Talk:Tiki forum archive/Forum 5/8473
Source: 2013 Tiki forum 5, thread #8473. Original authors, UTC times, post IDs, and reply-parent IDs are preserved. This is an archive, not an active article discussion.
elliptical sentences
elliptical sentences
PierreAbbat · 2009-11-28 12:08 UTC · Tiki post #8473
attempt: "lo xunre .e lo crino cu selstu lo xy.moi .i lo blanu cu selstu lo zemoi". .iku'i lo blanu jgina na blanu, so I'm not sure that makes sense. Any other elliptical sentence s you can think of?
Pierre
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
elliptical sentences
lagejyspa · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8476 · reply to Tiki post #8473
> How would you say "Red and green are both on X; blue is on 7"? Here's my > attempt: "lo xunre .e lo crino cu selstu lo xy.moi .i lo blanu cu selstu lo > zemoi". .iku'i lo blanu jgina na blanu, so I'm not sure that makes sense. > Any > other elliptical sentence s you can think of? > > Pierre
Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?--gejyspa
elliptical sentences
PierreAbbat · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8477 · reply to Tiki post #8473
> Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? > --gejyspa
The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on the X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. Do I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?
Pierre
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
elliptical sentences
lagejyspa · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8478 · reply to Tiki post #8473
> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote: > > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? > > --gejyspa > > The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on > the > X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene > for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. > Do > I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"? >
Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in
your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's actually colored that way.
--gyelliptical sentences
John E Clifford <[email protected]> · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8479 · reply to Tiki post #8473
________________________________ From: Michael Turniansky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM Subject: [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote: >>> Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? >>> --gejyspa > >The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on the >>X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene >>for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. Do >>I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"? >
Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's actually colored that way.
--gy
elliptical sentences
Jorge Llambías <[email protected]> · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8485 · reply to Tiki post #8473
> if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having > something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it > is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance > of whatever it is that you're talking about.
As far as I understand, "lo" has always been and remains veridical, not just "something to do with". It doesn't have to be specific, it can be generic, but it is veridical, and it has no direct relation to existence. "lo xanri" for example is something imaginary, not something imaginary that also exists. It has to be imaginary, not "having something to do with imaginary".
> Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't > believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So > "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog' > " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer > to as 'dog' ".
Sounds right to me. "le" has always meant that.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
elliptical sentences
lukebergen · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8480 · reply to Tiki post #8473
something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance of whatever it is that you're talking about.
Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog' " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer to as 'dog' ".
Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of lo/le.
- Luke Bergen
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford <[email protected]>wrote:
> Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Michael Turniansky <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote: >> > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? >> > --gejyspa >> >> The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on >> the >> X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene >> for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. >> Do >> I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"? >> > > > Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" > in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what > the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract > things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" > rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's > actually colored that way. > > --gy > > > > > >
>elliptical sentences
John E Clifford <[email protected]> · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8482 · reply to Tiki post #8473
________________________________ From: Luke Bergen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:03:48 AM Subject: [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences
if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance of whatever it is that you're talking about.
Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog' " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer to as 'dog' ".
Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of lo/le.
- Luke Bergen
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now > > > ________________________________ From: Michael Turniansky <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM >Subject: [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences > > > > > >On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote: >>>>> Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? >>>>> --gejyspa >> >>The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on the >>>>X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene >>>>for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. Do >>>>I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"? >> > > > Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's actually colored that way. > > --gy > > > > > > >
elliptical sentences
lukebergen · 2009-11-28 12:09 UTC · Tiki post #8483 · reply to Tiki post #8473
- Luke Bergen
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, John E Clifford <[email protected]>wrote:
> Oh my, it is hat bad. What now serves the purpose of veridical 'le', > 'something(s) that actually are ...'? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:03:48 AM > *Subject:* [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences > > if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having > something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it > is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance > of whatever it is that you're talking about. > > Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't > believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So > "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog' > " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer > to as 'dog' ". > > Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of > lo/le. > > - Luke Bergen > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Michael Turniansky <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM >> *Subject:* [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote: >>> > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it? >>> > --gejyspa >>> >>> The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are >>> on the >>> X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The >>> gene >>> for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. >>> Do >>> I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"? >>> >> >> >> Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" >> in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what >> the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract >> things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" >> rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's >> actually colored that way. >> >> --gy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>elliptical sentences
lukebergen · 2009-11-28 12:14 UTC · Tiki post #8487 · reply to Tiki post #8473
to use xorlo" page on lojban.org I read:
" Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we *do* *not* make rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. That is discussion and speaker specific, and not our job. In some discussions, saying "mi kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally means "there exists one thing that is a unicorn that I am hunting"; this implies that at least one unicorn exists) is perfectly reasonable, in others it's a reason to put someone in a mental hospital. In a similar vein, "lo" is now * completely* generic "
I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I am not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am saying "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'". Am I misunderstanding that?
