Talk:BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by rlpowell on Wed 17 of Nov., 2004 03:13 GMT posts: 14214 Removed UI4; this section was already too big.
Arnt, take note. You're welcome to the other section if you like.
-Robin
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
Re: BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by xorxes on Sat 11 of Feb., 2006 18:01 GMT posts: 1912
Examples of ba'u cu'i Usage .i ba'ucu'i mi bai cliva To be precise, I go, because I have to.
{bai} is {bapli}, not {bilga}, so not "I go because I have to" but more like "I'm kicked out". "To be precise" sounds like {sa'e} to me. Perhaps something like: "I was kicked out, that's all."
Examples of da'i Usage
le tadji be la xorxes da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo
cu jursa ke smuni binxo
Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo"
to severely change meaning.
{da'i} is modifying {xorxes}, and {binxo} means become (i.e. change into something), not change in some property. The Lojban says something more like "The method of this purported Jorge will cause all previous occurrences of 'lo' to severely become meaningful." To get the English meaning {da'i} has to be moved to the front and {binxo} replaced by {cenba}.
mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
arj Posted by arj on Sat 11 of Feb., 2006 18:12 GMT posts: 953 On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, xorxes wrote:
> Examples of da'i Usage > le tadji be la xorxes da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo > cu jursa ke smuni binxo > Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" > to severely change meaning. > > To get the English meaning ... {binxo} has to be replaced by > {cenba}.
I think it is okay in English to say "change", even when the change involves something to turn into something else. Perhaps "transformed in meaning" would work better?
As the one who originally uttered that sentence, I know that I was talking about a complete {nu binxo} and not a "mere" {nu cenba}. :-)
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Never put off till tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
arj Posted by arj on Sat 11 of Feb., 2006 18:17 GMT posts: 953 On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, xorxes wrote:
> Examples of da'i Usage > le tadji be la xorxes da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo > cu jursa ke smuni binxo > Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" > to severely change meaning. > > {da'i} is modifying {xorxes}, and {binxo} means become (i.e. change > into something), not change in some property. The Lojban says something > more like "The method of this purported Jorge will cause all previous > occurrences of 'lo' to severely become meaningful." > To get the English meaning {da'i} has to be moved to the front ...
I think what was happening in my head here was that I was using {da'i} as if it were a forward-grabbing indicator (such as BAhE), so that it was supposed to modify {ba}.
The best solution to this would be to find an example of {da'i} being used correctly; barring that, I'll fix it the way you suggest. (Yes, I really really prefer actual usage to made-up examples.)
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Never put off till tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by pycyn on Sat 11 of Feb., 2006 20:07 GMT posts: 2388
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, xorxes wrote: > > > Examples of da'i Usage > > le tadji be la xorxes da'i ba rinka le nu ro > pu me zo lo > > cu jursa ke smuni binxo > > Jorge's method would cause all previous > occurrences of "lo" > > to severely change meaning. > > > > {da'i} is modifying {xorxes}, and {binxo} > means become (i.e. change > > into something), not change in some property. > The Lojban says something > > more like "The method of this purported Jorge > will cause all previous > > occurrences of 'lo' to severely become > meaningful." > > To get the English meaning {da'i} has to be > moved to the front ... > > I think what was happening in my head here was > that I was using {da'i} as > if it were a forward-grabbing indicator (such > as BAhE), so that it was > supposed to modify {ba}. > > The best solution to this would be to find an > example of {da'i} being used > correctly; barring that, I'll fix it the way > you suggest. (Yes, I really > really prefer actual usage to made-up > examples.) > For a variety of practical reasons, I would read the orignal sentence as "Suppose xorxes' method which really exists would cause ..." That is, {da'i} sets up a subjunctive situation that runs from {da'i} to {da'inai} or some other indication that the oblique contest is over. I am relatively sure this not an official position and it may not even have been used much, but it is, so far as I can tell, the only device in Lojban for real contrary-to-fact conditionals and their related discussions (indirect proofs, for example). I will be happy to have a viable alternative pointed out, since this one is iffy, but I am not sanguine.
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by stevo on Sun 12 of Feb., 2006 04:32 GMT posts: 381 In a message dated 2/11/2006 12:18:05 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
> The best solution to this would be to find an example of {da'i} being used
> correctly; barring that, I'll fix it the way you suggest. (Yes, I really
> really prefer actual usage to made-up examples.)
