Talk:BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
So it seems to me that BAI are just grunt work. With a few notable exceptions, like va'o, there's really nothing interesting about them.
I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are just those two cases.
My initial suggestion for the first case:
- bai (BAI)
- Compelled by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of bapli. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra place with the meaning of the first place of bapli, and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the action described by the bridi was forced by or compelled by the force that is the tagged sumti.
I am rather concerned about the BAI NAI case, because the causals use "despite" and "nevertheless", but the only two non-causal cases are utterly different:
semaunai — not more than
seme'anai — not less than
This is *very* different from:
ri'anai — despite cause
The former seem to mean "BAI + NAI lo broda" == "BAI lo na broda", but the latter seems to be something more like "BAI + NAI" == "BAI + ku'i".
The two cases above make *much* more sense with what NAI is supposed to mean, but would break the "despite" cases entirely if followed as a general rule.
I can't make "despite" in my mind mean the same thing as "not caused by", which is what it seems that "ri'a nai" should mean.
Suggestions?
-Robin
Robin: > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI.
I'd like a general template for all tags, not just BAIs, along the lines of the one I propose in BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants
> I am rather concerned about the BAI NAI case, because the causals use > "despite" > and "nevertheless", but the only two non-causal cases are utterly different: > > semaunai — not more than > > seme'anai — not less than > > This is *very* different from: > > ri'anai — despite cause > > The former seem to mean "BAI + NAI lo broda" == "BAI lo na broda", but the > latter seems to be something more like "BAI + NAI" == "BAI + ku'i". > > The two cases above make *much* more sense with what NAI is supposed to mean, > but would break the "despite" cases entirely if followed as a general rule. > > I can't make "despite" in my mind mean the same thing as "not caused by", > which > is what it seems that "ri'a nai" should mean. > > Suggestions?
Every BAI can be written as {fi'o broda} for some suitable broda. (This can be extended to every tag, but in the case of BAIs the broda is always already given.)
For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find the corresponding {broda}.
mau = fi'o zmadu maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2") ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't prevent x2")
{rinka} and {fanta} are also somewhat related by negation:
ko'a fanta lo nu broda = ko'a rinka lo nu na broda
So {ri'anai} = {fi'o na'e fanta} is not completely illogical, but it is somewhat weird, because it takes two negations to go from "because of" to "in spite of". They are in fact the dual of each other, but {nai} is not usually used to get the dual.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:25:10AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Robin: > > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for > > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. > > I'd like a general template for all tags, not just BAIs, along the > lines of the one I propose in > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants >
That's not quite the kind of template I meant, but that's helpful.
Why the jai?
Don't you mean fi'o selbri1 fe'u *ku* in the first case?
[the problem of ri'a nai vs. mau nai] > Every BAI can be written as {fi'o broda} for some suitable broda. > (This can be extended to every tag, but in the case of BAIs the > broda is always already given.)
> For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find the corresponding > {broda}. > > mau = fi'o zmadu > maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu > > ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2") > ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't prevent x2")
Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a pattern*. I'd like to be able to make a general statement about what BAI+NAI means, but I can't.
-Robin
> > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants > > >
> > That's not quite the kind of template I meant, but that's helpful. > > Why the jai?
Because in general we don't know in which place of selbri1 the main bridi will fall. For example, consider {se pi'o}, i.e. {fi'o se pilno}. We want {broda fi'o se pilno ko'a} to be {ko'a se pilno fi lo nu broda}. I write this as {lo nu broda cu jai se pilno fai ko'a} which puts ko'a in the x2 of pilno and {lo nu broda} in some place of {pilno}.
> Don't you mean fi'o selbri1 fe'u *ku* in the first case?
Both will work. Without {ku} the tag is directly on the selbri, and with {ku} it is in the place of a term, but the meaning is the same, at least when there are no other intervening terms.
> > For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find the corresponding > > {broda}. > > > > mau = fi'o zmadu > > maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu > > > > ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2") > > ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't prevent x2") > > Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a pattern*. I'd like to > be able to make a general statement about what BAI+NAI means, but I > can't.
Right. That's just to show where the pattern breaks down. The only kind of general statement you can make is something like "NAI changes the0 underlying selbri of the tag into a selbri that is somehow opposite to the original".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 06:17:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants > > > > > > > > > > That's not quite the kind of template I meant, but that's > > helpful. > > > > Why the jai? > > Because in general we don't know in which place of selbri1 the > main bridi will fall. For example, consider {se pi'o}, i.e. {fi'o > se pilno}. We want {broda fi'o se pilno ko'a} to be {ko'a se pilno > fi lo nu broda}. I write this as {lo nu broda cu jai se pilno > fai ko'a} which puts ko'a in the x2 of pilno and {lo nu broda} in > some place of {pilno}.
That's a good point, but it is not what "jai selbri" means.
ko'a cu jai selbri == tu'a ko'a cu selbri
See Chapter 11. something-to-do-with ko'a is in the x1 place of selbri in either case, unless I'm very badly mis-reading something.
For what you want, I suggest {fa xi zo'e}.
