Talk:BPFK Section: gadri

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by arj on Wed 19 of May, 2004 10:33 GMT posts: 953

I dislike the new semantics of the {lo} article. Quite a lot, actually.

Are there by the way any other changes to the other articles? A cursory read doesn't reveal any.

Mightn't Nick's gadri solution be the way to go?

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 14:33 GMT

arj: > Are there by the way any other changes to the other articles? A cursory read > doesn't reveal any.

{le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

The change is almost imperceptible in practice because {le} and {la} are almost always used for singletons. When used in the plural, however, the proposed definitions make them easier to handle because with constants you don't need to worry about scope. An explicit {ro} gives you back the quantified forms.

lo'i/le'i/la'i/loi/lei/lai/lo'e/le'e I tried to leave untouched. The official definitions are not very clear in some respects however. For example, what is {pimu lo'i broda}? That's something like "a set with half of all the broda there are", but is it such a set generically, or is it existentially quantified (i.e. "at least one set with half the cardinality of the total set"), or what? This has seen no significant usage, and it is probably not very useful in any case, but it is ill defined. I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.

> Migtn't Nick's gadri solution be the way to go?

Which one? Adding a new cmavo for generic? That would have a much bigger impact on past usage, wouldn't it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 16:39 GMT posts: 14214

> arj: > I dislike the new semantics of the {lo} article. Quite a lot, actually.

Can you explain your objections, please?

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 18:03 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > arj: > > Are there by the way any other changes to the other articles? A > > cursory read doesn't reveal any. > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.

What do you mean by 'constants'?

> I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more > precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From > my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be > phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.

I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.

Why do you dislike those other gadri so much, anyways?

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:05 GMT

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}. > > What do you mean by 'constants'?

Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

With constants, you single out an individual (or group) and give a relationship in which it participates.

With quantification you single out a set, and then you say how the members of the set are distributed with respect to a relationship.

In simple cases it makes little difference which way you go, but when you have two or three quantifiers operating or some other thing with scope, constants are much easier to deal with.

> > I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more > > precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From > > my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be > > phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it. > > I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question > and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.

I'll see what I can do. But I doubt that the "fractional quantifiers" on sets can at the same time be well defined and in agreement with Lojban lore.

> Why do you dislike those other gadri so much, anyways?

Because: a) They are redundant. Anything you can say with them can be said by other means, usually in more simple terms. b) They force you to make distinctions that you don't normally want to make. We have pu/ca/ba for tenses, but we have the option of using no tense when tense is unimportant or when tense makes no sense. Similarly we need a non-content gadri for the occasions when no gadri distinction is important or makes sense. The proposed lo is such a gadri.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:30 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically > > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}. > > > > What do you mean by 'constants'? > > Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

In English, for us little people?

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically > > > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}. > > > What do you mean by 'constants'? > > Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set. > In English, for us little people?

Perhaps this can be of some help: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms3.htm

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 20:29 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:26:24AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically > > > > > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}. > > > > What do you mean by 'constants'? > > > Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set. > > In English, for us little people? > > Perhaps this can be of some help: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms3.htm

Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates".

So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular, individual cat or cats, correct? This seems in contradiction with your proposal:

The resulting expression refers generically to any individual or group that satisfies the predicate.

I apoologise if I'm just being dumb.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of May, 2004 21:18 GMT

> Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence > "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates". > > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular, > individual cat or cats, correct?

Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes. But it is not a quantification over the set of cats.

> This seems in contradiction with your > proposal: > > The resulting expression refers generically to any individual or > group that satisfies the predicate. > > I apoologise if I'm just being dumb.

{su'o lo mlatu} is a quantified expression over the set of cats. {lo mlatu} is a constant term, which refers to the individual "cat(s)".

mi nelci lo mlatu "I like cat(s)"

Not: "Given the set of all cats, there is at least one member x of the set such that I like x". That's {mi nelci su'o mlatu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 14214

> Anonymous: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence > > "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates". > > > > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular, > > individual cat or cats, correct? > > Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes.

Those seem to be completely different kinds of things to me.

Please note that these aren't objections, I'm just trying to understand better.

-Robin

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Wed 19 of May, 2004 23:27 GMT posts: 14214

I'd like to see fewer examples of bare lo, and more of quantified lo please. Specificially, examples with just inner quantifiers and other examples with just outer quantifiers.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 00:22 GMT

Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:

>--- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >>On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >> >> >>>{le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically >>>quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}. >>> >>> >>What do you mean by 'constants'? >> >> > >Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set. > >With constants, you single out an individual (or group) and >give a relationship in which it participates. > >With quantification you single out a set, and then you say >how the members of the set are distributed with respect to >a relationship. > Correct me if I'm wrong (and if I'm suffering from "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" disease), but this sounds like an intension/extension distinction. Your "constant" is referring to some particular item(s) in extension, while your quantification talks about "members of the set," i.e. the set they're in is what's important: intension.

As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} and such.

>>>I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more >>>precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From >>>my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be >>>phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it. >>> >>> >>I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question >>and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible. >> Defined is good. This is Lojban. If we can't define it, we might as well pack up and go home.

~mark

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > Jorge "Llamb??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" wrote:

I think your mailer is confused, Mark. ---^

> As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and > intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It > doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster > could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} > and such.

Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all default quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change.

It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different thing.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > >>Jorge "Llamb??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" wrote: >> >> > >I think your mailer is confused, Mark. ---^ > Yeah, I wondered about that too. But it looked cool...

>>As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and >>intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It >>doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster >>could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} >>and such. >> >> > >Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all default >quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change. > >It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different thing. > Mmm. Good point. Pondering the hugeness of the change is something I need to do. But the question remains: if the impact is tiny, then in what sense does it fix the big problem? That is, the prior text, written under a "buggy" system, presumably needs some more serious repair than a "tiny" impact.

I think the first difficulty I have is the same one you pointed out, Robin: "some particular cat" and "Mr. Cat" are sufficiently different critters that they deserve different gadri

~mark

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:12 GMT

> Correct me if I'm wrong (and if I'm suffering from "when you have a > hammer everything looks like a nail" disease), but this sounds like an > intension/extension distinction. Your "constant" is referring to some > particular item(s) in extension, while your quantification talks about > "members of the set," i.e. the set they're in is what's important: > intension.

I would have put it the other way around. Quantification ranges over the extension of a set, whereas the constant I'm talking about is an intensional object. Here is a fairly clear exposition on the intensional/extensional distinction:

> As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and > intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It > doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster > could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} and > such.

Well... If you want more details, there's another exposition of the proposed system here:

The same proposal as written by And here:

(BTW, Robin, the links to that last page from other pages don't work, probably because of something in its name, like the "--", do you think it can be fixed somehow?)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:29 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:47:14PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >>As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and > >>intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. > >>It doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a > >>disaster could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers > >>and {lo} and such. > >> > >> > > > >Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all > >default quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change. > > > >It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different > >thing. > > Mmm. Good point. Pondering the hugeness of the change is something I > need to do. But the question remains: if the impact is tiny, then in > what sense does it fix the big problem? That is, the prior text, > written under a "buggy" system, presumably needs some more serious > repair than a "tiny" impact.

Show me:

1. Prior text that uses "lo broda" to mean something other than "broda in general".

and/or

2. Prior text that uses inner quantifiers on lo.

AFAICT, those ore the only cases that change. There aren't many of them (i.e. basically none).

> I think the first difficulty I have is the same one you pointed out, > Robin: "some particular cat" and "Mr. Cat" are sufficiently different > critters that they deserve different gadri

There are: lo pa mlatu versus lo mlatu. Unless I'm missing something.

I'm pretty sure I understand xorxes' proposal just fine, it's his comments here that confused me. :-)

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:31 GMT

> Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >Just for the recond, this is *not* a tiny change. Removing all default > >quantifiers is, in fact, a huge change. > > > >It's just a change that seems to have a tiny *impact*. Different thing. > > > Mmm. Good point. Pondering the hugeness of the change is something I > need to do.

The impact is almost exclusively for the better (i.e. it does not invalidate previously valid text, but it does validate previously suspect text.)

> But the question remains: if the impact is tiny, then in > what sense does it fix the big problem? That is, the prior text, > written under a "buggy" system, presumably needs some more serious > repair than a "tiny" impact.

Basically, it solves the problem of intensional contexts by providing another option besides quantification over the extension of a set.

> I think the first difficulty I have is the same one you pointed out, > Robin: "some particular cat" and "Mr. Cat" are sufficiently different > critters that they deserve different gadri

Can we have examples please? Otherwise we get bogged down again in meta-talk. How are they different? When do we use one or the other?

mi nelci su'o mlatu There is some particular cat that I like.

mi nelci lo mlatu I like cats.

ka'u lo mlatu cu kavbu lo smacu (I know culturally:) Cats catch mice.

ju'ido'u za'a lo mlatu ca'o va kavbu lo smacu Look! Cat(s) catching mouse/mice there!

{lo} is just an empty gadri, to be used when you don't need to specify number, when you don't focus on the instances.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:33 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:06:13PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > The same proposal as written by And here: > > > (BTW, Robin, the links to that last page from other pages don't work, > probably because of something in its name, like the "--", do you think > it can be fixed somehow?)

It is probably theoretically possible to fix it, but I don't care enough, so I've renamed it. The problem is (and I don't know if this is in the code or the browser) what was being looked for was not "--" but "—".

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//XS%20gadri%20proposal:%20And's%20version

For links, XS gadri proposal: And's version should work. The Tiki code seems to have already updated the pages that contained the old name; go it.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:35 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Can we have examples please? Otherwise we get bogged down again in > meta-talk.

A-fucking-*MEN*.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 01:39 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > ju'ido'u za'a lo mlatu ca'o va kavbu lo smacu > Look! Cat(s) catching mouse/mice there!

Why is that not using 'le'? Seems like if we're observing something, we must have it in mind.

BTW, "COI DO" == "COI DO'U" in effect, but is one syllable shorter.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 02:01 GMT

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:30:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > ju'ido'u za'a lo mlatu ca'o va kavbu lo smacu > > Look! Cat(s) catching mouse/mice there! > > Why is that not using 'le'? Seems like if we're observing something, we > must have it in mind.

You can use {le} there, too. With {le}, what you're saying is: "About that cat over there, and that mouse over there, I claim that a kavbu relationship holds between them".

With {lo}, what you're saying is: "There's cat-catching-mouse activity going on over there". If you don't particularly care to say something about the particular cat and/or about the particular mouse then you use {lo}.

The fact that you are seeing an instance of a cat does not mean you are forced to say something about that instance. You can point at the cat and mouse and say: "Didn't I tell you? Cats catch mice, can you see it?"

> BTW, "COI DO" == "COI DO'U" in effect, but is one syllable shorter.

Yes, I just feel that using the second person pronoun in vocatives is too abrupt. Natlang interference probably.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:23:12PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > > Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; hence > > > "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate "Socrates". > > > > > > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some particular, > > > individual cat or cats, correct? > > > > Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes. > > Those seem to be completely different kinds of things to me. > > Please note that these aren't objections, I'm just trying to understand better.

I have to agree. The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like something completely different and alien.

I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't think I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine that the concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most learners of the language.

It seems perfectly fine to define "lo" as an empty gadri. Why does Mr. Cat need to be brought up at all? -- Rob Speer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 04:45 GMT

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:23:03AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:23:12PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > wrote: > > > > Constants are short names or abbreviations for longer names; > > > > hence "s" is a constant when it is used to abbreviate > > > > "Socrates". > > > > > > > > So "lo mlatu", if it's a constant, should stand for some > > > > particular, individual cat or cats, correct? > > > > > > Or "Mr. Cat" himself, yes. > > > > Those seem to be completely different kinds of things to me. > > > > Please note that these aren't objections, I'm just trying to > > understand better. > > I have to agree. The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to > me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like > something completely different and alien.

Actually, from the perspective of the proposal I have no problem with it, it's the 'constants' think that messes me up.

> I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't think > I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine that the > concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most learners of the > language.

Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is a trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which case it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

> It seems perfectly fine to define "lo" as an empty gadri. Why does Mr. > Cat need to be brought up at all?

See above. Also, this is apparently something that people feel the need to say, although I'm not sure why.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 05:20 GMT

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:35:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't think > > I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine that the > > concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most learners of the > > language. > > Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is a > trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which case > it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

The words "Mr. Raven" simply don't explain anything to me. If "Mr. Raven" means "an unspecified general bunch of ravens", then the definition handles that case just fine without Mr. Raven needing to be mentioned.

"Mr. Raven" is an English translation of a concept that comes from some other natlang, right? It's just not useful in talking about Lojban in English, because your typical English reader will have no idea what it means. Also, it takes a good concept and makes it sound silly.

Or is there some reason that it's essential that this unspecified general bunch of ravens is considered as a single entity and given a name? -- Rob Speer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 09:47 GMT

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:02:49AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 09:35:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > I don't know when I'd want to talk about Mr. Cat, and I don't > > > think I'd want to accidentally be talking about him. I imagine > > > that the concept will be similarly difficult to grasp for most > > > learners of the language. > > > > Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is > > a trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which > > case it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference. > > The words "Mr. Raven" simply don't explain anything to me. If "Mr. > Raven" means "an unspecified general bunch of ravens", then the > definition handles that case just fine without Mr. Raven needing to be > mentioned. > > "Mr. Raven" is an English translation of a concept that comes from > some other natlang, right?

Wow, I'm sorry, it never occured to me that you simply hadn't encountered the concept at all.

Raven is, depending on how you want to look at it, the animistic spirit that embodies raven-ness, the Platonic ideal of raven-ness, or something like that.

You might want to start with http://www.boisestate.edu/art/lmcneil/

> It's just not useful in talking about Lojban in English, because your > typical English reader will have no idea what it means. Also, it takes > a good concept and makes it sound silly.

Please note that Mr. Raven is not actually mentioned in the proposal.

> Or is there some reason that it's essential that this unspecified > general bunch of ravens is considered as a single entity and given a > name?

Many, many other languages do this to talk about classes of things in general. I suspect, although I don't know this for fact, that in Native American languages you don't say "All ravens are black", you say "Raven is black". Certainly that's how stereotypical native americans talk when speaking in english on TV.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 13:05 GMT

> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:23:03AM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > > The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to > > me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like > > something completely different and alien. > > Actually, from the perspective of the proposal I have no problem with > it, it's the 'constants' think that messes me up.

A constant term is any term that is not a quantified term. If it has no quantifier, it's a constant, that's all there is to it. The word 'constant' is not mentioned in the definitions anyway.

The reason Mr. Broda comes up every time we discuss gadri is that that's how JCB described generics in Loglan. Like it or not, it's part of the language's traditional jargon. Again, it is not mentioned in the definitions, so feel free to ignore it.

Names are paradigmatic constant terms so thinking of "cats" as "Mr. Cat" can clarify the logical structure of a proposition for some people. If it doesn't work for you, just skip it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

adminPosted by admin on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:09 GMT posts: 208

This is actually by PC:

On {lo}

<< mi nitcu lo lanme i ko pirfi'i lo lanme seva'u mi What I need is a sheep. Draw me a sheep.

mi djica lo lanme poi ba ze'u jmive I want a sheep that will live a long time.>>


Even if {nitcu} and {djica} are in play yet again (are they?), it is hardly informative to use these examples, since they one of are wrong, prejudge a controversial issue, or need some explanation for folks who know how the corresponding words work in English (or just know about the paradoxes resulting from them as level with other contexts).


la

Name article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or a cmevla into a sumti. The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker names with the selbri or cmevla. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over members of the group. An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate the cardinality of the group.

Can we fit a quantifier between {la} and the cmevla/selbri without getting the name wrong? How?


< Typical article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or group that satisfies the predicate. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the typical individual or group. An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group.


le'e

Stereotypical article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers to the stereotypical individual or group that is described by the predicate, from the point of view of the speaker. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the stereotypical individual or group. An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group.

>>


I am unsure just what to make of enumerating typical and stereotypical whatsises. The pattern seems to call for it, but in the cases where plurality plays a role, it seems to me that the typicality (etc.) is predicative not descriptive. That is you really want such things not just using the locution to talk in generalities about whatsises � whether or not they exist.


The treatment of quantifiers seems to me to be the sensible one and gets rid of 30 years of bootless disputes.


The examples in {lo}, combined with the dismissal of the {lo} = {so�u} equation (which probably should fade a bit) leaves {lo} ultimately unintelligible, if not contradictory.


pc

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 20 of May, 2004 19:48 GMT

(Repeating my answer due to accidental removal.)

pc: > Can we fit a quantifier between {la} and the cmevla/selbri without getting > the name wrong? How?

A quantifier between {la} and a cmevla is ungrammatical. A quantifier between {la} and the selbri is grammatical. The meaning of {la ci cribe} could be either "the three that I call 'Bear'" or "the one that I call 'Three Bears'". I'm not sure we really need to impose one of them.

> lo'e > le'e > >> > > I am unsure just what to make of enumerating typical and stereotypical > whatsises. The pattern seems to call for it, but in the cases where plurality > plays a role, it seems to me that the typicality (etc.) is predicative not > descriptive. That is you really want such things not just using the locution > to talk in generalities about whatsises � whether or not they exist.

I too am unsure what to make of them, but the grammar allows them. I can leave the quantifiers out of lo'e/le'e if they are utterly meaningless. Anyone else has an opinion on this?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 21 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > I have to agree. The rest of the gadri proposal makes perfect sense to > > me; but as soon as Mr. Cat enters the picture, it sounds like > > something completely different and alien. > > Actually, from the perspective of the proposal I have no problem with > it, it's the 'constants' think that messes me up.

The point is that since there's exactly one Mr. Cat, "all Mr. Cats" and "some Mr. Cats" mean exactly the same thing, so you don't have to worry about scope issues.

> Is there a difference between "ravens are tricksters" and "Raven is a > trickster"? Unless one is independetly worshiping Raven (in which case > it's "la raven" anyways), I don't see a difference.

Well, that's *one* meaning of English "Ravens are tricksters". It can also mean that each raven is a trickster, or that some ravens are tricksters, or the "thin abstraction" consisting of what ravens have in common includes tricksterness.

-- Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com --Susan McCarthy (adapted) jcowan@reutershealth.com

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

xodPosted by xod on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:21 GMT posts: 143

doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le selsni zo loi zo'u

lu loi broda li'u cu dunli lu su'o2 broda li'u

.i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi lo girzu ku {plurality} .e lo gunma ku {mass} .e lo selpau ku {substance} .e loi dukse

mu'o mi'e xod

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 22:43 GMT

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:21:46PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: gadri > doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo

Just for the record, that's not what carmi means. You want 'traji' or 'mutce'. Unless you are saying that your approval has a wavelength in the visible spectrum?

> .e loi dukse > > >

I wonder what happened to "mu'o mi'e xod", which I can see on the discuss page.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:20 GMT

> doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le selsni > zo loi zo'u

coi xod mi do ckire lo nu pinka i mi spuda

> lu loi broda li'u > cu dunli > lu su'o2 broda li'u

sa'e lu loi broda li'u cu mutce simsa lu lo su'ore broda li'u i lu su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u su'o da poi broda ku'o su'o de poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da e de brode i lu lo su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode

ni'o ku'i le do pinka cu mapti i le me zo loi poi mi skicu ke'a cu na mutce frica zo lo i ku'i lo bartu namcu cu ja'a frica stika zo lo fa'u zo loi

> .i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi > lo girzu ku {plurality} > .e lo gunma ku {mass} > .e lo selpau ku {substance} > .e loi dukse

pe'i zo lo banzu lo nu tavla fi ro la'e di'u i mu'a lu la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu li'u lu ta culno lo bimu bidju li'u lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe i do stidi ma

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by xorxes on Sat 22 of May, 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 1912

> i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe

oi se'i mi pu skudji lu zo loi basti zo lo li'u

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 03:35 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>>doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i le = selsni >>zo loi zo'u=20 >> =20 >> > >coi xod mi do ckire lo nu pinka i mi spuda >=20 > =20 > >>lu loi broda li'u=20 >>cu dunli=20 >>lu su'o2 broda li'u >> =20 >> > >sa'e lu loi broda li'u cu mutce simsa lu lo su'ore broda li'u >i lu su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u su'o da poi >broda ku'o su'o de poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da e de brode >i lu lo su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u=20 >lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode > >ni'o ku'i le do pinka cu mapti i le me zo loi poi mi skicu ke'a=20 >cu na mutce frica zo lo i ku'i lo bartu namcu cu ja'a frica stika=20 >zo lo fa'u zo loi =20 > =20 >

je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica lu 2 broda li'u fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

..i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda


>>.i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi=20 >>lo girzu ku {plurality} >>.e lo gunma ku {mass} >>.e lo selpau ku {substance} >>.e loi dukse >> =20 >> > >pe'i zo lo banzu lo nu tavla fi ro la'e di'u=20 >i mu'a=20 > lu la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu li'u > lu ta culno lo bimu bidju li'u=20 > =20 >

..i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne lo=20 si'o gunma

> lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u >i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe=20 > =20 >

..i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 17:18 GMT

xod: > je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica > lu 2 broda li'u > fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u > fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li re i lo re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li pa

> .i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

pe'i noda

.... > .i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne lo > si'o gunma

do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

.... > .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o enai zo lo i mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le papri ki'u lo na mutce srana i ku'i mi ba pensi

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod: > =20 > >>je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica >>lu 2 broda li'u >>fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u >>fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u >> =20 >> > >re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do=20 >i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li re >i lo re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do >i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li pa > =20 >

..i'u je'ecai


>>.i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda >> =20 >> > >pe'i noda > >... > =20 > >>.i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne lo >>si'o gunma >> =20 >> > >do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e=20 >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei > =20 >

bi'unai lo selsni be zo loi cu nalsatci .i'enai .oisai ..i lo si'o gunma ku (noi nalsatci zi'e ne zo loi) cu da'inai di'i mintu lo si'o girzu ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo su'o broda li'u) ..i ji'a da'inai di'i mintu lo si'o selmai ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo tu'o broda li'u=20 ..onai lu tu'o broda li'u)

..i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i gi tu'a zo tu'o

>... > =20 > >>.i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy >> =20 >> > >mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o >enai zo lo i mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le >papri ki'u lo na mutce srana i ku'i mi ba pensi > =20 >

..ie mi zmanei lo tcita be fi zo tu'o be'o lo tcita be fi lu lo tu'o be'o


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e=20 >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei > =20 >

la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u su'omei .i xy. jinvi=20 le du'u malgli


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

xod: > .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy > ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i > gi tu'a zo tu'o

zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo be zo le joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka be zo tu'o le papri cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau da lo nu na pilno i ro da jdice i mi finti lo velski poi jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be mi

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

> la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u > su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod: > =20 > >>.i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy >>ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i >>gi tu'a zo tu'o >> =20 >> > >zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo=20 >be zo le joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka=20 >be zo tu'o le papri cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau=20 >da lo nu na pilno i ro da jdice i mi finti lo velski poi=20 >jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be mi=20 > =20 >

..iecai .i lo pu'u nalpli zo loi kei zo'u norcatni je nalbilga je certu stidi ki'u lo du'u nalsatci

..i zo tu'o zo'u do na galfi lo catni selsni gi'eku'i stidi le nu pilno tai lo gadri

..i ku'i la'e di'u .e la'e de'u cu selni'i .eise'anai la'o {excellent=20 solution} .i'ecai noi do ba'o stidi .e'edaisai

--

ni'o ta'o mi fliba troci lo nu fanta tu'a zoi {=3D20}

mu'o mi'e xod


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote: > > =20 > >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u=20 >>su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli >> =20 >> > >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u > >mu'o mi'e xorxes > =20 >


..ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi la'o {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

mu'o mi'e xod

--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 24 of May, 2004 22:47 GMT

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >--- xod wrote: > > > >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u=20 > >>su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli > > > >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u > > .ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi la'o > {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

ku'i la'e di'u na mintu lo glico ka su'oremei i gy mapti ge lu su'ore broda li'u gi lu lo su'ore broda li'u iseki'ubo mi na tavla fi zoi gy plural gy

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

I'm going to go through and turn these into English. If this bothers the authors, they are welcome to say so.

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:23:57PM -0400, xod wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > >>doi xorxes .i .uofu'inai mi carmi zanru le selsni zo lo .i .oi ku'i > >>le selsni zo loi zo'u

xod: Dear xorxes, I intensely approve of your meaning for "lo", but about "loi":

> >coi xod mi do ckire lo nu pinka i mi spuda

xorxes: Dear xod, I appreciate your comment and I reply.

> >>lu loi broda li'u > >>cu dunli > >>lu su'o2 broda li'u

xod: "loi broda" == "su'o 2 broda"

> >sa'e lu loi broda li'u cu mutce simsa lu lo su'ore broda li'u i lu > >su'ore broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u su'o da poi broda ku'o > >su'o de poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da e de brode i lu lo su'ore > >broda cu brode li'u se smuni lo du'u lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode

xorxes: Precisely speaking, "loi broda" is very similar to "lo su'o re broda". "su'o re broda cu brode" means that not translating here su'o da poi broda ku'o su'o do poi broda gi'e na du da zo'u da .e de broda [translation: there is at least one X, a broda, and at least one Y, a
broda that is not the same as X, where both are brode translation: there is at least one X, a broda, and at least one Y, a broda that is not the same as X, where both are brode]. "lo su'o re broda cu brode" means that lo su'oremei poi broda cu brode [translation:
An at-least-two-some which are broda are also brode translation: An at-least-two-some which are broda are also brode].

> >ni'o ku'i le do pinka cu mapti i le me zo loi poi mi skicu ke'a cu na > >mutce frica zo lo i ku'i lo bartu namcu cu ja'a frica stika zo lo > >fa'u zo loi

xorxes still: However, your comment fits. The "loi"-stuff which I describe is not much different from "lo". However, the outer numbers [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/i.e.%20outer%3Cbr%20/%3Equantifiers i.e. outer quantifiers] indeed differently adjust "lo" than "loi".

> je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica > lu 2 broda li'u > fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u > fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

xod: Uhhh, OK. What is an example illustrating the event of desiring I don't follow that, btw: "2 broda" and repsectively "loi 2 broda" reciprocal of?? "lo 2 broda"

[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/I'm%20assuming%20that%20both be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?" rel="">I'm assuming that both "fa'u" and "fa'i" were more-or-less intended to be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?]

