WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Robin's gadri Proposal

posts: 1912
Use this thread to discuss the Robin's gadri Proposal page.
posts: 1912


Robin:
> The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality. Note that this is
> not si'o; that relates to a whole relationship, not merely the x1
> thing.
> lo sa'e nai broda ~= le sa'e nai broda == su'o zo'e noi ke'a broda
> (which, obviously, I stole from xorlo)

Hmm... you didn't quite steal it though. In XS, when there is no
explicit quantifier, the term is unquantified. You seem to be
restoring implicit quantifiers here.

> Existence — je'u
> su'o da, or something like it: insisting that the thing really
> does exist.

I think {je'u} is better for veridicality rather than for existence.
{lo je'u pavyseljirna} would be something that really is a unicorn,
as opposed to something that I'm calling a unicorn but may be
something else. This is independent of the question of whether
or not unicorns exist.

> Imaginary, or otherwise fundamentally non-existant (with respect
> to the current semantic space).
> lo je'u nai broda == le je'u nai broda

{da'i}?

> Distributivity — .o'e, or mass cmavo.
> (See http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for an explication.
> This relates to what Lojban has historically called "masses".)
> The short version: Distributive just means that the elements are
> only considered as a whole in this predication. "The students
> surround the building" cannot be represented in standard predicate
> logic without distributives / plurals / masses, because it implies
> that each student surrounds the building.

Here you have the terminology backwards. "Each student surrounds
the building" is distributive. "The students surround the building" is
non-distributive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

posts: 14214

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:05PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
>
> Robin:
> > The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality. Note that this is
> > not si'o; that relates to a whole relationship, not merely the x1
> > thing.
> >
> > lo sa'e nai broda ~= le sa'e nai broda == su'o zo'e noi ke'a broda
> > (which, obviously, I stole from xorlo)
>
> Hmm... you didn't quite steal it though. In XS, when there is no
> explicit quantifier, the term is unquantified. You seem to be
> restoring implicit quantifiers here.

Yes, well. The goal was to change CLL as little as possible.

I'm agnostic as to whether the zo'e noi version should have implicit
quantifiers or not. I don't think there is any functional difference
between zo'e noi and su'o zo'e noi. I'm willing to change my mind on
that, though.

> > Existence ??? je'u
> >
> > su'o da, or something like it: insisting that the thing really does
> > exist.
>
> I think {je'u} is better for veridicality rather than for existence.
> {lo je'u pavyseljirna} would be something that really is a unicorn, as
> opposed to something that I'm calling a unicorn but may be something
> else. This is independent of the question of whether or not unicorns
> exist.
>
> > Imaginary, or otherwise fundamentally non-existant (with respect to
> > the current semantic space). lo je'u nai broda == le je'u nai broda
>
> {da'i}?

  • Aaah*. Yes, that is indeed much better. Thanks. da'i for existence,

je'u for veridicality.

> > Distributivity ??? .o'e, or mass cmavo. (See
> > http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for an explication. This
> > relates to what Lojban has historically called "masses".) The short
> > version: Distributive just means that the elements are only
> > considered as a whole in this predication. "The students surround
> > the building" cannot be represented in standard predicate logic
> > without distributives / plurals / masses, because it implies that
> > each student surrounds the building.
>
> Here you have the terminology backwards. "Each student surrounds the
> building" is distributive. "The students surround the building" is
> non-distributive.

Oh, sorry.

-Robin


posts: 1912

Robin Lee Powell:
> I don't think there is any functional difference
> between zo'e noi and su'o zo'e noi. I'm willing to change my mind on
> that, though.

Consider an example.

xu do pu klama le zarci
Did you go to the market(s)?

A) mi ja'a pu klama zo'e
I did go (to the place(s) obvious from context).

B-) mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e
I did go to at least one of (the place(s) obvious from context).

C) mi ja'a pu klama su'o da
I did go to at least some place.

I would say they are all functionally different answers.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 18 United States

A few questions/comments about the proposal. First of all, you define things in terms of a completely generic "LX" gadri. Is it your intention that such a thing be created, or would we use the existing gadri (with various tags to override defaults) to get whatever meaning we want?

Similarly, is it possible to leave an axis unspecified, to be glorked from context, or are they all always specified. That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).

I do approve of the change to da'i and je'u for nonexistance and veradicality, but make sure you update the definitions at the top of the page to match.

And finally, I think .o'avu'enai (as close to hubris as I can get) that you've got the issue of veradicality slightly wrong with respect to le. I think the je'u an je'unai you have defined are very useful, but the real definition of le would be more je'ucu'i: Contained identifier is neither asserted nor denied; rather, the containing bridi is considered agnostic to the truth or falsehood of the description. Perhaps that could be better said, but the point is that usually le is used with a description that is true, but is incidentally true, where the primary purpose is to identify the object in question, not to point out that the description may be inaccurate. I do see a use for a je'unai that's defined the way you use it, as a way of saying "I know this is wrong, but work with me here." It's just that, as I've always read it, that's not what le says. If I'm wrong here I'd appreciate if someone would correct me.

posts: 14214

Eimi, please sign off your posts. Thanks.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
> Re: Robin's gadri Proposal A few questions/comments about the
> proposal. First of all, you define things in terms of a completely
> generic "LX" gadri. Is it your intention that such a thing be
> created,

Absolutely not.

> Similarly, is it possible to leave an axis unspecified, to be glorked
> from context, or are they all always specified?

The default for at least some of the axes is "cu'i", aka unspecified.
Well, OK, that's not *quite* unspecified, but it's basically the same
thing.

> That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible
> for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of
> explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology,
> do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo
> pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).

If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I would
expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite surpised at you
talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what lo actually means.

> I do approve of the change to da'i and je'u for nonexistance and
> veradicality, but make sure you update the definitions at the top of
> the page to match.

Fixed. Thank you.

> And finally, I think .o'avu'enai (as close to hubris as I can get)
> that you've got the issue of veradicality slightly wrong with respect
> to le. I think the je'u an je'unai you have defined are very useful,
> but the real definition of le would be more je'ucu'i:

You are *absolutely* correct. Fixed.

-Robin


posts: 14214

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:11:44PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell:
> > I don't think there is any functional difference between zo'e noi
> > and su'o zo'e noi. I'm willing to change my mind on that, though.
>
> Consider an example.
>
> xu do pu klama le zarci
>
> Did you go to the market(s)?
>
> A) mi ja'a pu klama zo'e
> I did go (to the place(s) obvious from context).
>
> B-) mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e
> I did go to at least one of (the place(s) obvious from context).
>
> C) mi ja'a pu klama su'o da
> I did go to at least some place.
>
> I would say they are all functionally different answers.

I don't see that at all; "mi ja'a pu klama zo'e" implies "mi ja'a pu
klama su'o zo'e" in my universe. Unless you're holding open the
possibility that the person didn't go anywhere in the first case?

There may be examples that highlight a difference, but I don't think
this is one of them.

-Robin


posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>Eimi, please sign off your posts. Thanks.
>
>On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
>
>
>
>>That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible
>>for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of
>>explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology,
>>do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo
>>pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).
>>
>>
>
>If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I would
>expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite surpised at you
>talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what lo actually means.
>
>

I wouldn't. Anyone discussing unicorns is (necessarily) working in a
context where they exist. Likewise with discussions of Sherlock Holmes
and Napoleon Bonaparte.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in
the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the
Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a
great reality for him.





posts: 14214

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:51:16PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it
> >>possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that,
> >>instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking
> >>about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I
> >>just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they
> >>actually exist).
> >
> >If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I would
> >expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite surpised at you
> >talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what lo actually means.
>
> I wouldn't. Anyone discussing unicorns is (necessarily) working in a
> context where they exist. Likewise with discussions of Sherlock Holmes
> and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Anyone discussion unicorns using "lo pavyseljirna", yes, true. I
reserve the right, though, to be surprised by said discussion, because I
assume by default that discussions have the actual real world as their
context.

-Robin


posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:51:16PM -0400, xod wrote:
>
>
>>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it
>>>>possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that,
>>>>instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking
>>>>about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I
>>>>just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they
>>>>actually exist).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I would
>>>expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite surpised at you
>>>talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what lo actually means.
>>>
>>>
>>I wouldn't. Anyone discussing unicorns is (necessarily) working in a
>>context where they exist. Likewise with discussions of Sherlock Holmes
>>and Napoleon Bonaparte.
>>
>>
>
>Anyone discussion unicorns using "lo pavyseljirna", yes, true. I
>reserve the right, though, to be surprised by said discussion, because I
>assume by default that discussions have the actual real world as their
>context.
>
>

So if you come across people discussing Napoleon B., you reserve the
right to interject "I'm surprised! He's been dead for years now."?

I think that your default assumption should be that their statements
have meaning, and conclude that they are therefore (necessarily)
operating in some context which permits meaning.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 14214

I would like everyone to bear in mind that this discussion is

  • explicitely* outside the scope of the BPFK gadri proposal, however it

turns out.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:02:52PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:51:16PM -0400, xod wrote:
> >>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it
> >>>>possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that,
> >>>>instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking
> >>>>about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I
> >>>>just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they
> >>>>actually exist).
> >>>>
> >>>If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I
> >>>would expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite
> >>>surpised at you talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what
> >>>lo actually means.
> >>>
> >>I wouldn't. Anyone discussing unicorns is (necessarily) working in a
> >>context where they exist. Likewise with discussions of Sherlock
> >>Holmes and Napoleon Bonaparte.
> >>
> >
> >Anyone discussion unicorns using "lo pavyseljirna", yes, true. I
> >reserve the right, though, to be surprised by said discussion,
> >because I assume by default that discussions have the actual real
> >world as their context.
> >
>
> So if you come across people discussing Napoleon B., you reserve the
> right to interject "I'm surprised! He's been dead for years now."?

