believe that?" we need either a different causal, or put the logical entailment causal inside the belief: {do krici lo du'u ni'i ma go'i}, "what is it that you believe entails that?"
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 16:13 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Examples of ni'i Usage > > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. > > Strictly, there is a premise missing here. "Plato dies" > follows logically from "Plato is human" and "all humans die", > but not just from "Plato is human". > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i lo du'u ge py remna gi ro remna cu morsi
I knew that, but I wasn't sure how to get both parts of that in there.
> > Examples of ni'i ma Usage > > > > .i ni'i ma do krici > > By what logic do you believe (that)? > > That doesn't ask for logical support for the belief though, > just logical support for the fact that you believe. > A logically valid answer would be, for example {lo du'u ro krici}. > "Everybody believes (that) logically entails that you believe (that)".
I am aware of this. That's a valid answer in the English, too.
mu'omi'e.bancus
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:27:33 -0800, Theodore Reed wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 16:13 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > Examples of ni'i Usage > > > > > > Examples of ni'i ma Usage > > > > > > .i ni'i ma do krici > > > By what logic do you believe (that)? > > > > That doesn't ask for logical support for the belief though, > > just logical support for the fact that you believe. > > A logically valid answer would be, for example {lo du'u ro krici}. > > "Everybody believes (that) logically entails that you believe (that)". > > I am aware of this. That's a valid answer in the English, too.
I don't know, the English seems to ask for something that supports the belief. Asking for a proposition that logically entails {do krici} seems like a totally uninteresting question. The answer "I believe it because everybody (else) believes it" is not a logical entailment. "Everybody (including me) believes it, therefore I believe it" is a logical entailment, but is that the kind of answer you expect?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > Examples of ni'i Usage > > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. > > Strictly, there is a premise missing here. "Plato dies" > follows logically from "Plato is human" and "all humans die", > but not just from "Plato is human".
A sorites is just as much a logical argument as a syllogism, no matter how many premises are omitted.
-- John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold: "Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one." English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: "Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon."
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:30:18 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > > > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. > > A sorites is just as much a logical argument as a syllogism, no matter > how many premises are omitted.
What's a sorites? I found this:
<< extended syllogism (sorites)
When syllogisms (consisting of only categorical sentences) have more than two premisses, they have more that a total of three terms. Such syllogisms, when they are valid, can be demonstrated to be valid by treating them as a linked series of valid categorical syllogisms. Such extended syllogisms are also called sorites (so-ri'-tes). For example, "Some A are B. All B are C. All C are D. All D are E. No E are F. So, some A are not F." >>
But nothing about omitting premises.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
enthymeme.
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:30:18 -0500, John Cowan > wrote: > > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py > remna > > > > Plato dies, which follows logically > because he is human. > > > > A sorites is just as much a logical argument > as a syllogism, no matter > > how many premises are omitted. > > What's a sorites? I found this: > > << > extended syllogism (sorites) > > When syllogisms (consisting of only categorical > sentences) have more > than two premisses, they have more that a total > of three terms. Such > syllogisms, when they are valid, can be > demonstrated to be valid by > treating them as a linked series of valid > categorical syllogisms. Such > extended syllogisms are also called sorites > (so-ri'-tes). For example, > "Some A are B. All B are C. All C are D. All D > are E. No E are F. So, > some A are not F." > >> > > But nothing about omitting premises. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:21:07 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > enthymeme.
<< An enthymeme is a syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed.
First example: Socrates is mortal because he's human.
The complete syllogism would be the classic:
All humans are mortal. (major premise - assumed) Socrates is human. (minor premise - stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion - stated) >>
Objection withdrawn, Your Honour.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:21:07 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > enthymeme.
<< An enthymeme is a syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed.
First example: Socrates is mortal because he's human.
The complete syllogism would be the classic:
All humans are mortal. (major premise - assumed) Socrates is human. (minor premise - stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion - stated) >>
Objection withdrawn, Your Honour.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> Objection withdrawn, Your Honour.