> .i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

rlpowell: la'a zo loi cu po'o rinju le se smuni be zo lo .i va'i ro selkai be zo loi cu vasru tu'a zo lo .iku'i ro selkai be zo lo cu ba'e na vasru tu'a zo loi

> >>.i xu la'e di'u cu jalge po'o le ro'efu'inaicai pensi lo girzu ku > >>{plurality} > >>.e lo gunma ku {mass} > >>.e lo selpau ku {substance} > >>.e loi dukse

xod: Is this a result only of intense thoughts about pluralities and masses and substances and other things? Not sure about that last bit.

> >pe'i zo lo banzu lo nu tavla fi ro la'e di'u > >i mu'a > > lu la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu li'u > > lu ta culno lo bimu bidju li'u > > > >

xorxes: I think "lo" suffices to talk about all of the above. For example: "la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu" Tennis is a competition between two people and two people "ta culno lo bimu bidju" That is completely filled with half-beads.

> .i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne > lo si'o gunma

xod: Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> > lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u > >i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe

xorxes: more examples "lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki" [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/I%20have%20*no*%20idea%20what%20to%20do%20with nothing-water?" rel="">I have *no* idea what to do with "lo tu'o djacu". The nothing-water?] "lo" substituting for "loi" doesn't help understanding.


> .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

Yes, please do; what are you talking about?

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

More translation.

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:34:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > xod: > > je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica > > lu 2 broda li'u > > fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u > > fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u

xod: Uhhh, OK. What is an example illustrating the event of desiring I don't follow that, btw: "2 broda" and repsectively "loi 2 broda" reciprocal of?? "lo 2 broda"

[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/I'm%20assuming%20that%20both be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?" rel="">I'm assuming that both "fa'u" and "fa'i" were more-or-less intended to be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?]

> re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do > i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li re > i lo re prenu cu pleji lo rupnu be li pa do > i ja'ebo do cpacu lo rupnu be li pa

xorxes: Two people pay one dollar to you. Therefore, you get two dollars. A two-person group pays one dollar to you. Therefore, you get one dollar.

The former being "re prenu", the latter being "lo re prenu"

doi xorxes ne'i le do se stidi xu lu re prenu li'u cu dunli lu re lo prenu li'u

> > .i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

xod: What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

> pe'i noda

xorxes: I think none at all.

> ... > > .i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne > > lo si'o gunma

xod: Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e pilno > zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes: What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a two-or-more-some.

> ... > > .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

xod: I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

> mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o enai zo lo i mi > na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le papri ki'u lo na mutce srana i > ku'i mi ba pensi

I doubt it. I thing I am obligated to explain "tu'o" with the label of "tu'o" and not "lo". [jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be
a natural outcome of your explained." rel="">jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be a natural outcome of your "lo" proposal, in which case I expect it to be explained.] I don't want at least one person to disapprove of the page because it was not relevant enough. But I will think on it.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:02:21PM -0400, xod wrote: snip > >>.i ma selkai loi broda .enai lo broda

xod: What are the properties of "loi broda" that "lo broda" does not have?

> >pe'i noda

xorxes: I think none at all.

> >... > >>.i'e lo si'o gunma cu pagbu lo si'o girzu .i ku'i ma dimna zo loi ne > >>lo si'o gunma

xod: Indeed, the idea of masses is part of the idea of pluralities, but what is the fate of "loi", which is the adea of masses?

> >do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e > >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes: What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a two-or-more-some.

> bi'unai lo selsni be zo loi cu nalsatci .i'enai .oisai > .i lo si'o gunma ku (noi nalsatci zi'e ne zo loi) > cu da'inai di'i mintu > lo si'o girzu ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo su'o broda li'u) > .i ji'a da'inai di'i mintu > lo si'o selmai ku (noi smuni satci zi'e ne .ei lu lo tu'o broda li'u > .onai lu tu'o broda li'u)

xod: As I've said, the meaning of "loi" is not exact; this upsets me greatly and I disapprove. The idea of a mass (which is inexact and is associated with "lo") is in fact regularily identical with the idea of a plurality (which has an exact meaning and must be "lo su'o broda"). In addition, it is in fact regularily identical with the idea of a substance (which has an exact meaning and must be "lo tu'o broda" or "tu'o broda"). [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/By%20which%20you%20mean%20a%20substance%20without%20intantiation%20in%20a%3Cbr%20/%3Eparticular%20form?%20%20I%20guess?%20%20What%27s%20the%20difference%20between and "no broda"?" rel="">By which you mean a substance without intantiation in a particular form? I guess? What's the difference between "tu'o broda" and "no broda"?]

> .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy > ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod still: I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi" is tragically cursed and about "tu'o".

> >... > >>.i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy

xod: I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK.

> >mi senpi i pe'i ei zo tu'o se ciksi fi'o tcita zo tu'o enai zo lo i > >mi na djica lo nu su'o prenu na zanru le papri ki'u lo na mutce srana > >i ku'i mi ba pensi

xorxes: I doubt it. I thing I am obligated to explain "tu'o" with the label of "tu'o" and not "lo". [jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be
a natural outcome of your explained." rel="">jatna: Unless you are expecting this usage to be a natural outcome of your "lo" proposal, in which case I expect it to be explained.] I don't want at least one person to disapprove of the page because it was not relevant enough. But I will think on it.

> .ie mi zmanei > lo tcita be fi zo tu'o be'o > lo tcita be fi lu lo tu'o be'o

xod: Yes, I prefer the label of "tu'o" to the lable of "lo tu'o".

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:10 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:53:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > xod: > > .i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy > > ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod: I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi" is tragically cursed and about "tu'o".

> zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo > be zo le joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka > be zo tu'o le papri cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau > da lo nu na pilno i ro da jdice i mi finti lo velski poi > jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be mi

xorxes:

"tu'o" is a cmavo of the class of "pa". I'm still making a description of "le" and "la". However, I will comply; I am able to and comments about tu'o to the bottom of the page. WRT "loi", I am not able to obligate that it not be used. Everyone decides. I will invent a description that is as near the customary one as I am able.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:19:31PM -0400, xod wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > >xod: > > > > > >>.i ja'o mi na bandu zo loi .i za'a do tugni .isemu'ibo ko stace byfy > >>ge le du'u zo loi cu selbetri seldapma .iucu'i > >>gi tu'a zo tu'o

xod: I conclude that I will not defend loi. Clearly you agree. Therefore you must be honest with the BPFK that "loi" is tragically cursed and about "tu'o".

> >zo tu'o cmavo zo pa i mi ca'o finti lo velski be lo cmavo be zo le > >joi zo la i ku'i vi'o do'u mi ka'e jmina lo pinka be zo tu'o le papri > >cnita i zo loi zo'u mi na ka'e bilgygau da lo nu na pilno i ro da > >jdice i mi finti lo velski poi jbirai le tcaci velski lo se kakne be > >mi

xorxes: "tu'o" is a cmavo of the class of "pa". I'm still making a description of "le" and "la". However, I will comply; I am able to and comments about tu'o to the bottom of the page. WRT "loi", I am not able to obligate that it not be used. Everyone decides. I will invent a description that is as near the customary one as I am able.

> .iecai .i lo pu'u nalpli zo loi kei zo'u > norcatni je nalbilga je certu stidi ki'u lo du'u nalsatci

xod: Bravo! The process of not using "loi": neither the authority nor lack of it, and not oblige and expertly suggest the fact on not being precise.

> .i zo tu'o zo'u do na galfi lo catni selsni gi'eku'i stidi le nu pilno > tai lo gadri

xod: "tu'o": You do not modify the authoritative meaning, but you suggest a usage with repsect to articles.

> .i ku'i la'e di'u .e la'e de'u cu selni'i .eise'anai la'o {excellent > solution} .i'ecai noi do ba'o stidi .e'edaisai

xod: But that and the other are implied (with obligation) by an "excellent solution" which I am approvingly certain you will suggest, because you are very good at this.

FWIW, I agree.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:17:45PM -0400, xod wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > >do stidi ma i mi se mansa lo nu na pilno zo loi i ku'i da'i ka'e > >pilno zo loi lo nu basna lo ka su'oremei

xorxes: What are you suggesting? I am satisfied with not using "loi", but I suppose one could use "loi" to emphasize the property of being a two-or-more-some.


> la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u su'omei .i xy. > jinvi le du'u malgli

xod: The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of two-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:08:55PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- xod wrote: > > > la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u su'omei .i xy. > > jinvi le du'u malgli

xod: The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of two-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

> iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

xorxes: Therefore I will not suggest that.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:25:11PM -0400, xod wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >--- xod wrote: > > > >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u > >>su'omei .i xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

xod: The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of two-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

[two-some-ness: That was an error, and should read
two-some-ness: That was an error, and should read "at-least-one-some-ness".]

> >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

xorxes: Therefore I will not suggest that.

> .ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi la'o > {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

xod: I disagree; I understand that the property of at-least-one-some-ness, which we'll call S, is your suggestion in the BPFK gadri section.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 04:19 GMT

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:57:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- xod wrote: > > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > >--- xod wrote: > > > > > >>la xunre cu kajde fi lo nu pilno zo loi lo ka ce'u=20 su'omei .i > > >>xy. jinvi le du'u malgli

xod: The Red Book I assume warns against using "loi" for the property of at-least-one-some-ness. It suggests that that is malglico.

> > >iseki'ubo mi na ba stidi la'e di'u

xorxes: Therefore I will not suggest that.

> > .ienai mi jimpe tu'a lo ka ce'u su'omei ku goi sy. le do stidi vi > > la'o > > {http://www.lojban.org/tiki//3DBPFK+Section%3A+gadri}

xod: I disagree; I understand that the property of at-least-one-some-ness, which we'll call S, is your suggestion in the BPFK gadri section.

> ku'i la'e di'u na mintu lo glico ka su'oremei i gy mapti ge lu su'ore > broda li'u gi lu lo su'ore broda li'u iseki'ubo mi na tavla fi zoi gy > plural gy

xorxes: However, that's not the same as the English property of at-least-two-some-ness. English fits both "su'o re broda" and "lo su'o re broda". Therefore, I didn't say "plural".

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." — David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> I'm going to go through and turn these into English. If this bothers > the authors, they are welcome to say so.


Quite good.


> > > je'eru'e .i ma mupli lo nu djica > > lu 2 broda li'u > > fa'u lu loi 2 broda li'u > > fa'i lu lo 2 broda li'u > > xod: > Uhhh, OK. What is an example illustrating the event of desiring > I don't follow that, btw: > "2 broda" > and repsectively "loi 2 broda" > reciprocal of?? "lo 2 broda" > > [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/I'm%20assuming%20that%20both > be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?" rel="">I'm assuming that both "fa'u" and "fa'i" were more-or-less intended to > be jo'u or fa'u or similar. xod?]


Whoops. fa'i should be fa'u.


> > > lu lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki li'u > > >i lo nu zo lo basti zo loi cu na sidju lo nu jimpe > > xorxes: > more examples > "lo tu'o djacu cu ta'e litki" > [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/I%20have%20*no*%20idea%20what%20to%20do%20with > nothing-water?" rel="">I have *no* idea what to do with "lo tu'o djacu". The > nothing-water?] > "lo" substituting for "loi" doesn't help understanding. > > > > .i .i'e pilno zo tu'o noi ko .e'o stidi tecu'u byfy > > I approve of your use of "tu'o"; please suggest it to the BPFK. > > Yes, please do; what are you talking about?


tu'o doesn't mean zero, but is a number that means no number of applicable. tu'o goes where a xo would deserve na'i. Substances are uncountable; we can count arbitrary chunks (3 gallons, 8 grams) but the chunks themselves don't obey expected numerical properties (one blob of water, plus another, equals still only one blob.)

mu'o mi'e xod


-- "The Americans promised freedom and prosperity; what's this? Go up to their headquarters, at one of those checkpoints where they point their guns at you, and tell them that you hate them as much as Saddam, and see what they do to you," said Mohammad Saleh, 39, a building contractor. "The only difference is that Saddam would kill you in private, where the Americans will kill you in public."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 06:47 GMT

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:19:31PM -0400, xod wrote: > > > .iecai .i lo pu'u nalpli zo loi kei zo'u > > norcatni je nalbilga je certu stidi ki'u lo du'u nalsatci > > xod: > Bravo! The process of not using "loi": neither the authority nor lack > of it, and not oblige and expertly suggest the fact on not being > precise.


The phasing-out of 'loi' is an unofficial, unobligatory, expert suggestion based on the fact that it's ambiguous.


> > .i ku'i la'e di'u .e la'e de'u cu selni'i .eise'anai la'o {excellent > > solution} .i'ecai noi do ba'o stidi .e'edaisai > > xod: > But that and the other are implied (with obligation) by an "excellent > solution" which I am approvingly certain you will suggest, because you > are very good at this.


It is his proposal of the Excellent Solution to the BF that was skillful. (.oinai I try to be precise with the location of my .ui)


-- "The Americans promised freedom and prosperity; what's this? Go up to their headquarters, at one of those checkpoints where they point their guns at you, and tell them that you hate them as much as Saddam, and see what they do to you," said Mohammad Saleh, 39, a building contractor. "The only difference is that Saddam would kill you in private, where the Americans will kill you in public."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT

Let me stress that my comments were directed at the use of {nitcu lo} and {djica lo} in place of {nitcu tu'a lo} and {djica tu'a lo} as stock examples, not at other problems with the new {lo}. As a solution to the opaque context "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names. It is ineffective because the problem persists: the inference from the new {lo bridi} in situ to {su'o da poi (bridi) go'i ... da...} works with the new {lo} as well as with the old — lacking the blocking action of {tu'a}.

It is also superfluous since Lojban does not have a problem with opaque contexts; {tu'a} and the abstract phrases it covers deal with these contexts in an exemplary fashion. The problem is with Lojbanists who refuse to use these devices, either because they have not taken the time to understand them or just persist in following their home language habit of not making the Lojban distinction — often even claiming that that habit rather than the Lojban (logical) format is the correct view of reality.

To be sure, we could ignore opaque contexts if we were willing to make some modifications to Lojban. But I think the modifications are much worse than just learning to use the language as she is given. We could, for example, insist that only existent objects culd be needed, wanted, dreamed about and so on. But this would limit our ability to plan and invent and countless other things we do — and want to — do. Unless, of course, we quantify not over existents but over non-existents (even impossibles) as well. But then we have to introduce the distinction between existents and non- explicitly, since everything (in the outer domain sense) is available for quantification, but not all are available for acting upon. Alternatively (or additionally, for that matter) we could deny that generalization was an inference that Lojban supported and take it that the logic it copied was a free logic (parallelling but slightly different from the view that "every" does not have existential import). Along a different line, we might insist that {nitcu} and {djica} and an indefinite number of other predicates have (unmarked) opaque places, places which interfere with generalization (and Leibniz's law) and then just learn to recognize those places when the need arises (this is, of course, what natural languages do for the most part) and drop the need for explicit markers on ordinary places. This solution has regularly been rejected, even by people who act as though it were in place.

On the larger issue — which I did not mention except in passing — of the new definition of {lo} in general, I have said my say on that many times. Briefly, the definition is simply muddled since it tries to deal with a number of separate (and already fairly well separated in Lojban) concepts in a single device. The result is that the whole is at least incoherent and, I think I have shown, inconsistent. It does point to a couple of possible additions for Lojban: a way of talking about kinds separate from talking about the collective of its members or unspecified members or (stereo)typical members and a way of talking about stuffsubstancegoo. Note that, insofar as the new {lo} does either of these things, it fails in its other purposes, since neither the kind nor the kind-stuff does what an unspecified individual does. As for "generic" individuals, I have trouble seeing them as other than either the genus itself or a concrete individual without specifying which one, a particular quantifier — with short scope, perhaps. The notion of Mr. Whatsis — at least the one that turns up most often — as a single object doing whatever any whatsis does really is contradictory and turns out to be nothing more than minimum-scoped quantifiers loosely disguised.

Ahah, another possibility for {lo}: it is just such a minimum-scoped quantifier and thus different from {su'o} which is, presumably, capable of being fronted. {lo} would then not be capable of being fronted and would — by itself — block generalization. Further, it would not be anaphorizable, since that would illegitimately extend its scope. (Actually, it would be anaphorizable with pronouns that repeat the phrase but not the referent of the phrase — as happens in English, for example). That might be a useful change to make, but I suspect that even it would go against much previous usage.

The possibility that {lo} really does refer to the genus — as opposed to the collective or the set or the members taken separately — might also work, but it would require a rewriting of the semantics of virtually every place since most places have been taken to deal with members of the genus, not the genus itself. And then the rewrites have to be adjusted to account for sumti not introduced by {lo} (or all the other gadri have to be redefined as well).

Frankly, I think the best solution to all the problems that the new {lo} is meant to solve is just learning to deal with Lojban itself, not Lojanized English or Spanish or whatever.

pc

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 17:24 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>Let me stress that my comments were directed at the use of {nitcu lo} and {djica lo} in place of {nitcu tu'a lo} and {djica tu'a lo} as stock examples, not at other problems with the new {lo}. As a solution to the opaque context "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. > >

It was my understanding that the new lo is opaque, not su'oda, intentional, Mister, and suitable for "needed boxes" and off-white unicorns. If it is not, or if those concepts are not identical (rendering my understanding into a confused mess) then I and others will need concrete use-cases showing the errors I've made, and the actual difficulties this presents. (In fact, the response will have to be even clearer than this very paragraph of mine, which unfortunately is above the heads of many of the BF commissioners, who have not attended the jboske seminar series; thus the need for concrete example sentences.)

mu'o mi'e xod


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT

> xorxes: > I think "lo" suffices to talk about all of the above. For example: > "la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu" > Tennis is a competition between two people and two people

Or "Tennis can be played two against two."

> "ta culno lo bimu bidju" > That is completely filled with half-beads.

{bimu} = 85, but it works with {pimu} as well. Are {bi} and {pi} too similar to be both in PA?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT

> doi xorxes ne'i le do se stidi xu lu re prenu li'u cu dunli lu re lo > prenu li'u

go'i

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 18:36 GMT

These usages seem entirely non-problematic and, except possibly for the question of where the quantifiers go, don't obviously require the new {lo} (I suppose the scope rules are a bit vague here, but that seems to be mainly because no one has bothered to work them up) pc Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> xorxes: > I think "lo" suffices to talk about all of the above. For example: > "la tenis ka'e te jivna lo re prenu lo re prenu" > Tennis is a competition between two people and two people Or "Tennis can be played two against two."

> "ta culno lo bimu bidju" > That is completely filled with half-beads.

{bimu} = 85, but it works with {pimu} as well. Are {bi} and {pi} too similar to be both in PA?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT

(Many of pc's points refer to quantified terms. I agree with most of what he says, but they don't concern the proposed lo, which is not a quantified term.) I respond to some of the other points.

pc: > As a solution to the opaque context > "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is > inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti > other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every > other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names.

Could you explain what the problem is with:

mi nitcu le va tanxe I need that box.

I don't see what could be the difference between: "I need: (For that box: I have it)" and "For that box: (I need: I have it)". Is there a difference?

... > Alternatively (or additionally, > for that matter) we could deny that generalization was an inference that > Lojban supported and take it that the logic it copied was a free logic > (parallelling but slightly different from the view that "every" does not have > existential > import).

Presumably any logic can be expressed in Lojban as well as in English or any other language. It seems that generalization is something that we can do or not do irrespective of the language in which we express it.

... > As for "generic" individuals, I have trouble seeing them as other than > either the genus itself or a concrete individual without specifying which > one, a > particular quantifier — with short scope, perhaps. The notion of Mr. > Whatsis — at least the one that turns up most often — as a single object > doing whatever any whatsis does really is contradictory and turns out to be > nothing more than minimum-scoped quantifiers loosely disguised.

Could you please point out the contradiction, ideally with an example?

... > Frankly, I think the best solution to all the problems that the new {lo} is > meant to solve is just learning to deal with Lojban itself, not Lojanized > English or Spanish or whatever.

If you could write the proposed lo-examples in what you consider more correct Lojban, that would help to highlight where the differences are.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT

By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to look.

do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa You're 6 years younger than me.

la stace pu citka lo cirla =46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le glar= e djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le du'u xuk= au le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le raktu poi n= u sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo blabi ractu po= i xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu (lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit)

--=20 Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org= / Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengev=E6ter. Forutsatt at ingen p=E5 base= n p=E5 Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpole= n

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 19:59 GMT

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal >(prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to >look. > > >

I find these in keeping with the proposed usage of lo, which I understand to be similar to the English "any".


>do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa >You're 6 years younger than me. > >

A general six years; not a particular six years.


>la stace pu citka lo cirla >=46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese). > >

That's right. Not a particular chunk.


>i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le glar= >e djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le du'u xuk= >au le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le raktu poi n= >u sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo blabi ractu po= >i xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu >(lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit) > >--=20 >Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org= >/ >Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengev=E6ter. Forutsatt at ingen p=E5 base= >n p=E5 >Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpole= >n > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 25 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT posts: 14214

BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me
W
Wmake me very happy.


-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:

>Re: BPFK Section: gadri >BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course). > >Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere. >

>In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me
W
Wmake me very happy.

> >-Robin > > >


I've found a dyad of ideas which approximate *Intension* and

  • Extension*, even if the correlation is not perfect. Intension is

similar to *selkaicfa*; la'e-like, beginning with a set of qualities, one discusses the items, if any, that qualify. Extension is similar to

  • kaicfa*; lu'e-like, beginning with an object in mind, one discusses its

qualities in order to describe it. (When I use "any" in English, I am experiencing selkaicfa; I have a requirement in mind, and I am referring to whatever items fit the bill. However, I also can use "any" to express a lack of preference among the members of a set, all of whose members might be known specifically to me: "Hit this button with any of your fingers.")

Under Jorge's proposal before the BF, lo = selkaicfa, le = kaicfa. With selkaicfa, the speaker has given an explicit description of the required qualities, and the sumti refers to anything that matches. In kaicfa, the speaker has given only a partial list of the qualities, in order to aid the listener in understanding.

So lo poi isn't le.

-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

> Re: BPFK Section: gadri > BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of > information, of course). > > Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems > to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

{le broda} can refer to anything at all that you have in mind, so I don't understand exactly what you mean. In general it is not equivalent to use one expression or the other. With {le} there is a certain thing or things that you want to talk about, you have them identified, so you will refer to them as {le ....}. All you need to do is pick a predicate that will be helpful to your audience to identify what thing or things you are making a claim about.

With {lo} you won't be making a claim about any specific thing or things, you will only talk about the things that satisfy a certain predicate, whether or not there are any of them around. With {lo broda poi brode} you claim something about brodas that brode. For example:

lo gerku poi cmoni cu na batci A dog that barks won't bite.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

> By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal > (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to > look.

Are these supposed to be problematic for the proposed {lo}? They are not.

> do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa > You're 6 years younger than me.

This one makes more sense with {lo} refering generically to a period of six years rather than quantifying over periods od six years: "there is at least one period of six years such that you're younger than my by that period"? Not wrong, but weird. The natural thing to say is that the difference in our ages is the single entity "6 years".

> la stace pu citka lo cirla > =46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

That one works with both {lo cirla} or {su'o cirla}.

> i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le glar= > e djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le du'u xuk= > au le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le raktu poi n= > u sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo blabi ractu po= > i xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu > (lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit)

(I would use {lo nu} for most of those {le nu} now.) Yes, you can use {lo blabi ractu} when there is only one white rabbit around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:20:16PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal > (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to > look.

For those of you who weren't on IRC at the time, Arnt believes that xorxes' proposal will invalidate much past usage of lo.

We asked him for examples; these are they.

All my interpretations are based on my understanding of xorxes' proposal, which I admit is limited.

> do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa > You're 6 years younger than me.

You are less than me in any length-6-years time period.

Not seeing a problem.

> la stace pu citka lo cirla > Frank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese).

Honest ate any cheese.

Not seeing a problem; if you care which cheese he ate, use le.

> i abu ca'o menli jdice to sekai le xagrai selka'e pe va'o le nu le > glare djedi cu rinka le nu abu lifri le nu sipydji je bebna toi le > du'u xukau le nu pluka fa le nu zbasu lo xrula linsi cu se vamji le > raktu poi nu sa'irbi'o gi'e crepu loi xrula icabo suksa fa le nu lo > blabi ractu poi xunblabi se kanla cu bajra zo'a a bu > (lo blabi ractu = a (1) white rabbit)

Where did "a (1)" come from? It has *never* been the case in Lojban that "lo blabi ractu" means "one white rabbit".

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > (lo blabi ractu =3D a (1) white rabbit) > > Yes, you can use {lo blabi ractu} when there is only one white rabbit > around.

Please expand on this. In particular, if there is only one white rabbit around and you say "lo blabi ractu", are you referring to said local white rabbit in any useful way?

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 25 of May, 2004 23:54 GMT

> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Yes, you can use {lo blabi ractu} when there is only one white rabbit > > around. > > Please expand on this. In particular, if there is only one white rabbit > around and you say "lo blabi ractu", are you referring to said local > white rabbit in any useful way?

You're not referring to it specifically, no, but the fact that there is a white rabbit present does not preclude that you speak about white rabbits either. But this is independent of my proposal. If you say {su'o blabi ractu} you are not referring to any local rabbit either, you are quantifying over the set of all rabbits. This has to do with specificity {le} vs. {su'o}/{lo}, not with {su'o} vs. {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

pc adds caps to indicate where replies fit. A: Interesting. I wasn't aware of saying much of anything about quantified expressions — escept that one can be inferred from any unblocked sumti

B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

C: My point is exactly that if we want to prevent the problems when we elect to do generalization we have to forbid generalization if we are not going to mark places where it does not apply, {nitcu2} for example.

D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain, Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except perhaps one in an intentional context.

E: already done God knows how often over the last few decades. Most of them are indistinguishable from cases of new {lo}, which is meant to appear conservative. The opaque cases — as with {nitcu} — are the most obvious differences. Other would probably be negative examples, where {lo} is used in place of some other more accurate gadri: {loi}, for example, or the possibly needed genus or goo forms. pc

A: (Many of pc's points refer to quantified terms. I agree with most of what he says, but they don't concern the proposed lo, which is not a quantified term.) I respond to some of the other points.

pc: > As a solution to the opaque context > "problem" in Lojban, the new {lo} is both inadequate and ineffective. It is > inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti > other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every > other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names. B: Could you explain what the problem is with:

mi nitcu le va tanxe I need that box.

