Talk:BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar., 2005 20:09 GMT

> Examples of se du'o Usage > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.

What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same people. For a general sentence {broda se du'u la tom cu zvati zy}, "X happens, knowing that Tom is there", are we to assume that the knower has to be the agent of the event X?

The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to have a free event place for the main event. In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main event, so {du'o} and {te du'o} (and even {ve du'o}) are not problematic, but {se du'o} already reserves that place for the tagged sumti, so the only meaningfulplace remaining for the main event is the x3 of djuno, since an event can't really be in x1.

So perhaps from:

la tom djuno lo du'u lo nu ma'a klama lo zarci cu lakne Tom knows that our going to the market is likely.

we can also say:

ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o lo du'u lo nu no'a cu lakne We go to the market, with known about it that it is likely.

I can't think why anyone would want to say it that way, but that's the only way I can think for {se du'o} to modify an event. To say that we are the knowers I would say something like: {ma'a ne se du'o lo du'u la tom cu zvati le zarci cu klama zy} although {noi djuno} would be by far better, of course.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar., 2005 21:20 GMT

> Examples of se cu'u Usage > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i jmive cu selsenva po'o > I know culturally that children's songs express that life is only a dream.

That should be {le se du'u}, because {se cu'u} presumably takes a text.

> Examples of te cu'u Usage > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi > "I read the poem for my family."

I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my family", from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu lo pemci}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar., 2005 21:41 GMT

> Examples of ve cu'u Usage > > mi .e la bancus cu casnu ve cu'u la .irk. > "Bancus and I had a conversation on IRC."

s/.e/joi, otherwise it says that you and Bancus each discussed something.

I don't know why that would not be "Bancus and I had a conversation, they say on IRC", based on {la irk cu ve djuno lo se du'u mi joi la bancus cu casnu}.

It seems to me that the default interpretation for cu'u/te cu'u/ve cu'u is that the main event corresponds to the x2 of cusku, which is the easiest place to relate to events. If not, why not?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar., 2005 21:48 GMT

> Examples of se ca'i Usage > > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > "The army is my job, where I have authority over bombs."

I translate "I have a job in the army, making (me?) an authority on bombs", derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri mi}.

The obvious place for the main event with {ca'i} is the x2 of {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not available, the second choice is x3, isn't it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 02:41 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of se du'o Usage > > > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy > > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there. > > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in > the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same > people.

I don't see that the translation particularily implies that either, but would "given the fact that" make you feel better?

> For a general sentence {broda se du'u la tom cu zvati zy}, "X > happens, knowing that Tom is there", are we to assume that the > knower has to be the agent of the event X?

I wouldn't, no.

> The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > have a free event place for the main event.

That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in general. There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately.

> In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main > event,

djuno2 doesn't take events.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 02:50 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi > > "I read the poem for my family." > > I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my family", > from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu lo pemci}.

I don't respect this transformation.

te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste says "as told to", which is quite different from what you have.

You're turning the main bridi into something that is textually represented in some other event. I'm not OK with that.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 02:51 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:28:37PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > I don't know why that would not be "Bancus and I had a > conversation, they say on IRC", based on > {la irk cu ve djuno lo se du'u mi joi la bancus cu casnu}.

I still don't respect that transformation, nor does the ma'oste.

> It seems to me that the default interpretation for cu'u/te cu'u/ve > cu'u is that the main event corresponds to the x2 of cusku, which > is the easiest place to relate to events. If not, why not?

Because there's no reason to impose that transformation, because it violates basically all usage, and because it makes the words useless.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 02:53 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:36:56PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of se ca'i Usage > > > > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > > "The army is my job, where I have authority over bombs." > > I translate "I have a job in the army, making (me?) an authority > on bombs",

Is that different from what I said in any substantial way.

> derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri mi}.

Again, I think this translation is pointless, and it disagrees with both the ma'oste and usage.

> The obvious place for the main event with {ca'i} is the x2 of > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not available, the second > choice is x3, isn't it?

Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI always involves putting the main bridi somewhere?

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 06:35 GMT

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri > to have a free event place for the main event.

The standard use of *causal* BAIs, yes. But that doesn't work for, say, "bau". Not all BAIs are substitutes for full bridi relationships between events.

-- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. jcowan@reutershealth.com --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years ago http://www.reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 13:08 GMT

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:40:06 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy > > > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there. > > > > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in > > the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same > > people. > > I don't see that the translation particularily implies that either,

"X does Y, knowing Z" does not imply that the knower is the same as the doer?

> but would "given the fact that" make you feel better?

That works for {fi'o fatci}, but {du'o} brings in a knower.

> > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > > have a free event place for the main event. > > That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in > general.

OK, let me rephrase that:

BAIs that have an event or proposition place are relatively easy to interpret (as long as the place in question is not taken by the tagged sumti). BAIs that lack any such free place are not easy to interpret.

> There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no > event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately.

{tai} comes from {tarmysimsa}. Why does it not come directly from {tarmi}? Because the intention was that it be used for "like", or "as". If we assume that the underlying predicate of {tai} is "x1 is like/as x2", then there is no problem with both x1 and x2 being events.

> > In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main > > event, > > djuno2 doesn't take events.

Propositions will work too. "We go to the market" is something that can be known, or something that can be known about (x2 or x3 of djuno). It cannot be a knower (x1), and presumably it cannot be an epistemology (x4).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 13:16 GMT

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:48:56 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi > > > "I read the poem for my family." > > > > I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my family", > > from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu lo pemci}. > > I don't respect this transformation.

Okay, but do you use any transormation, or do you just follow the English keywords?

> te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste says > "as told to", which is quite different from what you have.

"I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The point is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it was not the audience of the poem-reading.

> You're turning the main bridi into something that is textually > represented in some other event. I'm not OK with that.

Given the places of {cusku}, the x2 is the one that makes most sense for the main bridi. The main bridi can't be x1 or x3, and probably not x4 either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 13:28 GMT

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:52:49 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:36:56PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of se ca'i Usage > > > > > > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > > > "The army is my job, where I have authority over bombs." > > > > I translate "I have a job in the army, making (me?) an authority > > on bombs", > > Is that different from what I said in any substantial way.

I think so, yes. {lo jenmi cu jibri mi} is the source of my authority (x3 of catni), instead of the realm of application of my authority.

> > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri mi}. > > Again, I think this translation is pointless, and it disagrees with > both the ma'oste and usage.

The point is to have some rule. The ma'oste just gives keywords, and usage sometimes tends to follow the keywords instead of following some regular pattern. Maybe my rule is not the best, but then let's find a better one, not just "follow the keywords".

> > The obvious place for the main event with {ca'i} is the x2 of > > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not available, the second > > choice is x3, isn't it? > > Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI always involves putting > the main bridi somewhere?

Why bizarre? Isn't that the simplest interpretation of {fi'o broda}, that {broda} relates the main bridi to a new argument? How else could the new argument be related to the main bridi through {broda}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 13:32 GMT posts: 2388

To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection with it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have a meaning that is not exactly to be found in the brivla and conversely. Further, even insofar as the sumtcita and the brivla are directly related, the sumtcita brings into a sentence the semantics of only the one place indicated, not the whole semantics of the brivla. Thus: 1) looking for a transformational equivalent of a sentence with a sumtcita which has the indicated brivla as selbri is never decisive for themeaning of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is often at leat helpful in figuring it out. 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does not mean that that place is usefully to be added to sentences, so looking for all the possible variations on a sumtcita to match the place of the associated brivla is often useless work; wait until the form is used and then figure out what it means — don't borrow trouble.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 13:43 GMT posts: 2388

> > > > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu > lo jenmi cu jibri mi}. > > > > Again, I think this translation is pointless, > and it disagrees with > > both the ma'oste and usage. > > The point is to have some rule. The ma'oste > just gives keywords, > and usage sometimes tends to follow the > keywords instead of > following some regular pattern. Maybe my rule > is not the best, > but then let's find a better one, not just > "follow the keywords".

It is nowhere clear that there is or needs to be a rule about these things — and therr are cases that clearly conflict with your proposed rule. In that case, the conventional meaning is the thing to look at, not some abstract and only weakly supported rule.

> > > The obvious place for the main event with > {ca'i} is the x2 of > > > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not > available, the second > > > choice is x3, isn't it? > > > > Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI > always involves putting > > the main bridi somewhere? > > Why bizarre? Isn't that the simplest > interpretation of {fi'o broda}, > that {broda} relates the main bridi to a new > argument? How else > could the new argument be related to the main > bridi through > {broda}? > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole predication, not conversely. It just adds one more relation to the original; it does not take the original as a whole as a relatum.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 14:48 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:34:19 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri > > to have a free event place for the main event. > > The standard use of *causal* BAIs, yes. But that doesn't work for, > say, "bau". Not all BAIs are substitutes for full bridi relationships > between events.

For some reason I thought the place structure of {bangu} was "x1 is the language used by x2 in circumstances x3", which would fit with my theory, but I see I was wrong about x3.

The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is:

broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu

This expansion, which automatically creates an event place for the main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have event/du'u places.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 14:49 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the > connection between a sumtcita and some brivla > mentioned in connection with it is heuristic, not > definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have a > meaning that is not exactly to be found in the > brivla and conversely.

I think CLL treats it as definitional.

> Further, even insofar as > the sumtcita and the brivla are directly related, > the sumtcita brings into a sentence the semantics > of only the one place indicated, not the whole > semantics of the brivla.

This assumes that places have semantics independent of the brivla. I take lojban brivla to be relationships, not collections of several concepts in one word. I think that's the spirit of the language, even though many gismu place structures do look like collections of related concepts instead of one relationship between a number of arguments.

Thus: > 1) looking for a transformational equivalent of a > sentence with a sumtcita which has the indicated > brivla as selbri is never decisive for themeaning > of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is often at > leat helpful in figuring it out.

I don't have a problem with that.

> 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does not > mean that that place is usefully to be added to > sentences, so looking for all the possible > variations on a sumtcita to match the place of > the associated brivla is often useless work; wait > until the form is used and then figure out what > it means — don't borrow trouble.

All variations will appear on the dictionary, so we want examples for all, even if they are unlikely to end up being used.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 14:50 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:36:04 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole > predication, not conversely. It just adds one > more relation to the original; it does not take > the original as a whole as a relatum.

A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined as a composition G(F(a,b), c), can't it?

All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is in terms of the underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument c to F(a,b) to give F'(a,b,c)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 15:33 GMT

> Examples of ta'i Usage > > ta'i ma do cilre la lojban > "By what method did you learn Lojban?"

This one is regular. Just slightly odd because {cilre} already has a "by method" place.

> Examples of pu'e Usage > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi > "I invent stories by writing down whatever I think of."

{pruce} has so many event places that it's hard to say what's related to what by {pu'e}.

Wouldn't the writing of whatever I think be the stages (or perhaps the only stage) of the process of inventing stories? If so, this would be an example of {ve pu'e}.

It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. Or are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the same process?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 17:14 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: > the > > connection between a sumtcita and some brivla > > mentioned in connection with it is heuristic, > not > > definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have > a > > meaning that is not exactly to be found in > the > > brivla and conversely. > > I think CLL treats it as definitional.

Well, we disagree on that point and I cite the several cases of sumtcita that cannot be strictly related to the associated predicate but that pick up on some idea in that predicate's neighborhood semantically or even pragmatically.

> > Further, even insofar as > > the sumtcita and the brivla are directly > related, > > the sumtcita brings into a sentence the > semantics > > of only the one place indicated, not the > whole > > semantics of the brivla. > > This assumes that places have semantics > independent > of the brivla. I take lojban brivla to be > relationships, not > collections of several concepts in one word. I > think that's > the spirit of the language, even though many > gismu > place structures do look like collections of > related > concepts instead of one relationship between a > number > of arguments.

Yes, so I was a bit unclear there. What I mean is that only the cited place plays a role in the event, the other places are at most implicit -- and not in any systematic way even. Consider even {du'o} which is the most generous case I can think of outside the causals. It does appear that your pattern works here, sort of: the sumti is the person who know and what he knows is the main predication. But that is not quite what the original says; the original is using {djuno} as a stand in for {certu}, though with a proposition (the main bridi) standing in for a generalized event description, combined with {xusra} to give the more specific proposition. Notice, for example, that we do not take the {du'o x} away if the proposition happens to be false (indeed, one major use for this sort of thing is to put forth somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently from {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u y broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o x} and the same seems to be the case with many such transformations.

> Thus: > > 1) looking for a transformational equivalent > of a > > sentence with a sumtcita which has the > indicated > > brivla as selbri is never decisive for > themeaning > > of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is > often at > > leat helpful in figuring it out. > > I don't have a problem with that.


Oh, I have been reading you as saying that the transformation — if once we could figure out what it is — *is* the meaning of the sentence.

> > 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does > not > > mean that that place is usefully to be added > to > > sentences, so looking for all the possible > > variations on a sumtcita to match the place > of > > the associated brivla is often useless work; > wait > > until the form is used and then figure out > what > > it means — don't borrow trouble. > > All variations will appear on the dictionary, > so we want > examples for all, even if they are unlikely to > end up being > used.

And what I am saying is that we should not put in these oblique forms unless they have some usage. And in particular, we should not prejudge what their uses might be on the basis of some abstract rule which ignores the rather considerable role of human ingenuity that still creeps into Lojban.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 17:21 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:36:04 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole > > predication, not conversely. It just adds > one > > more relation to the original; it does not > take > > the original as a whole as a relatum. > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined > as a composition > G(F(a,b), c), can't it? > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is > in terms of the > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument > c to F(a,b) > to give F'(a,b,c)

The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) need bear any relation to G(F(ab) c). The functor for which the composition rules hold are a very limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I think. For normal predicates it seems that rewriting its expansion will be much more complex and idiosyncratic.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:13 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:12:22 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > Consider > even {du'o} which is the most generous case I can > think of outside the causals.

There are plenty of generous cases: {bai}, {cau}, {de'i}, {di'o}, {du'i}, {fa'e}, {ga'a}, {gau}, {ji'e}, {ji'o}, {kai}, {koi}, {ma'i}, {mau}, {me'a}, {pa'a}, {se pi'o}, {se ra'a}, {ra'i}, {ri'i}, {si'u}, {ta'i}, {ti'i}, {ti'u}, {tu'i}, {va'o}, {se va'u}, {zau}, {zu'e}, to list some.

> It does appear > that your pattern works here, sort of: the sumti > is the person who know and what he knows is the > main predication.

Right.

> But that is not quite what the > original says; the original is using {djuno} as a > stand in for {certu}, though with a proposition > (the main bridi) standing in for a generalized > event description, combined with {xusra} to give > the more specific proposition. Notice, for > example, that we do not take the {du'o x} away if > the proposition happens to be false

We don't? If we find out that {la tom klama le zarci} is false, we nevertheless keep insisting that {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan} is true?

>(indeed, one > major use for this sort of thing is to put forth > somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently from > {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u y > broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o x} > and the same seems to be the case with many such > transformations.

Be that as it may, I'm not really looking for exact transformations but for a guide to the meaning. In {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan}, what role does John play in the going? Is he a knower of anything at all, a knower of anything somehow related to the going, or a knower that the going takes place? I'm arguing that it can't mean that we go ta a market that John knows or that we are known to John, but John doesn't know that we are going to the market. It puts John as a knower that the going takes place. If the knowing is restricted to one of the other sumti, then {du'o la djan} needs to be attached to it.


> Oh, I have been reading you as saying that the > transformation — if once we could figure out > what it is — *is* the meaning of the sentence.

No, I have only used the transfromations to show why some of the examples provided seemed odd to me. The meaning of the sentence is often different with regards to the things actually claimed. The transformations help to understand what is related to what and how.

> > All variations will appear on the dictionary, > > so we want > > examples for all, even if they are unlikely to > > end up being > > used. > > And what I am saying is that we should not put in > these oblique forms unless they have some usage.

Actually, I sort of agree with that. In some cases, only the oblique form has usage ({se pi'o} for example), so the example for the {pi'o} entry would use {se pi'o}. There shouldn't be separate entries for the SE-converted BAIs. All the useful transformations should be under the same head word.

> And in particular, we should not prejudge what > their uses might be on the basis of some abstract > rule which ignores the rather considerable role > of human ingenuity that still creeps into Lojban.

We are defining the language, we should be as precise in our definitions as we can. That is not to say that we can't define some words as having ample meanings if that's what we want.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:18 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:19:36 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined > > as a composition > > G(F(a,b), c), can't it? > > > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is > > in terms of the > > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument > > c to F(a,b) > > to give F'(a,b,c) > > The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) need > bear any relation to G(F(ab) c).

What's G*(c)? c is an ordinary argument of F'.

> The functor for > which the composition rules hold are a very > limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I think. > For normal predicates it seems that rewriting its > expansion will be much more complex and > idiosyncratic.

Not sure what you mean, but I find that cases that are hard to transform are the exception rather than the rule.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:29 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection > > between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection with > > it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the sumtcita may > > have a meaning that is not exactly to be found in the brivla and > > conversely. > > I think CLL treats it as definitional.

I think you're very wrong. Citation?

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:36 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:28:01 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection > > > between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection with > > > it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the sumtcita may > > > have a meaning that is not exactly to be found in the brivla and > > > conversely. > > > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. > > I think you're very wrong. Citation? > > -Robin

Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily {fi'o bapli}, {gau} is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se ri'a} is not necessarily {fi'o se rinka}, etc.?

I don't really care if it's in CLL or not. At least for me that's definitional.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:38 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:34:30PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:28:01 -0800, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford > > > wrote: > > > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection > > > > between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection > > > > with it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the > > > > sumtcita may have a meaning that is not exactly to be found > > > > in the brivla and conversely. > > > > > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. > > > > I think you're very wrong. Citation? > > Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily {fi'o bapli}, {gau} > is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se ri'a} is not necessarily > {fi'o se rinka}, etc.?

Oh. No, I'm not saying that at all. I thought we were talking about the transformation of bridi containing sumtcita. Sorry.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:52 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:06:58AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:40:06 -0800, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy "We > > > > go to the market, knowing that Tom is there. > > > > > > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason > > > in the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are > > > the same people. > > > > I don't see that the translation particularily implies that > > either, > > "X does Y, knowing Z" does not imply that the knower is the same > as the doer?

Perhaps, but only mildly.

> > but would "given the fact that" make you feel better? > > That works for {fi'o fatci}, but {du'o} brings in a knower.

{du'o} does, but {se du'o} does not; it adds a place with a thing known, that's all.

> > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > > > have a free event place for the main event. > > > > That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in > > general. > > OK, let me rephrase that: > > BAIs that have an event or proposition place are relatively easy > to interpret (as long as the place in question is not taken by the > tagged sumti). BAIs that lack any such free place are not easy to > interpret.

No, I don't agree with that either. BAI tags add a single place with a meaning derived from a gismu. Whether that additional place is easy to understand depends on the sentence and the context, not on the underlying gismu.

> > There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no > > event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately. > > {tai} comes from {tarmysimsa}. Why does it not come directly from > {tarmi}? Because the intention was that it be used for "like", or > "as". If we assume that the underlying predicate of {tai} is "x1 > is like/as x2", then there is no problem with both x1 and x2 being > events.

Sorry, I forgot it didn't come from tarmi.

ka'a, then.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:53 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:22:34AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:34:19 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > > > have a free event place for the main event. > > > > The standard use of *causal* BAIs, yes. But that doesn't work > > for, say, "bau". Not all BAIs are substitutes for full bridi > > relationships between events. > > For some reason I thought the place structure of {bangu} was "x1 > is the language used by x2 in circumstances x3", which would fit > with my theory, but I see I was wrong about x3. > > The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu > > This expansion, which automatically creates an event place for the > main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have > event/du'u places.

I think the whole thing is unnecessary. BAI add a place, that's all. I see no particular need to define a transformation.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 18:56 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:15:04AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:48:56 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi "I read the poem > > > > for my family." > > > > > > I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my > > > family", from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu > > > lo pemci}. > > > > I don't respect this transformation. > > Okay, but do you use any transormation, or do you just follow the > English keywords?