>
First usages *are* made-up examples.
stevo
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 12 of Feb., 2006 15:22 GMT On 2/11/06, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, xorxes wrote: > > > Examples of da'i Usage > > le tadji be la xorxes da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo > > cu jursa ke smuni binxo > > Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" > > to severely change meaning. > > > > To get the English meaning ... {binxo} has to be replaced by > > {cenba}. > > I think it is okay in English to say "change", even when the change > involves something to turn into something else. Perhaps "transformed in > meaning" would work better?
The {lo}'s don't get transformed into anything else, do they? It is their meaning that is supposedly "severely" changed. The {lo}s stay as {lo}s.
> As the one who originally uttered that sentence, I know that I was talking > about a complete {nu binxo} and not a "mere" {nu cenba}. :-)
Well, the sentence is false in whatever reading, but {binxo} would say that every {lo} gets changed into something else, which is not what the English says. The difference between {binxo} and {cenba} is not one of degree. {binxo} is for transformation of one thing into another, say {lo} into {le}. {cenba} is for change, no matter how drastic, of a property of a thing, say the meaning of {lo}. You can say {le smuni be zo lo binxo lo drata smuni}, or {zo lo cenba lo ka smuni}, but not {zo lo binxo lo drata valsi}, unless you mean that the word {lo} changed into {mo} or such.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by pycyn on Sun 12 of Feb., 2006 16:07 GMT posts: 2388
> > Well, the sentence is false in whatever > reading, but {binxo} would > say that every {lo} gets changed into something > else, which is not > what the English says.
Actually, it appears to be true, barring some contrary indication from the perpetrator of the change.
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 08 of June, 2007 00:34 GMT > ba'u (UI3) > Discursive. Used to express that something is an exaggeration. This word > comprises a scale, along with "ba'u cu'i" and "ba'u nai". See also ba'u ci'i, > ba'u nai, the preface. (cf. satci, dukse)
Typo: "ba'u ci'i".
> ba'u le festi derxi cu simsa la maunt. .everest. lo ni barda > The pile of garbage is as big as Mount Everest.
Please not "maunt"! Either use the corresponding word in some local language, or better {lo cmana po'u la .everest.}, {la .everest. poi cmana} or some such variation.
> do'a (UI3) > > Keywords: generously (discursive). broadly construed.
I suggest adding "at most". (You already have "at least" for "do'anai".)
> .i je'u ro lo prenu poi mi xamgu djuno ... > Heh. In fact, every person I know well ...
Is this use of "xamgu" in the sense of "to a great extent" recommendable?
> le je'unai palci cu xanri le menli poi na jimpe le manku sevzi > This so-called "evil" is something that is thought up by minds who > are afraid of the dark self.
"na jimpe" = "are afraid"?
> .i ke'u nai lo te selplijibri cu so'a roi cinmi fi lo nu lo selplijibri cu plixau > Furthermore, employers almost always feel that employment is useful.
typo: "cinmo"
Is having feelings for an event the same as having the opinion that it happens?
> mu'a cu'i (UI*3) > Discursive. Used to express that examples are being omitted. > > mu'a nai (UI*3) > Discursive. Used to mark a construct as a concluding example. > Keywords: and such.
I don't understand this "scale". If "mu'a nai" is the final example, (and "mu'a" the first one?) then I would expect "mu'a cu'i" to be some intermediate one.
If something were to indicate omission of examples, I would expect it to be "mu'a nai", not "mu'a cu'i".
> mi pu citka lo vrici grute no'u mu'a lo plise .e lo badna mu'a nai > I ate different fruits like apples and bananas and such.
Wouldn't the keyword "and such" and this example, be cases of "(further) examples are being omitted"?
> Examples of pau Usage > ku'i le se badri cu na cliva mi'a .i ze'e go'i .i ki'u ma pau > But the sad things don't go away. They never do. Why is that so?
The original purpose of "pau" was as a warning to the listener that a question is comming, usually when the question word appears late in the sentence. An example of that would be useful. In this example it doesn't seem to be doing much.
> sa'u lo remna cu gunma so'i lo selci > Simply put, a human being is an aggregate of many cells.
I would say {lo so'i selci}.
Otherwise, for me it says that for each of many cells a human consists of that one cell.
> sa'u nai ro selci be lo remna cu se klesi lo pa mei poi cmima so'i lo klesi > Furthermore, each cell in the human body belongs to one out of many classes.