-Robin
wrote:
> > > > For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find > the corresponding > > > {broda}. > > > > > > mau = fi'o zmadu > > > maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu > > > > > > ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2") > > > ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't > prevent x2") > > robin: > > Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a > pattern*. I'd like to > > be able to make a general statement about > what BAI+NAI means, but I > > can't. > > Right. That's just to show where the pattern > breaks down. > The only kind of general statement you can make > is > something like "NAI changes the0 underlying > selbri of the > tag into a selbri that is somehow opposite to > the original". > The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to be "would have caused the opposite {na'e} or {to'e} but failed" This seems to derive pragmatically from "is not the cause of." Ask why someone would mention a non-cause for something that happens. One possibility is that it could be a cause but is not in this case either because it did not occur to be a cause or because, though it occurred, the event was differently caused. We would only use the first case if the sumti here were so usual and expected a cause as to set a case without it apart. But then the significant way to convey this information is simply that that event did not occur — maybe with an "even though." The causal aspect is needless information for the assumed cooperative interlocutor to give. The second — the causal event did occur but did not function causally in this case — is saying more than we can guarantee generally: if a potential cause is present, how are we to be sure it was not efficacious, even if there are other adequate causes around? This leaves the possibility that it is not the sort of thing that could be a cause. In which case, why mention it? The most likely answer would seem to be that it is present and that it is generally a cause of an event incompatible with what actually occurred. So, even though a cause of not-a was present, a managed to occur.
On the other hand, you might just notice that these definitions were made by old-time Lojbanists, folks in the tradition of JCB, whose sensitivity to the nuances of word ranks up there with Mrs. Malaprop, James Fennimore Cooper, and the Duke of Bilgewater. That is, even though they pointed to the third case above, they meant the second or even the first, which fit into the pattern without calculation.
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 06:17:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants >
> > > > > > Why the jai? > > > > Because in general we don't know in which place of selbri1 the > > main bridi will fall. For example, consider {se pi'o}, i.e. {fi'o > > se pilno}. We want {broda fi'o se pilno ko'a} to be {ko'a se pilno > > fi lo nu broda}. I write this as {lo nu broda cu jai se pilno > > fai ko'a} which puts ko'a in the x2 of pilno and {lo nu broda} in > > some place of {pilno}. > > That's a good point, but it is not what "jai selbri" means.
It's close enough.
In {jai tag selbri}, {jai tag} works like a SE that brings the tag place to x1 and sends the x1 to the fai-place.
In {jai selbri}, the x1 is sent to the fai-place and some unspecified place is brought to x1.
> ko'a cu jai selbri == tu'a ko'a cu selbri
That's a special case. In general:
ko'a jai broda fai ko'e == ko'e broda fai ko'a
> For what you want, I suggest {fa xi zo'e}.
{xi no'o} maybe. That may not work for every broda though. For example {ka'a} is based on {klama}, which doesn't have a place for the event, so in this case we do need to introduce some new unnumbered place
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
pc: > The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to be > "would have caused the opposite {na'e} or {to'e} > but failed"
i.e. "...did not prevent..."
X causes Y == Y because of X X doesn't-prevent Y == Y despite X
> This seems to derive pragmatically > from "is not the cause of."
In the same sense in which "some don't" derives pragmatically from "some do".
But there is a more interesting direct relationship. "because" and "despite" are duals: because = NOT despite NOT despite = NOT because NOT
> Ask why someone > would mention a non-cause for something that > happens.
Perhaps because it may seem like a possible cause? "I went not-because she asked me to" (She didn't in fact ask me to go, you may think that I would only go if she asked me to, but in fact I went because I wanted, so not-because she asked.
> One possibility is that it could be a > cause but is not in this case either because it > did not occur to be a cause or because, though it > occurred, the event was differently caused. We > would only use the first case if the sumti here > were so usual and expected a cause as to set a > case without it apart.
Right. That would be the normal usage, I would think.
> But then the significant > way to convey this information is simply that > that event did not occur — maybe with an "even > though."
Not sure why that would be _the_ significant way, but it would be another way, yes.
> The causal aspect is needless > information for the assumed cooperative > interlocutor to give. The second — the causal > event did occur but did not function causally in > this case — is saying more than we can guarantee > generally: if a potential cause is present, how > are we to be sure it was not efficacious, even if > there are other adequate causes around? This > leaves the possibility that it is not the sort of > thing that could be a cause. In which case, why > mention it? The most likely answer would seem to > be that it is present and that it is generally a > cause of an event incompatible with what actually > occurred. So, even though a cause of not-a was > present, a managed to occur.
That seems very convoluted.
> On the other hand, you might just notice that > these definitions were made by old-time > Lojbanists, folks in the tradition of JCB, whose > sensitivity to the nuances of word ranks up there > with Mrs. Malaprop, James Fennimore Cooper, and > the Duke of Bilgewater. That is, even though > they pointed to the third case above, they meant > the second or even the first, which fit into the > pattern without calculation.
- "Despite" should derive from a BAI based on
{fanta}, but there is no such BAI.
- "Despite" is probably needed more often than
"not-because".
- "Despite" is "not-because not"
All that probably conspired to define {ri'anai} and the others as "despite".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
wrote:
> > pc: > > The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to > be > > "would have caused the opposite {na'e} or > {to'e} > > but failed" > > i.e. "...did not prevent..." > > X causes Y == Y because of X > X doesn't-prevent Y == Y despite X > > > This seems to derive pragmatically > > from "is not the cause of." > > In the same sense in which "some don't" derives > pragmatically from "some do". > > But there is a more interesting direct > relationship. > "because" and "despite" are duals: > because = NOT despite NOT > despite = NOT because NOT
This is not exactly right. It is not the absence of the cause that generates despite, but rather its presence without effect. If the potential cause did not occur, we might say "not z (namely y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. But we wouldn't say despite, since that requires (even etymologically) x to be around to be overriden or whatever it is. (The fact that "not z because not x" where x is a cause of z is also bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary cause of z — does contribute to this not quite working as well.)
As for the convoluted nature of the rest of the derivation, that is what pragmatic derivations generally look like, requiring as they do looking into unasked and often barely answerable questions about intentions and the like -- mysterious creatures all.
pc: > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > But there is a more interesting direct > > relationship. > > "because" and "despite" are duals: > > because = NOT despite NOT > > despite = NOT because NOT > > This is not exactly right. It is not the absence > of the cause that generates despite, but rather > its presence without effect.