I do not use any transformation for BAIs, no. I see BaI as adding a place to a bridi. The place is based on the appropriate places of the underlying gismu. That's all they do, but that's rather a lot different from subordinating the main bridi.

> > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > says "as told to", which is quite different from what you have. > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The point > is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it was not > the audience of the poem-reading.

I disagree. It was an audience for some kind of expression; what that expression is is totally unspecified, but as an "audience" place is being added to tcidu, being an audience for the reading seems the only sensible interpretation.

I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that those other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning of {se cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 19:00 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:26:56AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:52:49 -0800, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri > > > mi}. > > > > Again, I think this translation is pointless, and it disagrees > > with both the ma'oste and usage. > > The point is to have some rule.

The rule is that the bridi gets an extra place, with a meaning determined by the place structure of the underlying gismu of the BAI. This is totally different than a transformation involving and urderlying clasue. IMO (and I admit this may be a reversal from my earlier opinions), fi'o and BAI are irreducible.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 19:05 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:12:22 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > Consider > > even {du'o} which is the most generous case I > can > > think of outside the causals. > > There are plenty of generous cases: {bai}, > {cau}, {de'i}, > {di'o}, {du'i}, {fa'e}, {ga'a}, {gau}, {ji'e}, > {ji'o}, {kai}, {koi}, > {ma'i}, {mau}, {me'a}, {pa'a}, {se pi'o}, {se > ra'a}, {ra'i}, > {ri'i}, {si'u}, {ta'i}, {ti'i}, {ti'u}, {tu'i}, > {va'o}, {se va'u}, {zau}, > {zu'e}, to list some. > > > It does appear > > that your pattern works here, sort of: the > sumti > > is the person who know and what he knows is > the > > main predication. > > Right. > > > But that is not quite what the > > original says; the original is using {djuno} > as a > > stand in for {certu}, though with a > proposition > > (the main bridi) standing in for a > generalized > > event description, combined with {xusra} to > give > > the more specific proposition. Notice, for > > example, that we do not take the {du'o x} > away if > > the proposition happens to be false > > We don't? If we find out that {la tom klama le > zarci} is false, > we nevertheless keep insisting that {la tom > klama le zarci > du'o la djan} is true?

No, but there is an issue of what to make of the sentence. Is the point that John claims the base or that it is true. If the former, then we will still insist {la tam klama le zarci du'o la djan} even if {la tam klama le zarci} is false. If it is the latter, then, of course, the whole is false and John is not reliable. Transformations tend to make things look like the first case, whereas what is meant is very often the second. (This is irrelevant if you are not actually using transformations to give meanings. In that case, I think it is at least as informative to see how the transformation fails as how it succeeds.)

> >(indeed, one > > major use for this sort of thing is to put > forth > > somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently > from > > {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u > y > > broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o > x} > > and the same seems to be the case with many > such > > transformations. > > Be that as it may, I'm not really looking for > exact > transformations but for a guide to the meaning. > In {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan}, what > role does > John play in the going? Is he a knower of > anything at all, > a knower of anything somehow related to the > going, or a > knower that the going takes place? I'm arguing > that > it can't mean that we go ta a market that John > knows > or that we are known to John, but John doesn't > know > that we are going to the market. It puts John > as a > knower that the going takes place. If the > knowing is > restricted to one of the other sumti, then > {du'o la djan} > needs to be attached to it.

There is another possible example (or a prettying up of this) that makes a different case. Suppose there is a job that Tom can do if he gets some expert advice which John can give him, so he takes the job du'o la djan, with John as the knower (how to do the work), not with John knowing that he has taken the job: Tom might say {mi cpatu'i du'o la djan} in accepting the contract. This actually seems a more systematic use of the form {du'o} than the current one, which looks to be related to {xusra} (from which we do not have a sumtcita, oddly and who relation to the evidential {ju'a} is tenuous in both ways). In general, I have found that the fast way to figure out what a BAI means on the basis of the associated brivla is to give the place a name ("knower" in the case of {du'o}) and then take the sumti in apposition after "with name." When this results in gobbledygook, the BAI is almost certainly either never used or is used in a sense pretty remote from the brivla's. Of course this latter also happens with fairly intelligible cases, as the {du'o} example shows.

> > > Oh, I have been reading you as saying that > the > > transformation — if once we could figure out > > what it is — *is* the meaning of the > sentence. > > No, I have only used the transfromations to > show why > some of the examples provided seemed odd to me. > The meaning of the sentence is often different > with > regards to the things actually claimed. The > transformations > help to understand what is related to what and > how.

Maybe the relations become clearer, but the transformations do not usually actually show the relations involved. It is that latter step that is dangerous (although the former presents some problems as well — see the {du'o} example again).

> > > All variations will appear on the > dictionary, > > > so we want > > > examples for all, even if they are unlikely > to > > > end up being > > > used. > > > > And what I am saying is that we should not > put in > > these oblique forms unless they have some > usage. > > Actually, I sort of agree with that. In some > cases, only the > oblique form has usage ({se pi'o} for example), > so the example > for the {pi'o} entry would use {se pi'o}. There > shouldn't be > separate entries for the SE-converted BAIs. All > the useful > transformations should be under the same head > word. > > > And in particular, we should not prejudge > what > > their uses might be on the basis of some > abstract > > rule which ignores the rather considerable > role > > of human ingenuity that still creeps into > Lojban. > > We are defining the language, we should be as > precise > in our definitions as we can. That is not to > say that we > can't define some words as having ample > meanings if > that's what we want. > But the made up forms are not in the language yet (even in posse, since the connection with brivla is not so close as to automatically offer up the oblique forms), so they are no part of the desciption. When they get used, then they need as good a definition as we can give, by whatever means works.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 19:13 GMT

> > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi "I read the poem > > > > > for my family." > > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > > says "as told to", which is quite different from what you have. > > > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The point > > is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it was not > > the audience of the poem-reading. > > I disagree. It was an audience for some kind of expression; what > that expression is is totally unspecified, but as an "audience" > place is being added to tcidu, being an audience for the reading > seems the only sensible interpretation.

I don't see the "only sensible interpretation" part. Why is my interpretation not sensible? If you say that {te cu'u} makes no clear connection with the main bridi, then the main bridi as a possible se cusku should be at least as likely as the x2 of tcidu (the read material) as a possible se cusku.

> I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that those > other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning of {se > cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi.

I'm not disputing any of that.

{broda te cu'u ko'a} can be interpreted as saying something along the lines of {ko'a te cusku lo se du'u broda} (my interpretation) or as saying something along the lines of {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a te cusku} (your interpretation: "the event of my reading a story is an event of my family being said something.") Maybe it is left to context to decide which one is closer in each case. Or maybe it should be always mine, or maybe always like yours. I just want to be clear on what the prescription is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 19:14 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:19:36 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be > defined > > > as a composition > > > G(F(a,b), c), can't it? > > > > > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what > G is > > > in terms of the > > > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds > argument > > > c to F(a,b) > > > to give F'(a,b,c) > > > > The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) > need > > bear any relation to G(F(ab) c). > > What's G*(c)? c is an ordinary argument of F'.

Oops! You have folded the Gness already into F', which makes it harder to make the point, which is that even if a compound predicate could be analyzed, its components need not be any of the pieces that are overtly present in the compound case — F and G in the examples.

> > The functor for > > which the composition rules hold are a very > > limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I > think. > > For normal predicates it seems that rewriting > its > > expansion will be much more complex and > > idiosyncratic. > > Not sure what you mean, but I find that cases > that are > hard to transform are the exception rather than > the rule.

It may be that the brivla picked to go with BAI (or the BAI that are picked to go with brivla -- I'm not sure which way it goes) gnerally lend themselves to being at least intelligible under your transformations, even if not exactly translatable into those transformation. If so, they seem a special set among predicates, possibly just the set of predicates for which such added places make sense. But the fact that the transformation makes sense need not say anything about what the prepositional form means.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 19:18 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:28:01 -0800, Robin Lee > Powell > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), > John E Clifford wrote: > > > > To summarize and old point about > sumtcita: the connection > > > > between a sumtcita and some brivla > mentioned in connection with > > > > it is heuristic, not definitional. That > is, the sumtcita may > > > > have a meaning that is not exactly to be > found in the brivla and > > > > conversely. > > > > > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. > > > > I think you're very wrong. Citation? > > > > -Robin > > Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily > {fi'o bapli}, > {gau} is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se > ri'a} is not > necessarily {fi'o se rinka}, etc.? > > I don't really care if it's in CLL or not. At > least for me that's definitional.

Point? The fact that some heuristics work extremely well, to the point of defining the word involved, does not mean that they are other than heuristics. some words just have easy definitions. Others may not, but calling attention to a brivla may still help finding what that definition is.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 19:29 GMT posts: 2388

> > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be > mi "I read the poem > > > > > > for my family." > > > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with > audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > > > says "as told to", which is quite > different from what you have. > > > > > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" > would work too. The point > > > is that my family was told about my reading > the poem, it was not > > > the audience of the poem-reading. > > > > I disagree. It was an audience for some kind > of expression; what > > that expression is is totally unspecified, > but as an "audience" > > place is being added to tcidu, being an > audience for the reading > > seems the only sensible interpretation. > > I don't see the "only sensible interpretation" > part. Why is my > interpretation not sensible? If you say that > {te cu'u} makes no > clear connection with the main bridi, then the > main bridi as > a possible se cusku should be at least as > likely as the x2 > of tcidu (the read material) as a possible se > cusku. > > > I reject, absolutely, that the other places > of cusku are somehow > > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is > used, and that those > > other places, not the places of tcidu, affect > the meaning of {se > > cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the > tcidu-based bridi. > > I'm not disputing any of that. > > {broda te cu'u ko'a} can be interpreted as > saying something > along the lines of {ko'a te cusku lo se du'u > broda} (my interpretation) > or as saying something along the lines of {lo > nu broda cu nu ko'a > te cusku} (your interpretation: "the event of > my reading a story > is an event of my family being said > something.") Maybe it is left > to context to decide which one is closer in > each case. Or maybe > it should be always mine, or maybe always like > yours. I just want > to be clear on what the prescription is. > The point, I gather, is that there ain't no prescrition, that each case means what it means, whether or not it comes from the associated brivla by some familiar rule. BAI are like tanrus in the way they use their predicates (or better, lujvos, which may be even more remote).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:00 GMT

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu > > This expansion, which automatically creates an event place > for the main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have > event/du'u places.

The trouble with that is that it's semantically vacuous.

-- Here lies the Christian, John Cowan judge, and poet Peter, http://www.reutershealth.com Who broke the laws of God http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and man and metre. jcowan@reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:03 GMT

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily {fi'o bapli}, > {gau} is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se ri'a} is not > necessarily {fi'o se rinka}, etc.?

bai is necessarily fi'o bapli, but that's not the same as saying what fi'o "means". It just reduces the 64 undefined BAI to a single construction also undefined.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:11 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:58:52 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > > The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: > > > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu > > > > This expansion, which automatically creates an event place > > for the main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have > > event/du'u places. > > The trouble with that is that it's semantically vacuous.

How is it vacuous?

mi'o casnu bau la lojban "We discuss in Lojban."

lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu "Our discussing is an event of lojban being the language used."

It says of the event of our discussion that it is an event in which Lojban is the language used. That doesn't seem vacuous to me. If we discuss in English, then our discussion is not an event in which Lojban is the language used, and neither should {mi'o casnu bau la lojban} be true in that case, even if we are discussing Lojban for example.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:17 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:58:52 -0500, John Cowan > wrote: > > Jorge Llambías scripsit: > > > > > The expansion I would propose for {bau} > then is: > > > > > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a > bangu > > > > > > This expansion, which automatically creates > an event place > > > for the main bridi, might also work for > other BAIs that don't have > > > event/du'u places. > > > > The trouble with that is that it's > semantically vacuous. > > How is it vacuous? > > mi'o casnu bau la lojban > "We discuss in Lojban." > > lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu > "Our discussing is an event of lojban being the > language used." > > It says of the event of our discussion that it > is an event in which > Lojban is the language used. That doesn't seem > vacuous to me. > If we discuss in English, then our discussion > is not an event in > which Lojban is the language used, and neither > should > {mi'o casnu bau la lojban} be true in that > case, even if we > are discussing Lojban for example. > But it says "Our discussion is an event of Lojban being a language (used by someone for some communication)" It is hard to imagine — now -- any event which is not that, in some loose sense at least.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:17 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:01:31 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > bai is necessarily fi'o bapli, but that's not the same as saying what > fi'o "means". It just reduces the 64 undefined BAI to a single construction also > undefined.

Indeed. What I'm trying to work out is the definition of {fi'o}. It is not completely undefined though. We know a lot of things it can be and a lot of things it can't, even if we don't have a precise definition yet.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:23 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:15:39 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > mi'o casnu bau la lojban > > "We discuss in Lojban." > > > > lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu > > "Our discussing is an event of lojban being the > > language used." > > > But it says "Our discussion is an event of Lojban > being a language (used by someone for some > communication)" It is hard to imagine — now -- > any event which is not that, in some loose sense > at least.

I don't see how a discussion in English for example could be an event of Lojban being used. I can only see it as an event of English being used.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:28 GMT posts: 2388

wrote: The fact that some heuristics work > extremely well, to the point of defining the > word > involved, does not mean that they are other > than > heuristics. some words just have easy > definitions. Others may not, but calling > attention to a brivla may still help finding > what > that definition is. > Looking this over, it occurs to me that "heuristic was the wrong word; "mnemonic" is better. It is not that knowing the associated brivla will help you figure out what the BAI means — though it might, it is that the associated brivla will help you remember whatever it is that the BAI means. Some even give a rule (more or less) for reconstructing that meaning, other just work by association. Obviously, the rule cases are a little better for their job than the free-form ones (though sometimes not much: which place does the abstraction go in and what results from putting it there?) Some are pretty remote: {du'o} being the example of the day. (You know {xu'a} is available for the meaning given {du'o} — and it even works as a mild pun in my idolect.) But either may serve to trigger memory -- by association in lists, if not by content.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:35 GMT posts: 2388

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:15:39 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford > wrote: > > > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > mi'o casnu bau la lojban > > > "We discuss in Lojban." > > > > > > lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu > > > "Our discussing is an event of lojban being > the > > > language used." > > > > > But it says "Our discussion is an event of > Lojban > > being a language (used by someone for some > > communication)" It is hard to imagine — now > -- > > any event which is not that, in some loose > sense > > at least. > > I don't see how a discussion in English for > example could > be an event of Lojban being used. I can only > see it as an > event of English being used. > The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be used, implicit in its being a language. And, insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the defining predication holds, every event now is one in which Lojban is a language (for someone -- not necessarily us — to convey a message — not necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la lojban lo bangu} or some such.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar., 2005 20:47 GMT

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:34:19 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu > nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used > in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there > about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be > used, implicit in its being a language.

We seem to have very different undesrstandings about what counts as a {nu bangu}. For me, an event of language requires lenguage to be in actual use. And an event of language with Lojban as the language requires Lojban to be in actual use in that event.

> And, > insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the > defining predication holds, every event now is > one in which Lojban is a language (for someone -- > not necessarily us — to convey a message — not > necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I > think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la > lojban lo bangu} or some such.

No, I did mean {cu nu la lojban bangu}, but obviously we have very different ideas about what counts as such an event.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 00:57 GMT

Examples of ja'i Usage

mi cpacu lo bolci ja'i li vo "I take the ball by rule #4."

mi cpacu lo bolci se ja'i lo nu da poi se darxi cu curmi "I take the ball by the rule that says that one who is hit is permitted."

mi kavbu do te ja'i la mergu'e "I arrest you by the laws of America."

In all cases, the idea seems to be that the main bridi event complies with a rule, which is given by name, by content, or by the community where it applies. You make this explicit in the definition of {ja'i}: "the event described by the bridi is enacted according to the rule ...", but not in the other cases.

We could expand them as:

broda ja'i ko'a = lo nu broda cu mapti lo javni be fa ko'a broda se ja'i ko'a = lo nu broda cu mapti lo javni be ko'a broda te ja'i ko'a = lo nu broda cu mapti lo javni be fi ko'a

BTW, is "I arrest you by the laws of America" meant as a performative (i.e. "I hearby arrest you")? If so, then you might add a {ca'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 06:27 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that those > other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning of {se > cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi.

+1


-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 07:05 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu > nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used > in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there > about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be > used, implicit in its being a language. And, > insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the > defining predication holds, every event now is > one in which Lojban is a language (for someone -- > not necessarily us — to convey a message — not > necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I > think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la > lojban lo bangu} or some such.

Exactly.

-- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@reutershealth.com There is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin. Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may have important survival value. --Ian Johnston

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 18:16 GMT

Examples of ci'e Usage

lo li'i bau cusku cu sidju lo li'i pensi ci'e lo logji "The experience of linguistically expressing helps the experience of thinking in logical systems."

I suppose that's {sidju fi}.

(I can't comment on the {ci'e} examples because I don't really understand {ciste} very well to begin with.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 18:47 GMT

Examples of se ji'o Usage > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > "I work with three underlings."

Could one of the three underlings be {mi}?


> Examples of du'o Usage > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > Does not exist, according to Google.

Should we redefine {du'o} as {fi'o djuno/fi'o jinvi/fi'o te datni}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:46PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of ta'i Usage > > > > ta'i ma do cilre la lojban > > "By what method did you learn Lojban?" > > This one is regular. Just slightly odd because {cilre} already has > a "by method" place.

Added another example.

> > Examples of pu'e Usage > > > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi > > "I invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." > > {pruce} has so many event places that it's hard to say what's > related to what by {pu'e}. > > Wouldn't the writing of whatever I think be the stages (or perhaps > the only stage) of the process of inventing stories? If so, this > would be an example of {ve pu'e}.

I don't think ve pu'e can tag a single lo nu. Needs to be more than one, and ideally ce'o should be involved.

> It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will > describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. Or > are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the same > process?

You have this strange belief that if one uses a BAI tag, one is automatically relegating the main bridi to a place in whatever the underlying selbri of the BAI tag is. I simply don't agree.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:11:50PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi "I read the > > > > > > poem for my family." > > > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > > > says "as told to", which is quite different from what you > > > > have. > > > > > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The > > > point is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it > > > was not the audience of the poem-reading. > > > > I disagree. It was an audience for some kind of expression; > > what that expression is is totally unspecified, but as an > > "audience" place is being added to tcidu, being an audience for > > the reading seems the only sensible interpretation. > > I don't see the "only sensible interpretation" part. Why is my > interpretation not sensible? If you say that {te cu'u} makes no > clear connection with the main bridi, then the main bridi as a > possible se cusku should be at least as likely as the x2 of tcidu > (the read material) as a possible se cusku.

Umm, I say thet se cusku doesn't enter in to it at all. I have imported only the x3 of cusku, and couldn't care less about any other places of cusku.

> > I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow > > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that > > those other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning > > of {se cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi. > > I'm not disputing any of that. > > {broda te cu'u ko'a} can be interpreted as saying something along > the lines of {ko'a te cusku lo se du'u broda} (my interpretation) > or as saying something along the lines of {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a > te cusku} (your interpretation: "the event of my reading a story > is an event of my family being said something.")

Ummm, I think they *both* suck.

BAI adds a new place. That's it, and that's all. Using BAI absolutely does not place the main bridi into a subordinate event, or anything like it.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:14:40PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Examples of ci'e Usage > > lo li'i bau cusku cu sidju lo li'i pensi ci'e lo logji > "The experience of linguistically expressing helps the experience of > thinking in logical systems." > > I suppose that's {sidju fi}.

Fixed.

> (I can't comment on the {ci'e} examples because I don't really > understand {ciste} very well to begin with.)

Join the club.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:20:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > In all cases, the idea seems to be that the main bridi event > complies with a rule, which is given by name, by content, or by > the community where it applies. You make this explicit in the > definition of {ja'i}: "the event described by the bridi is enacted > according to the rule ...", but not in the other cases.

