Talk:BPFK Section: Subordinators

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 01:41 GMT posts: 14214 This will probably come as no surprise, but in most cases I drew one example from the CLL, one from Alice, and one or more from IRC, because that's what was convenient for me at the time.

Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice.

I find this bizarre enough to be worth pointing out.

-Robin

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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 02:17 GMT posts: 1912

> Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice. > I find this bizarre enough to be worth pointing out. > > -Robin

It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e.

Many of the examples given would seem better with {be} rather than {po} or {po'e}.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 02:18 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice. I find this bizarre enough > > to be worth pointing out. > > > > -Robin > > It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e.

Ever*? Why?

> Many of the examples given would seem better with {be} rather than > {po} or {po'e}.

Probably.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 02:21 GMT posts: 1912

> (which means it sometimes must be terminated with ku'o, the > NOI selma'o terminator, or vau, the general bridi terminator, > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer bridi).

I'm not sure {vau} has to be mentioned here, as it is not a safe relative clause terminator like {ku'o}. For example {noi ge broda gi brode} is not terminated with {vau}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 1912


> On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e. > > *Ever*? Why?

I don't really get the {po} distinction, and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:25:25PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e. > > > > *Ever*? Why? > > I don't really get the {po} distinction,

poi se steci srana

You don't get the distinction between what and what?

> and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}.

True, although interestingly not with pruxi.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by JohnCowan on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 149 Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> I don't really get the {po} distinction, and {po'e} is almost always > better as {be}.

What is pe ti may also be pe ta, but what is po ti cannot be po ta. That's why it's srana (many-to-many) vs. steci (many-to-one).

-- "Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan could understand this report. Run out cowan@ccil.org and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it." http://www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 08:12 GMT On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, John Cowan wrote:

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, and {po'e} is almost always > > better as {be}. > > What is pe ti may also be pe ta, but what is po ti cannot be po ta. > That's why it's srana (many-to-many) vs. steci (many-to-one).

I'm not sure I entirely buy that argument. It feels like there's a place missing, like a teki'i place, for the relationship. Otherwise the same object could be {le zdani po mi} because I, uniquely, own it, and also {le zdani po le patfu be mi}, because he, uniquely, built it. The other problem is whether there is any (common) place where {pe} would apply but {po} wouldn't. Surely not the cup in front of me, because no one else is in that same relationship to the cup (having it in front of them at this time and place). Actually, about the only case I can think of where {pe} would apply but {po} wouldn't, by that standard, would be shared legal ownership. The house can't be {po mi} and {po le speni be mi} (or {po le banxa pe mi}) at the same time. So then we'd have legal ownership being a place where {pe} applies and {po} doesn't, and the cup I'm drinking from right now being either. Somehow that seems really backwards from what's intended. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:21:41PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > > (which means it sometimes must be terminated with ku'o, the NOI > > selma'o terminator, or vau, the general bridi terminator, > > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer > > bridi). > > I'm not sure {vau} has to be mentioned here, as it is not a safe > relative clause terminator like {ku'o}. For example {noi ge broda gi > brode} is not terminated with {vau}.

There are cases (nested cases) where ku'o won't quite work either.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912


> > > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, > > poi se steci srana > > You don't get the distinction between what and what?

{pe} and {po}

> > and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}. > > True, although interestingly not with pruxi.

Interestingly, Google gives three hits for {pruxi be}.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT Adam D. Lopresto scripsit:

> I'm not sure I entirely buy that argument. It feels like there's a place > missing, like a teki'i place, for the relationship. Otherwise the same object > could be {le zdani po mi} because I, uniquely, own it, and also {le zdani po > le patfu be mi}, because he, uniquely, built it.

Quite right, and I should have specified that the relationship has to be a constant one, and furthermore must be glorked from context.

> there is any (common) place where {pe} would apply but {po} wouldn't.

Again, if you allow the relationship to be flexible enough, you're quite right. When pe and po are used contrastively, the speaker must figure out which relationships are being referred to.

(ObTangential: "le mi broda" means "le broda pe mi", and all previous statements of mine that it meant "le broda po mi" are inoperative.)

> The house can't be {po mi} and {po > le speni be mi} (or {po le banxa pe mi}) at the same time.

In fact it can: this situation is called "joint tenancy", or in certain situations "tenancy by the entirety." Either joint tenant can exercise the full rights of legal ownership, and if they do conflicting things, the situation deadlocks.

-- It was impossible to inveigle John Cowan Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Into offering the slightest apology http://www.reutershealth.com For his Phenomenology. --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953)


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 07:10:20AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, > > > > poi se steci srana > > > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? > > {pe} and {po}

se steci srana versus srana.

I suppose it's just a matter of emphasis.

> > > and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}. > > > > True, although interestingly not with pruxi. > > Interestingly, Google gives three hits for {pruxi be}.

Heh. Go usage.

-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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 2388

I think it llikely that anything that can be inalienably possessed is and so that predicates for such things should have a place for the possessor. And such possession would then be {be} (or {be fV}). the only problem with this is that what can be inalienably possessed is a cultural matter, so that some would add things to our list and other take some away. So, we do need a tag for inalienable possession of things we don't think can be so possessed — but it can be really big — of in CVV'VV or so.

On the other hand, the difference between full ownership and occasional (even if frequent and for long periods of time) use is a crucial one in most cultures, and certainly in ours. Even if possession is nine points of the law, the other points carry considerable weight. I would suggesting reassinging the inalienable possession marker to legal ownership. The clear cases are now sorted out and the muddy ones left to {pe}.

By the way, how does Lojban say a childs second word (after "No" — come to think of it, how exactly is that said in a refusal of an order or rejection of a claim), "mine" (also a seagull's only word).


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:46:02AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > By the way, how does Lojban say a childs second word (after "No" -- > come to think of it, how exactly is that said in a refusal of an order > or rejection of a claim), "mine" (also a seagull's only word).

"No" in the two-year-old sense is ".ie nai" or ".ai nai". "Mine" is probably ".au" or "ponse".

-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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912


> > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? > > > > {pe} and {po} > > se steci srana versus srana. > > I suppose it's just a matter of emphasis.

da pe ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and perhaps to other things as well)

da po ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and to nothing else)

Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is such a wide relationship.

pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi lo ka ke'a srana ce'u cu steci ko'a po'e ko'a = poi lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu jinzi ko'a

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912


> "No" in the two-year-old sense is ".ie nai" or ".ai nai".

Or plain {nai}, I suppose.

> "Mine" is > probably ".au" or "ponse".

Or {me mi moi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 2388 Well, it is hard to figurte out what a chikd (or a seagull) means exactly, but apparently the "mine!" is not just desire (in fact can exist without desire in any obvious sense) but really is possessiveness. So I suppose I prefer {me mi moi} for intent but with ongoing worries about this use of {moi}, nice as it is, and residual ones about {me}, and seriuos doubts whether the second word can be this complex, even if it is learned as a unit. Later in life, {memimoi} is nice for calling or "dibs" (or just {mimoi}). For the first word I like {nai} best, because it is a word and because I am not sure that the child is up to distinguishing between a claim and a command at this point. They are both impositions on his world view. Jorge Llambías wrote:

> "No" in the two-year-old sense is ".ie nai" or ".ai nai".

Or plain {nai}, I suppose.

> "Mine" is > probably ".au" or "ponse".

Or {me mi moi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:06:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? > > > > > > {pe} and {po} > > > > se steci srana versus srana. > > > > I suppose it's just a matter of emphasis. > > da pe ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and perhaps to other > things as well) > > da po ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and to nothing else)

Ignoring the fuzziness of tanru, I suppose.

> Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > such a wide relationship.

Ownership is the intended use.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912


> On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:06:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > such a wide relationship. > > Ownership is the intended use.

Then why not say so?

pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi ko'a ponse ke'a

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:00:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:06:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > > such a wide relationship. > > > > Ownership is the intended use. > > Then why not say so? > > pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ponse ke'a

Becaus there are other reasonable uses. In a monogamous context, le se prami po mi, but I wouldn't want to use ponse!

-Robin


Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:34 GMT > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > such a wide relationship. > > Ownership is the intended use.

I guess I can see two different meanings, and neither quite works.

{ko'a po ko'e} means either 1) that ko'a has a relationship with ko'e that nothing else has (but isn't that the case even in much weaker associations--no one else has that cup in front of them at the moment), or 2) that ko'a has a relationship with ko'e, and nothing else in the world has any relationship with ko'e. I challenge you to find any example where that is correct.

As mentioned earlier, typical legal ownership isn't necessarily exclusive anyway, since property can be co-owned. It's possible that in that case it's not {po}, but then what is?

It seems that in actual use, the distinguishing factor isn't exclusivity at all, but rather permanence. A {pe} relationship is transient--it's my cup because I happen to be closest to it, but by the next sentence things could be absolutely different. A {po} relationship, like ownership, is the sort of thing that doesn't change without notice, but instead lasts a bit longer, until some explicit action breaks the association. {le gerku po mi} is "my dog" in the sense that he will be mine until I do something like give him away (even if the rest of my family could make the claim that he's as much theirs as mine). When looked at from that angle, {po'e} follows naturally as the inalienable association, the one that can't ever be broken no matter what. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

"Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what they say if they had."

-- Linus Torvalds


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:34 GMT Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> > Ownership is the intended use. > > Then why not say so? > > pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a > po ko'a = poi ko'a ponse ke'a

Ownership is an *intended use case*. That's not the same thing.

-- At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs John Cowan abruptly vanished. The theory that a single jcowan@reutershealth.com catastrophic event may have been responsible www.reutershealth.com has been strengthened by the recent discovery of www.ccil.org/~cowan a worldwide layer of whipped cream marking the Creosote-Tutelary boundary. --Science Made Stupid


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:34 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > > such a wide relationship. > > > > Ownership is the intended use. > > I guess I can see two different meanings, and neither quite works. > > {ko'a po ko'e} means either

How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's relationship to ko'a along that axis"?

> It seems that in actual use, the distinguishing factor isn't exclusivity at > all, but rather permanence.

That's a good point, and one I would have no problem enshrining.

-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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 20:34 GMT posts: 1912


> On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > {ko'a po ko'e} means either > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship to > ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's relationship to > ko'a along that axis"?

It might be better to use {da po ko'e} here.

{ko'a po ko'e} does not say ko'a is in a relationship with ko'e. It rather selects, from the referents of ko'a, that one or those that are in a relationship with ko'e.

So something like:

pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a semau na'ebo ko'a

> > It seems that in actual use, the distinguishing factor isn't exclusivity at > > all, but rather permanence. > > That's a good point, and one I would have no problem enshrining.

That would give something like:

pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi ke'a ze'u srana ko'a po'e ko'a = poi ke'a ze'e srana ko'a

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 21:01 GMT posts: 14214 Holy christ on a crutch.

The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two examples in all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that apparently no-one but xorxes noticed that:

{ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e}

means something completely different from

{ko'a po da .e ko'e}

Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", but the second is "da's ko'a and ko'e".

eek

-Robin

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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:01:04PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > means something completely different from > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e}

To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much and, much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In fact, I can't think of a situation off the top of me head when "ku" wouldn't act as a terminator for these things.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 1912

> {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > means something completely different from > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e",

Yes.

> but the second is "da's > ko'a and ko'e".

I would have said it was (da and ko'e)'s ko'a. Your reading had not occured to me.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 1912


> > means something completely different from > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much and, > much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In fact, I > can't think of a situation off the top of me head when "ku" wouldn't act > as a terminator for these things.

In that example, {ku} can't be used. There's no gadri to terminate.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:08:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > > > means something completely different from > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > > > Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", > > Yes. > > > but the second is "da's ko'a and ko'e". > > I would have said it was (da and ko'e)'s ko'a. Your reading had not > occured to me.

For {ko'a po da .e ko'e}?

Oh, you're right, I'm very sorry.

ko'a specifically associated with both da and ko'e.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:10:43PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > means something completely different from > > > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much > > and, much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In > > fact, I can't think of a situation off the top of me head when "ku" > > wouldn't act as a terminator for these things. > > In that example, {ku} can't be used. There's no gadri to terminate.

Wow. {ku} apparently doesn't do what I thought it did. You are correct.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:04:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:01:04PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > wrote: > > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > > > means something completely different from > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much and, > much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing.

In some cases.

Finally found a case where ge'u (or ku) was wanted and not used:

va'o le tcadu pe la stenxnas .e le tcadu pe mi

This was almost without question intended to be

"The city of stenxnas, and the city of me"

but instead means something that makes very little sense and is almost impossible to translate into English:

"The city that is associated with both stenxnas and also with my city".

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:21:01PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:04:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:01:04PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > > wrote: > > > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > > > > > means something completely different from > > > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much > > and, much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. > > In some cases. > > Finally found a case where ge'u (or ku) was wanted and not used: > > va'o le tcadu pe la stenxnas .e le tcadu pe mi

Another one, this left as an exercise to the reader:

pilno le vlaturge'a pe la guaspis .e le lojbo gerna .ui

Those seem to be the only two in the corpus I'm using.

This means that there are as many cases in that corpus where ge'u was used as where it was not used and needed. Heh.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > > {ko'a po ko'e} means either > > > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship > > to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's > > relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > > It might be better to use {da po ko'e} here. > > {ko'a po ko'e} does not say ko'a is in a relationship with ko'e. It > rather selects, from the referents of ko'a, that one or those that are > in a relationship with ko'e. > > So something like: > > pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a

That does seem quite a bit better, except for the lack of a "pertains to in aspect X" place, which seems wanted.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:37 GMT posts: 14214 Two things:

1. I'm done, as far as I know.

2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd.

-Robin

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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:58 GMT posts: 1912


> > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship > > > to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's > > > relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > > > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > That does seem quite a bit better, except for the lack of a "pertains to > in aspect X" place, which seems wanted.

po ko'a = poi ke'a xi pa srana ko'a noi ke'a xi re zmadu ro na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a xi pa srana ce'u kei zo'e

which is quite incomprehensible.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:58 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:37:48PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > 1. I'm done, as far as I know.

Except that I forgot that I hadn't yet read PC's treatment (which, by the way, is orphaned: It's not linked from anywhere. Perhaps, PC, you'd like to link it from your user page or the jboske page). Reading it has led to a noi clarification, and may lead to others.

-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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug., 2004 22:59 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:38:44PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship > > > > to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's > > > > relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > > > That does seem quite a bit better, except for the lack of a "pertains to > > in aspect X" place, which seems wanted. > > po ko'a = poi ke'a xi pa srana ko'a noi ke'a xi re zmadu ro na'e bo ko'a > lo ka ke'a xi pa srana ce'u kei zo'e > > which is quite incomprehensible.

What about:

po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a gi'e zmadu na'e bo ko'a

or

po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a te mau zo'e

?

I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place itself.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 14214 Given:

voi, one way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi pe'a broda cu brodi

voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi skicu lo ka ke'a broda cu brodi

And the note:

The pe'a in the voi formula can better be replaced with je'u cu'i in some cases and da'i in others, but I think pe'a is the most common.

I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more complicated.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912

> 2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd.

I tend to prefer lerfu-gadri to the assignable series.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:55:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > 2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd. > > I tend to prefer lerfu-gadri to the assignable series.

Me too, except when I want something to hold its value for a long time without having to notice that the sumti I just used conflicts.

Not such a problem with {.a bu}, though.

-Robin


Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912


> What about: > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a gi'e zmadu na'e bo ko'a >

Except it's ko'a, not ke'a, which zmadu na'e bo ko'a, so:

po ko'a = poi ko'a se srana ke'a gi'e zmadu na'e bo ko'a

or:

po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u

> or > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a te mau zo'e > > ?

That's not really right though, because the {se mau} does not really attach to ko'a.

> I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > itself.

Probably to make it different from {ckini}.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny amount > of usage substantially better, and is more complicated.

How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"?

-- But that, he realized, was a foolish John Cowan thought; as no one knew better than he jcowan@reutershealth.com that the Wall had no other side. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388 Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? Hopefully it was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, and that it forms a separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it is embedded (and {poi} is part of the term it ends and is unaffected by logical operations at all). Do I still have a user's page? I don't use it and have no idea where it is or where my {noi} comments are at this point. BTW {voi} is hard — the speaker knows who the referent is and so is telling us in a btw way what he is calling it, but the hearer may need the information to find the right thing, which is usually an accessible broda or something very like a broda (the {pe'a} is basically wrong here, since it is usually literal or so close as to make no nevermind: the Juno case {le ninmu cu nanmu} is getting toward the outer bounds of what is allowed and surely is not figurative in the context. For parallelism with {poi} and {lo}, I'd call it restrictive, a part of the NP.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:37:48PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > 1. I'm done, as far as I know.

Except that I forgot that I hadn't yet read PC's treatment (which, by the way, is orphaned: It's not linked from anywhere. Perhaps, PC, you'd like to link it from your user page or the jboske page). Reading it has led to a noi clarification, and may lead to others.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912


> I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny amount > of usage substantially better, and is more complicated.

I would prefer: {voi broda} = {noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda} that way my definiton of {le} could be much simpler :-)

But that would be the only reason. I don't think I have ever actually used {voi}, so I don't really have a strong preference.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:11:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? > Hopefully it was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, > and that it forms a separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it > is embedded (and {poi} is part of the term it ends and is unaffected > by logical operations at all). Do I still have a user's page? I don't > use it and have no idea where it is or where my {noi} comments are at > this point.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//Relative+Clauses+and+Phrases

If you don't use your user page, link from the jboske page.

There's a variety of search options, you know. Your user page is:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//John+Clifford

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388 It seems to me that both the "greater importance" criterion and the "more enduring one" distinguish nicely legal ownership from use (and from the incidental mine of partners at a dinner party or the cup next to me and so on). {ponse} seems to come down on the legal side, but has been used, I think, for merely used (apartments — not condominia — for example, usually from reading "have").


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny > > amount of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"?

Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:14:54PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny > > amount of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. > > I would prefer: {voi broda} = {noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda} > that way my definiton of {le} could be much simpler :-)

Can't give you noi, sorry.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu > > > is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the > > > tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more > > > complicated. > > > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? > > Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid > that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option.

I take it back; I forgot that voi was poi, not noi. Or something.

I'm going with this one, unless someone has a good reason why not.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > itself. > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}.

Why not use ckini then?

po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 1912

pc > Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? Hopefully it > was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, and that it forms a > separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it is embedded

To what level of embedding? Does the noi-clause escape a du'u in which it is embedded? With {la djan djuno lo du'u ta noi bruna mi cu klama}, am I claiming that John knows that ta is my brother?

If I say:

lo nu ta noi bruna mi cu broda cu rinka ko'a

I think we don't want the {ta bruna} clause to be conjugate with {ta broda}.

>(and {poi} is > part of the term it ends and is unaffected by logical operations at all).

Well, it affects logical operations in way, since it restricts the set of values over which the quantifier runs.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388 Well, it's sorta circular — {le} is a sort of {voi} and {voi} one of {le}. Somewhere it should be said what one or the other is independently. How about (the reasonably accurate) {poi sa'enai broda}?

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu > > > is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the > > > tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more > > > complicated. > > > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? > > Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid > that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option.

I take it back; I forgot that voi was poi, not noi. Or something.

I'm going with this one, unless someone has a good reason why not.

-Robin



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388 Why must ko'a be the most thoroughly related? Both my wife and I have joint accounts and hers is mine as much as mine is — both are legally mine and one is mine also for use. Which is {po}?

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > itself. > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}.

Why not use ckini then?

po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a

-Robin



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388 A> Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that requires the explicit parentheses. On the other hand, it does seem it should pop out of {nu} (Way by the wayside: why are abstractions predicates rather than terms, as they are in most familiar languages — and in most logical systems I have been messing with?). All things considered, I think that popping out of all abstractions is probably the better way.

B> Well yes, but then, so does the {poi} clause. Perhaps I should have said (as I think I did) that logical operations don't affect it.

Jorge Llambías wrote:

pc > Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? Hopefully it > was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, and that it forms a > separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it is embedded

A>To what level of embedding? Does the noi-clause escape a du'u in which it is embedded? With {la djan djuno lo du'u ta noi bruna mi cu klama}, am I claiming that John knows that ta is my brother?

If I say:

lo nu ta noi bruna mi cu broda cu rinka ko'a

I think we don't want the {ta bruna} clause to be conjugate with {ta broda}.

>(and {poi} is > part of the term it ends and is unaffected by logical operations at all).

B>Well, it affects logical operations in way, since it restricts the set of values over which the quantifier runs.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 16:03 GMT John E Clifford scripsit:

> Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that > requires the explicit parentheses.

No, I don't think I believe that.

le du'u le ro kanba noi blabi cu citka lo tinci lante cu jitfa The claim that all goats (which are white) eat tin cans is false.

still claims incidentally that all goats are white.

> (Way by the wayside: why are abstractions > predicates rather than terms, as they are in most familiar languages -- > and in most logical systems I have been messing with?).

When the abstraction predicate is one-place, the difference is notational, and the ability to add a second place is very useful.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law! — one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 17:03 GMT posts: 2388 How so (on both points)?

John Cowan wrote:John E Clifford scripsit:

> Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that > requires the explicit parentheses.

No, I don't think I believe that.

le du'u le ro kanba noi blabi cu citka lo tinci lante cu jitfa The claim that all goats (which are white) eat tin cans is false.

still claims incidentally that all goats are white.

> (Way by the wayside: why are abstractions > predicates rather than terms, as they are in most familiar languages -- > and in most logical systems I have been messing with?).

When the abstraction predicate is one-place, the difference is notational, and the ability to add a second place is very useful.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law! -- one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 18:44 GMT posts: 14214 I don't understand your objection. Sounds like le janta po mi .e le mi speni

-Robin

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:06:36AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Why must ko'a be the most thoroughly related? Both my wife and I have > joint accounts and hers is mine as much as mine is — both are legally > mine and one is mine also for use. Which is {po}? > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > > itself. > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > Why not use ckini then? > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > -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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 20:27 GMT posts: 2388 The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? Robin Lee Powell wrote: I don't understand your objection. Sounds like le janta po mi .e le mi speni

-Robin

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:06:36AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Why must ko'a be the most thoroughly related? Both my wife and I have > joint accounts and hers is mine as much as mine is — both are legally > mine and one is mine also for use. Which is {po}? > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > > itself. > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > Why not use ckini then? > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > -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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 Ooh, that's lovely. Thanks.

-Robin

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:02:42AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, it's sorta circular — {le} is a sort of {voi} and {voi} one of > {le}. Somewhere it should be said what one or the other is > independently. How about (the reasonably accurate) {poi sa'enai > broda}? > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu > > > > is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the > > > > tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more > > > > complicated. > > > > > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? > > > > Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid > > that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option. > > I take it back; I forgot that voi was poi, not noi. Or something. > > I'm going with this one, unless someone has a good reason why not. > > -Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 11:57:28AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > John E Clifford scripsit: > > > Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that > > requires the explicit parentheses. > > No, I don't think I believe that. > > le du'u le ro kanba noi blabi cu citka lo tinci lante cu jitfa > > The claim that all goats (which are white) eat tin cans is > false. > > still claims incidentally that all goats are white.

That's my current ruling, yes.

-Robin


Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply?

{pe}. Or poi ponse.

-Robin -


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 23:58 GMT posts: 2388 But {pe} is a looser bond to me that {po} whereas legal ownership is a tighter bond than than use. {poi ponse}, i.e., {poi mi ponse ke'a}? As noted, this has been used frequently (I think) for "have" with whatever range of possibilities that might cover, surely not restricted to legal (in spite of the oblique places) or even use.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply?

{pe}. Or poi ponse.

-Robin -


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Sat 21 of Aug., 2004 21:51 GMT posts: 14214 Just so everybody knows, all the wrinkles have, so far as I know, been ironed out. I picked a skicu-based form of "noi".

Please vote now, or explain any further issues you see.

-Robin

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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Thu 26 of Aug., 2004 20:27 GMT posts: 1912

Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible places:

PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1

rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Then the without loss of generality, we can just consider:

PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1

PA1: outer quantifier PA2: inner quantifier rel1: outer relative clause rel2: inner relative clause

Now, there are just two rules to follow.

Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi

poi acts before PA because poi restricts the domain over which the quantifier will act. noi acts after PA because it gives additional info about just those referents counted by the quantifier.

Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears.

For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears.

When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following the above rules.

When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA at the same level, again there is no problem, as the noi simply acts on all referents before the poi restriction.