Sorry for mixing up sorites and enthymeme. My pipeline to Aristotle must have developed an enstasis.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too. Try hanging up and phoning in again.' --Beverly Erlebacher
Typos: stat -> state stares -> stairs
Words not in Jbovlaste: je'urbai
Typographical: Please remove the apostrophes at the start and end of the examples.
'.i do nenri sau tu'a le ckiku vorme' 'You enter, with requirement the key word.' ITYM "ckiku valsi".
'Under the conditions of yall not being able to fight in lojban, please don't fight.' It is spelt "y'all", or, more standardly, "you".
As for the section on bai itself, what this word should mean is all but obvious. If we follow the system in which all BAI are based upon the corresponding brivla, we get that the place is filled by a force which compels something. But people have been used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, including people and objects. This is also the case for the one example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu").
So, how do we solve this?
1) Disconnect this one BAI cmavo from bapli, its corresponding brivla. 2) Choose another brivla to associate it with 3) Weasel out of the constraints imposed by "bapli" (saying that the "x1 force (ka)" means something else than it seems to mean) 4) Widen the definition of bapli to fit usage 5) Something else entirely?
-arj
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:15:32AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind > about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, > which IIRC we were talking about doing.
"Seperate out" in what sense?
I'd rather take them all together, but it's hardly important to me.
-Robin
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:15:32AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: >> Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind >> about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, >> which IIRC we were talking about doing. > > "Seperate out" in what sense?
Create a new BPFK section with these general remarks in. Possibly also add this to the dictionary preface.
This is because it looks strange with these remarks in only one section, and copying them out to each relevant section risks cohesion problems.
> I'd rather take them all together, but it's hardly important to me.
Yes, that is what I'm proposing.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Den tredje dagen* tar jeg en dusj. ... Jeg har ikke savnet vaske meg engang. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen (*dvs. den tredje dagen p sydpolen, 53 dager etter avreise fra Patriot Hills.)
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:53:26PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:15:32AM -0700, [email protected] > >wrote: > >>Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind > >>about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, > >>which IIRC we were talking about doing. > > > >"Seperate out" in what sense? > > Create a new BPFK section with these general remarks in. Possibly > also add this to the dictionary preface.
Already done; see
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Dictionary+Preface&bl
> This is because it looks strange with these remarks in only one > section, and copying them out to each relevant section risks > cohesion problems.
Agreed.
Stuff that was moved to the preface removed from Causation sumtcita.
> >I'd rather take them all together, but it's hardly important to > >me. > > Yes, that is what I'm proposing.
Erm, I meant "all together" in the sense of having to'e ri'a and ri'a and se ri'a all in the same section. (bancus, if this bothers you, go put it back or something)
-Robin
[email protected] scripsit:
> As for the section on bai itself, what this word should mean is all > but obvious. If we follow the system in which all BAI are based upon > the corresponding brivla, we get that the place is filled by a force > which compels something. But people have been used "bai" for all kinds > of stuff, including people and objects. This is also the case for the > one example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). > > So, how do we solve this? > > 1) Disconnect this one BAI cmavo from bapli, its corresponding brivla. > 2) Choose another brivla to associate it with > 3) Weasel out of the constraints imposed by "bapli" (saying that the > "x1 force (ka)" means something else than it seems to mean) > 4) Widen the definition of bapli to fit usage > 5) Something else entirely?
Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source gismu.
--
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: > [email protected] scripsit: > > > As for the section on bai itself, what this word should mean is > > all but obvious. If we follow the system in which all BAI are > > based upon the corresponding brivla, we get that the place is > > filled by a force which compels something. But people have been > > used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, including people and objects. > > This is also the case for the one example (".i za'a bai lo skami > > mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). > > > > So, how do we solve this? > > > > Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source > gismu.
How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?):
Implicit sumti Raising
If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction.
-Robin
On 6/3/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or > a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete > object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" > in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in > which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction.
What does it mean "if a gismu place specifies that..."? Is that about how the current gi'uste deals with that, or are you proposing a thorough revision of place structures?
For example, consider {xamgu}:
x1 (object/event) is good/beneficial/nice/acceptable for x2 by standard x3
lo djacu cu xamgu lo spati "Water is good for plants."