Depends on what they said. "la napoleon.bonapart cu vitke lo mi zdani"
would cause that response, yes.

> I think that your default assumption should be that their statements
> have meaning, and conclude that they are therefore (necessarily)
> operating in some context which permits meaning.

Sure, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to know what the context

  • is*.


-Robin


posts: 1912

> I would like everyone to bear in mind that this discussion is
> *explicitely* outside the scope of the BPFK gadri proposal, however it
> turns out.
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:02:52PM -0400, xod wrote:
> >
> > So if you come across people discussing Napoleon B., you reserve the
> > right to interject "I'm surprised! He's been dead for years now."?
>
> Depends on what they said. "la napoleon.bonapart cu vitke lo mi zdani"
> would cause that response, yes.

That sentence could be true of the real world. That he's been
dead for years doesn't mean he couldn't have visited someone's
home. In fact, if someone's home is known to have been visited
by Napoleon, that might be a noteworthy enough fact to talk
about it. Unless you take the present as default, too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 1912

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:11:44PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Robin Lee Powell:
> > > I don't think there is any functional difference between zo'e noi
> > > and su'o zo'e noi. I'm willing to change my mind on that, though.
> >
> > Consider an example.
> >
> > xu do pu klama le zarci
> >
> > Did you go to the market(s)?
> >
> > A) mi ja'a pu klama zo'e
> > I did go (to the place(s) obvious from context).
> >
> > B-) mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e
> > I did go to at least one of (the place(s) obvious from context).
> >
> > C) mi ja'a pu klama su'o da
> > I did go to at least some place.
> >
> > I would say they are all functionally different answers.
>
> I don't see that at all; "mi ja'a pu klama zo'e" implies "mi ja'a pu
> klama su'o zo'e" in my universe. Unless you're holding open the
> possibility that the person didn't go anywhere in the first case?

A implies B and they both imply C. But the implications don't work
the other way, therefore they are functionally different.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 14214

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:20:29PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > I would like everyone to bear in mind that this discussion is
> > *explicitely* outside the scope of the BPFK gadri proposal, however
> > it turns out. On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:02:52PM -0400, xod wrote:
> > >
> > > So if you come across people discussing Napoleon B., you reserve
> > > the right to interject "I'm surprised! He's been dead for years
> > > now."?
> >
> > Depends on what they said. "la napoleon.bonapart cu vitke lo mi
> > zdani" would cause that response, yes.
>
> That sentence could be true of the real world. That he's been dead for
> years doesn't mean he couldn't have visited someone's home. In fact,
> if someone's home is known to have been visited by Napoleon, that
> might be a noteworthy enough fact to talk about it. Unless you take
> the present as default, too.

I agree with all those things. That wouldn't stop me from being
surprised, though. I tend to take the present as a default, yes.

-Robin


posts: 14214

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:25:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:11:44PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > Robin Lee Powell:
> > > > I don't think there is any functional difference between zo'e
> > > > noi and su'o zo'e noi. I'm willing to change my mind on that,
> > > > though.
> > >
> > > Consider an example.
> > >
> > > xu do pu klama le zarci
> > >
> > > Did you go to the market(s)?
> > >
> > > A) mi ja'a pu klama zo'e
> > >
> > > I did go (to the place(s) obvious from context).
> > >
> > > B-) mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e
> > >
> > > I did go to at least one of (the place(s) obvious from
> > > context).
> > >
> > > C) mi ja'a pu klama su'o da
> > >
> > > I did go to at least some place.
> > >
> > > I would say they are all functionally different answers.
> >
> > I don't see that at all; "mi ja'a pu klama zo'e" implies "mi ja'a pu
> > klama su'o zo'e" in my universe. Unless you're holding open the
> > possibility that the person didn't go anywhere in the first case?
>
> A implies B and they both imply C. But the implications don't work the
> other way, therefore they are functionally different.

How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama zo'e",
exactly?

-Robin


posts: 1912

> How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama zo'e",
> exactly?

The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o}
explicit, you prevent a more precise claim from being derived
from context.

Similarly {mi ja'a pu klama su'o da} does not imply
{mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e}. By making {da} explicit,
you prevent a more precise value for zo'e being derived
from context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama
> > zo'e", exactly?
>
> The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o} explicit,
> you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from context.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the first?

-Robin


posts: 14214

Do we need to worry about goos?

Do we need to worry about the difference between a goo of people / water /whatever and any other form of non-distributiveness?

I don't think so, but I thought I'd ask. Seems to me that all the gadri system needs to encode is the non-distributiveness, and goo can be grabbed from context or selbri (te marxa) or whatever, but maybe I'm wrong.

-Robin

posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 12:58:47AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Seems to me that all the gadri system needs to encode is the
> non-distributiveness, and goo can be grabbed from context or selbri
> (te marxa) or whatever, but maybe I'm wrong.

Actually, pesxu is better there.

-Robin


posts: 1912

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama
> > > zo'e", exactly?
> >
> > The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o} explicit,
> > you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from context.
>
> I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the first?

The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}.
{mi ja'a klama le zarci} is not the same answer as
{mi ja'a klama su'o le zarci} to the question
{xu do klama le zarci}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:49:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu
> > > > klama zo'e", exactly?
> > >
> > > The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o}
> > > explicit, you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from
> > > context.
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> > value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the
> > first?
>
> The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}. {mi ja'a
> klama le zarci} is not the same answer as {mi ja'a klama su'o le
> zarci} to the question {xu do klama le zarci}.

I thought you said that "le broda" was equal to "su'o da poi broda" in
CLL lo?

-Robin


posts: 1912

> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:49:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> > > value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the
> > > first?
> >
> > The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}. {mi ja'a
> > klama le zarci} is not the same answer as {mi ja'a klama su'o le
> > zarci} to the question {xu do klama le zarci}.
>
> I thought you said that "le broda" was equal to "su'o da poi broda" in
> CLL lo?

In CLL {lo broda} is {su'o da poi broda}, and {le broda} is
{ro da poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






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


posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 10:44:10AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:49:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you
> > > > give a value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed
> > > > by the first?
> > >
> > > The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}. {mi ja'a
> > > klama le zarci} is not the same answer as {mi ja'a klama su'o le
> > > zarci} to the question {xu do klama le zarci}.
> >
> > I thought you said that "le broda" was equal to "su'o da poi broda"
> > in CLL lo?
>
> In CLL {lo broda} is {su'o da poi broda}, and {le broda} is {ro da poi
> mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda}.

Oh.

Duh.

No wonder you had trouble explaining to me where the problem was.

-Robin


posts: 2388

Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of the logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier — in something like three different and to me incompatible ways: is it an open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a pronoun for indifferent terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms or is it yet something else again. Much of the apparent value of several arguments here seem to hinge on playing two or more sides of this ambiguity in different places. A clear statement about {zo'e} — as it is being used here, since CLL is pretty clearly ambiguous — would be most helpful.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama
> > > zo'e", exactly?
> >
> > The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o} explicit,
> > you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from context.
>
> I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the first?

The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}.
{mi ja'a klama le zarci} is not the same answer as
{mi ja'a klama su'o le zarci} to the question
{xu do klama le zarci}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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




posts: 1912

pc:
> Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of the
> logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier — in
> something like three different and to me incompatible ways: is it an
> open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a pronoun for indifferent
> terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms or is it yet something else again.

The way I understand it, using zo'e is (semantically) equivalent to
omitting the term. Sometimes it cannot be omitted for syntactic reasons,
but that does not add semantic content.

Both indifferent and obvious terms can be omitted, which is a good
thing: If either were not omissible sentences would become unbearably
wordy. Therefore, zo'e can stand for indifferent or obvious terms.

As for open variables, I would like unquantified da, de, di to be
that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:32:35PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of
> the logic of {zo'e}.

The *meaning* of zo'e needs to be explicated, but IMO it has *no* logic, as
it can mean *anything* that makes the bridi true. Events, ideas, zi'o,
da, on and on and on.

-Robin


posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:56:22PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> pc:
> > Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of
> > the logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier
> > — in something like three different and to me incompatible
> > ways: is it an open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a
> > pronoun for indifferent terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms
> > or is it yet something else again.
>
> The way I understand it, using zo'e is (semantically) equivalent to
> omitting the term. Sometimes it cannot be omitted for syntactic
> reasons, but that does not add semantic content.

It's a little more intense than that, because zo'e is always any value
that can make the bridi true:

zo'e KOhA7 unspecif it
pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has
some value which makes bridi true

This applies, as you say, to elided places.

-Robin


posts: 1912

> It's a little more intense than that, because zo'e is always any value
> that can make the bridi true:
>
> zo'e KOhA7 unspecif it
> pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has
> some value which makes bridi true
>
> This applies, as you say, to elided places.

This doesn't make much sense though. That would mean that every
single bridi with elided places has to be true. Since practically
every bridi has elided places one way or another, it would be
impossible to have false bridi in Lojban.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






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


posts: 149

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> The *meaning* of zo'e needs to be explicated, but IMO it has *no* logic, as
> it can mean *anything* that makes the bridi true. Events, ideas, zi'o,
> da, on and on and on.

Anything affirmative, anyway. It would be beyond perverse to interpret
"mi klama" as "mi klama noda".

--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration
is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was
under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than
two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.
--Specht v. Netscape


posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:30:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > The *meaning* of zo'e needs to be explicated, but IMO it has *no*
> > logic, as it can mean *anything* that makes the bridi true. Events,
> > ideas, zi'o, da, on and on and on.
>
> Anything affirmative, anyway. It would be beyond perverse to
> interpret "mi klama" as "mi klama noda".