"sa'u nai ro selci be lo remna cu cmima pa lo so'i klesi"
"ro selci cu se klesi lo pamei" says that each cell is a class that has a single sub-class.
> ta'o mi pu zi co'a tatpi .i mi na djuno lo rinka > By the way, I just started to get tired. I don't know why.
That should be "fi lo rinka" or "lo du'u ma kau rinka".
> .i zu'u do cusku lu'e le du'u do na tugni .i zu'unai do tugni le du'u
"fi le du'u"
> noda terckini le jei marji kei le jei mekso najo gismu kei ni'i le du'u > smuni dunli le mekso le gismu > On the one hand, you say that you don't agree. On the other hand, > you agree that there is no relationship between the degree to which > something is material and the degree to which something is not > both a mathematical expression and a root word,
"najo" is "either ... or ...". "not both" would be "najenai".
> necessitated by the equality of meaning between the mathematical > expression and the root word.
"fa le mekso", then.
But I don't understand what that sentence means, either in Lojban or in English.
I will have comments on "da'i" later.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by JohnCowan on Fri 08 of June, 2007 01:22 GMT posts: 149 Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> Please not "maunt"! Either use the corresponding word in some local > language, or better {lo cmana po'u la .everest.}, {la .everest. poi > cmana} or some such variation.
If you don't like "Mount", you probably don't like "Everest" either. In Tibetan it's Chomolungma, in Chinese Zhu1mu4lang3ma3 Feng1, where Feng1 = "mountain". There was no traditional Nepali name, but the Nepali government gave it the official name Sagarmatha recently.
-- Do I contradict myself? John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself. [email protected] I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 08 of June, 2007 13:17 GMT On 6/7/07, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llambas scripsit: > > > Please not "maunt"! Either use the corresponding word in some local > > language, or better {lo cmana po'u la .everest.}, {la .everest. poi > > cmana} or some such variation. > > If you don't like "Mount", you probably don't like "Everest" either. > In Tibetan it's Chomolungma, in Chinese Zhu1mu4lang3ma3 Feng1, where > Feng1 = "mountain". There was no traditional Nepali name, but the Nepali > government gave it the official name Sagarmatha recently.
I have no problem with ".everest.", ".tcomolunmas.", ".jumulanmas.", ".sagarmatas." or whatever the best corresponding lojbanizations are, all being used as variant names for the mountain in question.
My problem is with the incorporation of the specifically English classifier ".maunt." as part of the Lojban name. It made me cringe when I read it. Perhaps ".everest.", ".tcomolunmas." or ".sagarmatas." also incorporate some similar classifier in some language, but since I'm unaware of it, it doesn't affect me.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
arj Posted by arj on Fri 08 of June, 2007 17:53 GMT posts: 953 Thanks for the many comments. I've removed the comments which I think are resolved from my reply.
More on mu'a/mu'acu'i/mu'anai in a separate reply.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:39:47PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > >ba'u (UI3) > >Discursive. Used to express that something is an exaggeration. This word > >comprises a scale, along with "ba'u cu'i" and "ba'u nai". See also ba'u > >ci'i, > >ba'u nai, the preface. (cf. satci, dukse) > > Typo: "ba'u ci'i". > > >ba'u le festi derxi cu simsa la maunt. .everest. lo ni barda > >The pile of garbage is as big as Mount Everest. > > Please not "maunt"! Either use the corresponding word in some local > language, or better {lo cmana po'u la .everest.}, {la .everest. poi cmana} > or some such variation.
I must respectfully disagree. It seems that borrowing "Mount" into the local language is about as common as leaving it out, cf. the interwiki links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest .
> >do'a (UI3) > > > >Keywords: generously (discursive). broadly construed. > > I suggest adding "at most". (You already have "at least" for "do'anai".)
I think that might be confusing. "do'a" doesn't really mark something as being the greatest extent of something.
> >Examples of pau Usage > >ku'i le se badri cu na cliva mi'a .i ze'e go'i .i ki'u ma pau > >But the sad things don't go away. They never do. Why is that so? > > The original purpose of "pau" was as a warning to the listener that > a question is comming, usually when the question word appears late > in the sentence. An example of that would be useful. In this example > it doesn't seem to be doing much.
I've added another example which uses "pau" in this, more common, way.
> >sa'u lo remna cu gunma so'i lo selci > >Simply put, a human being is an aggregate of many cells. > > I would say {lo so'i selci}.