However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now we have conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA has to act before noi, and (because of their order) noi has to act before poi. Unless we want to say that order does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and poi always acts before noi. If so, some things will sound counter-intuitive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Thu 26 of Aug., 2004 20:58 GMT posts: 1912

True conversion formulas for goi:

goi ko'a | noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a ko'a goi sumti | sumti vu'o noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

Those work for normal uses of goi, where one and just one of the sumti involved is an unassigned assignable variable. (Although co'a is not strictly what is wanted. Something like "from this point in the text" would be more accurate.)

With that, every relative clause can be reduced to noi or poi:

ne, no'u, goi -> noi pe, po, po'e, po'u, voi -> poi

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 27 of Aug., 2004 21:01 GMT posts: 14214 OK, dealing with *just* the conversion formula, taken as a whole.

We'll hash them out here before I modify them on the page again.

noi sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode sumti cu brode to da poi nei cu broda toi poi + ro quantified sumti sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ga nai broda gi brode poi, all other cases sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ge broda gi brode voi voi clause poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause ne ne sumti noi ke'a srana sumti pe pe sumti poi ke'a srana sumti no'u no'u sumti noi ke'a du sumti po'u po'u sumti poi ke'a du sumti po po sumti poi sumti cu traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a po'e po'e sumti poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana sumti vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn geks that encode cn s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o relative gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative zi'e + noi sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + poi sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 goi, ko'a unassigned ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned ko'a goi ko'e ko'a du ko'e goi, both assigned ko'a goi ko'e zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a

Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first, but so what? Combos with zi'e are not well defined, as before.

Much props to John for noi and vu'o help.

xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned goi; what did you mean exactly?

-Robin

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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Fri 03 of Sep., 2004 16:01 GMT posts: 1912

ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be:

| sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

{noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 14214 Oh FFS.

poi mi ponse ke'a lo flalu

Better still, le janta po mi .e le mi speni is the usage sense, and le janta po mi is the legal sense. Glork from context.

-Robin

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:25:23PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > But {pe} is a looser bond to me that {po} whereas legal ownership is a > tighter bond than than use. {poi ponse}, i.e., {poi mi ponse ke'a}? > As noted, this has been used frequently (I think) for "have" with > whatever range of possibilities that might cover, surely not > restricted to legal (in spite of the oblique places) or even use. > > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? > > {pe}. Or poi ponse. > > -Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 2388 Other way round

Robin Lee Powell wrote:Oh FFS.

poi mi ponse ke'a lo flalu

Better still, le janta po mi .e le mi speni is the usage sense, and le janta po mi is the legal sense. Glork from context.

-Robin

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:25:23PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > But {pe} is a looser bond to me that {po} whereas legal ownership is a > tighter bond than than use. {poi ponse}, i.e., {poi mi ponse ke'a}? > As noted, this has been used frequently (I think) for "have" with > whatever range of possibilities that might cover, surely not > restricted to legal (in spite of the oblique places) or even use. > > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? > > {pe}. Or poi ponse. > > -Robin



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > > itself. > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > Why not use ckini then? > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a

I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual usage and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the CLL, except in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana).

Any objections to this change?

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:38:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a > > > > place itself. > > > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > > > Why not use ckini then? > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual usage > and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the CLL, except > in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). > > Any objections to this change?

xorxes and I discussed it a bit more, and this is better:

ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:38:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a > > > > > place itself. > > > > > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > > > > > Why not use ckini then? > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > > > I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual usage > > and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the CLL, except > > in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). > > > > Any objections to this change? > > xorxes and I discussed it a bit more, and this is better: > > ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a

Is that substantially different from { ko'a traji lo ka ce'u ke'a ckini }? I guess the main difference is the x4 of traji. I'm not sure how to get the scale or set of na'e, so maybe the zmadu idea is better.

If you're not using the x3 of ckini, is there a difference between using it here and srana? -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

"Words fascinate me. They always have. For me, browsing in a dictionary is like being turned loose in a bank."

--Eddie Cantor


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:14:29AM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:38:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > > > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a > > > > > > place itself. > > > > > > > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > > > > > > > Why not use ckini then? > > > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > > > > > I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual > > > usage and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the > > > CLL, except in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). > > > > > > Any objections to this change? > > > > xorxes and I discussed it a bit more, and this is better: > > > > ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a > > Is that substantially different from { ko'a traji lo ka ce'u ke'a > ckini }?

..u'u I forgot about traji.

> I guess the main difference is the x4 of traji. I'm not sure how to > get the scale or set of na'e, so maybe the zmadu idea is better.

The scale is of "lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a", not "na'e" and friends. So all you'd have to do is rank everything in the universe in order of relationship importants to ko'a.  :-)

> If you're not using the x3 of ckini, is there a difference between > using it here and srana?

Yes: The fact that the place exists.

The point is that there is *some* relationship for which ko'a is traji, but it can be a different relationship for each ko'a. Building fuzziness back in. This is largely in response to PC's joint account problem.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:16 GMT On Monday 16 August 2004 17:01, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > Holy christ on a crutch. > > The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two examples in > all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that apparently no-one > but xorxes noticed that:

http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjoiropno_bangu has several {ge'u} in a paragraph with no selbri. I had to look it up, though; I tried terminating them with {ku'o} and got a syntax error.

phma -- li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 12:15:18AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday 16 August 2004 17:01, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > Holy christ on a crutch. > > > > The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two > > examples in all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that > > apparently no-one but xorxes noticed that: > > http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjoiropno_bangu has several {ge'u} in > a paragraph with no selbri. I had to look it up, though; I tried > terminating them with {ku'o} and got a syntax error.

Ah, OK. Thanks. Not a very good source for usage cases, unfortunately.

That's a pretty intense page, dude.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:28 GMT posts: 14214 Perhaps now you understand why I said that this was outside the scope of the definitions?

-Robin

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:27:03PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible > places: > > PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Then the without > loss of generality, we can just consider: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > PA1: outer quantifier > PA2: inner quantifier > rel1: outer relative clause > rel2: inner relative clause > > Now, there are just two rules to follow. > > Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. > Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi > > poi acts before PA because poi restricts the domain over > which the quantifier will act. > noi acts after PA because it gives additional info about > just those referents counted by the quantifier. > > Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about > the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 > of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. > > For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, > i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. > rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, > and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy > the bridi in which the sumti appears. > > When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that > order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following > the above rules. > > When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA > at the same level, again there is no problem, as the noi > simply acts on all referents before the poi restriction. > > However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there > is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now > we have conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA > has to act before noi, and (because of their order) noi > has to act before poi. Unless we want to say that order > does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and poi always > acts before noi. If so, some things will sound counter-intuitive. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >

-- 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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:28 GMT posts: 1912


> Perhaps now you understand why I said that this was outside the > scope of the definitions?

No, why? The concise definitions I gave you cover all this and they are shorter than the ones you have. It is not that complicated once you see how it all fits together rather nicely.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 14214 Phew. OK, following along, CLL in hand. OK, on screen, but still.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:27:03PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible > places: > > PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1

> rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition.

Agreed.

> Then the without loss of generality,

Why is it that that phrase always frightens me?

Heh. How to say it in Lojban?  :-)

> we can just consider: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1

Not for definitional purposes, but for exploratory purposes, correct.

> PA1: outer quantifier > > PA2: inner quantifier > > rel1: outer relative clause > > rel2: inner relative clause

Acceptable.

> Now, there are just two rules to follow. > > Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. > > Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi

snip

> For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, > i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. > rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, > and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy > the bridi in which the sumti appears.

Running through all the CLL examples:

re le mu prenu poi ninmu cu klama le zarci

poi acts before mu, so inside we have "5 (people who are women)". So, "2 out of the 5 women go to the market". CLL agrees.

re le mu prenu ku poi ninmu cu klama le zarci

Inner gives us "5 persons". Outer, poi first, gives us "who are women, take two of them". "2 women out of the five persons go to the market". CLL agrees.

> Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about > the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 > of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears.

CLL examples, quantifiers added back in:

su'o lo ro prenu ku noi blabi cu klama le zarci

Inner first means were talking about all humans. "At least one of all humanis, which is white, goes to the market."

su'o lo ro prenu noi blabi ku cu klama le zarci

Inner first, so all humans are white. Not so good.  :-)

CLL agrees.

> When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that order > (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following the > above rules. > > When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA at the > same level, again there is no problem, as the noi simply acts on > all referents before the poi restriction. > > However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is a > PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now we have > conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA has to act before > noi, and (because of their order) noi has to act before poi. > Unless we want to say that order does not matter in zi'e connected > clauses, and poi always acts before noi. If so, some things will > sound counter-intuitive.

I'd rather just leave it ill-defined, but I'm not much attached to either solution.

You should just about get a medal for this write up.

You did, however, skip the part on "la".

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:58:55PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > True conversion formulas for goi: > > goi ko'a | noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > ko'a goi sumti | sumti vu'o noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > Those work for normal uses of goi, where one and just one of the > sumti involved is an unassigned assignable variable. (Although > co'a is not strictly what is wanted. Something like "from this > point in the text" would be more accurate.)

Done, slightly differently.

The vu'o has to be removed, or immediate and fatal recursion occurs.

However, I've just thought of a very sneaky trick:

tu'e sumti tu'u .i la'e di'u noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

And for vu'o:

[connected sumti] vu'o [relative] [stuff]

= tu'e [connected sumti] tu'u .i la'e di'u [relative] [stuff]

Any problems here?

Also, please take a look at the two oddball cases for goi. It may be best just to drop those from the formula section.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:33 GMT posts: 2388


> Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > Consider a description sumti with relative > clauses in all possible > places: > > PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. > Then the without > loss of generality, we can just consider: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > PA1: outer quantifier > PA2: inner quantifier > rel1: outer relative clause > rel2: inner relative clause > > Now, there are just two rules to follow. > > Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer > level. > Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - > PA - noi > > poi acts before PA because poi restricts the > domain over > which the quantifier will act. > noi acts after PA because it gives additional > info about > just those referents counted by the quantifier. > > > Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional > info about > the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 > about the PA1 > of those that satisfy the bridi in which the > sumti appears. > > For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain > which PA2 counts, > i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE > selbri rel2 ku}. > rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy > the clause, > and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set > satisfy > the bridi in which the sumti appears. > > When the relative clause includes a poi and a > noi, in that > order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no > problem in following > the above rules. > > When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and > there is no PA > at the same level, again there is no problem, > as the noi > simply acts on all referents before the poi > restriction. > > However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi > ...} and there > is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, > because now > we have conflicting rules: poi has to act > before PA, PA > has to act before noi, and (because of their > order) noi > has to act before poi. Unless we want to say > that order > does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and > poi always > acts before noi. If so, some things will sound > counter-intuitive. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes >

Just to see if I get it.

PA da broda Qx: xF (nothing is said here about whether x is singular or plural or whether Qx has some internal structure.)

PA da poi broda cu brode Qx: xF xG (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the complement of Q – insert table here)

PA da noi broda cu brode Qx: xG & xF (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on).

L broda cu brode Ex: xF xG (nothing is said here about the possibility that claims with {L broda} may be different from those about {da}, in particular that quantifiers may have different internal structures, if any.) (this is strictly for {lo/loi}; for {le/lei} and {la/lai}, “F” is replaced by a suitably modified expression that mentions “F” and the quantifier is outside the range of the sentence.)

L broda poi brode cu brodi Ex: xF & xG xH

L broda noi brode cu brodi Ex: xF xH & xG

L PA broda cu brode Qx: xF xG (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA)

L PA broda poi brode cu brodi Qx: xF & xG xH

L PA broda noi brode cu brodi Qx: xF xH & xG

L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi Qx: xFEy: yG & yAx Hy (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but it means that whatever y stands for is something that x also stands for)

L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi Qx: xF xH & xG (this one looks suspect, since it is the same as one above, but it seems to follow from the rules)

PA L broda cu brode Ex: xFQy: yAx yG

PA L broda poi brode cu brodi Ex: xF & xGQy: yAx xH

PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi Ex: xFQy: yAx & yG yH

PA L broda noi brode cu brodi Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & xG

PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & yG



Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:34 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > Just to see if I get it. > > PA da broda > Qx: xF > (nothing is said here about whether x is singular > or plural or whether Qx has some internal > structure.)

The way I unerstand it, {da} is a singular variable, and outer quantifiers are always distributive. I'm not sure what you mean by internal structure. The referents of da are any thing that counts as a (single) thing in the given context.

I am not completely opposed in principle to making da a plural variable, but I don't see that change at this point as an advantage. We often do want singular variables (we could of course say {da poi pamei} every time we wanted one, but that may be too wordy for such a frequent use). Since we can handle plurality by other means, I'm just not persuaded we need to follow McKay's program all the way.

> PA da poi broda cu brode > Qx: xF xG > (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the > complement of Q – insert table here)

That looks like the dual rather than the complement, but this might be a matter of terminology. For me, the complement of PA is da'aPA, so for example {ro} and {no} are complementary, as are {su'o} and {me'i}. {ro} is the dual of {su'o}, and {no} the dual of {me'i}.

> PA da noi broda cu brode > Qx: xG & xF > (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on).

I can't really say I understand the logic of the bracket operator. In this case it should expand to:

Qx: xG & [Ax: xG] xF

> L broda cu brode > Ex: xF xG

That would be correct for {su'o broda cu brode}. If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant.

> L broda poi brode cu brodi > Ex: xF & xG xH

That would be {su'o broda poi brode cu brodi}

> L broda noi brode cu brodi > Ex: xF xH & xG

su'o broda noi brode cu brodi [Ex: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG

> L PA broda cu brode > Qx: xF xG > (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA)

That one would be: aG & aQ (where Q is the predicate PAmei)

> L PA broda poi brode cu brodi > Qx: xF & xG xH

That's {PA broda poi brode cu brodi}, without L.

> L PA broda noi brode cu brodi > Qx: xF xH & xG

PA broda noi brode cu brodi [Qx: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG

> L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi > Qx: xFEy: yG & yAx Hy > (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but it > means that whatever y stands for is something > that x also stands for) > > L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi > Qx: xF xH & xG > (this one looks suspect, since it is the same as > one above, but it seems to follow from the rules)

When there is no outer quantifier, inner/outer makes no difference for noi, that's right. This is because noi acts after the quantifier.

Conversely, when there is no inner quantifier, inner/outer makes no difference for poi, which acts before the quantifier.

> PA L broda cu brode > Ex: xFQy: yAx yG

[Qx: xAa] xG

> PA L broda poi brode cu brodi > Ex: xF & xGQy: yAx xH

Also: [Qx: xAa] xG

> PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi > Ex: xFQy: yAx & yG yH

[Qx: xAa & xG] xH

> PA L broda noi brode cu brodi > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & xG

[Qx: xAa] xH & aG

> PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & yG

[Qx: xAa] xH & [Ax: xAa & xH] xG

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:35 GMT posts: 1912

> We'll hash them out here before I modify them on the page again. > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode to da poi nei > cu broda toi

I won't complain about it.

> poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ga > nai broda gi brode > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ge broda gi > brode

"all other cases" is not right. {me'i} for example (which is {naku ro}) follows the ro pattern. {so'e} won't work either, saying that most things that broda are brode is not the same as saying that most things are broda&brode. {so'e} follows neither pattern.

What we want is:

[PA] sumti poi broda = [PA] lo ge me sumti gi broda

which is not grammatical.

We can either use {gu'e}/{je} and define {gu'e}/{je} the way one would expect, or use poi'i:

[PA] sumti poi broda = [PA] lo poi'i ce'u ge me sumti gi broda

> voi | voi clause| poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause

Instead of clause: {voi ke'a broda}, {ka ce'u broda}

> vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn geks that encode > cn | s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o relative | gek-cn ... > gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi s2 relative gi ... gi sn > relative

That only works for distributive relative clauses. It won't work for example for {ko'a ku'a ko'e vu'o noi ko'i cmima ke'a}.

> xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned goi; what did > you mean exactly?

zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau (not a conversion formula.)

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:53:00PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | > > sumti ga nai broda gi brode > > > > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti > > ge broda gi brode > > "all other cases" is not right. {me'i} for example (which is {naku > ro}) follows the ro pattern. {so'e} won't work either, saying that > most things that broda are brode is not the same as saying that > most things are broda&brode. {so'e} follows neither pattern.

Grrrrr. (not at you)

> What we want is: > > [PA] sumti poi broda = [PA] lo ge me sumti gi broda > > which is not grammatical.

nod

Think we could pull any tricks with sei ... se'u?

> We can either use {gu'e}/{je} and define {gu'e}/{je} the way one > would expect,

How are they defined now?

> > voi | voi clause| poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause > > Instead of clause: {voi ke'a broda}, {ka ce'u broda}

OK.

> > vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn > > geks that encode cn | s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o > > relative | gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi > > s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative > > That only works for distributive relative clauses. It won't work > for example for {ko'a ku'a ko'e vu'o noi ko'i cmima ke'a}.

Other ideas?

> > xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned > > goi; what did you mean exactly? > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau > (not a conversion formula.)

What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes it a conversion formula, doesn't it?

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:36 GMT posts: 1912


> || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode to da poi nei > cu broda toi

Actually, I will complain about this one.

{da} is a singular variable, so it won't always hold the required values in the right way. But if the to-toi business doesn't bother you, then I suggest:

sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri broda toi


> poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ga > nai broda gi brode > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ge broda gi > brode

After checking CLL, I see that it does say that {broda je brode} = {broda gi'e brode} when it is not modifying something else, so {poi} is actually easy:

[PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda

> zi'e + noi | sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 | > sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > zi'e + poi | sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 | > sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > > Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first, but so what? > Combos with zi'e are not well defined, as before.

Once we have working definitions for noi and poi, mixed zi'e combos are easy:

[PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to rixire brode toi

(assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, otherwise fix the subscript)

sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode | lo me sumti to ri broda toi je brode

PA sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode | undefined

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode > > to da poi nei cu broda toi > > Actually, I will complain about this one.

I'm going to fucking kill you.  :-)

> {da} is a singular variable, so it won't always hold the required > values in the right way. But if the to-toi business doesn't bother > you, then I suggest: > > sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri broda toi

Excellent.

> > poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | > > sumti ga nai broda gi brode > > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti > > ge broda gi brode > > After checking CLL, I see that it does say that {broda je brode} = > {broda gi'e brode} when it is not modifying something else, so > {poi} is actually easy: > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda

But recursive, I'm pretty sure. I don't have time to check now.

Note that this doesn't work if sumti is ko'a.

Assuming it is recursive, it'll get seperated out with a note that poi is really irreducible, but this is how it works.

I'll go over your zi'e stuff later.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:37 GMT posts: 1912


> > > vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn > > > geks that encode cn | s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o > > > relative | gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi > > > s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative > > > > That only works for distributive relative clauses. It won't work > > for example for {ko'a ku'a ko'e vu'o noi ko'i cmima ke'a}. > > Other ideas?

Maybe:

sumti vu'o relative-clauses | lo me sumti me'u ku relative-clauses

> > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau > > (not a conversion formula.) > > What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes it a > conversion formula, doesn't it?

That could work. In that case make sure the selbri is last: {sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa}

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:37 GMT posts: 1912


> > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > But recursive, I'm pretty sure. I don't have time to check now.

All right, but at least you can get everything in terms of {da poi}, which is easier than {sumti poi}.

> Note that this doesn't work if sumti is ko'a.

Why not?

PA ko'a poi broda = PA lo me ko'a je broda

what's the problem?

> Assuming it is recursive, it'll get seperated out with a note that > poi is really irreducible, but this is how it works.

You can say that the irreducible part is {PA da poi broda}, which is actually reducible but not with the same general formula for all PA.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:37 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> > pc: > > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > > > Just to see if I get it.

Apparently I don't.

> > PA da broda > > Qx: xF > > (nothing is said here about whether x is > singular > > or plural or whether Qx has some internal > > structure.) > > The way I unerstand it, {da} is a singular > variable, and outer > quantifiers are always distributive. I'm not > sure what you mean > by internal structure. The referents of da are > any thing that > counts as a (single) thing in the given > context.

I did leave that open (though the plural case is the more general and does not always require {pamei} stuck in — in fact seem to rather rarely in the cases I have worked through.)

> I am not completely opposed in principle to > making da > a plural variable, but I don't see that change > at this point > as an advantage. We often do want singular > variables (we could > of course say {da poi pamei} every time we > wanted one, but > that may be too wordy for such a frequent use). > Since we can > handle plurality by other means, I'm just not > persuaded we > need to follow McKay's program all the way.

What other means do we have to handle plurality in a clear way?

> > PA da poi broda cu brode > > Qx: xF xG > > (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is > the > > complement of Q – insert table here) > > That looks like the dual rather than the > complement, > but this might be a matter of terminology. For > me, the complement > of PA is da'aPA, so for example {ro} and {no} > are complementary, > as are {su'o} and {me'i}. {ro} is the dual of > {su'o}, and > {no} the dual of {me'i}.

Yes this is just terminology, our lists are the same.

> > PA da noi broda cu brode > > Qx: xG & xF > > (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on). > > I can't really say I understand the logic of > the bracket operator. In this case it should > expand to: > > Qx: xG & [Ax: xG] xF

Huh? Whence the universal? The original seems to say that something brode and btw it broda. If you mean that {PA da broda} means "the broda are Q in number" (without prejudicing what that means), then I think you are right, but the universal is then part of the main main content:

Ex: xG & Ay: yG xAx & xF


> > L broda cu brode > > Ex: xF xG > > That would be correct for {su'o broda cu > brode}. > If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG > where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant.

Whoa, Nelly! Whence this notion (other than still reading your peculiar definitions in xorlo). At least {lo/loi} is not that but rather a quantification over broda — maybe an odd quantification, but nothing has been done yet to deal with that possibility. We have not preselected lo broda, they are selected by meeting the criterion stated.

This makes your comments on the rest of these not at all helpful, since they are off on the wrong foot. But they do seem to approve the patterns, if not the content, so maybe I have got it after all.

> > L broda poi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xF & xG xH > > That would be {su'o broda poi brode cu brodi} > > > L broda noi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xF xH & xG > > su'o broda noi brode cu brodi > [Ex: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG

This mess is arguing for plural quantification more elegantly than I ever could. > > > L PA broda cu brode > > Qx: xF xG > > (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA) > > That one would be: > aG & aQ > (where Q is the predicate PAmei)

And so we have plural constants (and therefore variable smuggled in anyhow. Except of course that at least for {lo} there is no constant here.


> > L PA broda poi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xF & xG xH > > That's {PA broda poi brode cu brodi}, without > L.

Yes, it probably is, but it also seems to be what your rules require here. Note that {x PAmei} is one of the things that "the structure of "Qx"" might mean.

> > L PA broda noi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xF xH & xG > > PA broda noi brode cu brodi > [Qx: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG > > > L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xFEy: yG & yAx Hy > > (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but > it > > means that whatever y stands for is something > > that x also stands for) > > > > L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xF xH & xG > > (this one looks suspect, since it is the same > as > > one above, but it seems to follow from the > rules) > > When there is no outer quantifier, inner/outer > makes no > difference for noi, that's right. This is > because noi acts > after the quantifier. > > Conversely, when there is no inner quantifier, > inner/outer > makes no difference for poi, which acts before > the quantifier. > > > PA L broda cu brode > > Ex: xFQy: yAx yG > > [Qx: xAa] xG > > > PA L broda poi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xF & xGQy: yAx xH > This surely should have ended "yH"

> Also: > [Qx: xAa] xG

and this too, if I understand what it is meant to do

> > PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xFQy: yAx & yG yH > > [Qx: xAa & xG] xH > > > PA L broda noi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & xG > > [Qx: xAa] xH & aG > > > PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & yG > > [Qx: xAa] xH & [Ax: xAa & xH] xG > > mu'o mi'e xorxes

Of course, in {lo} and {la}, as noted, the quantifier is outside the scope and so the form with a constant — or an unbound variable — is somewhat more accurate, but that change is constant and so the formulae can be used and thus make {lo} fit the same pattern. For the others, you can replace "Qx:Fx" with "Fx &" if you like that format better.


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > What other means do we have to handle plurality > in a clear way?

All constants can be plural, it's only {da} that is singular.

> > > L broda cu brode > > > Ex: xF xG > > > > That would be correct for {su'o broda cu > > brode}. > > If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG > > where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant. > > Whoa, Nelly! Whence this notion (other than > still reading your peculiar definitions in > xorlo).