What does "affirmative" mean in this context?

-Robin


posts: 149

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> What does "affirmative" mean in this context?

zo'e can't be interpreted to contain something which negates the bridi.

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


posts: 2388

All of this makes the proposed definitions of gadri thoroughly unintelligible. It was bad enough that the object behind {lo} was only incidentally a broda, though not any way specified, but now it turns out that it can't be specified (by definition), being either the obvious one (which there ain't one of in most contexts) or the we don't care which one (which can't be right, since we have to pick one that turns out also to be a broda, so we do care). And, of course, in neither case does it serve for generality or intensionality or any other thing that {lo} is supposed to take care of — even plurality. Which brings up the problem of whatever in the Hell {su'o zo'e} could possibly mean other than {zo'e} (there is only one after all) and {su'o da} (since all we know about it is that it is). As I say, so fast shuffles have gone on here — but not even among various meanings of {zo'e} but among the various clouds or cuckoos in Cloudcuckooland.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:pc:
> Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of the
> logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier — in
> something like three different and to me incompatible ways: is it an
> open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a pronoun for indifferent
> terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms or is it yet something else again.

The way I understand it, using zo'e is (semantically) equivalent to
omitting the term. Sometimes it cannot be omitted for syntactic reasons,
but that does not add semantic content.

Both indifferent and obvious terms can be omitted, which is a good
thing: If either were not omissible sentences would become unbearably
wordy. Therefore, zo'e can stand for indifferent or obvious terms.

As for open variables, I would like unquantified da, de, di to be
that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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




posts: 14214

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:29:08PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > It's a little more intense than that, because zo'e is always any
> > value that can make the bridi true:
> >
> > zo'e KOhA7 unspecif it
> > pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has
> > some value which makes bridi true
> >
> > This applies, as you say, to elided places.
>
> This doesn't make much sense though. That would mean that every single
> bridi with elided places has to be true.

I don't think so, actually.

mi ca klama lo zarci zo'e zo'e zo'e

If I am not actually going to a market now, I don't see how any filling
of those zo'e makes the bridi true.

If you want to say that every possible BAI or FIhO place also exists,
invisibly filled with zo'e, then yeah, I suppose, but I don't want to
say that, and I don't think you do either.

-Robin


posts: 1912

> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:29:08PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > zo'e KOhA7 unspecif it
> > > pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has
> > > some value which makes bridi true
> >
> > This doesn't make much sense though. That would mean that every single
> > bridi with elided places has to be true.
>
> I don't think so, actually.
>
> mi ca klama lo zarci zo'e zo'e zo'e
>
> If I am not actually going to a market now, I don't see how any filling
> of those zo'e makes the bridi true.

That's exactly my point. What's value of zo'e in that case?
Certainly not some value which makes the bridi true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>If you want to say that every possible BAI or FIhO place also exists,
>invisibly filled with zo'e, then yeah, I suppose, but I don't want to
>say that, and I don't think you do either.
>
>

But of course this is true.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 149

xod scripsit:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> >If you want to say that every possible BAI or FIhO place also exists,
> >invisibly filled with zo'e, then yeah, I suppose, but I don't want to
> >say that, and I don't think you do either.
>
> But of course this is true.

Only if you believe that zo'e can mean noda (for some da). For example,
mi klama le zarci is true, but mi klama le zarci bau da is false — I'm
not going to the store under any compulsion.

--
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN John Cowan
in any language. --Allen Brown cowan@ccil.org


posts: 143

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit:
>
>
>>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you want to say that every possible BAI or FIhO place also exists,
>>>invisibly filled with zo'e, then yeah, I suppose, but I don't want to
>>>say that, and I don't think you do either.
>>>
>>>
>>But of course this is true.
>>
>>
>
>Only if you believe that zo'e can mean noda (for some da). For example,
>mi klama le zarci is true, but mi klama le zarci bau da is false — I'm
>not going to the store under any compulsion.
>
>


Right. noda could be implied by context, and we should be able to elide
that just as easily as we elide su'oda.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in
the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the
Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a
great reality for him.





posts: 1912


I don't think {noda} can be elided. Certainly {mi klama le zarci}
is not a case of elision of {bai noda}.

{mi klama le zarci bai noda} does not say that I do go to the
market and that nothing forces me to do so. It says much less:
that there is nothing that forces me to go to the market.
I may go unforced, or maybe I don't go: in both cases nothing
is forcing me to go.

{klama} has five argument places, no more, no less.
{klama bai} has six argument places.

They are different relationships, even if not completely unrelated.
If {klama bai} holds of some six argument values, then {klama} will
hold of the corresponding five, but from klama holding of some five
arguments I can conclude nothing about {klama bai}: it may or may
not hold of some six arguments.

{noda} is a term, it is not an argument (value). In fact, it says
that no value in that position will make the relationship true.

Quantified terms are not argument values, they only
say how many values will satisfy the relationship.

{zo'e} stands for an implicit (obvious or irrelevant) value, not
for a term.

If any bridi had any number of implicit arguments, then {zi'o}
would be pointless. {broda zi'o} would be equivalent to
{broda zi'o fi'o se broda zo'e}, which means that the argument
place we remove with {zi'o} is still always there through
{fi'o se broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

entire text snipped

I agree 100%, a rare thing. Please copy this to its own home on the Wiki.

--
Do what you will, John Cowan
this Life's a Fiction jcowan@reutershealth.com
And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 05:25:17AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:29:08PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > zo'e KOhA7 unspecif it
> > > > pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value;
> > > > has some value which makes bridi true
> > >
> > > This doesn't make much sense though. That would mean that every
> > > single bridi with elided places has to be true.
> >
> > I don't think so, actually.
> >
> > mi ca klama lo zarci zo'e zo'e zo'e
> >
> > If I am not actually going to a market now, I don't see how any
> > filling of those zo'e makes the bridi true.
>
> That's exactly my point. What's value of zo'e in that case? Certainly
> not some value which makes the bridi true.

Aaaaah. Point.

"Has some value which does not affect the truth value of the bridi, as
intended by the speaker"?

-Robin


posts: 143

Jorge Llambías wrote:

>I don't think {noda} can be elided. Certainly {mi klama le zarci}
>is not a case of elision of {bai noda}.
>
>{mi klama le zarci bai noda} does not say that I do go to the
>market and that nothing forces me to do so. It says much less:
>that there is nothing that forces me to go to the market.
>I may go unforced, or maybe I don't go: in both cases nothing
>is forcing me to go.
>
>{klama} has five argument places, no more, no less.
>{klama bai} has six argument places.
>
>They are different relationships, even if not completely unrelated.
>If {klama bai} holds of some six argument values, then {klama} will
>hold of the corresponding five, but from klama holding of some five
>arguments I can conclude nothing about {klama bai}: it may or may
>not hold of some six arguments.
>
>{noda} is a term, it is not an argument (value). In fact, it says
>that no value in that position will make the relationship true.
>
>

When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?
Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
different selbri.

Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
Lojban? Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
"ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
that we had a destination?

In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?

>Quantified terms are not argument values, they only
>say how many values will satisfy the relationship.
>
>{zo'e} stands for an implicit (obvious or irrelevant) value, not
>for a term.
>
>

But the number of terms should obey the same properties as obviousness
and irrelevance. It should be free to be zero as easily as three.



>If any bridi had any number of implicit arguments, then {zi'o}
>would be pointless. {broda zi'o} would be equivalent to
>{broda zi'o fi'o se broda zo'e}, which means that the argument
>place we remove with {zi'o} is still always there through
>{fi'o se broda}.
>
>

Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda, but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
real number?

Whatever the case, I should think that zi'o would prevent the ghost zo'e
from re-appearing in that place.

In your scheme, there is no point ever in BAU zi'o.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 1912

xod:
> When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?

Yes.

> Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> different selbri.

Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".

{klama} is the selbri, which is said to not hold in this case.

> Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
> understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
> context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
> Lojban?

It would be interesting to see such case.

> Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
> "ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
> reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
> that we had a destination?

The canonical answer:
The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.

My answer:
Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
which means they force you to say things you don't want to
(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).

> In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
> an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?

Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
is simply {naku su'oda}.

> Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,

Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.

>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
> real number?

{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
understand what you mean there.

> Whatever the case, I should think that zi'o would prevent the ghost zo'e
> from re-appearing in that place.
>
> In your scheme, there is no point ever in BAU zi'o.

There is little point, right. It only serves to emphasize that
a place is not present, but the place would not be present
anyway if the BAI was not mentioned to begin with. Also, it
may make sense in a {go'i BAI zi'o} situation, for example.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 143

Jorge Llambías wrote:

>xod:
>
>
>>When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
>>different selbri.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>
>

Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.


>{klama} is the selbri, which is said to not hold in this case.
>
>
>
>>Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
>>understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
>>context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
>>Lojban?
>>
>>
>
>It would be interesting to see such case.
>
>
>
>>Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
>>"ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
>>reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
>>that we had a destination?
>>
>>
>
>The canonical answer:
>The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
>There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
>at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
>intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.
>
>

Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

>My answer:
>Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
>which means they force you to say things you don't want to
>(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).
>
>
>
>>In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
>>an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?
>>
>>
>
>Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
>is simply {naku su'oda}.
>
>


You're being consistent. You would prefer to eliminate any places that
aren't physically forced to be filled with non-zero values. My position
hinges on the idea that this is not currently the case, whether or not I
am able to provide an unassailable example!


>>Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,
>>
>>
>
>Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.
>
>

Ah, splitting hairs between "=" and "entails".


>>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
>>real number?
>>
>>
>
>{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
>understand what you mean there.
>
>

Eliminating it from the place structure doesn't mean it has no value.
But it would prevent the ghost zo'e from appearing, allowing zero in
there as a quantity, as well as non-zero numbers.



