# Talk:BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti

Posted by pycyn on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 13:11 GMT posts: 2388
The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one. Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads about structure. On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be nice.
Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 1912

> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier, > rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

That's misleading, yes. It would be better to describe it as "lambda-quantified variable" if lambda is to be mentioned at all.

> Now, it *ought* to > function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This > creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the > same way and also misleads about structure.

When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.

Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative clauses, the solution here is to use subindices (but I never remember which way to count), or to put a {ce'u/ke'a goi ko'a} in the prenex at the right level.

> On the other hand, the real > lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be > nice.

The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice, since more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than one (for the x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two independent variables.

Embedded relative clauses do turn up from time to time, and subindices are ugly. I don't have a better solution though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 2388

A> I'm not sure what this means; frinstance?

Jorge Llambías wrote:

> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier, > rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

That's misleading, yes. It would be better to describe it as "lambda-quantified variable" if lambda is to be mentioned at all.

> Now, it *ought* to > function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This > creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the > same way and also misleads about structure.

When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.

A>Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative clauses, the solution here is to use subindices (but I never remember which way to count), or to put a {ce'u/ke'a goi ko'a} in the prenex at the right level.

> On the other hand, the real > lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be > nice.

The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice, since more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than one (for the x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two independent variables.

Embedded relative clauses do turn up from time to time, and subindices are ugly. I don't have a better solution though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by xorxes on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > A> I'm not sure what this means; frinstance?

{lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property of being blue.

{lo ka ce'u carmi lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property of being intensely blue (more precisely the property of being intense in the property of being blue).

They are both one-place properties. In the second case, the second {ce'u} is not bound at the same level as the first.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Thu 12 of Aug., 2004 22:08 GMT posts: 2388

Yes, and ... That is, of course, one of the problems with lambda-bound-variable {ce'u}: it looks the same wherever it turns up and it is hard sometimes to work out the exact scope of an occurrence. (I am not sure that example does mean "the property of being intensely blue," but as McKay points out several times, the logic of adverbs is not well worked out: some say it requires quantification over events (in which case, Lojban is ready) some say over abstractions like properties (in which case Lojban is still ready) and some say neither of these can be right — but can give no positive theory yet (in which case Lojban will limb along doing the best it can — which seems to be enough).

Jorge Llambías wrote:pc: > A> I'm not sure what this means; frinstance?

{lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property of being blue.

{lo ka ce'u carmi lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property of being intensely blue (more precisely the property of being intense in the property of being blue).

They are both one-place properties. In the second case, the second {ce'u} is not bound at the same level as the first.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti > The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a > quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even have a definition in Chapter 11.

Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u is, but I am certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin

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

Posted by JohnCowan on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 01:47 GMT posts: 149

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u > is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

To be exact, ce'u is lambda(x) of the lambda calculus: it's a variable that is automatically lambda-bound. Use another ce'u, get another variable.

I wanted to make it just lambda, and have it be followed by da-de-di, but was outvoted at the time.

> Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

By no means.

> > -Robin > >

-- A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want John Cowan to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and a rabbi who lets them do it [email protected] isn't a man. --Jewish saying http://www.reutershealth.com

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 08:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:23:39PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what > > ce'u is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda > > calculus. > > To be exact, ce'u is lambda(x) of the lambda calculus: it's a variable > that is automatically lambda-bound. Use another ce'u, get another > variable. > > I wanted to make it just lambda, and have it be followed by da-de-di, > but was outvoted at the time. > > > Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions? > > By no means.

Ummm, any expression with lambda(x) in the lambda calculus is a function, is it not?

And every abstraction clause that's not in a poi has one or more elided ce'u, does it not?

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 14:40 GMT posts: 2388

Only abstraction clauses with {ce'u} in them are functions (but sometimes the {ce'u} are implicit. The rough part is what they are functions from to. Or they (the ones with gaps) are references to general properties (etc.?) and the ones without gaps are to particular properties (etc.) And that is not too easy to deal with either. But, yes, the idea here goes back at least to Churh's lambda calculus and eventually to Russell (and probably further). Now, whether that is just what {ce'u} is meant to do is less clear; CLL does not seem to envision more than one {ce'u} in an abstraction, for example.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti > The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a > quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even

• have* a definition in Chapter 11.

Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 14:45 GMT posts: 2388

{le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis} is a perfectly good property abstraction, naming the unique property Mimi has as being a Siamese cat.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:23:39PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what > > ce'u is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda > > calculus. > > To be exact, ce'u is lambda(x) of the lambda calculus: it's a variable > that is automatically lambda-bound. Use another ce'u, get another > variable. > > I wanted to make it just lambda, and have it be followed by da-de-di, > but was outvoted at the time. > > > Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions? > > By no means.

Ummm, any expression with lambda(x) in the lambda calculus is a function, is it not?

And every abstraction clause that's not in a poi has one or more elided ce'u, does it not?

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 14:55 GMT posts: 1912

pc > {le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis} is a perfectly good property abstraction, > naming the unique property Mimi has as being a Siamese cat.

Which is also the same unique property that Siamese has?

Can we say:

la mimis .e la si,amis cu ckaji le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis Both Mimi and Siamese have the property that Mimi is a Siamese cat.

That sounds odd to me, because I wouldn't say that Mimi and Siamese have the same property. What I would say is that they are in a relationship with each other:

la mimis ckini la si,amis lo ka ce'u mlatu ce'u Mimi is related to Siamese by the ...is a cat of race... relationship.

Or that each has a different property:

la mimis cu ckaji lo ka ce'u mlatu la si,amis Mimi has the property '...is a Siamese cat'.

la si,amis cu ckaji lo ka la mimis mlatu ce'u Siamese has the property 'Mimi is a ... cat'.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 16:30 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Ummm, any expression with lambda(x) in the lambda calculus is a > function, is it not?

Yes.

> And every abstraction clause that's not in a poi has one or more elided > ce'u, does it not?

Not that I can see. I think you are confusing ce'u and ke'a.

-- What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan that they applaud me thus? http://www.reutershealth.com --Phocion, Greek orator http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 17:06 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> pc > > {le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis} is a perfectly good property abstraction, > > naming the unique property Mimi has as being a Siamese cat. > > Which is also the same unique property that Siamese has? > > Can we say: > > la mimis .e la si,amis cu ckaji le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis > Both Mimi and Siamese have the property that Mimi is a Siamese cat. > > That sounds odd to me, because I wouldn't say that Mimi and Siamese > have the same property.

Indeed. Truly lambda-free ka-abstractions are really du'u-abstractions; indeed, du'u could be replaced by ka, but has the advantage that it signals that there are no elided ce'u markers.

-- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU [email protected] BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 19:00 GMT posts: 2388

Well, what we have is not really a property, for all we say it, but a relation. And both Mimi and Siamese cats (or the breed) are both in that relation. But they are in it in different ways, as first argument and as second. Now from this there is a derivate property for each, but it is a different one for each: "is a cat of Siamese breed" and "is a breed of which Mimi is a cat." I was being a little (too) shorthandy to go directly to the issue whether every {ka} expression contained a {ce'u}.

Jorge Llambías wrote: pc > {le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis} is a perfectly good property abstraction, > naming the unique property Mimi has as being a Siamese cat.

Which is also the same unique property that Siamese has?

Can we say:

la mimis .e la si,amis cu ckaji le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis Both Mimi and Siamese have the property that Mimi is a Siamese cat.

That sounds odd to me, because I wouldn't say that Mimi and Siamese have the same property. What I would say is that they are in a relationship with each other:

la mimis ckini la si,amis lo ka ce'u mlatu ce'u Mimi is related to Siamese by the ...is a cat of race... relationship.

Or that each has a different property:

la mimis cu ckaji lo ka ce'u mlatu la si,amis Mimi has the property '...is a Siamese cat'.

la si,amis cu ckaji lo ka la mimis mlatu ce'u Siamese has the property 'Mimi is a ... cat'.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT posts: 2388

I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s. A proposition is not a property, a function to properties (a more abstract property) is not a function to a propositions. Joan's beauty is not that Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value). There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple identity doesn't seem to hack it.