Yes, I have trouble keeping that straight.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put!" --attributed to Winston Churchill
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
arj Posted by arj on Fri 08 of June, 2007 17:56 GMT posts: 953 On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:39:47PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > >mu'a cu'i (UI*3) > >Discursive. Used to express that examples are being omitted. > > > >mu'a nai (UI*3) > >Discursive. Used to mark a construct as a concluding example. > >Keywords: and such. > > I don't understand this "scale".
Neither do I. My writeup is based on educated guesses on what the original designers considered useful, and what the keywords might be intended to convey.
> If "mu'a nai" is the final example, > (and "mu'a" the first one?) then I would expect "mu'a cu'i" to be > some intermediate one. > > If something were to indicate omission of examples, I would expect > it to be "mu'a nai", not "mu'a cu'i".
What are you basing this expectation on?
If mu'a nai did indeed indicate omission of examples, would it be possible to construct a sensible meaning for "mu'a cu'i" at all?
> >mi pu citka lo vrici grute no'u mu'a lo plise .e lo badna mu'a nai > >I ate different fruits like apples and bananas and such. > > Wouldn't the keyword "and such" and this example, be cases > of "(further) examples are being omitted"?
That is the gist of my interpretation of "mu'a nai", yes.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put!" --attributed to Winston Churchill
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 08 of June, 2007 20:32 GMT On 6/8/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:39:47PM -0300, Jorge Llambas wrote: > > > > If something were to indicate omission of examples, I would expect > > it to be "mu'a nai", not "mu'a cu'i". > > What are you basing this expectation on?
I couldn't see what could be mu'anai if mu'acu'i was omission, but now I realize that in that case mu'anai would have to indicate a counterexample
mu'a: example mu'acu'i: omission of any examples (and also of any counterexamples) mu'anai: counterexample
Alternatively:
mu'a: first example mu'acu'i: intermediate example mu'anai: final example
But this mixed scale:
mu'a: example mu'acu'i: omission of examples mu'anai: final example
is the one I cannot figure out.
> If mu'a nai did indeed indicate omission of examples, would it be > possible to construct a sensible meaning for "mu'a cu'i" at all?
Probably not, but there are several indicators that have nai versions and no cu'i version, so I would not say that was a problem.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 08 of June, 2007 21:04 GMT On 6/8/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > It seems that borrowing "Mount" into > the local language is about as common as leaving it out, cf. the > interwiki links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest .
I count 14 with "Mount" vs. 53 without. Of those 14, in at least one of them "Mount" is the corresponding word for "Mount" so it doesn't count, and maybe in some of the others too, but I can't tell. It seems to be mainly a northern/central European thing:
bs:Mount Everest cs:Mount Everest da:Mount Everest de:Mount Everest hr:Mount Everest ku:Mount Everest nl:Mount Everest no:Mount Everest nn:Mount Everest pl:Mount Everest simple:Mount Everest sk:Mount Everest fi:Mount Everest sv:Mount Everest
Anyway, to my ear ".maunt." as part of the Lojban name of the mountain sounds silly.
> > >do'a (UI3)
> > >
> > >Keywords: generously (discursive). broadly construed.
> >
> > I suggest adding "at most". (You already have "at least" for "do'anai".)
>
> I think that might be confusing. "do'a" doesn't really mark something as
> being the greatest extent of something.
Why do you have "at least" for "do'anai" then?
It marks the greatest extent which the speaker is willing to concede, just as "at least" marks the minimum.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by PierreAbbat on Fri 08 of June, 2007 22:46 GMT posts: 324 On Friday 08 June 2007 09:22, Jorge Llambías wrote: > I have no problem with ".everest.", ".tcomolunmas.", ".jumulanmas.", > ".sagarmatas." or whatever the best corresponding lojbanizations are, > all being used as variant names for the mountain in question. > > My problem is with the incorporation of the specifically English classifier > ".maunt." as part of the Lojban name. It made me cringe when I read it. > Perhaps ".everest.", ".tcomolunmas." or ".sagarmatas." also incorporate > some similar classifier in some language, but since I'm unaware of it, > it doesn't affect me.
I would use {cman} as the equivalent of "mount", but I don't see it needed with {tcomolanmas}. I would use it in mu'a lu cman.roraimas. li'u because there's also a state by that name.