--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 1912

xod:
> > {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
> >da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
> >the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>
> Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
> second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.

No, it is not the same as saying it is true with zero xes
in that place. It says that there is no value you can put
in that place to make the relationship hold.

You can put a term that says that no value applies, namely
{noda}, but you cannot put a term that stands for a value.
If you fill it with {su'oda} or {cida} you are not putting
values either, all you are saying is that there is at least
one, or exactly three, values that will satisfy the relationship.
An actual value might be {le zarci}. {noda}, {pada}, {reda} are
not values, they just tell you how many values there are that
make the relationship true.

> Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
> would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
> to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
> 'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:11:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.

I thought you were asserting that zo'e could never be equivalent to {no
da}?

-Robin


posts: 1912

> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:11:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.
>
> I thought you were asserting that zo'e could never be equivalent to {no
> da}?

What's the difference?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:22:49PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:11:46PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.
> >
> > I thought you were asserting that zo'e could never be equivalent to
> > {no da}?
>
> What's the difference?

Thingking about it more, very little.

-Robin


posts: 143

Jorge Llambías wrote:

>xod:
>
>
>>>{klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>>>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>>>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>>>
>>>
>>Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
>>second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.
>>
>>
>
>No, it is not the same as saying it is true with zero xes
>in that place. It says that there is no value you can put
>in that place to make the relationship hold.
>
>

What is the difference between "patfu noda" and "patfu no selpatfu". I
have no kids, I have zero kids, I don't have any kids, it's not true
that I have at least one kid...

>You can put a term that says that no value applies, namely
>{noda}, but you cannot put a term that stands for a value.
>If you fill it with {su'oda} or {cida} you are not putting
>values either, all you are saying is that there is at least
>one, or exactly three, values that will satisfy the relationship.
>An actual value might be {le zarci}. {noda}, {pada}, {reda} are
>not values, they just tell you how many values there are that
>make the relationship true.
>
>
>
>>Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
>>would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
>>to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
>>'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.
>
>

Then you're making the strong claim that "zero thingies" is NEVER, EVER
implied in the context of any discussion.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 1912

xod:
> What is the difference between "patfu noda" and "patfu no selpatfu". I
> have no kids, I have zero kids, I don't have any kids, it's not true
> that I have at least one kid...

No difference as far as I can tell: there is no x such that
patfu(you, x) holds.

If someone say {mi patfu} I will never interpret it as
{mi patfu noda}.

> Then you're making the strong claim that "zero thingies" is NEVER, EVER
> implied in the context of any discussion.

My claim is that {zo'e} never stands for {noda}.

If you say {mi na patfu}, I may understand {do patfu noda},
but that's because of the {na}. Would that count as context
implying zero thingies?

(I'm not saying {mi na patfu} will always be understood that
way. For example, if someone asks {xu do patfu la djan} and
you answer {mi na patfu}, you may mean that you are not
John's father, though maybe you do have children.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:49:33PM -0400, xod wrote:
> When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e
> zo'e"?

It does.

> Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> different selbri.

One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
selbri.

> Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
> understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
> context?

A: mi gasnu co favytcini lo samru'e li pa

B: xu cnino samru'e

A: go'i

B: .ua do gasnu co favytcini fo no da

And there you are.

> In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and
> never an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?

Seems pretty bold to me, yeah.

-Robin


posts: 1912

> A: mi gasnu co favytcini lo samru'e li pa
> B: xu cnino samru'e
> A: go'i
> B: .ua do gasnu co favytcini fo no da

We've been here before:

A: ti botpi
B: botpi fo ma
A: botpi fo noda
B: oi

A botpi with no lid (or a farvi without stages) is like
a patfu with no children, a contradiction in terms.

Of course in English bottles can have no lid and developments
could have no stages. But Lojban gismu are bloated. If we take
their place structures seriously, then we have to take them
seriously. That means botpi have lids as intrinsically as patfu
have children. If we don't take the place structures seriously
(which I agree in many cases is what we ought to do) then we
are using a different place structure. When we say {ti botpi}
then we don't mean {ti botpi zo'e zo'e zo'e}, we rather mean
{ti botpi zi'o zi'o zi'o}. We are not thinking of a four-place
relationship but of a one-place predicate, which is the closest
to the English noun "bottle".

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:15:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin:
> > A: mi gasnu co favytcini lo samru'e li pa
> > B: xu cnino samru'e
> > A: go'i
> > B: .ua do gasnu co favytcini fo no da
>
> We've been here before:
>
> A: ti botpi
> B: botpi fo ma
> A: botpi fo noda
> B: oi

  • No*.


These are not the same thing.

> A botpi with no lid (or a farvi without stages) is like a patfu with
> no children, a contradiction in terms.

Sure, but developing something from scratch is different than both those
things, is it not?

It seems conceptually strange to me that I couldn't say "mi finti da",
meaning "mi finti da fo zo'i" ("I made shit up") without expecting
substantial confusion on the part of the listener.

-Robin


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> > different selbri.
>
> One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
> that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
> selbri.

No, that won't work. klama noda is equivalent to klama naku su'oda, which is
a negative claim (it is about what is not the case), whereas klama zi'o,
though the x2 has been dropped, is still an affirmative claim (about what
is the case).

> A: mi gasnu co favytcini lo samru'e li pa
>
> B: xu cnino samru'e
>
> A: go'i
>
> B: .ua do gasnu co favytcini fo no da

I think that this dialogue is better served with zi'o, or with lo plus a brivla
that means "Nothing, considered as something". To say that Jeeg created the
world out of nothing does not mean that la djig. zbasu lo munje noda, for that
would simply deny that there was anything that Jeeg created the world from,
leaving it open whether he created it at all.

> And there you are.

And there you are.

--
When I'm stuck in something boring John Cowan
where reading would be impossible or (who loves Asimov too)
rude, I often set up math problems for jcowan@reutershealth.com
myself and solve them as a way to pass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
the time. --John Jenkins http://www.reutershealth.com


posts: 1912

> > A botpi with no lid (or a farvi without stages) is like a patfu with
> > no children, a contradiction in terms.
>
> Sure, but developing something from scratch is different than both those
> things, is it not?

You are talking about English words here. If you are talking about
a relationship between a developer, a developed thing, and a
thing that the developed thing is developed from, then it's
a relationship between three objects. If not, then you are
talking about another relationship.

> It seems conceptually strange to me that I couldn't say "mi finti da",
> meaning "mi finti da fo zo'i" ("I made shit up") without expecting
> substantial confusion on the part of the listener.

That just means {finti} as defined has a more restricted range of
application than you would guess from the keyword. Lojban gismu
are bloated, that's not news.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 143

John Cowan wrote:

>Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
>
>
>>>Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
>>>different selbri.
>>>
>>>
>>One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
>>that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
>>selbri.
>>
>>
>
>No, that won't work. klama noda is equivalent to klama naku su'oda, which is
>a negative claim (it is about what is not the case), whereas klama zi'o,
>though the x2 has been dropped, is still an affirmative claim (about what
>is the case).
>
>

If that's the case, then it's incorrect to render broda noda --> naku
broda su'oda. Because "noda" surely should not have so dramatic effect
on the other places. Saying that I went lacking a destination is very
different from opening up the possibility that I didn't go at all. We
gain nothing but confusion with such a conflation.



--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:35:00PM -0400, xod wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
> >Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> >>>Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> >>>different selbri.
> >>>
> >>One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine,
> >>is that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
> >>selbri.
> >
> >No, that won't work. klama noda is equivalent to klama naku su'oda,
> >which is a negative claim (it is about what is not the case), whereas
> >klama zi'o, though the x2 has been dropped, is still an affirmative
> >claim (about what is the case).
>
> If that's the case, then it's incorrect to render broda noda --> naku
> broda su'oda. Because "noda" surely should not have so dramatic effect
> on the other places. Saying that I went lacking a destination is very
> different from opening up the possibility that I didn't go at all. We
> gain nothing but confusion with such a conflation.

If one views *every* place as essential to the relationship, and I think
xorxes is right that one must do so, then there is no conflation.

-Robin


posts: 14214

So, could people maybe answer the question? That is, is this proposal something that, with some work, people could maybe agree on?

-Robin

posts: 14214

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:29:40PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > It seems conceptually strange to me that I couldn't say "mi finti
> > da", meaning "mi finti da fo zo'i" ("I made shit up") without
> > expecting substantial confusion on the part of the listener.
>
> That just means {finti} as defined has a more restricted range of
> application than you would guess from the keyword. Lojban gismu are
> bloated, that's not news.

Gaaah.

Dammit.

I think you're right; zo'e cannot be {no da} or {zi'o}.

Oh, btw, I was hoping for a response from you to my goo question.

-Robni


posts: 1912

Robin:
> Oh, btw, I was hoping for a response from you to my goo question.

I think I agree with what you say there.

You don't say what you would do with inner PA's, but I think
inner {tu'o} is enough to indicate that you are dealing with
non-count stuff, and inner {su'o} clearly indicates countables
when you need to.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 1912


> Personal Specificity — sa'e
> The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without implication
> of veridicality).

I insist that {le} has no implication of veridicality, so the comment
'"le", but without implication of veridicality' does not make sense.

> le broda ~= lo sa'e broda == su'o da poi mi pensi ke'a zi'e
> poi ke'a broda

"~=" here means approximately equal, right? (Sometimes "~" is
used for negation.) Does this mean that you are dropping CLL's
default {[ro] le}?

Consider:

le prenu cu klama le zarci

CLL: Each of the people I have in mind goes to each of the
markets I have in mind.
RGP: At least one of the people I have in mind goes to at
least one of the markets I have in mind.
XS: The people I have in mind go to the markets I have in mind.