John Cowan wrote:Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> pc > > {le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis} is a perfectly good property abstraction, > > naming the unique property Mimi has as being a Siamese cat. > > Which is also the same unique property that Siamese has? > > Can we say: > > la mimis .e la si,amis cu ckaji le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis > Both Mimi and Siamese have the property that Mimi is a Siamese cat. > > That sounds odd to me, because I wouldn't say that Mimi and Siamese > have the same property.

Indeed. Truly lambda-free ka-abstractions are really du'u-abstractions; indeed, du'u could be replaced by ka, but has the advantage that it signals that there are no elided ce'u markers.

-- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU [email protected] BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 21:15 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s.

What's an example where they differ? I mean, where would you use a {lo ka ...} without any {ce'u}s?

> A > proposition is not a property,

We agree about that. A property has an open slot, whereas a proposition does not. And a relation has more than one open slot.

> a function to properties (a more abstract > property) is not a function to a propositions.

Agreed.

> Joan's beauty is not that > Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value).

Joan's beauty is {lo nu la djon cu melbi}. That Joan is beautiful is {lo du'u la djon cu melbi}.

> There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple > identity doesn't seem to hack it.

We have a tendency of using {ka} instead of {nu} when the selbri corresponds to an adjective (or a noun). But there's no reason to do that, is there? As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like Joan's running, {lo nu dy melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is more or less atemporal should not matter. Or is there something about her beauty that is crucially different from her running?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 21:16 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:05:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like Joan's running, {lo nu dy > melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is more or less atemporal should > not matter. Or is there something about her beauty that is crucially > different from her running?

zo'o ru'e ga nai dy xamgu lo ka ce'u bajra gi na frica .i ku'i ga nai dy na xamgu gi lo nu melbi vau .e nai lo nu bajra vau cu cinse se cinri mi

How do you do an if-else in Lojban using ga nai and friends?

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by pycyn on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 21:40 GMT posts: 2388

As I said, there are interrelations that need to be worked out. My main sources close to hand (after Raghunatha and his ilk, which doesn't help much here) tends to wander off into modalities and stay there — or into semantics. I'm chasing down some more remote work. A> I just gave you {lo ka la djon melbi}, which is different from {lo du'u la djon melbi} — and also {lo nu la djon melbi} (an event, not a property)

B> Not necessarily; some properpties — very individual ones like the blue of this house {lo ka levi zdani cu blanu} — have no gaps. More abstract properties are covers for the particular ones, just as propositional functions ({du'u} with {ce'u}) cover propositions — and so on for the whole list (though we don't have good names for many of these things, other than "---al function.")

C> No, that is Joan('s) being beautiful, something else again. You can't (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}). As i say, they are interrealated and yet distinct, but neither feature is very clear.

D> I would think that both are atemporal; abstracts tend to be even when their manifestations (various words here, I'm not sure which is best for a given abstraction) tend to be temporal. I think the fact that one is a property and the other an event is a crucial difference, but I am not sure in just what that difference consists. s wrote:

pc: > I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s.

A>What's an example where they differ? I mean, where would you use a {lo ka ...} without any {ce'u}s?

> A > proposition is not a property,

B>We agree about that. A property has an open slot, whereas a proposition does not. And a relation has more than one open slot.

> a function to properties (a more abstract > property) is not a function to a propositions.

Agreed.

> Joan's beauty is not that > Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value).

C>Joan's beauty is {lo nu la djon cu melbi}. That Joan is beautiful is {lo du'u la djon cu melbi}.

> There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple > identity doesn't seem to hack it.

D>We have a tendency of using {ka} instead of {nu} when the selbri corresponds to an adjective (or a noun). But there's no reason to do that, is there? As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like Joan's running, {lo nu dy melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is more or less atemporal should not matter. Or is there something about her beauty that is crucially different from her running?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 22:47 GMT posts: 1912

> How do you do an if-else in Lojban using ga nai and friends?

One possibility:

ge ga nai X gi Y gi ga X gi Z (If X then Y) and (if not X then Z)

I don't know if it can be done without repeating a term.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by xorxes on Sat 14 of Aug., 2004 23:16 GMT posts: 1912

I would say a property is a mapping from individuals to propositions. The property P maps individual x into proposition Px. We say that an individual x "has" property P when the proposition Px is true. In Lojban, for an individual (or individuals) {ko'a} and a property {lo ka ce'u broda}, we say that {ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} when {lo du'u ko'a broda cu jetnu}, i.e. when {ko'a broda}.

pc: > You can't > (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her > beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}).

That would be {la djon mutce lo ka ce'u melbi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Sun 15 of Aug., 2004 07:42 GMT posts: 2388

1>Well, before we decide what these things are, let's try to figure out how they interrelate. As far as I am concerned, beyond sentences (or maybe claims) and events (and even those are shaky) these things are all terra incognita. With at least three types of thesories about each (and half-a-dozen subtheories in each case), making an ontological claim seems premature (an maybe not even necessary for what we are about). What you describe is a propositional function, which we would write with {du'u} and a {ce'u}. One theory (I use it myself sometimes — but always feel bad about it later) is that this is the same as a property ({ka} and {ce'u}) but another holds that predicating a property of an object (concept) is different from applying a function to an argument. And further, functions are not obviously intensional and properties (but propositions too) are (identity failure). But you are right, that snow is white is true just in case snow is white (one of the certainties — aside from the question whether it is propositions or claims that are true).

2> No, it would not. What you give is a claim about Joan, not about her beauty, which is (intensionally surely, but probably extensionally too) something else. {le ka la djon melbi cu mutce} though I feel the need to fill in at least one more place. They might eventually come to the same thing, but that would take some argument (which I certainly am not ready to engage in, given the problems I am having in these areas at the moment).

Jorge Llambías wrote:

1>I would say a property is a mapping from individuals to propositions. The property P maps individual x into proposition Px. We say that an individual x "has" property P when the proposition Px is true. In Lojban, for an individual (or individuals) {ko'a} and a property {lo ka ce'u broda}, we say that {ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} when {lo du'u ko'a broda cu jetnu}, i.e. when {ko'a broda}.

pc: > You can't > (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her > beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}).

2>That would be {la djon mutce lo ka ce'u melbi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:22 GMT posts: 14214

If there's anything I need to understand in:

which appears to have mostly been written by xod, someone please explain it to me.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:58 GMT posts: 14214

I don't understand

terribly well, but I will attempt to abide by it. Please let me know if I'm confused.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 08:09 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 07:06:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- [email protected] wrote: > > Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound > > vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where > > more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads > > about structure. > > When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound > variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u > goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.

Has this *ever* come up? What would it mean if it did? Why would it?

> Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative > clauses,

I'll handle that as with ke'a.

> > On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see > > LISP). Some compromise would be nice. > > The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice, since > more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than one (for the > x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two independent variables.

Explain the whole "two ce'u in simxu" thing, please.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388

Well, since I think that {du'u} and {ka} are two entirely different things — though related more or less as a proposition is to an event, my view may not be worth much. The problem seems to be that we have two conventions about empty places in abstractions; filled with {ce'u} or filled with {zo'e}. For the first place, we have decised that the unfilled space is {ce'u}, but when that space is filled already we are left with what to do with the first unfilled space. Appparently what has been worked out is that in {ka} the first unfilled space is {ce'u} but in {du'u} all unfilled spaces are {zo'e} (or have it got that backward?), i.e., every {ce'u} must be explicit. Then the question is, does {ke'a} follow the rule for {ce'u} in {ka} or the rule that it can be omitted in the first place only. The answer seems to be that it follows the {ks} {ce'u} rule, omission in the first empty place — though xod does not like this in spite of usage. Personally, I would go for either that rule or the {du'u} {ce'u} rule thoughout.

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti If there's anything I need to understand in:

which appears to have mostly been written by xod, someone please explain it to me.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388

I seem to have done a 180, but I'll stick with where I am now on the {du'u}-{ka} issue. Practically, {ka} is more likely to be a function (we talk more about beauty than Joan's beauty) (though I do miss the adverb idea) and possibly more about beauty than being beautiful. So, I think I agree that {du'u} is less likely to contain {ce'u} than {ka} is and so get require all to be explicit. {ke'a} is always going to be called for in relative clauses, so we can drop the first one with assurance.