I am following those definitions, of course.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> > pc: > > What other means do we have to handle > plurality > > in a clear way? > > All constants can be plural, it's only {da} > that is singular.

No can do: if the constants are plural, so must the variables be (and contrapositively). > > > > > L broda cu brode > > > > Ex: xF xG > > > > > > That would be correct for {su'o broda cu > > > brode}. > > > If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG > > > where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant. > > > > Whoa, Nelly! Whence this notion (other than > > still reading your peculiar definitions in > > xorlo). > > I am following those definitions, of course. > Why of course? I expect you to do things right.


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > > All constants can be plural, it's only {da} > > that is singular. > > No can do: if the constants are plural, so must > the variables be (and contrapositively).

Can you explain why it cannot be done? I haven't run into any problems so far.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> > pc: > > > All constants can be plural, it's only {da} > > > that is singular. > > > > No can do: if the constants are plural, so > must > > the variables be (and contrapositively). > > Can you explain why it cannot be done? I > haven't run > into any problems so far.

I suspect you haven't run into any problems so far because one of your claims is wrong:either your variables are plural or your constants singular. The basic reason it won't work is simply that every constant entails a particular generalization and every universal entail an instance to every constant. A plural constant would not entail an individual generalization (under what I take you to think is the difference) and even more so, a singular universal would not entail a plural instance. I suspect you are operating with some special sense of singular and plural quantification, but I can't quite formulate it. As McKay does it there is barely a noticeable difference in the object language, though quite a bit in the metalanguage — but we are dealing in the object language now.


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:


> > PA da poi broda cu brode > Qx: xF xG > (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the > complement of Q – insert table here)

Wrong, wrong, wrongdidy wrong-wrong! Ther are two choices "~Qx:xF xG" comes down directly to "Q'x: xF xG," where Q' is the contradictory of Q (see list). Then, if importing conditions are satisfied (which varies with Q, but is basically that there are Fs), to "Qdx: xF~xG," Qd is the dual of Q (typically the obverse of the contradictory, but see list).

xorxes has provided this list a couple of times but I can't find it immediately. The most common ones are {ro}, {ro}'={me'iro} {ro}d={su'o} and {su'o}, {su'o}'={no}, {su'o}d={ro}


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > After checking CLL, I see that it does say that > {broda je brode} = {broda gi'e brode} when it is not modifying > something else, so {poi} is actually easy: > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda

Why not just

[PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda

?

Hmm. I notice you've got the reduction:

PA broda == PA lo broda

Boy, I sure liked the PA da poi broda version a *lot* better. Was there something wrong with it?

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912


> > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > Why not just > > [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda > > ?

That's what it amounts to when there is a PA. But when there is no PA, you do need {lo}.

> Hmm. I notice you've got the reduction: > > PA broda == PA lo broda > > Boy, I sure liked the PA da poi broda version a *lot* better. Was > there something wrong with it?

They are equivalent. This way of presenting it is more in tune with the definition: "when there is an outer quantifier and no inner quantifier, {lo} can be omitted". But coupled with PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti you get the other.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > A plural constant > would not entail an individual generalization > (under what I take you to think is the > difference)

Right.

> and even more so, a singular > universal would not entail a plural instance.

It does not entail every plural instance, right. It just entails every singular instance. So, for example:

ro bidju cu grake li 100 Each bead weighs 100 grams.

only entails single instaces of beads weighing 100 grams.

> I suspect you are operating with some special > sense of singular and plural quantification, but > I can't quite formulate it.

I operate with singular quantification only, the usual one. McKay's plural quantification is achieved by way of inner 'quantifiers':

lo PA broda = lo broda je klani be li PA

> As McKay does it > there is barely a noticeable difference in the > object language, though quite a bit in the > metalanguage — but we are dealing in the object > language now.

McKay's quantifiers are rather different from Lojban's usual outer quantifiers though. For example, he doesn't define pa such that

pa da broda = su'o da broda ije ro de go broda gi du da

and so on for re, ci, vo, etc. In other words, his {pa} is compatible with {re}, Lojban's {pa} and {re} are not compatible.

Then there is the issue of the two potential assignments to {ro} if we went with plural quantifiers.

Since we can already do what is needed with inner quantifiers, and keeping outer quantifiers singular is often useful, I don't see a pressing need to convert to plural outer quantifiers.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:50:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > > > Why not just > > > > [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda > > > > ? > > That's what it amounts to when there is a PA. But when there is no > PA, you do need {lo}.

Would you have any problem with:

[PA] da poi gu'e me sumti gi broda

?

Then we can define [PA] da poi broda == [PA] da zo'u da broda, or so.

Or leave it irreducable.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 2388 Well, I agree that there is no pressing need to change, but on the other hand, there is no easy way to tell which is which except possibly in the case of exact numeric quantifiers (and even there the differnce can be used to advantage by separating local from global quantification), which is a rather handy thing to do — and which internal v. external quantification does not quite do (although internal v. variable quantification pretty nearly does). As fpor the problems, about {ro}, we have one of them already in the issue of import, and the other one seems to be a pseudo problem, since there is a single formula that covers both situation at issue. But again, while there are practical advantages to using plural quantification, there is no real need and we have managed without any number of other practically advantageous reinterpretations of Lojban. I do think the distributive-nondistributive-noncumulative contrasts need some thoughtful application in Lojban, however, since much of that material is already present (as is plural quantification for that matter).

wrote:

> > pc: > > A plural constant > > would not entail an individual generalization > > (under what I take you to think is the > > difference) > > Right. > > > and even more so, a singular > > universal would not entail a plural instance. > > It does not entail every plural instance, > right. > It just entails every singular instance. > So, for example: > > ro bidju cu grake li 100 > Each bead weighs 100 grams. > > only entails single instaces of beads weighing > 100 grams. > > > I suspect you are operating with some special > > sense of singular and plural quantification, > but > > I can't quite formulate it. > > I operate with singular quantification only, > the usual one. > McKay's plural quantification is achieved by > way of > inner 'quantifiers': > > lo PA broda = lo broda je klani be li PA > > > As McKay does it > > there is barely a noticeable difference in > the > > object language, though quite a bit in the > > metalanguage — but we are dealing in the > object > > language now. > > McKay's quantifiers are rather different from > Lojban's usual > outer quantifiers though. For example, he > doesn't define pa > such that > > pa da broda = su'o da broda ije ro de go broda > gi du da > > and so on for re, ci, vo, etc. In other words, > his {pa} > is compatible with {re}, Lojban's {pa} and {re} > are not > compatible. > > Then there is the issue of the two potential > assignments > to {ro} if we went with plural quantifiers. > > Since we can already do what is needed with > inner quantifiers, > and keeping outer quantifiers singular is often > useful, I don't > see a pressing need to convert to plural outer > quantifiers. > > 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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 1912


> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:50:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > > Why not just > > > [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda > > > ? > > That's what it amounts to when there is a PA. But when there is no > > PA, you do need {lo}. > > Would you have any problem with: > > [PA] da poi gu'e me sumti gi broda > > ?

In that case, you don't need to go with the tanru connectives. I don't have a problem with:

PA sumti poi broda | PA da poi ge me sumti gi broda

The version without the quantifier may not work. I don't know yet what an unquantified {da} is. But for sumti without an outer quantifier, we have:

sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je broda

which is not recursive.

> Then we can define [PA] da poi broda == [PA] da zo'u da broda, or > so.

No, that doen't work. {PA da poi broda} basically says that the things that satisfy (individually) the bridi that this expression is in are (exactly) PA of the brodas. {PA da zo'u da broda} says that (exactly) PA things are broda, which is not even part of what the other says.

> Or leave it irreducable.

We can reduce it for specific quantifiers:

su'o da poi broda cu brode | su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode

and many quantifiers (the non-proportional ones) will follow the su'o pattern, but in general each quantifier must be considered separately.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> We can reduce it for specific quantifiers: > > ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u ganai da > broda gi da brode > .. > Well,except, of course, if there are no broda, in which case this expansion is true and the original false. Another case where McKay's technique of getting those quantifiers out of dominant position makes life simpler.


Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:56:42AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > The version without the quantifier may not work. I don't know yet > what an unquantified {da} is. But for sumti without an outer > quantifier, we have: > > sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je broda > > which is not recursive.

For unquantified sumti, can't we just use

ge sumti broda gi sumti brode

or similar?

> > Or leave it irreducable. > > We can reduce it for specific quantifiers: > > su'o da poi broda cu brode | su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode > > ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode > > and many quantifiers (the non-proportional ones) will follow the > su'o pattern, but in general each quantifier must be considered > separately.


-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:17:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: vu'o > sumti vu'o relative-clauses > | lo me sumti me'u ku relative-clauses

That works. Again, lo adds complexity I don't like, but I don't see an easier way.

> > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau (not a > > > conversion formula.) > > > > What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes it > > a conversion formula, doesn't it? > > That could work. In that case make sure the selbri is last: > {sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa}

Define snikansa, please. Preferrably in jbovlaste.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Once we have working definitions for noi and poi, mixed zi'e combos are easy: > > [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode > | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to rixire brode toi > > (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, otherwise fix the subscript)

umm, which sumti do we want? The outer "lo me"?

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


> > > > sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je broda > > For unquantified sumti, can't we just use > > ge sumti broda gi sumti brode > > or similar?

No. {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda gi do brode}, It's "those of you who broda, brode".

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Once we have working definitions for noi and poi, mixed zi'e combos are > easy: > > > > [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode > > | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to rixire brode toi > > > > (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, otherwise fix the subscript) > > umm, which sumti do we want? The outer "lo me"?

Yes, and including PA when it's there. Of course a general sumti can contain other sumti inside, so we don't really know which {ri xi} we will need in general. Better use {ri xi rau}.

(In fact, the same applies to the simple noi formula.)

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


wrote:

> > --- Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > > > > sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je > broda > > > > For unquantified sumti, can't we just use > > > > ge sumti broda gi sumti brode > > > > or similar? > > No. {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda > gi do brode}, > It's "those of you who broda, brode". > ?{ro do ganai broda gi brode}?


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


wrote:

> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Once we have working definitions for noi > and poi, mixed zi'e combos are > > easy: > > > > > > [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi > ke'a brode > > > | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to > rixire brode toi > > > > > > (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, > otherwise fix the subscript) > > > > umm, which sumti do we want? The outer "lo > me"? > > Yes, and including PA when it's there. Of > course a general sumti > can contain other sumti inside, so we don't > really know which {ri xi} > we will need in general. Better use {ri xi > rau}. > > (In fact, the same applies to the simple noi > formula.) > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to me to yield almost unintelligible results if sumti is anything with structure itself. Are there rules for modifying these definitions when used in conjunction? Or am I missing something about the way that {me} is to be used?


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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

pc: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda > > gi do brode}, > > It's "those of you who broda, brode". > > > ?{ro do ganai broda gi brode}?

No, it need not be distributive.

{do poi broda} = {lo me do je broda}

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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

pc: > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to me to > yield almost unintelligible results if sumti > is anything with structure itself. Are there > rules for modifying these definitions when used > in conjunction? Or am I missing something about > the way that {me} is to be used?

{me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place structure "x1 is/are among sumti".

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388 I don't know about recursive, but these definitions are getting more and more nearly circular. I also do not quite see why the formula I suggested is distributive. If we have plural quantification and {broda} is collective, then onnly collections will satisfy it. To be sure, if {broda} is distributive and {brode} collective, the whole becomes false, as it does also if we are using singular quantifiers. But in that case, the original is suspect as well. As it stands, your proposal to define {do poi} in terms of {lo}and {me} seems equally subject to these problems (even if you had a sensible reading of {lo}): if {broda} is distributive and {brode} is not, then {lo} becomes distributive and so does not fit {brode} (all assuming, of course, that we have distributive and collective somehow worked out, which we clearly do not).

wrote:

> > pc: > > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > > {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda > > > gi do brode}, > > > It's "those of you who broda, brode". > > > > > ?{ro do ganai broda gi brode}? > > No, it need not be distributive. > > {do poi broda} = {lo me do je broda} > > 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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 2388 Well, that is at least dubious, the more so since we are supposedly still working with only singular terms. "sumti" then does not refer to several things but to a single entity of whatever sort is required — set group or something more informal. And amongness does not apply — though there are related notions, all the jest' except identity: membership, and inclusion and part, I suppose. {me} is officially defined in terms of instances, another — and more unlikely --relation. A lot of this would be OK eventually, I think, but we don't yet have the agreed on underlying structures to make it work. And, as noted elsewhere, just assuming they are in place is at best a first step in getting them there.

wrote:

> > pc: > > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to > me to > > yield almost unintelligible results if > sumti > > is anything with structure itself. Are there > > rules for modifying these definitions when > used > > in conjunction? Or am I missing something > about > > the way that {me} is to be used? > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me > sumti} > has place structure "x1 is/are among > sumti". >


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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

(on 'me' as 'among') pc: > Well, that is at least dubious, the more so since > we are supposedly still working with only > singular terms.

We are obviously on different pages here. As I see it:

All terms without outer quantifiers are plural constants. (Some of them can refer to single individuals, including sets and now loi-groups, but in general they are plural terms.)

All outer quantifiers are singular quantifiers (piPA quantifiers might be an exception to this, I still have to see how that will work out with reified loi's, but the standard outer quantifiers are singular).

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


wrote:

> > (on 'me' as 'among') > pc: > > Well, that is at least dubious, the more so > since > > we are supposedly still working with only > > singular terms. > > We are obviously on different pages here. > As I see it:

Well, there is not yet a page to be on, but we certainly seem to have different suggestions about what should be on that page. > > * All terms without outer quantifiers are > plural constants. > (Some of them can refer to single individuals, > including > sets and now loi-groups, but in general they > are plural terms.)

As noted, plural constants require plural variables. Also, it is odd to call something like {lo broda} a constant — it changes under quantification and negation (I know you say it doesn't but that is just part of the craziness of your system) and what it refers to is entirely context dependent (that is, comes from an assignment not an interpretation in metalinguistic terms — it is even calculated from that assignment, not given by it).

Why "and now plural groups" — these ({loi} descriptions) have always been around and officially singular. It is, indeed, to do away with these strange critters that plural quantification comes to be appealing. Of couse, it turns out not to do away with them completely, but the residue seem mainly to be handleable without {loi}. > > * All outer quantifiers are singular > quantifiers (piPA > quantifiers might be an exception to this, I > still have > to see how that will work out with reified > loi's, but the > standard outer quantifiers are singular).

That is to say, "distributive" in your pickwickian sense. It is not clear to me why -- that special use aside — singularity is so much to be stressed (but then I have never understiood your point about needing singular variables, since I don't see what they can say that plural ones cannot with approximately equal efficiency) (My personal preference — as has turned up several times — is to make {piPA} just more proportional quantifiers, working with the actual size of sets (I mean external quantifiers here, of course; what {piPA} might mean internally is rougher to say, though presumably paroportions of the totality of broda).



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 08:10:11AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > I don't know about recursive, but these definitions are getting > more and more nearly circular.

Same thing in this case.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:56:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > pc: > > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to me to yield almost > > unintelligible results if sumti is anything with structure > > itself. Are there rules for modifying these definitions when > > used in conjunction? Or am I missing something about the way > > that {me} is to be used? > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > structure "x1 is/are among sumti".

Ummm, not yet it's not. I don't think that the way you're using {me} for your suggestions for the subordinator definitions *relies* on this behaviour, but if it does then I need to know.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


> > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > Ummm, not yet it's not.

What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway.

> I don't think that the way you're using > {me} for your suggestions for the subordinator definitions *relies* > on this behaviour, but if it does then I need to know.

Well, if it means something else, then the definitions won't mean what they are intended to mean. What do you say {me} means?

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > > > Ummm, not yet it's not. > > What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway.

The current definition is:

me ME sumti to selbri

convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2

Among other things, this has a place that your version doesn't

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:34:01AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > > > > > Ummm, not yet it's not. > > > > What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway. > > The current definition is: > > me ME sumti to selbri > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2 > > Among other things, this has a place that your version doesn't

And it completely disagrees with what's in the CLL:

x1 is one of the referents of the sumti

/me puts his head in his hands and cries.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > > > > > Ummm, not yet it's not. > > > > What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway. > > The current definition is: > > me ME sumti to selbri > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2 > > Among other things, this has a place that your version doesn't

That's the old definition, before CLL.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:44:28PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:17:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau (not a > > > > conversion formula.) > > > > > > What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes > > > it a conversion formula, doesn't it? > > > > That could work. In that case make sure the selbri is last: {sei > > zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa} > > Define snikansa, please. Preferrably in jbovlaste.

This is all that I'm waiting on.

-Robin


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

pc: > As noted, plural constants require plural > variables.

If plural variables are essential, we can introduce a new series: {da'oi}, {de'oi}, {di'oi} or some such. I'm not sure I see the need at this point.

> Why "and now plural groups" — these ({loi} > descriptions) have always been around and > officially singular.

"Now" in the proposed definitions. Up until now I had {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not reified.

> It is not clear to me why -- > that special use aside — singularity is so much > to be stressed (but then I have never understiood > your point about needing singular variables, > since I don't see what they can say that plural > ones cannot with approximately equal efficiency)

It's not so much needing them as maintaining them, that's what we have always had.

How do you interpret:

ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu grake li panono

with plural quantification, for example? Do they each weigh 100 grams, or all together?

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


> > > > {sei > > > zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa} > > > > Define snikansa, please. Preferrably in jbovlaste. > > This is all that I'm waiting on.

I think {snidu'i} will work better:

snidu'i: x1 dunli x2 lo ka ce'u sinxa makau

I just added it to jbovlaste.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:44 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> The current definition is: > > me ME sumti to selbri > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2

This was a late change that made it into CLL but not the cmavo list for whatever reason. Randall Holmes convinced JCB to make the same change to Loglan _me_, and we changed to conform. Loglan later added _mea_ in the old sense, but I wasn't convinced that a separate element was needed.

The classical example is "me la kraislr. karce", which is a tanru and thus subject to flexible interpretation: it could mean "a Chrysler" or simply "Walter Chrysler's car".

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." --Hal Abelson


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:32:31PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > The current definition is: > > > > me ME sumti to selbri > > > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti > > in aspect x2 > > This was a late change that made it into CLL but not the cmavo > list for whatever reason.

By "This" you mean the change to the current CLL form, which has only one place and agrees with xorxes' interpretation, correct?

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 14214 OK, this is my latest version. Speak now, or ze'e jgari le do spisa.

noi sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode sumti cu brode to ri xi rau broda toi poi + PA sumti PA sumti poi broda PA da poi ge me sumti gi broda poi + sumti (no PA) sumti poi broda lo me sumti je broda poi + ro da ro da poi broda cu brode ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode poi + su'o da su'o da poi broda cu brode su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode voi voi ke'a broda poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u broda ne ne sumti noi ke'a srana sumti pe pe sumti poi ke'a srana sumti no'u no'u sumti noi ke'a du sumti po'u po'u sumti poi ke'a du sumti po po sumti poi sumti cu traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a po'e po'e sumti poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana sumti vu'o sumti vu'o relative-clauses lo me sumti me'u ku relative-clauses goi, ko'a unassigned ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned ko'a goi ko'e ko'a du ko'e goi, both assigned ko'a goi ko'e sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u zi'e + noi sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + poi sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + PA poi + noi [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode, [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to ri xi rau brode toi zi'e + noi + poi sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode lo me sumti to ri broda toi je brode zi'e + PA noi + poi PA sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode undefined


It is possible to build conversion formulas for "PA da poi", for each PA, but many of those formula will be different from each ot her. The two given here are representative, and are the two important ones. Others should be handled on a case-by-case basis, or j ust considered irreducable, as necessary.

Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first. The zi'e expansions are not generalized to more than two links, b ut it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

The "ri xi rau" in "zi'e + PA poi + noi" is intended to count back to the outer "lo me".


The "ri xi rau" in "noi" is intended to count back to the preceding sumti.


The definitions with "me" in them rely on CLL-style "me" being selected by the BPFK (in particular, over ma'oste-style "me"). Any other choice will require revisiting of those definitions.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 1912


> || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode to ri xi rau > broda toi

You don't really need to include {cu brode} here. It's more general without it.

> goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | ko'a du ko'e > goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u

This one was suppposed to replace ko'a du ko'e.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:45 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > This was a late change that made it into CLL but not the cmavo > > list for whatever reason. > > By "This" you mean the change to the current CLL form, which has > only one place and agrees with xorxes' interpretation, correct?

Yes.

-- Babies are born as a result of the John Cowan mating between men and women, and most http://www.reutershealth.com men and women enjoy mating. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Isaac Asimov in Earth: Our Crowded Spaceship jcowan@reutershealth.com


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:22:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode > > to ri xi rau broda toi > > You don't really need to include {cu brode} here. It's more > general without it.

Agreed.

> > goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | ko'a du ko'e > > goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u > > This one was suppposed to replace ko'a du ko'e.

Oh. How's this:

goi, ko'a unassigned | ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a se'u

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 1912


> Oh. How's this: > > goi, ko'a unassigned | ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti > noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u > goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a se'u

Looks fine, though the last two really should be marked as weird and to be avoided.

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:58 GMT posts: 2388


wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 08:10:11AM -0700, John > E Clifford wrote: > > I don't know about recursive, but these > definitions are getting > > more and more nearly circular. > > Same thing in this case.

Ah yes, the Lojban (ex Loglan) freedom with words: recursive means that each next step involves using the earlier ones, so an analysis keeps coming back to what looks like the same thing to same thing to analyze, circular means that it comes back to exactly the same thing. I suppose one slips into the other when it becomes clear that the downward analytical loop does not end.


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


wrote:

> > pc: > > As noted, plural constants require plural > > variables. > > If plural variables are essential, we can > introduce > a new series: {da'oi}, {de'oi}, {di'oi} or some > such. > I'm not sure I see the need at this point.

So you can have plural constants. And once plural variables are introduced they take over, since they behave just like singular ones but have a wider range of applications.

> > Why "and now plural groups" — these ({loi} > > descriptions) have always been around and > > officially singular. > > "Now" in the proposed definitions. Up until now > I had > {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not > reified.

And now you have them reified? Not the best choice I think. If you haave plurals at all, then the need for reified plurals fades to miniscule, while the need to distinguish distributive from collective predicate places arises — and {loi} is already doing the work of sumti in collective places.

> > It is not clear to me why -- > > that special use aside — singularity is so > much > > to be stressed (but then I have never > understiood > > your point about needing singular variables, > > since I don't see what they can say that > plural > > ones cannot with approximately equal > efficiency) > > It's not so much needing them as maintaining > them, > that's what we have always had. > > How do you interpret: > > ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu grake > li panono

Well I take distributive as default, so I take it that each weighs 100 gr; collective would need a mark for me, since {grake} is inspecific

> with plural quantification, for example? Do > they each weigh > 100 grams, or all together?

I don't see what plural quantification has to do with this; it forces neither distributive nor collective reading. It just gets more items in place for the same amount of grammatical work. The distributive reading is, as I say, conventional but could be treated explicitly (as soon as we had explicit flags). The beads are the same beads (and "is a bead" is almost certainly always distributive) either way — and the same as they would be with singular quantification (though with singular quantification getting the collective reading for {grake} would be a bit harder).


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > Up until now > > I had > > {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not > > reified. > > And now you have them reified?

Yes. John likes it better that way and I don't mind. I'm willing to go with John's view on loi/lei/lo'i/le'i/lai/la'i/lo'e/le'e. I think they're all superfluous anyway. lo/le/la is all I need.

> > How do you interpret: > > > > ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu grake > > li panono > > Well I take distributive as default, so I take it > that each weighs 100 gr; collective would need a > mark for me, since {grake} is inspecific

A new cmavo? In which selma'o? What grammar would it have?

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 Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

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


wrote:

> > pc: > > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > Up until now > > > I had > > > {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not > > > reified. > > > > And now you have them reified? > > Yes. John likes it better that way and I don't > mind. I'm willing > to go with John's view on > loi/lei/lo'i/le'i/lai/la'i/lo'e/le'e. I > think they're all superfluous anyway. lo/le/la > is all I need.

Well, as I say, somewhere we have to do distributive-collective and, since {lei} is already close to that, this seems a natural place to go. But OK leave them reified (weren't they always?) but give us some sense of the logic of these reified collectives (Lesniewski is a natural place to start).