Fixed.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Examples of se ji'o Usage > > > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > > "I work with three underlings." > > Could one of the three underlings be {mi}?

Huh.

I don't think so, but that's a semantic issue; whether the speaker/listener believes that one can control oneself.

> > Examples of du'o Usage > > > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > > Does not exist, according to Google. > > Should we redefine {du'o} as {fi'o djuno/fi'o jinvi/fi'o te datni}?

I don't understand.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT

On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:46PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of pu'e Usage > > > > > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi > > > "I invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." > > > > It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will > > describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. Or > > are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the same > > process? > > You have this strange belief that if one uses a BAI tag, one is > automatically relegating the main bridi to a place in whatever the > underlying selbri of the BAI tag is. I simply don't agree.

I don't have that belief (indeed in many cases the underlying selbri of the BAI does not have an available place for the main bridi). I do believe that when the underlying selbri does have such a place, it provides the most natural interpretation for the BAI tag.

In any case, in this example, why is {lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi} a process, and is {pu'e} being used as just a variant of {ta'i}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT

On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of se ji'o Usage > > > > > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > > > "I work with three underlings." > > > > Could one of the three underlings be {mi}? > > Huh. > > I don't think so, but that's a semantic issue; whether the > speaker/listener believes that one can control oneself.

So the jitro is necessarily {mi}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >> Examples of se ji'o Usage >>> >>> mi jibri se ji'o ci remna >>> "I work with three underlings."

Apologies if this got mentioned before, but if so I missed it (so much traffic). I think you mean {mi se jibri} instead of {mi jibri}. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom. — Gandalf

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

arjPosted by arj on Sun 29 of May, 2005 16:55 GMT posts: 953

Typo: businuss -> business mentod -> method precscribing -> prescribing

Words not in Jbovlaste (two can play that game ;) ): jongau seltcana

Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan This is only a slightly edited version of: 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo cu ba'e du le loglo

Other points: mi krici lo prane ji'u la .platos. mi nelci lo se prije be la .sokrates. be se ji'u la .platos. Plato's Greek name was "Platon", and I think it is natural to lojbanise that to "platon".

lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama pe'i ro jibri cu fasnu .i lo jenmi na fasnu .i semu'ibo mi stidi tu'a zo selplijibri .a lo simsa

lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi)

__ve pu'e (BAI*) Apparently missing underscores at the end to complete bold formatting.

mi cpacu lo bolci ja'i li vo Unless you are prepared to say that the number 4 is a rule, I suggest you say "le vomoi".

so'a da pikci lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda "pikci" is too narrow in meaning for prayer, IMO. I suggest "so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer .

Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main clause?

so'a da nelci lo rismi ku'u lo ponjo s/ku'u/se ku'u

--arj, using the web interface, since he has deleted the root of the thread in his mail reader long ago.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:39 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:36:59PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:46PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Examples of pu'e Usage > > > > > > > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi "I > > > > invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." > > > > > > It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will > > > describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. > > > Or are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the > > > same process? > > > > You have this strange belief that if one uses a BAI tag, one is > > automatically relegating the main bridi to a place in whatever > > the underlying selbri of the BAI tag is. I simply don't agree. > > I don't have that belief (indeed in many cases the underlying > selbri of the BAI does not have an available place for the main > bridi). I do believe that when the underlying selbri does have > such a place, it provides the most natural interpretation for the > BAI tag. > > In any case, in this example, why is {lo nu ciska ro da poi mi > pensi} a process,

Umm, why wouldn't it be?

> and is {pu'e} being used as just a variant of {ta'i}?

Yes.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:39 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:43:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of se ji'o Usage > > > > > > > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna "I work with three underlings." > > > > > > Could one of the three underlings be {mi}? > > > > Huh. > > > > I don't think so, but that's a semantic issue; whether the > > speaker/listener believes that one can control oneself. > > So the jitro is necessarily {mi}?

Oh. Of course not, sorry. So then yes, one of them could be {mi}.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:39 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:29:09PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > On Sun, 15 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > >>Examples of se ji'o Usage > >>> > >>>mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > >>>"I work with three underlings." > > Apologies if this got mentioned before, but if so I missed it (so > much traffic). I think you mean {mi se jibri} instead of {mi > jibri}.

Yep, thanks.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:40 GMT

> du'o (BAI) > Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of djuno > and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the > tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, > te du'o, ve du'o.

If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno.

> .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > Does not exist, according to Google.

Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}?

> du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > Clarke.

Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...}

BTW, why {kakne lo nu} but {djica le ka}? I think it has to be {djica lo nu}.

> Examples of te du'o Usage > > Artificial: > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > "I can help, knowing about medicine."

s/mikse/mikce

But this is {mi ne te du'o ...}.


> Examples of cu'u Usage > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me.

How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"?

Can {cusku} be used for that?


>Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > >cu'u ko'a (BAI*) >As said by it-1... Tags the sumti ko'a as fitting the first place >of cusku. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, >un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of cusku >and then fills it with ko'a. In other words, the tagged sumti >indicates that the event described by the bridi is spoken, written >or otherwise expressed by the referent of ko'a, or it-1 (the first >assignable pro-sumti). See also: cusku, cu'u, se cu'u, te cu'u, >ve cu'u. > >Keywords: Do I have to have a keyword for this? Yeesh. > >Examples of cu'u ko'a Usage > >See cu'u.

I suggest removing all of that.


>Examples of te ca'i Usage > >Artificial: > >lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >"My leaving is permitted, based on the command of the king.

s/minde be/te minde be fi

But the command is the basis for whose authority over what?


Proposed Definition of te ta'i

Proposed Definition of ta'i ma


>Examples of ve pu'e Usage > >Artificial: > >mi zbasu lo botpi ve pu'e lo nu cpacu lo blaci grana vau >ce'o lo nu gasnu co runme lo grana vau ce'o lo drata >"I make bottles by the stages of getting glass rods, >melting the rods, and others."

s/gasnu co runme/rumgau

(As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.)


>Examples of se ja'i Usage > >Artificial: > >mi cpacu lo bolci se ja'i lo nu da poi se darxi cu curmi >"I take the ball by the rule that says that one who is hit >is permitted."

s/curmi/zifre


>Examples of ku'u Usage > >Artificial: > >This kinda sucks.

ie u'i

>Examples of se ku'u Usage > >so'a da nelci lo rismi ku'u lo ponjo >"Almost everyone likes rice, according to Japanese culture."

s/ku'u/se ku'u


>Examples of tai Usage > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu >"A burrito as big as a head."

s/tai/tai tu'a

> mi zbasu lo blaci tai le ti bolci > "I make glass in the form of this here ball."

s/tai/pe tai


>Examples of te tai Usage > >mi zbasu lo blaci te tai lo bolci >"I make glass in the form of a ball."

s/te tai/pe te tai

>Examples of te ga'a Usage > >mi catlu lo tarci te ga'o lo lenjo >"I examine the stars by means of lenses."

s/ga'o/ga'a

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:40 GMT

> du'o (BAI) > Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of djuno > and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the > tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, > te du'o, ve du'o.

If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno.

> .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > Does not exist, according to Google.

Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}?

> du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > Clarke.

Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...}

BTW, why {kakne lo nu} but {djica le ka}? I think it has to be {djica lo nu}.

> Examples of te du'o Usage > > Artificial: > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > "I can help, knowing about medicine."

s/mikse/mikce

But this is {mi ne te du'o ...}.


> Examples of cu'u Usage > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me.

How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"?

Can {cusku} be used for that?


>Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > >cu'u ko'a (BAI*) >As said by it-1... Tags the sumti ko'a as fitting the first place >of cusku. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, >un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of cusku >and then fills it with ko'a. In other words, the tagged sumti >indicates that the event described by the bridi is spoken, written >or otherwise expressed by the referent of ko'a, or it-1 (the first >assignable pro-sumti). See also: cusku, cu'u, se cu'u, te cu'u, >ve cu'u. > >Keywords: Do I have to have a keyword for this? Yeesh. > >Examples of cu'u ko'a Usage > >See cu'u.

I suggest removing all of that.


>Examples of te ca'i Usage > >Artificial: > >lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >"My leaving is permitted, based on the command of the king.

s/minde be/te minde be fi

But the command is the basis for whose authority over what?


Proposed Definition of te ta'i

Proposed Definition of ta'i ma


>Examples of ve pu'e Usage > >Artificial: > >mi zbasu lo botpi ve pu'e lo nu cpacu lo blaci grana vau >ce'o lo nu gasnu co runme lo grana vau ce'o lo drata >"I make bottles by the stages of getting glass rods, >melting the rods, and others."

s/gasnu co runme/rumgau

(As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.)


>Examples of se ja'i Usage > >Artificial: > >mi cpacu lo bolci se ja'i lo nu da poi se darxi cu curmi >"I take the ball by the rule that says that one who is hit >is permitted."

s/curmi/zifre


>Examples of ku'u Usage > >Artificial: > >This kinda sucks.

ie u'i

>Examples of se ku'u Usage > >so'a da nelci lo rismi ku'u lo ponjo >"Almost everyone likes rice, according to Japanese culture."

s/ku'u/se ku'u


>Examples of tai Usage > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu >"A burrito as big as a head."

s/tai/tai tu'a

> mi zbasu lo blaci tai le ti bolci > "I make glass in the form of this here ball."

s/tai/pe tai


>Examples of te tai Usage > >mi zbasu lo blaci te tai lo bolci >"I make glass in the form of a ball."

s/te tai/pe te tai

>Examples of te ga'a Usage > >mi catlu lo tarci te ga'o lo lenjo >"I examine the stars by means of lenses."

s/ga'o/ga'a

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:44 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > du'o (BAI) Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place > > of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an > > extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of > > djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, > > ve du'o. > > If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that > the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno.

I don't see a conflict there. Can you expand on that.

> > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > > Does not exist, according to Google. > > Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}?

Sure. Why not?

> > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > > Clarke. > > Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...}

I would certainly feel comfortable phrasing it that way.

> BTW, why {kakne lo nu} but {djica le ka}? I think it has to be > {djica lo nu}.

Agreed.

> > Examples of te du'o Usage > > > > Artificial: > > > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > > "I can help, knowing about medicine." > > s/mikse/mikce

Fixed.

> But this is {mi ne te du'o ...}.

Fixed.

> > Examples of cu'u Usage > > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me. > > How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"?

Erm, that's what we just said, is it not? Except for the "now" part.

{la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose.

> >Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > > I suggest removing all of that.

Agreed. All references to it removed as well.

> >Examples of te ca'i Usage > > > >Artificial: > > > >lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > >"My leaving is permitted, based on the command of the king. > > s/minde be/te minde be fi

  • nod*

> But the command is the basis for whose authority over what?

My authority over the decision to leave.

> >Examples of ve pu'e Usage > > > >Artificial: > > > >mi zbasu lo botpi ve pu'e lo nu cpacu lo blaci grana vau ce'o lo > >nu gasnu co runme lo grana vau ce'o lo drata > > > >"I make bottles by the stages of getting glass rods, melting the > >rods, and others." > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.)

  • nod*

Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? :-)

> >Examples of tai Usage > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > s/tai/tai tu'a

Why?

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:45 GMT

On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > du'o (BAI) Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place > > > of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an > > > extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of > > > djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > > > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > > > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, > > > ve du'o. > > > > If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that > > the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. > > I don't see a conflict there. Can you expand on that.

A knower is not the same as a source of information. Someone may nknow something and not inform anyone, and someone who doesn't know may still emit information.

"According to X, broda" makes a different claim than "as X knows, broda".

> > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > > > Does not exist, according to Google. > > > > Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}? > > Sure. Why not?

Well, maybe after the singularity. :-) Don't you have to have cognition in order to know? But my objection wasn't really because of that. If {du'o} means "as X knows", then that would say, "it does not exist, as Google knows", not "for all Google knows".

> > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > > > Clarke. > > > > Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} > > I would certainly feel comfortable phrasing it that way.

To me those are two different things. If I don't think that data wants to be free, I won't say that R.C. knows it.

> > > Examples of cu'u Usage > > > > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > > > > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me. > > > > How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"? > > Erm, that's what we just said, is it not? Except for the "now" > part. > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose.

So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text?

> > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) > > *nod* > > Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? :-)

-gau lujvo have trivial place structure if the place structure of the first component is known, so there is no need to add it.


> > >Examples of tai Usage > > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > Why?

Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:45 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > du'o (BAI) Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first > > > > place of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, > > > > adding an extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the > > > > first place of djuno and then fills it with the tagged > > > > sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the > > > > event described by the bridi is known by, according to, or > > > > information gained from the referent of the tagged sumti. > > > > See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > > > > > If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say > > > that the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. > > > > I don't see a conflict there. Can you expand on that. > > A knower is not the same as a source of information. Someone may > nknow something and not inform anyone, and someone who doesn't > know may still emit information. > > "According to X, broda" makes a different claim than "as X knows, > broda".

OK. Fixed.

> > > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. Does not exist, according to > > > > Google. > > > > > > Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e > > > zasti}? > > > > Sure. Why not? > > Well, maybe after the singularity. :-) Don't you have to have > cognition in order to know? But my objection wasn't really because > of that.

Right; that's outside the BPFK's scope.

> If {du'o} means "as X knows", then that would say, "it does not > exist, as Google knows", not "for all Google knows".

Hmmm. OK, example dropped.

> > > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka > > > > zifre Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to > > > > Rodger Clarke. > > > > > > Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} > > > > I would certainly feel comfortable phrasing it that way. > > To me those are two different things. If I don't think that data > wants to be free, I won't say that R.C. knows it.

I've edited the translation to:

Data is capable of wanting to be free, as Rodger Clarke knows.

Is that OK?

> > > > Examples of cu'u Usage > > > > > > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > > > > > > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by > > > > me. > > > > > > How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The > > > Appassionata"? > > > > Erm, that's what we just said, is it not? Except for the "now" > > part. > > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text?

Yes. It's a musical work, in fact.

> > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > > > > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) > > > > *nod* > > > > Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? :-) > > -gau lujvo have trivial place structure if the place structure of > the first component is known, so there is no need to add it.

Not for you, but jbovlaste isn't just for people like you or me. It's for alll levels of Lojbanist, including my gf that doesn't speak a word of the language but reads my LiveJournal entries with jbofihe -x and jbovlaste.

> > > >Examples of tai Usage > > > > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > Why? > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}?

Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but then I don't understand tamsmi.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:45 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:55:55AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Words not in Jbovlaste (two can play that game ;) ): > jongau > seltcana

Heh. I'll see what I can do.

> Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: > cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan > This is only a slightly edited version of: > 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo cu ba'e du le loglo

Erm, that's not tagged as artificial.

> Other points: > mi krici lo prane ji'u la .platos. > mi nelci lo se prije be la .sokrates. be se ji'u la .platos. > Plato's Greek name was "Platon", and I think it is natural to lojbanise that to "platon".

Done.

> lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > > pe'i ro jibri cu fasnu .i lo jenmi na fasnu .i semu'ibo mi stidi > tu'a zo selplijibri .a lo simsa

xu lu lo nu sonci cu jibri mi li'u cu xamgu

> lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > > s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi)

mi pilno lu te minde li'u

> Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" without > restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo lijda" > sufficient to constrain quantification in the main clause?

Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that not sufficient?

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:46 GMT

On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact.

Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text?

I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, beyond a string of words with meaning.

> > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > Why? > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > then I don't understand tamsmi.

I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:46 GMT

On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact.

Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text?

I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, beyond a string of words with meaning.

> > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > Why? > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > then I don't understand tamsmi.

I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:46 GMT

On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact.

Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text?

I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, beyond a string of words with meaning.

> > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > Why? > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > then I don't understand tamsmi.

I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by JohnCowan on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:46 GMT posts: 149

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text? > > I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. > I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, > beyond a string of words with meaning.

Nuncusku and nuntigni are, I think, overlapping categories. When I talk to you, that is a nuncusku but not a nuntigni; Rubenstein's playing or a ballerina's dancing is both (because playing the piano and dancing are ve cusku, expressive media). If I were to leap about on my toes on stage, that would be a nuntigni but hardly a nuncusku, because I wouldn't express anything by it.

-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:46 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:45:23PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell > > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I > > > > suppose. > > > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact. > > Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text?

Dude, it's a CLL example. If you want to contest it, we really should open a CLL eratta page or something.

> > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu "A burrito as > > > > > >big as a head." > > > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > > then I don't understand tamsmi. > > I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from > {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like".

Ernh. OK, I'll make the change.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

arjPosted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:47 GMT posts: 953

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>> Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: >> cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan >> This is only a slightly edited version of: >> 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo cu ba'e du le loglo > > Erm, that's not tagged as artificial.

The line below says:

"Artificial? From the CLL:"

I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see CLL examples as live usages.

>> lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama >> >> pe'i ro jibri cu fasnu .i lo jenmi na fasnu .i semu'ibo mi stidi >> tu'a zo selplijibri .a lo simsa > > xu lu lo nu sonci cu jibri mi li'u cu xamgu

pe'i go'i

>> lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >> >> s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) > > mi pilno lu te minde li'u

Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for authority?

>> Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" without >> restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo lijda" >> sufficient to constrain quantification in the main clause? > > Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that > not sufficient?

I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal claims).

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ - Hvorfor snakker man engelsk p Internet? - Har du hrt om minste felles nevner?

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:47 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:38:37AM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >>Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: cu'u le jbogri .e le > >>flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan This is only a slightly > >>edited version of: 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo > >>cu ba'e du le loglo > > > >Erm, that's not tagged as artificial. > > The line below says:

The keyword here would be "below".

> "Artificial? From the CLL:"

That whole line refers to the next example.

> I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see > CLL examples as live usages.

Ah. I have no evidence that the CLL example wasn't simple made up, however.

> >>lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > >> > >>s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) > > > >mi pilno lu te minde li'u > > Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the > action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for > authority?

Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the authority to carry it out.

> >>Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" > >>without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo > >>lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main > >>clause? > > > >Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that > >not sufficient? > > I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are > constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be > impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal > claims).

You're saying, then, that:

ro da limna

is a true statement, because quantified claims are not constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm...

It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that makes quantified claims true or untrue (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah).

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:48 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:16:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) > > *nod* > > Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? :-)

Did it myself.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

arjPosted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:48 GMT posts: 953

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> That whole line refers to the next example.

Fair enough.

>>>> lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >>>> >>>> s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) >>> >>> mi pilno lu te minde li'u >> >> Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the >> action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for >> authority? > > Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the > authority to carry it out.

Are you saying that lo te minde cu te catni? If so, then the edited example is okay.

>>>> Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" >>>> without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo >>>> lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main >>>> clause? >>> >>> Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that >>> not sufficient? >> >> I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are >> constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be >> impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal >> claims). > > You're saying, then, that: > > ro da limna > > is a true statement, because quantified claims are not constrained > by the main selbri. Ummmm...

On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim will be false.

Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of picking out a universe of discourse.

> It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that > makes quantified claims true or untrue

I don't understand this at all.

> (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah).

I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the BPFK scope.

-- 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.)

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:49 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see > > CLL examples as live usages. > > Ah. I have no evidence that the CLL example wasn't simple made up, > however.

Most of them were.

--

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:50 GMT

On 6/2/05, John Cowan wrote: > Nuncusku and nuntigni are, I think, overlapping categories. When I talk to > you, that is a nuncusku but not a nuntigni; Rubenstein's playing or a > ballerina's dancing is both (because playing the piano and dancing are ve cusku, > expressive media). If I were to leap about on my toes on stage, that would > be a nuntigni but hardly a nuncusku, because I wouldn't express anything by it.

I'm still unclear about what the x2 of cusku is. It is not the thing expressed, but something by which someone expresses something, right?

For example:

I express my gratitude with a "thank you". I express my frustration with a grunt. The ballerina expresses something with her dance. Rubenstein expresses something with the Appassionata.

The x2 of cusku is the "thank you", the grunt, the dance and the Appassionata?

Is the place structure of {cusku} soemthing like "x1 expresses something with x2 to x3 in medium x4"?

Are all of these correct:

mi cusku zo ki'e mi cusku lo se cmoni le dansu cu cusku lo nu dansu la rubinstein cu cusku la apasionatas

{cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for the thing by which one expresses something.