[email protected] wrote:Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti I don't understand

terribly well, but I will attempt to abide by it. Please let me know if I'm confused.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388

Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder", and {le ka ce'u catra cy}, "suicide".

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 07:06:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- [email protected] wrote: > > Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound > > vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where > > more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads > > about structure. > > When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound > variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u > goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.

Has this *ever* come up? What would it mean if it did? Why would it?

> Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative > clauses,

I'll handle that as with ke'a.

> > On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see > > LISP). Some compromise would be nice. > > The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice, since > more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than one (for the > x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two independent variables.

Explain the whole "two ce'u in simxu" thing, please.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 16:20 GMT posts: 2388
{le ka ce'u brod} is not "the property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda} but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so. The other is more nearly {le du'u ce'u broda} but is not quite that eitehr.
Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

xodPosted by xod on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 17:03 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

> Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder"

Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?

-- "This historic ground in New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth...gave the most effective answer today to Japanese propaganda that radiations were responsible for deaths even after the day of the explosion, Aug. 6, and that persons entering Hiroshima had contracted mysterious maladies due to persistent radioactivity." — NY Times, 12 Sep 45

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 17:04 GMT posts: 1912

Robin Lee Powell: > > When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound > > variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u > > goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u. > > Has this *ever* come up? What would it mean if it did? Why would it?

pc already gave an example. To expand:

ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u ri catra ko'a has the property of killing herself.

ko'a ko'e ckini lo ka ce'u ce'u catra ko'a is related to ko'e by the relationship ... kills ...

Presumably the x1 of ckini fills the first place of the relationship and the x2 fills the second place.

We don't have a gismu for 3-adic ka's the way we have {ckaji} and {ckini} for 1 and 2-adic. We probably should have at least a lujvo for an n-adic terckini.

> Explain the whole "two ce'u in simxu" thing, please.

le so'i prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u catlu The many people were looking at one another.

Each of them looks and is looked at by some of them. In order to do something "mutually", you need two places in the relationship.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 17:04 GMT posts: 2388

The point is exactly that two explicit }ce'u} are two different bound variables and thus generally refer to different things, while {ce'u} and a pronoun that picks it up must refer to the same thing.

xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

> Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder"

Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?

-- "This historic ground in New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth...gave the most effective answer today to Japanese propaganda that radiations were responsible for deaths even after the day of the explosion, Aug. 6, and that persons entering Hiroshima had contracted mysterious maladies due to persistent radioactivity." — NY Times, 12 Sep 45

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 18:14 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:27:09PM -0400, xod wrote: > John E Clifford wrote: > > >Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder" > > > Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?

In fact they never do; one must bind them explicitely to equal each other if that is what is desired.

I think I will explicitely mention that my proposal leads to being able to do {le ka ce'u catra ce'u pa xi pa}, and mention the cy thing as well.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 18:14 GMT

xod scripsit: > John E Clifford wrote: > > >Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder" > > > Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?

On the contrary.

-- "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com internal links in forms which are hideously [email protected] over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 18:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:20:16AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti {le ka ce'u broda} is not "the > property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda} > but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so.

I am not aware of a difference between those statements.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 20:27 GMT posts: 2388

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:20:16AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti {le ka ce'u broda} is not "the > property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda} > but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so.

I am not aware of a difference between those statements.

-Robin

Well, roughly, the first is linguistically oriented, the second metaphysical. Propositional functions are closely allied with language, properties are meant to be more independent of language — what language seeks to represent as it were (and both are different from qualities-- for want of a better word — which are ways the world is or might be). This is all tentative and a result of too much reading in this subject of late. I have to say that no one hold that all these things exst — and they are all things accoring to their supporters — but no one has done a convincing job of reducing all of them (or even two of them) to one thing, so I am going with a maximum ontology for now. Lojaban, notice, clearly distinguishes between these two (or two somethings anyhow, whether this pair or another of the possibles in this mess I am not sure).

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:35 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one. Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads about structure. On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be nice.

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:39 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti If there's anything I need to understand in:

which appears to have mostly been written by xod, someone please explain it to me.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:39 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti I don't understand

terribly well, but I will attempt to abide by it. Please let me know if I'm confused.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:39 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti {le ka ce'u brod} is not "the property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda} but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so. The other is more nearly {le du'u ce'u broda} but is not quite that eitehr.

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 00:01 GMT

BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti > The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a > quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even have a definition in Chapter 11.

Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u is, but I am certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 1912

> Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the same Lambda > variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar and scatter the bound

I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e

> ce'u in the current bridi. You can also use ri and so on, or cy. In > the case of nested relative clauses, ce'u or ce'u xi pa is a normal,

That would be "nested abstractions"

> new ce'u variable, but ce'u xi re refers to the first ce'u in the > next outer-most relative clause, and so on for higher numbers. If there is > more than one, use another xi, so that ce'u xi re xi ci is the third > ce'u in the next outer-most relative clause.

"next outer-most abstraction"

> sruri le botpi cnebo fa lo pelji tcita noi lei valsi li'o prina ke'a > All around the bottle necks where paper labels, which the words ... were > printed on them.

That needs a {cu} before {prina}.

> a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination. To reject the > basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value that could make > that bridi true), use na'i or no da.

Rejecting the basis of a question is different from indicating that no value can make the bridi true. {no da} is an ordinary answer, {na'i} negates the presuppositions or implicatures involved in the question.

> !! Examples of zi'o Usage > > loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci > Living things are made of cells. > The existence of a maker that makes living things from cells is explicitely > denied.

The existence of a maker is neither denied nor asserted. It's just a relationship between something and its material.

> lo pinsi be zi'o na se sarcu lo vimcu > Pencils which mark on nothing do not require a remover. > Loosely: Broken pencils don't need erasers.

That's not what zi'o does. The {pinsi be zi'o} relationship is a relationship between a pencil and its structure, it says nothing about having or lacking marking power.

> lo nu morsi cu zi'o zasti > Death is non-existence. > Loosely translated. lo nu morsi goes in the second place of zasti.

This one is ungrammatical. If {lo nu morsi cu zasti zi'o} was meant, then it just says that death is real (under some metaphysics). {zi'o} just removes the place for the observer of reality. (It does not claim that no observer exists though, the claim simply does not involve observation.)

> !! Proposed Definition of zo'e > > ;zo'e (KOhA7): Unspecif it. zo'e is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the > place of a fully-specified sumti). .... > In particular, zo'e can represent sumti of any > complexity, including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and > combinations thereof.

I think the idea that {zo'e} represents another sumti is wrong. {zo'e} refers to some obvious or irrelevant value(s).

When I use "ta" to refer to a cat, "ta" does not represent "le mlatu", "ta" simply refers to the cat. "le mlatu" is another way to refer to the cat, and "zo'e" is yet another way to refer to the cat, if the conditions are such that the cat (the animal, not the words "le mlatu") is the obvious value. "zo'e" represents neither "ta" nor "le mlatu" nor any other of the innumerable sumti which we could use to refer to the cat in question. The reason "zo'e" won't work when "no da" or "zi'o" are meant is that these words don't point to any values, whereas "zo'e" does.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

As usual, corrections to which I agree removed.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:16:26AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the > > same Lambda variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar and > > scatter the bound > > I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e

No! Absolutely not! It's meant to bind two variables to the *same* ce'u; your example doesn't solve the problem.

> > a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination. To > > reject the basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no > > value that could make that bridi true), use na'i or no da. > > Rejecting the basis of a question is different from indicating that no > value can make the bridi true. {no da} is an ordinary answer, {na'i} > negates the presuppositions or implicatures involved in the question.

True. Pulled na'i out, added:

A more extreme rejection of the presuppositions or implicatures involved in a question is to reply with na'i.

> > !! Examples of zi'o Usage > > > > loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci Living things are made of > > cells. > > The existence of a maker that makes living things from cells is > > explicitely denied. > > The existence of a maker is neither denied nor asserted. It's just a > relationship between something and its material.

Point. I seem to have had some problems with zi'o.

> > lo pinsi be zi'o na se sarcu lo vimcu > > Pencils which mark on nothing do not require a remover. > > Loosely: Broken pencils don't need erasers. > > That's not what zi'o does. The {pinsi be zi'o} relationship is a > relationship between a pencil and its structure, it says nothing about > having or lacking marking power.