> > > How do you interpret: > > > > > > ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu > grake > > > li panono > > > > Well I take distributive as default, so I > take it > > that each weighs 100 gr; collective would > need a > > mark for me, since {grake} is inspecific > > A new cmavo? In which selma'o? What grammar > would it have?

I confess I only see the need, I have not figured out how to implement it — which is why I try to do as much as possible by conventions or with the {lo}--{loi} contrast. Since they have to go (at least potentially) in almost every predicate place I see them as being something closely related to quantifiers (which makes your use of quantifiers themselves rather appealing except that I like the original quantifer use better)or to end-of-sumti markers (but in front is better because it eliminates so many scope problems), something that goes on every sumti.


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 152 On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:50:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Boy, I sure liked the PA da poi broda version a *lot* better. Was > > there something wrong with it? > > They are equivalent. This way of presenting it is more in tune > with the definition: "when there is an outer quantifier and no > inner quantifier, {lo} can be omitted". But coupled with > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti you get the other.

Thanks - I happen to like this a lot better than the version where the equivalence was not obvious. -- Rob Speer


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:01:42AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a > | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: > > | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what > happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it > happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative.

Agreed. Added to the other two cases as well.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by xorxes on Wed 10 of Nov., 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 1912


> > It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: > > > > | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > > > {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what > > happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it > > happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative. > > Agreed. Added to the other two cases as well.

Perhaps even better is:

| sumti noi ca'e ko'a du ke'a

which is I believe very close to what you had originally. This is almost the same as {no'u}, the difference being that whereas {no'u} is a _claim_ of identity, {goi} is a definition.

In other words, {goi} = {no'u ca'e}

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Fri 12 of Nov., 2004 10:41 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:34:50PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: > > > > > > | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > > > > > {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what > > > happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it happen. > > > {goi} really corresponds to a performative. > > > > Agreed. Added to the other two cases as well. > > Perhaps even better is: > > | sumti noi ca'e ko'a du ke'a > > which is I believe very close to what you had originally.

The irony is palpable.

> This is almost the same as {no'u}, the difference being that > whereas {no'u} is a _claim_ of identity, {goi} is a definition. > > In other words, {goi} = {no'u ca'e}

Fair enough. Changed.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:40 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators This will probably come as no surprise, but in most cases I drew one example from the CLL, one from Alice, and one or more from IRC, because that's what was convenient for me at the time.

Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice.

I find this bizarre enough to be worth pointing out.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:47 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

> (which means it sometimes must be terminated with ku'o, the > NOI selma'o terminator, or vau, the general bridi terminator, > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer bridi).

I'm not sure {vau} has to be mentioned here, as it is not a safe relative clause terminator like {ku'o}. For example {noi ge broda gi brode} is not terminated with {vau}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:47 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Holy christ on a crutch.

The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two examples in all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that apparently no-one but xorxes noticed that:

{ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e}

means something completely different from

{ko'a po da .e ko'e}

Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", but the second is "da's ko'a and ko'e".

eek

-Robin


Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:48 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Two things:

1. I'm done, as far as I know.

2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:50 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Just so everybody knows, all the wrinkles have, so far as I know, been ironed out. I picked a skicu-based form of "noi".

Please vote now, or explain any further issues you see.

-Robin


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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:50 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible places:

PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1

rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Then the without loss of generality, we can just consider:

PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1

PA1: outer quantifier PA2: inner quantifier rel1: outer relative clause rel2: inner relative clause

Now, there are just two rules to follow.

Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi

poi acts before PA because poi restricts the domain over which the quantifier will act. noi acts after PA because it gives additional info about just those referents counted by the quantifier.

Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears.

For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears.

When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following the above rules.

When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA at the same level, again there is no problem, as the noi simply acts on all referents before the poi restriction.

However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now we have conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA has to act before noi, and (because of their order) noi has to act before poi. Unless we want to say that order does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and poi always acts before noi. If so, some things will sound counter-intuitive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:52 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

True conversion formulas for goi:

goi ko'a | noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a ko'a goi sumti | sumti vu'o noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

Those work for normal uses of goi, where one and just one of the sumti involved is an unassigned assignable variable. (Although co'a is not strictly what is wanted. Something like "from this point in the text" would be more accurate.)

With that, every relative clause can be reduced to noi or poi:

ne, no'u, goi -> noi pe, po, po'e, po'u, voi -> poi

mu'o mi'e xorxes



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:52 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators OK, dealing with *just* the conversion formula, taken as a whole.

We'll hash them out here before I modify them on the page again.

noi sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode sumti cu brode to da poi nei cu broda toi poi + ro quantified sumti sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ga nai broda gi brode poi, all other cases sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ge broda gi brode voi voi clause poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause ne ne sumti noi ke'a srana sumti pe pe sumti poi ke'a srana sumti no'u no'u sumti noi ke'a du sumti po'u po'u sumti poi ke'a du sumti po po sumti poi sumti cu traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a po'e po'e sumti poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana sumti vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn geks that encode cn s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o relative gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative zi'e + noi sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + poi sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 goi, ko'a unassigned ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned ko'a goi ko'e ko'a du ko'e goi, both assigned ko'a goi ko'e zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a

Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first, but so what? Combos with zi'e are not well defined, as before.

Much props to John for noi and vu'o help.

xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned goi; what did you mean exactly?

-Robin



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:59 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators

ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be:

| sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a

{noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



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

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Subordinators

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Wed 31 of Dec., 2008 22:11 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 09:46:37PM +0000, arj wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > Author: arj > > This section needs to be re-opened.

I'm sure it does, but I'm hijacking this to test the new server.  :-D

-Robin

Earlier

Posted by arj on Wed 31 of Dec., 2008 21:46 GMT posts: 953 This section needs to be re-opened.

From the definition of goi:

"For explicit re-definition, use da'o to the right of one sumti mark the one that should be re-defined, or da'o nai to mark the one that should be left alone."

The Impact sections fails to mention the following:

"da'o" used to mark one sumti is an innovation, because according to CLL, it cancels ALL assignments, not just one. (http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c7/s13.html)

"da'o nai" requires a grammar change to be a valid construction.

BPFK Section: Reference Regulators must be kept up-to-date with the contents of this section.

-arj

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 1912

> !! Proposed Definition of noi > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's non-restrictive > relative clause.

That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something like that. {noi} itself is not the clause.

> The > "non-restrictive" part means that the information in the noi > clause is not sufficient to completely identify the referents of the sumti > that noi is attached to.

That's not quite like that. The information may very well be sufficient in some cases (ti noi mamta mi} "this, who is my mother,..."

The "non-restrictive" part means that the information is not used to select from the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy the clause.

> For > logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is entirely outside > the scope of the statement in which it is contained; its scope occurs at the > point immediately after the scope in which it was contained dies in the arse.

I'm not sure this is quite dictionary-style language. :-)

I'm not quite sure what the scope of {noi} is exactly either. In {la djan jinvi lo du'u ti noi mamta mi cu klama}, is the noi clause a part of John's beliefs or is it the speaker's comment?

> The noi clause should be considerd, for scoping purposes, as occuring in > its own virtual sentence (techinically, its own "statement" > production in the formal grammar) after both the one in which it is contained > and all further statements that are logically connected to the one in which > it was contained.

That would mean it is not necessarily part of what John believes.

> la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani > The Mad met a mouse, M (The Mad) had acquired it (the mouse), in the > house. > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in the Lojban > the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited clause.

Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry", "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

> The "restrictive" part > means that the information in the poi clause is intended to completely > identify the referents of the sumti that poi is attached to.

Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what you say next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any of them identified.

> poi clause is also true. poi is often used with da to restrict > da to some part of all the things which exist. Inside a noi clause,

That would be a "poi" clause.

> pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo > Question to Pat: that which at the window is what? > Pat: What is that at the window?

With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

> particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer bridi). The > "restrictive" part means that the information in the voi clause > is intended to completely identify the referents of the sumti that voi is > attached to.

I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction seems unnecessary.

> !! Examples of voi Usage > > ti voi nanmu cu ninmu > This which is (non-veridically) a man is a woman. > The classic example of voi usage, presumably referring to a case of > mistaken identity or a transvestite or transgendered individual.

This is non-restrictive. {ti} is already identified by the time we say it is (non-veridicaly) a man.

> so'e po'o cuxna la cnemokca cedra voi sete pilno le se jmaji

No translation?

> ganse vasxu le nicte vacri voi ranti > Breathing the night air, which is soft. > Presumably, voi is being used to deal with the fact that ranti > probably does not literally apply to air.

This again seems to be a non-restrictive use.

(I'll go over the remaining definitions later.)

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 00:38 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:19:36PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > !! Proposed Definition of noi > > > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's > > non-restrictive relative clause. > > That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something > like that. {noi} itself is not the clause.

Fixed.

> > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in > > the noi clause is not sufficient to completely identify the > > referents of the sumti that noi is attached to. > > That's not quite like that. The information may very well be > sufficient in some cases (ti noi mamta mi} "this, who is my > mother,..." > > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information is not used to > select from the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy the > clause.

I used:

The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in the noi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti noi is attached to refers to.

Also inserted for ne and no'u.

> > For logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is > > entirely outside the scope of the statement in which it is > > contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the scope > > in which it was contained dies in the arse. > > I'm not sure this is quite dictionary-style language. :-)

Dammit, I was hoping to have that not get noticed for a while yet. :-)

I just think that that Nick-ism should be enshrined somewhere. :-)

> I'm not quite sure what the scope of {noi} is exactly either. In {la > djan jinvi lo du'u ti noi mamta mi cu klama}, is the noi clause a part > of John's beliefs or is it the speaker's comment?

That's a bit of a different question, actually.

I say that it is the speaker's comment unless "se'i nai" or "du'o la djan" or something is used, but I think we need to look at this a bit more.

> > The noi clause should be considerd, for scoping purposes, as > > occuring in its own virtual sentence (techinically, its own > > "statement" production in the formal grammar) after both > > the one in which it is contained and all further statements that > > are logically connected to the one in which it was contained. > > That would mean it is not necessarily part of what John believes.

No, it doesn't. Logical scoping and abstraction scoping are seperate issues, IMO. However, the current formalism insists that it's the speakers comments.

> > la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani The Mad met > > a mouse, M (The Mad) had acquired it (the mouse), in the house. > > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in > > the Lojban the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited > > clause. > > Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry", > "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

Sorry; I didn't go back to the original, and was hoping you'd check these sorts of things for me.

> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the > > poi clause is intended to completely identify the referents of > > the sumti that poi is attached to. > > Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that > satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what you say > next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any of them > identified.

How about:

The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is attached to refers to.

> > poi clause is also true. poi is often used with da to > > restrict da to some part of all the things which exist. Inside > > a noi clause, > > That would be a "poi" clause.

Indeed.

> > pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo > > Question to Pat: that which at the window is what? > > Pat: What is that at the window? > > With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?

> > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer > > bridi). The "restrictive" part means that the information > > in the voi clause is intended to completely identify the > > referents of the sumti that voi is attached to. > > I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already > has just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further > restriction seems unnecessary.

I, on the other hand, think voi should die in the arse. If we're going to keep it, though, your point is well taken.

> > !! Examples of voi Usage > > > > ti voi nanmu cu ninmu > > This which is (non-veridically) a man is a woman. > > The classic example of voi usage, presumably referring to a case of > > mistaken identity or a transvestite or transgendered individual. > > This is non-restrictive. {ti} is already identified by the time we say > it is (non-veridicaly) a man.

Yep. CLL bug?

> > so'e po'o cuxna la cnemokca cedra voi sete pilno le se jmaji > > No translation?

Wasn't supposed to be there.

> > ganse vasxu le nicte vacri voi ranti > > Breathing the night air, which is soft. > > Presumably, voi is being used to deal with the fact that ranti > > probably does not literally apply to air. > > This again seems to be a non-restrictive use.

Yep.

-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 00:39 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry", > "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

"mad" in American English means primarily "angry", not "crazy".

> Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti > just those that satisfy the relative clause.

This wording is good.

> With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

"poi" serves as a sortal; ta poi mrenu = that (a man) vs. ta poi nazbi = that (the man's nose).

> I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has > just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction > seems unnecessary.

That's a good point abstractly, but can you provide a motivating example?

-- Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901) jcowan@reutershealth.com

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912

> > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's > > > non-restrictive relative clause. > > > > That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something > > like that. {noi} itself is not the clause. > > Fixed.

Same thing for {poi} and {voi}.

> > > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the > > > poi clause is intended to completely identify the referents of > > > the sumti that poi is attached to. > > > > Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that > > satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what you say > > next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any of them > > identified. > > How about: > > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi clause > is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is > attached to refers to.

You mean "is used" right?

> > > pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo > > > Question to Pat: that which at the window is what? > > > Pat: What is that at the window? > > > > With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be > > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is > > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there > > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say > > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?" > > It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?

Probably just what you interpreted. I don't remember who Pat was, was she the sister?

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 Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:28:58PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's > > > > non-restrictive relative clause. > > > > > > That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or > > > something like that. {noi} itself is not the clause. > > > > Fixed. > > Same thing for {poi} and {voi}.

Oops.

> > > > The "restrictive" part means that the information in > > > > the poi clause is intended to completely identify the > > > > referents of the sumti that poi is attached to. > > > > > > Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those > > > that satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what > > > you say next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any > > > of them identified. > > > > How about: > > > > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi > > clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti > > poi is attached to refers to. > > You mean "is used" right?

Err. Yeah.

> > It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean? > > Probably just what you interpreted. I don't remember who Pat was, was > she the sister?

No, I don't think so. Someone in the pepper scene, IIRC, and I probably don't.

-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

Irish gardener in Chapter 4.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean? > > Probably just what you interpreted. I don't remember who Pat was, was > she the sister?

No, I don't think so. Someone in the pepper scene, IIRC, and I probably don't.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 16:17 GMT posts: 1912

John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be > > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is > > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there > > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say > > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?" > > "poi" serves as a sortal; ta poi mrenu = that (a man) vs. ta poi nazbi > = that (the man's nose).

But that assumes that both the man and the nose are referents of {ta}, and then the poi clause selects one of them.

{ta noi nanmu} and {ta noi nazbi} would mean "that, which as you can see is a man" and "that, which as you can see is a nose". In this case, {ta} has just the intended referent from the start. The non-restrictive information might be helpful for the listener for purposes of identification, but it is not used by the speaker to select certain referent from a number of referents.

Both views are possible, it all depends on how we imagine that {ta} gets its referents. If it's purely a matter of the speaker's intentions (and Lojban, at least in theory, is very speaker-centric in this respect) then {poi} doesn't really make much sense, because the speaker won't have both the man and the nose in mind as referents of {ta} from which to select. If the referents of {ta} are more of a negotiation between speaker and listener, then yes, {poi} makes sense, as in that case {ta} would be more of a {lo pointed-at} than a {le pointed-at}.

> > I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has > > just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction > > seems unnecessary. > > That's a good point abstractly, but can you provide a motivating example?

Not really, I don't really see {voi} as useful in normal usage, I was thinking more in terms of its use in the definition of {le}.

If we think of {zo'e} as a generalized {ta}, i.e. as something that gets its referent from context but without the actual physical pointing (since often it is not even physically pointable) then as I argue above {zo'e noi ...} is the way to give additional verbal information about it. {poi} would not be quite right, because the speaker does not have other things in mind which need restriction. So, if we define {le broda} as I propose as {zo'e noi mi skicu ...}, and if we want to use {voi} to define {le}, then it makes sense to define {voi} as a non-restrictive clause marker. Then {le broda} = {zo'e voi ke'a broda}, parallel to {lo broda} = {zo'e noi ke'a broda}.

If we on the other hand don't use this generalized {ta} to define {le}, but rather define {ro le broda} as {ro da poi mi skicu ...}, then it makes sense to define {voi} as restrictive. Then {ro le broda} = {ro da voi ke'a broda}, parallel to {su'o lo broda} = {su'o da poi ke'a broda}.

I don't really think {voi} will get used much either way, but who knows?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 18:15 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Both views are possible, it all depends on how we imagine that > {ta} gets its referents.

I agree. I don't argue that ta noi is wrong, simply that it is not a sortal (rather it is an explanation of a sortal that is implicit in "ta").

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 20:28 GMT posts: 1912

> !! Proposed Definition of noi .... > noi > immediately follows a sumti.

With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku} there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be different in some cases.

In other words, the noi bridi is true about the > sumti noi is attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the things > the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti noi > is attached to could refer to.

As I said, I don't think this is necessarily true. The info in the bridi may very well be enough to pick those things.

The > noi clause should be considerd, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its

typo "considered"

> la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani > Fury met a mouse, F (Fury) had acquired it (the mouse), in the house. > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in the Lojban > the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited clause.

"had acquired" is wrong actually, because the noi clause is not meant to be in the past of the main clause. Probably the mouse was caught right after they met. In fact the "tail" starts like this: "Fury said to a mouse, That he met in the house,", but I had to add {cpacu} to rhyme with {smacu}.

> ti'e ko'a ne li 2.6 cu mutce sutra > By the way it, which has something to do with the number 2.6, is very > fast.

{ti'e} is "they say", not "by the way", which is {ta'o}.

> xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do > Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated with the > form of the weather, which is near you? > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal?

Does it really say that?

> ;pe (GOI):Restrictive phrase. pe is one of Lojban's non-restrictive > relative phrase markers.

non-restrictive -> restrictive

> that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of no'u is that the > attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti, which is what the > "appositive" part means.

Why not just say that they have the same referents? The two sumti (i.e. the words) are normally not identical, since {ko'a no'u ko'a} is sort of redundant.

In other > words, the no'u sumti is associated with the sumti no'u is attached > to, but is not enough to pick out only the things the speaker has in mind > among all the possible things that the sumti no'u is attached to could > refer to.

This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the same things.


> mi ba stidi so'u cnino gismu no'u zo nagra e zo narga e zo ranga e zo ragna > I will suggest several new gismu: nagra, narga, ranga, and ragna.

so'u = a few

> ;po'u (GOI):Restrictive identity. po'u is Lojban's non-restrictive

non-restrictive -> restrictive

> that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of po'u is that the > attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti,

Again, the referents are the same, not the word. But this is not true in the case of po'u: the second sumti selects some of the referents of the first, so the first sumti may have some referents that the second doesn't have.

> ;zi'e (ZIhE):Relative clause/phrase joiner. Normally, a relative clause > or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its immediate left, which means > that it is impossible to apply more than one relative marker to the same > sumti.

For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using zi'e.

Using zi'e to mix poi and noi clauses (or pe and ne, and > so on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well defined.

Shouldn't we define it?

> ;ku'o (KUhO):End relative clause. ku'o is an elidable terminator > that indicates the end of NOI relative clauses. It can always be replaced by > some other combination of terminators (ku, vau, and kei in > particular are often relevant), but its use is preferred in complex clauses, > where it can often replace several other terminators.

Always?

What do you replace it with in {da poi ge broda gi brode ku'o de}?

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 Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 20:28 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Always? > > What do you replace it with in {da poi ge broda gi brode ku'o de}?

"vau vau"

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." --Hal Abelson

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 20:28 GMT posts: 1912

> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > Always? > > > > What do you replace it with in {da poi ge broda gi brode ku'o de}? > > "vau vau"

ua right!

So, is it demonstrably always replaceable?

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 Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 22:05 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> So, is it demonstrably always replaceable?

Yes. I prepared a version of grammar.300 with no ku'o and yacced it; no conflicts. Therefore it can always be elided if enough other elidable terminators are provided. That doesn't make ku'o a bad idea.

-- Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 23:58 GMT posts: 14214

Corrections I wholly agree with removed.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:36:36PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > !! Proposed Definition of noi > ... > > noi immediately follows a sumti. > > With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku} > there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and > {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be > different in some cases.

Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true with pe, ne, po, and so on?

Reference for this, please?

> > In other words, the noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is > > attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the things the > > speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti > > noi is attached to could refer to. > > As I said, I don't think this is necessarily true. The info in the > bridi may very well be enough to pick those things.

s/not enough/not necessarily enough/

> > la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani > > Fury met a mouse, F (Fury) had acquired it (the mouse), in the > > house. > > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in > > the Lojban the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited > > clause. > > "had acquired" is wrong actually, because the noi clause is not meant > to be in the past of the main clause. Probably the mouse was caught > right after they met. In fact the "tail" starts like this: "Fury said > to a mouse, That he met in the house,", but I had to add {cpacu} to > rhyme with {smacu}.

s/had acquired/got/

> > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do > > Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated > > with the form of the weather, which is near you? > > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal? > > Does it really say that?

That's how I read it. Do you disagree?

> > that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of no'u is > > that the attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti, > > which is what the "appositive" part means. > > Why not just say that they have the same referents?

Because I'm trying to be gentle.

> The two sumti (i.e. the words) are normally not identical, since {ko'a > no'u ko'a} is sort of redundant.

Point. Done.

> > In other words, the no'u sumti is associated with the sumti > > no'u is attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the > > things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that > > the sumti no'u is attached to could refer to.

s/not enough/not necessarily enough/

> This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the > same things.

Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive; you can have that argument with him if you like.

The example that convinced me was:

ro da no'u la jeeg cu cevni

ro da po'u la jeeg cu cevni

> > that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of po'u is > > that the attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti, > > Again, the referents are the same, not the word. But this is not true > in the case of po'u: the second sumti selects some of the referents of > the first, so the first sumti may have some referents that the second > doesn't have.

Fixed.

> > ;zi'e (ZIhE):Relative clause/phrase joiner. Normally, a > > relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its > > immediate left, which means that it is impossible to apply more than > > one relative marker to the same sumti. > > For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using > zi'e.

Example, please.

> > Using zi'e to mix poi and noi clauses (or pe and ne, and so > > on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well defined. > > Shouldn't we define it?

No, we really shouldn't. Or, at least, I am not capable of so doing.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug., 2004 23:58 GMT posts: 1912

> > With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku} > > there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and > > {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be > > different in some cases. > > Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true with > pe, ne, po, and so on?

Yes.

> Reference for this, please?

I think CLL mentions it.

{ci lo ro broda noi brode ku noi brodi cu brodo}

says of all brodas that they are brode, but only of the three brodas that brodo that they are brodi.


> > > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do > > > Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated > > > with the form of the weather, which is near you? > > > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal? > > > > Does it really say that? > > That's how I read it. Do you disagree?

I think "Don't you normally have such weather?" or something, but I don't really know. {le tai tcima} is definitely "such weather", probably referring to some kind of weather being talked about, but I don't really understand how the other two sumti fit. {le tai tcima ne vi do" is "such weather of yours". So: "Is it not the normal of such weather of yours?" Maybe it made sense in context.

> > This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the > > same things. > > Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive; you > can have that argument with him if you like.

I agree it is not restrictive. That doesn't mean that the two sumti don't have the same referents. I don't think the point you repeat about identification has anything to do with restrictiveness.

> The example that convinced me was: > > ro da no'u la jeeg cu cevni > > ro da po'u la jeeg cu cevni

The first one says that Jeeg is/are the only god(s), the second one allows for there being other gods. So?

> > For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using > > zi'e. > > Example, please.

lo noi broda ku'o brode noi brodi ku noi brodo cu brodu

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 xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 1912

> ! Formal Definitions > > (AKA conversion formulas) > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA broda cu > brodi

Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a quantified term does not provide referents outside the scope of the quantifier, so you can't really take the noi-clause out.

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.

does not say that exactly three people came and exactly three people are beautiful. It says that exactly three people came and that *those same three people that came* are beautiful.

So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the scope of the quantifier in such cases.

> voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi skicu lo ka > ke'a broda cu brodi

Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?


> ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode > pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode > no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode > po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode > po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode > po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana > PA2 brode

I would define these much more generally:

ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti

etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

> vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]

This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be distributive.

> zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du PA1 broda > zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode

This one doesn't work in general either. You could define it something like:

noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 poi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 voi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion will also apply. Mixed cases are a separate issue.

> goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du [sumti 2] > ku'o > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi binxo da poi > mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o

These are not true equivalents.

> * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with sumtcita > clauses.

For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have:

pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have similar conversion formulas for them, but I don't know what it would mean to use tcita with goi, po'u, or no'u.