I believe XS is closest to usage, and CLL is the canonical
prescription, but your version is neither.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wednesday 28 July 2004 18:22, John Cowan wrote:
> I think that this dialogue is better served with zi'o, or with lo plus a
> brivla that means "Nothing, considered as something". To say that Jeeg
> created the world out of nothing does not mean that la djig. zbasu lo munje
> noda, for that would simply deny that there was anything that Jeeg created
> the world from, leaving it open whether he created it at all.

zbasu lo munje lo nomei. There's been another suggestion too, {nondza} or some
such. {zbasu lo munje zi'o} means that the world was created, but leaves open
whether there was any raw material.

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


posts: 2388

A>It is not a bias against 0; it just is the case that the logic of 0 is different from that of any other number (one reason why it took so long to recognize that 0 is a number — some aren't there yet).
B> {noda} is correct only in very narrowly prescribed cases (and I don't know just what those cases are). And, in those cases, it would be incorrect to use {zo'e}, though leaving the space blank is not a problem.
C> Not exactly — if I understand what is going on here. xorxes does not want to add BAI places that are not mentioned. And he wants unfilled central places to be filled as neutrally as possible — with the added wish that some of those places would go away (but which ones?).
D> Not at all hairsplitting, since '=' is symmetric and 'entails' is not (nor is 'implicates', which I think is more accurate, since the connection can be overriden).


xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:
Jorge Llambías wrote:

>Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>
>

A>Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.



>The canonical answer:
>The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
>There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
>at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
>intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.
>
>

B>Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

>My answer:
>Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
>which means they force you to say things you don't want to
>(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).
>
>
>
>>In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
>>an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?
>>
>>
>
>Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
>is simply {naku su'oda}.
>
>


C>You're being consistent. You would prefer to eliminate any places that
aren't physically forced to be filled with non-zero values. My position
hinges on the idea that this is not currently the case, whether or not I
am able to provide an unassailable example!


>>Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,
>>
>>
>
>Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.
>
>

D>Ah, splitting hairs between "=" and "entails".


>>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
>>real number?
>>
>>
>
>{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
>understand what you mean there.
>
>

Eliminating it from the place structure doesn't mean it has no value.
But it would prevent the ghost zo'e from appearing, allowing zero in
there as a quantity, as well as non-zero numbers.



--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.





posts: 2388

A>It is not a bias against 0; it just is the case that the logic of 0 is different from that of any other number (one reason why it took so long to recognize that 0 is a number — some aren't there yet).
B> {noda} is correct only in very narrowly prescribed cases (and I don't know just what those cases are). And, in those cases, it would be incorrect to use {zo'e}, though leaving the space blank is not a problem.
C> Not exactly — if I understand what is going on here. xorxes does not want to add BAI places that are not mentioned. And he wants unfilled central places to be filled as neutrally as possible — with the added wish that some of those places would go away (but which ones?).
D> Not at all hairsplitting, since '=' is symmetric and 'entails' is not (nor is 'implicates', which I think is more accurate, since the connection can be overriden).


xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:
Jorge Llambías wrote:

>Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>
>

A>Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.



>The canonical answer:
>The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
>There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
>at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
>intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.
>
>

B>Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

>My answer:
>Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
>which means they force you to say things you don't want to
>(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).
>
>
>
>>In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
>>an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?
>>
>>
>
>Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
>is simply {naku su'oda}.
>
>


C>You're being consistent. You would prefer to eliminate any places that
aren't physically forced to be filled with non-zero values. My position
hinges on the idea that this is not currently the case, whether or not I
am able to provide an unassailable example!


>>Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,
>>
>>
>
>Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.
>
>

D>Ah, splitting hairs between "=" and "entails".


>>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
>>real number?
>>
>>
>
>{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
>understand what you mean there.
>
>

Eliminating it from the place structure doesn't mean it has no value.
But it would prevent the ghost zo'e from appearing, allowing zero in
there as a quantity, as well as non-zero numbers.



--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.





posts: 2388

Negations have a dramatic effect wherever they occur (and remember they can occur anywhere, not just first middle and end). In this case all that it means is that I cannot truthfully be said to go and implicitly the reason I cannot is that I didn't get anywhere (a bit hard to imagine, but then it's only an example. Another choice might have been better.)

xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:John Cowan wrote:

>Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
>
>
>>>Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
>>>different selbri.
>>>
>>>
>>One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
>>that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
>>selbri.
>>
>>
>
>No, that won't work. klama noda is equivalent to klama naku su'oda, which is
>a negative claim (it is about what is not the case), whereas klama zi'o,
>though the x2 has been dropped, is still an affirmative claim (about what
>is the case).
>
>

If that's the case, then it's incorrect to render broda noda --> naku
broda su'oda. Because "noda" surely should not have so dramatic effect
on the other places. Saying that I went lacking a destination is very
different from opening up the possibility that I didn't go at all. We
gain nothing but confusion with such a conflation.





posts: 2388

Negations have a dramatic effect wherever they occur (and remember they can occur anywhere, not just first middle and end). In this case all that it means is that I cannot truthfully be said to go and implicitly the reason I cannot is that I didn't get anywhere (a bit hard to imagine, but then it's only an example. Another choice might have been better.)

xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:John Cowan wrote:

>Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
>
>
>>>Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
>>>different selbri.
>>>
>>>
>>One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
>>that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
>>selbri.
>>
>>
>
>No, that won't work. klama noda is equivalent to klama naku su'oda, which is
>a negative claim (it is about what is not the case), whereas klama zi'o,
>though the x2 has been dropped, is still an affirmative claim (about what
>is the case).
>
>

If that's the case, then it's incorrect to render broda noda --> naku
broda su'oda. Because "noda" surely should not have so dramatic effect
on the other places. Saying that I went lacking a destination is very
different from opening up the possibility that I didn't go at all. We
gain nothing but confusion with such a conflation.





posts: 2388

While it has some virtues, the good stuff in the proposal is already in other proposals — or easily could be added — and the bad stuff we don't want anyhow (unfortunately, we will disagree on which is which).

wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
So, could people maybe answer the question? That is, is this proposal something that, with some work, people could maybe agree on?

-Robin





posts: 2388

In keeping with my view that gadri are not ready yet, I suggest that this solution is premature (though cute). We have been directed toward considering plurality more carrefully. I suggest the same might be said for goo, which can, in Lojban, be viewed as a kind of collective, and one that can take numeration: "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two cups of water." Of course it is not clear where these numerations go, but the "this is in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:Robin:
> Oh, btw, I was hoping for a response from you to my goo question.

I think I agree with what you say there.

You don't say what you would do with inner PA's, but I think
inner {tu'o} is enough to indicate that you are dealing with
non-count stuff, and inner {su'o} clearly indicates countables
when you need to.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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




posts: 2388

But {klama no da} means not going anywhere while {klama zi'o} means doing dsomething like going but without a (stated or implied) destination (whatever that may mean — moving about?). So they can't be equivalent or even close, though the former may subsume the latter (but also any number of other things that are not going to some destination).

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:49:33PM -0400, xod wrote:

> Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> different selbri.

One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
selbri.


-Robin




posts: 2388

Because the empty places assume that some value goes in, not that the place is deleted (reading {zo'i} as {zi'o}). But creating something out of nothing is certainly conceptually possible — though surprising — and so needs to be sayable and not just by sying we are going to ignore the preexisting material.

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
Sure, but developing something from scratch is different than both those
things, is it not?

It seems conceptually strange to me that I couldn't say "mi finti da",
meaning "mi finti da fo zo'i" ("I made shit up") without expecting
substantial confusion on the part of the listener.

-Robin





posts: 2388

Well, {lo nomei} is problematic too, because {nomei} is if {mei} does not refer to sets: pluralities or groups can not be empty, apparently. We leave open the question whether creating something out of several nomei is different from creating out of one.
The pragmatic solution is that {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} (I would say {le} probably) denies {la djig zbasu lo munje da} and implicates that the failure is from the insistence that there was some preexisting material. Is pragmatics enough? Probably; we all sense that the above is different from {la djig na zbasu lo munje da}.

Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org> wrote:

On Wednesday 28 July 2004 18:22, John Cowan wrote:
> I think that this dialogue is better served with zi'o, or with lo plus a
> brivla that means "Nothing, considered as something". To say that Jeeg
> created the world out of nothing does not mean that la djig. zbasu lo munje
> noda, for that would simply deny that there was anything that Jeeg created
> the world from, leaving it open whether he created it at all.

zbasu lo munje lo nomei. There's been another suggestion too, {nondza} or some
such. {zbasu lo munje zi'o} means that the world was created, but leaves open
whether there was any raw material.

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



posts: 2388

go'i

John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

entire text snipped

I agree 100%, a rare thing. Please copy this to its own home on the Wiki.

--
Do what you will, John Cowan
this Life's a Fiction jcowan@reutershealth.com
And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan




posts: 2388

Going to plurality does not mean getting away from quantifiers, except occasionally in the collective (non-distributive) case. You may not care what exactly the quantifier is, but that just is {su'o} so always there. Clearly something different is implicit in your xorlo example, since it is robin's case. I think that the problem is that leaving out the quantifier means to you that you can stick in whatever one strikes your fancy. That is more or less true, but some choices are higher probability, pragmatically, and so are defaults for all practical purpose. If you know better, you should say more (communication cooperation).

wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:Re: Robin's gadri Proposal

> Personal Specificity — sa'e
> The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without implication
> of veridicality).

I insist that {le} has no implication of veridicality, so the comment
'"le", but without implication of veridicality' does not make sense.

> le broda ~= lo sa'e broda == su'o da poi mi pensi ke'a zi'e
> poi ke'a broda

"~=" here means approximately equal, right? (Sometimes "~" is
used for negation.) Does this mean that you are dropping CLL's
default {[ro] le}?