True. It includes the frame substance, though.

> > lo nu morsi cu zi'o zasti > > Death is non-existence. > > Loosely translated. lo nu morsi goes in the second place of > > zasti. > > This one is ungrammatical.

Gah. You're right.

Looking for a replacement example, I found:

mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u

• BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?

Replaced with lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do

> > !! Proposed Definition of zo'e > > > > ;zo'e (KOhA7): Unspecif it. zo'e is a pro-sumti (meaning it > > takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). > ... > > In particular, zo'e can represent sumti of any complexity, > > including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and > > combinations thereof. > > I think the idea that {zo'e} represents another sumti is wrong. > {zo'e} refers to some obvious or irrelevant value(s).

Point.

zo'e can represent a referant of any complexity. To fully specify the thing represented by zo'e may require very complex Lojban, including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and combinations thereof.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

> > > Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the > > > same Lambda variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar and > > > scatter the bound > > > > I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e > > No! Absolutely not! It's meant to bind two variables to the *same* > ce'u; your example doesn't solve the problem.

Then I have no idea what you mean by it. Why would you ever need to bind two variables to the same ce'u? Could you give an example?

> mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima > nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u > > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?

Probably {zi'e} was intended.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:43:13AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the > > > > same Lambda variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar > > > > and scatter the bound > > > > > > I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e > > > > No! Absolutely not! It's meant to bind two variables to the *same* > > ce'u; your example doesn't solve the problem. > > Then I have no idea what you mean by it. Why would you ever need to > bind two variables to the same ce'u? Could you give an example?

It's the only way to say "lamda(x) x loves x".

Each ce'u gives a new variable, you see.

lo ka ce'u prami ce'u — The property of something loving something, which may be a different thing.

lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property of something loving itself; only one variable.

> > mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima > > nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u > > > > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean? > > Probably {zi'e} was intended.

Oh, duh.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

> lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property of > something loving itself; only one variable.

Whyever not just:

lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a

> > > mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima > > > nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u > > > > > > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean? > > > > Probably {zi'e} was intended. > > Oh, duh.

Or even the old meaning of {zi'o}. Now that I remember, there used to be a whole series zi'a, zi'e, zi'i, zi'o, zi'u, one for each logical connector type.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:09:08PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property > > of something loving itself; only one variable. > > Whyever not just: > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a

That would be fine, sure. I honestly couldn't think of a use for three of the same variable, though, so I cheated.

> > > > mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino > > > > cmima nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u > > > > > > > > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean? > > > > > > Probably {zi'e} was intended. > > > > Oh, duh. > > Or even the old meaning of {zi'o}. Now that I remember, there used to > be a whole series zi'a, zi'e, zi'i, zi'o, zi'u, one for each logical > connector type.

It's not old enough.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

> > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property > > > of something loving itself; only one variable. > > > > Whyever not just: > > > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a > > That would be fine, sure. I honestly couldn't think of a use for three > of the same variable, though, so I cheated.

lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a broda ko'a ko'a ko'a ko'a

What does it matter how many times the variable appears?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The > > > > property of something loving itself; only one variable. > > > > > > Whyever not just: > > > > > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a > > > > That would be fine, sure. I honestly couldn't think of a use for > > three of the same variable, though, so I cheated. > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a broda ko'a ko'a ko'a ko'a > > What does it matter how many times the variable appears?

Duh.

Sorry; you're right, there's no reason to do what I did. Fixing.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:18 GMT posts: 2388

Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'" at least and better to "the property of being a broda," which is surely more direct and probably more accurate (any sumti can fit into the first place of a predicate in the grammatical sense — and we have not spelled out how to interpret "fit" in any other cases, though some are clear enough). Since it is not clear what that "broda" is, it is unclear what is being claimed by saying that it has a first place into which something can fit: the predicate does but what fits there is not a broda but only a sumti, it is arguable whether the property does or not, though it can be predicated of something with the desired result (although just what that is is controversial too), and the propositional function (better set out with {du'u} for obvious reasons) can take an argument very like a first place.

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:18 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something > that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property > of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'"

What, just adding the quotes? I can do that.

> at least and better to "the property of being a broda,"

I can't do that, because not all the keywords fit. "sazri", for example, would mean "the property of being an operate".

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:19 GMT posts: 2388

Well, adding quotes helps a bit but still doesn't get to what is going on here: properties are generally not linguistic artefacts, but real world ones. As for cleaning up the more accurate version, "the property of being/doing broda" or "the property of being one that broda."

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something > that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property > of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'"

What, just adding the quotes? I can do that.

> at least and better to "the property of being a broda,"

I can't do that, because not all the keywords fit. "sazri", for example, would mean "the property of being an operate".

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:19 GMT posts: 14214

Done.

-Robin

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:19:58AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, adding quotes helps a bit but still doesn't get to what is going > on here: properties are generally not linguistic artefacts, but real > world ones. As for cleaning up the more accurate version, "the > property of being/doing broda" or "the property of being one that > broda." > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something > > that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property > > of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'" > > What, just adding the quotes? I can do that. > > > at least and better to "the property of being a broda," > > I can't do that, because not all the keywords fit. "sazri", for > example, would mean "the property of being an operate". > > -Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 1912

I have already voted yes, but here are some more comments anyway.

> !! Proposed Definition of ma > > ;ma (KOhA7): Sumti question. ma is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the .... > requests that the listener provide a sumti as an answer. The sumti > response should fill the place where ma was in the original bridi in such > a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination.

That's assuming the listener can and wants to answer with the truth, which need not be the case. All we can really say is: "The sumti response fills the place where ma was in the original bridi and the resulting bridi is the answer offered to the question."

To reject the > basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value that could make > that bridi true), use no da.

I would eliminate "To reject the basis of a question (i.e.," from here. Answering {noda} doesn't seem to reject the basis of a question, it just says that no value applies.

> na'i. A bridi with more than one ma should be responded to with an > unconnected string of sumti.

I'd say "can be responded". You can always respond with a full bridi as well.

> ;zi'o (KOhA7): Nonexistent it.

I think "nonexistent it" is very misleading. "Nonexistent argument place" would be better.

> lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do > A name (regardless of whether some thing is actually being named or not) is > attending and attentive to you.

What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less attentive?

> zo'e can represent, or be replaced with, just about anything.

I think that can be misleading. Replacing it with something will usually change the sentence in some way, at least in the pragmatics. Replacing {zo'e} with anything else will normally make a sentece less vague.

> into a question. zo'e can represent a referant of any complexity. To > fully specify the thing represented by zo'e may require very complex > Lojban, including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and > combinations thereof.

The complexity of a referent has nothing to do with the complexity of the sumti used to refer to it. You can use a very simple sumti to refer to a very complex thing (for example {lo mutce pluja}, or you can use a very complex sumti, with lots of relative clauses and whatever else you want, to refer to a very simple thing. {zo'e} refers to things, and their complexity is not relevant. The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to refer to those same things is also not relevant. {zo'e} is not particularly linked to any other sumti, so saying that the same referents could be pointed at by more complex means doesn't say much. That is true for any sumti, not just for {zo'e}.

> ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the > place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i represents some value that is > typical for the bridi place it fills.

I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a better proposal for {zu'i}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:39:07AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > I have already voted yes, but here are some more comments anyway. > > > !! Proposed Definition of ma > > > > ;ma (KOhA7): Sumti question. ma is a pro-sumti (meaning > > it takes the > ... > > requests that the listener provide a sumti as an answer. The > > sumti response should fill the place where ma was in the > > original bridi in such a way as to have a true bridi result from > > the combination. > > That's assuming the listener can and wants to answer with the > truth, which need not be the case. All we can really say is: "The > sumti response fills the place where ma was in the original > bridi and the resulting bridi is the answer offered to the > question."

Done.

> To reject the > > basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value > > that could make that bridi true), use no da. > > I would eliminate "To reject the basis of a question (i.e.," from > here. Answering {noda} doesn't seem to reject the basis of a > question, it just says that no value applies.

Done.

> > na'i. A bridi with more than one ma should be responded > > to with an unconnected string of sumti. > > I'd say "can be responded". You can always respond with a full > bridi as well.