Would that be right?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:50 GMT

On 6/2/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > You are > quantifying over all the entities in the universe, unrestricted. Since > there will always be non-swimming entities (such as myself, or that book > on my table), such a universal claim will be false. > > Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", but this > is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of picking out a > universe of discourse.

It seems to me that it is much easier to pick out a universe of discourse for a given discourse than have "all the entities in the universe" determined once and for all for every possible discourse. Who is going to decide what does and what does not count as such an "entity in the universe". I hope not the BPFK.

> > (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah). > > I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the BPFK > scope.

How quantification works can be found in any introductory Logic text. There is no need to have all entities in the universe determined for all contexts in order to use quantification.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:51 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:55:55AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > wrote: > > Words not in Jbovlaste (two can play that game ;) ): > > jongau > > seltcana

Done (with arj's help; thanks).

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:52 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 01:15:26AM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >>>>lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > >>>> > >>>>s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) > >>> > >>>mi pilno lu te minde li'u > >> > >>Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the > >>action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis > >>for authority? > > > >Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the > >authority to carry it out. > > Are you saying that lo te minde cu te catni? If so, then the > edited example is okay.

In this case, sure.

> >>I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are > >>constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be > >>impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal > >>claims). > > > >You're saying, then, that: > > > >ro da limna > > > >is a true statement, because quantified claims are not > >constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm... > > On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You > are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, > unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities > (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim > will be false.

Right.

> Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", > but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of > picking out a universe of discourse.

True.

> >It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that > >makes quantified claims true or untrue > > I don't understand this at all.

The quantification specifies a number of things; the truth/false of the statement is determined by whether the claim applies to that number of things.

> >(from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah > >blah). > > I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the > BPFK scope.

It's not, but the semantics of the resulting sentence (i.e. whether the sentence is true or false) is.

OK, getting back to the problem.

so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda

The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above and:

so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda

IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure. Nor do I know how to decide.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:52 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:31:56PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/2/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > You are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, > > unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities > > (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal > > claim will be false. > > > > Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of > > discourse", but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any > > explicit way of picking out a universe of discourse. > > It seems to me that it is much easier to pick out a universe of > discourse for a given discourse than have "all the entities in the > universe" determined once and for all for every possible > discourse. Who is going to decide what does and what does not > count as such an "entity in the universe". I hope not the BPFK.

That was sort of my point about semantics being outside the scope of the BPFK.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:53 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:21:19PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/2/05, John Cowan wrote: > > Nuncusku and nuntigni are, I think, overlapping categories. > > When I talk to you, that is a nuncusku but not a nuntigni; > > Rubenstein's playing or a ballerina's dancing is both (because > > playing the piano and dancing are ve cusku, expressive media). > > If I were to leap about on my toes on stage, that would be a > > nuntigni but hardly a nuncusku, because I wouldn't express > > anything by it. > > I'm still unclear about what the x2 of cusku is. It is not the > thing expressed, but something by which someone expresses > something, right? > > For example: > > I express my gratitude with a "thank you". > > I express my frustration with a grunt. > > The ballerina expresses something with her dance. > > Rubenstein expresses something with the Appassionata. > > The x2 of cusku is the "thank you", the grunt, the dance and the > Appassionata? > > Is the place structure of {cusku} soemthing like "x1 expresses > something with x2 to x3 in medium x4"?

Gaaah.

This is hurting my head.

I would phrase those all the other way around:

My saying "thank you" indicates my gratitude.

My grunting indicated my frustration.

The ballerina dances, thus indicating he's incredibly gay. (I'm going to la .bais. for that)

Rubenstein plays the Appassionata, thus indicating his froo-froo artsy-ness.

In other words, the thank you, the grunt, text, whatever *ARE* the thing expressed. Expressing these things may, or may not, indicate something else.

> Are all of these correct: > > mi cusku zo ki'e > > mi cusku lo se cmoni > > le dansu cu cusku lo nu dansu > > la rubinstein cu cusku la apasionatas

Seems OK to me, although I normally use cusku only for things that carry verbal information. As I said, though, the example came from the CLL.

> {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for > the thing by which one expresses something.

I don't see it that way at all.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:54 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for > > the thing by which one expresses something. > > I don't see it that way at all.

Put it this way: a se cusku is the expressive action, not the meaning of the action, and the latter has no regular cusku place at all.

-- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half jcowan@reutershealth.com of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo http://www.reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:54 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for > > the thing by which one expresses something. > > I don't see it that way at all.

Put it this way: a se cusku is the expressive action, not the meaning of the action, and the latter has no regular cusku place at all.

-- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half jcowan@reutershealth.com of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo http://www.reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 22:58 GMT

> so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above > and: > > so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure. > Nor do I know how to decide.

Well, I think I'd tend to read the first one as {so'a da poi ka'e cusku}, i.e. basically "most people".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:00 GMT

Can {bau} be used to indicate an alphabet or other encoding scheme? Example: la grant.sa'ib. se ciska bau lo gurmuki

mu'omi'e pier. -- My monthly periods happen once per year. -Les Perles de la médecine

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:01 GMT
On 6/4/05, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> Can {bau} be used to indicate an alphabet or other encoding scheme? Example: > la grant.sa'ib. se ciska bau lo gurmuki

ko ciska la grant sa'ib bau la lojban fi'o se lerfu le latmo fi'o te mifra la carpacib

It could get confusing if you use {bau} for {fi'o se lerfu} and {fi'o te mifra} as well as for {fi'o bangu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

arjPosted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:03 GMT posts: 953

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

[arj: arj:] >>>> I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are >>>> constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be >>>> impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal >>>> claims). >>> [rlpowell: rlpowell:] >>> You're saying, then, that: >>> >>> ro da limna >>> >>> is a true statement, because quantified claims are not >>> constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm... >> >> On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You >> are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, >> unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities >> (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim >> will be false. > > Right. > >> Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", >> but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of >> picking out a universe of discourse. > > True. > >>> It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that >>> makes quantified claims true or untrue >> >> I don't understand this at all. > > The quantification specifies a number of things; the truth/false of > the statement is determined by whether the claim applies to that > number of things. > >>> (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah >>> blah). >> >> I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the >> BPFK scope. > > It's not, but the semantics of the resulting sentence (i.e. whether > the sentence is true or false) is. > > OK, getting back to the problem. > > so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above > and: > > so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure. > Nor do I know how to decide.

It's unfortunate that we're having this discussion on a mostly unrelated part of the example sentence, when we should be concentrating in getting BAI done.

I suggest that we just agree for now that quantification is a matter of dispute, and leave a note on this on whichever section contains ro, so'a, and friends.

-- 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

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:04 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:36:38PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > It's unfortunate that we're having this discussion on a mostly > unrelated part of the example sentence, when we should be > concentrating in getting BAI done. > > I suggest that we just agree for now that quantification is a > matter of dispute, and leave a note on this on whichever section > contains ro, so'a, and friends.

Please, feel free.

In the meantime,

so'a da poi prenu cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda

"Almost everyone prays to their god(s) in religious cultures."

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

arjPosted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:08 GMT posts: 953

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:36:38PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >> It's unfortunate that we're having this discussion on a mostly >> unrelated part of the example sentence, when we should be >> concentrating in getting BAI done. >> >> I suggest that we just agree for now that quantification is a >> matter of dispute, and leave a note on this on whichever section >> contains ro, so'a, and friends. > > Please, feel free. > > In the meantime, > > so'a da poi prenu cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > "Almost everyone prays to their god(s) in religious cultures."

Great, thanks.

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:52 GMT posts: 14214

Forwarded from Adam Lopresto:

Sorry for dumping so many suggestions in at the very end, here. Aside from the comments about {se ta'i}, I don't think anything that follows is very important (and I'm not even sure my take on {se ta'i} is that important, or necessarily right, but....). And none of them should be enough to hold up voting for the section (which I just did).

First of all, I wonder whether the template would be less redundant but just as meaningful with s/the tagged sumti indicates that //. So a sample definition would be something like

Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the event described by the bridi is known by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o.

For an example for {zau}, you have

mi cliva zau la patfu

I left with dad's permission.

Probably should be "with Dad's permission". (Dad here being used as a proper noun, therefore).

{ca'i} has no keywords assigned (just copy "By authority of..." from the definition)

Is there a reason {ta'i ma do cilre la lojban} is listed as an example of {ta'i} but not {ta'i ma}, while {ta'i ma do zbasu le danmo} is listed under both? (And why, oh why, does {ta'i ma} need a separate definition anyway? Nevermind.)

The proposed definition of {se ta'i} doesn't sit right with me. I would have expected that it's basically the reverse of {ta'i}.

mi cilre la lojban ta'i lo nu mi'o casnu

mi'o casnu se ta'i lo nu mi cilre la lojban

I learn lojban from our chats.

If that's the case, I would have expect the defintion to be

As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of tadji and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/the%20tagged%3Cbr%20/%3Esumti%20indicates%20that the tagged sumti indicates that] the event described by the bridi is a method associated with doing or performing the actions described or indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: tadji, ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma.

That's also much more in keeping with the keyword (which doesn't mean it's right, but means that if it's not the keyword may need to be chaged).


Perhaps another keyword for {te ja'i} is "by rule governing"

Possible artificial example sentence for {ku'u} (and {ja'i}, or actually {ja'i nai}). Feel free to modify or reject it completely, but maybe it can replace the "this kinda sucks".

lo prenu na pinfu ja'i no da ku'u lo za'i zifre

People are not held prisoner for no reason in a culture of freedom. (Probably not a really good translation.)

"Proposed Definition of sera'a"

I think you mean "se ra'a" (with a space).

Under "Examples of se tai Usage", you have "See tai above; they are functionally identical." If so, then why are their definitions different? It would probably also be handy to note that in the defitions of each.

mi galfi le ti bolci le ta bolci ve tai lo ka skari

"I turn this ball into that ball with respect to colour."

I have no idea what this means, in either language. But I don't really understand tamsmi anyway, so I can't come up with anything better.

For {ma'i}, it might be nice to have a non-cultural example (since I think that's more in line with the definition).

le mi ckafi cu dukse glare ma'i lo se pinxe

My coffee is too hot, by the standard of drinks.

My coffee is too hot to drink.

Perhaps "under the control of" should be added as a keyword for {ji'o}.

-- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Linux: The choice of a GNU generation

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:57 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:14:25PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > First of all, I wonder whether the template would be less > redundant but just as meaningful with s/the tagged sumti indicates > that //. So a sample definition would be something like

Agreed. Fixed (even in other people's sections; y'all can revert if you disagree).

> For an example for {zau}, you have > > mi cliva zau la patfu > > I left with dad's permission. > > Probably should be "with Dad's permission". (Dad here being used > as a proper noun, therefore).

Done.

> {ca'i} has no keywords assigned (just copy "By authority of..." > from the definition)

Done.

> Is there a reason {ta'i ma do cilre la lojban} is listed as an > example of {ta'i} but not {ta'i ma}, while {ta'i ma do zbasu le > danmo} is listed under both?

No.

> (And why, oh why, does {ta'i ma} need a separate definition > anyway? Nevermind.)

Because it's exceedinly common and useful. It's the English word "how".

> The proposed definition of {se ta'i} doesn't sit right with me. I > would have expected that it's basically the reverse of {ta'i}.

Reverse? In what sense?

> mi cilre la lojban ta'i lo nu mi'o casnu > > mi'o casnu se ta'i lo nu mi cilre la lojban > > I learn lojban from our chats.

I can see that.

> If that's the case, I would have expect the defintion to be > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of tadji and > then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/the%20tagged%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20sumti%20indicates%20that the tagged > sumti indicates that] the event described by the bridi is a method > associated with doing or performing the actions described or > indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: tadji, > ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma.

There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did was drop

using some method or technique unspecified (it can be specified with ta'i, however).

I don't understand why. {se ta'i} should always be associated with tadji, so it must have something to do with methods of some kind.

> That's also much more in keeping with the keyword

All you did was remove clarifying information; I don't see how that makes it more in keeping with the keyword.

> Perhaps another keyword for {te ja'i} is "by rule governing"

Done.

> Possible artificial example sentence for {ku'u} (and {ja'i}, or > actually {ja'i nai}). Feel free to modify or reject it > completely, but maybe it can replace the "this kinda sucks". > > lo prenu na pinfu ja'i no da ku'u lo za'i zifre > > People are not held prisoner for no reason in a culture of freedom. > (Probably not a really good translation.)

Slightly modified:

lo prenu na pinfu ja'i no da ku'u lo te flalu

"People are not held prisoner for no reason in a law-based culture."

Added to ja'i, but *not* ja'i nai. {ja'i no da} != {jai nai da}.

> "Proposed Definition of sera'a" > > I think you mean "se ra'a" (with a space).

Fixed.

> Under "Examples of se tai Usage", you have "See tai above; they > are functionally identical." If so, then why are their > definitions different? It would probably also be handy to note > that in the defitions of each.

I have no idea; I don't understand tamsmi.

> mi galfi le ti bolci le ta bolci ve tai lo ka skari > > "I turn this ball into that ball with respect to colour."

This ball is red, that ball is blue; I make this ball blue.

> For {ma'i}, it might be nice to have a non-cultural example (since > I think that's more in line with the definition). > > le mi ckafi cu dukse glare ma'i lo se pinxe > > My coffee is too hot, by the standard of drinks. > > My coffee is too hot to drink.

Thanks.

> Perhaps "under the control of" should be added as a keyword for {ji'o}.

Done.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:59 GMT

On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of tadji and > > then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/the%20tagged%3Cbr%20/%3E%3E%20%3E%20sumti%20indicates%20that the tagged > > sumti indicates that] the event described by the bridi is a method > > associated with doing or performing the actions described or > > indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: tadji, > > ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. > > There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did was > drop > > using some method or technique unspecified (it can be specified > with ta'i, however).

He also added "the event described by the bridi *is a method*..."

> All you did was remove clarifying information; I don't see how that > makes it more in keeping with the keyword.

The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main bridi. That's what "as a method for..." says.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > > > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > > > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of > > > tadji and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the > > > bridi is a method associated with doing or performing the > > > actions described or indicated by the referent of the tagged > > > sumti. See also: tadji, ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. > > > > There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did > > was drop > > > > using some method or technique unspecified (it can be > > specified with ta'i, however). > > He also added "the event described by the bridi *is a method*..."

Ah, didn't see that.

> > All you did was remove clarifying information; I don't see how > > that makes it more in keeping with the keyword. > > The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main bridi. > That's what "as a method for..." says.

See, and I just don't agree. Guess I have to change the keyword. "se ta'i" attaches a methodologically performed event to the main bridi; it does not *necessarily* turn the main bridi into a method, although that's certainly a reasonable reading.

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:59 GMT

On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main bridi. > > That's what "as a method for..." says. > > See, and I just don't agree. Guess I have to change the keyword. > "se ta'i" attaches a methodologically performed event to the main > bridi; it does not *necessarily* turn the main bridi into a method, > although that's certainly a reasonable reading.

But do you think that's just a quirk of {se ta'i}, or do you also have to change the definitions of {ta'i} so that the main bridi is not necessarily the se tadni, and {ki'u} so that the maiun bridi is not necessarily the se krinu, and {te zu'e} so that the main bridi is not necessarily the se zukte, and {se pi'o} so that the main bridi is not necessarily the te pilno, etc.?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:17:11PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main > > > bridi. That's what "as a method for..." says. > > > > See, and I just don't agree. Guess I have to change the > > keyword. "se ta'i" attaches a methodologically performed event > > to the main bridi; it does not *necessarily* turn the main bridi > > into a method, although that's certainly a reasonable reading. > > But do you think that's just a quirk of {se ta'i}, or do you also > have to change the definitions of {ta'i} so that the main bridi is > not necessarily the se tadni, and {ki'u} so that the maiun bridi > is not necessarily the se krinu, and {te zu'e} so that the main > bridi is not necessarily the se zukte, and {se pi'o} so that the > main bridi is not necessarily the te pilno, etc.?

The latter; BAI adds places with a fuzzy connection to the main bridi. IMO.

Are those the only ones with that problem?

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:59 GMT

On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:17:11PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > But do you think that's just a quirk of {se ta'i}, or do you also > > have to change the definitions of {ta'i} so that the main bridi is > > not necessarily the se tadni, and {ki'u} so that the maiun bridi > > is not necessarily the se krinu, and {te zu'e} so that the main > > bridi is not necessarily the se zukte, and {se pi'o} so that the > > main bridi is not necessarily the te pilno, etc.? > > The latter; BAI adds places with a fuzzy connection to the main > bridi. IMO. > > Are those the only ones with that problem?

No, those were just examples. All the causals work like that, for example, as well as many others.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug., 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > > > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > > > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of > > > tadji and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the > > > bridi is a method associated with doing or performing the > > > actions described or indicated by the referent of the tagged > > > sumti. See also: tadji, ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. > > > > There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did > > was drop > > > > using some method or technique unspecified (it can be > > specified with ta'i, however). > > He also added "the event described by the bridi *is a method*..."

Ah, OK. Stolen.

-Robin

Posted by stevo on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:01:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


> I've always heard it as "Information wants to be free". I think > "Data are capable" sounds horrible; it's a mass noun. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun > > -Robin >From that wikipedia article: The word "data" is often used as a mass noun, especially by people who work with computers. In formal writing it retains its original grammatical role as the plural of "datum".

stevo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT posts: 2388

The current discussion about this and the other sumtcita sections reminds us of how tenuous is the connection between those pages and reality. A significant number of entries on each of the sumtcita pages are not based upon actual usage but upon (nowhere justified) applications of (nowhere justified) principles derived the unimaginative literalism which is pandemic in the Lojban community. As a result, a number of potentially useful expressions have been preempted for usages that are unlikely ever to go beyond the fabricated examples, while relations which they might have accomodated may go without Zipfy expressions. The "principles" employed are a peculiar mix of vague formulation (well, actually, they are unformulated) and rigorous application, so that the results are often as surprising as they are useless. It would seem that a more honest and ultimately useful approach would be to deal with the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps, but not forcing them into the molds devised for the unused forms) and then acknowledge the possibilities for further forms, with some indication of the factors that might play a riole in their uses (though just how would be left open ). This seems more in line with the history of these forms so far: relations with "corresponding" brivla are fluid, as is the role of converters and {nai} — what is used is what is useful and related (however remotely) to the forms already established. Considerable work seems to have gone into these pages and they may have added somewhat beyond dealing with existing forms, but each item needs an independent justification beyond fitting some imagined pattern.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > As a result, a number of > potentially useful expressions have been > preempted for usages that are unlikely ever to go > beyond the fabricated examples, while relations > which they might have accomodated may go without > Zipfy expressions.

For example?

> It would seem that a more honest and > ultimately useful approach would be to deal with > the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps, but > not forcing them into the molds devised for the > unused forms) and then acknowledge the > possibilities for further forms, with some > indication of the factors that might play a riole > in their uses (though just how would be left > open ).

Which usages do you think have been ignored?

>From what I can see, people working on this have made every effort to find examples from actual usage. Many BAIs don't have any recorded usage, and for many it is hard to come up with any sensible use for them.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT posts: 2388

It is a little hard to answer these questions since what is asked for it examples of usages that have not yet occurred. The point is that a number of expressions have been assigned to usages that seem pretty likely not to occur (witness both the uncertaintly of what they mean exactly and the implausibility of the examples that are fadged up) and thus are cut off from being used should something come along that could have used the expression. I don't generally know what that something might be, only that it might be ans that it is unlikely to be what has already been assigned.


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > As a result, a number of > > potentially useful expressions have been > > preempted for usages that are unlikely ever > to go > > beyond the fabricated examples, while > relations > > which they might have accomodated may go > without > > Zipfy expressions. > > For example? > > > It would seem that a more honest and > > ultimately useful approach would be to deal > with > > the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps, > but > > not forcing them into the molds devised for > the > > unused forms) and then acknowledge the > > possibilities for further forms, with some > > indication of the factors that might play a > riole > > in their uses (though just how would be left > > open ). > > Which usages do you think have been ignored?