It is not the absence of the cause, and I never said it was. I said it is the absence of the prevention.
X prevents Y = X causes not Y
X does not prevent Y = Y despite X
> If the potential > cause did not occur, we might say "not z (namely > y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. But > we wouldn't say despite, since that requires > (even etymologically) x to be around to be > overriden or whatever it is.
And I never said we would.
> (The fact that "not > z because not x" where x is a cause of z is also > bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary > cause of z — does contribute to this not quite > working as well.)
Right, but it doesn't address my point.
> As for the convoluted nature of the rest of the > derivation, that is what pragmatic derivations > generally look like, requiring as they do looking > into unasked and often barely answerable > questions about intentions and the like -- > mysterious creatures all.
"Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. It is simply the dual of "because". Not its negation!
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
wrote:
> > pc: > > --- Jorge Llambías > > > wrote: > > > But there is a more interesting direct > > > relationship. > > > "because" and "despite" are duals: > > > because = NOT despite NOT > > > despite = NOT because NOT > > > > This is not exactly right. It is not the > absence > > of the cause that generates despite, but > rather > > its presence without effect. > > It is not the absence of the cause, and I never > said > it was. I said it is the absence of the > prevention. > > X prevents Y = X causes not Y > > X does not prevent Y = Y despite X
I seem to have misread your abbreviated notation; I took "not because not" to man "not y because not x," i.e., "not x cause not y." Now I am not sure what it means:apparently "it is not the case that x causes not y."
> > If the potential > > cause did not occur, we might say "not z > (namely > > y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. > But > > we wouldn't say despite, since that requires > > (even etymologically) x to be around to be > > overriden or whatever it is. > > And I never said we would. > > > (The fact that "not > > z because not x" where x is a cause of z is > also > > bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary > > cause of z — does contribute to this not > quite > > working as well.) > > Right, but it doesn't address my point. > > > As for the convoluted nature of the rest of > the > > derivation, that is what pragmatic > derivations > > generally look like, requiring as they do > looking > > into unasked and often barely answerable > > questions about intentions and the like -- > > mysterious creatures all. > > "Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to > me. It > is simply the dual of "because". Not its > negation! > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > > >
wrote:
> > pc: > > --- Jorge Llambías > > > wrote: > > > But there is a more interesting direct > > > relationship. > > > "because" and "despite" are duals: > > > because = NOT despite NOT > > > despite = NOT because NOT > > > > This is not exactly right. It is not the > absence > > of the cause that generates despite, but > rather > > its presence without effect. > > It is not the absence of the cause, and I never > said > it was. I said it is the absence of the > prevention. > > X prevents Y = X causes not Y > > X does not prevent Y = Y despite X
Apparently I misread your abbreviated notation so that you appeared to say it was the absence of the cause; mentioning prevention (which you did not) would have helped a bit. I read "not because not" as "not y because not x," i.e., "not x causes not y" (plus not x and not y, of course). Apparently you meant "It is not the case that x causes not y" (plus x and y). The parentheses are important here, else we get just the denial of a causal claim which opens a number of possibilities, none of them relevant to "despite." But with them, "despite" is not quite the dual of "because" since the part here parenthesized remains the same.
> > If the potential > > cause did not occur, we might say "not z > (namely > > y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. > But > > we wouldn't say despite, since that requires > > (even etymologically) x to be around to be > > overriden or whatever it is. > > And I never said we would. > > > (The fact that "not > > z because not x" where x is a cause of z is > also > > bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary > > cause of z — does contribute to this not > quite > > working as well.) > > Right, but it doesn't address my point. > > > As for the convoluted nature of the rest of > the > > derivation, that is what pragmatic > derivations > > generally look like, requiring as they do > looking > > into unasked and often barely answerable > > questions about intentions and the like -- > > mysterious creatures all. > > "Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to > me. It > is simply the dual of "because". Not its > negation! > And I, of course, never said it was the negation of "because," merely that there was a case to be made — however tenuously — for reading {ri'a nai} as "despite." It is still not clear what {ri'a nai} ought to mean in some systematic way; the notes on {nai} talk only about some relevant negative notion, where "not that x causes" and "not-x causes" and even "x causes not-" are possible (and — since the various negations collapse at this point — "not" in any of several senses). Cases can be found in the accepted vocabulary for each of these patterns, I think, so analogy alone is not obviously going to solve this issue. We need also t0o consider which of these possibilities is most likely to be intended and used. And then "despite" seems to me to be a contender.
pc: > It is still not clear what > {ri'a nai} ought to mean in some systematic way; > the notes on {nai} talk only about some relevant > negative notion, where "not that x causes" and > "not-x causes" and even "x causes not-" are > possible (and — since the various negations > collapse at this point — "not" in any of several > senses).
(1) "not that x causes" would be the obvious first choice. (2) "x causes not-" (i.e. "x prevents") I can see as a possible choice. (3) "not-x causes" seems extremely unlikely, because here {nai} would not really be affecting {ri'a} but its complement.
None of those, however, give "despite". "Despite" would require:
(4) "not that x causes not-", i.e. a double negative from a single {nai}.
> Cases can be found in the accepted > vocabulary for each of these patterns, I think, > so analogy alone is not obviously going to solve > this issue.
I can find many cases analogous to (1) or (2). I can't find any analogous to (3) and only the ri'anai/ki'unai/mu'inai series for (4).
> We need also t0o consider which of > these possibilities is most likely to be intended > and used. And then "despite" seems to me to be a contender.