Done.

> > ;zi'o (KOhA7): Nonexistent it. > > I think "nonexistent it" is very misleading. "Nonexistent argument > place" would be better.

Done.

> > lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do A name (regardless of > > whether some thing is actually being named or not) is attending > > and attentive to you. > > What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less > attentive?

I have no idea; I was short on zi'o examples. Replaced.

> > zo'e can represent, or be replaced with, just about > > anything. > > I think that can be misleading. Replacing it with something will > usually change the sentence in some way, at least in the > pragmatics. Replacing {zo'e} with anything else will normally make > a sentece less vague.

Comma clause removed.

> > into a question. zo'e can represent a referant of any > > complexity. To fully specify the thing represented by zo'e > > may require very complex Lojban, including abstractions, > > relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and combinations thereof. > > The complexity of a referent has nothing to do with the complexity > of the sumti used to refer to it.

I thought I was clear on that point.

> {zo'e} refers to things, and their complexity is not relevant.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.

> The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to > refer to those same things is also not relevant.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.

Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these statements? They are intended for clarification.

> > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning > > it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i > > represents some value that is typical for the bridi place it > > fills. > > I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a > better proposal for {zu'i}.

Neither do I.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 1912

> > > lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do A name (regardless of > > > whether some thing is actually being named or not) is attending > > > and attentive to you. > > > > What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less > > attentive? > > I have no idea; I was short on zi'o examples. Replaced.

Later I thought it might mean that there's a name waiting for you, say when you are being born, the name is already there (but it is not yet {lo cmene be do} so zi'o is right), and it's paying attention to your arrival so as to cmene you as soon as it can.

> > The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to > > refer to those same things is also not relevant. > > Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless. > > Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these statements? > They are intended for clarification.

I don't understand what is it that they clarify. I think they detract from the definition, but I'm noy changing my vote because of them if that's what you mean by serious.

> > > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning > > > it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i > > > represents some value that is typical for the bridi place it > > > fills. > > > > I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a > > better proposal for {zu'i}. > > Neither do I.

I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as:

lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:00:50PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to > > > refer to those same things is also not relevant. > > > > Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless. > > > > Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these > > statements? They are intended for clarification. > > I don't understand what is it that they clarify. I think they > detract from the definition,

I don't ever again want to here anyone saying anything like "that's too complicated to fill an empty place!". I may be hallucinating that that's an issue, but that's the reason.

> but I'm not changing my vote because of them if that's what you > mean by serious.

OK.

> > > > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti > > > > (meaning it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). > > > > zu'i represents some value that is typical for the bridi > > > > place it fills. > > > > > > I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a > > > better proposal for {zu'i}. > > > > Neither do I. > > I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as: > > lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda > > le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda

I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi place there, really.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 1912

> > > > I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as: > > > > lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda > > > > le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda > > I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi place > there, really.

In both cases it's filling the x1 of broda. What is a 'bridi' for you? (Still, I'm not at all sure it works, because it is not clear how zu'i is supposed to work in subordinate bridi. Is it the typical thing that fills just the subordinate bridi, or the typical thing for the whole bridi?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:12:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as: > > > > > > lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda > > > > > > le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u > > > broda > > > > I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi > > place there, really. > > In both cases it's filling the x1 of broda.

Err, sorry.

> What is a 'bridi' for you? (Still, I'm not at all sure it works, > because it is not clear how zu'i is supposed to work in > subordinate bridi. Is it the typical thing that fills just the > subordinate bridi, or the typical thing for the whole bridi?

It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I think, but I don't really know. I think the most important thing about zu'i is that it's fuzzy.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 1912

> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:12:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Is it the typical thing that fills just the > > subordinate bridi, or the typical thing for the whole bridi? > > It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I think, > but I don't really know. I think the most important thing about > zu'i is that it's fuzzy.

It's never used anyway. If someone does use it, I will probably get it confused with one of those FAhA tangents that also start with "z".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:30 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I think, > but I don't really know. I think the most important thing about > zu'i is that it's fuzzy.

The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says "zu'i ki'e" you reply "Asshole."

-- LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan thou hast given away: [email protected] That thou wast born with. http://www.reutershealth.com

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:11:12PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I > > think, but I don't really know. I think the most important > > thing about zu'i is that it's fuzzy. > > The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says > "zu'i ki'e" you reply "Asshole."

• Huh*?

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 1912

> The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says "zu'i ki'e" > you reply "Asshole."

That's not a very polite "you're welcome".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:32 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says > > "zu'i ki'e" you reply "Asshole." > > *Huh*?

zo'e is the thing that the listener can figure out from context, so if he can't, he says "zo'e ki'e" and you drop him a clue. But if you use zu'i, you mean the typical, ordinary, normal thing that everyone would expect. So if you say "la elvis. mo'u cliva le dinju zu'i", and someone says "zu'i ki'e" you reply "le vorme doi malganxo"

-- What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan that they applaud me thus? http://www.reutershealth.com --Phocion, Greek orator http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:32 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> That's not a very polite "you're welcome".

Oops, yes. For ki'e read ki'a in both yesterday's posting and today's. (Cmavo space is overpacked.)

-- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested with blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall it capture. And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating shall it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity and most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein. --Gospel of Tux

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388

{zo'e} otiose "it" used to refer to something it is not necessary to mention in context. The unnecessity may be due to 1)the fact that what it is does not matter and will not turn up in the conversation or 2) it is obvious from the context what is intended. Except in place counting and some conventi0ons about abstracts, using {zo'e} is exactly the same as leaving the place blank. {zo'e} is preferred to {su'o da} because it is shorter and {su'o da} suggest that there will be further references to this thing, if it does not matter, but is improper if the referent is obvious (and so known).

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:12:17PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > {zo'e} otiose "it"

What?

> used to refer to something it is not necessary to mention in > context. The unnecessity may be due to 1)the fact that what it is > does not matter and will not turn up in the conversation or 2) it > is obvious from the context what is intended. Except in place > counting and some conventi0ons about abstracts, using {zo'e} is > exactly the same as leaving the place blank. {zo'e} is preferred > to {su'o da} because it is shorter and {su'o da} suggest that > there will be further references to this thing, if it does not > matter, but is improper if the referent is obvious (and so known).

zo'e is *NOT* su'o da as long as da is a singular variable. Furthermore, da cannot be an abstraction.

Other than that, is there something in the above that you feel I left out of my definition?

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:12:17PM -0700, John > E Clifford wrote: > > > > {zo'e} otiose "it" > > What? > > > used to refer to something it is not > necessary to mention in > > context. The unnecessity may be due to 1)the > fact that what it is > > does not matter and will not turn up in the > conversation or 2) it > > is obvious from the context what is intended. > Except in place > > counting and some conventi0ons about > abstracts, using {zo'e} is > > exactly the same as leaving the place blank. > {zo'e} is preferred > > to {su'o da} because it is shorter and {su'o > da} suggest that > > there will be further references to this > thing, if it does not > > matter, but is improper if the referent is > obvious (and so known). > > zo'e is *NOT* su'o da as long as da is a > singular variable. > Furthermore, da cannot be an abstraction. > > Other than that, is there something in the > above that you feel I > left out of my definition?

I was shooting for brevity and missed. The reasons why {zo'e} is not {su'o da}are, as noted, pragmatic, not semantic (semantically they mean the same). Why can't {da} be an sbstraction? It seems it could take any first order term and all Lojban terms are first order. And what does singular have to do with it (or anything, come to that)? What would be different about a plural variable that would make it OK in an unused place but that is not available to singular variables?

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > And what does singular have to do with it (or anything, come to > that)? What would be different about a plural variable that would > make it OK in an unused place but that is not available to > singular variables?

If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:41 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.

To my mind that counts as a counterargument for the eliminative definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is just as much an object as pa broda, at least when properly quantified. Trying to minimize the ontology, as is fashionable in modern logics, is Not The Lojban Way.

-- So that's the tune they play on John Cowan their fascist banjos, is it? [email protected] --Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 11:58:52PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda. > > To my mind that counts as a counterargument for the eliminative > definition of loi broda.

Actually, this is about the definition of "da", not the definition of "loi broda".

> To me loi broda is just as much an object as pa broda, at least > when properly quantified.