I don't see what could be the difference between: "I need: (For that box: I have it)" and "For that box: (I need: I have it)". Is there a difference?

... > Alternatively (or additionally, > for that matter) we could deny that generalization was an inference that > Lojban supported and take it that the logic it copied was a free logic > (parallelling but slightly different from the view that "every" does not have > existential > import).

C:Presumably any logic can be expressed in Lojban as well as in English or any other language. It seems that generalization is something that we can do or not do irrespective of the language in which we express it.

... > As for "generic" individuals, I have trouble seeing them as other than > either the genus itself or a concrete individual without specifying which > one, a > particular quantifier — with short scope, perhaps. The notion of Mr. > Whatsis — at least the one that turns up most often — as a single object > doing whatever any whatsis does really is contradictory and turns out to be > nothing more than minimum-scoped quantifiers loosely disguised.

D:Could you please point out the contradiction, ideally with an example?

... > Frankly, I think the best solution to all the problems that the new {lo} is > meant to solve is just learning to deal with Lojban itself, not Lojanized > English or Spanish or whatever.

E:If you could write the proposed lo-examples in what you consider more correct Lojban, that would help to highlight where the differences are.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

Careful. English "any" fluctuates (in fairly contoleed ways — but you need to supply more context) between universal and particlar. I take it this means particular "some unspecifed one(s)."

The other cases are merely conservative, that is not different from "old {lo}" though they may differ from some intermediate cases which arose once folks started mucking about with {lo} (this time or earlier). pc xod wrote:

I find these in keeping with the proposed usage of lo, which I understand to be similar to the English "any".


>do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa >You're 6 years younger than me. > >

A general six years; not a particular six years.


>la stace pu citka lo cirla >=46rank ate some cheese. (or one or more pieces of cheese). > >

That's right. Not a particular chunk.

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

I can't find xod's claim (but I know that some things never get to me — and some of mine don't get to some other people). It is however pretty certainly false for almost any reading of {lo}: {lo broda poi brode} is only marginally more specific than {lo broda} — and maybe not at all if all or even most broda are also brode: Any old broda poi brode is not a specified one except accidentally. pc wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: Re: BPFK Section: gadri BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course).

Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere.

In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me
W
Wmake me very happy.


-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

pc: > B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its > taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems > because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred > to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as > such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike > most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

You had said that the new {lo} is "inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names." What would be an example where {nitcu le} or {nitcu la} are problematic, then?

> D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is > not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since > contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not > exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain, > Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except > perhaps one in an intentional context.

Mr Rabbit is eating grass (here), but he is not eating grass (over there). That's not contradictory. John talked to Mary (yesterday), but he did not talk to Mary (the day before). That's the same type of non-contradiction. That John did and did not talk to Mary does not mean he cannot exist. All it means is that to understand what a sentence means you need context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

I don't quite see how this distinction fits the extension-intension distinction and even less what that distinction has to do with the {lo}-{le} contrast. Both {lo broda} and {le broda} pick out things with reference to the (probably very vague) property of being a broda. In one case, the speaker is apparently indifferent to or ignorant of which broda satisfies the rest of the sentence. In the other case, the speaker knows and wishes to let the hearer know which one it is and uses the predication to aid that task. Both are extensional (refer to things, not concepts). The distinction given here does seem to bear on the difference between {le} and {lo}, though the connection bertween these and {la'e} and {lu'e} is forced at best. pc xod wrote: wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:

>Re: BPFK Section: gadri >BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == "le broda" (with loss of information, of course). > >Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it somewhere. >

>In case it isn't obvious, conversion formula give me
W
Wmake me very happy.

> >-Robin > > >


I've found a dyad of ideas which approximate *Intension* and

  • Extension*, even if the correlation is not perfect. Intension is

similar to *selkaicfa*; la'e-like, beginning with a set of qualities, one discusses the items, if any, that qualify. Extension is similar to

  • kaicfa*; lu'e-like, beginning with an object in mind, one discusses its

qualities in order to describe it. (When I use "any" in English, I am experiencing selkaicfa; I have a requirement in mind, and I am referring to whatever items fit the bill. However, I also can use "any" to express a lack of preference among the members of a set, all of whose members might be known specifically to me: "Hit this button with any of your fingers.")

Under Jorge's proposal before the BF, lo = selkaicfa, le = kaicfa. With selkaicfa, the speaker has given an explicit description of the required qualities, and the sumti refers to anything that matches. In kaicfa, the speaker has given only a partial list of the qualities, in order to aid the listener in understanding.

So lo poi isn't le.

-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


't

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

There is of course a particular period of six years that you are younger than I but that is probably not what is meant here and so anyold period will do. I agree it would be nicer if we had a unit concept, but the way that "younger by six years " has developed makes that difficult ({lo nanca xamei} is weird in other ways, as is {lo xavnanca}). pc Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> By popular request, here are some examples of the non-universal > (prescribed) usage of {lo}. I will probably find more if I continue to > look. Are these supposed to be problematic for the proposed {lo}? They are not.

> do citme'a mi lo nanca be li xa > You're 6 years younger than me.

This one makes more sense with {lo} refering generically to a period of six years rather than quantifying over periods od six years: "there is at least one period of six years such that you're younger than my by that period"? Not wrong, but weird. The natural thing to say is that the difference in our ages is the single entity "6 years".

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned cirumvention.

F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a). Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > B: There is very little the matter with {mi nitcu leva tanxe} aside from its > taking the basket as an event. It does not create generalization problems > because it has guaranteed — by explicit deixis — that the object referred > to exists in this world. This clearly a very special case and is handled as > such. I suspect that at a deep grammatical level it is handled — unlike > most cases — by insertion from an external sumti.

E:You had said that the new {lo} is "inadequate because it does not "solve" the "problem" for any type of sumti other than one introduced by {lo}, but the same problem occurs with every other type of compound sumti (LO + (bridi)) or names." What would be an example where {nitcu le} or {nitcu la} are problematic, then?

> D: Rabbit A is eating grass, Rabbit B is not, so Mr. Rabbit both is and is > not eating grass. This is a flat contradiction and therefore, since > contradictory objects cannot exist, Mr. Rabbit — as proposed — does not > exist. And so, assuming that we have not decided to use the outer domain, > Mr. Rabbit is not the referent of any {lo ractu} expression — except > perhaps one in an intentional context.

F:Mr Rabbit is eating grass (here), but he is not eating grass (over there). That's not contradictory. John talked to Mary (yesterday), but he did not talk to Mary (the day before). That's the same type of non-contradiction. That John did and did not talk to Mary does not mean he cannot exist. All it means is that to understand what a sentence means you need context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 02:59 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:05:13PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > I can't find xod's claim

It was never posted here.

> (but I know that some things never get to me — and some of mine don't > get to some other people).

If you have specific examples, please let me know.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:42:35AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > "ta culno lo bimu bidju" > > That is completely filled with half-beads. > > {bimu} = 85, but it works with {pimu} as well.

  • Whoops*.

> Are {bi} and {pi} too similar to be both in PA?

Oh, believe me, if we start down the path of trying to disentangle easily mix-uppable Lojban words, we'll never get done. Let's not start.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 03:09:34PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: gadri BTW, xod says that "lo broda poi brode" == > > "le broda" (with loss of information, of course). > > > > Is that always true, or is it specific to your scheme? Regardless, > > it seems to be true and I'd appreciate it if you mentioned it > > somewhere. > > {le broda} can refer to anything at all that you have in mind, so I > don't understand exactly what you mean.

That's OK; it wasn't well thought out.

-Coffee

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 03:00 GMT

> E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le > xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific > in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with > references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned > cirumvention.

But that is the same for the proposed {lo}. {mi nitcu lo kriptonite} has the same kind of problem. That's different than the quantification issues. When you can meaningfully say {la meripapnz cu prenu}, then you can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le} and same for {lo}.

> F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now > just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a).

John is raising his (right) hand here and now, just as he is not raising his (left) hand here and now.

Rabbit a and rabbit b can't be on the exact same spot at the exact same time, so Mr Rabbit is eating wherever rabbit a is and he is not eating wherever rabbit b is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 04:43 GMT

F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless?? But, of course, we often want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is not in the given cases. G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is both here now and not here now. Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences. If you want to change that now, then, of course, you have a metaphysically anomolous reading of the old {lo ractu} — "a part of Mr. Rabbit" rather than "a rabbit" (or "a natural chunk of rabbit goo" or "a manifestation of rabbithood" and so on) but the upshot will be the same in each of these cases, since each occurrence is of a different thing (chunk, part, manifestation, etc.). The talk of Mr.Rabbit then becomes merely useless fluff, since the same work can be done more economically by other means that fit in more naturally with the rest of the language. (The Trobrianders can get away with it since runs throughout their language, doing the work of quantification and abstraction which appear in Lojban as separatesystems needed elsewhere.) pc Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le > xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific > in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with > references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned > cirumvention.

F: But that is the same for the proposed {lo}. {mi nitcu lo kriptonite} has the same kind of problem. That's different than the quantification issues. When you can meaningfully say {la meripapnz cu prenu}, then you can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le} and same for {lo}. G: > F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now > just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a).

John is raising his (right) hand here and now, just as he is not raising his (left) hand here and now.

Rabbit a and rabbit b can't be on the exact same spot at the exact same time, so Mr Rabbit is eating wherever rabbit a is and he is not eating wherever rabbit b is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 12:34 GMT

> F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not > exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless??

Of course not, that's not what I said. I said that lo, le and la behave in the same way vis-a-vis fiction/non-existence. lo is not special in this regard.

> But, of course, we often > want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when > {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} > may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is > presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for > quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o > broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the > inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is > not in the given cases.

The inference from "I need a box" to "there is some kind of thing such that I need it" is valid. The inference to "there is some instance of box such that I need it" is not. It is not in general valid to infer from the kind to the instances.

> G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not > eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is > both here now and not here now.

Mr. Rabbit is both here and other-than-here. Kinds can be in more than one place at the same time. That's not contradictory.

> Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not > to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences.

Right. The same happens with {la djan}. It has the same referent when I say he is here today and he was not here yesterday. Space acts for kinds in a similar way to the way time acts for ordinary individuals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT

H: xorxes said <can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le} and same for {lo}.>> It is unclear what this means if not what I tooik it to mean. We do agree, however, that the problems are exactly the same with {la} and {lo} and {le}, which is an improvement on the previous discussion.

I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind. I don't think that that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions. And, of course, what I need is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all over again.

J: Kinds aren't anywhere, manifestations of kinds can each be in only one place at a given time. The two things — kinds and their manifestations — are not to be confused, as they seem to have been here. If predicates are to take kinds as objects then their semantics needs to be revised. But that revision will make them inapplicable to ordinary things, so either we have to double the vocabulary or make all names and {le} etc. sumti about kinds as well. Just learning to use Lojban as written seems a much easier and more natural approach.

K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same whole over time, but has spatial parts. It is rather hard to build spatial analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations. It is they that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language). Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not > exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless??

H:Of course not, that's not what I said. I said that lo, le and la behave in the same way vis-a-vis fiction/non-existence. lo is not special in this regard.

> But, of course, we often > want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when > {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} > may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is > presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for > quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o > broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the > inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is > not in the given cases.

I:The inference from "I need a box" to "there is some kind of thing such that I need it" is valid. The inference to "there is some instance of box such that I need it" is not. It is not in general valid to infer from the kind to the instances.

> G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not > eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is > both here now and not here now.

J:Mr. Rabbit is both here and other-than-here. Kinds can be in more than one place at the same time. That's not contradictory.

> Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not > to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences.

K:Right. The same happens with {la djan}. It has the same referent when I say he is here today and he was not here yesterday. Space acts for kinds in a similar way to the way time acts for ordinary individuals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 14:21 GMT

pc: > I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some > object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying > that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind.

{lo broda} does not refer to an instance, that's right. I thought that was clear from the beginning.

> I don't think that > that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in > Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions.

I think it is.

> And, of course, what I need > is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes > the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all > over again.

When you see John, you are actually seeing a stage of John, but we don't need to revise {viska} to "a stage of x1 sees a stage of x2".

> K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far > as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same > whole over time, but has spatial parts.

Similarly Mr Individual is the same whole over instances, just as John is the same whole over stages.

> It is rather hard to build spatial > analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for > spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the > today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his > right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is > not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play > no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations.

When you don't care which manifestation is doing the work, all the reference you need is to Mr.Rabbit.

> It is they > that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and > properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can > replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language).

I don't think we need to embed any metaphysics in the language. The "Mr" talk is just one way of understanding how {lo broda} behaves logically as a constant term, like {la djan}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT

L: It is becoming about as clear as anything in all this, but what is not clear is what if anything it does refer to. It is in a place where the norm (I would think) is for reference to individuals, as {le ractu} and {la meripapnz} seem clearly to be, but 9it is not to an individual in any functional sense, apparently, but to an abstraction which then is taken to function as a concrete individual. I think there is some confusion in this notion, so I suppose I do not yet have it right, but nothing said so far has clarified it. Until that is done, I have to say that this section is not yet adequately dealt with, even if the usages are clear (which they are not, for just this reason).

M: I want to see how it will work out: {mi visaka lo ractu} makes {viska} stand for a relation between me and an abstraction, rabbitkind or Mr. Rabbit, while {mi viska le ractu} makes {viska} a relation between me and a concrete object, a selected rabbit. This seems to be two separate meanings of {viska}, marked at best contextually. Lojban literature claims that Lojban predicates are not ambiguous, only vague.

N: A better analogy would surely be that when I see John I see only one side (and maybe not even all of that). But the parts of John — both spatial and temporal — are joiined together in a familiar way, featuring primarily continuity. The parts of Mr. Rabbit lack this feature — among others. Mr.Rabbit appears more like an intermediate abstraction — like a state or a corporation — but lacking the foundation (at least as so far explained) that give these critters legitimacy. I suspect that this can all be corrected and that the notion will have some — maybe even considerable — use. It does not seem to me yet to have anything to do with case like what I need or see or any other fairly normal activity in non-general claims. I am not even clear how it will help in cases like "Cats chase mice" in a way that is clearer than old Lojban devices.

O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk — when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

P: When you don't care which manifestation it is, particular quantification — which we already have to have for other reasons — does the job too. Why complicate matters?

Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la}, say.

As I have said, it is probably possible eventually to make a coherent explanation of Mr. Rabbit or whatever, but it seems like a lot of work and it has yet to be demonstrated that the result will solve any real problem — something Lojban does not yet do or do very well. Most of the apparent economies of the notion come about, it seems to me, simply because the notion is still so vague that all manner of very different effects can be attributed to it, even though, were they all actually in it, the result would be incoherent. Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some > object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying > that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind.

L:{lo broda} does not refer to an instance, that's right. I thought that was clear from the beginning.

> I don't think that > that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in > Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions.

M:I think it is.

> And, of course, what I need > is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes > the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all > over again.

N:When you see John, you are actually seeing a stage of John, but we don't need to revise {viska} to "a stage of x1 sees a stage of x2".

> K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far > as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same > whole over time, but has spatial parts.

O:Similarly Mr Individual is the same whole over instances, just as John is the same whole over stages.

> It is rather hard to build spatial > analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for > spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the > today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his > right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is > not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play > no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations.

P:When you don't care which manifestation is doing the work, all the reference you need is to Mr.Rabbit.

> It is they > that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and > properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can > replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language).

Q:I don't think we need to embed any metaphysics in the language. The "Mr" talk is just one way of understanding how {lo broda} behaves logically as a constant term, like {la djan}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 16:01 GMT

An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo} would help clarify matters. From what you say I don't see how the proposed {lo} is ambiguous.

pc: > O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not > merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk -- > when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts > of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit > simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

Quantification is over the instances. We can talk about them when we need or want to.

> Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you > keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect > to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over > compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la}, > say.

Generalization to the proper general case does apply to {lo}. It does not generalize to instances, but then it is not an instance. Negation transparency does apply to {lo}. I don't quite understand the third point, but if it applies to {la} it probably does apply to {lo} as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

A brief general discussion to make some context here. One thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect and at the same time. So, when we seem to have a case that contradicts that we have to make a distinction, either in the subject or in the predicate. So, given that John was here yesterday and is not today, we can avoid problems ether by saying "John is here yesterday and is not here today" (taking "John" as a constant directly involved in the situation) or by saying "The yesterday slice of John is here but the today slice is not" (taking John as involved only through his parts, not as a whole. We might of course say "John is such that his yesteday slice is here and his today slice is not" leaving "John" a constant but only his slices doing the work.) The corresponding situations for Mr. Rabbit eating and not are "Mr. Rabbit is a-eating and not b-eating" (or some such thing) and "The a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit is eating but the b-manifestation is not." We can, of course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... . But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.) R: See above.

S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much) and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me a rule for figuring out when it is which.

T: What is the proper case: "something" or even "something which is a rabbit kind," I suppose. This clearly goes through. But the interesting case is of a manifestation and there the generalization leaves an reference to manifestations which is not accounted fgor in your examples, so far as I can see. UNless, of course, we are back to the two — undistinguished — meaning of predicates, where the reference to the manifestation is buried in the predicate when it is convenient to do so. The third point is the move from "Mr. Rabbit x's and Mr.Rabbit y's" to Mr. Rabbit x's and y's" Again, this will work (like negation transparency) only if the predicates have been modified to absorb the reference to the different manifestations (and it would be nice to make that absorption explicit at least — aand better, of course, to make it nominal rather than predicative).

pc

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

R:An example of an ambiguous sentence with the proposed {lo} would help clarify matters. From what you say I don't see how the proposed {lo} is ambiguous.

pc: > O:But MR.Rabbit is said to be the same over spatially discrete parts, not > merely temporal slices and that is markedly different from John: we talk -- > when it is necessary to avoid confusion or contradiction — about the parts > of John, not merely John, but Mr.Rabbit talk is always about Mr. Rabbit > simpliciter, not about his parts or manifestations or whatever.

S:Quantification is over the instances. We can talk about them when we need or want to.

> Q: But {lo ractu} does not behave like a constant term — or at least you > keep refusing to admit ordinary inferences involving constants with respect > to it: generalization, negation transparency, apparently subject raising over > compounds, and the like do none of them apply to {lo}, but all do to {la}, > say.

T:Generalization to the proper general case does apply to {lo}. It does not generalize to instances, but then it is not an instance. Negation transparency does apply to {lo}. I don't quite understand the third point, but if it applies to {la} it probably does apply to {lo} as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

pc: > We > can, of > course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in > those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not > exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other > hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so > can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... .

lo ractu e la djan lenon cu zasti "Rabbits and John Lennon exist." lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu na zasti "Unicorns and Mary Poppins" don't exist.

{lo ractu} works like {la djan lenon}. {lo pavyseljirna} works like {la meripapnz}. In this regard there is no lo/la distinction for opaque or transparent contexts.

> But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque > contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There > is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. > Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I > want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is > something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My > problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, > having said that, how do I say the other.

When we say "I want that rabbit", we don't usually make the distinction "for that rabbit, I want a (time)slice of it". Similarly with "I want Mr. Rabbit" we don't have to make the distinction "for Mr. Rabbit, I want a manifestation of it."

You can of course still say: {mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ractu} "I want that for some instance of rabbit, I have it", and you can even shorten it to the somewhat vague {mi djica tu'a su'o ractu}.

You can also say: lo ractu goi ko'a zo'u mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ko'a Rabbits: I want that there is some instance of them that I have.

But usually you don't need to go that far, just as usually you don't need to examine what each slice of "that rabbit" does.

> The situation is easy in old > Lojban (up to possible > needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest > thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica > da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da > (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}.

All of that remains sayable, though I don't really see people going that route.

> The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems > to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the > other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird > sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all > other abstractions — as much as I can.)

In what sense can I say to have Mr. Rabbit when I don't have any of its manifestations?

> S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much) > and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth > without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning > from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me > a rule for figuring out when it is which.

It is always Mr Rabbit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible > needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.) > >

There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa; referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his criteria; uses lo)

2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa; referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring the wrong rabbit; uses le)


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

xod: > There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. > > 1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa; > referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his > criteria; uses lo) > > 2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa; > referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all > criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring > the wrong rabbit; uses le)

Right.

My only comment is very BTW: I don't like -cfa for this. {cfari} means "x1 starts to occur", it does not mean "x1 starts at x2" which seems to be your idea. I suggest {selkaiselfa'a}, "property-oriented" and {kairselfa'a}, "thing-oriented". Or perhaps {velskiselfa'a}, "description-oriented" and {selskiselfa'a}, "described-oriented".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do. Unless, of course, {zasti} has an implicit reference to an instance in it as well or — as now seems likely — all predicates have manifestation references built in. Saying it that way does prejudice the issue a bit, for we could construct a language where the relations with abstractions were primary and either concreta were never mentioned or the predicates with concreta had implicit reduction devices . Depending on the details, these languages are rarely or not at all different from concrete-based languages which raises the question of why bothering to create this elaborate metaphysics . For Lojban, that is; it is perfectly clear Nyaya or Madhyamika might do it, since they need the metaphysics already.

V: Well, in one sense yes we do. That I want when I want a rabbit is an animal with soft fur, long ears, pronounced incisors, etc. That is not Mr. Rabbit, who, as an abstracta, doesn't have ears or incisors or.... Only his manifestations do. All that I want a rabbit doesn't distinguish among is *which* of those manifestations I want. W: What does the long form say that is different from the short form? It does have the virtue of saying what it means, I think. The fronted case is also not a problem if {lo ractu} refers to the kind or whatever. But then the {su'o lo ractu} does not seem to make much sense, since a kind is not a set or a group of any sort of which we can some members. But in any case, it is an advance since we now actually have to say that it is the instances we want not the kind. And notice, if we do say that, we cannot also say {... ponse lo ractu}, since {ponse} has been identified with a relation having a concreta in its second place (a probably its first as well). {djica} of course has an abstract second place and relates to an (implicit) instance of that abstraction — this time an event one. And we can work these all out eventually.

I guess my ultimate question is "Why bother?" The summary says that this change in {lo} eliminates some problems arising from {lo} = {su'o}, but no examples are given that seem to be problems rather than solecisms. To be sure, {lo} (and probably {su'o} as well) may well have been used in ways that it is not equipped to deal with — kinds and the like, for example. But that means we need more gadri or whatever device we hit upon, not that there is anything wrong with the devices we have for doing their job. Of course, after years of this kind of fiddling, we probably need to be reminded what the jobs of some of these things are and the wiki page would be a good place to start. The only real problems seem to have been dealt with there: the dumb quantifier questions that generate fruitless debate actually extending back further than this one.

X: Well, the long ecxpression has the virtue of being clear and has all the factors explicitly mentioned, including the one hidden in the shorter forms.

Y:The concept exists and I can make the usual uses of it — which is all that having it ever means for concepts.

Z: But you just above said that it was not, I don't have Mr. Rabbit, only his manifestations. Please stick to one side or the other or flag when you are going to shift.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > We > can, of > course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in > those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not > exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other > hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so > can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... .

U:lo ractu e la djan lenon cu zasti "Rabbits and John Lennon exist." lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu na zasti "Unicorns and Mary Poppins" don't exist.

{lo ractu} works like {la djan lenon}. {lo pavyseljirna} works like {la meripapnz}. In this regard there is no lo/la distinction for opaque or transparent contexts.

> But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque > contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There > is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. > Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I > want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is > something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My > problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, > having said that, how do I say the other.

V:When we say "I want that rabbit", we don't usually make the distinction "for that rabbit, I want a (time)slice of it". Similarly with "I want Mr. Rabbit" we don't have to make the distinction "for Mr. Rabbit, I want a manifestation of it."

W:You can of course still say: {mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ractu} "I want that for some instance of rabbit, I have it", and you can even shorten it to the somewhat vague {mi djica tu'a su'o ractu}.

You can also say: lo ractu goi ko'a zo'u mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ko'a Rabbits: I want that there is some instance of them that I have.

But usually you don't need to go that far, just as usually you don't need to examine what each slice of "that rabbit" does.

X:> The situation is easy in old > Lojban (up to possible > needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest > thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica > da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da > (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}.

All of that remains sayable, though I don't really see people going that route.

> The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems > to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the > other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird > sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all > other abstractions — as much as I can.)

Y:In what sense can I say to have Mr. Rabbit when I don't have any of its manifestations?

> S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much) > and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth > without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning > from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me > a rule for figuring out when it is which.

Z:It is always Mr Rabbit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}. xod wrote: John E Clifford wrote:

>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible > needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.) > >

There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa; referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his criteria; uses lo)

2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa; referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring the wrong rabbit; uses le)


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:27 GMT

Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}. xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible > needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.) > >

There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.

1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa; referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his criteria; uses lo)

2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa; referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring the wrong rabbit; uses le)


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 22:28 GMT

> U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be > false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do.

Mr. Unicorn is as inexistent as Mary Poppins. {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} simply means "Unicorns don't exist" in the same way that {la meripapnz na zasti} means "Mary Poppins does not exist".

To understand the meaning of {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} you need to know what {lo pavyseljirna} means in the same way that you need to know what {la meripapnz} means to understand {la meripapnz na zasti}. That the meanings of both those expressions "exist" doesn't imply that there are real objects in the world that respond to them. There is no distinction in principle between Mary Poppins and Mr Unicorn.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 26 of May, 2004 23:36 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. >

By "lo-le" distinction I hope you mean the one I've described below.

It does in fact cover the case of no rabbits. Questions of existence are a distraction. There is no existence claim in lo here. And even if all doctors are slaughtered, it will still be possible to ask for one and be understood, even if the listeners are powerless to help. Therefore such sentences do express something which is actually invariant with respect to the existence of doctors.


> In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}. > >

We do intend {mi djica lo ractu} to in fact gloss as {I want a rabbit}.


>xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote: > > > >>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible >>needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.) >> >> >> >> > >There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. > >1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa; >referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his >criteria; uses lo) > >2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa; >referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all >criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring >the wrong rabbit; uses le) > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

Well, there are no manifestations of Mr. Unicorn, but Mr. Unicorn exists like all kinds. You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or, I suspect, get better about saying what that is. If Mr. Unicorn does not exist, then he is only a disguised way of talking about his instances and so in practice not different from "some unicorn." The juggling to get something externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri there is otiose, even odious). pc Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be > false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do.

Mr. Unicorn is as inexistent as Mary Poppins. {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} simply means "Unicorns don't exist" in the same way that {la meripapnz na zasti} means "Mary Poppins does not exist".

To understand the meaning of {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} you need to know what {lo pavyseljirna} means in the same way that you need to know what {la meripapnz} means to understand {la meripapnz na zasti}. That the meanings of both those expressions "exist" doesn't imply that there are real objects in the world that respond to them. There is no distinction in principle between Mary Poppins and Mr Unicorn.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.

As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained. And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution. Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves? xod wrote: John E Clifford wrote:

>Nice — and would that it were so simple. But it fails to cover the case where there are no rabbits or where the one I want doesn't exist, that is the opacity of {djica2}. Other than that, the {lo}-{le} distinction is just fine, as it always has been and without any fluff. >

By "lo-le" distinction I hope you mean the one I've described below.

It does in fact cover the case of no rabbits. Questions of existence are a distraction. There is no existence claim in lo here. And even if all doctors are slaughtered, it will still be possible to ask for one and be understood, even if the listeners are powerless to help. Therefore such sentences do express something which is actually invariant with respect to the existence of doctors.


> In fact, I think that it is perfectly fine even with that problem, provided only that we get over thinking that "I want a rabbit" is {mi djica lo ractu} rather than {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}. > >

We do intend {mi djica lo ractu} to in fact gloss as {I want a rabbit}.


>xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote: > > > >>So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr. Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and, having said that, how do I say the other. The situation is easy in old Lojban (up to possible >>needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}. The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all other abstractions — as much as I can.) >> >> >> >> > >There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. > >1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaicfa; >referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his >criteria; uses lo) > >2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kaicfa; >referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all >criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring >the wrong rabbit; uses le) > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

pc: > You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or, > I suspect, get better about saying what that is.

I'll try. {lo broda} is, first and foremost, a constant term, just like {la brod.} is a constant term.

lo ractu can be seen and touched. That means "rabbits can be seen and touched". la ract can be seen and touched. That means "Rasht can be seen and touched".

When you see or touch an instance of lo ractu, you are, in the very same act, seeing or touching lo ractu. When you see or touch a stage of la ract, you are, in the very same act, seeing or touching la ract.

(A "stage" differs from a "slice" in that a stage has some time depth, so a stage is a series of contiguous slices. The analogy of instances with stages seems better than the analogy with slices, which, having zero time depth, are somewhat unreal. The best analogy is perhaps that of stages of individuals with instances of substances, because two time-contiguous stages give you one longer stage, two space-contiguous instances give you one bigger instance of the substance.)

lo ractu cu zasti. Rabbits are real/actual. la ract cu zasti. Rasht is real/actual.

For the above to be true, it is necessary that some instance of lo ractu and some stage of la ract are real/actual, too. That's just how {zasti} works. You can't zasti if you don't have some instance/stage that zasti.

lo pavyseljirna cu xanri. Unicorns are imaginary. la pavyseljirn cu xanri. Pavyseljirn is imaginary.

Imaginary things don't have real instances/stages. They may or may not have imaginary instances/stages, depending on how elaborately they are imagined.

> The juggling to get something > externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick > that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the > generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri > there is otiose, even odious).

The "Mr" talk is one way of conceptualizing things. As long as {lo broda} behaves like a constant term (i.e. it is transparent to negation, it can be repeated with anaphora, etc) then it doesn't matter much how one conceptualizes it. That such a thing is needed is evident to anyone who has used the language to some extent. It is extremely cumbersome to reduce all your claims to instances when in very many cases the distribution of instances is obvious or irrelevant. When we do want to go into instances, all the usual machinery remains available: we simply quantify over all of them with {PA lo broda}, or refer to a specific instance or group of instances directly with le/la.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 15:41 GMT

pc (to xod): > Can you — xorxes having so far not > — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem > which new {lo} solves?

But properly used old {lo} never causes a problem! It corresponds exactly to both old and proposed {su'o lo}, which is unproblematic.

What the new {lo} does is allow things that propoerly used old {lo} cannot handle easily or at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT

A': I get that it is a constant term, i.e., refers to the same thing in all contexts. The issue is what that thing is. Apparently it is a concretum and so the talk about it as an abstractum is wrong, in spite of its making sense of the constancy, which seems to be lacking in the concrete sense. B: So lo ractu is just the sum (collective? not set surely) of all its "instances", that is of all rabbits. It has, then, (and this may distinguish it from collectives, which might only have the cooperative properties of more than one thing) all the properties of all the rabbits, in some way that does not create contradictions. I think my basic problem here is that you are trying to explain a synthetic category (like a collective or so) by analogy with an analytic category like a slicew or stage. with analytic categories you can fall back on the original object being analysed to guarantee and at least partially explain what holds the pieces together, with a synthetic category we have to provide that glue explicitly and this has not been done. Why should I (starting from where I am) see all these individuals (rabbits in this case) as being instances of something else concrete. This is not even like seeing all nature as One or even treating an ecosystem as an entity, for what we are dealing with has no "natural" cohesion. What is needed then is a convincing artificial one and that isn't here yet. (This is not to say that, starting from a different perceptual framework — a Madhyamika Buddhis, say — I wouldn't find this natural as well, though I am not sure that they actually would).

C: Assuming that {la ract} is meant to be a name for an ordinary thing — a guy called Bunny, for example — then more than a stage has to exist for it to exist. The stage has to fit into a continuous series of contiguous stages satisfying an array of further condition. Otherwise, Bunny falls into some category like delusions or illusions or ... Mr. Rabbit on the other hand seems to be exactly nothing other than a bunch of "instances" with no yet explained further conditions. And as such it seems pointless, given that we have the instances. So, in addition to the glue, we need a raison d'etre for this notion.

D: Thse, of course, raise the old paradox of how to say of something that does not exist that it does not exist. I don't see that Mr. Unicorn helps here at all (though short-scope {lo} would if we take "imaginary" to be world-creating — which we should, for a variety of other reasons as well).

E: Frinstance? Lojban is almost always going to seem cumbersome to speakers of natural language because it has a built in precising mechanism and has not yet developed good conventions for work-arounds. I would assume that people who use tha language a lot (a class which is almost coextensive with you) have begun to develop those things. But that is very different from changing the basics of the language, which is what new {lo} seems to do. What exactly is the advantage of making {lo ractu} a constant, when the phenomena being described involve variable references? As for the obvious/irrelevant distribution, that is exactly what particular quantifiers do. Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > You really have to settle down on what this locution means — or, > I suspect, get better about saying what that is.

A':I'll try. {lo broda} is, first and foremost, a constant term, just like {la brod.} is a constant term.

lo ractu can be seen and touched. That means "rabbits can be seen and touched". la ract can be seen and touched. That means "Rasht can be seen and touched".

B:When you see or touch an instance of lo ractu, you are, in the very same act, seeing or touching lo ractu. When you see or touch a stage of la ract, you are, in the very same act, seeing or touching la ract.

(A "stage" differs from a "slice" in that a stage has some time depth, so a stage is a series of contiguous slices. The analogy of instances with stages seems better than the analogy with slices, which, having zero time depth, are somewhat unreal. The best analogy is perhaps that of stages of individuals with instances of substances, because two time-contiguous stages give you one longer stage, two space-contiguous instances give you one bigger instance of the substance.)

C:lo ractu cu zasti. Rabbits are real/actual. la ract cu zasti. Rasht is real/actual.

For the above to be true, it is necessary that some instance of lo ractu and some stage of la ract are real/actual, too. That's just how {zasti} works. You can't zasti if you don't have some instance/stage that zasti.

D:lo pavyseljirna cu xanri. Unicorns are imaginary. la pavyseljirn cu xanri. Pavyseljirn is imaginary.

Imaginary things don't have real instances/stages. They may or may not have imaginary instances/stages, depending on how elaborately they are imagined.

> The juggling to get something > externally generalizable out of such expressions is also then just a trick > that needlessly — and misleadingly — hides what is going on: the > generalization on, e.g., {le ka pavyseljirna} (I do agree that the gadri > there is otiose, even odious).

E:The "Mr" talk is one way of conceptualizing things. As long as {lo broda} behaves like a constant term (i.e. it is transparent to negation, it can be repeated with anaphora, etc) then it doesn't matter much how one conceptualizes it. That such a thing is needed is evident to anyone who has used the language to some extent. It is extremely cumbersome to reduce all your claims to instances when in very many cases the distribution of instances is obvious or irrelevant. When we do want to go into instances, all the usual machinery remains available: we simply quantify over all of them with {PA lo broda}, or refer to a specific instance or group of instances directly with le/la.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:27 GMT

F: Frinstance again? Are these things that old {lo} should do, rather than some other (perhaps new) gadri or other device. Were you supplementing {lo} rather than replacing it, there would probably be no problems here, but replacing it wihtout ground or reason seem hubristic as well as unnecessary. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc (to xod): > Can you — xorxes having so far not > — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem > which new {lo} solves?

But properly used old {lo} never causes a problem! It corresponds exactly to both old and proposed {su'o lo}, which is unproblematic.

F:What the new {lo} does is allow things that propoerly used old {lo} cannot handle easily or at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT

pc: > I think my basic problem here is that you are trying to explain a synthetic > category (like a collective or so) by analogy with an analytic category like > a slicew or stage.

The analogy is kind:instance::individual:stage so the kind is analogous to the individual and the instance to the stage.

> with analytic categories you can fall back on the > original object being analysed to guarantee and at least partially explain > what holds the pieces together, with a synthetic category we have to provide > that glue explicitly and this has not been done.

The glue is the property in question. lo ka ractu is the property that all the instances of lo ractu have in common.

> Why should I (starting from > where I am) see all these individuals (rabbits in this case) as being > instances of something else concrete.

Because they share a common name/description?

> This is not even like seeing all > nature as One or even treating an ecosystem as an entity, for what we are > dealing with has no "natural" cohesion. What is needed then is a convincing > artificial one and that isn't here yet.

I offer their description, "ractu", or the property they all share, {lo ka ractu}.

> (This is not to say that, starting > from a different perceptual framework — a Madhyamika Buddhis, say — I > wouldn't find this natural as well, though I am not sure that they actually > would). > > C: Assuming that {la ract} is meant to be a name for an ordinary thing — a > guy called Bunny, for example — then more than a stage has to exist for it > to exist. The stage has to fit into a continuous series of contiguous stages > satisfying an array of further condition.

Intermittent existence is ruled out even in principle, by definition? {da ru'inai zasti} is false by definition?

> Otherwise, Bunny falls into some > category like delusions or illusions or ...

If it has at least one stage that exists, I bet it has to exist.

> Mr. Rabbit on the other hand seems to be exactly nothing other than a bunch > of "instances" with no yet explained further conditions. And as such it > seems pointless, given that we have the instances. So, in addition to the > glue, we need a raison d'etre for this notion.

The glue is that the instances share a description, the raison d'etre is simplicity in use (constants are much easier to handle than quantified terms).

> D: Thse, of course, raise the old paradox of how to say of something that > does not exist that it does not exist. I don't see that Mr. Unicorn helps > here at all (though short-scope {lo} would if we take "imaginary" to be > world-creating — which we should, for a variety of other reasons as well).

In any case, the paradox is neither more nor less paradoxical for Mr. Unicorn than for Ms. Poppins.

> E: Frinstance? Lojban is almost always going to seem cumbersome to speakers > of natural language because it has a built in precising mechanism and has not > yet developed good conventions for work-arounds. I would assume that people > who use tha language a lot (a class which is almost coextensive with you) > have begun to develop those things. But that is very different from changing > the basics of the language, which is what new {lo} seems to do. > What exactly is the advantage of making {lo ractu} a constant, when the > phenomena being described involve variable references? As for the > obvious/irrelevant distribution, that is exactly what particular quantifiers > do.

But not always the references are variable. When I talk of rabbits in general, I am talking of one thing: rabbits, not about some rabbit or each rabbit. Examples of things that the old {lo} is not well equipped to handle are most of the lo examples under the proposed definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT

F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

G: Te property of being a rabbit holds together the stages of individual rabbits, but it does not (or at least has not been shown to) hld together various rabbits into a new entity.

H: But I have no reason (that I know of or have been informed of) to think that all the men named John form a concrete entity, nor for that matter any other things which share a name or even a description. that they form a variety of *abstract* entities (in some sense of "form") I have no doubt (which is probably why I — trying my damnedest to be fair and make sense out of what you say — keep coming back to Mr. Rabbit as an abstract).

I:There are things (I'm not sure how concrete they are) that have intermittent existences — Poland springs to mind, but they are held together by quite a bit more than the name (history, culture, language, emotion, even a constitution in some cases — though not Poland's). I should not think that Mr. Rabbit — or Mr.anything else concrete would be such an intermediate case. (The official Christian view of the afterlife, bodily resurrection, is an interesting case, too.)

J: Maybe, but as noted, not as the sort of thing it seems to be. K: Hey, a reasonably clear statement of why do this: it is simpler. Doing a way with quantifiers altogether and using only constants (it can be done) would be simpler still, it would seem. But there remains the problem of 1) explaining what the heck these constants mean and 2)working out the screamingly difficult connection between what are linguistically constants and what are logically quantified variables. Part of the point of Lojban, recall is that the logical operations are to be near the surface, not buried — at least in langue, even if not always in parole. Since we had a smoothly functioning device for doing this, why replace it with one that creates a mass of headaches by burying the logic away in references to mythic objects (which, it turns out, we cannot in fact refer to since every use of the supposed referring expression turns out to refer in fact to an instance for the practical semantic moves, e.g., finding out whether a sentence using the expression is true).

L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted. (Of coure, I tend to think that most of the kinds of thins you are talking about are malglicoisms in spades, but I am willing to think there may be a residue that need work: more gadri {le'e} and {lo'e}, which refer not to individuals but create a summary of claims about the critters of the appropriate sort: "rabbits," if it is not just {lo'e ractu}, is clearly in the same area. Note that it does not refer to some mythic individual — or to any describable combination of reals ones and so is not quantifiable, either in itself nor as a base for generalization. I forget what the gadri page says about this.) If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {... nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought, since, by your descripotion, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for or what I dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > I think my basic problem here is that you are trying to explain a synthetic > category (like a collective or so) by analogy with an analytic category like > a slicew or stage.

F:The analogy is kind:instance::individual:stage so the kind is analogous to the individual and the instance to the stage.

> with analytic categories you can fall back on the > original object being analysed to guarantee and at least partially explain > what holds the pieces together, with a synthetic category we have to provide > that glue explicitly and this has not been done.

G:The glue is the property in question. lo ka ractu is the property that all the instances of lo ractu have in common.

> Why should I (starting from > where I am) see all these individuals (rabbits in this case) as being > instances of something else concrete.

H:Because they share a common name/description?

> This is not even like seeing all > nature as One or even treating an ecosystem as an entity, for what we are > dealing with has no "natural" cohesion. What is needed then is a convincing > artificial one and that isn't here yet.

I offer their description, "ractu", or the property they all share, {lo ka ractu}.

> (This is not to say that, starting > from a different perceptual framework — a Madhyamika Buddhis, say — I > wouldn't find this natural as well, though I am not sure that they actually > would). > > C: Assuming that {la ract} is meant to be a name for an ordinary thing — a > guy called Bunny, for example — then more than a stage has to exist for it > to exist. The stage has to fit into a continuous series of contiguous stages > satisfying an array of further condition.

I:Intermittent existence is ruled out even in principle, by definition? {da ru'inai zasti} is false by definition?

> Otherwise, Bunny falls into some > category like delusions or illusions or ...

J:If it has at least one stage that exists, I bet it has to exist.

> Mr. Rabbit on the other hand seems to be exactly nothing other than a bunch > of "instances" with no yet explained further conditions. And as such it > seems pointless, given that we have the instances. So, in addition to the > glue, we need a raison d'etre for this notion.

K:The glue is that the instances share a description, the raison d'etre is simplicity in use (constants are much easier to handle than quantified terms).

> D: Thse, of course, raise the old paradox of how to say of something that > does not exist that it does not exist. I don't see that Mr. Unicorn helps > here at all (though short-scope {lo} would if we take "imaginary" to be > world-creating — which we should, for a variety of other reasons as well).

L:In any case, the paradox is neither more nor less paradoxical for Mr. Unicorn than for Ms. Poppins.

> E: Frinstance? Lojban is almost always going to seem cumbersome to speakers > of natural language because it has a built in precising mechanism and has not > yet developed good conventions for work-arounds. I would assume that people > who use tha language a lot (a class which is almost coextensive with you) > have begun to develop those things. But that is very different from changing > the basics of the language, which is what new {lo} seems to do. > What exactly is the advantage of making {lo ractu} a constant, when the > phenomena being described involve variable references? As for the > obvious/irrelevant distribution, that is exactly what particular quantifiers > do.

M:But not always the references are variable. When I talk of rabbits in general, I am talking of one thing: rabbits, not about some rabbit or each rabbit. Examples of things that the old {lo} is not well equipped to handle are most of the lo examples under the proposed definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:28 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant. > >

It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we see it is really more of a factor for le.

> >As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained. >

Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

> And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution. >

Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?


> Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves? > >

An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a doctor is a toy!


Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be interested to see them:

>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. >> >>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji; >>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his >>criteria; uses lo) >> >>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji; >>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all >>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring >>the wrong rabbit; uses le) >> >>


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT

pc: > F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other > of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the > totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow > that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

I don't have more doubts about the stages than the individual, or about the kind than the instances. They are all artifacts of language to me. Maybe that's why we can't seem to understand each other.

> L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the > reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

What about {su'o pavyseljirna cu xanri}?

> M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say > something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever > it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a > lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a > reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted.

{lo} was redundant in its function, being equivalent to {su'o}, so it was the logical choice. Also, there's the historical conexion to Loglan {lo}. Also, the simplest gadri should be the most general one. {lo} is to gadri as {cu} is to tenses.

> If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {... > nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought, > since, by your descripotion, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that > are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

They are examples of the proposed lo, of course. This is the adrees of the page, in case you want to discuss actual examples: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri


> Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of > course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for

Both {djica} and {nitcu} have an x3 for "for", so the vagueness of tu'a is of a different sort. For example:

mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty(?) I need (something about) a box so that I put some books in it(?)

The "something" is probably "having it". I'm not sure if the {ty} is correct here. Can you refer to a quantified something that's inside a different abstraction?

> dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in > your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate > that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not > even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

lo ractu does, of course, ractu. {mi nitcu lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty} is simply "I need a box to put books in it", no more vague than that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT
  • Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.
  • that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo} is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event, which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect). The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something in this world, and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see).
  • Not probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous. And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.
  • How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a" basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to Lojban. The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at all and so can't be counted against it. Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does anything to help this situation. Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.

And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious).. The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly.

  • Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}.

xod wrote: John E Clifford wrote: >But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant. > >

  • It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we

see it is really more of a factor for le.

> >As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained. >

  • Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the

proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

> And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution. >

  • Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?

> Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves? > >

  • An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a

secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a doctor is a toy!

  • Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be

interested to see them:

>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. >> >>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji; >>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his >>criteria; uses lo) >> >>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji; >>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all >>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring >>the wrong rabbit; uses le) >> >>


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 27 of May, 2004 21:49 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

> * Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different > way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.


In kairsanji, existence is implied because the thing existed at least when the speaker made its acquaintance. In selkaisanji, existence is not implied at all; the speaker is only discussing characteristics.

> ** that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo} > is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps > distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses > (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event, > which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This > fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely > a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect). > The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that > reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something > in this world,


What does "fronted" mean? Please give an example of the problem it poses.


> and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange > consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see). ***Not > probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But > briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single > thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain > a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will > conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to > something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous.


I don't follow this at all.


> And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} > is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem > to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica > ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.


Why would this be more false than with the substitution of ko'a with its value?

> ****How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a" > basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to > Lojban.


I was talking about the existence claim. Does English "a" have one?

> The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at > all and so can't be counted against it.


If you read the description in the Book, you'll find it comes very close to what Jorge is proposing, and that at one time, the idea of using lo for "a doctor" would not have been controversial. I don't know what went wrong.


> Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does > anything to help this situation.


No evidence, I suppose, beyond example sentences, definitions that some people manage to understand, and the elucidation of a rather common mental process related to it.


> Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo > mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.


Are you claiming that the old lo was more suited to "any" than the new one?


>And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious).. >

When I mean "lo" I mean it without tu'a, le ka, or any of the other contraptions you've suggested. Are you now claiming that a bare {djica lo mikce} will suffice???? By now I'm afraid the context is lost, so: You asked what problems are being fixed, and I responded with "the ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each time. "


> The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly. > >


> >*****Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}. > > >

Unfortunately, pc, your response was rather somewhat short on concrete examples, so as I review my post, I'm not sure it will actually contribute to any convergence of understanding. To continue fruitfully we'll need example sentences where the new lo leads to contradictions, or where a meaning of the old lo is orphaned and can no longer be expressed.


>xod wrote: >John E Clifford wrote: > > >>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant. >> >> >> >> > >*It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we >see it is really more of a factor for le. > > > >>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained. >> >> >> > >**Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the >proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit". > > > >>And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution. >> >> >> > >***Can you offer concrete examples of these problems? > > > > >>Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves? >> >> >> >> > >****An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a >secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any >doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each >time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a >doctor is a toy! > > >*****Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be >interested to see them: > > > >>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. >>> >>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji; >>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his >>>criteria; uses lo) >>> >>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji; >>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all >>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring >>>the wrong rabbit; uses le) >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 00:11 GMT

1. How Whorfian! To me it is a matter of expreience: I have met rabbits and myself. I can extract stages from myself (or a rabbit) by analysis though not experience them as such (I've tried for half my life as a student of Buddhism but no go — fortunately the Buddhists I know admit they cqan't either or not for more than a flash). I cannot at all, by synthesis, get Mr. Rabbit from rabbits. So, I have some doubts about stages, none about people or rabbits, and quite a few about Mr. Rabbit, however defined or described.

2. Nice one! In that case the quantifiers are no better than any other device. We need a general solution for this and I never can decide or get an agreement about the best one — or just to pick one (intensional contexts, outer domain quantification, to name the two easiest)

3. I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} and certtainly that fact alone wouldn't justify changing it, unless there were a new, closely related function that needed doing. So far the functions proposed seem either not new or not related. Appeal to Loglan {lo} will have no effect on me (or others who were in that world) than to convince us that your {lo} is inciherent if not contradictory — the status of Loglan {lo} when last I checked.

4: That this is new {lo} is less than clear, BPFK was supposed to clarify and regularize existing forms, not introduce innovations — except to acheve those mentioned tasks. This is new and surely does nothing for either of the set purposes. If you are doing something else, you should announce it loud and clear at the beginning.

5: Yes, fooled by English cleft sentence constructions Lojban creators brook up the single thread of those notions into two places — less drastically in this case than in some others perhaps, but still creating a messy situation. You cannot, for example, officially anaphorize the sumti behind {tu'a} with a coreferential pronoun (you can with a literal one, of couse, but then it means something different. Notice that the third place is also intensional so the {lo tanxe} doesn't create any problem here except that, being in a different intensional context, it cannot be hooked up to the earlier one (I suppose the ideal embedded predicate is {pilno}, which I would use if I wanted to express purpose).

6: but lo ractu does not ractu — no ractu has instances but, at least for now, lo ractu does (How would you say that in Lojban, by the way). I still think you are trying to have things both ways — a constant that does exactly the work of a variable — and very little you have said convinces me otherwise (even leads me to consider it).

Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > F:But the disanalogy is stronger-- one is the product of analysis, the other > of synthesis, which require very different sorts of things. We know that the > totality exists and have doubts about the stages in the one case; we jknow > that the instances exist but have doubts about the totality in the other.

1.I don't have more doubts about the stages than the individual, or about the kind than the instances. They are all artifacts of language to me. Maybe that's why we can't seem to understand each other.

> L: But the paradox disappears completely with quantification (one of the > reasons for its development, in fact). {su'o pavyseljirna na zasti}

2. What about {su'o pavyseljirna cu xanri}?

> M: But why do you think that {lo ractu} old style would be used to say > something about the class of rabbits or the collective of rabbits or whatever > it is that you seem to think "rabbits" refers to in English/ {lo} makes a > lousy tense marker, too, but that is not a reason to replace it; it is a > reason to get a tense marker that does what is wanted.

3. {lo} was redundant in its function, being equivalent to {su'o}, so it was the logical choice. Also, there's the historical conexion to Loglan {lo}. Also, the simplest gadri should be the most general one. {lo} is to gadri as {cu} is to tenses.

> If what you say about the {lo} examples — I have to admit I stopped at {... > nitcu lo ...}, then the gadri page is in worse shape than even I thought, > since, by your description, it gives as exemplary cases of {lo} things that > are not (clearly, generally agreed) cases of {lo} at all.

4:They are examples of the proposed lo, of course. This is the adrees of the page, in case you want to discuss actual examples: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri


> Byt the way, somehwere earlier you called {tu'a lo ractu} vague. It is, of > course, since it omits information about what I want/need/etc. for

5:Both {djica} and {nitcu} have an x3 for "for", so the vagueness of tu'a is of a different sort. For example:

mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty(?) I need (something about) a box so that I put some books in it(?)

The "something" is probably "having it". I'm not sure if the {ty} is correct here. Can you refer to a quantified something that's inside a different abstraction?

> dreamed about it and so on. But this is marked less vague than {lo ractu} in > your usage, which also omits all that information (and does not even indicate > that it may be significant) but plunks us down with something that is not > even a rabbit (or is only in an indirect sort of way).