That could be interpreted as {tu'a lo djacu} (receiving water, for example), and also as {tu'a lo spati} (for the growth of plants, for example):
lo nu cpacu lo djacu cu xamgu lo nu lo spati cu banro
But why stop there? That could also be interpreted as {tu'a lo nu cpacu lo djacu}, (that receiving water happens frequently, for example)) and also as {tu'a lo nu lo spati banro} (that the growth occurs intensely, for example):
lo nu lo nu cpacu lo djacu cu cafne cu xamgu lo nu lo nu lo spati cu banro cu mutce
When do we stop? And the markings in the current gi'uste are rather haphazard: x1 of xamgu is marked (object/event), x2 of xamgu is left unmarked. Other places that would seem to work just like these are marked as event only. Often the markings were constrained by the definition being required to not exceed a certain number of characters.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: >> [email protected] Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: >> >>> ... But people have been >>> used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, including people and objects. >>> This is also the case for the one example (".i za'a bai lo skami >>> mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). >>> >>> So, how do we solve this? >>> >> >> Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source >> gismu. > > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or > a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete > object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" > in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in > which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction.
Thanks for taking the effort to write up this paragraph. I think doing it this way will solve the problem.
However, I think new problems will appear in its stead. Determining what is a concrete object and what isn't will prove a major headache. Just consider these few cases:
- mi broda bai lo na badna
Non-banana object (not raised), or non-banana abstraction (raised)?
- mi broda bai lo se nelci be do
Cf. the definition of {nelci}. Object (not raised) or state (raised)?
- mi broda bai ma
Whatever the answer is will determine whether the asker is using sumti-raising or not!
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ There is a great deal of drinking in Japan, unbridled by licensing hours. It forms an important part of semi-official end of work or business negotiations ..., but is also rampant without any such excuse. — Ballhatchet, Kaiser: Teach Yourself Japanese
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:50:16AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/3/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an > > abstraction, or a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), > > then if a concrete object appears in that place, it should be > > considered to have "tu'a" in front of it. This also applies to > > BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in which the underlying gismu place > > requires an abstraction. > > What does it mean "if a gismu place specifies that..."? > > Is that about how the current gi'uste deals with that, or are you > proposing a thorough revision of place structures?
I'm proposing deferring this issue entirely. :-)
-Robin
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:31:09PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: > >>[email protected] Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: > >> > >>>... But people have been used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, > >>>including people and objects. This is also the case for the one > >>>example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu > >>>casnu"). > >>> > >>>So, how do we solve this? > >>> > >> > >>Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source > >>gismu. > > > >How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > >would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > > >!!! Implicit sumti Raising > > > >If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, > >or a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a > >concrete object appears in that place, it should be considered to > >have "tu'a" in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI > >sumti tcita in which the underlying gismu place requires an > >abstraction. > > Thanks for taking the effort to write up this paragraph. I think > doing it this way will solve the problem. > > However, I think new problems will appear in its stead. > Determining what is a concrete object and what isn't will prove a > major headache. Just consider these few cases:
Indeed.
Once again, I say that the whole marking gismu places as being only abstractions or only objects is A Mistake, and this is yet another symptom of that underlying problem. To put it another way, I think that the metaphysics of whether (WRT the x1 of bapli) an object can force something to happen, or only a property, is entirely outside the scope of the BPFK and the language design. That's up to the speakers.
I was attempting to work within this mistake, however, because no-one seems to agree with me.
I no longer have a solution to the "bai" problem at hand, within the scope of enforced place structures, except to say that most usage of "bai" (and probably of "bapli") thus far is wrong.
I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion (Broca, if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues section (which should be unlocked).
-Robin
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 19:00 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or > a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete > object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" > in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in > which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction.
I don't like this, mostly because I actually recently came up with something else:
"ko senva tu'a lo melbi" = "Dream of beautiful things." "ko senva lo melbi" = "Have beautiful dreams."