Consider:

le prenu cu klama le zarci

CLL: Each of the people I have in mind goes to each of the
markets I have in mind.
RGP: At least one of the people I have in mind goes to at
least one of the markets I have in mind.
XS: The people I have in mind go to the markets I have in mind.

I believe XS is closest to usage, and CLL is the canonical
prescription, but your version is neither.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






posts: 2388

Pragmatics again (or still). {zo'e} presupposes {su'o da}; to remove that presupposition we (usually) have to explicitly reject it-- with {noda} in this case. But other things can als work to do this occasionally (though I don't find the given examples completely convincing). The {noda} case doesn't change the selbri; it just says the relation does not hold and implicates that the problem lies in the {noda}d place.
xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:Jorge Llambías wrote:


When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?
Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
different selbri.

Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
Lojban? Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
"ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
that we had a destination?

In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?

>Quantified terms are not argument values, they only
>say how many values will satisfy the relationship.
>
>{zo'e} stands for an implicit (obvious or irrelevant) value, not
>for a term.
>
>

But the number of terms should obey the same properties as obviousness
and irrelevance. It should be free to be zero as easily as three.



>If any bridi had any number of implicit arguments, then {zi'o}
>would be pointless. {broda zi'o} would be equivalent to
>{broda zi'o fi'o se broda zo'e}, which means that the argument
>place we remove with {zi'o} is still always there through
>{fi'o se broda}.
>
>

Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda, but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
real number?

Whatever the case, I should think that zi'o would prevent the ghost zo'e
from re-appearing in that place.

In your scheme, there is no point ever in BAU zi'o.



posts: 1912

pc:
> Well, {lo nomei} is problematic too, because {nomei} is if {mei} does not
> refer to sets: pluralities or groups can not be empty, apparently. We leave
> open the question whether creating something out of several nomei is
> different from creating out of one.

I guess if ko'a is different from ko'e, then lo nomei be ko'a
might be different from lo nomei be ko'e.

A more absolute nothing might be referred to as {lo noda}.
Maybe {lo du jo'u lo noda} for Sartre's "Being and Nothing(ness)".

But {noda} by itself certainly does not refer to the thing that
is nothing. It refers to nothing in the sense that it doesn't refer
to anything. It says that no thing applies. Similarly {pada} does not
refer to anything either. It just says that exactly one thing applies,
but without referring to the one thing that applies.

> The pragmatic solution is that {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} (I would say
> {le} probably) denies {la djig zbasu lo munje da} and implicates that the
> failure is from the insistence that there was some preexisting material. Is
> pragmatics enough? Probably; we all sense that the above is different from
> {la djig na zbasu lo munje da}.

So {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} implicates {la djig zabsu lo munje zi'o}?
Probably that's how it will turn out in practice, but this I would simply
take as evidence of {zbasu}'s bloatedness. Otherwise, if it's a general rule,
then {mi patfu noda} should also implicate {mi patfu zi'o}. Or what is
special about the x3 of zbasu that the x2 of patfu doesn't have?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 1912


pc:
> I suggest the same might be said for
> goo, which can, in Lojban, be viewed as a kind of collective, and one that
> can take numeration: "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two cups of
> water." Of course it is not clear where these numerations go, but the "this
> is in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.

It's not even clear how to say that. Probably something like:

ti noi djacu cu klani li re lo kabri
This, which is water, amounts to 2 measured in cups.

But {lo djacu} is not a sumti there. As a sumti:

lo djacu je klani be li re bei lo kabri
Water and amount 2 in cups.

Another possibility is to use the number "2 cups" as a quantifier
of {djacu}:

vei mo'e re kabri ve'o djacu

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 2388

At least since Fridegesus (I haven't checked the spelling), talking about nothing has been a problem (see the bit from Alice cited in CLL). Lojban ought to do a good job at this and make it clear that what is involved is always simply the denial of something. And I think it does. But it does not prevent perverse humanity from trying to make a problem again. Assuming that {nomei} is about sets, then of itself it is no problem and it is meaningful to speak of {lo nomei be ko'a} as being different from {lo nomei be ko'e} only in the sense that we are viewing the same thing under different descriptions (cf. unicorns are different from cenataurs). Nothing extensional is changed but the intensions are different (as Frege asked "How is "x=y", if true, different from "x=x?"). But we can't have that at all with plurality or groups
Is {lo noda} really grammatical? What does it mean, spelled out in detail? (Being and Nothingness is certainly not about {du} (or {ka du}), but finding a way to say it crisply in Lojban stumps me (it is not about {ka zasti} or {nu zasti} either); too mmuch technical jargon gets involved.
I am not at all sure that {la djig zbasu le munje noda} implicates {la djig zbasu le munje zi'o}, unless we can expand on what that means. I don't mean that the lack of material is the only reason that Jeeg didn't pull it off, only that it is the one being blamed at the moment. In the traditional case, of course, it is not even the reason it did not come off, since it did, and in that case the {zi'o} form is appropiate. Consequently, we can see how {zbasu2} is different from {patfu2}: being a father is definitionally linked (bound) to there being children of the subject while creating is not so linked to there being preexisting material out of which to construct (asssuming the traditional story is not just meaningless). Not having children is sufficient (and also necessary) for not being a father, not having material is neither for not creating.


Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Well, {lo nomei} is problematic too, because {nomei} is if {mei} does not
> refer to sets: pluralities or groups can not be empty, apparently. We leave
> open the question whether creating something out of several nomei is
> different from creating out of one.

I guess if ko'a is different from ko'e, then lo nomei be ko'a
might be different from lo nomei be ko'e.

A more absolute nothing might be referred to as {lo noda}.
Maybe {lo du jo'u lo noda} for Sartre's "Being and Nothing(ness)".

But {noda} by itself certainly does not refer to the thing that
is nothing. It refers to nothing in the sense that it doesn't refer
to anything. It says that no thing applies. Similarly {pada} does not
refer to anything either. It just says that exactly one thing applies,
but without referring to the one thing that applies.

> The pragmatic solution is that {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} (I would say
> {le} probably) denies {la djig zbasu lo munje da} and implicates that the
> failure is from the insistence that there was some preexisting material. Is
> pragmatics enough? Probably; we all sense that the above is different from
> {la djig na zbasu lo munje da}.

So {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} implicates {la djig zabsu lo munje zi'o}?
Probably that's how it will turn out in practice, but this I would simply
take as evidence of {zbasu}'s bloatedness. Otherwise, if it's a general rule,
then {mi patfu noda} should also implicate {mi patfu zi'o}. Or what is
special about the x3 of zbasu that the x2 of patfu doesn't have?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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



posts: 2388

Yes, Lojban needs to do something about measurements. I thought at one time that maybe {ni} could be used somehow, but it does not work well with things like water, even if it gets clearly separated from {jei}. A good general solution would help, but I don't think that the tanru (or lujvo) solution is the way to go either and even the "obvious" quantifier route has problems (not least the complexity of such locutions).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> I suggest the same might be said for
> goo, which can, in Lojban, be viewed as a kind of collective, and one that
> can take numeration: "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two cups of
> water." Of course it is not clear where these numerations go, but the "this
> is in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.

It's not even clear how to say that. Probably something like:

ti noi djacu cu klani li re lo kabri
This, which is water, amounts to 2 measured in cups.

But {lo djacu} is not a sumti there. As a sumti:

lo djacu je klani be li re bei lo kabri
Water and amount 2 in cups.

Another possibility is to use the number "2 cups" as a quantifier
of {djacu}:

vei mo'e re kabri ve'o djacu

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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




posts: 1912


pc:
> At least since Fridegesus (I haven't checked the spelling), talking about
> nothing has been a problem (see the bit from Alice cited in CLL). Lojban
> ought to do a good job at this and make it clear that what is involved is
> always simply the denial of something. And I think it does.

So do I. That's why I think it odd that {zbasu fi noda} would even
implicate that something did go on, when it is just a denial of
something.

> Is {lo noda} really grammatical?

Yep.

> What does it mean, spelled out in detail?

I would say something like "that which is nothing". An odd thing indeed.

> I am not at all sure that {la djig zbasu le munje noda} implicates {la djig
> zbasu le munje zi'o}, unless we can expand on what that means.

{la djig zbasu le munje zi'o} means that Jeeg made the world. Whether
or not there was some material to start with is not mentioned.

> I don't mean
> that the lack of material is the only reason that Jeeg didn't pull it off,
> only that it is the one being blamed at the moment. In the traditional case,
> of course, it is not even the reason it did not come off, since it did, and
> in that case the {zi'o} form is appropiate.

But is the {noda} form appropriate to say that Jeeg did pull it off?

> Consequently, we can see how
> {zbasu2} is different from {patfu2}: being a father is definitionally linked
> (bound) to there being children of the subject while creating is not so
> linked to there being preexisting material out of which to construct
> (asssuming the traditional story is not just meaningless). Not having
> children is sufficient (and also necessary) for not being a father, not
> having material is neither for not creating.

That's why I think {zbasu} is bloated, or at least it has a more restricted
meaning than "create". It would be better to have a basic word for the more
general meaning "x1 makes x2", from which the more specific "x1 makes x2
out of x3" can be derived, than the other way around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 2388

I am inclined to think that the problem is either with having "creates" among the meanings of {zbasu} or with using {zbasu} for what Jeeg is supposed to have done. Dropping plaaces from predicates creates problem in vocabulary since many concepts are to be found only as remote places in some other predicate. I suspect the gismu list (well, maybe we can do some of them with lujvo) would have to more than double to accomodate all the concepts that occur only in usually dropped places (logical language creators seem always to be lumpers, later workers seem usually to be splitters). {tu'a la djig se jalge lenu le munje cu zasti} is almost all we need; maybe augmented by comments involving {minde} or {ganzu} (though both of these involve problems — who is commanded, what is organized — which may be obviated by the preceding {se jalge} claim).