6:lo ractu does, of course, ractu. {mi nitcu lo tanxe lo nu mi punji lo cukta ty} is simply "I need a box to put books in it", no more vague than that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT

1. Assuming the differences you talk about are those for {le} and {lo}, this looks approximately right: for {le} the existence is implicit as a [recondition for using the form, for {lo} existence is actually part of what is said.

2. Fronting is move a referential expression from its proper place in the utterance to the prenex, leaving some appopriate relic behind: {ty broda ro da} to {roda zo'u ty broda da} as a dumb example. The problem cases are one like {mi djica (tu'a) lo tanxe} to {su'o tanxe goi ko'a zo'u mi djica (tu'a) ko'a} This move can't happen with {tu'a} which explicitly blocks it. There seems to be nothing to block it in the case without the {tu'a}.

3: I am not sure I can be clearer without developing the theories (and that is not conducive to clarity either), however the various cases have been discussed in earlier exchanges, going back a decade or more, and so should be in the archives in a gadri thread.

4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn, but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

5. Yes, in the sense that {lo} is meant to translate (probably in some of the others as well, but they tend to be in restricted scoping situations — subjunctive and the like).

6: My story about what went wrong tends to be about people misusing {lo} in its normal case and trying to make it do work it very remote cases. And then when they got into trouble they decided that there was something wrong with {lo} because surely they could not make mistakes in Lojban! So they started muckjing with it, resulting in the present impenetrable state. Happily, in most cases — most of the cases of proper use of (old) {lo} — the two uses coincide and the differences are merely in the explanation of what is going on. The remote cases (and a few normal ones) work differently and those are what need soting out. Why is {lo mikce} for "a doctor"controversial with the new {lo}, that is (usually, I need to see a case to be sure) a central usage andm ought to agree with the old.

7:Including those, or what purport to be them. The "elucidations" are garbled at least, the examples are questionable — even in terms of the explanations given, and the mental processes are not ones that I can find in me or in books on the subject.

8: I suppose so, since the old {lo} clearly worked for some cases of "any" and the new one does not clearly work for anything, though seems to be just like old {lo} in the central case (which include the relevant uses of "any").

9: I seem to have missed the discussion. As for the cmavo, well, sometimes they have to be there to say what you want to say. And not always where you would expect them from English. You can say {mi djica lo mikce} and mean to say that you want a doctor and may even be understood to have said it, but the trip to that understanding (other than the patronizing "Well, he is new at this and can't be expected to get it exactly right") is much more complicated than with {tu'a}. In the {lo mikce} for "any doctor" case, I would need to see the whole context; translating "any doctor" alone is just not possible, since it can mean a variety of things depending on what role it is playing in what sentence. xod wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

> * Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different > way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.


1.In kairsanji, existence is implied because the thing existed at least when the speaker made its acquaintance. In selkaisanji, existence is not implied at all; the speaker is only discussing characteristics.

> ** that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo} > is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps > distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses > (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event, > which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This > fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely > a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect). > The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that > reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something > in this world,


2.What does "fronted" mean? Please give an example of the problem it poses.


> and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange > consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see).

      • Not

> probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But > briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single > thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain > a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will > conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to > something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous.


3:I don't follow this at all.


> And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} > is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem > to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica > ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.


4:Why would this be more false than with the substitution of ko'a with its value?

> ****How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a" > basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to > Lojban.


5.I was talking about the existence claim. Does English "a" have one?

> The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at > all and so can't be counted against it.


6.If you read the description in the Book, you'll find it comes very close to what Jorge is proposing, and that at one time, the idea of using lo for "a doctor" would not have been controversial. I don't know what went wrong.


> Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does > anything to help this situation.


7:No evidence, I suppose, beyond example sentences, definitions that some people manage to understand, and the elucidation of a rather common mental process related to it.


> Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo > mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.


8:Are you claiming that the old lo was more suited to "any" than the new one?


>And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious).. >

9:When I mean "lo" I mean it without tu'a, le ka, or any of the other contraptions you've suggested. Are you now claiming that a bare {djica lo mikce} will suffice???? By now I'm afraid the context is lost, so: You asked what problems are being fixed, and I responded with "the ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each time. "

10: Since my comments have mainly been about the metaphysics of {lo ractu} and Mr. Rabbit, examples seem irrelevant. However, the cases at issue have been discussed ad nauseam on several different occasions over the last few decades. They are all there in the archives and if you want to join the discuswsion you need to get up to speed again (you have been there in the past).


> The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly. > >


> >*****Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}. > > >

10:Unfortunately, pc, your response was rather somewhat short on concrete examples, so as I review my post, I'm not sure it will actually contribute to any convergence of understanding. To continue fruitfully we'll need example sentences where the new lo leads to contradictions, or where a meaning of the old lo is orphaned and can no longer be expressed.


>xod wrote: >John E Clifford wrote: > > >>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant. >> >> >> >> > >*It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we >see it is really more of a factor for le. > > > >>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained. >> >> >> > >**Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the >proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit". > > > >>And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution. >> >> >> > >***Can you offer concrete examples of these problems? > > > > >>Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves? >> >> >> >> > >****An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a >secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any >doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each >time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a >doctor is a toy! > > >*****Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be >interested to see them: > > > >>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover. >>> >>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji; >>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his >>>criteria; uses lo) >>> >>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji; >>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all >>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring >>>the wrong rabbit; uses le) >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 01:26 GMT

> 2. Nice one! In that case the quantifiers are no better than any other > device. We need a general solution for this and I never can decide or get an > agreement about the best one — or just to pick one (intensional contexts, > outer domain quantification, to name the two easiest)

(Re: lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu xanri} Whatever the solution is, it will apply to Mr Unicorn and to Mary Poppins in the same way.

> 3. I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} and

But then, what is the old lo you keep talking about if not the one equivalent to su'o???

> certtainly that fact alone wouldn't justify changing it, unless there were a > new, closely related function that needed doing. So far the functions > proposed seem either not new or not related. Appeal to Loglan {lo} will have > no effect on me (or others who were in that world) than to convince us that > your {lo} is inciherent if not contradictory — the status of Loglan {lo} > when last I checked.

OK. In any case, you are fully justified in opposing the new {lo} on the grounds that it goes against Lojban traditional understanding of it. I don't really want to argue the political side of it, just the technical one.

> 4: That this is new {lo} is less than clear, BPFK was supposed to clarify and > regularize existing forms, not introduce innovations — except to acheve > those mentioned tasks. This is new and surely does nothing for either of the > set purposes. If you are doing something else, you should announce it loud > and clear at the beginning.

There was a large enough consensus that the gadri system as it was needed fixing. You are more than welcome to propose another way of doing it, but it has to be more than a sketch, you have to show how to deal with all the tough cases. It's not enough to claim it can be done, you have to show how it's done, with concrete examples.

> 5: Yes, fooled by English cleft sentence constructions Lojban creators brook > up the single thread of those notions into two places — less drastically in > this case than in some others perhaps, but still creating a messy situation.

(Re: third place of nitcu/djica) When we use the language, we have to deal with the messy situation, so it is not enough to say that it could have been done better, we have to show how to deal with it as it is.

> You cannot, for example, officially anaphorize the sumti behind {tu'a} with a > coreferential pronoun (you can with a literal one, of couse, but then it > means something different. Notice that the third place is also intensional > so the {lo tanxe} doesn't create any problem here except that, being in a > different intensional context, it cannot be hooked up to the earlier one (I > suppose the ideal embedded predicate is {pilno}, which I would use if I > wanted to express purpose).

So what do you propose we do about it?

> 6: but lo ractu does not ractu — no ractu has instances but, at least for > now, lo ractu does (How would you say that in Lojban, by the way).

But rabbits do rabbit, and that's what {lo ractu cu ractu} means.

As for the rest, I'm not sure, but wouldn't every ractu be an instance (the only instance) of itself? I'm just pondering aloud here, I know what your answer will be.

In any case, in a more general case, instances of one kind can in turn be a kind with its own instances: for example rabbits as a kind are an instance of animals. (Each rabbit is also an instance, of course.)

I think {mupli} could be used for "x1 is an instance of x2", modifying its place structure a bit, and {klesi} for subkinds, so:

ta mupli lo ractu That's an instance of rabbits.

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu Rabbits are a kind of animal.

> I still > think you are trying to have things both ways — a constant that does exactly > the work of a variable — and very little you have said convinces me > otherwise (even leads me to consider it).

As long as it does the work, what's the problem?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 02:17 GMT

pc: > 4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn, > but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns > (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

I make a distinction between the predicate {zasti} and the "there is" of existential quantification. I have no problem with:

su'o da naku zasti There are things that don't exist (in this world).

I wouldn't say that there is no Mr Unicorn. I'd say that Mr Unicorn is such that he does not exist in this world (and the same thing I would say of Mary Poppins, for example.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT

7. Probably, though at least (old) {lo} might take a slight change, playing off its relation to {su'o}

8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a different context.

9: I agreee and it is precisely the technical one that I find so deplorable (admittedly from the historical point of view initially but then from a purely tchnical one as well).

10: Back atcha! Your claims that new {lo} solves some of these problems are at best tendentious when not clearly false. I would solve these "problems" at least pro tem simply by adding new gadri (or other devices) with the intended functions (vocab out of xCC, I suppose) and then see if 1) they get any use at all and 2) see if ways can be found to do without them using existing elements. I would not do it by redefining a stable form. I am not convinced that the gadri system needs more reworking than that (and a change on the meaning of internal and external quantifiers, perhaps).

11: Done, though it involves just not using {nitcu3} with {nitcu2} {mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe poi mi punji lo cukta ke'a}

12:That makes two proposals — not mutually exclusive. I suppose I could come up with more. How many do you need?

13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are used to make the resulting sentence true. There is no one rabbit that makes all true {lo ractu} sentences true. lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is a John-stage. It is your saying things like this that convince me that you are constantly confusing (or shifting back and forth between) an abstractum and the underlying concreta.

14: It depends, but for the general case you suggest, the answer it clearly "no" — instance are at a different level from what they are instances of.

15: Yes, and that is exactly the classic tree or hierarchy of abstracta, with all the usual rules. So there clearly are both and abstract something and a concrete one here and the question is only whether they are distinct or confused. If distinct, then either lo ractu is not a ractu or else {lo ractu} is not a constant.

16: Fine, provided that the 2nd place can embrace kinds or whatever as well as properties (assuming that there is a significant difference, which I think there is, though I would be hard-pressed to spell it out).

17: These work fine with {lo ractu} as a kind, but fail when we look (as we usually have to do) for an instance that makes it true. That Mr. Rabbit is eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here. That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is correct?

18: The point is that when we get down to careful usage — which is what Lojban is about, basically — it does not work. See examples just above. Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> 2. Nice one! In that case the quantifiers are no better than any other > device. We need a general solution for this and I never can decide or get an > agreement about the best one — or just to pick one (intensional contexts, > outer domain quantification, to name the two easiest)

7. Re: lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu xanri} Whatever the solution is, it will apply to Mr Unicorn and to Mary Poppins in the same way.

> 3. I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} and

8: But then, what is the old lo you keep talking about if not the one equivalent to su'o???

> certtainly that fact alone wouldn't justify changing it, unless there were a > new, closely related function that needed doing. So far the functions > proposed seem either not new or not related. Appeal to Loglan {lo} will have > no effect on me (or others who were in that world) than to convince us that > your {lo} is inciherent if not contradictory — the status of Loglan {lo} > when last I checked.

9: OK. In any case, you are fully justified in opposing the new {lo} on the grounds that it goes against Lojban traditional understanding of it. I don't really want to argue the political side of it, just the technical one.

> 4: That this is new {lo} is less than clear, BPFK was supposed to clarify and > regularize existing forms, not introduce innovations — except to acheve > those mentioned tasks. This is new and surely does nothing for either of the > set purposes. If you are doing something else, you should announce it loud > and clear at the beginning.

10:There was a large enough consensus that the gadri system as it was needed fixing. You are more than welcome to propose another way of doing it, but it has to be more than a sketch, you have to show how to deal with all the tough cases. It's not enough to claim it can be done, you have to show how it's done, with concrete examples.

> 5: Yes, fooled by English cleft sentence constructions Lojban creators brook > up the single thread of those notions into two places — less drastically in > this case than in some others perhaps, but still creating a messy situation.

11:(Re: third place of nitcu/djica) When we use the language, we have to deal with the messy situation, so it is not enough to say that it could have been done better, we have to show how to deal with it as it is.

> You cannot, for example, officially anaphorize the sumti behind {tu'a} with a > coreferential pronoun (you can with a literal one, of couse, but then it > means something different. Notice that the third place is also intensional > so the {lo tanxe} doesn't create any problem here except that, being in a > different intensional context, it cannot be hooked up to the earlier one (I > suppose the ideal embedded predicate is {pilno}, which I would use if I > wanted to express purpose).

12: So what do you propose we do about it?

> 6: but lo ractu does not ractu — no ractu has instances but, at least for > now, lo ractu does (How would you say that in Lojban, by the way).

13:But rabbits do rabbit, and that's what {lo ractu cu ractu} means.

14: As for the rest, I'm not sure, but wouldn't every ractu be an instance (the only instance) of itself? I'm just pondering aloud here, I know what your answer will be.

15: In any case, in a more general case, instances of one kind can in turn be a kind with its own instances: for example rabbits as a kind are an instance of animals. (Each rabbit is also an instance, of course.)

16:I think {mupli} could be used for "x1 is an instance of x2", modifying its place structure a bit, and {klesi} for subkinds, so:

17:ta mupli lo ractu That's an instance of rabbits.

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu Rabbits are a kind of animal.

> I still > think you are trying to have things both ways — a constant that does exactly > the work of a variable — and very little you have said convinces me > otherwise (even leads me to consider it).

18: As long as it does the work, what's the problem?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT

19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for quantification over non-existents. That is a perfectly good way to go and, once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often important to know that something really exists. The old rules for quantifiers (for the zastis) are then applied only to this restricted set and the unbounded set covers everything and always applies. I was attributing to you a less drastic change, taking {lo zasti} to apply to a kind, an abstract entity, which by convention would therefore exist, and then (mistakenly) saying that it did not exist since it had no instances. And indeed that is closer to what you now claim, since Mr.Unicorn is said not to exist in this world but to be nonetheless. I'm not sure what that does to the problem inference, but I think it still makes the start {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} false, like the fronted version. However, this gets tangled with the ambiguity of {lo pavyseljirna} so I am not sure. I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing cases. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > 4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn, > but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns > (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

19:I make a distinction between the predicate {zasti} and the "there is" of existential quantification. I have no problem with:

su'o da naku zasti There are things that don't exist (in this world).

I wouldn't say that there is no Mr Unicorn. I'd say that Mr Unicorn is such that he does not exist in this world (and the same thing I would say of Mary Poppins, for example.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:31 GMT

pc: > [before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o}] > 8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of > times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque > contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in > the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a > proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a > different context.

That seems to result in something almost indistinguishable from my proposal, leaving aside the meta-talk.

I removed the nitcu and djica examples from the page. Even though I will keep using them in the sense "person x1 wants object x2" and "person x1 needs object x2", the fact is that at least for djica the gi'uste seems to restrict it to "perxon x1 wants event x2", so I won't push an example that contradicts the gi'uste. (Also, Robin wanted less examples from L* P**** P****, so that's an additional reason to remove them.)

Of the remaining examples in that page, would you say that any of them conflicts with your understanding of the old {lo}?

How would you improve the wording of the definition of {lo} to make it coherent?

> 13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same > in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are > used to make the resulting sentence true.

Right, just as in different contexts different John-stages are used to make the resulting sentence true. (The John-stage that makes true "John goes to the market on Saturday" is not the John-stage that makes true "John stayed at home on Sunday".)

> There is no one rabbit that makes > all true {lo ractu} sentences true.

No single instance of rabbits, right.

>lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is > a John-stage.

Using {le ca me la djan} for now-John, and {le puza me la djan} for a-while-ago-John, then I would say:

le ca me la djan cu me la djan Now-John is John.

le puza me la djan cu me la djan A-while-ago-John is John.

la djan cu me la djan John is John.

So yes, the same identificatory predicate that is satisfied by the stages is satisfied by the individual, and the same I would say for kinds and instances.

(I would like to be able to talk of {la ca djan} and {la puza djan}, but the current grammar forbids it.)

> That Mr. Rabbit is > eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here. > That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is > correct?

Both are correct, because in general the truth of {lo broda cu brode} does not hang on the truth of {su'o mupli be lo broda cu brode}. For some predicates brode, it just happens that the second entails the first, but that's due to the semantics of the predicate, not due to any logical necessity.

Anyway, if you can check the list of examples and tell me which ones look wrong to you (and how you would correct them) that would be helpful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 15:32 GMT

pc: > 19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for > quantification over non-existents.

That depends on the context, doesn't it? Surely sometimes you quantify over non-existents when speaking in English and other times you don't. If context does not make it clear that you are restricting it to existents, you can always say {ro da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}, {su'o da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}.

> That is a perfectly good way to go and, > once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then > need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often > important to know that something really exists.

When it is not obvious what you mean, you can explicitly restrict with {poi zasti}. In a similar way, sometimes we use {no da} when we mean {no da poi prenu}, and so on. If you want to buy more precision you have to pay with more verbosity.

> I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is > made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing > cases.

Shift?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:29 GMT

1. To be sure, since your proposal was at least conservative enough to preserve the core cases of old {lo}. The differences would come only in the new uses, which I simply would not take to be cases of {lo} (I have fleshed out these suggestion a bit on a comment to the gadri page.)

2. What?

3: I blushingly confess that I have not studied the examples, but on a glance I saw at least one ("A young person respect an old person" or so) that I agree should be {lo} (given that {ei} generates an opaque context, or rather one tha delimits any quantification) but that others might want to put (with some justification) into the species class.

4: I think it did that in the note, something like "a (or several) thing(s) in the current domain that actually meet(s) the given property." which probably needs some tidying. I think your stuff about quantities can stand (thouggh, as I note, some of the more remote cases don't make sense).

5: Well, I still don't accept the analogy for the reasons rehearsed before, so this is not a convinving case. And it certainly does not override the problems with taking {lo} for Mr. Rabbit when his properties qua Mr. Rabbit are at issue.

6: Since I don't know what {me} is meaning this week, I can't be sure what to make of these sentences. Assuming that the wordlist is approximately right, then I think that saying John-now is specific to John will work only with the tag "in respect to time-stages" or some such. I suppose the corresponding case you want is {leva ractu me lo ractu} or so, which again may work with some tag. But that is not the case that is interesting (even if it does work with a nonvacuous respect (it looks a lot like "this rabbit is a rabbit" with some fluff thrown in). In any case, the identificatory predicates will not be same — only the {me} carries over, not the aspect.

7: Logic hjabits die hard, so I like the already permissible (I think) {la djan xi ca}. As I write this I notice that {xi} seems only defined for numerals and the like, so some tampering is required here as well (or with {la}, though that seems to me harder).

8: I would want to go back to the old system where {lo broda cu brode} does entail (indeed is equivalent to in this context?) {su'o mupli be le broda cu brode}. Of course, your replacing the proeprty in {mupli2} with a whatever pretty much prejudices the issue. But notice at what price simplification has been bought here: every place of every predicate has to be marked for whether {lo broda} in that place refers to some broda or to Mr. Broda. And yet there will be cases that are hard to pin down {lo broda cu zasti} is ambiguous; it doesn't make a difference since in your strange halfbreed Mr. Broda they are extensionally equivalent. And, of course, getting out of extensional case separates them: what am I thinking about when {mi pensi lo ractu} is true? Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > [before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o} before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o}] > 8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of > times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque > contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in > the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a > proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a > different context.

1.That seems to result in something almost indistinguishable from my proposal, leaving aside the meta-talk.

I removed the nitcu and djica examples from the page. Even though I will keep using them in the sense "person x1 wants object x2" and "person x1 needs object x2", the fact is that at least for djica the gi'uste seems to restrict it to "perxon x1 wants event x2", so I won't push an example that contradicts the gi'uste. (Also, Robin wanted less examples from 2.L* P**** P****, so that's an additional reason to remove them.)

3:Of the remaining examples in that page, would you say that any of them conflicts with your understanding of the old {lo}?

4:How would you improve the wording of the definition of {lo} to make it coherent?

> 13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same > in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are > used to make the resulting sentence true.

5:Right, just as in different contexts different John-stages are used to make the resulting sentence true. (The John-stage that makes true "John goes to the market on Saturday" is not the John-stage that makes true "John stayed at home on Sunday".)

> There is no one rabbit that makes > all true {lo ractu} sentences true.

No single instance of rabbits, right.

>lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is > a John-stage.

Using {le ca me la djan} for now-John, and {le puza me la djan} for a-while-ago-John, then I would say:

6:le ca me la djan cu me la djan Now-John is John.

le puza me la djan cu me la djan A-while-ago-John is John.

la djan cu me la djan John is John.

So yes, the same identificatory predicate that is satisfied by the stages is satisfied by the individual, and the same I would say for kinds and instances.

7:(I would like to be able to talk of {la ca djan} and {la puza djan}, but the current grammar forbids it.)

8: That Mr. Rabbit is > eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here. > That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is > correct?

Both are correct, because in general the truth of {lo broda cu brode} does not hang on the truth of {su'o mupli be lo broda cu brode}. For some predicates brode, it just happens that the second entails the first, but that's due to the semantics of the predicate, not due to any logical necessity.

Anyway, if you can check the list of examples and tell me which ones look wrong to you (and how you would correct them) that would be helpful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 17:51 GMT

1. I don't think so. Once you do it you seem to be committing the language. To be sure, you could contextualize (put the scope in an opaque clause) and go on from there. This is one standard work-around logicians use for English, which is very sloppy about this. Lojban ought to do better, not leaving it to context. And just how would those contexts be described? What separates {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn} from {la tonibler xabju la lndn} so that we can sort out what is real from what is not. (By the way, I would kee the current quantifiers for existents and add the outer domain one on, just as a practical matter.)

2: Or with a somewhat longer cmavo list, either more quantifiers or perhaps more "trenses" "in story" relevantly in this cse. And, of course, all of these (like everything else in Lojban) are optional in most speech situations. The point is to have the tools when more precision is needed.

3: Shift! The present quantifiers are explicitly real-world (and, indeed, I would have said — if asked — that you were one of the people who jumped on me for suggesting otherwise. Since, in the outer domain, neither {ro} nore {su'o} goes unfufilled, many questions disappear — including, obviously, the one about how many whojis there are for internal quantification. Hooray!) Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > 19: OK. But you need to make it clear that you are allowing for > quantification over non-existents.

1. That depends on the context, doesn't it? Surely sometimes you quantify over non-existents when speaking in English and other times you don't. If context does not make it clear that you are restricting it to existents, you can always say {ro da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}, {su'o da poi zasti zi'e poi ...}.

> That is a perfectly good way to go and, > once started, seems to require that you go all the way. We probably then > need a different set of quantifiers for the existents, since it is often > important to know that something really exists.

2:When it is not obvious what you mean, you can explicitly restrict with {poi zasti}. In a similar way, sometimes we use {no da} when we mean {no da poi prenu}, and so on. If you want to buy more precision you have to pay with more verbosity.

> I hope, by the way, that the shift to quantifying over the outer domain is > made for carefully considered reason, not just to save a few embarassing > cases.

3:Shift?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

> 2. What? Le Petit Prince

> 7: Logic hjabits die hard, so I like the already permissible (I think) {la > djan xi ca}. As I write this I notice that {xi} seems only defined for > numerals and the like, so some tampering is required here as well (or with > {la}, though that seems to me harder).

The easiest path is to blend CMENE with BRIVLA. No point in them having different grammars.

> But notice at what price simplification > has been bought here: every place of every predicate has to be marked for > whether {lo broda} in that place refers to some broda or to Mr. Broda.

{lo broda} ALWAYS refers to Mr Broda. No marking is required.

>From {ko'a viska lo broda} we can deduce, based on our understanding of viska, that {ko'a viska su'o broda}. But {lo broda} itself is a visible thing. We can say, for example, pointing to Mr Rabbit, present as a single instance in front of us:

mi pu viska su'o ta I saw one of those before.

That doesn't mean necessarily that I saw the same instance. {ta} in this case refers to Mr Rabbit, just as "those" in English.

> And > yet there will be cases that are hard to pin down {lo broda cu zasti} is > ambiguous; it doesn't make a difference since in your strange halfbreed Mr. > Broda they are extensionally equivalent. And, of course, getting out of > extensional case separates them: what am I thinking about when {mi pensi lo > ractu} is true?

You'd be thinking about rabbits, what else?

(I'm copying here some of your comments from the page. I would prefer that you use the 'discuss' forum rather than the 'comments', because it makes it much easier to reply. Besides, I don't find out that you have made a comment until I visit the page or you tell me, whereas the 'discuss' forum I get in my post box.)

pc: >on {lo'e} and {le'e}.These do NOT take external quantifiers; internal >quantifiers are about the size of group which is being typed or >stereotyped (and so is rarely used).

I will write it as you suggest unless there is opposition from others. The grammar still allows outer quantifiers, but I'm not particularly interested in assigning them weird meanings.

>If we want to talk about more than one typical whatever, the >appropriate form (even if it is only one but is not being used for >typing) is to used the (as yet unlexed) brivla for "typuical" >and "stereotypical".

{fadni} can be used for "typical". I don't know about "stereotypical".

>Along the lines of these, a modern language surely needs corresponding >forms for "the average," probably one for each measure of central >tendency> Of these, the mean does not support generalization but both >median and mode do, so this fact should be made visible somehow (maybe, >sticking to the rules, {xo'e} for mean and have the others look more >like normaler gadri: {xa'a} and {xa'e} say).

There's a page for this kind of thing if you are really interested: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Currently+proposed+experimental+cmavo?

I'm curious as to what kind of thing you could say about the median flower, or the modal rabbit, or the mean shoe. I just can't think of a place I would use one of those.

>I am unsure about the following additions. Trying to deal with >them without much care is what has complicated {lo} out of >coherence. On the other hand, I suspect tha, once we master >subjunctives in Lojban, the problem cases will be dealt with. >Until then (and maybe even after then as a shortcut � like {lo'e} >and {le'e} (although admittedly we cannot now say what is >abbreviated in these case)): >a gadri, {xo'o} say, which produces the name of the species/kind/... >of things that satisfy the predicate. Such things always exist, even >if there are no such critters as satisy the predicate. These can be >used to make general claims of one sort.