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 xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 1912

> noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > poi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > voi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

I meant:

noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 voi subsentence1 zi'e voi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

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 23:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ! Formal Definitions > > > > (AKA conversion formulas)

In this episode, xorxes rips Robin's conversion formulas a new ganxo.

Not that I mind.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA > > broda cu brodi > > Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a > quantified term does not provide referents outside the scope of > the quantifier, so you can't really take the noi-clause out. > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came. > > does not say that exactly three people came and exactly three people > are beautiful. It says that exactly three people came and that *those > same three people that came* are beautiful.

Point.

> So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it > won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified > term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only > then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the > scope of the quantifier in such cases.

I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you have a solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?

> > voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi > > skicu lo ka ke'a broda cu brodi > > Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?

Actually, I'm going with just {poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u brode}.

But yes, your basic point is correct.

> > ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode > > pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode > > no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode > > po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode > > po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode > > po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana > > PA2 brode > > I would define these much more generally: > > ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti > pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti > no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti > po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti > > etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular > form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

Good point.

> > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda > > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative] > > This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be > distributive.

Example? Solution?

> > zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du > > PA1 broda zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode > > This one doesn't work in general either. > You could define it something like: > > noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > voi subsentence1 zi'e voi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > > ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion > will also apply.

Cool, thanks.

> Mixed cases are a separate issue.

Yes; they should die in the ares.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > [sumti 2] ku'o > > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi > > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o > > These are not true equivalents.

You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?

> > * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with > > sumtcita clauses. > > For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have: > > pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti > > ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Why 'jai'?

> Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have > similar conversion formulas for them,

I think po'e as it stands is fine; do you have a problem with it?

> but I don't know what it would mean to use tcita with goi, > po'u, or no'u.

Neither do I.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ! Formal Definitions > > > > (AKA conversion formulas)

BTW, xorxes, what's your preferred form for voi?

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:35:49PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > ! Formal Definitions > > > > > > (AKA conversion formulas) > > BTW, xorxes, what's your preferred form for voi?

I'd love to see everyone else chime in too, of course.

-Robin

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

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

> > So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it > > won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified > > term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only > > then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the > > scope of the quantifier in such cases. > > I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you have a > solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?

Well, an example would be something like:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama


> > > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda > > > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative] > > > > This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be > > distributive. > > Example? Solution?

lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ... The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode, which has 3 members,...

That the intersection has three members does not mean that each of the sets has three members.

I'm not sure how to write a replacement formula, it's just a matter of bracketing.

> > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > > [sumti 2] ku'o > > > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi > > > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o > > > > These are not true equivalents. > > You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?

There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I reassign the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not become that something else.

> > For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have: > > > > pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti > > > > ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti > > Why 'jai'?

Because we don't know in general which place of broda ke'a will fill. We do know that the tagged sumti will fill the x1 of broda, which goes to fai after jai conversion.

> > Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have > > similar conversion formulas for them, > > I think po'e as it stands is fine; do you have a problem with it?

Other than it is never really needed, no.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 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 23:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it > > > won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a > > > quantified term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the > > > prenex and only then apply this transformation, and you can't take > > > the noi outside the scope of the quantifier in such cases. > > > > I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you > > have a solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e? > > Well, an example would be something like: > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama > = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

What is this an example *of*, exactly?

Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi?

> > > > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 > > > > broda [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative] > > > > > > This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not > > > be distributive. > > > > Example? Solution? > > lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ... > > The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode, > which has 3 members,...

Ah. What about:

[sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]

> > > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > > > [sumti 2] ku'o > > > > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi > > > > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o > > > > > > These are not true equivalents. > > > > You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong? > > There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I reassign > the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not become that > something else.

Oh! Point.

Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you?

-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 23:07 GMT posts: 1912

> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Well, an example would be something like: > > > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama > > What is this an example *of*, exactly?

Of how to expand {PA broda noi brode cu brodi}.

> Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi?

I'm not sure what you mean by my solution. The example shows that {noi} cannot escape the scope of the quantifier when it is applied to a quantified term.

> > lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ... > > > > The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode, > > which has 3 members,... > > Ah. What about: > > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]

That won't always work, especially if da is a singular variable. Besides, which sumti is the relative attached to on the right hand side?

> > There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I reassign > > the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not become that > > something else. > > Oh! Point. > > Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you?

No, there is nothing that becomes a cat here. Try an example and you will see it makes no sense. If "ko'a" starts with some referents and you want to make it have other, different referents, then there is no possible restriction on the first set of referents that will get you the second set. If it starts with no referent, then no restriction on that will get you what you want either. {goi} is just not a type of {poi}.

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

Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from earlier {lo}s). But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ! Formal Definitions > > > > (AKA conversion formulas)

In this episode, xorxes rips Robin's conversion formulas a new ganxo.

Not that I mind.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA > > broda cu brodi > > Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a > quantified term does not provide referents outside the scope of > the quantifier, so you can't really take the noi-clause out. > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came. > > does not say that exactly three people came and exactly three people > are beautiful. It says that exactly three people came and that *those > same three people that came* are beautiful.

Point.

> So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it > won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified > term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only > then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the > scope of the quantifier in such cases.

I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you have a solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?

> > voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi > > skicu lo ka ke'a broda cu brodi > > Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?

Actually, I'm going with just {poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u brode}.

But yes, your basic point is correct.

> > ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode > > pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode > > no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode > > po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode > > po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode > > po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana > > PA2 brode > > I would define these much more generally: > > ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti > pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti > no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti > po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti > > etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular > form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

Good point.

> > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda > > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative] > > This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be > distributive.

Example? Solution?

> > zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du > > PA1 broda zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode > > This one doesn't work in general either. > You could define it something like: > > noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > voi subsentence1 zi'e voi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > > ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion > will also apply.

Cool, thanks.

> Mixed cases are a separate issue.

Yes; they should die in the ares.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > [sumti 2] ku'o > > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi > > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o > > These are not true equivalents.

You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?

> > * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with > > sumtcita clauses. > > For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have: > > pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti > > ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Why 'jai'?

> Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have > similar conversion formulas for them,

I think po'e as it stands is fine; do you have a problem with it?

> but I don't know what it would mean to use tcita with goi, > po'u, or no'u.

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 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference > directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking > open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the > quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from > earlier {lo}s).

No doubt that's how things work in natlangs. It's harder to see how it works in Lojban where pronouns tend to be more rigid in how they get their referents.

> But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is > outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

We know what happens when there is no quantifier:

lo nu ti noi broda cu brode cu rinka ko'a

That does not say that lo nu ti broda is part of the cause. But then we are faced with something like:

lo nu ci broda noi brode cu brodi cu rinka ko'a

and if we don't want the brodeing to be part of the cause then we need to take the noi clause outside the scope of the quantifier.

BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama

as:

ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

which is not quite right. An expansion like that would work for {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex beasts. The expansion for {ci} would be something like:

ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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 23:16 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:43:23PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Well, an example would be something like: > > > > > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama > > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama > > > > What is this an example *of*, exactly? > > Of how to expand {PA broda noi brode cu brodi}.

OK.

> > Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi? > > I'm not sure what you mean by my solution. The example shows that > {noi} cannot escape the scope of the quantifier when it is applied to > a quantified term.

"solution" in the sense of "conversion formula that will work in as many situations as humanly possible.

> > > lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ... > > > > > > The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode, which > > > has 3 members,... > > > > Ah. What about: > > > > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative] > > That won't always work, especially if da is a singular variable.

Point.

> Besides, which sumti is the relative attached to on the right hand side?

Heh. That's probably fixable.

Got any ideas for how to make this work?

> > > There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I > > > reassign the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not > > > become that something else. > > > > Oh! Point. > > > > Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you? > > No, there is nothing that becomes a cat here.

sinxa for a cat.

> {goi} is just not a type of {poi}.

  • nod*

ko'a goi ko'e = le se sinxa be ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be ko'a

?

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:16 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded: > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > as: > > ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama > > which is not quite right. An expansion like that would work for > {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex beasts.

> The expansion for {ci} would be something like: > > ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

That doesn't much differ from what I have now. I thought you were worred about breaking it out into two sentences.

-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 23:16 GMT posts: 1912

> > > Ah. What about: > > > > > > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative] > > > Got any ideas for how to make this work?

[connected sumti] vu'o [relative] = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative]

seems better, but I won't swear for it.

> > {goi} is just not a type of {poi}. > > *nod* > > ko'a goi ko'e = le se sinxa be ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be ko'a > > ?

This of course is not a conversion formula but a description of what the goi expression does (which is useful too).

I guess you mean: {le se sinxa be zo ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be zo ko'a}, but that's not quite what's going on. {le se sinxa be zo ko'a} is normally an object in the world, and there are no transformations of objects in the world going on here.

{zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts referring to ko'a".

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 xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:16 GMT posts: 1912

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > > > ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi > > That doesn't much differ from what I have now. I thought you were worred > about breaking it out into two sentences.

No, the number of sentences does not worry me at all, but what you have now has a different meaning. "Exactly three people came and exactly three people are beautiful" is very different from "exactly three people came and every thing that is a person and came is beautiful".

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 23:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > Ah. What about: > > > > > > > > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] > > > > [relative] > > > > > Got any ideas for how to make this work? > > [connected sumti] vu'o [relative] > = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative]

Hmm. Why not just:

[connected sumti] goi ko'a [relative]

> {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts > referring to ko'a".

That's do, but doesn't the word ko'e start referring to the referrant of ko'a?

{zo ko'e co'a sinxa la'e ko'a} ?

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:55:10AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > > > > > ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi > > > > That doesn't much differ from what I have now. I thought you were > > worred about breaking it out into two sentences. > > No, the number of sentences does not worry me at all, but what you > have now has a different meaning. "Exactly three people came and > exactly three people are beautiful" is very different from "exactly > three people came and every thing that is a person and came is > beautiful".

  • AH*. My version doesn't bind them to being the same three people.

Duh. Thanks.

What about:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama = ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama ije ro ko'acu melbi

?

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 1912

> > [connected sumti] vu'o [relative] > > = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative] > > Hmm. Why not just: > > [connected sumti] goi ko'a [relative]

You'd need to add a {vu'o} in front of the goi...

> > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts > > referring to ko'a". > > That's do, but doesn't the word ko'e start referring to the referrant of > ko'a? > > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa la'e ko'a} ?

No, it's {ko'a mlatu}, not {la'e ko'a mlatu}. {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a noi mlatu ku'o enai la'e ko'a lu'u noi se sinxa lo mlatu}

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 1912

> > > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > > What about: > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama > = ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama ije ro ko'acu melbi > > ?

Yes, that seems to work. You probably don't even need the {ro}, so as to include non-distributive noi-clauses.

The quantifier {no} would be a special case: {no broda noi brode cu brodi} seems to be either nonsensical or the noi-clause is irrelevant, because there is nothing to apply it to. Within any negation scope, in fact, modifying a quantified term with a noi-clause gives nonsense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 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 23:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:26:00AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > [connected sumti] vu'o [relative] > > > = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative] > > > > Hmm. Why not just: > > > > [connected sumti] goi ko'a [relative] > > You'd need to add a {vu'o} in front of the goi...

Yep. And looking at yours more closely, that's a nice trick.

> > > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts > > > referring to ko'a". > > > > That's do, but doesn't the word ko'e start referring to the > > referrant of ko'a? > > > > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa la'e ko'a} ? > > No, it's {ko'a mlatu}, not {la'e ko'a mlatu}. > > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a noi mlatu ku'o enai la'e ko'a lu'u noi se > sinxa lo mlatu}

OK. Anyone else have a problem here, speak up.

Doing conversion formula for goi and vu'o is so iffy I'm willing to just drop the whole thing, but I think these work.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:40:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > The quantifier {no} would be a special case: {no broda noi brode cu > brodi} seems to be either nonsensical or the noi-clause is irrelevant, > because there is nothing to apply it to. Within any negation scope, in > fact, modifying a quantified term with a noi-clause gives nonsense.

I don't see the need to point this out, as it expands to:

no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi

which clearly makes the noi clause irrelevant, although still meaningful.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 2388

Well, Lojban is intended to be a natural language in some obvious sense, so contextual referencing has a place. And can be brought under fairly rigid controls — at least as good as that for anaphoric pronouns (OK, so it won't be too good, but it will be enough).

Jorge Llambías wrote: pc: > Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference > directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking > open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the > quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from > earlier {lo}s).

No doubt that's how things work in natlangs. It's harder to see how it works in Lojban where pronouns tend to be more rigid in how they get their referents.

> But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is > outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

We know what happens when there is no quantifier:

lo nu ti noi broda cu brode cu rinka ko'a

That does not say that lo nu ti broda is part of the cause. But then we are faced with something like:

lo nu ci broda noi brode cu brodi cu rinka ko'a

and if we don't want the brodeing to be part of the cause then we need to take the noi clause outside the scope of the quantifier.

BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama

as:

ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

which is not quite right. An expansion like that would work for {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex beasts. The expansion for {ci} would be something like:

ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 1912

> I don't see the need to point this out, as it expands to: > > no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > which clearly makes the noi clause irrelevant, although still > meaningful.

What does it mean, given that no referent is assigned to ko'a?

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:18 GMT posts: 2388

Just a last plea to separate legal ownership from use rights (and getting rid of inaleineable rights as a separate notion beyond what is in the place structure of the word for the object involved).

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:18 GMT posts: 1912

I have voted yes on this page. I think the definitions can be made more precise on some points. I don't know if they need to, because there are basically no disagreements about the meanings, but anyway here are some more comments.

> ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's non-restrictive > relative clause marker. The "relative" part means that it attaches > to a sumti to provide additional information about that sumti.

I assume a sumti is a word. {noi} attaches to a sumti to provide additional info about that sumti's referent(s), not about the sumti itself.

When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.

> noi > immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti it can appear in a > variety of places, the semantics of which are beyond the scope of this > definition.

It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti, which can also be quantified.

{le broda noi}, {LE broda ku noi}, {LE noi ... ku'o broda} are all just like {ko'a noi}.

For unquantified {LE broda}, the point of attachment is irrelevant. The clause gives additional info about the referents of the sumti. (Inner quantifiers don't change this.)

The difficulties arise with outer quantifiers, but these apply to description sumti as much as to simple sumti.

When there are outer quantifiers, the CLL rule is that relative clauses applied before the {ku} are as if they were applied to the bare (unquantified) sumti. After the {ku} the clause applies to the quantified sumti. So:

{PA LE broda ku noi} and {PA broda ku noi} are like {PA ko'a noi}.

{PA LE broda noi}, {PA broda noi} and {PA LE noi...ku'o broda} ignore the outer quantifier from the point of view of the relative clause.


The "non-restrictive" > part means that the information in the noi clause is not used to restrict > the set of things that the sumti noi is attached to refers to. In other > words, the noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, but > is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the speaker has in mind > among all the possible things that the sumti noi is attached to could > refer to.

I don't think the "in other words" part says the same as the first part, and I don't think it has much to do with what noi means, but it is not false.

> Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti > have already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to give > additional information.

Is that true?

> For logical scoping purposes, > the scope of a noi clause is entirely outside the scope of the statement > in which it is contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the > scope in which it was contained ends. The noi clause should be > considered, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its own virtual sentence > (techinically, its own "statement" production in the formal > grammar) after both the one in which it is contained and all further > statements that are logically connected to the one in which it was contained.

I think that's true for attachment to unquantified sumti. When attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi clause to apply to.

> As a side effect, movement of na ku through a sentence has no effect on > noi clauses.

When there are quantifiers involved, this is not obvious. Consider:

naku su'o broda ku noi brode cu brodi =? ro broda ku noi brode naku brodi

If we remove the noi-clause, both sentences are equivalent. With the noi clause, are they still equivalent? Does the first one say that all brodas are brode, like the second one does?

> ;poi (NOI):Restrictive clause. poi is Lojban's restrictive relative > clause marker. The "relative" part means that it attaches to a > sumti to provide additional information about that sumti.

Again, it doesn't really provide info about the sumti. In the case of {poi}, I wouldn't say it provides "additional" info either, that's what {noi} does. Anyway, it is clear what is meant, I just don't like the way it is expressed.

> poi > immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti it can appear in a > variety of places, the semantics of which are beyond the scope of this > definition.

Again, this shouldn't be the case, because any unclarity that exists with descriptions is already present with simple sumti. The various points of attachment don't really introduce new complications.

The "restrictive" part > means that the information in the poi clause is used to restrict the set > of things that the sumti poi is attached to refers to. In other words, > out of all the possible things the sumti that poi is attached to could > refer to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti is a great many > things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker to refer only to > those things that the sumti could refer to for which the bridi in the poi > clause is also true.

Again, the intent is clear but I don't like the wording.

It's not about what the sumti "could" refer to but what it "does" refer to. The sumti does have a number of referents, and the poi clause restricts from *that* number (not from any other that the sumti in some other context could refer to) to only those that satisfy the clause. If {ko'a} refers to John, Paul and Mary, then {ko'a poi femti} restricts the referents of ko'a to just those that are female, presumably just Mary. What {ko'a} could refer to in other contexts is irrelevant.

> poi is often used with da to restrict da to > some part of all the things which exist.

The referents of {da} are all the things that there are ("exist" is a charged word, so I wouldn't use it here), so {da poi} does restrict to just those that satisfy the clause.

> ;vu'o (VUhO):Long scope relative clause/phrase marker. Normally, a > relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its immediate > left, regardless of logical connectors. To have a relative clause or phrase > bind to every member of a connected group of sumti, place vu'o after the > sumti and before the relative clause or phrase cmavo.

Logical connectors are not special here. It applies to all connectors

> immediately after the zi'e. Using zi'e to mix poi and noi > clauses (or pe and ne, and so on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well > defined.

It shouldn't be too difficult to make some definitory statements about it though. I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...} it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi restriction.

> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a > cu brodi

Works often, but not a general formula.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da poi broda zo'u da ga nai brode > gi brodi > poi + su'o | su'o broda poi brode cu brodi | su'o da poi broda zo'u da ge > brode gi brodi

These are correct, but don't really get rid of {poi}.

> goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du [sumti 2]

This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with, you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2

> error than anything else. The winner of the no-usage prize, however, seems > to be ge'u. This, however, seems to have been a serious error: {mi po do > ge'u .e da} means something completely different than {mi po do .e da}, and I > don't think anyone noticed but xorxes.

I doubt I was the only one, at least the designers must have noticed it too. Anyway, are we really voting on whether anyone else noticed? :-)

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 23:18 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Just a last plea to separate legal ownership from use rights (and > getting rid of inaleineable rights as a separate notion beyond what is > in the place structure of the word for the object involved).

Give me a clear proposal and I'll see what I can do.

-Robin

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 Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:43:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I don't see the need to point this out, as it expands to: > > > > no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > > > which clearly makes the noi clause irrelevant, although still > > meaningful. > > What does it mean, given that no referent is assigned to ko'a?

In my opinion, binding a variable to nothing is different than an unbound variable. I would say that the second sentence means exactly:

no broda cu brodi

-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

{pe} as given {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, but not necessarily legal ownership {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).

Ther is also the notion of "inalienable possession" such as obtains for one's body and body parts and a few other things (culturally defined). Those that Lojban (i.e. European culture) recognizes as such are marked in the place structure of the corresponding brivla; similar connection required by other cultures will be indicated by appropriate nonce forms.

(And then the gismu people have to make sure the claim about place structure is true — and perhps find a good source for a nonce form.)

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Just a last plea to separate legal ownership from use rights (and > getting rid of inaleineable rights as a separate notion beyond what is > in the place structure of the word for the object involved).

Give me a clear proposal and I'll see what I can do.

-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

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:27:48AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > {pe} as given > > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, but not necessarily legal ownership

Isn't that what it says now?

Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?

> {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).

Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:19 GMT posts: 1912

> > > > no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > > > In my opinion, binding a variable to nothing is different than an > unbound variable. I would say that the second sentence means exactly: > > no broda cu brodi

But that's not how {ko'a} works in general, it would be a very idiosyncratic use in Lojban, and not backed up by anything in natlangs either. {ko'a} does not repeat words, it repeats referrents.

In English you can't say "nothing brodas, and it brodes" to mean "nothing brodas and nothing brodes". "It" is not used to repeat the word "nothing".

In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless:

no da broda ije ri brode

no da broda ije le go'i cu brode

no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode

{ri}, {le go'i} and {ko'a} just fail to pick up any referent, so the second sentence is just meaningless. none of those cases is equivalent to:

no da broda ije no de brode

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 Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:19 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, > > but not necessarily legal ownership > > Isn't that what it says now? > > Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion? > > > {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws). > > Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

What counts as "legal ownership" is in any case extremely messy. Anglo- American law recognizes two kinds of ownership (legal and equitable) and two kinds of possession (possession proper and natural detention). These usually all subsist in the same person, but not necessarily.

Suppose that Alice gives a valuable object to Bob in trust for Carol. Carol then lends the object to Dave, but unfortunately it is stolen by Mallory before Dave can return it. Now Bob has legal title, Carol has equitable title, Dave has possession, and Mallory has natural detention. Each of them has a distinct set of legal rights and duties as a result.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo: "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!" El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"

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

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless: > > no da broda ije ri brode > > no da broda ije le go'i cu brode > > no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode

Umm, I have no trouble with any of those.

This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should know.

-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

A> No, now it includes legal ownership

B> Well, the present use for this is redundant — or very rare — and here is a distinction that is often important and moderately common.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:27:48AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > {pe} as given > > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, but not necessarily legal ownership

A>Isn't that what it says now?

Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?

> {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).

B>Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

-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

Yes, the law in its full force is messy and would require (and would create) a language all its own. Conversational language, however, makes fewer distinctions (as do laws of other countries and societies — or more, but certainly different) and this vague one between "mine to use" and "owned by me" seems to be the most active one (even though several people might claim either of these on various grounds).

John Cowan wrote:Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, > > but not necessarily legal ownership > > Isn't that what it says now? > > Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion? > > > {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws). > > Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

What counts as "legal ownership" is in any case extremely messy. Anglo- American law recognizes two kinds of ownership (legal and equitable) and two kinds of possession (possession proper and natural detention). These usually all subsist in the same person, but not necessarily.

Suppose that Alice gives a valuable object to Bob in trust for Carol. Carol then lends the object to Dave, but unfortunately it is stolen by Mallory before Dave can return it. Now Bob has legal title, Carol has equitable title, Dave has possession, and Mallory has natural detention. Each of them has a distinct set of legal rights and duties as a result.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo: "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!" El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"

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

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless: > > no da broda ije ri brode > > no da broda ije le go'i cu brode > > no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode

Umm, I have no trouble with any of those.

This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should know.

-Robin


In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to repeat words, not referents, and these are particularly common with quantified expressions (where, lacking a referent outside its scope, repetitions of referent are not possible). So far as I can tell though neither {ko'a} nor anything introduced by {goi} has been used in this way (and most of the cases that do seem to work that way are open to other interpretations).

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

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:02:57AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, > 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless: > > > > no da broda ije ri brode > > > > no da broda ije le go'i cu brode > > > > no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode > > Umm, I have no trouble with any of those. > > This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should > know. > -Robin > PC:

Could you please find a mail program that quotes properly? There are dozens, many of them free. Here's how to do it in outlook:

http://www.slipstick.com/mail1/quote.htm

> In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to > repeat words, not referents,

Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as a referant.

-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

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 05:54:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's > > non-restrictive relative clause marker. The "relative" > > part means that it attaches to a sumti to provide additional > > information about that sumti. > > I assume a sumti is a word. {noi} attaches to a sumti to provide > additional info about that sumti's referent(s), not about the sumti > itself.

Fixed.

> When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.

Too esoteric.

> > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti > > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are > > beyond the scope of this definition. > > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti, > which can also be quantified.

The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's the effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of scope, because the definition is already big enough.

> The difficulties arise with outer quantifiers, but these apply to > description sumti as much as to simple sumti.

Sure, but the various positions do *not* apply.

> When there are outer quantifiers, the CLL rule is that relative > clauses applied before the {ku} are as if they were applied to the > bare (unquantified) sumti.

You can't put a {ku} after {ko'a}; this only applies to description sumti.

> > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in > > the noi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that > > the sumti noi is attached to refers to. In other words, the > > noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, but is > > not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the speaker has > > in mind among all the possible things that the sumti noi is > > attached to could refer to. > > I don't think the "in other words" part says the same as the first > part, and I don't think it has much to do with what noi means, but it > is not false.

"In other words" removed.

> > Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti have > > already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to > > give additional information. > > Is that true?

Yes, IME.

> > For logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is > > entirely outside the scope of the statement in which it is > > contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the scope > > in which it was contained ends. The noi clause should be > > considered, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its own virtual > > sentence (techinically, its own "statement" production in > > the formal grammar) after both the one in which it is contained and > > all further statements that are logically connected to the one in > > which it was contained. > > I think that's true for attachment to unquantified sumti. When > attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more > complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi > clause to apply to.

Yep. I see no way to add that to the definition without turning it into a chapter.

> > As a side effect, movement of na ku through a sentence has no > > effect on noi clauses. > > When there are quantifiers involved, this is not obvious. Consider: > > naku su'o broda ku noi brode cu brodi > =? ro broda ku noi brode naku brodi > > If we remove the noi-clause, both sentences are equivalent. > With the noi clause, are they still equivalent? Does the > first one say that all brodas are brode, like the second one > does?

I don't know. Any other logic geeks want to take a crack at this?

Even if they *are* different, I can't think of a solution.

> > ;poi (NOI):Restrictive clause. poi is Lojban's restrictive > > relative clause marker. The "relative" part means that it > > attaches to a sumti to provide additional information about that > > sumti. > > Again, it doesn't really provide info about the sumti. In the case of > {poi}, I wouldn't say it provides "additional" info either, that's > what {noi} does. Anyway, it is clear what is meant, I just don't like > the way it is expressed.

s/additional/specifying/, plus the "referants" thing, which was applied throughout.

> > poi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti > > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are > > beyond the scope of this definition. > > Again, this shouldn't be the case, because any unclarity that exists > with descriptions is already present with simple sumti.

Again, the CLL disagrees with you.

> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the > > poi clause is used to restrict the set of things that the sumti > > poi is attached to refers to. In other words, out of all the > > possible things the sumti that poi is attached to could refer to > > (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti is a great many > > things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker to > > refer only to those things that the sumti could refer to for which > > the bridi in the poi clause is also true. > > Again, the intent is clear but I don't like the wording.

Let me know what you think of the new version.

> > poi is often used with da to restrict da to some part of > > all the things which exist. > > The referents of {da} are all the things that there are ("exist" is a > charged word, so I wouldn't use it here), so {da poi} does restrict to > just those that satisfy the clause.

Fixed.

> > ;vu'o (VUhO):Long scope relative clause/phrase marker. Normally, > > a relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its > > immediate left, regardless of logical connectors. To have a > > relative clause or phrase bind to every member of a connected group > > of sumti, place vu'o after the sumti and before the relative clause > > or phrase cmavo. > > Logical connectors are not special here. It applies to all connectors

Sorry. s/logical/sumti/

> > immediately after the zi'e. Using zi'e to mix poi and > > noi clauses (or pe and ne, and so on) is, for very subtle > > reasons, not well defined. > > It shouldn't be too difficult to make some definitory statements about > it though.

> I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies > to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...} > it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi > restriction.

Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and poi, though. Kills them dead.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i > > je ko'a cu brodi > > Works often, but not a general formula.

It's your formula. I don't have anything better.

> > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da poi broda zo'u da ga > > nai brode gi brodi > > > > poi + su'o | su'o broda poi brode cu brodi | su'o da poi broda zo'u > > da ge brode gi brodi > > These are correct, but don't really get rid of {poi}.

Whoops. Changed.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > [sumti 2] > > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with, > you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2

Suggestions?

-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

What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?. My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to figure who said what. Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you want?

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:02:57AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, > 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless: > > > > no da broda ije ri brode > > > > no da broda ije le go'i cu brode > > > > no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode > > Umm, I have no trouble with any of those. > > This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should > know. > -Robin > PC:

Could you please find a mail program that quotes properly? There are dozens, many of them free. Here's how to do it in outlook:

http://www.slipstick.com/mail1/quote.htm

> In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to > repeat words, not referents,

Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as a referant.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?.

You top post.

You don't quote properly (using >).

> My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so > many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to > figure who said what.

Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it.

> Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you > want?

We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is impossible for the rest of us to read.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 1912

> > When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly > > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex. > > Too esoteric.

We can ignore the issue, but then we are not defining the language.

> > > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti > > > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are > > > beyond the scope of this definition. > > > > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that > > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti, > > which can also be quantified. > > The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's the > effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of scope, > because the definition is already big enough.

On what point does the CLL seem to disagree?

I suspect I didn't make myself clear.

Simple sumti present two cases:

S1 {ko'a noi broda} S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}

Description sumti present seven cases:

D1 {le brode noi broda} D2 {le brode ku noi broda} D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode} D4 {PA le brode noi broda} D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda} D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode} D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}

D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1 D5 and D7 behave like S2

The different points of application for the description cases do not introduce any complication that is not already present in the simple case.

> > When > > attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more > > complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi > > clause to apply to. > > Yep. I see no way to add that to the definition without turning it into > a chapter.

I'll try to come up with a concise way of putting it.

> > I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies > > to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...} > > it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi > > restriction. > > Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and poi, > though. Kills them dead.

Why?

> > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i > > > je ko'a cu brodi > > > > Works often, but not a general formula. > > It's your formula. I don't have anything better.

Yes, but when I offered it I did say it was not general.

> > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > > [sumti 2] > > > > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with, > > you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2 > > Suggestions?

The same description as for both assigned should work.

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 2388

Oh boy! Do you mean "with there not being a referent"? In that case, how can the referent carry over. Do you mean "having something called 'nothing' as a referent"? In that case, Fridegesis, what sort of thing is it and so on along that line. What you say sounds incredibly like the latter, but I expect you mean the former, which does leave the problem noted, in need of some careful exposition and clear way of dealing.


robin: > pc: >In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to > repeat words, not referents,

Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as a referant.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 2388

Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted material marked off with a solid line along the side. The flaw in this is that it does not allow me to make comments directly attached to the quoted passage being commented upon, hence the top comments. I can move them to the bottom if you would like that better. As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly inclined to convert to it, especially since the only person who regularly reads what I write has never complained about it. Perhaps you all would consider getting your defective systems upgraded to something more 21st century.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?.

You top post.

You don't quote properly (using >).

> My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so > many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to > figure who said what.

Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it.

> Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you > want?

We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is impossible for the rest of us to read.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:43:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly > > > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex. > > > > Too esoteric. > > We can ignore the issue, but then we are not defining the language.

We can't define *everything* in the word definitions! There will still be a CLL, and other learning materials.

Do you have a specific suggestion?

You trimmed too much, by the way.

> > > > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions > > > > smuti it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of > > > > which are beyond the scope of this definition. > > > > > > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that > > > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple > > > sumti, which can also be quantified. > > > > The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's > > the effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of > > scope, because the definition is already big enough. > > On what point does the CLL seem to disagree?

The CLL seems to say that the cases where position matters are only relevant to description sumti, and that those cases, while requiring quantification, are a seperate issue from those issues surrounding quantification of simple sumti.

> I suspect I didn't make myself clear. > > Simple sumti present two cases: > > S1 {ko'a noi broda} > S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}

I don't understand what the difference between those two things is, and I don't see anything in the CLL that indicates that there is a difference. Chatper and verse, please.

> Description sumti present seven cases: > > D1 {le brode noi broda} > D2 {le brode ku noi broda} > D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode} > D4 {PA le brode noi broda} > D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda} > D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode} > D7 {PA brode ku noi broda} > > D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1 > D5 and D7 behave like S2

All of the exmples in the CLL that talk about the positional variants (this would be in section 6 of chapter 8) use both inner *and* outer quantifiers, and make it clear that only when you have both does it really matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but it's not the same thing at all.

> The different points of application for the description cases do not > introduce any complication that is not already present in the simple > case.

Again, the CLL disagrees.

> > > I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause > > > applies to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... > > > zi'e noi ...} it applies to just those referents that are left > > > after the poi restriction. > > > > Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and > > poi, though. Kills them dead. > > Why?

ko'a noi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi = ko'a cu broda .i je ko'a cu brodi zi'e poi brode cu brodi = ko'a cu broda .i je ko'a cu brodi .i je da me ko'a .i je da ge brode gi brodi

Huh. Guess not. Tweaking zi'e for an .i je version.

> > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu > > > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > > > > > Works often, but not a general formula. > > > > It's your formula. I don't have anything better. > > Yes, but when I offered it I did say it was not general.

Do you have anything better? I don't.

> > > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du > > > > [sumti 2] > > > > > > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin > > > with, you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2 > > > > Suggestions? > > The same description as for both assigned should work.

That can't go in both directions. I've compromised.

BTW, making a mild change to poi; let me know if there's a problem.

poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:51:04PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Oh boy! Do you mean "with there not being a referent"?

Nope.

> Do you mean "having something called 'nothing' as a referent"?

Yep.

> In that case, Fridegesis,

Huh?

> what sort of thing is it and so on along that line.

It's nothing. I don't see a problem with "See that variable? OK, it represents nothing-ness.".

Clearly other people see a problem with this.

-Robin

> robin: > > pc: > >In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in > > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to > > repeat words, not referents, > > Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as > a referant. > > -Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted > material marked off with a solid line along the side.

I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you'd like to start by telling me what mail program you're using to read these mails?

You *are* reading them as mails, right?

> The flaw in this is that it does not allow me to make comments > directly attached to the quoted passage being commented upon,

Why don't you just insert your comments by adding lines in the middle, like everybody else dose?

> hence the top comments. I can move them to the bottom if you would > like that better.

Good god no.

> As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became > the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly > inclined to convert to it, especially since the only person who > regularly reads what I write has never complained about it.

If you mean xorxes, trust me, it annoys him too.

> Perhaps you all would consider getting your defective systems upgraded > to something more 21st century.

I've already warned you about this, at least half a dozen times. I use, run, and operate computers for my livelyhood. You are the only person who makes insulting comments about the systems I run and the programs I use. If you like, I will *happily* save you from having to not deal with my "defective" systems, by globally blocking you from using lojban.org resources.

Stop insulting my hard work. Tell me *exactly* what you are having problems with, in private e-mail, with clearly stated issues, preferrably including screenshots.

You cannot *imagine* the work I put into lojban.org, and you are the only person who consistently complains, no matter what I do, and yet I still *TRY* to help you, and I *try* to understand what your issues are.

If you insult my systems again, I will cease communicating with you, even by proxy, and this time it will be permanent.

-Robin

> Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?. > > You top post. > > You don't quote properly (using >). > > > My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so > > many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to > > figure who said what. > > Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it. > > > Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you > > want? > > We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is > impossible for the rest of us to read. > > How many times do we have to tell you this? > > -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 23:20 GMT posts: 1912

> The CLL seems to say that the cases where position matters are only > relevant to description sumti, and that those cases, while requiring > quantification, are a seperate issue from those issues surrounding > quantification of simple sumti.

If CLL says that, then I believe CLL is mistaken. I'll take a closer look at what it says tonight.

> > Simple sumti present two cases: > > > > S1 {ko'a noi broda} > > S2 {PA ko'a noi broda} > > I don't understand what the difference between those two things is, and > I don't see anything in the CLL that indicates that there is a > difference. Chatper and verse, please.

{ko'a noi broda} is just what it looks like, noi applies to all referents of ko'a.

{PA ko'a noi broda} = {PA da poi me ko'a zi'e noi broda} noi applies to a restriction of the referents of ko'a.

> > Description sumti present seven cases: > > > > D1 {le brode noi broda} > > D2 {le brode ku noi broda} > > D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode} > > D4 {PA le brode noi broda} > > D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda} > > D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode} > > D7 {PA brode ku noi broda} > > > > D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1 > > D5 and D7 behave like S2 > > All of the exmples in the CLL that talk about the positional variants > (this would be in section 6 of chapter 8) use both inner *and* outer > quantifiers, and make it clear that only when you have both does it > really matter.

D1 {le brode noi broda} D2 {le brode ku noi broda} D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}

D1, D2 and D3 are all equivalent, with or without inner quantifiers. In all cases, the noi claus applies to the referents of {le broda} without any restrictions. If you see a difference, please point it out.

D4 {PA le brode noi broda} D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}

These are both {PA da poi me le brode noi broda} i.e. the noi clause applies to the referents of le brode, again without any restrictions, before the quantifier acts.

Finally:

D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda} D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}

These are:

D5: PA da poi me le brode zi'e noi broda D6: PA da poi brode zi'e noi broda

i.e. the noi clause acts after the restriction introduced by the quantifier, just as in the {PA ko'a noi broda} case.

I don't believe CLL is in disagreement with any of that, even though it doesn't explain it like that. In any case, I will check tonight.

If CLL is in disagreement, then how does CLL deal with each case?

> > BTW, making a mild change to poi; let me know if there's a problem. > > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je > da ge brode gi brodi

(I don't think that's right. More later.)

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 2388

Read the beginning of Chapter 16 in CLL. Fridegesis, by the way, was a 9th century schoolmaster who noted "Of course "nothing" must be a name for something, since God made the world out of it." "Nothing" just exactly denies that there is something, so can hardly be a name for some something.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:51:04PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Oh boy! Do you mean "with there not being a referent"?

Nope.

> Do you mean "having something called 'nothing' as a referent"?

Yep.

> In that case, Fridegesis,

Huh?

> what sort of thing is it and so on along that line.

It's nothing. I don't see a problem with "See that variable? OK, it represents nothing-ness.".

Clearly other people see a problem with this.

-Robin

> robin: > > pc: > >In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in > > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to > > repeat words, not referents, > > Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as > a referant. > > -Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 1912

Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something like this:

noi (NOI)
Non-restrictive relative clause marker. It attaches a clause to

the sumti which it follows, providing additional information about the referents of that sumti. Inside the clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of the bridi that the sumti fills. For unquantified sumti, the clause applies to all the referents of the sumti. For quantified sumti, the clause applies to the restriction of the referents of the sumti determined by the quantifier. With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not. The relative clause is terminated with ku'o, which is often elidable.

poi (NOI)
Restrictive relative clause marker. It attaches a clause to the

sumti which it follows, putting a restriction on the referents of that sumti. Inside the clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of the bridi that the sumti fills. The clause selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy it. With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri. The relative clause is terminated with ku'o, which is often elidable.

(In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause doesn't make a diference.)

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 xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:20 GMT posts: 1912

> ! Formal Definitions > > (AKA conversion formulas) > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a > cu brodi

You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the other way around. It may very well be true that the number of brodas that brode is more than PA.

Also, I insist the formula is not valid for all PA. In particular, it is not valid for {no}, but also it is inaccurate for {su'ePA} quantifiers, because it turns them into {su'ePA .e su'o}.

I think that no conversion formula is better than one that is not quite right.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi > brodi

This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.

> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je > da ge brode gi brodi

The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda, the one on the right does not.

{PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:

PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode

More generally, for any sumti:

[PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

> zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi sumti > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]

This one is wrong, just try some example:

da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi

> goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a

For both unassigned, that's not meaningful. You could have instead something like:

zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo ka ce'u sinxa "ko'a" and "ko'e" from now on co-refer.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > >>As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became >>the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly >>inclined to convert to it, >>

By "barbarous" do you mean inserting the responses immediately after what they refer to, saving the reader the trouble of scrolling back and forth between the 2 regions?

I suggest you try Thunderbird for email, which you can get at http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ It's $free, has a very modern feature set, blocks junk mail effectively, runs wonderfully on Windows, is more secure than Outlook/Express with respect to hostile email viruses, and generally is looked upon favorably by the heavens.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

> Read the beginning of Chapter 16 in CLL. Fridegesis, by the way, was > a 9th century schoolmaster who noted "Of course "nothing" must be a > name for something, since God made the world out of it." "Nothing" > just exactly denies that there is something, so can hardly be a name > for some something.


My mother used to think that warmth outside would first cool off the apartment before warming it, since the heat would drive the cold out of the walls and into the room. But an electron hole is a particle with a positive charge and a mass slightly less than that of the electron.

I seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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 seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on > whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment.

Yes, though it was never clear what you meant by special treatment.

When {no da broda} is true, i.e. when there is no thing x such that x brodas, zo'e cannot refer to a thing that brodas, because there aren't any. That seems clear enough.

{zo'e} is not a replacement for words. {zo'e} refers to things. (Those things can eventually be referred to by other means as well, using other words, but that's not what's important about {zo'e}.)

The value zero, i.e. (li no), is a perfectly valid value for {zo'e} to refer to.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod: > > >>I seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on >>whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment. >> >> > >Yes, though it was never clear what you meant by special treatment. > >When {no da broda} is true, i.e. when there is no thing x such that >x brodas, zo'e cannot refer to a thing that brodas, because there >aren't any. That seems clear enough. > >{zo'e} is not a replacement for words. {zo'e} refers to things. > >


zo'e/ (KOhA7)/

  • unspecif it*

pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes bridi true


So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple sumti.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

> zo'e/ (KOhA7)/ > > *unspecif it* > > pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes > bridi true

The definition as it stands is obviously wrong, because not all bridi with zo'e are true.

But, if we consider only true bridi's, then zo'e represents an obvious or irrelevant value that indeed makes the bridi true. If no value in that position makes the bridi true, then zo'e cannot represent a value, can it?

> So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then > it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can > represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple > sumti.

The definition says that zo'e represents a value, not an expression.

The definition is obviously broken: if no value makes the bridi true, zo'e cannot possibly have a value which makes the bridi true.

One way to fix that is to say that in cases where no value makes the bridi true, zo'e can't be used.

Another way is to say that {zo'e} doesn't really need to have values, it just represents words, so it can stand for example for the words {no da}, which have meaning in a full sentence, but don't refer to any value. This would not be a fix, though, it would break the definition even more.

{zo'e} can stand for the empty set, of course, that's a value. We rarely make claims about the empty set in everyday discourse, but if the empty set is the obvious value, there's no problem in {zo'e} referring to it.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>{zo'e} can stand for the empty set, of course, that's a value. >We rarely make claims about the empty set in everyday discourse, >but if the empty set is the obvious value, there's no problem in >{zo'e} referring to it. > >

I think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set when appropriate.

We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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 think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set > when appropriate.

When would you need it, for example?

> We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we > could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and > that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true.

Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars, and {ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they couldn't both be true at the same time! The second one says that nothing is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the first one says that the value li no is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship. Only one of them can be true.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod: > > >>I think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set >>when appropriate. >> >> > >When would you need it, for example? > >

When the other places are interesting. A discussion about the contents of lidless bottles.

>>We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we >>could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and >>that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true. >> >> > >Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars, and >{ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they couldn't >both be true at the same time! The second one says that nothing is >related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the first one says that >the value li no is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship. Only >one of them can be true. > >

But stepping away from the Lojban symbols you can see that not only can they both be so, but that each implies the other! Which would you use to discuss a free item, and why would the other form then be false?


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:18:55PM -0400, xod wrote: > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > >--- xod: > >>We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is > >>free, we could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it > >>has a value, and that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They > >>are both true. > > > >Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars, > >and {ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they > >couldn't both be true at the same time! The second one says that > >nothing is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the > >first one says that the value li no is related to ta by the > >{rupnu} relationship. Only one of them can be true. > > But stepping away from the Lojban symbols you can see that not > only can they both be so, but that each implies the other!

Absolutely not!

{ta rupnu no da} == {ta na rupnu da} ~= {ta na rupnu li no}

{ta rupnu li no} ~= {ta rupnu da}

These two are not even *slightly* similar assertions!

One is "free", the other is "not for sale at any price", approximately.

-Robin

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 2388

Fredegisus (I looked it up finally) is getting a workout here, along with several other guys.

1. {ta broda no da} just denies in a simpler way (because the negation is already confined) {ta broda su'o da}.

2. {li no} does refer to something, the number zero, so that {ta broda li no} cannot be true at the same time as {ta broda no da} is.

3. {li no} does not refer to the empty set (except in very strange situations — mirroring arithmetic in set theory, say), but the empty set is something, too, so {ta broda le nomei} can't be true at the same time as {ta broda no da}

4. Put another way, neither {li no} nor {le nomei} refers to nothing.

5. Capless bottle have usually been discussed not in terms of {botpi fo no da}, things which are incomplete bottles because they lack lids, but rather in terms of {botpi fo zi'o} a totally different predicate which, however, does seem to be about things like bottle except that they do not definitionally have lids — vases maybe. It does not mean that its referents are bottle without lids, since they are not bottles at all in Lojban, not botbi but botpi fo zi'o. And they are certain not bottles for which nothing is a lid ("and a damned poor lid it would be too" as Fred might say).

6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either, since it doesn't refer at all but just plugs a place in a predicate, taking it out of play. (the answer to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i}, the presupposition of the question — that {zi'o} refers — is false).

7. And of course no other expression refers to nothing either, since there is no nothing to refer to — and worse, no expression can even purport to refer to nothing.

(Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly but literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na zaste}.)

One of the upshots of all this is that sentences with "nothing" or "no" or other denial words in them need special treatment insofar as certain kinds of formulae will not work for them: they can't be internal quantifiers for example, general constructions of numeric quantifiers can't cover them within a single formula with the other numbers (this is also true of "at most" formulae — although, in fact, the numeric forms of all these can be defined recursively).

More to the present point, {zo'e} of course can't refer to nothing, but also {no da} is not a permissible substitute for {zo'e}. This is because replacing {zo'e} with {no da} would not merely (indeed, not at all) specify an object, IT WOULD ALSO NEGATE THE SENTENCE, that is not only fail to specify but change the sentence about as much as possible. This is not an appropriate thing for specifiction to do.

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

pc: > 6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either,

Here you seem to talk about a nothing that is something, and claiming that {zi'o} does not refer to it. What you should say is that {zi'o} does indeed refer to nothing, i.e. it does not refer to anything.

> (the answer > to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i}, the > presupposition of the question — that {zi'o} > refers — is false).

I think {zo zi'o sinxa no da} is perfectly fine and requires no {na'i}: "There is no x such that {zi'o} refers to x".

> (Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly but > literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na zaste}.)

Literally from the French? I can't say I know how exactly "néant" works in French, but the usual Spanish translation is "El ser y la nada", where "nada" means "nothing" (and is used, just as in English, in both senses, logical and reified). The English translation is usually "Being and Nothingness", but sometimes "Being and Nothing" too.

Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would rather use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it really about zasti at all?

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > pc: > > 6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either, > > Here you seem to talk about a nothing that is > something, > and claiming that {zi'o} does not refer to it. > What > you should say is that {zi'o} does indeed refer > to > nothing, i.e. it does not refer to anything.

I am trying to talk to people who think "nothing" is the name of something and here am telling them (for the fourth time, I think) that this is not a case of that sort.

> > (the answer > > to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i}, > the > > presupposition of the question — that {zi'o} > > refers — is false). > > I think {zo zi'o sinxa no da} is perfectly fine > and > requires no {na'i}: "There is no x such that > {zi'o} > refers to x".

OK, if you want to, but that still seems to allow that {zi'o} is the sort of thing that refers but just doesn't happen to: are you happy with {zo i sinxa no da}?

> > (Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly > but > > literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na > zaste}.) > > Literally from the French? I can't say I know > how > exactly "néant" works in French, but the usual > Spanish translation is "El ser y la nada", > where > "nada" means "nothing" (and is used, just as in > English, in both senses, logical and reified). > The English translation is usually "Being and > Nothingness", but sometimes "Being and Nothing" > > too. > > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would > rather > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it > really about zasti at all? > Yes, it seems to be, although it may take advantage of the second place of {zasti}, "under metaphysics." The subtitle is "An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology." One standard summary says "Being is never exhausted by any of its phenomenal aspects, no particular perspective reveals the entire character of being." and then goes into details, in particular, "being-for-itself is derived from being-in-itself by an act of nihilation, for being-for-itself is a nothingness at the heart of being." "neant" appears to be a present active participle, "non-being," here as a noun, ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state or something in that state — both different from "nothing," in the sense of the lack of something. So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of existential quantification, that is involved.

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 2388

Oops!. I forgot to credit: Frank Magill, Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary Form, vol. II, New York, Salem Press, 1961 (the grad student's and professor's best friend).