I'm unsure about the correctness of this, but I find it rather elegant. -- Theodore Reed
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:31:09PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen > wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: >>>> [email protected] Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: >>>> >>>>> ... But people have been used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, >>>>> including people and objects. This is also the case for the one >>>>> example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu >>>>> casnu"). >>>>> >>>>> So, how do we solve this? >>>>> >>>> [cowan: cowan:] >>>> Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source >>>> gismu. >>> [arj: arj:] >> >> However, I think new problems will appear in its stead. >> Determining what is a concrete object and what isn't will prove a >> major headache. Just consider these few cases: > > Indeed. > > Once again, I say that the whole marking gismu places as being only > abstractions or only objects is A Mistake, and this is yet another > symptom of that underlying problem. To put it another way, I think > that the metaphysics of whether (WRT the x1 of bapli) an object can > force something to happen, or only a property, is entirely outside > the scope of the BPFK and the language design. That's up to the > speakers. > > I was attempting to work within this mistake, however, because > no-one seems to agree with me. > > I no longer have a solution to the "bai" problem at hand, within the > scope of enforced place structures, except to say that most usage of > "bai" (and probably of "bapli") thus far is wrong.
Yes. Or maybe the supplicatory model...?
> I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion (Broca, > if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues section > (which should be unlocked).
(Note to those not on IRC: I am Broca.)
Sure, I'll do it. Feel free to whip me along if I forget about it.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:43:37PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >I no longer have a solution to the "bai" problem at hand, within > >the scope of enforced place structures, except to say that most > >usage of "bai" (and probably of "bapli") thus far is wrong. > > Yes. Or maybe the supplicatory model...?
Done.
-Robin
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
>> I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion (Broca, >> if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues section >> (which should be unlocked). > > Sure, I'll do it. Feel free to whip me along if I forget about it.
Is this issue now subsumed by http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+gismu+Section%3A+Problems+With+ka , or do you want me to write a general piece wrt object/event/abstraction subcategorisation and the question of whether or not parenthesised remarks in gismu definitions have defining force?
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ The names of a species, empire, language, homeworld, homestar and so on will all be self-evidently related; Ogrons come from Ogros, Arisians come from Arisia, Arcturans come from Arcturus, and Humans no doubt come from Humus. --Justin B. Rye in A Primer In SF Xenolinguistics
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:32:51PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > >>I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion > >>(Broca, if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues > >>section (which should be unlocked). > > > >Sure, I'll do it. Feel free to whip me along if I forget about > >it. > > Is this issue now subsumed by > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+gismu+Section%3A+Problems+With+ka > , or do you want me to write a general piece wrt > object/event/abstraction subcategorisation and the question of > whether or not parenthesised remarks in gismu definitions have > defining force?
If you wouldn't mind, I think that would be an Excellent Idea. This is an issue we're going to have to address. Feel free to link it off the BPFK gismu page.
-Robin
In a message dated 6/7/2005 5:06:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
> .i ki'u ma do cusku zo co'o'
> Why do you say goodbye?
>
quotation mark after co'o stevo
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 19:03 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 6/7/2005 5:06:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > .i ki'u ma do cusku zo co'o' > > Why do you say goodbye? > > > quotation mark after co'o > stevo
Fixed. -- Theodore Reed
Okay, Robin and I can't figure out what the heck you'd use fau for. Anyone have a suggestion?
Theodore Reed scripsit: > Okay, Robin and I can't figure out what the heck you'd use fau for. > Anyone have a suggestion?
It lets you vaguely associate a subordinate event with the main bridi event.
--
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately," John Cowan
he said, looking down at them with his face [email protected]
softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son http://www.ccil.org/~cowaan
of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can http://www.reutershealth.com
save you, I will." --LotR Book I Chapter 10
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 23:32 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Theodore Reed scripsit: > > Okay, Robin and I can't figure out what the heck you'd use fau for. > > Anyone have a suggestion? > > It lets you vaguely associate a subordinate event with the main bridi > event.
Example?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:16:28 -0800, Theodore Reed wrote: > Okay, Robin and I can't figure out what the heck you'd use fau for. > Anyone have a suggestion?
ko'a cadzu fau lo nu lo xance cu nenri lo daski He walks with his hands in his pockets.
Sometimes {fau} has been used for "if", but I don't think that's good usage.
mu'o mi'e xorxes