- Luke Bergen
2009/7/28 Jorge Llambías <[email protected]>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Luke Bergen<[email protected]> wrote: > > if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like > "having > > something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether > it > > is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific > instance > > of whatever it is that you're talking about. > > As far as I understand, "lo" has always been and remains veridical, > not just "something to do with". It doesn't have to be specific, it > can be generic, but it is veridical, and it has no direct relation to > existence. "lo xanri" for example is something imaginary, not > something imaginary that also exists. It has to be imaginary, not > "having something to do with imaginary". > > > Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I > don't > > believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. > So > > "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling > 'dog' > > " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to > refer > > to as 'dog' ". > > Sounds right to me. "le" has always meant that. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected] > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to [email protected] for help. >
>elliptical sentences
Jorge Llambías <[email protected]> · 2009-11-28 12:14 UTC · Tiki post #8488 · reply to Tiki post #8473
> > I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I am > not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am saying > "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'". Am I misunderstanding > that?
It means "I see a unicorn" or "I see unicorns". There is nothing said about describing or existing. Of course, things that don't exist are hard to see, but that has nothing to do with "lo". "mi pensi lo pavyseljirna" means "I think about unicorns", which is easier than seeing them, and again has nothing to do with existence.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
elliptical sentences
lukebergen · 2009-11-28 12:14 UTC · Tiki post #8489 · reply to Tiki post #8473
meant and went to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averidicalwhich says stuff about "coinciding with reality" which as you said, "[lo] says nothing about describing or existing". So what do you mean when you say "lo is and always has been veridical"?
- Luke Bergen
2009/7/28 Jorge Llambías <[email protected]>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Luke Bergen<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I > am > > not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am > saying > > "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'". Am I > misunderstanding > > that? > > It means "I see a unicorn" or "I see unicorns". There is nothing said > about describing or existing. Of course, things that don't exist are > hard to see, but that has nothing to do with "lo". "mi pensi lo > pavyseljirna" means "I think about unicorns", which is easier than > seeing them, and again has nothing to do with existence. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected] > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to [email protected] for help. >
>elliptical sentences
Jorge Llambías <[email protected]> · 2009-11-28 12:14 UTC · Tiki post #8490 · reply to Tiki post #8473
> ok, so what do you mean by "lo is veridical"?
Basically, that "lo broda" can only refer to things that truly are broda.
> I didn't know what the word > meant and went to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averidical > which says stuff about "coinciding with reality" which as you said, "[lo] > says nothing about describing or existing". So what do you mean when you > say "lo is and always has been veridical"?
A veridical description is a truthful description, yes. It doesn't mean that what you describe has to exist, only that it has to be what you are describing it as. If you say "lo pavyseljirna" then you are talking about unicorns, not about apples or about the sea. You are not claiming that unicorns exist, you are just saying something about unicorns. For example you may say that unicorns are mythical creatures: "lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu". That's fine and does not claim that unicorns exist. It can't mean that warewolves are mythical creatures, because "lo" is veridical, so "lo pavyseljirna" refers to unicorns not to warewolves.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
elliptical sentences
John E Clifford <[email protected]> · 2009-12-02 11:48 UTC · Tiki post #8502 · reply to Tiki post #8473
Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:12:31 PM Subject: [lojban] Re: elliptical sentences
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Luke Bergen<[email protected]> wrote: > ok, so what do you mean by "lo is veridical"?
Basically, that "lo broda" can only refer to things that truly are broda.
> I didn't know what the word > meant and went to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averidical > which says stuff about "coinciding with reality" which as you said, "[lo] > says nothing about describing or existing". So what do you mean when you > say "lo is and always has been veridical"?
A veridical description is a truthful description, yes. It doesn't mean that what you describe has to exist, only that it has to be what you are describing it as. If you say "lo pavyseljirna" then you are talking about unicorns, not about apples or about the sea. You are not claiming that unicorns exist, you are just saying something about unicorns. For example you may say that unicorns are mythical creatures: "lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu". That's fine and does not claim that unicorns exist. It can't mean that warewolves are mythical creatures, because "lo" is veridical, so "lo pavyseljirna" refers to unicorns not to warewolves.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to [email protected] for help.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to [email protected] for help.