There's that, and there's also the usage history.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
> (1) "not that x causes" would be the obvious first choice. > (2) "x causes not-" (i.e. "x prevents") I can see as a > possible choice. > (3) "not-x causes" seems extremely unlikely, because here > {nai} would not really be affecting {ri'a} but its > complement. > (4) "not that x causes not-", i.e. a double negative > from a single {nai}. > > I can find many cases analogous to (1) or (2). > I can't find any analogous to (3) and only the > ri'anai/ki'unai/mu'inai series for (4).
I missed the obvious cases analogous to (3): logical connectives. In {enai}, {nai} does not negate {e} but one of its arguments.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 [email protected] wrote:
> I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are just > those two cases.
I am of the reductionist opinion that dictionary entries for sequences = of=20 multiple words, such as as SE BAI, BAI NAI, and SE BAI NAI (which you h= ave=20 in BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita should be avoided. The meaning = of=20
- any* word sequence should be deduceable from either the CLL, or the=20
definitions of one of the cmavo. So, what I suggest is for the BAI=20 template to contain descriptions of swapped places and negations.=20 Something like this:
If preceded by "se", tags a sumti as fitting the 2nd place of rinka= =2E If followed by "nai", tags a sumti as not fitting the 2nd place of rin= ka or whatever you agreed that it meant.
If this gets too gnarly/unwieldly, I'm willing to keep the multi-word=20 dictionary entries.
--=20 Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org= / Leser =ABCatcher in the Rye=BB. Skal bli fint =E5 bli ferdig med den s=E5= jeg f=E5r litt mer dopapir. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpo= len
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:27:51PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 [email protected] wrote: > > > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for > > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are > > just those two cases. > > I am of the reductionist opinion that dictionary entries for > sequences of multiple words, such as as SE BAI, BAI NAI, and SE > BAI NAI (which you have in BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita > should be avoided. The meaning of *any* word sequence should be > deduceable from either the CLL, or the definitions of one of the > cmavo.
In theory, but in practice explaining what {te pu'e} or {te ta'i} means is rather difficult, and doing so is easier if it's a seperate entry.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:27:51PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen > wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for > > > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are > > > just those two cases. > > > > I am of the reductionist opinion that dictionary entries for > > sequences of multiple words, such as as SE BAI, BAI NAI, and SE > > BAI NAI (which you have in BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita > > should be avoided. The meaning of *any* word sequence should be > > deduceable from either the CLL, or the definitions of one of the > > cmavo. > > In theory, but in practice explaining what {te pu'e} or {te ta'i} > means is rather difficult, and doing so is easier if it's a seperate > entry.
It seems we are dealing with two different issues:
(1) Should the meaning of SE BAI NAI be deduceable from the meanings of its components, or could it have a fixed idiomatic meaning that is only more or less related to the meanings of the components?
(2) Should compounds such as SE BAI NAI be listed as separate entries?
The two issues are independent. We could have strictly deduceable meanings listed under the same BAI entry or under a separate entry, and we could have idiomatic meanings listed under the same BAI entry or under a separate entry.
I think we should have deduceable meanings as much as possible. Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to the dictionary editor.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
> It seems we are dealing with two different issues: > > (1) Should the meaning of SE BAI NAI be deduceable from the > meanings of its components, or could it have a fixed idiomatic > meaning that is only more or less related to the meanings of > the components?
I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from the meanin= gs=20 of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free as possible; preferab= ly=20 completely idiom-free.
> (2) Should compounds such as SE BAI NAI be listed as separate > entries? > > ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to > the dictionary editor.
Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the responsibili= ty=20 of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to decide. And we should deci= de=20 now, so that BAI sections can be as uniform as possible.
My opinion on this is not very strong; however I think that everything=20 related to one BAI cmavo should go in one place. While there are practi= cal=20 disadvantages with readability, there are also practical *advantages* i= n=20 that the user does not have to read through several different entries.
Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable cmavo=20 compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there is a risk tha= t=20 the user sees a separate dictionary entry as implicating an idiomatic=20 meaning.
--=20 Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org= / The names of a species, empire, language, homeworld, homestar and so on will all be self-evidently related; Ogrons come from Ogros, Arisians come from Arisia, Arcturans come from Arcturus, and Humans no doubt come from Humus. --Justin B. Rye in A Primer In SF Xenolinguistic= s
> > I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from > the meanings of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free > as possible; preferably completely idiom-free.
I agree. I don't know if we can achieve that (conservative forces are strong, and some idioms are very entrenched) but we certainly should aim for that goal.
> > ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to
> > the dictionary editor.
>
> Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the
> responsibility of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to
> decide. And we should decide now, so that BAI sections can be
> as uniform as possible.
I'm not sure the BPFK should be that concerned with the presentation format. The content of the definitions is really what matters.
.... > Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable > cmavo compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there > is a risk that the user sees a separate dictionary entry as > implicating an idiomatic meaning.
Also, there is the question of which compounds to include. Why would {ki'u nai} be there but {bau nai} not, for example. So I tend to agree with you, but I don't think it matters much one way or the other. A compromise might be to make the entries separate but mark them as sub-entries of a head word. That way when the dictionary is published it can be decided how best to present them.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:42:42PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > > > I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from the > > meanings of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free as > > possible; preferably completely idiom-free. > > I agree. I don't know if we can achieve that (conservative forces > are strong, and some idioms are very entrenched) but we certainly > should aim for that goal.
I absolutely agree.
> > > ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up > > > to the dictionary editor. > > > > Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the > > responsibility of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to > > decide. And we should decide now, so that BAI sections can be as > > uniform as possible. > > I'm not sure the BPFK should be that concerned with the > presentation format. The content of the definitions is really what > matters.