Pierre
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
adamgarrigus Posted by adamgarrigus on Fri 08 of June, 2007 23:30 GMT posts: 92 On 6/8/07, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > On 6/8/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > > > It seems that borrowing "Mount" into > > the local language is about as common as leaving it out, cf. the > > interwiki links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest . > > I count 14 with "Mount" vs. 53 without. Of those 14, in at least > one of them "Mount" is the corresponding word for "Mount" > so it doesn't count, and maybe in some of the others too, but I can't > tell. It seems to be mainly a northern/central European thing: > > bs:Mount Everest > cs:Mount Everest > da:Mount Everest > de:Mount Everest > hr:Mount Everest > ku:Mount Everest > nl:Mount Everest > no:Mount Everest > nn:Mount Everest > pl:Mount Everest > simple:Mount Everest > sk:Mount Everest > fi:Mount Everest > sv:Mount Everest > > Anyway, to my ear ".maunt." as part of the Lojban name of the mountain > sounds silly.
I have to agree with xorxes here. This seems like a situation where Lojban
can improve on natlang practice. I favor {la tcomolunmas noi cmana}. mu'o
mi'e komfo,amonan
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 09 of June, 2007 00:06 GMT I'm trying to understand "da'i". Im still not quite sure how to use it.
> le nu cusku fi ko'a bau gy. cu nandu dukse .i da'i go'i bau ly. .iicai > What he says in English is too difficult. Suppose that he were to do > it in Lojban ... (eek!)
This is a common enough use of "go'i", to repeat a preceding subordinate bridi rather than the full preceding bridi. Perhaps it should be made legit.
> da'i mi se jbonunsla .ijanai mi jai gau pixra fa lo so'imei > If I went to Logfest, I would take a lot of pictures.
This would have to be ".inaja"
> da'i as a marker of a hypothetical consequent (erroneous)
Unless "da'i" is merely an irrealis marker, rather than an antecedent marker.
> da'i used outside of implications
> da'i trina lo nalglico selbangu > i a'o go'i > Xod: Suppose we'd attract speakers of non-English languages. > Jorge: I hope so. > (A discussion about Logfest.)
Actually, it was a discussion about the creation of lojban-es, and I think what Xod meant was "supposedly (it) will/may attract speakers of non-English", so I think it falls in the consequent category.
> i zo su'i binxo da'i zo sumji > The word "su'i" becomes (we suppose) "sumji".
I'm guessing, but I think it's "would become" (under Robin's MEX sheme). This would be another case of consequent.
> to da'i da na djica le nu le zgike kagni cu ricfu vau po'o toi > No-one would want music companies to be rich, and nothing else.
This one sounds like the consequent of some unstated antecedent too.
> Examples of da'i Usage > le tadji be la xorxes cu da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo cu jursa > ke smuni binxo > Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" to severely > change meaning.
This is a consequent example, too. (We already discussed my objection to "binxo" for "cenba" here.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
arj Posted by arj on Sat 09 of June, 2007 21:14 GMT posts: 953 On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:10:04PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > I'm trying to understand "da'i". Im still not quite sure how to use it. > > >le nu cusku fi ko'a bau gy. cu nandu dukse .i da'i go'i bau ly. .iicai > >What he says in English is too difficult. Suppose that he were to do > >it in Lojban ... (eek!) > > This is a common enough use of "go'i", to repeat a preceding > subordinate bridi rather than the full preceding bridi. Perhaps it > should be made legit.
I can't think of any way to do this unambiguously, so I removed the example.
> >da'i mi se jbonunsla .ijanai mi jai gau pixra fa lo so'imei > >If I went to Logfest, I would take a lot of pictures. > > This would have to be ".inaja"
Okay, removed.
> >da'i as a marker of a hypothetical consequent (erroneous) > > Unless "da'i" is merely an irrealis marker, rather than an antecedent > marker.
I do think an implication is intended.
> >da'i used outside of implications > > > da'i trina lo nalglico selbangu > > i a'o go'i > >Xod: Suppose we'd attract speakers of non-English languages. > >Jorge: I hope so. > >(A discussion about Logfest.) > > Actually, it was a discussion about the creation of lojban-es,
Ah.
> and > I think what Xod meant was "supposedly (it) will/may attract speakers > of non-English", so I think it falls in the consequent category.
Okay, I've moved it there.
> > >i zo su'i binxo da'i zo sumji > >The word "su'i" becomes (we suppose) "sumji". > > I'm guessing, but I think it's "would become" (under Robin's MEX sheme). > This would be another case of consequent.