Wrong question. It is not that usages have been ignored, but that non-usages have been considered and sealed in place.

> >From what I can see, people working on this > have > made every effort to find examples from actual > usage. > Many BAIs don't have any recorded usage, and > for many it is hard to come up with any > sensible > use for them.

My point would be that BAI that don't have usage are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI. They have no place in a dictionary, or, at most, should be mentioned as potential forms with some indication of where there usage might be expected to lie — but obviously not exact specification because we do not yet know what that is (if ever anything). That is, the way to build a dictionary — at this point in the language — is to find and explain the forms actually used, not to create and explain every possible form (an impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with a half-assed job). Notice that, had the present program been carried out from the beginning, a large number of the established forms would not have the meaning they do and a number of useful (and used) notions would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I would expect this pattern to continue when the program is put in place starting after the beginning.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > My point would be that BAI that don't have usage > are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI.

I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps most, BAIs from the language. I doubt very much anything like that will happen though.

> They have no place in a dictionary, or, at most, > should be mentioned as potential forms with some > indication of where there usage might be expected > to lie — but obviously not exact specification > because we do not yet know what that is (if ever > anything).

Given that they will all appear in the dictionary (we may not like it but that's how it's going to be) that's exactly what we are doing, i.e. providing indications of how we expect them to be used. A lojban sentence is a much better way of doing this than out of context English keywords, in my opinion.

> That is, the way to build a > dictionary — at this point in the language — is > to find and explain the forms actually used, not > to create and explain every possible form (an > impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with a > half-assed job).

That assumes that the language as actually used is already good enough to be worth solidifying. I disagree with that, I think most current usages are of relatively poor quality and so a good deal of prescription is still needed.

> Notice that, had the present program been carried > out from the beginning, a large number of the > established forms would not have the meaning they > do and a number of useful (and used) notions > would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I would > expect this pattern to continue when the program > is put in place starting after the beginning.

For example?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > My point would be that BAI that don't have > usage > > are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI. > > I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps > most, BAIs > from the language. I doubt very much anything > like that > will happen though.

Relevance? I was ovbjecting to BAI that are not iin the language to begin with (except in these barely justifiable examples).

> > They have no place in a dictionary, or, at > most, > > should be mentioned as potential forms with > some > > indication of where there usage might be > expected > > to lie — but obviously not exact > specification > > because we do not yet know what that is (if > ever > > anything). > > Given that they will all appear in the > dictionary (we may > not like it but that's how it's going to be) > that's exactly > what we are doing, i.e. providing indications > of how we > expect them to be used. A lojban sentence is a > much > better way of doing this than out of context > English > keywords, in my opinion.

Well, I agree that keywords are generally not very useful — even misleading in many cases -- but my protest is exqactly to including them in the dictionary when they have never occrred in the language. Will all the 100000 or so gismu be included? What about all the cmavo in /x/? Or the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It isn't even that there are plausible cases that these BAI forms ought to be used, in most instances. And, of course, saying that the English sentence gives some indication of how they are to be used is only partly (and not the most useful part) true; it tends in fact to fix the meaning rather than open the range.

> > That is, the way to build a > > dictionary — at this point in the language > — is > > to find and explain the forms actually used, > not > > to create and explain every possible form (an > > impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with > a > > half-assed job). > > That assumes that the language as actually used > is > already good enough to be worth solidifying. I > disagree > with that, I think most current usages are of > relatively > poor quality and so a good deal of prescription > is still > needed.

I have no objection to clarifying — even prescribing to some extent — the existing usage. It does seem to me that some expressions have been used inconsistently (or at least unclearly) and inappropriately for their intended roles (as subordinate clauses, for example, rather than added places in the case of BAIs). But that is very different from creating NEW usages out of whole cloth (and based on nothing real at all).

> > Notice that, had the present program been > carried > > out from the beginning, a large number of the > > established forms would not have the meaning > they > > do and a number of useful (and used) notions > > would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I > would > > expect this pattern to continue when the > program > > is put in place starting after the beginning. > Well, we have discussed half a dozen cases over the last little while: two that stick in mind without searching are {du'u}, whose meaning is not related by the "rules" to {djuno} (more to {jinvi} or {krici} — which pair of words needs some work, come to think of it) and {ri'anai}, whose meaning violates both {rinka} and {nai}, as typically understood in this game of BAI creation, and is not easily constructed in this way from other brivla.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:18 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:53:38PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > My point would be that BAI that don't have usage are not BAI at > > all but only potentially BAI. > > I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps most, BAIs from the > language. I doubt very much anything like that will happen though.

mi go'i

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:18 GMT

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > I was ovbjecting to BAI that are not > iin the language to begin with (except in these > barely justifiable examples).

It is not clear what "being in the language" means to you. All BAIs under discussion have been listed in the ma'oste for years. None has been added since I joined Lojban in '94.

> Well, I agree that keywords are generally not > very useful — even misleading in many cases -- > but my protest is exqactly to including them in > the dictionary when they have never occrred in > the language. Will all the 100000 or so gismu be > included?

Not sure what you mean by that. There are 1400 or so gismu in the language.

> What about all the cmavo in /x/?

I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get my way.

> Or > the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It isn't > even that there are plausible cases that these > BAI forms ought to be used, in most instances.

But unfortunately the BAIs are not in experimental space. They are a standard part of the official cmavo, all of which need defining.

> I have no objection to clarifying — even > prescribing to some extent — the existing usage. > It does seem to me that some expressions have > been used inconsistently (or at least unclearly) > and inappropriately for their intended roles (as > subordinate clauses, for example, rather than > added places in the case of BAIs). But that is > very different from creating NEW usages out of > whole cloth (and based on nothing real at all).

We obviously have a different perception of the issue.


> Well, we have discussed half a dozen cases over > the last little while: two that stick in mind > without searching are {du'u}, whose meaning is > not related by the "rules" to {djuno} (more to > {jinvi} or {krici} — which pair of words needs > some work, come to think of it)

Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm after. Should {du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much wider?

>and {ri'anai}, > whose meaning violates both {rinka} and {nai}, as > typically understood in this game of BAI > creation, and is not easily constructed in this > way from other brivla.

{to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular construction for "not prevented by/in spite of".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:18 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > I was ovbjecting to BAI that are not > > iin the language to begin with (except in > these > > barely justifiable examples). > > It is not clear what "being in the language" > means to you. > All BAIs under discussion have been listed in > the ma'oste > for years. None has been added since I joined > Lojban > in '94.

How many of them have been used? That is the most significant feature of being in the language. There is also the matter of form, whereby anything of a certain form could be in the language in a certain role. So, given a BAI in the language as a BAI, any SEBAI could be in the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't much care when, though it was after whenever my paper list was made up — a number of BAI were added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of that second sense of being in the language. It may be that some few of these have been used (my list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to be an excresence.

> > Well, I agree that keywords are generally not > > very useful — even misleading in many cases > -- > > but my protest is exqactly to including them > in > > the dictionary when they have never occrred > in > > the language. Will all the 100000 or so > gismu be > > included? > > Not sure what you mean by that. There are > 1400 or so gismu in the language.

But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

> > What about all the cmavo in /x/? > > I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get my > way.

Butwhat about all the rest? This is a particularly interesting case, because it brings in forms whose meaning cannot even be guessed at in advance, while I suppose there are some limits (though I would hate to try to figure out what they are) to what a SEBAI might mean, given the BAI and perhaps the "related brivla."

> > Or > > the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It > isn't > > even that there are plausible cases that > these > > BAI forms ought to be used, in most > instances. > > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in > experimental > space. They are a standard part of the official > cmavo, > all of which need defining.

No, they need editing if they are already in, and a note about how to get them back in if a need for them arises,

> > I have no objection to clarifying — even > > prescribing to some extent — the existing > usage. > > It does seem to me that some expressions have > > been used inconsistently (or at least > unclearly) > > and inappropriately for their intended roles > (as > > subordinate clauses, for example, rather than > > added places in the case of BAIs). But that > is > > very different from creating NEW usages out > of > > whole cloth (and based on nothing real at > all). > > We obviously have a different perception of the > issue.

Actually, we seem to me to agree rather well: these things do not at present have any business being presented as a part of actual Lojban, worthy of a line in a dictionary.

> > > Well, we have discussed half a dozen cases > over > > the last little while: two that stick in mind > > without searching are {du'u}, whose meaning > is > > not related by the "rules" to {djuno} (more > to > > {jinvi} or {krici} — which pair of words > needs > > some work, come to think of it) > > Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm > after. Should > {du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much > wider? > > >and {ri'anai}, > > whose meaning violates both {rinka} and > {nai}, as > > typically understood in this game of BAI > > creation, and is not easily constructed in > this > > way from other brivla. > > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular > construction for > "not prevented by/in spite of". > But the official line does not contain {to'e}, nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is regular presupposes that there are rules, which is not obviously the case.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:19 GMT

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't > much care when, though it was after whenever my > paper list was made up — a number of BAI were > added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of > that second sense of being in the language. It > may be that some few of these have been used (my > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to > be an excresence.

I agree most BAIs are an excresence, but we have to define them because they are a part of the official language.

> > Not sure what you mean by that. There are > > 1400 or so gismu in the language. > > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

Yes, but they are not official gismu.

> > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in > > experimental > > space. They are a standard part of the official > > cmavo, > > all of which need defining. > > No, they need editing if they are already in, and > a note about how to get them back in if a need > for them arises,

It's easier to add than to remove, and even adding anything at this point is extremely difficult.

> > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular > > construction for > > "not prevented by/in spite of". > > > But the official line does not contain {to'e}, > nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is > regular presupposes that there are rules, which > is not obviously the case.

It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or perhaps I'm just delusional? :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:19 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > the language as a BAI. At some point — I > don't > > much care when, though it was after whenever > my > > paper list was made up — a number of BAI > were > > added on the basis — as far as I can tell -- > of > > that second sense of being in the language. > It > > may be that some few of these have been used > (my > > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to > > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely > to > > be an excresence. > > I agree most BAIs are an excresence, but we > have to define them > because they are a part of the official > language.

I just dealt with that in another reply: if you must say something about them, say that they have no specified meaning but that it is likely that, sho8uld they be used, the would mean something in the general area of ---. And then admit there are no examples.

> > > Not sure what you mean by that. There are > > > 1400 or so gismu in the language. > > > > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms. > > Yes, but they are not official gismu.

Nor, in a sane world, would these excrescences be offical BAI or whatever.

> > > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in > > > experimental > > > space. They are a standard part of the > official > > > cmavo, > > > all of which need defining. > > > > No, they need editing if they are already in, > and > > a note about how to get them back in if a > need > > for them arises, > > It's easier to add than to remove, and even > adding anything > at this point is extremely difficult.

You don't have a delete key? But I have suggested a work-around (which corresponds with what I suggested earlier, namely that these potential words be listed and a general statement made about likely areas of meaning in each case -- or better in a general statement).


> > > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular > > > construction for > > > "not prevented by/in spite of". > > > > > But the official line does not contain > {to'e}, > > nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it > is > > regular presupposes that there are rules, > which > > is not obviously the case. > > It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or > perhaps I'm just delusional? :-) > Every rule that I have seen you propose has clear exceptions among the oldest level of forms. Even your revised "despite," if you really mean it to be regular, runs afoul of other cases from the same stratum or earlier. (it requires that {nai} scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases {nai} has to scope only over the attached phrase).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:19 GMT

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > It's easier to add than to remove, and even > > adding anything > > at this point is extremely difficult. > > You don't have a delete key?

You singular? No, I don't unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view.) You plural, maybe there is one but very hard to press.

> But I have > suggested a work-around (which corresponds with > what I suggested earlier, namely that these > potential words be listed and a general statement > made about likely areas of meaning in each case > — or better in a general statement).

They are pretty well defined, even if rather useless.

> > It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or > > perhaps I'm just delusional? :-) > > > Every rule that I have seen you propose has clear > exceptions among the oldest level of forms.

None of the rules are exceptionless, but they are quite extensive.

> Even > your revised "despite," if you really mean it to > be regular, runs afoul of other cases from the > same stratum or earlier. (it requires that {nai} > scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases > {nai} has to scope only over the attached phrase).

Yes, that's unfortunate, but better than nothing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lojbab on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:19 GMT posts: 162

Chiming in with a rare re fepni:

John E Clifford wrote: >>It is not clear what "being in the language" >>means to you. >>All BAIs under discussion have been listed in >>the ma'oste >>for years. None has been added since I joined >>Lojban >>in '94. > > How many of them have been used?

Not a valid argument. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the cmavo have never been used, in part because the few people doing most of the writing over the years thought that the definitions in the cmavo list were inadequate.

A brief history of BAI

Recognizing that JCB had a bunch of different things - including case tags, causals, and modals, we decided to treat them all as one interchangeable selma'o now called BAI. The causals and modals among them had a history of being convertible using SE, TE, etc, and the causals of being negated (leading to the because/therefore/despite/nevertheless set of causals).

Because they were grammatically convertible, we looked at what conversion and negation would do for other BAI members. I believe this was considered at the time of the negation research you did. I noticed that several BAIs could be used in this way, especially the one based on jalge, which was a kind of backwards causal.

People complained (this might have been Nick, and Cowan too) that while each BAI was nominally associated with some selbri and picked out one place of that selbri, it was unpredictable which place was the one of most interest. Some BAIs had several places useful while others seemed to be either less useful or at least not corresponding to some English equivalent.

It was then proposed that all BAIs be oriented in the same way as the selbri they were derived from and take the meaning rigidly from that selbri. We decided that in , the sumti had the semantics of x1 of the source selbri, SE BAI the x2, etc., making the memorization easier.

Since we had a pretty fixed set of selbri, I attempted to figure out the plausible meanings of all the conversions of all the BAIs based on this rigid association of selbri. I believe that Cowan and Nora reviewed this list. We recognized that some of these conversions would be relatively useless, but we weren't about to constrain things because right about that time, the evolution was tending the other way, and people were using FIhO+gismu to create all sorts of ad-hoc tags.

We baselined the cmavo list in 1994 with all of the conversion compounds listed.

> That is the > most significant feature of being in the > language.

Since "usage" has been a matter of significance for only a small number of people until shortly before byfy got started, I have contended all along that there could not possibly have been enough usage to decide whether something is "useful" or not.

> So, given a BAI > in the language as a BAI, any SEBAI could be in > the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't > much care when, though it was after whenever my > paper list was made up — a number of BAI were > added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of > that second sense of being in the language. It > may be that some few of these have been used (my > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to > be an excresence.

For each of the BAI in the language, there is at least one place that we could see a need for. The regularizing of BAI semantics means that all the other options are permissible, but it is precisely because there has NOT been a good definition for these that we cannot judge based on usage. We need a 5 year period of usage AFTER we have good definitions.


>>>but my protest is exqactly to including them in >>>the dictionary when they have never occrredin >>>the language. Will all the 100000 or so gismu be >>>included? >> >>Not sure what you mean by that. There are >>1400 or so gismu in the language. > > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

The list of gismu, just as the list of BAI, has been baselined for over 10 years.

It takes an act of byfy to delete something from the baseline just as it would take such an act to add to the baseline.

I oppose any argument for deletion based on usage when usage is dependent on having good definitions.


>>>What about all the cmavo in /x/? >> >>I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get my >>way. > > Butwhat about all the rest? This is a > particularly interesting case, because it brings > in forms whose meaning cannot even be guessed at > in advance, while I suppose there are some limits > (though I would hate to try to figure out what > they are) to what a SEBAI might mean, given the > BAI and perhaps the "related brivla."

The XVV cmavo were by the baseline experimental. It is permissible for the byfy to change the baseline and assign those XVV to specific things that have been experimented with, but I would oppose doing that until all of the existing things have been defined. One option proposed from the beginning would be, when there is controversy between two different semantic interpretations of some cmavo, that the least controversial solution would be to split the cmavo into two. That was specifically considered during the gadri debate.

Until we have considered all such controversies (i.e. the first cut of all selma'o), we should not be assigning XVVs except to resolve controversies. After that, with the wide acceptance of using XVVV space for experimental use, I will favor the assignment of all remaining XVVs to the most used experimentals that the byfy thinks are worthy of including in the official language.

Again, I do not favor any deletions based on non-usage. I will grudgingly accept a deletion of a baselined cmavo if it seems impossible to reach a consensus on what it means AND there is no usage history. But again that is a decision that should not be made until after all that can be defined have been defined.

>>>Or >>>the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It >> >>isn't >> >>>even that there are plausible cases that >> >>these >> >>>BAI forms ought to be used, in most >> >>instances.

The CVVV forms are reserved as experimentals for the indefinite future, and I would prefer to use up all the XVVs before officially defining any CVVVs.

>>But unfortunately the BAIs are not in >>experimental >>space. They are a standard part of the official >>cmavo, >>all of which need defining. > > No, they need editing if they are already in, and > a note about how to get them back in if a need > for them arises,

That is not the sort of decision that the byfy should be making yet.


> Actually, we seem to me to agree rather well: > these things do not at present have any business > being presented as a part of actual Lojban, > worthy of a line in a dictionary.

They are part of the baselined language. It takes a formal vote on each one to delete it, and I would protest such votes taking place in the middle of the quite different task that the byfy is now engaged in of trying to define the words.

For BAI, we should not need actual usage to define what the conversions mean - that was precisely the argument that was made for regularizing them. We need the examples before there will be usage.

And in the case of BAI, I think usage patterns here will be strongly correlated with the native language of the speaker, so deleting things based on nonusage when the language is dominated by English speakers and one Spanish speaker strikes me as asking for bias.

>>Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm >>after. Should >>{du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much >>wider?

The baseline definition bases it on djuno. If someone wants to propose a lujvo compound of djuno I could probably accept it, but I think we need BAI for all of the djuno places.

>>>and {ri'anai}, >>>whose meaning violates both {rinka} and >>{nai}, as >> >>>typically understood in this game of BAI >>>creation, and is not easily constructed in >>this >> >>>way from other brivla.

It seems plausible without checking that the causals may currently not be aligned with the other BAIs. They were included in the language based on JCB, and merged with the others before people decided that they wanted systematic meanings, and I may have required retention of the old meaning for those as a condition for systematizing the others. Since I suspect that the causals have NOT been used as much as I expected based on the importance that they were in the TLI era, I would accept a general realignment of the causals so that they match the other BAIs.

However, if this means that we do NOT have the foursomes of because/therefore/despite/nevertheless, then I will insist that a solution be found for representing all 4 of those for each of the causal-like BAI members.

> But the official line does not contain {to'e}, > nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is > regular presupposes that there are rules, which > is not obviously the case.

The causals had rules, but they may not be consistent with the evolved gismu that they are based on (some of which were changed due to sumti-raising concerns), and changes to negation might also render them less fitting to the pattern.

I won't suggest the solution since I have not followed the debate and can't without checking know the currently favored ways of negating a BAI and the semantic import thereof (i.e. na'ebai vs bainai vs na bai). You pc should be aware more than most of the history of JCBs causals that led to the semantic foursome being associated with conversion and negation of each causal. Just make sure that the result remains consistent, and capable of expressing all the stuff that JCB had in mind.

lojbab

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:20 GMT

Robert LeChevalier scripsit:

> People complained (this might have been Nick, and Cowan too) that while > each BAI was nominally associated with some selbri and picked out one > place of that selbri, it was unpredictable which place was the one of > most interest. Some BAIs had several places useful while others seemed > to be either less useful or at least not corresponding to some English > equivalent.

No, this was before my time and therefore before Nick's time too. It must have been some of the early students.

-- In my last lifetime, John Cowan I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in this lifetime, jcowan@reutershealth.com I don't. --Thiagi http://www.reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:20 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > It's easier to add than to remove, and even > > > adding anything > > > at this point is extremely difficult. > > > > You don't have a delete key? > > You singular? No, I don't unfortunately (or > fortunately, > depending on your point of view.) You plural, > maybe > there is one but very hard to press.