If we remove all the places bound conceptually to each basic predicate, we will not help much, since, for example,
route
at least is bound to
go
(so is
origin
but not, I think,
vehicle
unless feet count).

The standard claim about God creating the world ex nihilo takes place in a context of the assumption that God created the world and is merely a counter to the suggestion that It did it in a {ganzu} sort of way — or even a {zbasu} one. In that context, the {noda} with {zbasu} works even semantically, not just pragmatically.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> At least since Fridegesus (I haven't checked the spelling), talking about
> nothing has been a problem (see the bit from Alice cited in CLL). Lojban
> ought to do a good job at this and make it clear that what is involved is
> always simply the denial of something. And I think it does.

So do I. That's why I think it odd that {zbasu fi noda} would even
implicate that something did go on, when it is just a denial of
something.

> Is {lo noda} really grammatical?

Yep.

> What does it mean, spelled out in detail?

I would say something like "that which is nothing". An odd thing indeed.

> I am not at all sure that {la djig zbasu le munje noda} implicates {la djig
> zbasu le munje zi'o}, unless we can expand on what that means.

{la djig zbasu le munje zi'o} means that Jeeg made the world. Whether
or not there was some material to start with is not mentioned.

> I don't mean
> that the lack of material is the only reason that Jeeg didn't pull it off,
> only that it is the one being blamed at the moment. In the traditional case,
> of course, it is not even the reason it did not come off, since it did, and
> in that case the {zi'o} form is appropiate.

But is the {noda} form appropriate to say that Jeeg did pull it off?

> Consequently, we can see how
> {zbasu2} is different from {patfu2}: being a father is definitionally linked
> (bound) to there being children of the subject while creating is not so
> linked to there being preexisting material out of which to construct
> (asssuming the traditional story is not just meaningless). Not having
> children is sufficient (and also necessary) for not being a father, not
> having material is neither for not creating.

That's why I think {zbasu} is bloated, or at least it has a more restricted
meaning than "create". It would be better to have a basic word for the more
general meaning "x1 makes x2", from which the more specific "x1 makes x2
out of x3" can be derived, than the other way around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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



posts: 1912

pc:
> Dropping plaaces from predicates creates problem in vocabulary
> since many concepts are to be found only as remote places in some other
> predicate.

I think it was a mistake to equate concepts with places. The concept
(one concept) is the relationship. {zbasu} is one concept, not three.
{klama} is one concept, not five.

> I suspect the gismu list (well, maybe we can do some of them with
> lujvo) would have to more than double to accomodate all the concepts that
> occur only in usually dropped places (logical language creators seem always
> to be lumpers, later workers seem usually to be splitters).

It seems to me that in this case it is the other way around. I would
like {zbasu} to lump "x1 makes x2 from x3" with "x1 makes x2", but
the creators assigned the more restricted concept to {zbasu} and didn't
provide a basic word for the wider concept.


> If we remove all the places bound conceptually to each basic predicate, we

> will not help much, since, for example,
route
at least is bound to
go
(so > is
origin
but not, I think,
vehicle
unless feet count).


I think feet are supposed to count as valid {xe klama}, but I'm not
sure you can say that the Earth klama around the Sun, for example.

> The standard claim about God creating the world ex nihilo takes place in a
> context of the assumption that God created the world and is merely a counter
> to the suggestion that It did it in a {ganzu} sort of way — or even a
> {zbasu} one. In that context, the {noda} with {zbasu} works even
> semantically, not just pragmatically.

Sure, if the claim of creation is made somehow else, {zbasu fi noda}
is perfectly acceptable to claim that there was no zbasuing going on.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 2388

A> Well, skip concept and go directly to translating English (where concept talk usually ends up anyhow). I think then that there are many common English words we get at only through oblique places. Come to that, how do we add on the places that are there now if we lop them off. Is there, for example, a word for "out of material x" that is independent of {zbasu} ({marji} is no help here)? And, of course, the fact that {klama} is one concept does not mean that it is not composed of several — even five — concepts, into which it may be broken down.
B>Harrdly more restricted from a practical point of view; there is only one case that ever comes up when the materials place is inappropriate. And practicality, rather than raw semantics, was a guiding principle in gismu creation. That's not to say that the constructors didn't err sometimes — in both directions (though, admittedlly, mainly in havimg too many places).
C>Probably not, since there is neither origin nor destination nor vehicle, only route. So {klama} is not very good for "go" in a lot of cases (not news, since it already is said to cover "come" as well).
D> And put the blame squarely on {zbasu}'s demand for a material, which is the point of saying it in the first place.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Dropping plaaces from predicates creates problem in vocabulary
> since many concepts are to be found only as remote places in some other
> predicate.

A>I think it was a mistake to equate concepts with places. The concept
(one concept) is the relationship. {zbasu} is one concept, not three.
{klama} is one concept, not five.

> I suspect the gismu list (well, maybe we can do some of them with
> lujvo) would have to more than double to accomodate all the concepts that
> occur only in usually dropped places (logical language creators seem always
> to be lumpers, later workers seem usually to be splitters).

B>It seems to me that in this case it is the other way around. I would
like {zbasu} to lump "x1 makes x2 from x3" with "x1 makes x2", but
the creators assigned the more restricted concept to {zbasu} and didn't
provide a basic word for the wider concept.


> If we remove all the places bound conceptually to each basic predicate, we

> will not help much, since, for example,
route
at least is bound to
go
(so > is
origin
but not, I think,
vehicle
unless feet count).


C>I think feet are supposed to count as valid {xe klama}, but I'm not
sure you can say that the Earth klama around the Sun, for example.

> The standard claim about God creating the world ex nihilo takes place in a
> context of the assumption that God created the world and is merely a counter
> to the suggestion that It did it in a {ganzu} sort of way — or even a
> {zbasu} one. In that context, the {noda} with {zbasu} works even
> semantically, not just pragmatically.

D>Sure, if the claim of creation is made somehow else, {zbasu fi noda}
is perfectly acceptable to claim that there was no zbasuing going on.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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



posts: 1912

pc:
> Well, skip concept and go directly to translating English (where concept
> talk usually ends up anyhow). I think then that there are many common
> English words we get at only through oblique places.

Hard to tell. The x3 of {tirxu} for example won't do for the common
word "stripe". I think the intent was that those oblique places
would cover many English words, but the effect was the opposite,
a reduction in the coverage of semantic space. Also, places of the
"under conditions x" and "by standard x" sort are, at least for me,
just a hindrance in the learning of place structures.

> Come to that, how do we
> add on the places that are there now if we lop them off. Is there, for
> example, a word for "out of material x" that is independent of {zbasu}
> ({marji} is no help here)?

Why is {marji} of no help? In fact, if {zbasu} didn't exist, I would
use {majgau} for "x1 makes x2 out of material x3". Of course, {marji}
is bloated too with its x3, so that really comes out as
"x1 makes x2 out of material x3 in shape/form x4". Good thing
nobody thought of adding that place to {zbasu}.

> And, of course, the fact that {klama} is one
> concept does not mean that it is not composed of several — even five --
> concepts, into which it may be broken down.

That's the problem: it can't really be broken down into simpler concepts,
unless through clumsy means like {zi'o}. With {klama} you get the
full package or nothing.

> Harrdly more restricted from a practical point of view; there is only one
> case that ever comes up when the materials place is inappropriate.

There was a similar example with {finti} the other day.

> And
> practicality, rather than raw semantics, was a guiding principle in gismu
> creation.

I'm not arguing for raw semantics though, and I don't even think
{zbasu} is one of the worst offenders, three places is still
manageable. But I think that bloatedness in general goes against
practicality.

> That's not to say that the constructors didn't err sometimes — in
> both directions (though, admittedlly, mainly in havimg too many places).

Right, nobody expects them not to have erred sometimes. It would be nice
if there was something we could do about it though.

> Probably not, since there is neither origin nor destination nor vehicle,
> only route.

Right, and there is nothing for going without origin, destination
and vehicle. {litru} comes close, but it has a vehicle. So what
does the Earth do? {muvdu} is also too heavy.

> So {klama} is not very good for "go" in a lot of cases (not
> news, since it already is said to cover "come" as well).

{klama} covers come and go, but only a fairly restricted sense of
come and go. A one place predicate "x1 comes/goes" coupled with
the wide variety of spatial tenses Lojban offers would cover much
more ground. As it is, the spatial tenses are wasted because there
are almost no predicates that will support them. If you try to use
spatial tenses with {klama} you mostly get nonsense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 152

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:25:51AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Is {lo noda} really grammatical?
>
> Yep.
>
> > What does it mean, spelled out in detail?
>
> I would say something like "that which is nothing". An odd thing indeed.

It seems that it should be considered either a contradiction, or a completely
meaningless accident of grammar.

Using CLL's {lo}, {lo noda} = {su'o lo no da}, and you can't have {su'o lo no}
of anything.

In xorlo, it seems to be "a 0-some of {da}", but then {da} doesn't work that
way - the {no} is the quantifier of how many {da} there are. (If this weren't
the case, any claim involving {noda} would be vacuously true.) It seems that
xorlo leaves the LE PA KOhA combination quite undefined.

You can't put the {noda} in the prenex, because then you'd get something like
{lo noda broda} = {noda zo'u lo da broda}, which aside from sounding like Dr.
Seuss, is ungrammatical. So this might mean that {lo noda} (or {lo pada} or
whatever) is only grammatical by accident, since the {no} looks like an inner
quantifier to {lo}, but it's not really one.