Of what sort? Can these be used in contrast with {lo broda} to make a distinction, or only in places where {lo broda} cannot be used?

>And another for the stuff/substance/goo of things of the predicated >sort. This is useful for another kind of generalization (though less >common, I think, except for the normally mass nouns).

Examples?

>Once the extension of old {lo} are dealt with separately, old {lo} >can take on its proper job again, doing what has rather less >successfully been done by most uses of new {lo}: an unspecified >member of the current domain that actually has the proberty described. >As such, it is generalizable **within the range of the current domain** >but not generally outside.

Can it be the antecedent of a pronoun from outside the current domain? For example, I could say:

mi nitcu lo nu mi cpacu lo tanxe i mi pu viska ty bu'u le lamji kumfa i e'apei mi lebna ty "I need to get a box. I saw ONE in the other room. May I take IT?"

Can this be done with your proposed {lo}, given that the reference is from outside the domain where {lo tanxe} appears?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

pc: > And just how would those contexts be described? What > separates {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn} from {la tonibler xabju la lndn} so > that we can sort out what is real from what is not.

If the names themselves are not enough, you could add something explicit {la crlakolmz noi se cfika} or maybe {la crlakolmz xabju la lndn sei cfika}.

> 2: Or with a somewhat longer cmavo list, either more quantifiers or perhaps > more "trenses" "in story" relevantly in this cse.

I don't see the Lojban community adopting a whole set of new cmavo at this stage. One or two maybe, but drastic new incorporations, I don't see it. More likely is the adoption of something already existing with perhaps a different or more specialized meaning than what it was planned for. But you can always propose new ones if you think they are worth it.

> And, of course, all of > these (like everything else in Lojban) are optional in most speech > situations. The point is to have the tools when more precision is needed.

Indeed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 28 of May, 2004 20:03 GMT posts: 14214

Just for the record, one of the current No votes is from PC, who is not a member of the BPFK, and as such should be considered as being for informational purposes only.

-Robin

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT

One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either conflate two different meanings into one, or have one meaning that is ill-defined or hard to formalize. What I want is a general algorithm fo= r determining whether or not a sentence that uses XS-lo is true or false.

These examples are taken from an IRC discussion I had with xod.

{mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances) Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac= h one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo= r which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No problem here.

{lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all= ) instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} = is false. No problem here.

{lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true. We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi= ch is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

So. What is it that I'm missing here.

--=20 Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org= / P=E5 1300-tallet kom tersen. F=F8r og etter det var det meste bare rot,= men s=E5 kom Sch=F6nberg og ordnet opp. Puh. Endelig litt system. S=E5 klar= te Arne Nordheim =E5 rote det til igjen. — Under Dusken 08/2= 001

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 22:15 GMT

> {mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances) > Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac= > h > one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo= > r > which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No > problem here.

But what you are describing is {mi nitcu ro mikce}.

In {mi nitcu lo mikce} you don't examine any doctor. All you need to know is what a doctor is. Then, knowing what a doctor is, you ask yourself, is that what I need? If the answer is yes, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. You don't have to examine any doctors. As xod says, all the doctors may be dead and you may still need one.

> {lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false > We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all= > ) > instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} = > is > false. No problem here.

Again you are describing the procedure to check {ro prenu cu tarci}. For {lo prenu cu tarci} what you need to know is what a prenu is. Knowing what a prenu is, do you think it is (at least sometimes) a tarci? If not, then the sentence is false.

> {lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true. > We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in > which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi= > ch > is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

Again, you are describing {ro prenu cu sadjo}, which as you conclude is false.

To check {lo prenu cu sadjo} you start from your knowledge of what a prenu is. Then you ask yourself, is it (at least sometimes) a sadjo? If yes then {lo prenu cu (su'oroi) sadjo} is true.

{lo prenu roroi fe'eroroi sadjo} is obviously false. People can be Saudis, but people are not always and everywhere Saudis.

> So. What is it that I'm missing here.

You seem to be confusing lo with ro.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 28 of May, 2004 23:55 GMT

About the {lo} examples:

General comment: most of these examples are complex; good examples begin, at least, with clear simple cases where there is little chance to miss the point. Such examples are boring, but they provide the information readers are looking for at the start. Later cases can deal with peculiarities. And most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all): generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like � things that are more or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its ground at all).


ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu Children should always show great forbearance toward grown-up people.


This looks like a general maxim or moral rule. It is unlikely that the propounder would think it satisfied if just one child was found who forgave one adult. Using {ro} instead of {lo} is probably closer to the point to be made, especially if we allow implicit exceptions (as morals pretty regularly do) to at least the second {ro}: adult ax murderers are not to be forgiven or are their child victims required to forgive them. In these fuzzy areas (as maxims usually are) the temptation to talk in terms of �some� � which includes �all� and everything in between — is pretty strong but gives the wrong effect, as noted. Trying to do it with classes/species/kinds raises the same problems both ways (not to mention the problem of how to word it sensibly). Of course the propounder might (probably does in typical cases) has some particular youths in mind and so even {le} could be justified on that occasion.

ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.


I am not sure whether {pa�o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially: �any sheep through any box� (is �the walls of� just a flourish? This eems to apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends. The {lo} in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going on to some property. I would use {la�e} here, but that is only a reasonable start of working out how to talk about species.


ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja At night lions hunt for food.


As usual for generalities, the propounder would not feel he had made his point if only on one night was one lion found to be hunting food � a single eland, say. But of course the universal is not required either, since some lions sometimes take a night off (after a big meal or when they have some fleshy corpse still available. (Lions are actually day hunters at least as much as night, but that is not relevant here.) This really soes seem to be about the species: �Lions are nocturnal food-hunters,� however that works out in the end (pretty much like that or in terms of explicit relation between species or between a species and a property — or maybe all three and more besides.)


lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi One picture is worth a thousand words.


Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki�o valsi} looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki�o valsi} � presumably the words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways, indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either universal or about species or perhaps {la�e}.

de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42 In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.


Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there was � implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds� � now extinct � eggs, certified organic, �). Iam inclining more and more to {la�e} here.

lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.


Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}. But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.


lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.


This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.


o'i mu (lo) xagji sofybakni cu zvati le purdi Caution! There are five hungry Soviet cows in the garden.


No problems that I can see (finally!) This should come much earlier in the business.


lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270 Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and weigh about 270lbs.


Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope, {lo} would work)

lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse with a horn coming out of their foreheads.


Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).


bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe (to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy. alveolar gy. toi) tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi


I�m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo} What is the role of the blue expressions?


le cmana lo cidja ba claxu In the mountains there is no food. lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli


Normal usage � well it is good to see that implicit negation works like ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu The road of the good language is costly. lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli


Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)


la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto tenguar


Species or set (probably the latter). �the severalth� is nice, though not a clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me �one of several� or just �pretty far along in the set ordered by � (date?)�

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT

I agree with the opening remark here, though for somewhat different reasons. The problem that arj is dealing with arises from the fact that one (or maybe the only) "meaning" assigned to {lo} is essentially vague. Trying to apply recise tests to discover the truth of a sentence in this case is bound to fail. Looking at the examples on the wiki sheet I found that most of them fluctuated (when applying precise tests) between "all" and "some" but with conditions. Thus, if read as "some," it often turned out that one or two — or any fixed number of — cases were not enought; if read as "all" then any number of exceptions had to be allowed without affecting truth. Nor would any of "may", "most," or such intermediate — and already rather vague — quantifiers work. This is out of the range of quantifers and into operators like "generally," "as a rule" and so on, applied at the argument level rather than the sentential. This seems to be one thing that xorxes means when he says that {lo} expressions refer to kinds or species or maybe even Mr. The next step (and where the ambiguity comes in from my point of view) is moving from talking about things in a certain unspecified collective way to talking about one thing, the unspecified collect of those things — more or less like taking the typical x as being some paricular (though prehaps unidentified) x. This way of talking does result in an expression that serves much like a constant: it is usually negation transparent — if it is not the case that some unspecified collective of xs are ys, then such a collective is usually not ys (unles there are no xs at all) and, except for discrete properties, is such a collective is a and such a collective is b, then there will be such a collective that is both a and b. These are not valid moves, of course, but they usually work and thus can be applied in practical cases.

BTW, the test for {mi nitcu lo mikce} is probably misguided, the doctor you need may not be any actual doctor — you need one who can perform a memory-retaining brain transplant, for example. The {lo prenu cu tarci} works on any case. the {lo prenu cu sadjo} falls into the vagueness trap by working at the upper end of the range rather than the lower or middle (xorxes does encourage that with his examples, to be sure). Here it would be enough if some few (or many or...) people were Saudis (I am not sure whether one would be enough). Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either conflate two different meanings into one, or have one meaning that is ill-defined or hard to formalize. What I want is a general algorithm fo= r determining whether or not a sentence that uses XS-lo is true or false. These examples are taken from an IRC discussion I had with xod.

{mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances) Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac= h one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo= r which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No problem here.

{lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all= ) instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} = is false. No problem here.

{lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true. We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi= ch is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

So. What is it that I'm missing here.

--=20 Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org= / P=E5 1300-tallet kom tersen. F=F8r og etter det var det meste bare rot,= men s=E5 kom Sch=F6nberg og ordnet opp. Puh. Endelig litt system. S=E5 klar= te Arne Nordheim =E5 rote det til igjen. — Under Dusken 08/2= 001

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT

1. Not even that, since his examination is largely irrelevant to the issue: all the doctors he needs may be none of the ones there are. The claim that all the doctors might be dead and you still need one is about the opaque context generated (covertly in your usage) by {nitcu}: {mi viska lo mikce} won't be true if all the doctors are dead (doctor-corpses not counting as doctors for this case at least). I suspect that the "just think about it" will not work generally: it does for someof the intensional cases — though not even for all of those.

2: arj's technique is essentially correct here. Look at them all and if none correspond then the {lo} claim is surely false. Since this is probably an analytic claim, thinking about it may be sufficient.

3: Yes, he screws up here: the run through is right but he should be counting hits, not misses. Admittedly, not fixed number of hits is the right one, but cases of no hits will make the whole false (and maybe cases of too few hits — precisely as vague as that seems). But I doubt that thinking about it will help here: Graustarkians are at least as likely a group of people as Saudis coonsidered conceptually but lo prenu are not Graustarkian. You have to check in the real world.

4: And the same to you (see examples). He is merely taking {lo broda} a seriously as you sometimes do, but being consistent about it.


> {mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances) > Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac= > h > one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo= > r > which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No > problem here.

1. But what you are describing is {mi nitcu ro mikce}.

In {mi nitcu lo mikce} you don't examine any doctor. All you need to know is what a doctor is. Then, knowing what a doctor is, you ask yourself, is that what I need? If the answer is yes, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. You don't have to examine any doctors. As xod says, all the doctors may be dead and you may still need one.

> {lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false > We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all= > ) > instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} = > is > false. No problem here.

2:Again you are describing the procedure to check {ro prenu cu tarci}. For {lo prenu cu tarci} what you need to know is what a prenu is. Knowing what a prenu is, do you think it is (at least sometimes) a tarci? If not, then the sentence is false.

> {lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true. > We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in > which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi= > ch > is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

3:Again, you are describing {ro prenu cu sadjo}, which as you conclude is false.

To check {lo prenu cu sadjo} you start from your knowledge of what a prenu is. Then you ask yourself, is it (at least sometimes) a sadjo? If yes then {lo prenu cu (su'oroi) sadjo} is true.

{lo prenu roroi fe'eroroi sadjo} is obviously false. People can be Saudis, but people are not always and everywhere Saudis.

> So. What is it that I'm missing here.

4:You seem to be confusing lo with ro.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:46 GMT

pc: > And > most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all): > generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like � things that are more > or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its > ground at all).

But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with current Lojban.

Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time. I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples. That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts, which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.

> ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu > Children should always show great forbearance > toward grown-up people.

It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively frequent in any language?

> ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe > i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu > But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of > boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups. > > I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first > sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it > reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially: > �any sheep through any box� (is �the walls of� just a flourish? This eems to > apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.

The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sais pas voir les moutons � travers les caisses." I guess context helps make it clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had rejected all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another. So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo. (I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more concrete claim, though.)

> The {lo} > in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going > on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reasonable > start of working out how to talk about species.

But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu prenu}? Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?

The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", not the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e} that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

> ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja > At night lions hunt for food.

I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of this translation.

> lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi > One picture is worth a thousand words. > > Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi} > looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}

But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times. {ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such that the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000 times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000 words put together.

>� presumably the > words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways, > indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either > universal or about species or perhaps {la�e}.

So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

> de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42 > In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents. > > Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there > was � implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds� � now extinct � > eggs, certified organic, �). Iam inclining more and more to {la�e} here.

Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too much of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say {tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another thread altogether.)

> lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni > The teacher will divide the class > into five groups of four students. > > Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to > be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}. > But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column. For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim�)

The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column.

The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher will ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker has in mind. It is more general.

> lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu > ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni > The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups > of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix. > > This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of > rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be > appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more > gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be > about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three > {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary > of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this > form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.

I'll take that as semi-approved then.

> lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu > cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270 > Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water > being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and > weigh about 270lbs. > > Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope, > {lo} would work)

Do you approve or disapprove of using {lo} for substance?

> lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma > gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u > Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse > with a horn coming out of their foreheads. > > Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I > think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way > to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).

I can't tell whether you approve or not.

> bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe > (to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy. > alveolar gy. toi) > tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi > > I�m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one > use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a > problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo}

He meant to say that we should pick either velar or alveolar for all occasions.

> What is the role of the blue > expressions?

They are links to the page where the sentence was taken from, so you can check the context if you want.

> le cmana lo cidja ba claxu > In the mountains there is no food. > lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli > > Normal usage � well it is good to see that implicit negation works like > ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

Why not analyse {nitcu} as an implicit negation too, then?

> le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu > The road of the good language is costly. > lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli > > Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)

You agree with me that it is not equivalent to {le dargu pe su'o xamgu bangu} then.

> la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o > gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo > xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto > tenguar > > Species or set (probably the latter). �the severalth� is nice, though not a > clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me �one of several� or just �pretty > far along in the set ordered by � (date?)�

Maybe he meant {so'omei}. Either way, {lo xanri munje lisri} seems to me generic. {su'o} would not make sense there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by xorxes on Sat 29 of May, 2004 16:57 GMT posts: 1912

(Please everybody, use the 'discuss' button and not the 'comments' button to make comments and proposals on the contents of the page. It makes it easier to reply, thank you.)

pier: > {lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42} to me means that there are 12 > eggs, each of which costs 42 cents. If a dozen eggs costs 42 > cents, I'd say {lo sovda paremei cu fepni li 42} or maybe {loi > pare sovda cu fepni li 42}.

{pare sovda cu fepni li 42} says that there are 12 eggs, each of which costs 42 cents. {lo pare sovda} refers to a twelvesome of eggs. It is like {lo sovda paremei} but without the tanru imprecision. {loi pare sovda} is indeed equivalent to {lo pare sovda}.

> {lo'e se} with the word for a kind of organism is a special case > and should be mentioned. It refers to the taxon containing all > members of the kind and no others, if that exists. So {lo'e se > guzme} means the family Cucurbitaceae, while {lo se guzme} >can be Cucumis, Sicyos, Luffa, or any of several others. {lo'e se > jesymabru}, however, has no clear meaning, as {jesymabru} > can refer to both spiny anteaters and hedgehogs.

I have added a comment to that effect. If others have any objections to this, please speak up now or forever hold your peace.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 19:14 GMT

1. Quite true and Lojban needs to have ways to say them,. The question is whether thye are proper for the historical continuity of {lo} and whether one concept can cover them all. I think that the answer is at least doubtful on the first and even more so one the second. They are peculiar only against standard {lo} and thus as generalization away from that. As for there being something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times. There have been many good ideas about how to do it, but no set of them (no one suggestion has solved all — or even most — of the problems) has been accepted and what seems to gain ocasional favor is a good partial solution pushed to absurdity. Until it collapses and we go back to nearly square one with all the intervening suggestions (and even what was good in the popular suggestion) lost.

2. Well, not basic basic but very common indeed and the more so as we get more remote from nature and live in conceptual realms. If this is what Lojban so far has been doing with {lo} (as I take is your point) then to that extent it is bad Lojban and ought not to be preserved as exemplary. It sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in generalities. Admittedly, much of what the generalities brought up here say is pretty compatible with {lo}, covering the gap between none and all, although in a rather different way. As noted, one case is usually too few, all is closer but with a variety of ad hoc exceptions, and — though I have not mentioned it before — often with some cases counting more than others (absolute monarch are better for figuring out what kings do than constitutional monarchs, for example). So in factthese notions do not belong in the same area with those where counting is to the point. But {lo} just does belong in that area and so ought not be brought into this discussion. It may turn out that, on zipfy gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal). I don't, by the way, think you consistently use {lo} in this way, but that is another matter at this point. 3: Depending on context, I mght do either of two things or maybe something else. If this is just being laid down sententiously, I would probably take all the {lo}s as {ro}s and leave it to casuistry to deal with the exceptions (there always are some; only a person with no life — like Kant — believes in absolute moral generalizations and no one that I can find has ever seriously tried to list all the exceptions beforehand for any rule). On the other hand, if this is admonitory — codger to irksome kids, I might go for brass tacks and deal with "you whippersnappers" and "me, your older, wiser and better" {do noi malverba} and {mi noi makcu}. If I was being cagey I might flavor the universal form with an "as a rule" modal/tense/something (which we lack but need for other things).

4: Negations are a nice source for confusions: if no x is y, than it is not the case that at least one is nor is it the case that some unspecified/ble number are. Ditto if we really mean "all" (which we rarely do, of course).

5: Sorry; misprint. {lo'e}

6: I suspect that I meant that this was basically untranslatable into current Lojban. It looks like a general claim but can't be universal, since there are exceptions and no ground for casuistry. On the other hand, clearly more than one lion and one night is meant. I think that the reference to food should probably be to substance not to particulars or generals so, even if {lo} turns out to be OK for the first two, it is not for the last.

7: Thanx. I doing get this usage completely yet, though I think it is a good one. It is a shift, however, and so needs more discussion (and a large warning) on the wiki page.

8: I am inclined to use {lo'e pixra} and {lo or su'o ki'o valsi}. This is relatively particular, one picture, one set of 1000 words, so full generic does not seem to apply as would "Pictures are worth thousands of words each," say. Here the inspecificity of the generic usage is further complicated. On a bet, not only are some {unspecified number of) pictures worth a thousand words, but 1000 is merely a round number of unspecified import: some are worth only 950, some 1200, quite a few less than 100, a rare few upwards toward millions. A nice "roughly speaking" modal might help here. (I know it is improper to take this stuff literally — what, as the poet asked, are words worth after all. But the serious cases of this sort are also very common — something about eggs coming up.)

9: I see that the {la'e} for {lo'e} runs through this whole thing. Sorry again (especially since I never seem to have backed it up with a "the typical"). In this case, since there are statistics (on a bet) The average — in some sense (though they probably all three coincide).

10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still, as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le or {lei} selctu}.

11: Nicely put. This is sort of a definition (lacking something about stringing them together in a loop with the last set dangling from the join and about how the groups are demarcated), I am not sure how to do this — even if we have what I have been calling a generic gadri — but I am sure that it does not require more new stuff. Of course, it could be literally a definition, defining the expression, but that — thouggh it has a long history as an out — does not seem quite fair.

12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo bakni are cattle, not beef.

13. Me either. We've been around about how to say that non-existents don't exist, so I'll leave that part out. I never feel comfortable with whichever gadri I use with {ka} and the like, but one seems a good as the other. {lo jirna} is surely correct, even with old {lo} and I would say {le sedycra} since it is the particular one of the particular unicorn we have got to in applying this property.

14. Yes, though {bilga} that way looks odd. The point is that {lo} is in the scope of {roroi} In that sense I am not sure that this says what it is supposed to. It seems to limit the choices one has to velars and alveolars but not to require the same one all the time. One has decided, apparently, never to use dentals or labials or gutterals or palatals. I haven't a clue at the moment how to clean it up. But the {lo}s are OK.

15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies lacking; but it does not assert it.

16: Yes indeed. I now would incline to generic (though I wonder about the {le} in that context.)

17: {so'omei} makes not sense in the context. {lo'i} would be nice and safe or maybe even {ro}, but {su'o} clearly does not work here. The generic doesn't very well either, since I think it means we are to run through all of them (with conditions — e.g., unpublished ones, privately printed runs of thirty and the like).


pc: > And > most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all): > generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like � things that are more > or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its > ground at all).

1.But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with current Lojban.

2.Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time. I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples. That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts, which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.

> ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu > Children should always show great forbearance > toward grown-up people.

3.It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively frequent in any language?

> ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe > i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu > But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of > boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups. > > I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first > sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it > reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially: > �any sheep through any box� (is �the walls of� just a flourish? This eems to > apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.

The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sais pas voir les moutons � travers les caisses." I guess context helps make it clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had rejected all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another. 4:So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo. (I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more concrete claim, though.)

> The {lo} > in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going > on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reasonable > start of working out how to talk about species.

5:But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu prenu}? Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?

The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", not the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e} that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

> ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja > At night lions hunt for food.

6:I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of this translation.

> lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi > One picture is worth a thousand words. > > Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi} > looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}

7:But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times. {ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such that the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000 times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000 words put together.

>� presumably the > words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways, > indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either > universal or about species or perhaps {la�e}.

8: So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

> de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42 > In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents. > > Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there > was � implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds� � now extinct � > eggs, certified organic, �). Iam inclining more and more to {la�e} here.

9:Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too much of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say {tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another thread altogether.)

> lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni > The teacher will divide the class > into five groups of four students. > > Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to > be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}. > But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

10:"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column. For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim�)

The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column.

The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher will ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker has in mind. It is more general.

> lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu > ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni > The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups > of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix. > > This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of > rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be > appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more > gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be > about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three > {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary > of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this > form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.

11:I'll take that as semi-approved then.

> lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu > cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270 > Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water > being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and > weigh about 270lbs. > > Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope, > {lo} would work)

12:Do you approve or disapprove of using {lo} for substance?

> lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma > gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u > Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse > with a horn coming out of their foreheads. > > Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I > think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way > to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).

13.I can't tell whether you approve or not.

> bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe > (to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy. > alveolar gy. toi) > tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi > > I�m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one > use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a > problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo}

14.He meant to say that we should pick either velar or alveolar for all occasions.

> What is the role of the blue > expressions?

They are links to the page where the sentence was taken from, so you can check the context if you want.

> le cmana lo cidja ba claxu > In the mountains there is no food. > lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli > > Normal usage � well it is good to see that implicit negation works like > ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

15: Why not analyse {nitcu} as an implicit negation too, then?

> le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu > The road of the good language is costly. > lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli > > Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)

16: You agree with me that it is not equivalent to {le dargu pe su'o xamgu bangu} then.

> la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o > gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo > xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto > tenguar > > Species or set (probably the latter). �the severalth� is nice, though not a > clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me �one of several� or just �pretty > far along in the set ordered by � (date?)�

17. Maybe he meant {so'omei}. Either way, {lo xanri munje lisri} seems to me generic. {su'o} would not make sense there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical" to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some, probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these and here finally is a case — I think. wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: Re: BPFK Section: gadri (Please everybody, use the 'discuss' button and not the 'comments' button to make comments and proposals on the contents of the page. It makes it easier to reply, thank you.)

pier: > {lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42} to me means that there are 12 > eggs, each of which costs 42 cents. If a dozen eggs costs 42 > cents, I'd say {lo sovda paremei cu fepni li 42} or maybe {loi > pare sovda cu fepni li 42}.

{pare sovda cu fepni li 42} says that there are 12 eggs, each of which costs 42 cents. {lo pare sovda} refers to a twelvesome of eggs.!. It is like {lo sovda paremei} but without the tanru imprecision. {loi pare sovda} is indeed equivalent to {lo pare sovda}.

2:> {lo'e se} with the word for a kind of organism is a special case > and should be mentioned. It refers to the taxon containing all > members of the kind and no others, if that exists. So {lo'e se > guzme} means the family Cucurbitaceae, while {lo se guzme} >can be Cucumis, Sicyos, Luffa, or any of several others. {lo'e se > jesymabru}, however, has no clear meaning, as {jesymabru} > can refer to both spiny anteaters and hedgehogs.

I have added a comment to that effect. If others have any objections to this, please speak up now or forever hold your peace.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 20:01 GMT

pc: > 1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it > could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

{paremei} is not the tanru, {sovda paremei} is. An egg type of dozen is most likely but not necessarily a dozen eggs.

> 2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical" > to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of > thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing > usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some, > probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what > xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely > mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly > subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some > with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about > members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these > and here finally is a case — I think.

I'm not sure if you're taking into account the "se" here. The x1 of guzme is for the cucumbers and the x2 for the taxon or whatever. Pierre is talking about {lo'e se guzme}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT

pc: > As for there being > something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as > there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times.

Not sure who you mean by "we", but some people think that nothing should be touched.

> It > sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of > {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in > generalities.

People were called out on those uses all the time, you can see that from the list archives. The problem is that we could say {su'o lo} was wrong but we could not say what was right instead. Any way of generic speaking could be objected to. And {lo} is not the only thing people use for lack of something better. {le} and {loi} are also popular alternatives.

> It may turn out that, on zipfy > gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer > expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major > decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki > page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal).

The wiki page is clearly labeled as a proposal, and it is clearly part of the BPFK work we are doing. This is a proposal to be discussed, amended as necessary, and voted on.

> 10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a > direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still, > as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it > is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le or {lei} selctu}.

So even though the speaker does not have any particular teacher in mind, you think he should use {le} because some teacher reading it might have a particular one in mind? What about other readers that may simply be interested in teaching methods but not in actually performing this particular lesson?

> 12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the > uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the > substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo > bakni are cattle, not beef.

{lo tu'o gerku} is proposed for the dog all over the pavement. "Beef" however is probably better as {bakni rectu}. ({ractu rectu} for rabbit.)

> 15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies > lacking; but it does not assert it.

Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:30 GMT

1. Oops! Thinking "lujvo" when reading "tanru." 2. Yes, that is what makes it so interesting. Apparently he wants the things which generally do so and so to be the subtaxa — maybe species, maybe genera but certainly not the indivdual plants — that fall under the whatever it is. So there is some need for a marker for these things. Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

pc: > 1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it > could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

1. {paremei} is not the tanru, {sovda paremei} is. An egg type of dozen is most likely but not necessarily a dozen eggs.

> 2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical" > to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of > thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing > usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some, > probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what > xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely > mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly > subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some > with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about > members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these > and here finally is a case — I think.

2>I'm not sure if you're taking into account the "se" here. The x1 of guzme is for the cucumbers and the x2 for the taxon or whatever. Pierre is talking about {lo'e se guzme}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

Judging from what Nick wrote at http://www.lojban.org/tiki/3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003 this is a field of active research in linguistics/philosophy, and we should not expect to arrive at a consensus solution here. To do so would mean that we either had broken significant ground worthy of publishing, or more likely, that we had succeeded in deluding ourselves. The BF commissioners should attempt to clarify the situation beyond its current state, but not expect a solution that lies beyond all criticism. ju'a ..e'unai lo prane cu bradi lo xamgu


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>pc: > =20 > >>And >>most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all): >>generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like =96 things that ar= e more >>or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not it= s >>ground at all). >> =20 >> > >But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are >everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker >should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found >most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did=20 >not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced=20 >easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with=20 >current Lojban. > >Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time. >I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples. >That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts, >which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims >are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced >in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban >will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.=20 > > =20 > >>ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu >>Children should always show great forbearance >>toward grown-up people. >> =20 >> >It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether=20 >you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it=20 >differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively=20 >frequent in any language?=20 > =20 >


It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad, should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope= r.


>>ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe >>i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu >>But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of >>boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups. >>=20 >>I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the firs= t >>sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), si= nce it >>reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existenti= ally: >>=93any sheep through any box=94 (is =93the walls of=94 just a flourish?= This eems to >>apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.=20 >> =20 >> > >The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sa= is >pas voir les moutons =E0 travers les caisses." I guess context helps mak= e it=20 >clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince >is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had reject= ed >all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another. >So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo. >(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more >concrete claim, though.) >=20 > =20 > >>The {lo} >>in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is g= oing >>on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reaso= nable >>start of working out how to talk about species. >> =20 >> > >But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu pren= u}? >Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?=20 > >The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the=20 >previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", no= t=20 >the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}=20 >that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general? > > =20 > >>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja >>At night lions hunt for food. >> =20 >> > >I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of >this translation. > =20 >

This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or food. (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion, so'a cinfo will do.


>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi >>One picture is worth a thousand words. >> >>Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi= } >>looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}=20 >> =20 >> > >But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the >thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.=20 >{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such tha= t=20 >the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the=20 >picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000=20 >times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000=20 >words put together.=20 > =20 >

Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.


>>=96 presumably the >>words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways, >>indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either >>universal or about species or perhaps {la=92e}. >> =20 >> > >So what is a Lojban speaker to say? > > =20 > >>de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42 >>In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents. >> >>Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen= there >>was =96 implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds=92 =96 now= extinct =96 >>eggs, certified organic, =85). Iam inclining more and more to {la=92e}= here. >> =20 >> > >Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous= =20 >one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too muc= h >of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of >doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say >{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another=20 >thread altogether.) > > =20 > >>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni >>The teacher will divide the class >>into five groups of four students. >> >>Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this se= ems to >>be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei se= lctu}. >> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice. >> =20 >> > >The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was: > >"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes > >The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.=20 >For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim=85) > >The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column= .. > >The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students. > >The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down= =20 >in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher wil= l=20 >ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..." > >It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker=20 >has in mind. It is more general. > =20 >


It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le; the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20 assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal= im=20 Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing= =20 Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

>One of my problems with Jorge's proposal is that it seems to either >conflate two different meanings into one, or have one meaning that is >ill-defined or hard to formalize. What I want is a general algorithm fo= >r >determining whether or not a sentence that uses XS-lo is true or false. > >

If you check out http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report%2C+aug+2003 and search for the section "Problem 4. Intensionals." you'll see that by their nature intensionals cannot be enumerate, and so evade the precise analysis you're looking for. That is not a solvable flaw, but a feature of what intensionals are.


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something they want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almost everyone additions.

2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke). The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, already have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thought that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted (because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice JCB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, clear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how the proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. That is a lot of work for one person to do and loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do things (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's just create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text corpus. Since at least 1976, when I started seeing the carping, claims fuzzily between all and some, claims about the substance of things, and claims about nodes in the great conceptual tree (not usually put that way, to be sure) have come along annually (if not daily). I take that as enough data, let's fix it.

3. I know how it is labelled and I know the effect of seeing something in official looking print, especially with the kind of power that BPFK appears to wield. That it is not a done deal or even close can't be emphasized too often (actually, I suppose it could: if it gave the impression that nothing was ever done and so there was either no point in trying or that one might as well toss everything in one's head into the hopper since it is all persiflage anyhow).

4: I don't think that a teacher reading it for guidance has anydoubt who the writer has in mind: the teacher reading this copy for guidance. The casual reader doesn't either: the teacher who is using the guidelines in an actual situation. This is a perhaps metaphorical sense of in mind but the point is that, in a given case, the teacher meant is always specific, not just any old teacher. The whole could be framed differently, as a report of what went on in a (according to the authors) well-run classroom or as a general direction for how a classroom ought to be run, but this is direction for how you the student teacher are to go.

5: But number may not be irrelevant here, one is quite capable of being interested in reporting a smear of two-dogs on the highway. I forget all the proposals and all the cases for and against; I just note this has been a problem over the years, so let's fix it, The {rectu} only works for the (mainly) edible parts of critters, not for goo.

6: Asserts. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > As for there being > something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as > there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times.

1.Not sure who you mean by "we", but some people think that nothing should be touched.

> It > sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of > {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in > generalities.

2:People were called out on those uses all the time, you can see that from the list archives. The problem is that we could say {su'o lo} was wrong but we could not say what was right instead. Any way of generic speaking could be objected to. And {lo} is not the only thing people use for lack of something better. {le} and {loi} are also popular alternatives.

> It may turn out that, on zipfy > gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer > expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major > decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki > page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal).

3. The wiki page is clearly labeled as a proposal, and it is clearly part of the BPFK work we are doing. This is a proposal to be discussed, amended as necessary, and voted on.

> 10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a > direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still, > as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it > is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le or {lei} selctu}.

4: So even though the speaker does not have any particular teacher in mind, you think he should use {le} because some teacher reading it might have a particular one in mind? What about other readers that may simply be interested in teaching methods but not in actually performing this particular lesson?

> 12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the > uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the > substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo > bakni are cattle, not beef.

5:{lo tu'o gerku} is proposed for the dog all over the pavement. "Beef" however is probably better as {bakni rectu}. ({ractu rectu} for rabbit.)

> 15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies > lacking; but it does not assert it.

6:Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure = that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough = time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something the= y want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almos= t everyone additions. >=20 >2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that = got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & = at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke).= The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does = one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, alr= eady have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thoug= ht that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted = (because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a = holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice J= CB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged= on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, c= lear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how th= e proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. Th= at is a lot of work for one person to do and > loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do t= hings (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was = an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping= it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all = are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's jus= t create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to= say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is= a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text = corpus. >

This isn't a bad description of where we are now. Intensionality is=20 essential, and the Book's definition of lo is a close approximation of=20 that, but unfortunately also conflated it with the extensional "da poi", =

resulting in a contradiction. Most usage of lo is intensional. Other=20 attempts at intension used bizarre stunts like lo jai ka, appropriations =

of other cmavo such as lo'e, or evasions like le. And the (only) other=20 sense of the old lo is easily expressed using su'o!

The conclusion is clear. lo must go from usually being intensional to=20 being always intensional.

We will not hammer out all the oddities of intensionality here on this=20 list before the BF must vote. The BF commissioners should vote yes=20 because this plan improves clarity and consistency, and because it's=20 better than the status quo or anything that will be sketched up before=20 the vote. But regardless of the BF's decision I will continue to apply=20 the XS in my usage as I have been. If this is a fork or schism, so be it.=


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

xod: > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003

That seems broken. The address is: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report%2C+aug+2003 or http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri+report%2C+aug+2003? for those of you reading from the wiki.

Thanks for reminding us of that report! Nick is undoubtedly a better expounder than I am.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 29 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

(lo/le ctuca cu fatri lo/le selctu mu lo vo tadni) > 4: I don't think that a teacher reading it for guidance has anydoubt who the > writer has in mind: the teacher reading this copy for guidance. The casual > reader doesn't either: the teacher who is using the guidelines in an actual > situation. This is a perhaps metaphorical sense of in mind

Yes. Is {le} supposed to be used in this metaphorical sense? I have often been in doubt about this. Is it always for things that are identified by the speaker, or can it be used for things that are not identified by the speaker but which would be identifiable by someone taking part in the (hypothetical) situation being described?

Example:

Get two boxes of different sizes and put the smaller one inside the bigger one.

Can we use {le} for "the bigger one" and "the smaller one" even though there are no actual objects that the speaker has in mind? He doesn't even know if the first part of the command will be fulfilled, so at this point the two boxes are hypothetical. Can he refer to them with {le}?

> 5: But number may not be irrelevant here, one is quite capable of being > interested in reporting a smear of two-dogs on the highway. I forget all the > proposals and all the cases for and against; I just note this has been a > problem over the years, so let's fix it, The {rectu} only works for the > (mainly) edible parts of critters, not for goo.

For two dog smear we can use {lo tu'o lo re gerku}.

> 6:Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it? > 6: Asserts.

So you would say:

mi claxu roda = mi na ponse roda = su'oda naku zo'u mi ponse da

mi claxu su'oda = mi na ponse su'oda = noda zo'u mi ponse da

"I lack everything" = "There's something I don't have"? "I lack something" = "There's nothing that I have"?

It doesn't seem right. With claxu = narponse, i.e. shortest scope negation, it works much better.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive discourse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw notes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics.

2: And here is the problem. Lacking casuistry (or at least without clear notions of how to apply it) {ro} won't do here. A goodly number of lions never hunt for food at night (it's easier to see it in the daylight and there is plenty around) and all of them take time off occasionally, so the exceptions are not peculiar enough for dodging an "all" (unlike the cow with the amputation who doesn't count against "all cows have four legs") The pointabout trating the various {lo}s differently may be right: certainly the meal could be {su'o cidja} (in the scope of two {lo}s), but someone might argue that nights and lions are on a par here. The objection to {so'a} at this point is that it continues the suggestion that these things are about how many critters do something, rather than being loose talk about critterkind — compare {lo'e} at least. (Notice that I am not recommending {lo} for this usage but talking about it in a context where {lo} seems best uderstood in this way.)

3: You don't have too far to find pictures worth one word ("Shit" typically) or - in the original sense of this maxim that don't help you find/do/understand anything at all ("Modern Art" (pe'a) is a case in point). But {pe'a} might be a good idea here; I think {ro} is less so.

4: the script analogy is a good one, since that is what these kinds of instruction are to a great extent. The point about other than first references is standard stuff (thjough we forget it a lot), but I think the first one is {le} too. xod wrote: Judging from what Nick wrote at http://www.lojban.org/tiki/3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003 this is a field of active research in linguistics/philosophy, and we should not expect to arrive at a consensus solution here. To do so would mean that we either had broken significant ground worthy of publishing, or more likely, that we had succeeded in deluding ourselves. The BF commissioners should attempt to clarify the situation beyond its current state, but not expect a solution that lies beyond all criticism. ju'a ..e'unai lo prane cu bradi lo xamgu


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>pc: > =20 > >>And >>most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all): >>generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like =96 things that ar= e more >>or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not it= s >>ground at all). >> =20 >> > >But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are >everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker >should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found >most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did=20 >not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced=20 >easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with=20 >current Lojban. > >Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time. >I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples. >That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts, >which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims >are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced >in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban >will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.=20 > > =20 > >>ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu >>Children should always show great forbearance >>toward grown-up people. >> =20 >> >It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether=20 >you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it=20 >differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively=20 >frequent in any language?=20 > =20 >


1: It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad, should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope= r.


>>ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe >>i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu >>But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of >>boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups. >>=20 >>I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the firs= t >>sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), si= nce it >>reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existenti= ally: >>=93any sheep through any box=94 (is =93the walls of=94 just a flourish?= This eems to >>apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.=20 >> =20 >> > >The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sa= is >pas voir les moutons =E0 travers les caisses." I guess context helps mak= e it=20 >clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince >is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had reject= ed >all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another. >So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo. >(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more >concrete claim, though.) >=20 > =20 > >>The {lo} >>in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is g= oing >>on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reaso= nable >>start of working out how to talk about species. >> =20 >> > >But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu pren= u}? >Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?=20 > >The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the=20 >previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", no= t=20 >the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}=20 >that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general? > > =20 > >>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja >>At night lions hunt for food. >> =20 >> > >I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of >this translation. > =20 >

2:This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or food. (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion, so'a cinfo will do.


>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi >>One picture is worth a thousand words. >> >>Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi= } >>looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}=20 >> =20 >> > >But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the >thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.=20 >{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such tha= t=20 >the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the=20 >picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000=20 >times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000=20 >words put together.=20 > =20 >

3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.


>>=96 presumably the >>words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways, >>indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either >>universal or about species or perhaps {la=92e}. >> =20 >> > >So what is a Lojban speaker to say? > > =20 > >>de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42 >>In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents. >> >>Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen= there >>was =96 implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds=92 =96 now= extinct =96 >>eggs, certified organic, =85). Iam inclining more and more to {la=92e}= here. >> =20 >> > >Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous= =20 >one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too muc= h >of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of >doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say >{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another=20 >thread altogether.) > > =20 > >>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni >>The teacher will divide the class >>into five groups of four students. >> >>Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this se= ems to >>be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei se= lctu}. >> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice. >> =20 >> > >The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was: > >"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes > >The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.=20 >For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim=85) > >The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column= .. > >The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students. > >The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down= =20 >in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher wil= l=20 >ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..." > >It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker=20 >has in mind. It is more general. > =20 >


4: It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le; the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20 assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal= im=20 Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing= =20 Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is= available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive disco= urse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw no= tes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics. > =20 >

If ro is insufficient, then so'a will have to do. Everything else is=20 handwaving.


>2: And here is the problem. Lacking casuistry (or at least without clea= r notions of how to apply it) {ro} won't do here. A goodly number of lio= ns never hunt for food at night (it's easier to see it in the daylight an= d there is plenty around) and all of them take time off occasionally, so = the exceptions are not peculiar enough for dodging an "all" (unlike the c= ow with the amputation who doesn't count against "all cows have four legs= ") The pointabout trating the various {lo}s differently may be right: ce= rtainly the meal could be {su'o cidja} (in the scope of two {lo}s), but s= omeone might argue that nights and lions are on a par here. The objectio= n to {so'a} at this point is that it continues the suggestion that these = things are about how many critters do something, rather than being loose = talk about critterkind — compare {lo'e} at least. (Notice that I am not = recommending {lo} for this usage but talking about it in a context where = {lo} seems best uderstood in this way.) > =20 >

I reject the attempt to make general (all/most) claims but then slither=20 out of responsibility. If your definitional concepts don't apply to most =

of the targets, your definition needs fixing, but the gadri shouldn't=20 help you make such dishonest claims. If most cows no longer have 4 legs, =

revise your definition of "cow".

You see, making claims about the general cow is different from treating=20 cows intensionally. "Sam fears cows"; this is a claim about Sam. "Cows=20 have 4 legs" is a claim about cows. Claims about something are=20 extensional: we validate them by looping over instances and testing the=20 assertion. Intensional claims escape this, because they don't actually=20 make claims about the thing at hand. This is why Sam can fear cows in a=20 cow-less universe. Cows can appear and disappear, but the statement=20 holds invariantly true!

Perhaps we can test in/extensionality by asking: does the statement hold =

true if all X were to vanish? I would very much need doctors after all=20 doctors are slaughtered, but lions wouldn't eat at night or day if they=20 were all killed.

Have I now succeeded in ripping non-specific away from intensionality?=20 mi viska lo ractu is non-specific but hardly intensional by the above tes= t.


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

xod: > It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad, > should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every > member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative > usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope= > r.

Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into contact with most grown-ups. This is just about Mr Child being forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of "grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. The maxim says that things ought to be such that the child forgives the grown-up. Which child? Which grown-up? How many of each? Those are the wrong questions to ask because we are not talking about instances.

> >>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja > >>At night lions hunt for food. > > This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in > an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo > cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

It's not a claim about all lions. The context might be: "Be careful, don't stray too far from the camp. At night lions hunt for food." You are giving information about lions and nights, but of a generic kind, not about instances. Maybe you're lucky and just tonight there aren't any lions around hunting for food. It's still the case that "at night lions hunt for food" so you ought to be careful.

> Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo > nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general > claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or > food.

Agreed.

> (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence > should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to > wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion, > so'a cinfo will do.

It's not meant to be a claim about how many instances of lions do that.

> >>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi > >>One picture is worth a thousand words. > > 3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some > lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.

{pe'a} is ok, but even then, ro is inadequate. The idea is not that you examine each picture and conclude that its worth is that of a thousand words. The idea is that in general a picture gives information that could only be conveyed by a lot of words. So pictures are worth a lot of words, but this is not about counting the number of pictures this applies to.

> >>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni > >>The teacher will divide the class > >>into five groups of four students. > >> > It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a > particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that > specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le; > the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and > the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.

Kind of like English "the"...

I read it as:

TEACHER divides CLASS into 5 STUDENT-FOURSOME

The only relevant quantifier in the statement is 5 (4 is part of a description). If there is any specificity it is not of the usual kind, because the speaker doesn't have any particular teacher in mind.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod: > =20 > >>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad, >>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every >>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative >>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro= pe=3D >>r. >> =20 >> > >Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up >just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into >contact with most grown-ups.=20 >


That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving. This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adult.


>This is just about Mr Child being >forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of >"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. The maxim says >that things ought to be such that the child forgives the grown-up. >Which child? Which grown-up? How many of each? Those are the wrong=20 >questions to ask because we are not talking about instances. > > =20 > >>>>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja >>>>At night lions hunt for food. >>>> =20 >>>> >>This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find i= n >>an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo >>cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects. >> =20 >> > >It's not a claim about all lions. The context might be: >"Be careful, don't stray too far from the camp. At night >lions hunt for food." You are giving information about >lions and nights, but of a generic kind, not about instances. >Maybe you're lucky and just tonight there aren't any lions=20 >around hunting for food. It's still the case that "at night >lions hunt for food" so you ought to be careful. > =20 >


Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is completely crucial. And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.


>>Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca l= o >>nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general >>claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or >>food. >> =20 >> > >Agreed.=20 > > =20 > >>(It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence >>should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to >>wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion, >>so'a cinfo will do. >> =20 >> > >It's not meant to be a claim about how many instances of lions >do that. > > =20 > >>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi >>>>One picture is worth a thousand words. >>>> =20 >>>> >>3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest s= ome >>lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words. >> =20 >> > >{pe'a} is ok, but even then, ro is inadequate. The idea is not that >you examine each picture and conclude that its worth is that of >a thousand words. The idea is that in general a picture gives=20 >information that could only be conveyed by a lot of words. So=20 >pictures are worth a lot of words, but this is not about counting >the number of pictures this applies to. > =20 >


Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless of its figurative sense.

How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t= hat we=20 loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?


>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni >>>>The teacher will divide the class >>>>into five groups of four students. >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a >>particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that >>specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le= >>the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and >>the following references referring to that teacher and only that one. >> =20 >> > >Kind of like English "the"... > >I read it as: > > TEACHER divides CLASS into 5 STUDENT-FOURSOME > >The only relevant quantifier in the statement is 5 (4 is part of >a description). If there is any specificity it is not of the usual >kind, because the speaker doesn't have any particular teacher in >mind. =20 > =20 >


What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders. If each reference to a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensical. We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.= Let=20 there be a classroom..."


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20 assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal= im=20 Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing= =20 Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod: > =20 > >>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad, >>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every >>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative >>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro= pe=3D >>r. >> =20 >> > >Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up >just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into >contact with most grown-ups. This is just about Mr Child being >forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of >"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. >


I don't think we can simply say "don't worry about instances" without=20 proving that counting instances is absurd in this situation. Little=20 Johnny should forgive Aunt Susan; those are specific instances and it=20 makes total sense. The maxim is only a numeric generalization from this=20 extensional case.

In the situation of needed doctors, counting doctor instances is=20 demonstrably absurd.


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

> That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving. > This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out > every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adult.

To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means: "It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult."

What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

> Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo > cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is > completely crucial.

In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.

> And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be > pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.

The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must. If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because it doesn't carry any info on number.

> >>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi > >>>>One picture is worth a thousand words. > > Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every > picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless > of its figurative sense.

If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you, but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that every picture is very informative instead of comparing the informative value of pictures vs. words.

> How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t= > hat we=20 > loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes. In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like. >From least to most precise:

ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai

And of course you can add tense:

ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai

"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron." If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.

> >>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni > >>>>The teacher will divide the class > >>>>into five groups of four students. > > What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the > example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that > he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.

And who might never exist, right.

> If each reference to > a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each > sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensical. > We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out. When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence, as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of course be more precise when you need or want to.

> Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any > teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.

> Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.= > Let=20 > there be a classroom..."

Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way. But let's get away from the idea that there is always one correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong. {lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 02:44 GMT

xod: > I don't think we can simply say "don't worry about instances" without=20 > proving that counting instances is absurd in this situation. Little=20 > Johnny should forgive Aunt Susan; those are specific instances and it=20 > makes total sense. The maxim is only a numeric generalization from this=20 > extensional case. > > In the situation of needed doctors, counting doctor instances is=20 > demonstrably absurd.

But lo is not restricted to cases where counting is absurd! It is for cases where counting is irrelevant, be it because it is absurd or because it is just not important.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT

A: Phooey!. The Books description of {lo} has nothing to do with intensionality and indeed the idea of an intensional gadri barely makes sense: it could not be used in transparent context and would be unnecessary in opaque one. What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that wondrously vague sense of English plurals, "the" generic expressions and the like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the language: that is they talk about the members of a class but without an specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree — closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business). To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it. John E Clifford wrote:

>1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure = that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough = time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something the= y want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almos= t everyone additions. >=20 >2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that = got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & = at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke).= The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does = one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, alr= eady have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thoug= ht that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted = (because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a = holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice J= CB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged= on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, c= lear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how th= e proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. Th= at is a lot of work for one person to do and > loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do t= hings (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was = an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping= it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all = are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's jus= t create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to= say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is= a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text = corpus. >

A: This isn't a bad description of where we are now. Intensionality is=20 essential, and the Book's definition of lo is a close approximation of=20 that, but unfortunately also conflated it with the extensional "da poi", =

resulting in a contradiction. Most usage of lo is intensional. Other=20 attempts at intension used bizarre stunts like lo jai ka, appropriations =

of other cmavo such as lo'e, or evasions like le. And the (only) other=20 sense of the old lo is easily expressed using su'o!

B:e conclusion is clear. lo must go from usually being intensional to=20 being always intensional.

We will not hammer out all the oddities of intensionality here on this=20 list before the BF must vote. The BF commissioners should vote yes=20 because this plan improves clarity and consistency, and because it's=20 better than the status quo or anything that will be sketched up before=20 the vote. But regardless of the BF's decision I will continue to apply=20 the XS in my usage as I have been. If this is a fork or schism, so be it.=


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:16 GMT

A: Actually, "don't worry about instances" is more or less a rule in normative discouse. At least the apparent counterinstances are dismissed with some small argument — ax murderers are adults to be forgiven by any one. Not counting doctors in the "need" case is just a feature of opaque context: the relevant doctors are not arounf to be counted. Maxims, however are not numeric generalizations — if they are generalizations; they are weighted, generic, rules about classes (or perhaps laying obs on such genric claims about classes). xod wrote:Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod: > =20 > >>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad, >>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every >>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative >>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro= pe=3D >>r. >> =20 >> > >Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up >just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into >contact with most grown-ups. This is just about Mr Child being >forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of >"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. >


A:I don't think we can simply say "don't worry about instances" without=20 proving that counting instances is absurd in this situation. Little=20 Johnny should forgive Aunt Susan; those are specific instances and it=20 makes total sense. The maxim is only a numeric generalization from this=20 extensional case.

In the situation of needed doctors, counting doctor instances is=20 demonstrably absurd.


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT

A: Well, of course no child (or anyone else) has to forgive someone he never heard of, nor (more significantly) are they bound to forgive the unforgivable. On the first issue, it seems fair to understand the claim (as I did-- misrecalling the actual example — when I said that old {lo} seemed right for the case) as "if a child (x) is crossed by an adult (y), x should forgive y" The protasis here is lost in conversational implicature (presupposition), leaving only a stripped down version of the apodasis, where the {lo}s ought logically be connverted to {ro}s. But you can't depend on grammar to be logical all the time, even in Lojban. In this case, the maxim can be taken as obligating a generic claim — which is probablty not true, else why oblicate it — to the effect that children forgive adults. I think that the {ro} reading is more comfortable to most moralists, but the generic one is not impossible.

B: Aside from the issue of whether {lo} is the right word here (and whether this is the way you have been using {lo}), this eems right for generic usage. Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving. > This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out > every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adult.

A:To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means: "It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult."

What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?

> Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo > cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is > completely crucial.

In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.

> And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be > pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.

B:The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must. If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because it doesn't carry any info on number.

> >>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi > >>>>One picture is worth a thousand words. > > Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every > picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless > of its figurative sense.

If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you, but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that every picture is very informative instead of comparing the informative value of pictures vs. words.

> How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t= > hat we=20 > loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes. In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like. >From least to most precise:

ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai

And of course you can add tense:

ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai

"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron." If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.

> >>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni > >>>>The teacher will divide the class > >>>>into five groups of four students. > > What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the > example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that > he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.