I meant this literally: if you start with a list of purported tags on your screen, you can get rid of a lot just by highlighting and hitting delete. No one would notice (except fussbudgets who compare lists) since no one has used the deleted items or shown any inclination to. But leaving them with a statement about their status is probably better.

> > But I have > > suggested a work-around (which corresponds > with > > what I suggested earlier, namely that these > > potential words be listed and a general > statement > > made about likely areas of meaning in each > case > > — or better in a general statement). > > They are pretty well defined, even if rather > useless.

But the definitions given preempt their future use, where they might have served for some real need and now are stuck with a formulaic but useless sense. (People manage to ride over this kind of problem all the time, but it would be a courtesy not to stick them with it in the first place.)

> > > It is obvious to me that there are rules. > Or > > > perhaps I'm just delusional? :-) > > > > > Every rule that I have seen you propose has > clear > > exceptions among the oldest level of forms. > > None of the rules are exceptionless, but they > are quite extensive.

Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain way, just as lujvo tend to fall into a small number (say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a basis for claiming that future items will always fall into the predominant pattern, as the definitions given here do. Let actual usage decide; the remarks should give the sort of hints that might lead one to find a word that would work for a notion that one has in mind but ought not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far unexemplified — pattern.

> > Even > > your revised "despite," if you really mean it > to > > be regular, runs afoul of other cases from > the > > same stratum or earlier. (it requires that > {nai} > > scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases > > {nai} has to scope only over the attached > phrase). > > Yes, that's unfortunate, but better than > nothing.

But so, of course, is the original listed form {ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even though its justification is not just in terms of patterns of connections between a BAI and some brivla, but rather in terms of general linguistic principles applied to such a connection (but note that even the connection is not actually necessary for finding uses for these forms, merely — as CLL says somewhere — suggestive, a mnemonic, not a definition).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:20 GMT

On 5/17/05, John E Clifford wrote: > But the definitions given preempt their future > use, where they might have served for some real > need and now are stuck with a formulaic but > useless sense. (People manage to ride over this > kind of problem all the time, but it would be a > courtesy not to stick them with it in the first > place.)

I wish you'd come up with at least one suggestive example of how this might happen. All this theoretical speculation of what might be the case if we don't do what we are doing is not very convincing.

> > None of the rules are exceptionless, but they > > are quite extensive. > > Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain way, > just as lujvo tend to fall into a small number > (say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a > basis for claiming that future items will always > fall into the predominant pattern, as the > definitions given here do.

For example, which definition do you find overly restrictive?

> Let actual usage > decide; the remarks should give the sort of hints > that might lead one to find a word that would > work for a notion that one has in mind but ought > not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far > unexemplified — pattern.

For example?

> But so, of course, is the original listed form > {ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even though > its justification is not just in terms of > patterns of connections between a BAI and some > brivla, but rather in terms of general linguistic > principles applied to such a connection (but note > that even the connection is not actually > necessary for finding uses for these forms, > merely — as CLL says somewhere — suggestive, a > mnemonic, not a definition).

I prefer compositionality to suggestive mnemonics whenever possible, and in this case it is possible, so my preference goes to {to'e ri'a nai} despite the two additional syllables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:20 GMT posts: 2388

> Chiming in with a rare re fepni: > > John E Clifford wrote: > >>It is not clear what "being in the language" > >>means to you. > >>All BAIs under discussion have been listed in > >>the ma'oste > >>for years. None has been added since I joined > >>Lojban > >>in '94. > > > > How many of them have been used? > > Not a valid argument. I wouldn't be surprised > if more than half the > cmavo have never been used, in part because the > few people doing most of > the writing over the years thought that the > definitions in the cmavo > list were inadequate.

An argument for either editing the list or, at best, shifting to the "No usage, but a probable meaning somewhere in the area of ..." This will work less well with things that are not — as BAI -- vaguely linked to something with an established meaning, but still somethin useful can usually be said, without binding a future user to that if he needs a new usage.

> A brief history of BAI > > Recognizing that JCB had a bunch of different > things - including case > tags, causals, and modals, we decided to treat > them all as one > interchangeable selma'o now called BAI. The > causals and modals among > them had a history of being convertible using > SE, TE, etc, and the > causals of being negated (leading to the > because/therefore/despite/nevertheless set of > causals). > > Because they were grammatically convertible, we > looked at what > conversion and negation would do for other BAI > members. I believe this > was considered at the time of the negation > research you did. I noticed > that several BAIs could be used in this way, > especially the one based on > jalge, which was a kind of backwards causal. > > People complained (this might have been Nick, > and Cowan too) that while > each BAI was nominally associated with some > selbri and picked out one > place of that selbri, it was unpredictable > which place was the one of > most interest. Some BAIs had several places > useful while others seemed > to be either less useful or at least not > corresponding to some English > equivalent. > > It was then proposed that all BAIs be oriented > in the same way as the > selbri they were derived from and take the > meaning rigidly from that > selbri. We decided that in , the > sumti had the semantics > of x1 of the source selbri, SE BAI the x2, > etc., making the memorization > easier. > > Since we had a pretty fixed set of selbri, I > attempted to figure out the > plausible meanings of all the conversions of > all the BAIs based on this > rigid association of selbri. I believe that > Cowan and Nora reviewed > this list. We recognized that some of these > conversions would be > relatively useless, but we weren't about to > constrain things because > right about that time, the evolution was > tending the other way, and > people were using FIhO+gismu to create all > sorts of ad-hoc tags. > > We baselined the cmavo list in 1994 with all of > the conversion compounds > listed.

In other words, this list was indeed generated mechanically, with minimal regard for possible meaning (indeed, despite evidence that some proposals were junk). That was what it looked like but I am still sorry to hear that it was so. Given that history and the fact that we have made it difficult to do anything more about it than a shift from "definitions" to suggestions for potential use, I suggest we take the latter aproach.

> > That is the > > most significant feature of being in the > > language. > > Since "usage" has been a matter of significance > for only a small number > of people until shortly before byfy got > started, I have contended all > along that there could not possibly have been > enough usage to decide > whether something is "useful" or not.

Hey, this is a dictionary being constructed here, not a word list laid down from on high (presumably), so usage always counts. But, since it inherits some of an unfortunate word list, the proper thing to do is include the unused items with a note about the area of their use but without nailiing that usage down so as to preclude other less direct uses as the first to come forth.

> > So, given a BAI > > in the language as a BAI, any SEBAI could be > in > > the language as a BAI. At some point — I > don't > > much care when, though it was after whenever > my > > paper list was made up — a number of BAI > were > > added on the basis — as far as I can tell -- > of > > that second sense of being in the language. > It > > may be that some few of these have been used > (my > > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to > > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely > to > > be an excresence. > > For each of the BAI in the language, there is > at least one place that we > could see a need for. The regularizing of BAI > semantics means that all > the other options are permissible, but it is > precisely because there has > NOT been a good definition for these that we > cannot judge based on > usage. We need a 5 year period of usage AFTER > we have good definitions. > This is bass ackwards in the extreme: you can't have a good definition until you have usage. Witness what is happening even with the prescriptive definitions of words that are used: the meanings are sliding to fit needs (at least in the direction of clarity if not farther). This is one of the reasons why BPFK esists after all.

> >>>but my protest is exqactly to including them > in > >>>the dictionary when they have never > occrredin > >>>the language. Will all the 100000 or so > gismu be > >>>included? > >> > >>Not sure what you mean by that. There are > >>1400 or so gismu in the language. > > > > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms. > > The list of gismu, just as the list of BAI, has > been baselined for over > 10 years.

Relevance? The point was that if we are going to list all of the permutations on BAI allowed by some rule and then dream up meanings for them, why not do so with other forms generated by some rule: all the potential gismu or long-form or XVV cmavo or... ? It was meant to be a reduction to absurdity, to which the reply "But there is a closed list of gismu" does not answer.

> It takes an act of byfy to delete something > from the baseline just as it > would take such an act to add to the baseline. > > I oppose any argument for deletion based on > usage when usage is > dependent on having good definitions.

This is again just wrong way round. This implies, for example, that the only lujvo that can be used are those that have already been defined, for only those have definitions. But their definitions (usually) came from someone using them, not use after definition.

> > >>>What about all the cmavo in /x/? > >> > >>I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get > my > >>way. > > > > Butwhat about all the rest? This is a > > particularly interesting case, because it > brings > > in forms whose meaning cannot even be guessed > at > > in advance, while I suppose there are some > limits > > (though I would hate to try to figure out > what > > they are) to what a SEBAI might mean, given > the > > BAI and perhaps the "related brivla." > > The XVV cmavo were by the baseline > experimental. It is permissible for > the byfy to change the baseline and assign > those XVV to specific things > that have been experimented with, but I would > oppose doing that until > all of the existing things have been defined. > One option proposed from > the beginning would be, when there is > controversy between two different > semantic interpretations of some cmavo, that > the least controversial > solution would be to split the cmavo into two. > That was specifically > considered during the gadri debate.

See above.

(Snip irrelevant harangue about XVV etc.)

>>>But unfortunately the BAIs are not in >>>experimental >>>space. They are a standard part of the official >>>cmavo, >>>all of which need defining. >> >> No, they need editing if they are already in, >>and >> a note about how to get them back in if a need >> for them arises,

>That is not the sort of decision that the byfy >should be making yet.

Well, OK; I have suggested an alternative (indeed, one I always had in mind — even in words, I think).

>> Actually, we seem to me to agree rather well: >> these things do not at present have any >business >> being presented as a part of actual Lojban, >> worthy of a line in a dictionary.

>They are part of the baselined language. It >takes a formal vote on each >one to delete it, and I would protest such votes >taking place in the >middle of the quite different task that the byfy >is now engaged in of >trying to define the words.

See above.

>For BAI, we should not need actual usage to >define what the conversions >mean - that was precisely the argument that was >made for regularizing >them. We need the examples before there will be >usage.

This presupposes a connection between BAI and gismu which is not justified by the actual cases nor argued for in any place I can find (and is explicitly denied a couple of times). If it was in peoples' minds when this expansion project was carried out, it did not guide them well in cases of actual use and led to absurdities in the phantasmic cases.


>And in the case of BAI, I think usage patterns >here will be strongly >correlated with the native language of the >speaker, so deleting things >based on nonusage when the language is dominated >by English speakers and >one Spanish speaker strikes me as asking for >bias.

An interesting notion, which should be looked at. It is true that native usage does affect much of Lojban usage, so it may well here. I don't see any evidence of it, but then, it's my native language that is being imitated.

>>>Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm >>>after. Should >>>{du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much >>>wider?

>The baseline definition bases it on djuno. If >someone wants to propose >a lujvo compound of djuno I could probably accept >it, but I think we >need BAI for all of the djuno places.

Usage — indeed even the official defintion -- separates it from {djuno} and ties it with something more like {jinvi}; theusage with {djuno} would be appreciably less useful.

>>>>and {ri'anai}, >>>>whose meaning violates both {rinka} and >>>{nai}, as >>> >>>>typically understood in this game of BAI >>>creation, and is not easily constructed in >>>this >>> >>>>way from other brivla.

>It seems plausible without checking that the >causals may currently not >be aligned with the other BAIs. They were >included in the language >based on JCB, and merged with the others before >people decided that they >wanted systematic meanings, and I may have >required retention of the >old meaning for those as a condition for >systematizing the others. >Since I suspect that the causals have NOT been >used as much as I >expected based on the importance that they were >in the TLI era, I would >accept a general realignment of the causals so >that they match the other >BAIs.

Actually, since the causals by and large make sense and many of the others do not, I would expect that careful usage would shift things the other way. But since we are now allowing that usage will affect definitions (jumping from the 17th to the 2oth century in two paragraphs), why not let it go all the way and leave the lot of those not yet used to be decided by usage (within broad limits of course — I see no way of getting rid of the tendency to associate BAI with gismu in some way).

>However, if this means that we do NOT have the >foursomes of >because/therefore/despite/nevertheless, then I >will insist that a >solution be found for representing all 4 of those >for each of the >causal-like BAI members.

I can't check because it is hard to figure out what keywords muight be used for some of these, but it seems likely that all are there, since they were already in Loglan.

>> But the official line does not contain {to'e}, >> nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is >> regular presupposes that there are rules, which >> is not obviously the case.

>The causals had rules, but they may not be >consistent with the evolved >gismu that they are based on (some of which were >changed due to >sumti-raising concerns), and changes to negation >might also render them >less fitting to the pattern. This being the case, it seems a bad idea to have built a mass of other examples on the rules from them-- which rules they do not themselves follow. But the point remains that the ruled definitions destroy the possibility for using BAI in useful ways if the useful way does not happen to fit the rule. To be sure, the likelihood is that the ruled definition will eventually be ignored if the usage is useful, but why set up the roadblocks to begin with.

>I won't suggest the solution since I have not >followed the debate and >can't without checking know the currently favored >ways of negating a BAI >and the semantic import thereof (i.e. na'ebai vs >bainai vs na bai). You >pc should be aware more than most of the history >of JCBs causals that >led to the semantic foursome being associated >with conversion and >negation of each causal. Just make sure that the >result remains >consistent, and capable of expressing all the >stuff that JCB had in mind.

The causal cases are set up and used, so are not the problem (unless some of them got lost in the "systematic" rewriting); the problem is forcing these patterns on everything else, whether they produce useful results or not and regardless of whether they bury useful meanings or not. It may be, of course, that every one of the so far unused expressions that ever does get used is used for exactly what the system predicted and is so used not because of prediction but because of the internal logic of the usage, but that still does not make the predictions justified prescriptions.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:21 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > But the definitions given preempt their > future > > use, where they might have served for some > real > > need and now are stuck with a formulaic but > > useless sense. (People manage to ride over > this > > kind of problem all the time, but it would be > a > > courtesy not to stick them with it in the > first > > place.) > > I wish you'd come up with at least one > suggestive > example of how this might happen. All this > theoretical > speculation of what might be the case if we > don't do > what we are doing is not very convincing.

"Give me an example of a non-existent object or I won't be convinced" is not a very interesting comment. I have cited cases from the past where the rules being in force would have prevented a useful usage; I extrapolate from that.

> > > None of the rules are exceptionless, but > they > > > are quite extensive. > > > > Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain > way, > > just as lujvo tend to fall into a small > number > > (say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a > > basis for claiming that future items will > always > > fall into the predominant pattern, as the > > definitions given here do. > > For example, which definition do you find > overly restrictive? I would say any one that says the meaning of this form has to be such and such, based on some rule rather than some usage. Examples seem to be too numerous to list: all cases with made up examples would do in principle.


> > Let actual usage > > decide; the remarks should give the sort of > hints > > that might lead one to find a word that would > > work for a notion that one has in mind but > ought > > not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far > > unexemplified — pattern. > > For example?

Well, back to the already cited past cases. I have said all that I need about the demand for a nonexistent object.

> > But so, of course, is the original listed > form > > {ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even > though > > its justification is not just in terms of > > patterns of connections between a BAI and > some > > brivla, but rather in terms of general > linguistic > > principles applied to such a connection (but > note > > that even the connection is not actually > > necessary for finding uses for these forms, > > merely — as CLL says somewhere -- > suggestive, a > > mnemonic, not a definition). > > I prefer compositionality to suggestive > mnemonics > whenever possible, and in this case it is > possible, so > my preference goes to {to'e ri'a nai} despite > the two > additional syllables.

Well, we have different tastes at this point; I prefer the possibility of creativity to the strict requirement that all be done by rules. It does not seem to me appropriate for the grammar to take sides on this, hence my suggestion that the unused forms be declared undetermine but als show which way the predictions of their use lie.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:21 GMT

On 5/17/05, John E Clifford wrote: > "Give me an example of a non-existent object or I > won't be convinced" is not a very interesting > comment.

It's not a comment, just a request. I have been using Lojban for ten years and I don't recall any instance during this time of any BAI acquiring an interesting new meaning, so I'd like to know what kind of possible extensions you have in mind.

> I have cited cases from the past where > the rules being in force would have prevented a > useful usage; I extrapolate from that.

What rules do you think are in force? People who use {du'o} for "according to" are convinced that that's what {djuno} permits them to do, so they are using it for what they take {fi'o djuno} to be. Either that, or they just looked up the keyword in the ma'oste. Another example, {ti'u} is glossed "at time ..." so people sometimes use it to tag any time indicaton, as if it was {ca}, {ti'u le crisa} for example. But {ti'u} is supposed to be {fi'o tcika}, for a clock time. The English keyword is misleading. Is it desirable to let the meaning of {ti'u} drift based on its English keyword? Should we not insist that {ti'u} is {fi'o tcika}?

> Well, we have different tastes at this point; I > prefer the possibility of creativity to the > strict requirement that all be done by rules.

I'm all in favour of creativity. It usually requires more creativity to do things by the rules than to come up with ad hoc solutions to problems. Using BAIs for non-BAI functions, (like the sometime proposed function for pa'aku) is not, in my view, a desirable outcome. Shifting the meaning of some BAI from {fi'o broda} to some other {fi'o brode} is perfectly acceptable to me, preferrably if done consciously, so for example that you use {du'o} knowing you mean {fi'o jinvi}, and not really meaning {fi'o jinvi} but thinking you mean {fi'o djuno}.

> It > does not seem to me appropriate for the grammar > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion that > the unused forms be declared undetermine but als > show which way the predictions of their use lie.

It's hard to see how that differs from what is being done now.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:21 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > "Give me an example of a non-existent object > or I > > won't be convinced" is not a very interesting > > comment. > > It's not a comment, just a request. I have been > using Lojban > for ten years and I don't recall any instance > during this time > of any BAI acquiring an interesting new > meaning, so I'd like > to know what kind of possible extensions you > have in mind.

It was an inappropriate request because of its inherent contradiction, so I called it a comment to keep within the bounds of cooperative discourse. I suppose that you want me to speculate on what might be the case, but even that is not likely to be fruitful, given the lack of casesin recent history that you point to (although it is not clear how you can tell that the forms don't have interesting new meanings if the basic meanings they are to have are not yet -- or are only just now — decided; perhaps the meaning that they have actually been used to have are significant variations on the programmatic ones, had those been specified before).

> > I have cited cases from the past where > > the rules being in force would have prevented > a > > useful usage; I extrapolate from that. > > What rules do you think are in force? People > who use {du'o} > for "according to" are convinced that that's > what {djuno} > permits them to do, so they are using it for > what they take > {fi'o djuno} to be. Either that, or they just > looked up the > keyword in the ma'oste. Another example, {ti'u} > is glossed > "at time ..." so people sometimes use it to tag > any time > indicaton, as if it was {ca}, {ti'u le crisa} > for example. But > {ti'u} is supposed to be {fi'o tcika}, for a > clock time. The > English keyword is misleading. Is it desirable > to let the > meaning of {ti'u} drift based on its English > keyword? > Should we not insist that {ti'u} is {fi'o > tcika}?

The fact that the uses of {ti'u} can be traced to the keyword is, of course, damning because keywords have such a history of misleading people. But it must be said that in this case the keyword does not seem to me to point in the direction folks have gone with it (which for me would have to be "at the time of"). But then, I learned {ca} before {ti'u} (which I admit I have never used)and so did not have to look for an expression to say "at the time of." On the other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead of {ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it means that; that is what dictionary writing is all about. The fact that it is redundant in that meaning — and that the clock time meaning is harder to do using {ca} and thus that another form for it is useful — does not change the fact. However, it does give a reason for our doing what we can to change usage back to the way it was envisioned to be. The history of success in that endeavor is not encouraging to be sure (Gresham's Law); I have given up on "disinterested," for example (even the New York Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though I don't (I think) use it myself. With Lojban we have a bit more power, since we can edit what actually goes into the corpus, if we want, and thus guarantee that the official exemplars conform to our ideas. But in the cases where the usage actually fills a need — and the offical line does not — then the editor and the dictionary writer would be wisest to follow usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a nai}, actually existed, apparently, before the (perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one (well, you in fact have, so I'd better not say this) would go back to change them now. I suppose that -- as often happens, I've noticed — {djuno} gets mixed up with English "know," which can be used for firm belief ({birti} say or {jinvi} or {krici} — which pile needs some looking at) as well as for strict knowledge, and this carries over to {du'u}, aided by the fact that {du'u} according to the rules gives an essentially useless item and none of the other gismu involved has an associated BAI, leaving a useful (though, I think, otherwise better dealt with)notion without a direct expression.