This is borne out by the context:
03 Jul 2003 15:34:11 coi xorxes 03 Jul 2003 15:34:20 coi adam 03 Jul 2003 15:35:03 i do djica le nu ficygau le mekso ciste ma 03 Jul 2003 15:35:46 .i pe'i ro cmavo be zo vu'u cu .ei binxo lo cmavo be zo go'a 03 Jul 2003 15:36:14 .i le cnino smuni cu dunli le smuni be lu nu'avu'u li'u 03 Jul 2003 15:36:18 i mi sarji 03 Jul 2003 15:36:55 .ija'ebo lu li pa su'i pa du li re li'u cu binxo lu li re su'i li pa li pa li'u 03 Jul 2003 15:37:05 .i ku'i xanri .i na ba fasnu 03 Jul 2003 15:37:26 i go'i 03 Jul 2003 15:38:05 i zo su'i binxo da'i zo sumji 03 Jul 2003 15:38:21 .ie 03 Jul 2003 15:39:00 i pe'i so'i cmavo be zo vu'u cu dunli lo gismu
> >to da'i da na djica le nu le zgike kagni cu ricfu vau po'o toi
> >No-one would want music companies to be rich, and nothing else.
>
> This one sounds like the consequent of some unstated antecedent too.
I'm not sure it is. What would the unstated antecedent be?
> >Examples of da'i Usage > >le tadji be la xorxes cu da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo cu jursa > >ke smuni binxo > >Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" to severely > >change meaning. > > This is a consequent example, too.
Not really, since it's not phrased as a logical implication.
> (We already discussed my objection to "binxo" for "cenba" here.)
I can't remember that. Care to repeat/give me a pointer?
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ P� hjul er du kj�rende.
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 09 of June, 2007 22:14 GMT On 6/9/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:10:04PM -0300, Jorge Llambas wrote:
> > >da'i as a marker of a hypothetical consequent (erroneous) > > > > Unless "da'i" is merely an irrealis marker, rather than an antecedent > > marker. > > I do think an implication is intended.
I wasn't very clear. I meant to comment on "erroneous":
This usage is erroneous, unless "da'i" is merely an irrealis marker rather than an antecedent marker.
I'm not yet clear on how I think "da'i" ought to work. It is clear that usage does not restrict it to antecedents.
> > >to da'i da na djica le nu le zgike kagni cu ricfu vau po'o toi > > >No-one would want music companies to be rich, and nothing else. > > > > This one sounds like the consequent of some unstated antecedent too. > > I'm not sure it is. What would the unstated antecedent be?
I think this was a discussion about copyright. I'm thinking of something like:
(If a law was passed to protect copyright) no-one would want ...
> > >Examples of da'i Usage
> > >le tadji be la xorxes cu da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo cu jursa
> > >ke smuni binxo
> > >Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" to severely
> > >change meaning.
> >
> > This is a consequent example, too.
>
> Not really, since it's not phrased as a logical implication.
(If it were implemented ...) Jorge's method would ...
> > (We already discussed my objection to "binxo" for "cenba" here.) > > I can't remember that. Care to repeat/give me a pointer?
It's in some previous message of this thread:
The {lo}'s don't get transformed into anything else, do they? It is their meaning that is supposedly "severely" changed. The {lo}s stay as {lo}s.
> As the one who originally uttered that sentence, I know that I was talking > about a complete {nu binxo} and not a "mere" {nu cenba}. :-)
Well, the sentence is false in whatever reading, but {binxo} would say that every {lo} gets changed into something else, which is not what the English says. The difference between {binxo} and {cenba} is not one of degree. {binxo} is for transformation of one thing into another, say {lo} into {le}. {cenba} is for change, no matter how drastic, of a property of a thing, say the meaning of {lo}. You can say {le smuni be zo lo binxo lo drata smuni}, or {zo lo cenba lo ka smuni}, but not {zo lo binxo lo drata valsi}, unless you mean that the word {lo} changed into {mo} or such.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Sat 09 of June, 2007 23:23 GMT Let's consider this Lojban sentence:
ga nai do ba citka lo smani gi nai ri jmive
This could be translated in several ways. For example, taking the clauses as irrealis:
(1) If you were to eat a monkey, it wouldn't be alive. (2) You wouldn't eat a monkey if it were alive. (3) Either you wouldn't eat a monkey, or it wouldn't be alive. (4) It wouldn't happen that you eat a monkey and it is alive.