And who might never exist, right.

> If each reference to > a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each > sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensical. > We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out. When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence, as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of course be more precise when you need or want to.

> Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any > teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.

> Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.= > Let=20 > there be a classroom..."

Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way. But let's get away from the idea that there is always one correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong. {lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 19:17 GMT

pc: > What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that > wondrously vague sense of English plurals,

English bare plurals, yes. Not "some brodas" or "all brodas" or "the brodas", but just "brodas".

>"the" generic expressions and the > like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the > language:

That's why I used {lo'e} for that for many years, but it didn't catch on. And even to me, it always seemed too marked, and there was always someone around to point out that that's not what "the typical" means.

> that is they talk about the members of a class but without an > specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more > than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the > claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a > class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different > from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree -- > closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though > {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just > leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business).

Your proposal at this point is to use {lo'e}, right?

> To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its > are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but > that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk > about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

The difference in terms of sets that I'm familiar with is in how a set is defined. A definition by extension is a list of the members, whereas a definition by intension is giving the property that the members have. So the same set A can be defined either way:

by extension A={2,4,6,8} by intension A={x/x is an even number greater than 1 and less than 9}

The same set can have different definitions by intension. Lojban uses {ce} for definitions by extension and {lo'i} for definitions by intension.

> B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it > be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the > Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it.

I agree that that is not in itself a justification but just a supporting argument. Another supporting argument is that nothing is lost in terms of expressiveness because {su'o} duplicates the job of old-lo. Also, because the proposed sense is more general that the old and covers it, past usage is hardly invalidated but at most may read as a little more vague than intended. And since in a sense {lo} is supposed to be the least marked gadri, it should go to the least restricted notion.

How do languages without articles handle this? Always using {lo} and making distinctions of specificity by other means would be like having a language without articles.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 20:52 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote: > =20 > >>That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving. >>This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out >>every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adul= t. >> =20 >> > >To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means: >"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult." =20 > >What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you? > =20 >


I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20 adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

  • because* of it's lack of ro. And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20 non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20 but now I don't.


>=20 > =20 > >>Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo >>cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is >>completely crucial.=20 >> =20 >> > >In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte=20 >lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned. > =20 >

"Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20 we can no longer say that none do. It doesn't tell us about the habits=20 of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20 the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20 god forbid you should neglect the outliers).


>>And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be >>pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite= .. >> =20 >> > >The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must. >If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does >not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you=20 >can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the=20 >minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because >it doesn't carry any info on number. > =20 >

Other than the trivial case of zero, I agree.


>>>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi >>>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "ever= y >>picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless >>of its figurative sense. >> =20 >> > >If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you, >but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that >every picture is very informative instead of comparing the >informative value of pictures vs. words. > =20 >

What's the difference? The informative value of pictures vs. words is=20 exactly a word:picture mapping.


>>How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean= t=3D >>hat we=3D20 >>loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron? >> =20 >> > >It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes. >In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like. >From least to most precise: > > ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai > =20 >

Here is where the meaning really changes. Above is a very weak claim,=20 below is much stronger. I won't assume that lo is ro, although it's not=20 ruled out. But this is normative usage, and there's a big difference=20 between a maxim the speaker feels should apply to the type, and an=20 observational statement which may or may not generalize to the type (and=20 thus lo equal ro).

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai > ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai > ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai > >And of course you can add tense: > > ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai > >"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."=20 >If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they >wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty. > > =20 > >>>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni >>>>>>The teacher will divide the class >>>>>>into five groups of four students. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the >>example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except tha= t >>he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.=20 >> =20 >> > >And who might never exist, right. > =20 >

He exists like a fictional story character. But I think we understand=20 each other here.


>>If each reference to >>a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each >>sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensica= l. >>We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor. >> =20 >> > >Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out. >When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence, >as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of >course be more precise when you need or want to. > > =20 > >>Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any >>teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teache= r. >> =20 >> > >If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use >number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two >conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number. >=20 > =20 > >>Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teache= r.=3D >> Let=3D20 >>there be a classroom..." >> =20 >> > >Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way. >But let's get away from the idea that there is always one >correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong. >{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically=20 >never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise. > >mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >=09 > =09 >'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. >http://messenger.yahoo.com/=20 > > > =20 >


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 22:02 GMT

> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you? > > I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20 > adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20 > *because* of it's lack of ro.

Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:

"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the sentence. It says nothing about how many children should do what to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both terms. Another way is to add tense for example:

ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.

> And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20 > be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20 > non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20 > but now I don't.

The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances. It is simply not a statement about instances.

> "Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20 > we can no longer say that none do.

Of course, that's what {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} means.

> It doesn't tell us about the habits=20 > of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20 > the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20 > god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

But {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} is meant neither as "some lions hunt at night" nor as "all lions hunt at night". It is meant as the more vague "lions hunt at night", without reference to the number of instances. If you are told that, you may or may not be interested in enquiring further, "do they hunt only at night?" "do they hunt every night?" "does every lion hunt at night?" "does every lion hunt every night?" "do only lions hunt at night?" and many other questions, none of which are answered by the original claim, though they may be suggested by the context.

The information of number of instances is just not contained in lo, which is good because sometimes we are not interested in it. If we make lo overprecise, we don't have a way of expresing ourselves when precision is not possible or not wanted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 05:25 GMT

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote: > =20 > >>Jorge Llamb=3DEDas wrote: >> =20 >> >>>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you? >>> =20 >>> >>I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=3D= 20 >>adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=3D20 >>*because* of it's lack of ro.=20 >> =20 >> > >Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have=20 >a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the >sentence says, with the proposed lo, is: > >"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS" > >Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to >particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20 >sentence.=20 >


How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri. Given that maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.


>It says nothing about how many children should do what >to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different >ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both >terms. Another way is to add tense for example: > > ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu > Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults. > > =20 > >>And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=3D20 >>be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=3D= 20 >>non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,= =3D20 >>but now I don't. >> =20 >> > >The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances. >It is simply not a statement about instances. > =20 >


I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other observations. Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then this non-extensional claim would be false, yes?


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20 assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal= im=20 Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing= =20 Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT

xod: > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS" > > > >Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to > >particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20 > >sentence.=20 > > How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that > the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri.

That's not how I see it. You cannot help but to use a gadri. Otherwise you can't make a sumti. All that {lo} does is turn a selbri into a sumti, it adds nothing else. If you want to add precision, you have other gadri or quantifiers for that, but using {lo} is like using {cu}, it's vacuous. You don't choose it, it's imposed by the grammar as the minimal selbri-to-sumti converter.

>Given that > maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker > avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must > conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is > incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.

The speaker did not avoid {ro}, just as when you use {cu} instead of {ca} or {pu} you are not avoiding {ca} or {pu}. You simply don't care to be that precise.

> >The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances. > >It is simply not a statement about instances. > > I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an > extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement > really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other > observations. Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then > this non-extensional claim would be false, yes?

Yes. If you know that {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} you can conclude that {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca su'o nicte}. And you can also conclude that {lo cinfo su'oroi kalte ca lo nicte}.

But both statements with {su'o} are more precise than the general statement without su'o.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:11 GMT

1. sometimes "the brodas" too, though that seems more likely to be about species.

2. Yes, the gehavior may be common (even) without being typical and it is the common that one wants. Unlike old {lo}, which is about particular — though unspecified — individuals on particular occasions where they could be dientified, what is wanted is groups of perhaps different individuals in different situations, no longer recoverable individually. Yet factual, not definitional nor (usually) universal (which get closer to species use).

3. No, a new gadri with a grammar (and a semantics) like {lo'e}, but without the stigma of typicality.

4. Yes, this is a thrid (or are we up to fourth) distinction tht is sometimes called extension-intension. It is related to the one I was working on below in that the specification in one *lists* the extensions and in the other the intension; but both listing give the set, an extension, not the property, an intension.

5. As you know, I am not convinced that old {lo} and {su'o} really are the same. Certainly there are places where {lo} occurs that {su'o} cannot in the same meaning (before internal quantifiers, for example) but they seem trivial. Nor is it clear that generic usage is more unmarked than particular, but that is a fault of the ambiguity of the notion of marking. Still, what is essential here is that we need both somehow and that we don't have them now..Since {lo} is fairly well-defined in one use, it seems natural to add another expression for the other use. On the other hand, it may turn out on, say, Zipfean grounds, that the generic use is so markedly more common than the particular that giving it a longer form is just criminal. Then the misuse — especially if it is buried in a lot of otherwise valuable text — might justify the change.

6. Variously, I gather. Perhaps a Russian or a Chinese expert can help here. As far as I can make out for Medieval Latin (which, admittedly was moving toward articles), they mostly did not make the distinction overtly but worked implicitly by context and explicitly by correcction when errors occurred (see the whole discussion on the proprietates terminorum which are large sorting these things out). Classical Sanskrit seems about the same and scholastic Sanskrit basically never talks about particular cases — except through lengthy periphrasis; "locus of brodanessness" or so.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that > wondrously vague sense of English plurals,

1.English bare plurals, yes. Not "some brodas" or "all brodas" or "the brodas", but just "brodas".

>"the" generic expressions and the > like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the > language:

2>That's why I used {lo'e} for that for many years, but it didn't c.tch on. And even to me, it always seemed too marked, and there was always someone around to point out that that's not what "the typical" means.

> that is they talk about the members of a class but without an > specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more > than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the > claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a > class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different > from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree -- > closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though > {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just > leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business).

3.Your proposal at this point is to use {lo'e}, right?

> To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its > are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but > that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk > about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

4.The difference in terms of sets that I'm familiar with is in how a set is defined. A definition by extension is a list of the members, whereas a definition by intension is giving the property that the members have. So the same set A can be defined either way:

by extension A={2,4,6,8} by intension A={x/x is an even number greater than 1 and less than 9}

The same set can have different definitions by intension. Lojban uses {ce} for definitions by extension and {lo'i} for definitions by intension.

> B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it > be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the > Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it.

5. I agree that that is not in itself a justification but just a supporting argument. Another supporting argument is that nothing is lost in terms of expressiveness because {su'o} duplicates the job of old-lo. Also, because the proposed sense is more general that the old and covers it, past usage is hardly invalidated but at most may read as a little more vague than intended. And since in a sense {lo} is supposed to be the least marked gadri, it should go to the least restricted notion.

6.How do languages without articles handle this? Always using {lo} and making distinctions of specificity by other means would be like having a language without articles.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:12 GMT

1. I think the mess comes out of its deep history, whihc may well have started with (the roots of) "if a child (x) is harmed by an adult (y), x ought to forgive y. This would become a universal conditional by one line of transformations, but the present sentence but another, which puts the condition into presupposition (how can anyone forgive anyone if not harmed by them?) aand carry the forms forward from the old condition to their consequent-anaphor. Messy, but plausible, since it works and gives the right result: this really is a maxim (we could, for comfort, get the {ro}'s by much the same process).

2. Old {lo} certainly does not work for generics (the above case is odd because of the {ei}) but {ro}, taken literally won't do either, since it is false and something true is intended. {so'a}, while literally true, misses something of the force intended. I think the idea of counting rather than weighing is probably bound to miss the point.

3. With some new {lo} (not necessarily any now flying around).

4.?? I take it that the chestnut says that pictures tell us more than words, a lot more than any single word (though probably not more than a text which uses an equal number of bytes). It is not meant to be exact since (if for no other reason) words themselves have different values, and indeed their values change depending on the other words they are with and how arranged. It does not appear to say anything about whether pictures are very informative or not, unless it is assumed that 1000 words is a lot of information. xod wrote: Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote: > =20 > >>That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving. >>This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out >>every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adul= t. >> =20 >> > >To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means: >"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult." =20 > >What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you? > =20 >


1.I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20 adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

  • because* of it's lack of ro. And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20 non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20 but now I don't.


>=20 > =20 > >>Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo >>cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is >>completely crucial.=20 >> =20 >> > >In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte=20 >lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned. > =20 >

2."Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20 we can no longer say that none do. It doesn't tell us about the habits=20 of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20 the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20 god forbid you should neglect the outliers).


>>And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be >>pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite= .. >> =20 >> > >The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must. >If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does >not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you=20 >can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the=20 >minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because >it doesn't carry any info on number. > =20 >

3.Other than the trivial case of zero, I agree.


>>>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi >>>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "ever= y >>picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless >>of its figurative sense. >> =20 >> > >If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you, >but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that >every picture is very informative instead of comparing the >informative value of pictures vs. words. > =20 >

4. What's the difference? The informative value of pictures vs. words is=20 exactly a word:picture mapping.


>>How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean= t=3D >>hat we=3D20 >>loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron? >> =20 >> > >It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes. >In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like. >From least to most precise: > > ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai > =20 >

Here is where the meaning really changes. Above is a very weak claim,=20 below is much stronger. I won't assume that lo is ro, although it's not=20 ruled out. But this is normative usage, and there's a big difference=20 between a maxim the speaker feels should apply to the type, and an=20 observational statement which may or may not generalize to the type (and=20 thus lo equal ro).

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai > ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai > ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai > >And of course you can add tense: > > ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai > >"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."=20 >If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they >wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty. > > =20 > >>>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni >>>>>>The teacher will divide the class >>>>>>into five groups of four students. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the >>example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except tha= t >>he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.=20 >> =20 >> > >And who might never exist, right. > =20 >

He exists like a fictional story character. But I think we understand=20 each other here.


>>If each reference to >>a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each >>sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensica= l. >>We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor. >> =20 >> > >Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out. >When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence, >as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of >course be more precise when you need or want to. > > =20 > >>Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any >>teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teache= r. >> =20 >> > >If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use >number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two >conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number. >=20 > =20 > >>Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teache= r.=3D >> Let=3D20 >>there be a classroom..." >> =20 >> > >Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way. >But let's get away from the idea that there is always one >correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong. >{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically=20 >never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise. > >mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >=09 > =09 >'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. >http://messenger.yahoo.com/=20 > > > =20 >


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa= ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M= onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing = Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Of course, just what THAT means is a large part of the issue here. That aside, what follows is right as I understand it (and I think I am now close to xorxes except on the issues of whether the gadri should be {lo} and whether all this has anything to do with xorxes' {lo} reported elsewhere.). Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you? > > I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20 > adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20 > *because* of it's lack of ro.

Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. 1.All the sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:

"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"

Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the sentence. It says nothing about how many children should do what to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both terms. Another way is to add tense for example:

ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.

> And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20 > be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20 > non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20 > but now I don't.

The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances. It is simply not a statement about instances.

> "Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20 > we can no longer say that none do.

Of course, that's what {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} means.

> It doesn't tell us about the habits=20 > of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20 > the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20 > god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

But {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} is meant neither as "some lions hunt at night" nor as "all lions hunt at night". It is meant as the more vague "lions hunt at night", without reference to the number of instances. If you are told that, you may or may not be interested in enquiring further, "do they hunt only at night?" "do they hunt every night?" "does every lion hunt at night?" "does every lion hunt every night?" "do only lions hunt at night?" and many other questions, none of which are answered by the original claim, though they may be suggested by the context.

The information of number of instances is just not contained in lo, which is good because sometimes we are not interested in it. If we make lo overprecise, we don't have a way of expresing ourselves when precision is not possible or not wanted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Maxims are a bad place to fight this fight sincew maxims tend to talk about aall, but also always have unmentioned exceptions, i.e., are not really about all at all. On the other hand, generic {lo} does seem to miss some of the apparent moral force of a maxim by being honest about what is covered (though possibly allowing too much).

2. Note that {ei} creates an intensional context. Within that context, however, the same rules apply as outside it, whatever they are. And, of course, maxims precisely are not derived from observation but proponded against observation (no one tells kids they ought to foregive their elders if they already do). 3. Yes, but that doesn't connect with quantifiers more than minimally; the next step — that if only one lion does it then... already is irrelevant.

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote: > =20 > >>Jorge Llamb=3DEDas wrote: >> =20 >> >>>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you? >>> =20 >>> >>I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=3D= 20 >>adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=3D20 >>*because* of it's lack of ro.=20 >> =20 >> > >Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have=20 >a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the >sentence says, with the proposed lo, is: > >"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS" > >Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to >particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20 >sentence.=20 >


1. How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri. Given that maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.


>It says nothing about how many children should do what >to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different >ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both >terms. Another way is to add tense for example: > > ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu > Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults. > > =20 > >>And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=3D20 >>be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=3D= 20 >>non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,= =3D20 >>but now I don't. >> =20 >> > >The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances. >It is simply not a statement about instances. > =20 >


2.I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other observations. 3.Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then this non-extensional claim would be false, yes?


--=20 Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20 assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal= im=20 Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing= =20 Council. They are the Prostitution Council."


Maxims are a bad plce to fight this fight

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Even generic {lo} seems to require that there are some of the things to keep from meaninglessness. But otherwise yes. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: xod: > Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > >"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS" > > > >Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to > >particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20 > >sentence.=20 > > How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that > the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri.

1.That's not how I see it. You cannot help but to use a gadri. Otherwise you can't make a sumti. All that {lo} does is turn a selbri into a sumti, it adds nothing else. If you want to add precision, you have other gadri or quantifiers for that, but using {lo} is like using {cu}, it's vacuous. You don't choose it, it's imposed by the grammar as the minimal selbri-to-sumti converter.

>Given that > maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker > avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must > conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is > incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.

The speaker did not avoid {ro}, just as when you use {cu} instead of {ca} or {pu} you are not avoiding {ca} or {pu}. You simply don't care to be that precise.

> >The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances. > >It is simply not a statement about instances. > > I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an > extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement > really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other > observations. Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then > this non-extensional claim would be false, yes?

Yes. If you know that {lo cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} you can conclude that {su'o cinfo cu kalte ca su'o nicte}. And you can also conclude that {lo cinfo su'oroi kalte ca lo nicte}.

But both statements with {su'o} are more precise than the general statement without su'o.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

A summary of where I think we are on the first step in dealing with gadri.

Up to this point, I think that {lo} has been used in at tleast the following ways. People have also tried to express many of these positions inwith other gadri � or other devices. Gadri � indeed {lo} have been used intending to express some combinations of these as well.


Lo1 � particular (CLL)


{lo broda} refers to particular identifiable broda on a particular occasion but that identification is not specified beyond {broda}. In most respects, {lo broda} is equivalent to {su�o broda}, except that it can occur in certain environments where the other is excluded with the same meaning({lo PA broda} does not mean the same as {su�o PA broda} with the same PA. {PA lo broda} means the same as {PA broda} so long as the internal quantifier does not occur. Each occurrence of {lo broda} — whether literal or with literal pronouns, may refer to different broda � like {su�o broda}. Same-reference anaphora uses such pronouns (not yet strictly determined but that is off this point) or, typically, {le broda}.

  • Officially, the internal quantifier in {lo PA broda} is the size of the set of all broda, the external quantifier {PA (lo) broda} is the number of brodas referred to on this occasion. Officially, these default to {ro} and {su�o} respectively. Some folk have frequently said that these defaults (indeed, having defaults) were more trouble than they were worth, creating extra steps in quantifier situations and the like, and so have recommended eliminating them while elaving the option of using explicit ones as needed for meaning. Some have also suggested that reports on the size of the class of broda are generally uninformative and that other uses for internal quantifiers might be found (this is often allied with other readings of {lo}).

Lo2 � generic


{lo broda} refers to unspecified (indeed unspecifiable) broda in unspecified situations. As such, quantifiers are strictly irrelevant except that {lo broda cu brode} is entailed {ro broda cu brode} and entails {su�o broda cu brode}. No number of exceptions (short of all) to {lo broda cu brode}-- broda that don�t brode or occasions when they don�t — falsify the claim but typically single instances or a few don�t establish it either. Some cases � outstanding broda � may establish it or masses may weigh against contrary outstanding cases (truth is from weight rather than number and the propounder gets to assign the weights � not that any such assignment or even checking goes on). {lo broda cu brode} makes not claim that the behavior mentioned is common, typical, normal, average, nor weird, only that it does occur. (There is an implication that it is either common or weird just because it is mentioned, but that is not asserted � and either side of the possibility may be intended.)

In general, {PA (lo) broda} reduces to the same expression using {lo1}. Lo2 seems especially asociated with the notion that {lo PA broda} should be used as a more precise version of {lo broda PAmei}, unspecifiable groups of PA broda, considered as acting distinctly from individual broda.

In a single context, repeated occurrences of {lo2 broda} may be taken to have �the same reference� so long as not too much is made of this (like insisting that some particular broda is represented in both cases). This can lead to an occasional paradox, which must then be resolved by introducing a bit more precision, but generally one ca proceed as though the reference were constant.


Lo3 � species


{lo broda} refers to the concept of broda both in the Great Semantic Web but also in factual Weaving of the World. For example, lo ractu is semantically connected to animals, gnawers, furbearing and factually to threatening Australia and overbreeding. Quantifiers play no role here at all (well, maybe PA broda hook up differently from broda tout court and so internal quantifiers might have a role). Repeated occurrences refer to the same thing, of course. The interesting question is what kinds of sentences can this expression enter into. We want to say two kinds of things about species � species kinds of things and specimen kinds. The first is that a species is a species and that it falls under such and such genera (in the broad sense, as is �species�). The second � sometimes related � is that �members� of the species have such and such properties more or less by virtue of their membership. The second involves ordinary predicates, the first involves relations like �falls under,� �is a subclass of,� �intersects with,� and the like. All of the second kind of things can be said using the first line of chat. �Rabbits are animals� and �The species Rabbit falls under the genus Animal� say much the same thing. But the first is much longer and the basic items here are much less commonly said. The the norm sems to be to use the second kind of locution, {lo ractu cu danlu} rather than {lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu} (or something along that line). When we need to talk species talk, it turns out to be as useful to talk set talk: {lo�i ractu cu klesi lo�i danlu}. This allows another advantage: we can circumvent the problem of saying of something that does not exist that it does not exist: the species always does exist so all we need to is say that it does not fall under lo zasti.

Since external quantifiers are irrelevant (there is exactly one of each species) , we can use them to refer to specimens {su�o lo ractu} behaves just like {lo ractu} with {lo1} (or {lo2 for that matter).


Lo4 � goo


{lo broda} refers to the substance of which individual broda are made. It akes fractional quantifiers for gobs of goo and perhaps (quasi Chinese) regular quantifiers for �natural� gobs. This is the least explored alternative and so there is less to say bout it. The goo is the same throughout but different gobs (explicit external quantifiers) may be different. Internal quantifiers do not seem to make much sense either way.


Obviously 2 and 3 with one another and parts of both with 1 have a lot in common. Many suggested usages seem to have started with that core and built on it toward one or the other of them but often incorporated inconsistent bits of the other. It may be that one or the other of 2 and 3 is enough (1 seems pretty clearly to be subsumable under either). It may even be that there is a form of 2 and 3 that are so indistinguishable tht we need not declare which we are using. Or we may need both and even 1 as well. 4 seems to be a separate case, not readily encompassing any other except perhaps 1.


Notice in passing that all of these are presented as observable real world notions, not � in any troublesome way �intensional.�

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

Some corrections. lo2 : {lo broda na brode} neither implies nor is implied by {lo broda naku brode}; the first fails when there are no broda, the second because of the vagueness of how many broda are required for {lo broda}. {lo broda} is also not transparent to other connectives — the contradiction problem. lo3: Whether this is transparent depends upon just what {lo broda cu brode} means: subsumption or overlap. Each has advantages. If both {lo2} and {lo3} are used, {lo3} would be subsumption, since {lo2} (and {lo1}, which is derivable from either) covers intersections better. In that case, {lo3} is transparent to all and, indeed, behaves like a constant (which it is, after all).

To the proposal: I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates, probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for "median" and maybe {fadni} or a compound for "mode."

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

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

pc: > To the proposal: > I do not now think that median and mode need their own gadri, since they are > real things and so can be handled using {le} and some suitable predicates, > probably {midju} or a lujvo on it for "median" and maybe {fadni} or a > compound for "mode."

{midju} works for naturally ordered sets:

li re cu midju li pa ce li re ce li ci 2 is in the middle (is the median) of set {1,2,3}.

But for unordered sets it is less clear:

la djan cu midju lo'i prenu John is in the middle of the set of persons.

Without an ordering for the set of persons, the above does not seem to make sense. I guess {midju} centrally refers to spatial position, but even then for people distributed over the surface of the globe that is not much help.

We could use {midju} with an added {sepo'i} term:

la djan cu midju lo'i prenu sepo'i lo ka ce'u nanca makau John is the median of the set of persons when ordered by how old they are.

The mode makes sense for sets that can have repeated members. The mode of {1,3,4,4,4} is 4. Maybe we could use {rapraicmi}, "x1 is the most repeated member of x2" for this:

li vo cu rapraicmi li pa ce li ci ce li vo ce li vo ce li vo 4 is the mode (most repeated member) of {1,3,4,4,4}.

{fadni} would be closer to something like: "x1 is a member of x3 whose value by x2 is the mode", but I think it has to be a very significant mode for fadni to work. For example, Chinese people are the ones who have the modal value of nationality among humans, but I'm not sure I would want to say that all Chinese and only the Chinese are fadni in nationality. Perhaps a relativised {fadrai}, "most typical", would work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Posted by PierreAbbat on Wed 02 of June, 2004 04:29 GMT posts: 324

MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes: 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense. 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 09:44 GMT

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: gadri > MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like. > > I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes: > 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense. > 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.

If you look at what the actual definition of {lo} is in XS, and not the weird-ass metaphysical discussions going on about it, you'll find that it's very reasonable: {lo} converts a selbri to a sumti without implying anything else.

Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro ze bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes. -- Rob Speer

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

Posted by Anonymous on Wed 02 of June, 2004 14:47 GMT

pier: > MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

Don't worry about it. The definitions on the page should stand on their own.

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes: > 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that > exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so > it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in > the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group > of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires > {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

It seems to me that the use of inner quantifiers you propose is only slightly less rarely needed than the current one. Perhaps you could give some examples (preferably natural sounding) of how it would be used.

> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not > exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji > jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't > removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be > kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its > x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact > exist, say {da'inai}.

I have no problem with {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. As far as I'm concerned that's perfectly fine with the proposed {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

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

Edit Delete