> > Well, we have different tastes at this point; > I > > prefer the possibility of creativity to the > > strict requirement that all be done by rules. > > > I'm all in favour of creativity. It usually > requires more > creativity to do things by the rules than to > come up with > ad hoc solutions to problems.

This claim strikes me as self-contradictory; that is, doing things by the rules is the definitional opposite of being creative. What I suspect you mean you prefer when we get down to cases is "playing with the rules and the possible conflicts among different rules to get something that is creatively satisfying and yet can be made to look rule governed." I like that and that is, in effect, what I am recommending we open the door to officially: here is a form, here is the area wherein we would expect the meaning of it to lie, ow find some useful meaning that fits there and is not already better covered.

> Using BAIs for > non-BAI functions, > (like the sometime proposed function for > pa'aku) is not, in > my view, a desirable outcome.

I don't remember this case; could you elaborate. Many of the existing BAI seem to me to be cases of this sort, but now so established as to be unchangable and even to serve as models for other violations ({du'o} is one, for example).

> Shifting the > meaning of some > BAI from {fi'o broda} to some other {fi'o > brode} is perfectly > acceptable to me, preferrably if done > consciously, so for example > that you use {du'o} knowing you mean {fi'o > jinvi}, and not really > meaning {fi'o jinvi} but thinking you mean > {fi'o djuno}.

Good, though I would prefer that new usages not recover areas already taken care of, at least for a while yet.

> > It > > does not seem to me appropriate for the > grammar > > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion > that > > the unused forms be declared undetermine but > als > > show which way the predictions of their use > lie. > > It's hard to see how that differs from what is > being done > now.

Well, you may take the definitions and examples offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I fear that most people take them as carved in at least something more enduring than Jell-o, to the detriment of creativity in this area.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:22 GMT

On 5/17/05, John E Clifford wrote: > (although it is not clear how you can tell that > the forms don't have interesting new meanings if > the basic meanings they are to have are not yet > — or are only just now — decided; perhaps the > meaning that they have actually been used to have > are significant variations on the programmatic > ones, had those been specified before).

Huh? The programmatic meanings have for the most part been in place for more than ten years, they are not being decided now.

> On the > other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead of > {ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it means > that; that is what dictionary writing is all > about.

But that is not what the BPFK is about. We are defining prescriptively, not recording the mostly erroneous use of Lojban by non-fluent speakers which will for the most part readily admit that their usage is erroneous when the mistake is pointed out.

> The history of success > in that endeavor is not encouraging to be sure > (Gresham's Law); I have given up on > "disinterested," for example (even the New York > Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though I > don't (I think) use it myself.

dictionary.com has a note on that: "... Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error."

> But in the cases where the > usage actually fills a need — and the offical > line does not — then the editor and the > dictionary writer would be wisest to follow > usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a > nai}, actually existed, apparently, before the > (perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one (well, > you in fact have, so I'd better not say this) > would go back to change them now.

I wouldn't have a problem with defining {du'o} as {fi'o jinvi}. I do have some problem with defining it as {fi'o djuno} and keywording it as "according to".

{ri'a nai} is a separate issue, using {nai} to mark duals, which is not its usual function. I just prefer regularity there.


> > Using BAIs for > > non-BAI functions, > > (like the sometime proposed function for > > pa'aku) is not, in > > my view, a desirable outcome. > > I don't remember this case; could you elaborate.

This is what the ma'oste has:

pa'aku BAI* each respectively sumti: explicitly marks respective use as in "THEY read THEIR (respective) books".

> > > It > > > does not seem to me appropriate for the > > grammar > > > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion > > that > > > the unused forms be declared undetermine but > > als > > > show which way the predictions of their use > > lie. > > > > It's hard to see how that differs from what is > > being done > > now. > > Well, you may take the definitions and examples > offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I fear > that most people take them as carved in at least > something more enduring than Jell-o, to the > detriment of creativity in this area.

What kind of creativity? How can an example preclude semantic extension? I hope the examples preclude the {pa'aku} type of creativity, I don't see how they can preclude purely semantic extension.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:22 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > (although it is not clear how you can tell > that > > the forms don't have interesting new meanings > if > > the basic meanings they are to have are not > yet > > — or are only just now — decided; perhaps > the > > meaning that they have actually been used to > have > > are significant variations on the > programmatic > > ones, had those been specified before). > > Huh? The programmatic meanings have for the > most part > been in place for more than ten years, they are > not being > decided now.

I was under the impression that BPFK was there to clarify what were generally a pretty vague set of specifications (which they certainly are, probably as a result of being programmatic). If you are leaving the defintions which have been around for a decade in place, I do not see what the point of all this is — except to make up a passle of implausible (and immediately disputed) exemplary usages — not a particularly useful exercise.

> > On the > > other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead > of > > {ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it > means > > that; that is what dictionary writing is all > > about. > > But that is not what the BPFK is about. We are > defining prescriptively, not recording the > mostly > erroneous use of Lojban by non-fluent speakers > which will for the most part readily admit that > their > usage is erroneous when the mistake is pointed > out.

So you are in fact just getting around to the real meanings of expressions. I will ignore the oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I understand the point: "not what the best users (you and robin and maybe nick) would use it to mean." I covered that case — in the next paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there "mistake" and argue they are right (other than "that's what the keyword said"(, then you have more of a problem. Apparently that does not often happen. So this is for the moment moot.

> > The history of success > > in that endeavor is not encouraging to be > sure > > (Gresham's Law); I have given up on > > "disinterested," for example (even the New > York > > Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though > I > > don't (I think) use it myself. > > dictionary.com has a note on that: > "... Oddly enough, "not interested" is the > oldest sense > of the word, going back to the 17th century. > This sense > became outmoded in the 18th century but > underwent a > revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. > Despite its > resuscitation, this usage is widely considered > an error."

I'm not sure what the moral of this is. I know that it used to mean what it is coming to mean again; that does not prevent this from being an "error" to my prescriptivist side (that is, it ain't what I learned). I also recognize that

there is not a good word for
uninterested

(because, for some reason, "uninterested" is thought to be too ugly to use).


> > But in the cases where the > > usage actually fills a need — and the > offical > > line does not — then the editor and the > > dictionary writer would be wisest to follow > > usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a > > nai}, actually existed, apparently, before > the > > (perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one > (well, > > you in fact have, so I'd better not say this) > > would go back to change them now. > > I wouldn't have a problem with defining {du'o} > as {fi'o jinvi}. > I do have some problem with defining it as > {fi'o djuno} and > keywording it as "according to".

That is.f course, against the implicit (actually explicit apparently, given Lojbab's comments) rule. But I don't expect either to change the meaning to "known by" nor the form to {ji'i}.

> {ri'a nai} is a separate issue, using {nai} to > mark duals, > which is not its usual function. I just prefer > regularity there.

Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to mark a dual, it is just using the simplest combination of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common such expression — aided by the fact that the regular forms either make no sense ("opposite of cause") or are generally useless ("caused by not").

> > > Using BAIs for > > > non-BAI functions, > > > (like the sometime proposed function for > > > pa'aku) is not, in > > > my view, a desirable outcome. > > > > I don't remember this case; could you > elaborate. > > This is what the ma'oste has: > > pa'aku BAI* each respectively > > sumti: explicitly marks respective use as in > "THEY read THEIR (respective) books".

Well, aside from calling this usage BAI, what is the problem — but then I haven't seen an example: something like {ko'e cilre pa'aku lo cukta}? Yuck indeed.

> > > > It > > > > does not seem to me appropriate for the > > > grammar > > > > to take sides on this, hence my > suggestion > > > that > > > > the unused forms be declared undetermine > but > > > als > > > > show which way the predictions of their > use > > > lie. > > > > > > It's hard to see how that differs from what > is > > > being done > > > now. > > > > Well, you may take the definitions and > examples > > offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I > fear > > that most people take them as carved in at > least > > something more enduring than Jell-o, to the > > detriment of creativity in this area. > > What kind of creativity? How can an example > preclude > semantic extension? I hope the examples > preclude > the {pa'aku} type of creativity, I don't see > how they can > preclude purely semantic extension.

I am not sure what you mean by extensions, but the fact that you allow them suggests that the definitions are not to be taken too seriously. In that case, it would be a kindness to say so, rather than giving the impression that these a4re the final words. So it turns out we are pretty close after all, though I sppose we would draw lines of acceptability in different places: I like {ri'a nai} for "in spite of", you don't; you have no problem with {du'o} in spite of its not being from {djuno}, I have other problems with its current use (not a BAI, I would say -- probably somewhat milder than your objections to {pa'aku}, which certainly does not look like any BAI (even BAI*) I've ever heard of in either distribution or function — and doesn't seem to come from {panra} or any associated notion. Of course {pa'a} itself is an odd BAI.)

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:22 GMT

On 5/17/05, John E Clifford wrote: > I will ignore the > oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I > understand the point: "not what the best users > (you and robin and maybe nick) would use it to > mean."

Much of my own impromptu usage I consider erroneous when examined more carefully. We are simply not at the point were fluent-speaker intuition trumps rational analysis yet.

> I covered that case — in the next > paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there > "mistake" and argue they are right (other than > "that's what the keyword said"(, then you have > more of a problem.

Well, there are disagreements, of course. But in those cases the argument is never "that's how it is because that's how I use it". The arguments are about what is more useful, more regular, more in accordance with the baseline, etc. Nobody really appeals to speaker intuition.


> Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to mark a > dual, it is just using the simplest combination > of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common such > expression — aided by the fact that the regular > forms either make no sense ("opposite of cause") > or are generally useless ("caused by not").

The regular {ri'a nai} = "not caused by".

I think "prevent" is a reasonable opposite of "cause", if not the only possible one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:23 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > I will ignore the > > oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I > > understand the point: "not what the best > users > > (you and robin and maybe nick) would use it > to > > mean." > > Much of my own impromptu usage I consider > erroneous > when examined more carefully. We are simply not > at the > point were fluent-speaker intuition trumps > rational analysis yet.

Nor would I want it to (until there are certified fluent speakers in the appropriate sense (though this getsmildly circular at some point — the certification of the first few cases at least). See below.

> > I covered that case — in the next > > paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there > > "mistake" and argue they are right (other > than > > "that's what the keyword said"(, then you > have > > more of a problem. > > Well, there are disagreements, of course. But > in those > cases the argument is never "that's how it is > because > that's how I use it". The arguments are about > what is > more useful, more regular, more in accordance > with > the baseline, etc. Nobody really appeals to > speaker intuition.

Which of course ultimately comes down to the judgments of those set up (more or less by themselves with other acceding) as the arbitrors of what is useful, regular or in accord with the baselines (none of these being at all obvious -- though "useful" is related to actual use somewhat).

> > > Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to > mark a > > dual, it is just using the simplest > combination > > of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common > such > > expression — aided by the fact that the > regular > > forms either make no sense ("opposite of > cause") > > or are generally useless ("caused by not"). > > The regular {ri'a nai} = "not caused by". > > I think "prevent" is a reasonable opposite of > "cause", if > not the only possible one. > "not caused by" is, as the discussion showed, not very useful, nor is "caused by not." "prevent" is the obvious polar opposite of "cause," at least as far as utility goes. I do not deny that {to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course) means "in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am only claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form to use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not other wise. And, of course, it has been around in that sense for (I haven't checked this) about 40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a decade old.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:23 GMT

On 5/18/05, John E Clifford wrote: > I do not deny that > {to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course) means > "in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am only > claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form to > use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not > other wise. And, of course, it has been around > in that sense for (I haven't checked this) about > 40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a > decade old.

So we agree that: - {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in shortness. - {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in tradition. - {to'e ri'a nai} beats {ri'a nai} in compositionality.

We just disagree on how much weight we assign to each factor, so that we end up with a different preference overall.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:23 GMT posts: 2388

> On 5/18/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > I do not deny that > > {to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course) > means > > "in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am > only > > claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form > to > > use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not > > other wise. And, of course, it has been > around > > in that sense for (I haven't checked this) > about > > 40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a > > decade old. > > So we agree that: > - {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in > shortness. > - {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in > tradition. > - {to'e ri'a nai} beats {ri'a nai} in > compositionality. > > We just disagree on how much weight we assign > to each > factor, so that we end up with a different > preference overall.

Yup! And I cannot think of a coherent way to argue this one out. I do suppose, however, that {ri'a nai} is likely to stick around given its long history in the cmavo lists.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by lojbab on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:25 GMT posts: 162

John Cowan wrote: > Robert LeChevalier scripsit: > > >>People complained (this might have been Nick, and Cowan too) that while >>each BAI was nominally associated with some selbri and picked out one >>place of that selbri, it was unpredictable which place was the one of >>most interest. Some BAIs had several places useful while others seemed >>to be either less useful or at least not corresponding to some English >>equivalent. > > > No, this was before my time and therefore before Nick's time too. It must > have been some of the early students.

I checked the archives, and my memory was mostly correct. There were key decisions in 1988 and 1991, with most of the ones I referred to made in 1991. The 1988 decision (which allowed the use of converters on BAI but was not systematic) was made collectively by Nora, pc, and me, as I described in the following history at the time of the 1991 debates, which led to the current design: http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00007.html That basically describes how BAI was created as an amalgam of multiple selma'o, and it notes how unsystematically we had been about using converters with BAI up till 1991, though usage had tended to point the BAI members closer to the gismu that were associated with them.

At the same time, there was a private discussion between Jim Carter and me, reported by jimc here: http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00037.html

I included the issue in a series of messages on cmavo dated 11 Jun 1991, of which the key one is here http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00045.html This includes some of Cowan's writing on ci'a (I'm sure there is more, but I didn't look), and contained the essential nature of current BAI as a quasi-abbreviation for a FIhO construct.

Chassell commented here: http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00051.html and summarized things in this message (which is garbaged up) http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00052.html and he then extended his remarks with the following http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00060.html which I think was the first generalization of the idea that BAI adds places to the place structure.

I commented at http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00081.html

I also mentioned in my multipart post consulting with pc, who had done a review of a book on case tags for us, and thus I am pretty sure that pc was involved in the discussion at the time, albeit by telephone rather than online, and of course he was involved in the earlier decision which created BAI.

http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00091.html is my discussion about Lojban BAI and case tags

I think some of this discussion in those ancient messages put things a little more clearly than I did in my off-the-cuff history the other night. Whether it enlightens any of the current discussion, I will leave to you-all to decide.

lojbab

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:25 GMT

On 5/19/05, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

many interesting links to old messages showing basically that you have to be insane to be a Lojbanist. But I found something here especially interesting, not directly related to BAIs:

> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00091.html

Lojbab wrote in 1991:

"When we are so unsure of the place structures that alone of all features of the language we do not intend to baseline them - if for no other reason simply because of the impossibility of a comprehensive and consistent place structure analysis to be completed before we put out a dictionary."

This good intention was frustrated and reversed at some point? The idea was of course that the putting out of a dictionary was imminent. Almost sixteen years later and with the dictionary still not out, I think it would not be a bad idea to do some analysis and revision of place structures for consistency, even if it turns out not to be fully and absolutely comprehensive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by stevo on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:03:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, webmaster@lojban.org writes:


> - lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klarkData is capable of > wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > + du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifreData is > capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark.(Heavily edited from > the original) > "Information Wants to be Free ..." Roger Clarke http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html Note the spelling of the name.

stevo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:19 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:25:28AM -0400, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:03:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > webmaster@lojban.org writes: > > > > - lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klarkData is capable of > > wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > > + du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifreData is > > capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark.(Heavily edited from > > the original) > > "Information Wants to be Free ..." > Roger Clarke > http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF.html > Note the spelling of the name.

Fixed.

-Robin

Posted by pycyn on Tue 23 of Nov., 2004 02:02 GMT posts: 2388

> !! Proposed Definition of du'o > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a sumti > as fitting the first place of djuno. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the first place of > djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is known by, > according to, or information gained from the > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > !! Examples of du'o Usage

Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails that what is known is true, the reading "according to" is misleading, since it has no such implication and often (with a certain tone of voice to be sure) implicates that the information is false or at best unknown. And, once it is established -- as anybody knowing it would do — the knower is not important, the truth is established. I suppose that what is intended is something "is vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable source of the information.

> !! Proposed Definition of se du'o > > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts... Tags a > sumti as fitting the second place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the second > place of djuno and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is associated with the known facts indicated by > the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: > djuno, du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact > that. > > !! Examples of se du'o Usage

I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort of association can be introduced in this way? Evidence maybe?

> !! Proposed Definition of te du'o > > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about... Tags a > sumti as fitting the third place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the third > place of djuno and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is asocciated with a subject of knowledge > indicated or described by the referent of the > tagged sumti. See also: djuno, du'o, se du'o, > ve du'o. > ** Keywords: Knowing about. > > !! Examples of te du'o Usage

Ditto in spades. > > !! Proposed Definition of ve du'o > > ;ve du'o (BAI*): Under epistemology... > Tags a sumti as fitting the fourth place of > djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, > adding an extra place with the meaning of the > fourth place of djuno and then fills it with > the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged > sumti indicates that the event described by the > bridi is associated with an epistemology (that > is, a method of distinguishing true knowledge > from false knowledge) indicated the referent of > the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, du'o, se > du'o, te du'o. > ** Keywords: Under epistemology. > This one does make sense immediately, assuming all the fuss about knowing is dealt with, since what happened is often different on different epistmologies (especially as these include different ontologies).

> !! Examples of ve du'o Usage > > !! Proposed Definition of zau > > ;zau (BAI): Approved by... Tags a sumti > as fitting the first place of zanru. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the first place of > zanru and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is approved by > the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: > zanru, se zau. > ** Keywords: Approved by. > > !! Examples of zau Usage > > !! Proposed Definition of se zau > > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a sumti > as fitting the second place of zanru. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the second place of > zanru and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is associated > with approval of the referent of the tagged > sumti. See also: zanru, zau. > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of. > > !! Examples of se zau Usage > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous in a dangerous way: it means "that the referent is approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e., {zau}).

> !! Proposed Definition of cu'u > > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a sumti > as fitting the first place of cusku. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the first place of > cusku and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is spoken, > written or otherwise expressed by the referent > of the tagged sumti. See also: cusku, se cu'u, > te cu'u, ve cu'u, cu'u ko'a. > ** Keywords: As said by, said. > > !! Examples of cu'u Usage > This is closer to "according to" in English. cf Bertl Isaacs.

> la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. > cu se nelci mi > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur > Rubenstein, is liked by me. >

{cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and propositional expressions, not performances per se. So Rubenstein could cusku something (passion, presumably) by means of ({fo}) the Appassionata but not cusku the piece directly. Which does raise the question, "if the tagged item occupies the nth place of the underlying predicate, what place does the sentence to which it is attached occupy?" Why not the fourth just as easily as the second in this case? But what then is *the* rule?

> !! Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > > ;cu'u ko'a (BAI*): As said by it-1... > Tags the sumti ko'a as fitting the first place > of cusku. Augments the bridi in which it > occurs, adding an extra place with the meaning > of the first place of cusku and then fills it > with ko'a. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is spoken, written or otherwise expressed by > the referent of ko'a, or it-1 (the first > assignable pro-sumti). See also: cusku, cu'u, > se cu'u, te cu'u, ve cu'u. > ** Keywords: Do I have to have a keyword for > this? Yeesh. > > !! Examples of cu'u ko'a Usage > > !! Proposed Definition of se cu'u > > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a > sumti as fitting the second place of cusku. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the second > place of cusku and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is associated with the writing, speaking, or > other expression of the referent of the tagged > sumti. See also: cusku, cu'u, te cu'u, ve > cu'u, cu'u ko'a. > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying. > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage > This "associated with" is getting murkier and murkier. Can it be spelled out for each item? Is there a rule that covers all these specifica cases as deriving from the basic locution?