Of course!

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 1912

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda. > > To my mind that counts as a counterargument for the eliminative > definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is just as much an object > as pa broda, at least when properly quantified. Trying to minimize > the ontology, as is fashionable in modern logics, is Not The Lojban Way.

I tend to agree. Unless anyone opposes, I will be redefining {loi [PA] broda} as {lo gunma be lo [PA] broda}. The x2 of gunma is non-distributive. This would mean that {loi} (and correspondingly {lu'o} and {joi}) are for reified collectives, whereas {lo} can still be used for non-reified non-distributive plural.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0700, John > E Clifford wrote: > > And what does singular have to do with it (or > anything, come to > > that)? What would be different about a plural > variable that would > > make it OK in an unused place but that is not > available to > > singular variables? > > If da is a singular variable then it can't be > loi broda. > Actually, it can and always has been able to. Technically this is because groups /masses /whatever are single entities in Lojban as previously understood — rather like sets.

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > If da is a singular variable then it can't be > loi broda. > > To my mind that counts as a counterargument for > the eliminative > definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is > just as much an object > as pa broda, at least when properly quantified. > Trying to minimize > the ontology, as is fashionable in modern > logics, is Not The Lojban Way. > Yes, Lojban's (following Loglan's) idea of metaphysical neutrality is to bring all possibilities (more or less) in on a par (although their grammars cut off several major possibilities — vortex and buddhist — from full equal status). On the other hand, taking a group as a unit does mean that predicates mean something slightly different when applied to groups (and sets), namely not "this is broda" but "the members of this are broda" and so on. The metaphysics of groups is also — 8unlike sets -- not well developed, while that for plurality is rather better done (but even McKay allows for some groups that do behave as units, so they may be uneliminable in the end).

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > > > If da is a singular variable then it can't > be loi broda. > > > > To my mind that counts as a counterargument > for the eliminative > > definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is > just as much an object > > as pa broda, at least when properly > quantified. Trying to minimize > > the ontology, as is fashionable in modern > logics, is Not The Lojban Way. > > I tend to agree. Unless anyone opposes, I will > be redefining > {loi [PA] broda} as {lo gunma be lo [PA] > broda}. The x2 of > gunma is non-distributive. This would mean that > {loi} (and > correspondingly {lu'o} and {joi}) are for > reified collectives, > whereas {lo} can still be used for non-reified > non-distributive > plural. > Oops! I have you down for maintaining that {lo} was distributive; did I miss something? As noted earlier, the only real objection to reified groups is that their rules are not well worked out relative to plurals — and the variation in predicate meaning they seem to involve. Interestingly, the kinds of reified groups that McKay allows seem to be those semipermanent groups with changing members that get names: General Motors, that old gang of mine, the St. Louis Cardinals and so on.

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Oops! I have you down for maintaining that {lo} > was distributive; did I miss something?

The way we're defining it, {lo} is not marked either way for distributivity. Outer quantifiers are always distributive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388

Umm, what does "outer quantifiers are always distributive" mean? Distribution is a feature of predicate argument places. Do you mean that the sortal predicate place in which an outer quantifer variable goes is always distributive? That is clearly not right ("All those surrounding the building wore green hats"). That it is individual rather than plural quantification? That the variablke range over individuals rather than something else? This last is something we all agree on (I think), regardless of whether we think in terms of singular or of plural quantification. The previous point is the status quo though I think some cracks are appearing in that position.

That {lo} is not marked either way for disttributivity is a sort of taultoology right now, since, without conventions, no sumti is marked for distributivity (indeed, right now, nothing is marked for distributivity — or rather for the lack of it — since all Lojban apreicates are distributive until some changes are made, none of which have been broached that I have seen and all of which require some modification in semantics, if not in grammar). To be sure, I have suggested that {loi} be marked as treating the place it fills as collective unless explicitly rejected; then {lo} could be neutral but then would default — when there was a choice -- to distributive (by elimination). None of this is in place however, so you can't quite say that it is that way, only that you envision it as developing that way — and maybe as a first step in that development.

wrote:

> > pc: > > Oops! I have you down for maintaining that > {lo} > > was distributive; did I miss something? > > The way we're defining it, {lo} is not marked > either way for > distributivity. Outer quantifiers are always > distributive. >

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Umm, what does "outer quantifiers are always > distributive" mean?

That they count the individuals that satisfy a given predication each by themself. So, for example:

ci lo bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li panono Exactly three of the beads on the table weigh 100 grams.

That says that for exactly three beads on the table, it can be said, of each individually, that it weighs 100 grams. It does not say that three beads together weigh 100 grams. That would be:

lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li panono Three beads on the table weigh 100 grams.

> Distribution is a feature of > predicate argument places.

Many predicate argument places allow both distributive and non-distributive readings.

> Do you mean that the > sortal predicate place in which an outer > quantifer variable goes is always distributive? > That is clearly not right ("All those surrounding > the building wore green hats").

ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino mapku Each of those surrounding the building wore a green hat.

> That it is > individual rather than plural quantification?

Yes, that's what I mean.

PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti

where {da} is an individual variable.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > pc: > > Umm, what does "outer quantifiers are always > > distributive" mean? > > That they count the individuals that satisfy a > given predication > each by themself. So, for example: > > ci lo bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li > panono > Exactly three of the beads on the table weigh > 100 grams. > > That says that for exactly three beads on the > table, it can be said, > of each individually, that it weighs 100 grams. > It does not say that > three beads together weigh 100 grams. That > would be: > > lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li > panono > Three beads on the table weigh 100 grams. I would read this last as saying first that there are exactly three beads on the table and then that each of them (because I take "distributive" as the default) weighs 100 grams. That is, I take the internal quantifier as being the cardinal of the things described in the surrounding description (I think this is traditional Lojban)not as a more indefinite expression. For the collective weight, I would say {loi ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li panono} — or {ci loi} depending upon whether it was three out of (perhaps) larger number or the three was all the beads on the table. This is not official, but neither is your (rather strange) suggestion. As I say, let's get this worked out.

> > Distribution is a feature of > > predicate argument places. > > Many predicate argument places allow both > distributive and > non-distributive readings.

Yes, and that is why we need a way of marking which is intended. I would do it first with the difference between {lo} and {loi} etc., which is built into Lojban, and then with some sort of marker for cases where a differnt approach is required. And also lexically for the predicates with a unique distriibutivity (probably rather few). This nicely allows me to talk about some members of a larger totality in the way that Lojban has always done — without thereby committing myself to distributivity — I think ten of the people surrounding the building can wear green hats as well as all can. > > > Do you mean that the > > sortal predicate place in which an outer > > quantifer variable goes is always > distributive? > > That is clearly not right ("All those > surrounding > > the building wore green hats"). > > ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino > mapku > Each of those surrounding the building wore a > green hat.

But then there is nothing satisfying the sortal, since no individual surrounds the building — or are you covertly shifting to "is involved in surrpounding the building"? I don't see what is wrong with the usual Lojban {lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino mapku}. But then, as noted, conventions are needed now, so this may turn out to be decided to be wrong. > > > That it is > > individual rather than plural quantification? > > > Yes, that's what I mean. > > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti > > where {da} is an individual variable. > So, {lo broda} is a set or a group or some such thing and we have to unpack all the predicates in separate ways to interpret them. I'm not sure I like that now that I see there is an alternative well worked out. {me}, of course, as Lesniewski's jest', deals indifferently with all of these cases and the intensional ones as well, and probably identity, too, when sumti has a unique referent. Whether it works in conjunction with the other definitions is not perfectly clear, but I'll assume it does (not that that helps any, given the deplorable state of the other definitions).

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:15:23AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > > And what does singular have to do with it (or anything, come > > > to that)? What would be different about a plural variable that > > > would make it OK in an unused place but that is not available > > > to singular variables? > > > > If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda. > > Actually, it can and always has been able to. Technically this is > because groups /masses /whatever are single entities in Lojban as > previously understood — rather like sets.

Ah. This would be me misunderstanding what xorxes meant by "singular variable", then. Nothing to see here, move along.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > > lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li > > panono > > Three beads on the table weigh 100 grams. > I would read this last as saying first that there > are exactly three beads on the table and then > that each of them (because I take "distributive" > as the default) weighs 100 grams.