How's this:
As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to the contrary exists.
Let's hear it for arbitrary use of power. :-)
> > Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable > > cmavo compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there > > is a risk that the user sees a separate dictionary entry as > > implicating an idiomatic meaning. > > Also, there is the question of which compounds to include. Why > would {ki'u nai} be there but {bau nai} not, for example.
Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on.
-Robin
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo > that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to > the contrary exists.
Compound cmavo, however, are not cmavo. When the cmaste was designed, the intention was to include a sprinkling of frequently used compounds,
- not* that the particular compounds chosen were themselves magic.
Exception: the UI ru'e and UI nai compounds.
> Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what > BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally > include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on.
CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just contradictory negation.
-- John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." --Hal Abelson
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:02:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all > > cmavo that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling > > reason to the contrary exists. > > Compound cmavo, however, are not cmavo.
Pbbbbbt.
"any word in the ma'oste", then.
> When the cmaste
small list?
> was designed, the intention was to include a sprinkling of > frequently used compounds, *not* that the particular compounds > chosen were themselves magic. Exception: the UI ru'e and UI nai > compounds.
> > Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what > > BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally > > include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide > > on. > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just > contradictory negation.
I'm not sure what *that* means, though.
{mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go, though I want to"?
-Robin
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo > > that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to > > the contrary exists. > > Compound cmavo, however, are not cmavo. When the cmaste was designed, > the intention was to include a sprinkling of frequently used compounds, > *not* that the particular compounds chosen were themselves magic. > Exception: the UI ru'e and UI nai compounds.
An example of a compound cmavo in the ma'oste that we definitely don't want to define separately is {sozepimu}.
> > Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what > > BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally > > include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on. > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just contradictory > negation.
That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:02:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just > > contradictory negation. > > I'm not sure what *that* means, though. > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want > to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go, > though I want to"?
lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama My liking is not the motivation of my going.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
> > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just contradictory > > negation. > > That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if > BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA
Actually, it defines punai as na pu, so baunai would be na bau. Now if bau ku means bau zo'e, then baunai ko'a would be bau ko'a...na. I don't say this is *useful*, but it is what precedent says.
/me hates -nai.
-- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash, The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!" It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall, But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall. --The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> > When the cmaste > > small list?
Old rafsi, I think.
> {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want > to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go, > though I want to"?
I read it as "It is false that (I go because I want to)"; exactly where the part that makes it false is, is not given.
-- Do what you will, John Cowan this Life's a Fiction [email protected] And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> > That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if > > BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA > > Actually, it defines punai as na pu, so baunai would be na bau. Now > if bau ku means bau zo'e, then baunai ko'a would be bau ko'a...na. > I don't say this is *useful*, but it is what precedent says.
That's what {fi'o na broda} amounts to when you do all the transformations, at least in the basic case:
fi'o na broda ko'a brode = ko'a na broda fai lo nu brode = naku zo'u ko'a broda fai lo nu brode = naku zo'u fi'o broda ko'a brode
It will be a bit more complicated when quantifiers and connectives are involved, but CLL doesn't mention any interaction with them, so precedent is not a problem there.
> /me hates -nai.
I think -nai is a neat and compact way of doing some negations. It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar it has.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
> I think -nai is a neat and compact way of doing some negations.
True.
> It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar > it has.
I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable, and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.
-- John Cowan [email protected] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo
> Jorge Llamb�as scripsit: > > > It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar > > it has. > > I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable, > and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.
The most obvious meaning for {nu nai} is {na nu}. That's hardly ever useful, but it is perfectly well defined. I don't want to extend the grammar of NAI because the new constructs would be necessarily useful (some of them might be, most probably not) but because it reduces the complexity of the grammar. Given that {nai} really forms a set with {cu'i}, {ru'e}, {sai}, {cai}, it is hard to understand why it has a more restrictive grammar.
There are other words that produce far more unexplainable constructs and nobody worries about them. I am willing to go over every selmaho and produce a plausible meaning for the NAI construction. I already did it for many of them in a similar discussion I had with Jordan some months ago.
One thing I would gladly eliminate are connected NUs though. They are never used and their meaning is hard to determine. The set of things that can be connected is quite reduced: sentences, bridi-tails, sumti, tanru-units, operators, operands, tags and NUs. Clearly NUs are out of place in that list since they are basically structure words. It would be similar if we allowed connected LEs, for example.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:12:46PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb???as scripsit: > > > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just > > > contradictory negation. > > > > That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if > > BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA > > Actually, it defines punai as na pu, so baunai would be na bau.
If that was grammatical, which it's not.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:24:03PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't > > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I > > don't go, though I want to"? > > I read it as "It is false that (I go because I want to)"; exactly > where the part that makes it false is, is not given.
Ummm.
So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is equivalent to {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}?
That seems like a *bad* idea to me.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Robin Powell scripsit:
> So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is equivalent to > {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}? > > That seems like a *bad* idea to me.
- shrug*
It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact that "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", an identity which has held since Loglan days.
-- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [email protected] We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. --Samuel Gompers
On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want > to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go, > though I want to"?
"I go, but not because I want to." "I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama mu'inai o nu mi na nelci". "I go, it is not the case that I want to" is "mi klama .i mi na nelci", if I understand you right. "I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci" or "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci kei naku".
phma -- li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
On Monday 22 November 2004 23:44, John Cowan wrote: > I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable, > and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.
NU NAI, AFAICT, is intended for constructions such as {jalge le ninai je jei do dunda}, "It depends on whether you give, not how much".
phma -- li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
> Robin Powell scripsit: > > > So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is > equivalent to > > {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}? > > > > That seems like a *bad* idea to me. > > *shrug* > > It's the only interpretation that's consistent > with the fact that > "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama > .ije mi ca klama", > an identity which has held since Loglan days.