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > OK, if you want to, but that still seems to allow > that {zi'o} is the sort of thing that refers but > just doesn't happen to: are you happy with {zo i > sinxa no da}?

Not particularly unhappy, but in the case of {zi'o}, there is more of a reason to think that it might refer, because it is in a selma'o where most other members usually do refer, so pointing out that it in particular does not is pertinent. (Not that we are disagreeing on anything substantial here.)

> > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would > > rather > > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it > > really about zasti at all? > > > Yes, it seems to be, although it may take > advantage of the second place of {zasti}, "under > metaphysics."

Third place, actually. The second one is for the observer. A charged word if there is one.


> "neant" appears to be a present active > participle, "non-being," here as a noun, > ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state or > something in that state — both different from > "nothing," in the sense of the lack of something. > So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of > existential quantification, that is involved.

I'm not fully convinced, but I'll take your word for it.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>One is "free", the other is "not for sale at any price", >approximately. > >


Alright. I selected a poor example.

A plane has no thickness. It also has a thickness of zero. Here each one implies the other.

-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 1912

> A plane has no thickness. It also has a thickness of zero. Here each one > implies the other.

That only shows that "thickness" can be used with two different senses, {lo ni rotsu} and {lo ka rotsu}.

How would we say those in Lojban?

lo plita cu mitre li no lo ni rotsu A plane meters zero in the amount of being thick.

lo plita na ckaji lo ka rotsu. A plane does not have the property of being thick.

lo plita cu ckaji no ka rotsu A plane has no property of being thick.

(The way rotsu is defined, this is doubtful though. What is the smallest dimension of a plane? Is it its second or third most significant dimension? If the second, then a planar figure can be rotsu, which would be the same as saying that it is ganra.)

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

> It >does not mean that its referents are bottle >without lids, since they are not bottles at all >in Lojban, not botbi but botpi fo zi'o. >

(Assuming that the definition of "bottle" includes a lid, even in English) this argument is unfair. The description of the item is "bottle without lid", not "bottle". One cannot complain that the description "bottle without lid" is wrong because it's not a bottle. The description /says /that it's not a bottle. This is a grouping issue. We can call the vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as "botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the same physical situation.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT

On Wednesday 25 August 2004 12:02, xod wrote: > (Assuming that the definition of "bottle" includes a lid, even in > English) this argument is unfair. The description of the item is "bottle > without lid", not "bottle". One cannot complain that the description > "bottle without lid" is wrong because it's not a bottle. The description > /says /that it's not a bottle. This is a grouping issue. We can call the > vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as > "botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the > same physical situation.

What's the difference between a lidless (bottle) and a lidless bottle? "botpi fo noda" doesn't mean "is a lidless bottle", it means "is not a bottle with a lid".

phma -- li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 143

Pierre Abbat wrote:

>On Wednesday 25 August 2004 12:02, xod wrote: > > >>(Assuming that the definition of "bottle" includes a lid, even in >>English) this argument is unfair. The description of the item is "bottle >>without lid", not "bottle". One cannot complain that the description >>"bottle without lid" is wrong because it's not a bottle. The description >>/says /that it's not a bottle. This is a grouping issue. We can call the >>vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as >>"botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the >>same physical situation. >> >> > >What's the difference between a lidless (bottle) and a lidless bottle? "botpi >fo noda" doesn't mean "is a lidless bottle", it means "is not a bottle with a >lid". > >phma > >

You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda

-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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 Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:22:12PM -0400, xod wrote: > You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda

As this is exactly equivalent to "xu da na botpi fo da", I respond "go'i".

-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 23:22 GMT posts: 1912

> We can call the > vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as > "botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the > same physical situation.

We should distinguish descriptions from predications here.

{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles. That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing, which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda} is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}.

If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying {ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something".

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > > > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would > > > rather > > > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. > Is it > > > really about zasti at all? > > > > > Yes, it seems to be, although it may take > > advantage of the second place of {zasti}, > "under > > metaphysics." > > Third place, actually. The second one is for > the observer. > A charged word if there is one.

Especially since the first place is one of those troublesome words that are either opaque or limited to abstractions (or ampliating, but that amounts to the first in this case). > > > "neant" appears to be a present active > > participle, "non-being," here as a noun, > > ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state > or > > something in that state — both different > from > > "nothing," in the sense of the lack of > something. > > So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of > > existential quantification, that is involved. > > I'm not fully convinced, but I'll take your > word > for it. > Thanks; existentialism is not my thing, but this seems pretty clear. In particular, there are people who have non-being — due to false consciousness: refusal to define themselves (in shorthand, the details are long, boring and totally muddling if not muddled) — so non-being seems clearly seprate from quantification.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:22:12PM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda >> >> > >As this is exactly equivalent to "xu da na botpi fo da", I respond >"go'i". > > >

Is la .pier. botpi fo noda somehow equivalent to da na botpi fo da


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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 Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:46:51PM -0400, xod wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:22:12PM -0400, xod wrote: > > > > > >>You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda > > > >As this is exactly equivalent to "xu da na botpi fo da", I > >respond "go'i". > > Is > > la .pier. botpi fo noda > > somehow equivalent to > > da na botpi fo da

Absolutely.

More specifically, it is *excatly* equivalent to

la .pier. na botpi su'o da

-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 23:22 GMT posts: 1912

> Is > la .pier. botpi fo noda > somehow equivalent to > da na botpi fo da

That says that it is not the case that a thing botpis fo itself.

{la pier botpi fo noda} is equivalent to {la pier na botpi fo su'oda}

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com

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

Posted by rab.spir on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 152

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:38:32PM -0400, xod wrote: > So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then > it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can > represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple > sumti.

I don't think that the empty set is very often a replacement for "zo'e". Though it could be for, say, "zo'e cmacyselcmi", or "zoimy {} my sinxa zo'e".

You're just really grasping for a way that something called "nothing" can be something. If you do that, you have to be very careful, or else you get into classic tricks:

Nothing is better than eternal life. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal life.

-- Rob Speer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:22 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> {lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.

So it is, but it also refers to horses, camels, stars, and beetles, since they too na botpi be fo da. Descriptions with contradictory negations in them just aren't very useful, except under peculiar ontologies where we identify "Fido" as the whole universe except Fido (lo na me la fidon.) and similarly for all other objects. (Oddly, this ontology is just as consistent as the ordinary one.)

-- Do NOT stray from the path! John Cowan --Gandalf http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT

xod scripsit:

> Is > la .pier. botpi fo noda > somehow equivalent to > da na botpi fo da

Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which serve as their own lids. Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, then there is at least something in the universe which is not a bottle-with-lid. To deny it is to claim that the universe contains only bottles-with-lids, in which case either the bottles must be their own lids, or some bottles must serve as lids for other bottles.

"You can't fool me, young man; *it's turtles all the way down.*"

-- There is / One art John Cowan No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein

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

> xod scripsit: > > Is > > la .pier. botpi fo noda > > somehow equivalent to > > da na botpi fo da > > Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second > follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, then there > is at least something in the universe which is not a bottle-with-lid.

It's nice to see you use the sane {na} scope. :-)

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 Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> > Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second > > follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, then there > > is at least something in the universe which is not a bottle-with-lid. > > It's nice to see you use the sane {na} scope. :-)

Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one. What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders and nobody else (JCB got this one right).

-- One Word to write them all, John Cowan One Access to find them, http://www.reutershealth.com One Excel to count them all, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan And thus to Windows bind them. --Mike Champion

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

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

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > > Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second > > > follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, > > > then there is at least something in the universe which is not > > > a bottle-with-lid. > > > > It's nice to see you use the sane {na} scope. :-) > > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one. > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders > and nobody else (JCB got this one right).

I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this exchange to me in small words?

-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

> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one. > > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a > > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders > > and nobody else (JCB got this one right). > > I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this > exchange to me in small words?

John interpreted {da na botpi fo de} as:

su'o da naku su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

"For some x, it is not the case that there is a y such that y is the lid of x."

But CLL says it should be interpreted as:

naku su'o da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

"It is not the case that for some x there is some y such that y is the lid of x."

The first one is clearly true, it's easy to find examples of things that don't have lids. The second one is clearly false, it's easy to find bottles that do have lids.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 143

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit: > > > >>Is >>la .pier. botpi fo noda >>somehow equivalent to >>da na botpi fo da >> >> > >Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which serve as >their own lids. >

Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

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

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote: > John Cowan wrote: > >xod scripsit: > > > >>Is > >>la .pier. botpi fo noda > >>somehow equivalent to > >>da na botpi fo da > > > >Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which > >serve as their own lids. > > Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.

I now have no idea what you are talking about.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this > exchange to me in small words?

We are used to the idea that scope reads left to right: that roda su'ode means "For all X's there is a Y" whereas su'ode roda means "There is a Y such that for all X's" etc. etc. Allowing na before the selbri to mean the same as naku (which is the general negator) at the beginning of the bridi breaks this rule, and leads to errors. It would have been better to get rid of na and just use naku (which in that case could be shortened to na, obviously).

Jorge wants to change the rules and treat na and naku as the same. I agree in principle, but think it's too big a change now.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to Sam, a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and his majesty. --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"

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

> What's > really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a very very bad > decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders and nobody else > (JCB got this one right).

I never understood why this was seen as a problem. {naku} means just what {na} means, but with sane scope, so it is not as if we didn't have other means to negate quantifiers that precede the selbri when that is what's wanted. Allowing {na} before the selbri is like allowing tenses there. It is useful for {lo na broda} type of descriptions. But there is no compelling reason for that {na} to have scope over preceding quantifiers.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod wrote: > > >>We can call the >>vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as >>"botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the >>same physical situation. >> >> > >We should distinguish descriptions from predications here. > >{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles. >That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing, >which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda} >is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}. > >

Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable to camels, stars, etc)

>If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying >{ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something". > >

How does this even work?

ta botpi fo no da = noda zo'u ta botpi fo da = ?


And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that convention getting overhauled too?


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>John Cowan wrote: >> >> >>>xod scripsit: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Is >>>>la .pier. botpi fo noda >>>>somehow equivalent to >>>>da na botpi fo da >>>> >>>> >>>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which >>>serve as their own lids. >>> >>> >>Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to. >> >> > >I now have no idea what you are talking about. > >-Robin > >

Look at the structure of the 2 sentences. la .pier. is not da.

-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

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

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:48:21PM -0400, xod wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote: > > > > > >>John Cowan wrote: > >> > >> > >>>xod scripsit: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Is > >>>>la .pier. botpi fo noda > >>>>somehow equivalent to > >>>>da na botpi fo da > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which > >>>serve as their own lids. > >>> > >>> > >>Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to. > >> > >> > > > >I now have no idea what you are talking about. > > Look at the structure of the 2 sentences. la .pier. is not da.

Fully aware. I have no idea what your point is, though.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT

xod scripsit:

> Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a > lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are > performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable > to camels, stars, etc)

So much the worse for usage. This is core logical-language stuff.

> ta botpi fo no da > = noda zo'u ta botpi fo da > = ?

The next step is naku su'oda zo'u ta botpi fo da, which is a core first-order predicate logic sentence: ~ Ex botpi_fo(Ta, x) where "Ta" is a constant.

> And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid > doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that > convention getting overhauled too?

No, it isn't being overhauled. Bottles which don't have lids may be bottles, but they aren't botpi, and you need to use some other predicate to describe them.

-- 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 jcowan@reutershealth.com isn't a man. --Jewish saying http://www.reutershealth.com

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:48:21PM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>John Cowan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>xod scripsit: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Is >>>>>>la .pier. botpi fo noda >>>>>>somehow equivalent to >>>>>>da na botpi fo da >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which >>>>>serve as their own lids. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I now have no idea what you are talking about. >>> >>> >>Look at the structure of the 2 sentences. la .pier. is not da. >> >> > >Fully aware. I have no idea what your point is, though. > >-Robin > >

You're insisting that dE botpi fo nodA is equivalent to dA na botpi fo nodA.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

> Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a > lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are > performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable > to camels, stars, etc)

Can you give examples?

I don't think people say things like {mi patfu noda} to mean "I am indeed a father, one that happens to have no children".

The {botpi} example is odd because {botpi} has a weird place structure which does not correspond to its keyword. Try examples with natural place structures an you will see that {noda} works as you would expect.

> >If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying > >{ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something". > > How does this even work? > > ta botpi fo no da > = noda zo'u ta botpi fo da > = ?

Yes.

= naku su'oda zo'u ta botpi fo da

noda = naku su'oda no thing = not the case that at least one thing

> And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid > doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that convention > getting overhauled too?

Nothing is getting overhauled here. Lidless bottles are hard to discuss in terms of {botpi} just because {botpi} has the wrong place structure for that concept. {caircau zilbotpi} would be "lidless bottle", where {zilbotpi} is a more general concept than {botpi}.

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 23:24 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:02:24PM -0400, xod wrote: > You're insisting that > > dE botpi fo nodA > > is equivalent to > > dA na botpi fo nodA.

Then I made a mistake.

I insist that

da botpi fo no de

is equivalent to

da na botpi fo de

But as I recall, the original sentence used *ta*, not *da*. Your second sentence is a double negative, by the way.

-Robin

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 143

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit: > > > >>Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a >>lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are >>performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable >>to camels, stars, etc) >> >> > >So much the worse for usage. This is core logical-language stuff. > >


Alright. Sorry! I'm going to go away and quit annoying everyone until I learn predicate logic.


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 2388

> John Cowan wrote: > > >xod scripsit: > > > > > > > >>Do you realize that in usage, people usually > use "noda" to mean "lacks a > >>lid", and not this contradiction of the > entire sentence which you are > >>performing, which generally results in > something meaningless (applicable > >>to camels, stars, etc) > >> > >> > > > >So much the worse for usage. This is core > logical-language stuff.

well, it is the core of the logical part but not necessarily of the language part. We blithely toss around this is equivalent to that and so on and that is probably tri\ue in a pure;y semantic sense. However, that does not mean that the two sentences are approriately used in the same contexts; they may well carry different pragmatic freight: different implicatures or presuppositions etc. So, using {ta botpi no da} may quite reasonably be useful in discussions of lidless bottleq, since it implicates that ta would be a botpi but for its lack of lid. Some of the equivalent forms do not carry this sugggestion and others carry others. We don't really want to get too narrow here — though we do not want to violate logic either, of course.

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

Posted by rab.spir on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 152

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:47:08PM -0400, xod wrote: > >{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles. > >That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing, > >which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda} > >is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}. > > > > > > Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a > lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are > performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable > to camels, stars, etc)

Funny, I thought that in usage people used "noda" to mean "nothing".

I'm pretty sure that it's more useful to keep things like "mi viska noda" meaning "I don't see anything", than to facilitate talking about lidless bottles.

It's not meaningless. You might as well be complaining that describing something as "not green" is meaningless, because that description fits elephants as well as it fits red things. Something can have a lot of referents and still be meaningful.

-- Rob Speer

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 12:24:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one. > > > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a > > > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the > > > Founders and nobody else (JCB got this one right). > > > > I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this > > exchange to me in small words? > > John interpreted {da na botpi fo de} as: > > su'o da naku su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de > > "For some x, it is not the case that there > is a y such that y is the lid of x." > > But CLL says it should be interpreted as: > > naku su'o da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de > > "It is not the case that for some x there > is some y such that y is the lid of x." > > The first one is clearly true, it's easy to find examples > of things that don't have lids. The second one is clearly > false, it's easy to find bottles that do have lids.

Hmm.

OK. So which one is derivable from {da botpi fi no de}?

I think only the first one, {da na ku botpi fi su'o de}, is, but I'm not sure.

In which case, I think I mis-represented things to xod.

-Robin

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 Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ! Formal Definitions > > > > (AKA conversion formulas) > > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because > the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the > brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the > other way around.

I don't see how it is *possible* for order to matter around an {i je}, aside from scoping issues. It's a symmetrical relationship; both haves are equally binding.

> Also, I insist the formula is not valid for all PA. In particular, > it is not valid for {no},

Adding a case for {no} doesn't bother me.

> but also it is inaccurate for {su'ePA} quantifiers, because it > turns them into {su'ePA .e su'o}.

I don't follow that at all.

> I think that no conversion formula is better than one that is not > quite right.

Ummm, you've already admitted that your own conversion formulae do not apply in all cases.

> > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga > > nai brode gi brodi > > This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that > everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.

Whoops. Would swapping the sentences fix that?

> > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA > > da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi > > The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda, > the one on the right does not.

Which of those "rights" was supposed to be a left?

> {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as: > > PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode > > More generally, for any sumti: > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me > sumti gi'e broda

Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.

> > zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi sumti > > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest] > > This one is wrong, just try some example: > > da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi > > =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi

Why? {i je} is symmetrical; both halves must be equally binding on {da}, else what's the point?

> > goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'e co'a > > sinxa ko'a > > For both unassigned, that's not meaningful. You could have instead > something like: > > zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo ka ce'u sinxa > "ko'a" and "ko'e" from now on co-refer.

Sneaky. Thanks.

-Robin

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

Test, sorry.

-Robin

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 Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something > like this: > > ;noi (NOI): snip to important part > With description sumti, the relative > clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the > selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of > the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not. > relative clause is terminated with ku'o, which is often > elidable. > > ;poi (NOI): snip to important part > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri. > > (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause doesn't > make a diference.)

I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html section 6.

In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not "noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.

-robin

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 11:43:27PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something > > like this: > > > > ;noi (NOI): > snip to important part > > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached > > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in this case the > > clause applies to all the referents of the sumti, whether there > > is an outer quantifier or not. relative clause is terminated > > with ku'o, which is often elidable. > > > > ;poi (NOI): > snip to important part > > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached > > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri. > > > > (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause > > doesn't make a diference.) > > I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of > http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html > section 6. > > In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not > "noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no > difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.

I lied; there are some examples with {noi}, but they only apply to (old-style) lo clauses, and seem to be a bit of a different issue, although it's hard to tell because your way of describing it is so completely different.

In xorlo, it would appear that the lo + noi examples require explicitely doing something like {PA lo ro prenu noi blabi}.

-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

> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu > > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > > > You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because > > the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the > > brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the > > other way around. > > I don't see how it is *possible* for order to matter around an > {i je}, aside from scoping issues. It's a symmetrical relationship; > both haves are equally binding.

It would be symmetrical if {ko'a} repeated words. But {ko'a} does not repeat words, it repeats referents, and when you have ko'a assigned to a quantified sumti, you need the whole sentence to determine its referents. {PA broda goi ko'a} is not enough to determine the referents of ko'a. {PA broda goi ko'a cu brode} tells you that the referents of ko'a are the PA broda that brode, not any PA broda.

Let's do an example:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.

Now let's compare the two expansions:

ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama i ko'a melbi Exactly three people (from now on ko'a) came. They (= the three people that came) are beautiful.

That works. The expansion the way you have it:

ci prenu goi ko'a cu melbi i ko'a klama Exactly three people (from now on ko'a) are beautiful. They (= the three people that are beautiful) came.

That's not what the original says.


> > > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga > > > nai brode gi brodi > > > > This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that > > everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not. > > Whoops. Would swapping the sentences fix that?

Nope.

> > > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA > > > da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi > > > > The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda, > > the one on the right does not. > > Which of those "rights" was supposed to be a left?

The second one.

> > {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as: > > > > PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode > > > > More generally, for any sumti: > > > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me > > sumti gi'e broda > > Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.

It works for any PA, including ro and no, as far as I can tell.

> > > zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi sumti > > > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest] > > > > This one is wrong, just try some example: > > > > da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi > > > > =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi > > Why? {i je} is symmetrical; both halves must be equally binding on > {da}, else what's the point?

OK, maybe you're right. These are very non-standard ways of doing things from the point of view of logical notation.

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:25 GMT posts: 1912

> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > ;noi (NOI): > snip to important part > > With description sumti, the relative > > clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the > > selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of > > the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.

To bring in line with CLL, change to:

With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; when attached before the selbri (right after the gadri) it is equivalent to a clause attached after the terminated sumti; when attached after the selbri (before the terminator ku) the clause applies to all the referents of the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.


> > ;poi (NOI): > snip to important part > > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached > > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri. > > > > (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause doesn't > > make a diference.) > > I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of > http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html > section 6. > > In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not > "noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no > difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.

You're right, I missed a distinction that applies with poi. Change to:

poi (NOI)
Restrictive relative clause marker. It attaches a clause

to the sumti which it follows, putting a restriction on the referents of that sumti. Inside the clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of the bridi that the sumti fills. For unquantified sumti, the clause selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy it (when an inner quantifier is present it indicates how many those referents are). For quantified sumti, the quantification is over just those referents of the sumti that satisfy the clause. With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; when attached before the selbri (right after the gadri) it is equivalent to a clause attached after the terminated sumti; when attached after the selbri (before the terminator ku), the inner quantifier indicates the number of referents that satisfy the clause even if there is an outer quantifier. The relative clause is terminated with ku'o, which is often elidable.

And now here is a trick question:

If I say {ro le mu prenu ku poi ninmu cu klama le zarci}, how many people do I say went to the market?

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 Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:25 GMT posts: 1912

> (AKA conversion formulas) > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a > cu brodi

This one requires changing brode and brodi in the last part, other than that I think it's fine. I withdraw my previous objection that it won't work for {no}: {no broda noi brode} is nonsense to start with, so it is proper that the conversion gives nonsense too.

The formula could be made much more general though, for any sumti:

.... sumti noi ke'a broda ku'o ... | tu'e ... sumti goi ko'a ... tu'u .i je ko'a broda

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi > brodi > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je > da ge brode gi brodi

Those don't work at all. I think this one will:

[PA] sumti poi ke'a broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

> zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi sumti > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]

I'm still uneasy about that one.

> goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo > ka ce'u sinxa > goi, right unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'a co'a sinxa ko'e

More generally (ignoring oddball cases like both unassigned or both assigned) for unquantified sumti we have:

sumti goi ko'a = ko'a goi sumti | zo ko'a co'a sinxa sumti

For quantified sumti the issue is a bit more complex. Maybe something like:

.... PA sumti goi ko'a ... | zo ko'a co'a sinxa PA sumti poi ... ke'a ...

Perhaps you should move the goi definitions to the top, since many of the other conversions use goi. And maybe even put them in a separate table, because they are not really conversion formula but descriptions of what goes on.

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

xodPosted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:25 GMT posts: 143

Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:47:08PM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>>{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles. >>>That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing, >>>which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda} >>>is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a >>lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are >>performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable >>to camels, stars, etc) >> >> > >Funny, I thought that in usage people used "noda" to mean "nothing". > >I'm pretty sure that it's more useful to keep things like "mi viska noda" >meaning "I don't see anything", than to facilitate talking about lidless >bottles. > >

Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer that doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I suppose it is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't see anything. If you don't see anything, you're a potential or previous seer, but not one at the moment and in that context. So a better translation is probably "mi na viska", instead of "mi viska noda".


>It's not meaningless. You might as well be complaining that describing >something as "not green" is meaningless, because that description fits >elephants as well as it fits red things. Something can have a lot of referents >and still be meaningful. > >

I think it's more along the lines of trying to say "lidless bottle" or "seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying "camel or star". Not very helpful!


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:25 GMT posts: 2388

> Rob Speer wrote:

> >It's not meaningless. You might as well be > complaining that describing > >something as "not green" is meaningless, > because that description fits > >elephants as well as it fits red things. > Something can have a lot of referents > >and still be meaningful. > > > > > > I think it's more along the lines of trying to > say "lidless bottle" or > "seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying > "camel or star". Not very > helpful! >

If this is the problem — that contradictory negation opens too many possibilities — then maybe you want merely contrary negation, {na'e}, which requires that what is true is in the same general area (although this is a matter of degree -- what is true in contradictory negation has also to be something that excludes what is negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless camels definitionally are not green).

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

xodPosted by xod on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:27 GMT posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

>>I think it's more along the lines of trying to >>say "lidless bottle" or >>"seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying >>"camel or star". Not very >>helpful! >> >> > >If this is the problem — that contradictory >negation opens too many possibilities — then >maybe you want merely contrary negation, {na'e}, >which requires that what is true is in the same >general area (although this is a matter of degree >-- what is true in contradictory negation has >also to be something that excludes what is >negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless >camels definitionally are not green). > >

Hence lidless bottle = botpi fo na'ebo roda ?

-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:28 GMT

John E Clifford scripsit:

> "not green" can't mean "camel" unless > camels definitionally are not green).