That's how I would read {ro lo ci bidju ...}.

> I think > ten of the people surrounding the building can > wear green hats as well as all can.

Yes:

pano lo prenu poi sruri le dinju cu dasni lo crino mapku

> > ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino > > mapku > > Each of those surrounding the building wore a > > green hat. > > But then there is nothing satisfying the sortal, > since no individual surrounds the building — or > are you covertly shifting to "is involved in > surrpounding the building"?

No, no shifting. {lo sruri} is a plural constant, and {ro} is a singular quantifier over the referents: {ro da poi ke'a me lo sruri ...}

> I don't see what is > wrong with the usual Lojban {lo sruri be le dinju > cu dasni lo crino mapku}.

I don't see a thing wrong with that either. The {ro} can be added to guarantee a distributive reading, but {lo sruri} by itself is neither distributive nor non-distributive. Perhaps calling it "usual Lojban" is exaggerated though, because CLL would have it mean {su'o lo sruri ...}.

> > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti > > > > where {da} is an individual variable. > > > So, {lo broda} is a set or a group or some such > thing and we have to unpack all the predicates in > separate ways to interpret them.

{lo broda} is any number of things that broda, usually not a set nor a reified group.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 2388

wrote: pc xorxes > > > ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino > > > mapku > > > Each of those surrounding the building > wore a > > > green hat. > > > > But then there is nothing satisfying the > sortal, > > since no individual surrounds the building -- > or > > are you covertly shifting to "is involved in > > surrpounding the building"? > > No, no shifting. {lo sruri} is a plural > constant, and > {ro} is a singular quantifier over the > referents: > {ro da poi ke'a me lo sruri ...}

Well, {lo sruri} is not a constant if it means anything at all like lojban {lo sruri} (I do feel we are back to xorban again), since Lojban likes to be able to deal with cses where the members of a groups (or whatever) do not act in perfect concert. If {lo sruri} is a plural anything then, since it can play term roles with {da}, {da} must be a plural variable. But I suppose that you mean plural in the sense McKay wants to avoid, namely getting a bunch together in some single item (this still doesn't quite work right because of the Lojban rules about how these singulars enter preication). The role of {ro} also shifts here, parallelling that of predicates generally — that is it goes for members (not, as in Lojban, for subgroups). And, of course, there is the problem of distributivity, which is either unmarked or is in {ro}, neither a veryfruitful way of doing it (though each can be made to work with a little fiddling — none of which I have seen yet). > > > I don't see what is > > wrong with the usual Lojban {lo sruri be le > dinju > > cu dasni lo crino mapku}. > > I don't see a thing wrong with that either. The > {ro} can > be added to guarantee a distributive reading, > but {lo sruri} > by itself is neither distributive nor > non-distributive. > Perhaps calling it "usual Lojban" is > exaggerated though, > because CLL would have it mean {su'o lo sruri > ...}.

Well, here we have adopted something from you -- or someone — to the effect that the usual quantifier on {lo} is {ro}, now that the internal default is not {ro}.

> > > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti > > > > > > where {da} is an individual variable. > > > > > So, {lo broda} is a set or a group or some > such > > thing and we have to unpack all the > predicates in > > separate ways to interpret them. > > {lo broda} is any number of things that broda, > usually > not a set nor a reified group.

You really do have to decide whether there are plural (and primarily plural incidentally) variables or not. You can't even claim that something is a plural constant without those variables. And once you have them they are either everywhere or most things have to be done twice because the singular variables behave almsot exactly like the plural — grammatically.

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

Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 152

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:56:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > It's never used anyway. If someone does use it, I will probably > get it confused with one of those FAhA tangents that also start > with "z".

Here's how I think of zu'i:

mi broda zo'e = mi broda lo se broda mi broda zu'i = mi broda le se broda -- Rob Speer

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

Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 152

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:47:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > I would read this last as saying first that there > > are exactly three beads on the table and then > > that each of them (because I take "distributive" > > as the default) weighs 100 grams. > > That's how I would read {ro lo ci bidju ...}.

Wait, you would? "ro lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme" necessitates for you that there are exactly three beads on the table?

I thought that was a relic of CLL lo that we were getting away from, and that the way to say that would be "lo roci bidju ..." -- Rob Speer

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 1912

> Here's how I think of zu'i: > > mi broda zo'e = mi broda lo se broda > mi broda zu'i = mi broda le se broda

That's an interesting idea. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with typicality, but that's a good thing. So how would it work?

do punji le tanxe ma Where did you put the box?

mi dunda zu'i la djan I gave *it* to John.

as opposed to:

mi dunda zo'e la djan mi dunda fi la djan I gave to John.

In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the box, but {zu'i} emphasizes that what I gave to John is something that I have in mind. Is that right?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 1912

> Wait, you would? "ro lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme" necessitates for you > that > there are exactly three beads on the table? > > I thought that was a relic of CLL lo that we were getting away from, and that > the way to say that would be "lo roci bidju ..."

You are absolutely right, my mistake. {ro lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme} is "each of three beads on the table", and {ro lo roci bidju poi cpana le jubme} is "each of all three beads on the table".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- Rob Speer wrote: > > Here's how I think of zu'i: > > > > mi broda zo'e = mi broda lo se broda > > mi broda zu'i = mi broda le se broda > > That's an interesting idea. It doesn't seem to > have anything > to do with typicality, but that's a good thing. > So how would > it work? > > do punji le tanxe ma > Where did you put the box? > > mi dunda zu'i la djan > I gave *it* to John. > > as opposed to: > > mi dunda zo'e la djan > mi dunda fi la djan > I gave to John. > > In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the > box,

Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to anything (does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan} refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no need to specify what fills this place, but saying that cleatly does not say what is filling this place.

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:01 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > > do punji le tanxe ma > > Where did you put the box? > > > > mi dunda zo'e la djan > > mi dunda fi la djan > > I gave to John. > > > > In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the > > box, > > Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to anything > (does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan} > refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no need > to specify what fills this place, but saying that > cleatly does not say what is filling this place.

I'm not sure if you are opposing that {mi dunda zo'e la djan} can mean that I gave it to John, or just the way of explaining it.

If the former, then we simply understand zo'e differently, because as I understand it Lojban does allow you to use zo'e when the value meant is obvious from context (as in this case), to make a claim about that and just that value.

If the latter, then I don't think it matters how we think of it: either {zo'e} refers to the obvious value for the context (in this case the box), or it indicates that the claim being made is about the obvious value. In other words, if I didn't give the box to John, {mi dunda fi la djan} is as false in this context as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan} even if I did give John something else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:01 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > pc: > > > do punji le tanxe ma > > > Where did you put the box? > > > > > > mi dunda zo'e la djan > > > mi dunda fi la djan > > > I gave to John. > > > > > > In this last one, zo'e can still refer to > the > > > box, > > > > Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to > anything > > (does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan} > > refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no > need > > to specify what fills this place, but saying > that > > cleatly does not say what is filling this > place. > > I'm not sure if you are opposing that {mi dunda > zo'e la djan} > can mean that I gave it to John, or just the > way of > explaining it. > > If the former, then we simply understand zo'e > differently, > because as I understand it Lojban does allow > you to use zo'e > when the value meant is obvious from context > (as in this case), > to make a claim about that and just that value. > > > If the latter, then I don't think it matters > how we think > of it: either {zo'e} refers to the obvious > value for the > context (in this case the box), or it indicates > that the > claim being made is about the obvious value. In > other words, > if I didn't give the box to John, {mi dunda fi > la djan} > is as false in this context as {mi dunda le > tanxe la djan} > even if I did give John something else. > The last remark is an interesting point, but I am not sure it is right. I did not *say* that I gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to John." Based on a variety of pragmatic factors, you *understood* that it the box I gave. If it was something else (not otherwise dealt with in the context), you can accuse me of a number of pragmatic failures, of being misleading in general, but not of saying something false. {zo'e} belong to that strange set of place pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not exist now") that fill places explcitly for a variety of purposes — getting the place count to work out, guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that place, scansion, and so on — but none of them is to refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no need to mention someone here" and so is semantically equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't refer. Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two suggested expansions of {zo'e}. The pragmatic understanding has here to be separated from the semantic claim (cf. the fight about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing -- ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of course.)