But it can at least be plausibly argued that the {nai} in this is tied semantically to the {je}, not to the {pu}, whatever the grammar says (and regardless of the claim it should then be {na}). {punai} by itself doesn't seem to occur, but looks like "at some present or futuree time if at all."
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 06:42:24PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:02:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just > > > contradictory negation. > > > > I'm not sure what *that* means, though. > > > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want > > to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go, > > though I want to"? > > lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama > My liking is not the motivation of my going.
See, the problem with that (and it's a serious problem) is that in makes the event of my going non-veridical.
Perhaps we could make it a sentence connection?
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 08:29:16AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Powell scripsit: > > > So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is equivalent to > > {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}? > > > > That seems like a *bad* idea to me. > > *shrug* > > It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact that > "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", an > identity which has held since Loglan days.
Those are *VERY* different.
The {mu'i} one reduces the main bridi to a non-veridical status.
-Robin
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> > It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact that > > "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", an > > identity which has held since Loglan days. > > Those are *VERY* different. > > The {mu'i} one reduces the main bridi to a non-veridical status.
Well, so does the punai one. I'm trying to keep it consistent.
-- "While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan the Candensian plane, which is very much like [email protected] ours, only more of it consists of Toronto." http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan --Ursula K. Le Guin, Changing Planes
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 03:32:09PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > > It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact > > > that "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca > > > klama", an identity which has held since Loglan days. > > > > Those are *VERY* different. > > > > The {mu'i} one reduces the main bridi to a non-veridical status. > > Well, so does the punai one.
It most certainly does *not*.
{naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama}
definately still means that I ca klama. It's a seperate sentence, and sentences are veridical.
The version you snipped for BAI+NAI relegated the original bridi to a {lo nu} clause, which are, IIRC, *not* veridical.
It's a radical difference.
-Robin
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> {naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama} > > definately still means that I ca klama. It's a seperate sentence, > and sentences are veridical.
Oh, I see, I skipped a step. If "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", then it follows that "mi punai klama" means "naku mi pu klama", that's obvious.
I further claim that "mi punai la linuxepok. klama" means "It's false that I went (there) before 1970-01-01T12:00:00 UTC", and finally that "mi punai lo nu mi jbena kei klama" means "It's false that I went (there) before the event of my birth".
> The version you snipped for BAI+NAI relegated the original bridi to > a {lo nu} clause, which are, IIRC, *not* veridical.
Correct. But under negation *nothing* is veridical. I'm simply claiming that "BAI nai" is equivalent to "naku ... BAI". IOW, "mi citka mu'inai lo nu mi xagji" can mean that I don't eat at all, or merely that hunger isn't the motivation for my eating: the contradictory negation leaves it vague.
-- It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held way in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers. --"The Passage of the Marshes" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 06:42:24PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} > > > > lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama > > My liking is not the motivation of my going. > > See, the problem with that (and it's a serious problem) is that in > makes the event of my going non-veridical. > > Perhaps we could make it a sentence connection?
We can: {mi klama i mu'i nai bo mi nelci}. But that doesn't advance us much WRT what {nai} does there.
If you prefer, we could say:
mi klama ije lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama
I don't think we have the realis/irrealis event distinction well sorted out, though. Main bridi don't always describe realis events, and I don't see why subordinate bridi can't be realis in some cases. In any case, I'm not at this point advancing any suggestions one way or the other. (I prefer to leave the term "veridical" for descriptions. We can have a veridical description of an irrealis event, and a non-veridical description of a realis event, as well as the other way.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 14:07, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > See, the problem with that (and it's a serious problem) is that in > makes the event of my going non-veridical. > > Perhaps we could make it a sentence connection?
What about {secau} as a sentence connection? In {ko'a cliva .isecaubo mi djuno}, do I necessarily know that she left (even if I didn't know it at the time)? Do I have to say {mi da'i djuno} if I never find out?
phma -- li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
Pierre Abbat scripsit:
> What about {secau} as a sentence connection? In {ko'a cliva .isecaubo mi > djuno}, do I necessarily know that she left (even if I didn't know it at the > time)? Do I have to say {mi da'i djuno} if I never find out?
Modal sentence connections assert both sentences. Although "cau" is semantically negative, in Lojban it's treated as a positive.
-- John Cowan [email protected] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra
> What about {secau} as a sentence connection? In {ko'a cliva .isecaubo mi > djuno}, do I necessarily know that she left (even if I didn't know it at the > time)? Do I have to say {mi da'i djuno} if I never find out?
If you never find out, it's hard to understand why you would say that sentence at all. A better example might be {mi cliva isecaubo ko'a djuno la'e di'u}.
If {ju'a} is assumed for both sentences, then it doesn't seem to make much sense. I leave, she knows it, and my leaving lacks her knowing it?
Although {ju'a} is often the intended mood for an unmarked utterance, I don't think we should stipulate that in the absence of any mood marker we _must_ assume {ju'a}. I'd rather allow context to be able to override that.
But better say {mi cliva secau lo nu ko'a djuno}, just in case.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:28:50AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't > > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I > > don't go, though I want to"? > > "I go, but not because I want to."
Agreed.
> "I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi na > nelci".
No, that Lojban is "I go, but not because I don't want to", which is kind of non-sensical. "I go, although I don't want to" is "despite", and is much, much harder than that.
> "I go, it is not the case that I want to" is "mi klama .i mi na > nelci", if I understand you right.
That's kind of trivial, but yeah.