Why isn't it enough that camels are contingently not green?

-- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU jcowan@reutershealth.com 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 Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:28 GMT

xod scripsit:

> Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer that > doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I suppose it > is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't see anything. If > you don't see anything, you're a potential or previous seer, but not one > at the moment and in that context. So a better translation is probably > "mi na viska", instead of "mi viska noda".

These both express what is not the case, but they deny different things: the former denies "I see it", where "it" is to be figured out from context; the latter denies "There exists something such that I see it". So the former often applies to me (who notoriously can't see what's right in front of him) but not the latter (for I am not blind).

-- After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan WELCOME TO jcowan@reutershealth.com DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:28 GMT posts: 2388

> John E Clifford scripsit: > > > "not green" can't mean "camel" unless > > camels definitionally are not green). > > Why isn't it enough that camels are > contingently not green? > Good enough for practical purposes, but it does get into problems in Dr. Seuss for example, where camels might well be green. Of course, even when something is technically possible --e.g., "not red" when the fact is "is a spirit" — the first tendency is to take the lowest level incompatible, in this case another color. {na'e} points to that lowest level incompatibility (however, the ordering of level is dense, so there is always a lower level than the one chosen and so, by parity, any one can be taken as lowest level). the difference is mainly pragmatic, what our expectations should be: {na'e} another whatever it is that is denied, {na} no expectations supported (not that the inference from 'not a' to any particular b is ever justified anyhow).

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

This is a *VERY* long mail, but I strongly suggest reading it. xod, you in particular *need* to read it, as I wrote it for you. :-)

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:18:32PM -0400, xod wrote: > John E Clifford wrote: > > >>I think it's more along the lines of trying to say "lidless > >>bottle" or "seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying "camel > >>or star". Not very helpful! > > > >If this is the problem — that contradictory negation opens too > >many possibilities — then maybe you want merely contrary > >negation, {na'e}, which requires that what is true is in the same > >general area (although this is a matter of degree — what is true > >in contradictory negation has also to be something that excludes > >what is negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless camels > >definitionally are not green). > > Hence lidless bottle = botpi fo na'ebo roda ?

Ideally, in Lojban, a lidless bottle is botpi fi zi'o

About this whole discussion in general:

The confusion here has been an unnecessary proliferation of "da".

We started with:

ta botpi fo no da

"This is a bottle with no lid".

Which is equivalent to:

ta botpi na ku fo su'o da

Which is equivalent to:

ta na botpi fo su'o da

"This is not a bottle that has at least one thing that is a lid".

Because of the place structure of botpi, these two really are equivalent; something that does not have a lid is *not* a botpi.

However, at some point someone (xod?) introduced the sentence:

da botpi fo no de

or something like that, now with two "da" variables. I'm pretty sure that this was an error, that someone read "ta" as "da". Regardless, This is a very different thing! It means:

"There exists at least one thing which is a bottle that has no things to be its lid".

This sentence is equivalent to:

su'o da botpi na ku fo su'o de

Which is equivalent to:

su'o da na ku botpi fo su'o de

Which is equivalent to:

na ku ro da botpi fo su'o de

Which is equivalent to:

ro da na botpi fo su'o de

Which means:

"It is not the case that everything is a bottle with a lid."

My first draft of this mail had:

"It is not the case that for each thing that is a bottle, it has a lid."

Which is *very* different thing indeed! This is actually a conditional:

na ku ro da su'o de zo'u ga nai da botpi gi da botpi de

I carelessly (confused by the introduction of an extra "da" variable) indicated in an earlier thread that {da botpi fo no de} was, in fact, equivalent to:

da na botpi fo su'o de

Which is a very diffrenet thing! It means that:

"It is not the case that there exists a bottle with a lid."

So, my bad there.

Phew. Done with the predicate logic. As you can see, anything with "no da" in it can (eventually) be converted to samething with "na" in front of the selbri. This is a very basic feature of predicate logic, but one I can try to expound on if people wish.

Now, we've been conflating in to the predicate logic issue a

  • completely* seperate issue! Bad us.

The other issue is thruth.

A third issue is whether or not it makes any sense at all to talk about a predicate in Lojban where one of the places cannot be filled.

Truth first:

ro da na botpi fo su'o de

AKA

na ku ro da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

is definately true. Literally, "It is not the case that for each thing X, there exists a Y such that X is a bottle with lid Y.", or, "It is not the case that everything is a bottle with a lid.".

What's important to understand is that this is *NOT* equivalent to "There exists a bottle with no lid", which is what

da botpi no de

  • appears* to be saying. This is where most of the confusion has

been coming from. To say "There exists a bottle with no lid", you need to say:

da poi botpi cu botpi no da

Those of us who speak Lojban regularily as a conversational language without much regard to the logical formalism (and I'm thinking here of me and xod in particular, although there are certainly others) develop an intuiting that says "Anything in the first place of broda is always a broda". This is simply not true with contradictory negation, and "no da" hides a contradictory negation in itself.

{da botpi no de} actually says *nothing* about things that are botpi (that is, things that can truthfully appear in the first place of the botpi predicate). It says only that there exist things that are *not* related by botpi (to a botpi x4, i.e. a bottle lid, in particular, but that's a secondary issue).

Similarily, {mi patfu no da} is exactly equivalent to {mi na patfu da}. Both of these things mean "I am a father to nothing", which is the same as "I am not a father".

When a contradictory negation occurs, *nothing* is said about what is *true*. {mi patfu no da} seems intuitively to be saying {mi patfu}, but it is *NOT* saying that, and that's where the confusion comes in. {mi patfu no da} is, as a contradictory negative statment, saying *nothing*, when you get right down to it. I mean, it says I'm not a father, but that's it, and that's all.

About the third issue, whether or not it makes any sense at all to talk about a predicate in Lojban where one of the places cannot be filled, we're all pretty clear: something without a lid cannot be related to with the {botpi} predicate. Something without a child cannot be related to with the {patfu} predicate. *Unless* a negation is occuring. See http://www.lojban.org/tiki//all+places+equally+important+gotcha

I think this exhastively (and exhaustingly) covers the current confusion. Please let me know if I've missed anything.

-Robin

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 01:56:44PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > xod scripsit: > > > Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer > > that doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I > > suppose it is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't > > see anything. If you don't see anything, you're a potential or > > previous seer, but not one at the moment and in that context. So > > a better translation is probably "mi na viska", instead of "mi > > viska noda". > > These both express what is not the case, but they deny different > things: the former denies "I see it", where "it" is to be figured > out from context; the latter denies "There exists something such > that I see it". So the former often applies to me (who notoriously > can't see what's right in front of him) but not the latter (for I > am not blind).

Note, however, that {mi na viska da} *is* equivalent to {mi viska no da}. People have been dropping {da} all over the place in this discussion, and picking up the wrong ones, and so on.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:46:00AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu > > > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi > > > > > > You have brode and brodi interchanged.

Correct. Fixed.

> > > {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as: > > > > > > PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode > > > > > > More generally, for any sumti: > > > > > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me > > > sumti gi'e broda > > > > Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood. > > It works for any PA, including ro and no, as far as I can tell.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all:

PA lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

Using your gadri formula:

= PA da poi ke'a me ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

Immediately and fatally recursive.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:28:16AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > The formula could be made much more general though, for any > sumti: > > ... sumti noi ke'a broda ku'o ... > | tu'e ... sumti goi ko'a ... tu'u .i je ko'a broda

Done. Made it even more general.

-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

> || noi | [stuff1] sumti noi ke'a [bridi] ku'o [stuff2] | tu'e > [stuff1] sumti goi ko'a [stuff2] tu'u .i je ko'a [bridi]

You can't strictly put any bridi there. The general formula would have sentence-with-ke'a and sentence-with-ko'a-in-place-of-ke'a. Maybe you meant selbri?

I think we can use {ke'a broda} to represent any-sentence-with-ke'a, as the generalization is obvious. {ke'a selbri} is slightly more general than {ke'a broda}, but still not the fully general case.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi > brodi > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je > da ge brode gi brodi

A recursive definition, or no definition, is better than one that is wrong.

> goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | ko'a du ko'e

I prefer the kansa version, since we can only say something about the words at this stage. {ko'a du ko'e} is about the referents, but there are none.

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 Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:32 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:48:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ;noi (NOI): > > snip to important part > > > With description sumti, the relative > > > clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the > > > selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of > > > the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not. > > To bring in line with CLL, change to:

Added your stuff.

Also changed the format of the definitions; I think this'll be much easier for everybody.

Still have to add the positional quantification stuff to things other than voi, poi and noi.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:32 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:37:22PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:48:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as > > > wrote: > > > > ;noi (NOI): > > > snip to important part > > > > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be > > > > attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in > > > > this case the clause applies to all the referents of the > > > > sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not. > > > > To bring in line with CLL, change to: > > Added your stuff. > > Also changed the format of the definitions; I think this'll be > much easier for everybody. > > Still have to add the positional quantification stuff to things > other than voi, poi and noi.

Done. Done without much thought, however. Hopefully I didn't mess anything up.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:33 GMT posts: 1912

Mostly nitpicking...

> ;noi (NOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative clause marker. > ** The "relative" part means that it attaches to a sumti to provide > additional information about the referants of that sumti.

I would rather say: "The relative part means that it relates a clause to a sumti".

That the clause provides additional info about the referents of the sumti is true, but it is not what the "relative" part contributes. (This also applies to the other NOIs and GOIs.)

> ** The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in the > noi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti > noi is attached to refers to. The noi bridi is true about the sumti > noi is attached to, but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the > things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti > noi is attached to could refer to.

I would replace

"The noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti noi is attached to could refer to."

with "The noi bridi gives additional information about the referents of the sumti noi is attached to."

We can't know in general that the information given will always be true, maybe the speaker is lying or mistaken about it, so instead of "is true" you should say "is claimed".

Neither {poi} nor {noi} are concerned with the possible things that the sumti in question could refer to. They are only concerned with the things that the sumti does refer to in the given context. Given those things that the sumti does refer to, noi adds info about them whereas poi selects some of them. So, while it is true that the noi clause "is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti noi is attached to could refer to", exactly the same could be said of a poi clause.

> ** Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti have > already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to give > additional information.

If you say that, then the equivalent for poi would be:

  • Generally, poi is only used when the referents of the sumti have

already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to select some of them.

I don't think either comment is particularly relevant to the definition.

> ** Inside a noi clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of the bridi > that the sumti is intended to fill, and translates some uses of the English > word "it".

I don't know if that comment is helpful for English speakers or not. The combo {noi+ke'a} (or {poi+ke'a}) is what normally translates the relative pronouns "which", "what", "who", "where":

le cukta poi mi ke'a do dunda The book which I gave you. ?The book which I gave you it.

And, if "it" ever really translates {ke'a}, then so will all other pronouns:

do noi mi nelci ke'a You, who I like (?you),

Or maybe I'm missing the point of the "it" comment.

> ;poi (NOI):Restrictive relative clause marker. > > > ** The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi > clause is used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is > attached to refers to.

OK.

> In other words, out of all the referants of the sumti > that poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti > is a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker > to refer only to those things that the sumti could refer to for which the > bridi in the poi clause is also true.

I get the idea, but I'm not too happy with the wording of that. {lo dacti} gets referents when it is used in a context. It doesn't have a fixed set of referents for all contexts, so we can't just say that it has a lot of referents. The poi clause narrows down the referents that the speaker started out with.

>poi is often used with da > to restrict da to just those things which satisfy the poi clause.

That's right, {da} refers to anything that counts as a thing in a given context, and poi restricts any quantifier on da to the things that satisfy the clause.


> (AKA conversion formulas) > > zi'e | sumti' relative' zi'e relative' rest' | ko'a goi sumti > relative' rest' .i je ko'a relative' rest'

I think these: sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 | sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 | sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

are much superior as conversion formulas, and are more general because they don't require a particular context. The other won't work in general when the sumti is not at the beginning of a 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 00:34 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:04:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Mostly nitpicking...

  • You*, nitpicking? Say it ain't so!

> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative clause > > marker. ** The "relative" part means that it attaches > > to a sumti to provide additional information about the referants > > of that sumti. > > I would rather say: "The relative part means that it relates a > clause to a sumti".

Added.

> > ** The "non-restrictive" part means that the > > information in the noi clause is not used to restrict the > > set of things that the sumti noi is attached to refers to. > > The noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached > > to, but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things > > the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the > > sumti noi is attached to could refer to. > > I would replace > > "The noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, > but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the > speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti > noi is attached to could refer to." > > with "The noi bridi gives additional information about the > referents of the sumti noi is attached to."

Done. Similar forms added for ne and no'u.

> > ** Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the > > sumti have already been explained, or are obvious, and the > > speaker wishes to give additional information. > > If you say that, then the equivalent for poi would be: > > ** Generally, poi is only used when the referents of the sumti > have already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker > wishes to select some of them. > > I don't think either comment is particularly relevant to the > definition.

They are not really intended to be integral to the definition; they're intended to be helpful.

However, these are already damned long definitions. Dropped.

> > ** Inside a noi clause, ke'a indicates the precise place > > of the bridi that the sumti is intended to fill, and translates > > some uses of the English word "it". > > I don't know if that comment is helpful for English speakers or > not. The combo {noi+ke'a} (or {poi+ke'a}) is what normally > translates the relative pronouns "which", "what", "who", "where": > > le cukta poi mi ke'a do dunda > The book which I gave you. > ?The book which I gave you it.

The book such that I gave it to you.

Might as well drop it, though.

> > In other words, out of all the referants of the sumti that > > poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo > > dacti is a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually > > intended by the speaker to refer only to those things that the > > sumti could refer to for which the bridi in the poi clause > > is also true. > > I get the idea, but I'm not too happy with the wording of that. > {lo dacti} gets referents when it is used in a context. It doesn't > have a fixed set of referents for all contexts, so we can't just > say that it has a lot of referents. The poi clause narrows down > the referents that the speaker started out with.

How about:

In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker to refer only to those things for which the bridi in the poi clause is also true.

-Robin

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

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:35 GMT posts: 1912

> How about: > > In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that poi > is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti > can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually > intended by the speaker to refer only to those things for which > the bridi in the poi clause is also true.

That's better, yes.

But make it "referEnts" please. (Well, I had to find something :-)

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 Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:35 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:29:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > How about: > > > > In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that > > poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of > > lo dacti can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is > > actually intended by the speaker to refer only to those > > things for which the bridi in the poi clause is also > > true. > > That's better, yes.

Done.

> But make it "referEnts" please. (Well, I had to find something :-)

Done throughout.

-Robin

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

xodPosted by xod on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:58 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> What's important to understand is that this is *NOT* equivalent > >to "There exists a bottle with no lid", which is what > > da botpi no de > >*appears* to be saying. This is where most of the confusion has >been coming from. To say "There exists a bottle with no lid", you >need to say: > > da poi botpi cu botpi no da > >

I really hope you meant "da poi botpi cu botpi fo node"

>I think this exhastively (and exhaustingly) covers the current >confusion. Please let me know if I've missed anything. > > >

Other than that one point, thanks. But I'm still going to away until I read and understand this .


-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:58 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 04:54:58PM -0400, xod wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >What's important to understand is that this is *NOT* equivalent > > > >to "There exists a bottle with no lid", which is what > > > > da botpi no de > > > >*appears* to be saying. This is where most of the confusion has > >been coming from. To say "There exists a bottle with no lid", > >you need to say: > > > > da poi botpi cu botpi no da > > I really hope you meant "da poi botpi cu botpi fo node"

Of course.

> >I think this exhastively (and exhaustingly) covers the current > >confusion. Please let me know if I've missed anything. > > Other than that one point, thanks.

Woohoo!

> But I'm still going to away > until I read and understand this > .

Let us know how it goes.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 webmaster@lojban.org wrote:

> !! Proposed Definition for ne > > ;ne (GOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative phrase marker. > > ** The "relative" part means that it relates a clause to a sumti. It attaches to a sumti to provide additional information about the referents of that sumti.

It attaches a phrase to a sumti, not a clause. Basically, overcopying (and the same for pe, po, po'e, po'u, and no'u).

> ! Formal Definitions > > (AKA conversion formulas) > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri xi rau broda toi

If we're putting it immediately after the sumti, can we just use ri instead of ri xi rau?

> * The "ri xi rau" in "noi" is intended to count back to the preceding sumti. >

In which case, we could get rid of this. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

"I need a new computer." "There's still life in that one." "Good point; I need an exterminator, too."

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 04:13:49PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 webmaster@lojban.org wrote: > > > !! Proposed Definition for ne > > > > ;ne (GOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative phrase > > marker. > > > > ** The "relative" part means that it relates a clause > > to a sumti. It attaches to a sumti to provide additional > > information about the referents of that sumti. > > It attaches a phrase to a sumti, not a clause. Basically, > overcopying (and the same for pe, po, po'e, po'u, and no'u).

Duh. Fixed.

> > ! Formal Definitions > > > > (AKA conversion formulas) > > > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri xi rau broda > > toi > > If we're putting it immediately after the sumti, can we just use > ri instead of ri xi rau?

No, because we don't know exactly what "ri" means yet. Consider:

lo nu broda lo brode vau noi ke'a broda

Straight "ri" won't work here.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 18:56 GMT

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:05:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku} > > > there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and > > > {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can > > > be different in some cases. > > > > Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true > > with pe, ne, po, and so on? > > Yes. > > > Reference for this, please? > > I think CLL mentions it. > > {ci lo ro broda noi brode ku noi brodi cu brodo} > > says of all brodas that they are brode, but only of the three brodas > that brodo that they are brodi.

s/a sumti/a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are beyond the scope of this definition/

Any objections?

> > > > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do > > > > Is it not the case that those among the norm which is > > > > associated with the form of the weather, which is near you? > > > > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal? > > > > > > Does it really say that? > > > > That's how I read it. Do you disagree? > > I think "Don't you normally have such weather?" or something, but I > don't really know.

Yeah, that's a bit better.

Context:

ma fasnu vi do

le vacri cu muvdu

xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do .i pau do tavba'u mu'i ma

> > > This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly > > > the same things. > > > > Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive; > > you can have that argument with him if you like. > > I agree it is not restrictive. That doesn't mean that the two sumti > don't have the same referents. I don't think the point you repeat > about identification has anything to do with restrictiveness.

OK, removed from no'u and po'u.

> > > For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using > > > zi'e. > > > > Example, please. > > lo noi broda ku'o brode noi brodi ku noi brodo cu brodu

'simple sumti' and 'beyond the scope' stuff added to zi'e.

-Robin

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

xodPosted by xod on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 00:14 GMT posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > >>Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted >>material marked off with a solid line along the side. >> >> > >I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you'd like to start by telling >me what mail program you're using to read these mails? > >

Enclosed is what it looks like on Thunderbird. A darn fine email client, I say.

I think by "21st century" he means AOL.

-- Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov., 2004 01:26 GMT posts: 2388

This what I put up before. I have not checked it over to see whether there is more to be changed than what I just mentioned. At least there is now one place to look.


We need the notion of an individual, which in this case is when “some” is just “one” It would be nice to avoid quantifiers that go on indefinitely so the following is an approximation (which seems to work)

“a 1-ad” is short for “[ax: x among a Ax: x among a] a among x”

We have a theorem (which might be a definition but for the distributive nature of “1among”):

“a D-broda” iff “[ax: x among a and x 1-ad Ax: x among a and x 1-ad] x broda.” We can go recursively: given “n-ad,” “a n+1-ad” is “[ix: x among a Ix: x among a](x n-ad & [ay: y among
a & y not among x Ay: y among a & y not among x] y 1-ad)”. Similarly,

“a =<1-ad” is just “a 1-ad” (since there are no empty pluralities) and “a >=1-ad” is just

“[ix: x among a Ix: x among a] x 1-ad.” This last formula generalizes to all finite integers. Given “a =< n-ad,” “a =


Some places are always D (like 1among) others are always C (like among2) most can be either as the case requires. For variables, there needs to be a flag to say how the predication is to be taken, so we will assume this, though it is not yet lexed. Some constructions default one or the other distributivity, marked (D) or (C) but the defaults can be overcome in various ways (by the requirement of the predicate place, by the D- or C- mark. The marks are left off when either will work.


Then we have for {lo broda cu brode} just “Ix: x (D)broda] x D-brode” this contrasts with {loi broda cu brode} in the way you would expect: “[ix: x (D)broda Ix: x (D)broda] x C-brode” and with {le} (and parallelly {lei}: {le broda cu brode} is, for some x, “x D-I describe them as broda & x D-brode”


The numeric cases (here for the {lo} set, the {le} and {la} follow mutatis mutandis) have to be divided according to type of quantifier, integer (i), fractional (f) or relative (r);

{lo i broda cu brode} = “[ix: x broda Ix: x broda] x D-brode & x i-ad” On the other side, we come closer to the older definitions involving sets:

{i lo broda cu brode} is “[ix: x D-broda Ix: x D-broda][iy: y
among x Iy: y among x] y D-brode & y i-ad.”


The fractional quantifiers are like this except depending on the number of the basic plurality:

{lo f broda cu brode} is “[ix: x broda Ix: x broda] x brode & [ay: y broda Ay: y broda] if [az: z broda Az: z broda]z among y & y i-ad then x h(f times n)-ad” (where h is a rounding function – all of this properly fuzzied).

{f lo broda cu brode} “[ix: x broda Ix: x broda][iy: y among
x Iy: y among x] y brode & if x i-ad then y h(f times n)-ad”


Relative quantifiers have, of course, to be related to the overarching plurality:

{lo r broda cu brode} is “[ix: x broda Ix: x broda] x brode & [ry: y broda & y 1-ad ry: y broda & y 1-ad] y among x” and

{r lo broda cu brode} is “[ix: x broda Ix: x broda] [iy: y
among x Iy: y among x] y brode & r z: z among x & z 1-ad z among y”

The earlier “a n-ad” is demonstrably the same as “n x: x 1-ad x among a,” so these could all be brought into something close to a single pattern.


These definitions incorporate several suggestions from the other proposals running around, those that seem fruitful. One final change to suggest: {la q brod brode} is “[ix: x are called %C2%93q brod%C2%94 Ix: x are called “q brod”] x brode” so there is no way to insert the number of things called “brod” parallel to {lo n broda}. We need a mark to indicate that what follows it, insofar as it is a quantifier (and this can be defined lexically, I think), is a cardinal for the plurality. Since this mark needs to be something that cannot be absorbed into a name, this involves recycling {doi} after {la}, where it cannot now occur.

PA da broda Qx: xF (nothing is said here about whether x is singular or plural or whether Qx has some internal structure.)

PA da poi broda cu brode [qx: xF Qx: xF] xG (~[qx: xF Qx: xF] xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the complement of Q – insert table here)

PA da noi broda cu brode Qx: xG & xF (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on).

L broda cu brode [ex: xF Ex: xF] xG (nothing is said here about the possibility that claims with {L broda} may be different from those about {da}, in particular that quantifiers may have different internal structures, if any.) (this is strictly for {lo/loi}; for {le/lei} and {la/lai}, “F” is replaced by a suitably modified expression that mentions “F” and the quantifier is outside the range of the sentence.)

L broda poi brode cu brodi [ex: xF & xG Ex: xF & xG] xH

L broda noi brode cu brodi [ex: xF Ex: xF] xH & xG

L PA broda cu brode [qx: xF Qx: xF] xG (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA)

L PA broda poi brode cu brodi [qx: xF & xG Qx: xF & xG] xH

L PA broda noi brode cu brodi [qx: xF Qx: xF] xH & xG

L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi [qx: xF Qx: xF][ey: yG & yAx Ey: yG & yAx] Hy (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but it means that whatever y stands for is something that x also stands for)

L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi [qx: xF Qx: xF] xH & xG (this one looks suspect, since it is the same as one above, but it seems to follow from the rules)

PA L broda cu brode [ex: xF Ex: xF][qy: yAx Qy: yAx] yG

PA L broda poi brode cu brodi [ex: xF & xG Ex: xF & xG][qy: yAx Qy: yAx] xH

PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi [ex: xF Ex: xF][qy: yAx & yG Qy: yAx & yG] yH

PA L broda noi brode cu brodi [ex: xF Ex: xF][qy: yAx Qy: yAx] yH & xG

PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi [ex: xF Ex: xF][qy: yAx Qy: yAx] yH & yG