> se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > jmive cu selsenva po'o > I know culturally that children's songs > express that life is only a dream. > Sentence is first place when tagged is second. Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra place on {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: {lo verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive cu selsenvi}? (I always worry about {po'o} but it seems basically right here). In other words, how does the rest of this sentence go? what about or what are chilren's song that express this view? (se'o} makes the English look like this is a sentence, but the Lojban is not or rather is an observative "lo the children's song that..."

> !! Proposed Definition of te cu'u > > ;te cu'u (BAI*): As told to... Tags a > sumti as fitting the third place of cusku. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the third > place of cusku and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is spoken, written, or otherwise expressed to > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: cusku, > cu'u, se cu'u, ve cu'u, cu'u ko'a. > ** Keywords: As told to. > Flipside of "according to;" something like "for the consumption of." Useful for discussing politicians.

> !! Examples of te cu'u Usage >

Pity, I expect similar problems with the rest, epistemology being the mess it is.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 23 of Nov., 2004 09:24 GMT posts: 14214

Trimming would have been nice.

I happen to be working on the examples right now.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a sumti snip > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails that > what is known is true, the reading "according to" > is misleading, since it has no such implication > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be > sure) implicates that the information is false or > at best unknown. And, once it is established -- > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower is > not important, the truth is established. I > suppose that what is intended is something "is > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable > source of the information.

Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said:

..oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu Dad knew I left!

> > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts... Tags a snip > > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact > > that. > > I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort of > association can be introduced in this way? > Evidence maybe?

ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.

> > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about... Tags a > > ** Keywords: Knowing about. > > Ditto in spades.

mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske "I can help, knowing about medicine."

> > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a sumti snip > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > > the event described by the bridi is associated > > with approval of the referent of the tagged > > sumti. See also: zanru, zau. > > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of. > > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous in a > dangerous way: it means "that the referent is > approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e., > {zau}).

You are *quite* correct. I noticed this when doing examples.

How's this:

In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi is associated with the someone's or something's approval of that which is described or indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti.

> > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a sumti snip > > ** Keywords: As said by, said. > > This is closer to "according to" in English. cf > Bertl Isaacs.

Sort of. cu'u indicates that the person actually *expressed* somehting.

Anyways, I've made "known by" the default for "du'o".

> > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. > > cu se nelci mi > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur > > Rubenstein, is liked by me.

This was, for the record, straight out of the CLL.

> {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and > propositional expressions, not performances per > se.

Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e. All of these are actual expressions, not concepts. If it was conceptual, it would be du'u, not se du'u.

> Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > predicate, what place does the sentence to which > it is attached occupy?"

A newly created, un-numbered place with the semantics of the nth place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag.

I should probably say that in my definitions.

> > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a snip > > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying. > > > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage > > This "associated with" is getting murkier and > murkier. Can it be spelled out for each item?

If I had some idea how to do it, I suppose. But most of these have seen no usage whatsoever, and their *meaning* is murky.

> Is there a rule that covers all these specifica > cases as deriving from the basic locution?

What?

> > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > > jmive cu selsenva po'o > > I know culturally that children's songs > > express that life is only a dream. > > Sentence is first place when tagged is second.

What?

> Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra place on > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: {lo > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive cu > selsenvi}?

You'd have to ask the original author of the sentence; it's from IRC.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 23 of Nov., 2004 09:25 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > predicate, what place does the sentence to which > it is attached occupy?"

The rule is that it occupies one of the other places, or even a new additional place. We can't give a more specific rule that will work for all BAIs. Indeed at least one BAI, {fau}, is based on a gismu with a single place, so by force the sentence must occupy a newly created place. For some BAIs, it is often obvious which place it should be, but for some there may be more than one or none. I haven't really gone through the list to check systematically.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 24 of Nov., 2004 14:13 GMT posts: 2388

While I don't suppose there is any good systematic way to say what can occupy a place in a predicate there does seem to be a general notion that sumti in places stand for components of event being described. Some sumtcita expressions seem not to meet this condition: while the cause of a event may be seen as a component of the event, who knows about it or who has described it does not. These seem rather to adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one of the other places, or to suggest that the surface structure of the claim is inside out the logical claim (the brivla of the added place is the main brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved into some subordinate role). The epistemological sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this category , so that I wonder whether incorporating the "added place" locution is really all that informative. Perhaps just saying that they add information to the basic claim and then selling out the nature of that information in each case would be more elegant (and accurate).


wrote:

> Trimming would have been nice. > > I happen to be working on the examples right > now. > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John > E Clifford wrote: > > > > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a > sumti > snip > > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > > > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails > that > > what is known is true, the reading "according > to" > > is misleading, since it has no such > implication > > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be > > sure) implicates that the information is > false or > > at best unknown. And, once it is established > -- > > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower > is > > not important, the truth is established. I > > suppose that what is intended is something > "is > > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable > > source of the information. > > Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said: > > .oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu > Dad knew I left!

Note the apparent inversion in the translation. Is this basically a claim about what Dad knew? Is it a joint claim "I left and Dad knew it"? The firsst may just be a problem like of ecxpressing many attitudinals in Emnglish in a way that does not look like a description of my attitude rather than an expression of it. The second is an attempt to get away from that, but now introduces two points of truth evaluation rather than one, as the original would suggest if the sumtcita introduces just another place. Ultimately, how we describe these critters may not actually matter, but some seem to be clearer and more usable.

> > > > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts... > Tags a > snip > > > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact > > > that. > > > > I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort > of > > association can be introduced in this way? > > Evidence maybe? > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu > zvati zy > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is > there.

Here the phrase seems to be adjectival to {ma'a}, though it could be argued that the state of mind of the agent is a factor in the situation itself -- unlike who knows about the situation. Notice that the inversion does not work here, the main clause does not fit sensibly into any place of {djuno}, though the first argument does.

> > > > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about... > Tags a > > > ** Keywords: Knowing about. > > > > Ditto in spades. > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > "I can help, knowing about medicine."

Same comment as for the previous one. Here a causal reading seems to be implied.

> > > > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a > sumti > snip > > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates > that > > > the event described by the bridi is > associated > > > with approval of the referent of the tagged > > > sumti. See also: zanru, zau. > > > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of. > > > > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous > in a > > dangerous way: it means "that the referent is > > approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e., > > {zau}). > > You are *quite* correct. I noticed this when > doing examples. > > How's this: > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates > that the event > described by the bridi is associated with > the someone's or > something's approval of that which is > described or indicated by > the referent of the tagged sumti.

Yes, though this is a little obscure: "We left, our passport having been approved" or some such. If so, we get causal notions or the like again.

> > > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a > sumti > snip > > > ** Keywords: As said by, said. > > > > This is closer to "according to" in English. > cf > > Bertl Isaacs. > > Sort of. cu'u indicates that the person > actually *expressed* > somehting. > Just so — that is what "according to" says or at the least implicates.

> Anyways, I've made "known by" the default for > "du'o".

Good

> > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. > rubnstain. > > > cu se nelci mi > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur > > > Rubenstein, is liked by me. > > This was, for the record, straight out of the > CLL.

No surprise there — this is why BPFK exists: to reconcile the various things that CLL says and that on examination do not cohere.

> > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and > > propositional expressions, not performances > per > > se. > > Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e. > All of these are > actual expressions, not concepts. If it was > conceptual, it would be > du'u, not se du'u.

Yes, {cusku2} is text in some form. {cusku3} is ideational, however — certainly none of them is a performance.

> > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > > predicate, what place does the sentence to > which > > it is attached occupy?" > > A newly created, un-numbered place with the > semantics of the nth > place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag.

"nth" as in "whatever place fits, if any" Several examples simply do not fit the sentence into any place in the underlying predicate and the new place seems to be pretty much ad lib -- outside any rules other than "what makes sense to me now.

> I should probably say that in my definitions. > > > > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a > snip > > > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying. > > > > > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage > > > > This "associated with" is getting murkier and > > murkier. Can it be spelled out for each > item? > > If I had some idea how to do it, I suppose. > But most of these have > seen no usage whatsoever, and their *meaning* > is murky. > > > Is there a rule that covers all these > specifica > > cases as deriving from the basic locution? > > What? > > > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > > > jmive cu selsenva po'o > > > I know culturally that children's songs > > > express that life is only a dream. > > > > Sentence is first place when tagged is > second. > > What? "Sentence" is wrong here, there isn't one. {verba selsanga} occupies the first place of {cusku} because (?) {le du'u...po'o} occupies the second (as flagged). Looking for a pattern here, but not finding it.


> > Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra > place on > > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: > {lo > > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive > cu > > selsenvi}? > > You'd have to ask the original author of the > sentence; it's from > IRC.

Putting this out to all and sundry is meant to get input from anyone who lnows anything about it. Hopefully including the author.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 24 of Nov., 2004 14:14 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > pc: > > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > > predicate, what place does the sentence to > which > > it is attached occupy?" > > The rule is that it occupies one of the other > places, > or even a new additional place. We can't give a > more > specific rule that will work for all BAIs. > Indeed > at least one BAI, {fau}, is based on a gismu > with > a single place, so by force the sentence must > occupy > a newly created place. For some BAIs, it is > often > obvious which place it should be, but for some > there > may be more than one or none. I haven't really > gone > through the list to check systematically. > Can we then say in each case what the relationship is, either in terms of the underlying brivla or, for new places, absolutely? If so, this seems an important piece of info for a dictionary entry to have.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Wed 24 of Nov., 2004 14:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:05:35AM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > While I don't suppose there is any good > systematic way to say what can occupy a place in > a predicate there does seem to be a general > notion that sumti in places stand for components > of event being described. Some sumtcita > expressions seem not to meet this condition: > while the cause of a event may be seen as a > component of the event, who knows about it or who > has described it does not.

I can see that one either way, myself.

> These seem rather to > adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one of > the other places, or to suggest that the surface > structure of the claim is inside out the logical > claim (the brivla of the added place is the main > brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved > into some subordinate role).

Yeah, I don't like that solution in general myself.

> The epistemological > sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this > category , so that I wonder whether incorporating > the "added place" locution is really all that > informative. Perhaps just saying that they add > information to the basic claim and then selling > out the nature of that information in each case > would be more elegant (and accurate).

That's a pretty massive change, though. Also, they *do* take sumti, which makes them sumti tags, like FA.

> --- Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > Trimming would have been nice. > > > > I happen to be working on the examples right > > now. > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John > > E Clifford wrote: > > > > > > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a > > sumti > > snip > > > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > > > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > > > > > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails > > that > > > what is known is true, the reading "according > > to" > > > is misleading, since it has no such > > implication > > > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be > > > sure) implicates that the information is > > false or > > > at best unknown. And, once it is established > > -- > > > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower > > is > > > not important, the truth is established. I > > > suppose that what is intended is something > > "is > > > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable > > > source of the information. > > > > Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said: > > > > .oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu > > Dad knew I left! > > Note the apparent inversion in the translation.

It's a non-literalistic translation.

> Is this basically a claim about what Dad knew? > Is it a joint claim "I left and Dad knew it"?

The latter more than the former, I would say.

But really, neither. It's a claim about a four-place predicate, call it broda, with the place structure:

x1 leaves/goes away/departs/parts/separates from x2 via route x3 with knower of departure x4

where we tag the x4 place with du'o.

About "se zau": > Yes, though this is a little obscure: "We left, > our passport having been approved" or some such. > If so, we get causal notions or the like again.

More permissive than causal, which is what we want here.

> > > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and > > > propositional expressions, not performances > > per > > > se. > > > > Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e. > > All of these are > > actual expressions, not concepts. If it was > > conceptual, it would be > > du'u, not se du'u. > > Yes, {cusku2} is text in some form. {cusku3} is > ideational, however — certainly none of them is > a performance.

Yeah, you seem to be correct in the letter of the law, but it seems to me that cusku was intended for expression *in* *general*.

> > > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > > > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > > > predicate, what place does the sentence to > > which > > > it is attached occupy?" > > > > A newly created, un-numbered place with the > > semantics of the nth > > place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag.

I'm sorry, I was anwering a completely different question. I don't know the answer to yours.

I'm inclined to say "None of them; the transformation is not reversible in that fashion.", but I confess to not having thoroughly thought it through.

> > > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > > > > jmive cu selsenva po'o > > > > I know culturally that children's songs > > > > express that life is only a dream. > > > > > > Sentence is first place when tagged is > > second. > > > > What? > > "Sentence" is wrong here, there isn't one. > {verba selsanga} occupies the first place of > {cusku} because (?) {le du'u...po'o} occupies the > second (as flagged). Looking for a pattern here, > but not finding it.

Again, I don't necessarily accept the transformation you are trying to impose as valid.

> > > Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra > > place on > > > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: > > {lo > > > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive > > cu > > > selsenvi}? > > > > You'd have to ask the original author of the > > sentence; it's from > > IRC. > > Putting this out to all and sundry is meant to > get input from anyone who lnows anything about > it. Hopefully including the author.

Indeed, but my point was that that is a stylistic issue, and not one we need to address here.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 24 of Nov., 2004 19:12 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:05:35AM -0800, John > E Clifford wrote: > > While I don't suppose there is any good > > systematic way to say what can occupy a place > in > > a predicate there does seem to be a general > > notion that sumti in places stand for > components > > of event being described. Some sumtcita > > expressions seem not to meet this condition: > > while the cause of a event may be seen as a > > component of the event, who knows about it or > who > > has described it does not. > > I can see that one either way, myself.

Really? I can't imagine a description of an event being declared incomplete because it failed to mention who knew about it or who all desribed it.


> > These seem rather to > > adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to > one of > > the other places, or to suggest that the > surface > > structure of the claim is inside out the > logical > > claim (the brivla of the added place is the > main > > brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved > > into some subordinate role). > > Yeah, I don't like that solution in general > myself. > > > The epistemological > > sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this > > category , so that I wonder whether > incorporating > > the "added place" locution is really all that > > informative. Perhaps just saying that they > add > > information to the basic claim and then > selling > > out the nature of that information in each > case > > would be more elegant (and accurate). > > That's a pretty massive change, though. Also, > they *do* take sumti, > which makes them sumti tags, like FA. > What is it a change from that really is working? The "new place" locution has been around for donkey years and is more or less grammatically sound (though in fact the grammar is not quite that of FA anyhow) but the present issues are semantic (and maybe pragmatic, if there are no semantic differences between various ways of sliding a reference to who know it or such like). And the "new place" line is no help and may be a hindrance if it blocks us from understanding some cases. I am sure it is no help; whether it is actually keeping us from solutions is not clear, but seems a real possibility.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Thu 25 of Nov., 2004 17:48 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> While I don't suppose there is any good > systematic way to say what can occupy a place > in > a predicate there does seem to be a general > notion that sumti in places stand for > components > of event being described. Some sumtcita > expressions seem not to meet this condition: > while the cause of a event may be seen as a > component of the event, who knows about it or > who > has described it does not. These seem rather to > adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one > of > the other places, or to suggest that the > surface > structure of the claim is inside out the > logical > claim (the brivla of the added place is the > main > brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved > into some subordinate role). The > epistemological > sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this > category , so that I wonder whether > incorporating > the "added place" locution is really all that > informative. Perhaps just saying that they add > information to the basic claim and then selling > out the nature of that information in each case > would be more elegant (and accurate). > On later thought, it seems to be less the "added place" that is the heart of the problem Ithough it still plays a role) and more a problem with connecting the sumtcita to a selbri in some literal or transformational sense. If we take the related predicate as merely a useful (and hopefully not too misleading) mnemonic device then many of the problems arising so far disappear. We don't have to find some rule for what various modified forms means as functions of the underlying predicate, we don't have to deal with any number of never used forms presented because they are possible for the predicate. To be sure, we now have to define each tag individually, without rule gooverned relation to the predicate. But the rules are working very well anyhow, so that most cases need some side comments to make the connection at all: where is the main sentences in all of this, how, exactly, is the connection - to the selbri, to an argument, to the bridi as a whole, and so on. There are enough cases that clearly do not work in the paraphrase mode to make it fairly clear that the mention of predicates with the tags was originally intended (as CLL actually says somewhere, I recall) as an aide memoire not a transformation guide. Thus, for example, {ri'anai} just means something that is generally in the area of negations and causation, in which area "despite" is the most likely to be useful, simpler ones being rarely used or just plain muddled.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by stevo on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 13:26 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:55:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, webmaster@lojban.org writes:


> The page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita was changed by rlpowell at Wed > 30 of Mar, 2005 01:54 UTC > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > This doesn't seem to be referring to Star Trek's Data (and if it is, it's not done correctly), so wouldn't "Data are" be better English? stevo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 13:41 GMT

> lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark.

{du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre bridi there.

Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have scope over du'o: "It is possible that (according to RC data wants to be free)."

Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not {fi'o djuno}, to get the English gloss I would say:

du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu djica lo nu zifre

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 15:09 GMT posts: 2388

> > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la > rodjer.klark > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, > according to Rodger Klark. > > {du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre > bridi there. > > Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have > scope over du'o: > "It is possible that (according to RC data > wants to be free)." > > Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not > {fi'o djuno}, to get the > English gloss I would say: > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu > djica lo nu zifre > Which raises an interesting question about scopes (again) and afterthought additions. How do we cut off the scope of some operator (tense/modal, say) to add something which has even longer scope. Strictly speaking, even placing the mdoifier at the front ought not technically to help since modals behave more or less like {na} (with restrictions that really need better specification). In this particular case, there seems to be a way out, however {lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre sei la rodjer.klark xusra} (or {jinvi} or whatever {du'o} is filling in for). And the {sei} chunk floats free in the sentence. But this is not a general solution.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 15:18 GMT

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:07:25 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > Which raises an interesting question about scopes > (again) and afterthought additions. How do we > cut off the scope of some operator (tense/modal, > say) to add something which has even longer > scope.

With {.i}. And then using go'i, di'u, etc. to get back to it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 16:43 GMT posts: 2388

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:07:25 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford > wrote: > > Which raises an interesting question about > scopes > > (again) and afterthought additions. How do > we > > cut off the scope of some operator > (tense/modal, > > say) to add something which has even longer > > scope. > > With {.i}. And then using go'i, di'u, etc. to > get back to it. > Yeah, that will work eventually, but is not very Zipfy. And it still leaves the question of restricting scope within the sentence -- preferrably without throwing everything into prenex form. >

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 17:34 GMT

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:41:22 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > Yeah, that will work eventually, but is not very > Zipfy. And it still leaves the question of > restricting scope within the sentence -- > preferrably without throwing everything into > prenex form.

There's {zo'au} for afterthought postnex:

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of Mar., 2005 18:55 GMT posts: 2388

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:41:22 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford > wrote: > > Yeah, that will work eventually, but is not > very > > Zipfy. And it still leaves the question of > > restricting scope within the sentence -- > > preferrably without throwing everything into > > prenex form. > > There's {zo'au} for afterthought postnex: >

>

& is at his opaque best here. After two readings, it is not clear how a large part of this is more than abbreviatory nor how the (very useful, though still not adequate) postnex interacts with preneces. I think these are discussed but, as I said, they are not clear.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:24:41AM -0500, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:55:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, > webmaster@lojban.org writes: > > > > The page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita was changed by rlpowell at Wed > > 30 of Mar, 2005 01:54 UTC > > > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > > > This doesn't seem to be referring to Star Trek's Data (and if it > is, it's not done correctly), so wouldn't "Data are" be better > English?

I've always heard it as "Information wants to be free". I think "Data are capable" sounds horrible; it's a mass noun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

-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/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > > {du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre bridi there. > > Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have scope over du'o: > "It is possible that (according to RC data wants to be free)." > > Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not {fi'o djuno}, to get the > English gloss I would say: > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu djica lo nu zifre

You forgot the cu. :-)

Done.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> I've always heard it as "Information wants to be free". I think > "Data are capable" sounds horrible; it's a mass noun.

Originally "data" was a plural count noun, and it still can be. It's only recently that it's been treated as a mass noun, and some old fogies still complain about that usage.

-- Do I contradict myself? John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself. jcowan@reutershealth.com I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass http://www.reutershealth.com