> "I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e klama mu'inai lo nu mi > nelci" or "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci kei naku".
Nope, that's "despite" again. Yours says "I other-than go, but not because I want to" (was there something wrong with "na"??) and "I go, but not because I want to" (na ku at the end dose nothing, IIRC).
I'm piggybacking on this for a mini-essay on the topic I wrote this morning. It turns out that "despite" is a rather complicated concept.
I'm working from point-form notes here, so my apologies if it stinks.
We basically have five cases to cover: cause, prevent, does not cause, despite with occurence, and despite without occurence. That last is what is normally meant by "despite". The second-last is what people have been treating "despite" to mean.
lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu na Y == X/not-X causes not-Y == X/not-X prevents Y
lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu ja'a Y == X/not-X causes Y
lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == X does not cause Y
lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu na Y == X does not prevent Y == Y may or may not occur, but it's despite X == despite without occurence
Y .i je lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == Y occurs, and X does not prevent it == despite with occurence (because "lo nu" clauses are irrealis).
Now, some of these are fairly easy to translate into BAI style. "cause" is just {ri'a}. "does not cause" is just {ri'a nai}.
"prevent" is harder, assuming you want to use {ri'a} and not {se ri'a} because you have to negate the main bridi, so the BAI alone can't do it.
na Y ri'a lo nu ja'a/na X == X prevents Y
I see no way to do despite-without-occurence with BAI tags.
So far as I can tell, despite cannot be done using BAI tags alone, at all. The best I have for "despite with occurence" (who cares about without??) is
X do'e lo nu Y na rinka lo nu na no'a
This could also be done with va'o.
I find it a bit unsatisfying, so here's another option:
Suppose we allow:
lo nu X to'e rinka lo nu Y == X prevents Y == lo nu X cu rinka lo nu na Y
This means that Y to'e ri'a X == na Y ri'a X, which is definately a bit wierd because you have a BAI clause invalidating the main bridi, but I can't imagine another use for "to'e rinka", so maybe it's not so bad.
Then we can do:
lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs, and it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X
-Robin
> Then we can do: > > lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs, and > it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X
Yes, that's the same form I reached here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/23441
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
While I am glad that this mess is settling down, the whole dispute seems to me to be based on a false assumption, namely that there is some fixed connection between BAI and heuristically noted BRIVLA. this assumption means that frequently usedc notions are hard to formulate and rare (typically never used) ones are easy. The loose association approach — essentially that of CLL -- makes sure the ones we use get in and ignores the other possibilities. Of course it means we have to know what we are saying before we say it but that is merely normal in natural languages and usual in constructed ones.
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:28:50AM -0500, > Pierre Abbat wrote: > > On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee > Powell wrote: > > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I > go, although I don't > > > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that > I want to", or "I > > > don't go, though I want to"? > > > > "I go, but not because I want to." > > Agreed.
Here is a case of a rare construction with an easy format. Maybe not really rare but probably less common than "despite" (the CLL gloss).
> > "I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama > mu'inai lo nu mi na > > nelci". > > No, that Lojban is "I go, but not because I > don't want to", which is > kind of non-sensical. "I go, although I don't > want to" is > "despite", and is much, much harder than that. > > > "I go, it is not the case that I want to" is > "mi klama .i mi na > > nelci", if I understand you right. > > That's kind of trivial, but yeah. > > > "I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e > klama mu'inai lo nu mi > > nelci" or "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci > kei naku". > > Nope, that's "despite" again. Yours says "I > other-than go, but not > because I want to" (was there something wrong > with "na"??) and "I > go, but not because I want to" (na ku at the > end dose nothing, > IIRC). > > I'm piggybacking on this for a mini-essay on > the topic I wrote this > morning. It turns out that "despite" is a > rather complicated > concept. > > I'm working from point-form notes here, so my > apologies if it > stinks. > > We basically have five cases to cover: cause, > prevent, does not > cause, despite with occurence, and despite > without occurence. That > last is what is normally meant by "despite".
Nope. Not in English (if I understand what you are saying). If you mean that "Y despite X" can be true if X does not occur (or, of course, if Y does not) that is some different convcept from usual despite, which requires both — and a usual almost causal connection from X to Y.
> The second-last is > what people have been treating "despite" to > mean.
Treating because (if I understand your remark correctly) it is what it means: "despite X" when X does not occur makes no sense — it isn't there to spite.
> lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu na Y == X/not-X > causes not-Y == > X/not-X prevents Y
Well, "prevent" is a little strong, since it suggests that Y was in the offing, which, in this irrealis discussion, is not guaranteed. That is, to say that X (say) prevents Y means not only that X causes ~Y but also that ~X allows Y ("allows" being another concept roughly "causes neither Y nor ~Y")
> lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu ja'a Y == > X/not-X causes Y > > lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == X does not cause > Y > > lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu na Y == X does not > prevent Y == Y may or > may not occur, but it's despite X == despite > without occurence
This use of "despite" is not English, if I understand what you are saying, which — since this is all irrealis — I may not.
> Y .i je lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == Y > occurs, and X does not > prevent it == despite with occurence (because > "lo nu" clauses are > irrealis).
This misses "despite" again. It needs for X to occur as well. Of course, X may not cause Y simply because X does not occur, but that is not "despite X"
> Now, some of these are fairly easy to translate > into BAI style. > "cause" is just {ri'a}. "does not cause" is > just {ri'a nai}. > > "prevent" is harder, assuming you want to use > {ri'a} and not {se > ri'a} because you have to negate the main > bridi, so the BAI alone > can't do it. > > na Y ri'a lo nu ja'a/na X == (not-)X prevents Y > > I see no way to do despite-without-occurence > with BAI tags.