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:01 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > The last remark is an interesting point, but I > am not sure it is right. I did not *say* that I > gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to > John."

We do understand {zo'e} differently, then. In English, you can't drop the "it" to say "I gave it to John". In Lojban, you can say {mi pu dunda zo'e la djan} or {mi pu dunda fi la djan} to mean the same thing, i.e. that I gave *it* (i.e. the obvious thing) to John.

> Based on a variety of pragmatic factors, > you *understood* that it the box I gave. If it > was something else (not otherwise dealt with in > the context), you can accuse me of a number of > pragmatic failures, of being misleading in > general, but not of saying something false.

I'm not talking about accusations of saying something false. You could also use {le tanxe} to refer to something other than the box and then claim you were not saying something false. All I'm saying is that {mi dunda fi la djan}, in that context, and when there are no misunderstandings, is true iff I gave the box to John, not if I gave something else to John. Just as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}.

If there are misunderstandings, such as the participants disagreeing about what the referents of {zo'e}, {le tanxe}, {la djan}, (even {mi} maybe) are, then that's a different matter.

Pragmatic failures aside, I find that {zo'e} has a referent just like {le tanxe} does.

> {zo'e} belong to that strange set of place > pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not exist > now") that fill places explcitly for a variety of > purposes — getting the place count to work out, > guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that place, > scansion, and so on — but none of them is to > refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no need > to mention someone here" and so is semantically > equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't refer. > Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you > know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two > suggested expansions of {zo'e}.

Well, if zo'e, like zi'o, reduces the number of places of {dunda} by one, then that's another valid way of seeing it. But in that case, what the reduced relationship is will be context dependent. {dunda be zo'e} in the given context means "x1 gives-the-box-we're-talking-about to x2". Then the claim is that that two-place relationship holds of (mi, la djan). I don't have a problem with that view. The claim will not be satisfied by my giving something else to John, that would require a different relationship.

> The pragmatic understanding has here to be > separated from the semantic claim (cf. the fight > about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing -- > ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of course.)

I can see it either way, {zo'e} has a context dependent referent, like {ta}, or {zo'e} changes the relationship to a different one, like {zi'o}. The effect is the same as far as I can tell.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > pc: > > The last remark is an interesting point, > but I > > am not sure it is right. I did not *say* > that I > > gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to > > John." > > We do understand {zo'e} differently, then. > In English, you can't drop the "it" to say > "I gave it to John". In Lojban, you can > say {mi pu dunda zo'e la djan} or > {mi pu dunda fi la djan} to mean the same > thing, i.e. that I gave *it* (i.e. the obvious > thing) to John. > > > Based on a variety of pragmatic factors, > > you *understood* that it the box I gave. If > it > > was something else (not otherwise dealt with > in > > the context), you can accuse me of a number > of > > pragmatic failures, of being misleading in > > general, but not of saying something false. > > I'm not talking about accusations of saying > something > false. You could also use {le tanxe} to refer > to > something other than the box and then claim you > were > not saying something false. All I'm saying is > that > {mi dunda fi la djan}, in that context, and > when there > are no misunderstandings, is true iff I gave > the box > to John, not if I gave something else to John. > Just > as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}. > > If there are misunderstandings, such as the > participants > disagreeing about what the referents of {zo'e}, > {le tanxe}, > {la djan}, (even {mi} maybe) are, then that's a > different > matter. > > Pragmatic failures aside, I find that {zo'e} > has a referent > just like {le tanxe} does. > > > {zo'e} belong to that strange set of place > > pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not > exist > > now") that fill places explcitly for a > variety of > > purposes — getting the place count to work > out, > > guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that > place, > > scansion, and so on — but none of them is to > > refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no > need > > to mention someone here" and so is > semantically > > equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't > refer. > > Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you > > know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two > > suggested expansions of {zo'e}. > > Well, if zo'e, like zi'o, reduces the number > of places of {dunda} by one, then that's > another > valid way of seeing it. But in that case, what > the reduced relationship is will be context > dependent. > {dunda be zo'e} in the given context means > "x1 gives-the-box-we're-talking-about to x2". > Then the claim > is that that two-place relationship holds of > (mi, la djan). > I don't have a problem with that view. The > claim will > not be satisfied by my giving something else to > John, > that would require a different relationship.

I don't think that {zo'e} works like {zi'o}, that is change the relationship. But I also don't think that {zo'e} refers to anything; it is saying in effect "I won't bother saying what" -- though why I don't leave it blank at that point I am not sure (well, it isn't a real case so there isn't a real reason, but there are a variety of possibilities). Did the person saying {mi dunda fi la djan} when he gave something other than the box to John in a context where the box is the expected donation say something false. I would say "No," provided he did give something; it might not even be irrelevant or misleading. John is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a solicitor for an Islamic charity. The government maintains that the charity is a front and also knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So I get quizzed and, because I know that giving to the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on with it I say that I gave to John, thinking that they are on the usual charity dragnet, not knowing about the box. There is a pragmatic failure here, but it is not even the speaker's -- or not entirely — the two conversants are merely on different pages and have not yet consolidated. But I certainly did not say anything false -- nor did I refer to whatever it was I did give.

> > The pragmatic understanding has here to be > > separated from the semantic claim (cf. the > fight > > about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing -- > > ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of > course.) > > I can see it either way, {zo'e} has a context > dependent > referent, like {ta}, or {zo'e} changes the > relationship > to a different one, like {zi'o}. The effect is > the same > as far as I can tell. > Of course there is also the problem that {zo'e} doesn't mean "the obvious thing," it also means "it doesn't matter what" — which is not a referring expression (either — but that is the point of contention). "there's no need to mention anything" seems to be the most natural meaning for {zo'e} that covers both. It falls short of {zi'o} which runs to "there is no need to even consider this place" (or even "there is a need not to consider this place"), but goes a bit further than {su'o da} along that path (pragmatic restrictions again: {su'o da} is illegitmate if you know what it is, and, if not, it expects that you will say something more about it sometime, whereas the point of {zo'e} is exactly that you won't).

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Did the person saying {mi dunda > fi la djan} when he gave something other than the > box to John in a context where the box is the > expected donation say something false.

Yes. I remind you of the context: Person A asks {do punji le tanxe ma} "where did you put the box?" Person B responds {mi dunda fi la djan}, i.e. "I gave (it) to John".

> I would > say "No," provided he did give something; it > might not even be irrelevant or misleading.

In this case, it would be.

> John > is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a > solicitor for an Islamic charity. The government > maintains that the charity is a front and also > knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So I > get quizzed and, because I know that giving to > the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on > with it I say that I gave to John, thinking that > they are on the usual charity dragnet, not > knowing about the box.

Totally different context.

> "there's no need to > mention anything" seems to be the most natural > meaning for {zo'e} that covers both.

There is no need to mention it because we are both perfectly clear on what we are discussing. The relationship {dunda} is claimed to hold among three things: myself, the box and John.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > pc: > > Did the person saying {mi dunda > > fi la djan} when he gave something other than > the > > box to John in a context where the box is the > > expected donation say something false. > > Yes. I remind you of the context: Person A asks > {do punji le tanxe ma} "where did you put the > box?" > Person B responds {mi dunda fi la djan}, i.e. > "I gave (it) to John". > > > I would > > say "No," provided he did give something; it > > might not even be irrelevant or misleading. > > In this case, it would be. > > > John > > is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a > > solicitor for an Islamic charity. The > government > > maintains that the charity is a front and > also > > knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So > I > > get quizzed and, because I know that giving > to > > the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on > > with it I say that I gave to John, thinking > that > > they are on the usual charity dragnet, not > > knowing about the box. > > Totally different context.

Not obviously; just filling in more details. > > > "there's no need to > > mention anything" seems to be the most > natural > > meaning for {zo'e} that covers both. > > There is no need to mention it because we are > both > perfectly clear on what we are discussing. The > relationship {dunda} is claimed to hold among > three > things: myself, the box and John.

Yes, we are clear — well, you are anyway — but that doesn't mean the speaker of {mi dunda fi la djan} verbally made a reference to the box and so asserted that the relation holds. Pragmatics ain't s.emantics