All of these have the same truth value. (3) and (4) are not very idiomatic in English, but (3) would seem to be the closest in form to the Lojban original, and (4) is just its DeMorgan transformation.
The clause picked as the "antecedent" is different in (1) and (2). Can we say that one of the clauses in the Lojban version is the antecedent? How do we choose?
Is it enough that something is presented in the form "ganai X gi Y" for us to say that X is the antecedent an Y the consequent? Wouldn't we be equally justified in saying that "na Y" is the antecedent and "na X" is the consequent?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by JohnCowan on Sat 09 of June, 2007 23:54 GMT posts: 149 Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> The clause picked as the "antecedent" is different in (1) and (2).
No, in both cases the if-clause is the antecedent. The fact that the if-clause comes after the then-clause in (2) does not make it not the antecedent: the force of "ante-" here is sequence in the time being reported, not sequence in the form of expression.
> Can we say that one of the clauses in the Lojban version is the > antecedent? How do we choose?
The ganai clause is the antecedent.
> Is it enough that something is presented in the form "ganai X gi Y" > for us to say that X is the antecedent an Y the consequent?
Yes.
> Wouldn't we be equally justified in saying that "na Y" is the > antecedent and "na X" is the consequent?
Only if that's what we actually had.
-- Do I contradict myself? John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself. [email protected] I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply
Edit Delete Report this post
BPFK Section: Discursives
Posted by Anonymous on Sun 10 of June, 2007 00:14 GMT On 6/9/07, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llambas scripsit: > > > The clause picked as the "antecedent" is different in (1) and (2). > > No, in both cases the if-clause is the antecedent. The fact that > the if-clause comes after the then-clause in (2) does not make it > not the antecedent: the force of "ante-" here is sequence in > the time being reported, not sequence in the form of expression.
ga nai do ba citka lo smani gi nai ri jmive
(1) If you were to eat a monkey, it wouldn't be alive. (2) You wouldn't eat a monkey if it were alive.
In (1), the antecedent corresponds to "do ba citka lo smani". In (2), the antecedent corresponds to "ri cmive".
Which one is the antecedent in the Lojban version?
> > Can we say that one of the clauses in the Lojban version is the > > antecedent? How do we choose? > > The ganai clause is the antecedent.
But there are two ganai clauses in the Lojban version. Unless you mean that the "ginai" clause does not count as a "ganai" clause.
> > Is it enough that something is presented in the form "ganai X gi Y" > > for us to say that X is the antecedent an Y the consequent? > > Yes. > > > Wouldn't we be equally justified in saying that "na Y" is the > > antecedent and "na X" is the consequent? > > Only if that's what we actually had.
So the form of presentation of two sentences with identical meaning is what determines what we call the antecedent?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
- da'i (UI3)
- Discursive. Used to express
supposing {MORE DETAILS}. This word comprises a scale, along with "OTHER1". See also OTHER1, OTHER2, the preface. (cf. sruma)
- Keywords:
Examples of da'i Usage
le tadji be la xorxes da'i ba rinka le nu ro pu me zo lo cu jursa ke smuni binxo
Jorge's method would cause all previous occurrences of "lo" to severely change meaning.
le nu da'i da tirna mi cu mukti le nu mi skicu le jibri menli bo tolcertu If someone would listen to me, I'd tell about the idiots at work.
no'i ji'a lo nu da'i do cusku lu ke broda brode ke'e cei ke brodi brodo li'u cu rinka lo nu do palci vau zo'o
Returning to the previous topic; you would also be evil if you were to say "ke broda brode ke'e cei ke brodi brodo".
Proposed Definition of da'i nai
- da'i nai (UI*3)
- Discursive. Used to
express in fact {MORE DETAILS}. This word comprises a scale, along with "OTHER1". See also OTHER1, OTHER2, the preface.
- Keywords:
Examples of da'i nai Usage
The most interesting possibility for {da'i -- da'inai} is to bracket subjunctive passages: the (usually) counterfactual condition is introduced with {da'i}, the return to status quo ante with {da'inai}, the inbetween works out the consequences of the given condition in the subjunctive realm. The usage above as a simple subjunctive marker is a special case of this perhaps, or a collapsed version "Suppose xorxes' proposal were in force. Then the meaning of {lo} would change radically. ..."