Good, since I can't think of any interesting case for using it.
> So far as I can tell, despite cannot be done > using BAI tags alone, > at all. The best I have for "despite with > occurence" (who cares > about without??) is > > X do'e lo nu Y na rinka lo nu na no'a
An argument for loosening up the BAI-BRIVLA connection (or rather leaving it in the loose form it had originally: CLL is much tighter than Loglan already). Again, not "despite," since Y can fail to cause ~X simply by not occurring.
> This could also be done with va'o. > > I find it a bit unsatisfying, so here's another > option: > > Suppose we allow: > > lo nu X to'e rinka lo nu Y == X prevents Y == > lo nu X cu rinka lo nu > na Y I'm not sure this is a good "polar opposite" but then that notion is vague enough to work (why so liberal here but not with {ri'a}?).
> This means that Y to'e ri'a X == na Y ri'a X, > which is definately a > bit wierd because you have a BAI clause > invalidating the main bridi, > but I can't imagine another use for "to'e > rinka", so maybe it's not > so bad.
How much worse can it be than taking back the assertion you just made? To be sure, that happens in other cases as well, but rather more systematically ({na.a} and the like).
> Then we can do: > > lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a > nai X == Y occurs, and > it is not the case that X prevents it == Y > despite X
The first identity is, of course, not identity but just the BRIVLA-BAI connection, since the first sentence does not assert either X or Y while the second asserts Y (only then denies it -- messy: so it says something definite about Y, which the first does not). Neither asserts X, which is needed for "despite." > -Robin > > >
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 07:08:28PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Then we can do: > > > > lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs, > > and it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X > > Yes, that's the same form I reached here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/23441
That fact that it took me two weeks an a couple of hours of concentrated thought to understand something that you felt sufficiently expressed in *two* *sentences* might help you understand why I often badger you to expand your definitions.
I am not very good at reading out implications. Furthermore, I assume that anyone reading what I write is worse at it, and less knowledgable, than I am. I'd rather some people have to read more than they need than have some people not understand what I wrote.
I'd like to see more of this attitude from other BPFKers (not particularily speaking as jatna there).
-Robin
wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Then we can do: > > lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e > ri'a nai X == Y occurs, > > > and it is not the case that X prevents it > == Y despite X > >
As always, negations are relatively indefinite, so {X na to'e rinka Y} might be true just because X did not occur. {to'e rinka} for "prevent" is loose, relative to the standards insisted upon elsewhere, but better than {rinka lo nu na Y} which fails in cases like: A light has two states, blue and yellow. I set it to yellow. I thereby caused it to be not red (something incompatible with red) and so also, by present Lojban standards, not to be red. But I did not prevent it from being red, since it was not threatening to be red, indeed could not be red. If anything prevented it from being red, it was the setup which allowed only yellow and blue, not my action in picking one. (I did probably prevent it from being blue, of course)
I notice that the "despite" line is used for several occurrences of {BAInai}, suggesting that this is the most common negative remark to be made with more than just {ri'a}.
Re: BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita So it seems to me that BAI are just grunt work. With a few notable exceptions, like va'o, there's really nothing interesting about them.
I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are just those two cases.
My initial suggestion for the first case:
- bai (BAI)
- Compelled by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of bapli. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra place with the meaning of the first place of bapli, and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the action described by the bridi was forced by or compelled by the force that is the tagged sumti.
I am rather concerned about the BAI NAI case, because the causals use "despite" and "nevertheless", but the only two non-causal cases are utterly different:
semaunai — not more than
seme'anai — not less than
This is *very* different from:
ri'anai — despite cause
The former seem to mean "BAI + NAI lo broda" == "BAI lo na broda", but the latter seems to be something more like "BAI + NAI" == "BAI + ku'i".
The two cases above make *much* more sense with what NAI is supposed to mean, but would break the "despite" cases entirely if followed as a general rule.
I can't make "despite" in my mind mean the same thing as "not caused by", which is what it seems that "ri'a nai" should mean.
Suggestions?
-Robin
So, ellipses or not?
I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as:
- te ti'i (BAI*)
- Suggested to...
But in at least one other section I just use a single period.
Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the dictionary, so think about it from that perspective.
-Robin
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita > So, ellipses or not? > > I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as: > > ;te ti'i (BAI*): Suggested to... > > But in at least one other section I just use a single period. > > Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the dictionary, so think about it from that perspective. > > -Robin
It could just be my experience with computers where ending ellipses in a menu item indicate that to perform that action further input is needed, I prefer those for this purpose. -- Theodore Reed
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:16:57AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > So, ellipses or not? > > > > I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as: > > > > ;te ti'i (BAI*): Suggested to... > > > > But in at least one other section I just use a single period. > > > > Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the > > dictionary, so think about it from that perspective. > > > > -Robin > > It could just be my experience with computers where ending > ellipses in a menu item indicate that to perform that action > further input is needed, I prefer those for this purpose.
I'm having trouble dereferencing both "those" and "this" in the final clause of that insane sentence. :-)
I *think* you're saying you prefer elipses?
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 04:16 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:16:57AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > So, ellipses or not? > > > > > > I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as: > > > > > > ;te ti'i (BAI*): Suggested to... > > > > > > But in at least one other section I just use a single period. > > > > > > Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the > > > dictionary, so think about it from that perspective. > > > > > > -Robin > > > > It could just be my experience with computers where ending > > ellipses in a menu item indicate that to perform that action > > further input is needed, I prefer those for this purpose. > > I'm having trouble dereferencing both "those" and "this" in the > final clause of that insane sentence. :-) > > I *think* you're saying you prefer elipses? > > -Robin
Heh. Yeah. -- Theodore Reed