--
Rob Speer



posts: 1912

Rob Speer:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:25:51AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > Is {lo noda} really grammatical?
> > > What does it mean, spelled out in detail?
> > I would say something like "that which is nothing". An odd thing indeed.
>
> It seems that it should be considered either a contradiction, or a completely
> meaningless accident of grammar.

I wouldn't take away from the Sartres of this world the possibility of
talking about Nothing as if it were something, though, even if it is not
very meaningful to our first-order logical mind.

> Using CLL's {lo}, {lo noda} = {su'o lo no da}, and you can't have {su'o lo
> no} of anything.

BTW, what would you take {su'o lo ci da} to be in CLL? Does it
imply/presuppose that there are three and only three things in the world?

> In xorlo, it seems to be "a 0-some of {da}", but then {da} doesn't work that
> way - the {no} is the quantifier of how many {da} there are. (If this weren't
> the case, any claim involving {noda} would be vacuously true.) It seems that
> xorlo leaves the LE PA KOhA combination quite undefined.

Yes, I was aware of that. I'm thinking of defining it as {LE PA me KOhA},
now that I have a definition for me. Then {lo noda} is {lo no me da}.
But the problem is that we don't have as yet a definition for bare {da},
at least in XS, where sticking a {su'o} there won't do.

> You can't put the {noda} in the prenex, because then you'd get something like
> {lo noda broda} = {noda zo'u lo da broda}, which aside from sounding like Dr.
> Seuss, is ungrammatical.

Certainly not. In XS you never take quantifiers from inside {lo} to the
outside! That's crucial. (Neither in CLL, for that matter, I think.)

> So this might mean that {lo noda} (or {lo pada} or
> whatever) is only grammatical by accident, since the {no} looks like an inner
> quantifier to {lo}, but it's not really one.

CLL says:

A full theory of sumti-based descriptions has yet to be worked out. One common
case, however, is well understood. Compare the following:

9.1) re do cu nanmu
Two-of you are-men.

9.2) le re do cu nanmu
The two-of you are men.

Example 9.1 simply specifies that of the group of listeners, size unknown, two
are men. Example 9.2, which has the sumti-based description ``le re do'', says
that of the two listeners, all (the implicit outer quantifier ``ro'') are men.
So in effect the inner quantifier ``re'' gives the number of individuals which
the inner sumti ``do'' refers to.


This seems to agree with defining {le re do} as {le re me do}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 2388

A> Hmmm! Is that the only stripe we have available? Probably, I suppose. But the BAI etc derived from gismu etc. are as liberated as lujvo are from tanru (perhaps more so). Could we make up a list of all the things that occur often enough and in remote enough places to be worth doing, then free them from association with gismu? Would it be worth it? It would change Lojban markedly and go into some logically very strange places (the virtue of the present system is that it behaves just like first order logic — as it was designed to do.) I am too much of a lumper to be able to see this whole program and it has not panned out in previous attempts, but, when we get to gismu in this process it needs another look-see. I admit that I am often frustrated by finding several almost right wortds, which either have irrelevant or even counterproductive places and lack vital ones, do a mve like would have some support — if my problems are reasonably typical. And learnign gismu would be
easier.
B> This seems to push the freedom of lujvo a bit further than I am comfortable with (the {marji} does not connect naturally with any place of {gasnu}), but once that is done then we can of course create terms for everything, by simple fiat (that is totally unrelated to the underlying tanru) if necessary. I think I prefer the tacked on places approach.
C> But at least there is {zi'o} and perhaps other devices not yet used (I can't think of one, but I am regularly surprised by someone coming up with a critter I never noticed).
D> that was, I think, the same case trying a different word for the selbri.
E> The answer seems to be {carna} but that is suspicious because of "axis;" could that be any center of rotation? Ahah! {muvdu} seem to be the {klama}-without-a-vehicle sought earlier. So {klama} already exists stripped in one way to its essentials (for that meaning of "go/come") — but we lack the "using vehicle..."
F> I am not sure how spatial tenses — as I understant them — will help with {klama}. They don't cover origin or destination or point of arrival or route or vehicle (thank God) or pace or just about anything that we might want with "come/go." They are mainly about the location of the event usually relative to the speaker. The peculiar motion tenses are directions that the event is moving relative to some fixed point (again usually the speaker, but other cases occur). I suppose "go" could be something about motion away from the origin and toward the destination and we could probably get a route or at least some points along it in too. But it takes some conceptual violence to the notion of a spatial tense (not that the notion of motion tenses fits very comfortanbly).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Well, skip concept and go directly to translating English (where concept
> talk usually ends up anyhow). I think then that there are many common
> English words we get at only through oblique places.

A>Hard to tell. The x3 of {tirxu} for example won't do for the common
word "stripe". I think the intent was that those oblique places
would cover many English words, but the effect was the opposite,
a reduction in the coverage of semantic space. Also, places of the
"under conditions x" and "by standard x" sort are, at least for me,
just a hindrance in the learning of place structures.

> Come to that, how do we
> add on the places that are there now if we lop them off. Is there, for
> example, a word for "out of material x" that is independent of {zbasu}
> ({marji} is no help here)?

B>Why is {marji} of no help? In fact, if {zbasu} didn't exist, I would
use {majgau} for "x1 makes x2 out of material x3". Of course, {marji}
is bloated too with its x3, so that really comes out as
"x1 makes x2 out of material x3 in shape/form x4". Good thing
nobody thought of adding that place to {zbasu}.

> And, of course, the fact that {klama} is one
> concept does not mean that it is not composed of several — even five --
> concepts, into which it may be broken down.

C>That's the problem: it can't really be broken down into simpler concepts,
unless through clumsy means like {zi'o}. With {klama} you get the
full package or nothing.

> Harrdly more restricted from a practical point of view; there is only one
> case that ever comes up when the materials place is inappropriate.

D>There was a similar example with {finti} the other day.

> And
> practicality, rather than raw semantics, was a guiding principle in gismu
> creation.

I'm not arguing for raw semantics though, and I don't even think
{zbasu} is one of the worst offenders, three places is still
manageable. But I think that bloatedness in general goes against
practicality.

> That's not to say that the constructors didn't err sometimes — in
> both directions (though, admittedlly, mainly in havimg too many places).

Right, nobody expects them not to have erred sometimes. It would be nice
if there was something we could do about it though.

> Probably not, since there is neither origin nor destination nor vehicle,
> only route.

E>Right, and there is nothing for going without origin, destination
and vehicle. {litru} comes close, but it has a vehicle. So what
does the Earth do? {muvdu} is also too heavy.

> So {klama} is not very good for "go" in a lot of cases (not
> news, since it already is said to cover "come" as well).

F>{klama} covers come and go, but only a fairly restricted sense of
come and go. A one place predicate "x1 comes/goes" coupled with
the wide variety of spatial tenses Lojban offers would cover much
more ground. As it is, the spatial tenses are wasted because there
are almost no predicates that will support them. If you try to use
spatial tenses with {klama} you mostly get nonsense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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



posts: 1912


pc:
> Hmmm! Is that the only stripe we have available? Probably, I suppose.
> But the BAI etc derived from gismu etc. are as liberated as lujvo are from
> tanru (perhaps more so).

I wouldn't think so. For example, it does not make sense to me to
say: {ta lanci fi'o te tirxu paci da} for "that's a flag with 13
stripes". It's just too weird.

> B> This seems to push the freedom of lujvo a bit further than I am
> comfortable with (the {marji} does not connect naturally with any place of
> {gasnu}),

-gau lujvo are very standard. {brodygau} is always {gasnu lo nu broda},
so:

ko'a gasnu lo nu ko'e marji ko'i
ko'a is agent in ko'e being composed of ko'i

Could ko'a be an agent here other than by making ko'e out of ko'i?

> The answer seems to be {carna} but that is suspicious because of "axis;"
> could that be any center of rotation? Ahah! {muvdu} seem to be the
> {klama}-without-a-vehicle sought earlier. So {klama} already exists stripped
> in one way to its essentials (for that meaning of "go/come") — but we lack
> the "using vehicle..."

Stripping {muvdu} of its agent place was a small victory for the Lean Gismu
movement, but much too scarce.

> I am not sure how spatial tenses — as I understant them — will help with
> {klama}. They don't cover origin or destination or point of arrival or route
> or vehicle (thank God) or pace or just about anything that we might want with
> "come/go."

What about direction? "I was going home when I bumped into John, so we
went for a beer instead." I can't use {klama} there because although
home was my intended destination, or the direction I was going, it was
not the actual destination of my going, not the se klama.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 149

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> What about direction? "I was going home when I bumped into John, so we
> went for a beer instead." I can't use {klama} there because although
> home was my intended destination, or the direction I was going, it was
> not the actual destination of my going, not the se klama.

Well, you could certainly add a place for direction, or you could take
advantage of the fact that events exist in Lojban even if they don't
happen, and speak of lo nu mi klama le mi zdani even though the event
never completes.

--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
I must confess that I have very little notion of what s. 4 of the British
Trade Marks Act, 1938
is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence
of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if
the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940


posts: 149

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Right, and there is nothing for going without origin, destination
> and vehicle. {litru} comes close, but it has a vehicle. So what
> does the Earth do? {muvdu} is also too heavy.

Why, it "mluni", which really means "orbits". I have also been known
to use this word for "going around the corner" (of the street).

--
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN John Cowan
in any language. --Allen Brown cowan@ccil.org


On Thursday 05 August 2004 15:10, John E Clifford wrote:
> In keeping with my view that gadri are not ready yet, I suggest that this
> solution is premature (though cute). We have been directed toward
> considering plurality more carrefully. I suggest the same might be said
> for goo, which can, in Lojban, be viewed as a kind of collective, and one
> that can take numeration: "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two
> cups of water." Of course it is not clear where these numerations go, but
> the "this is in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.

>From a recipe which I wrote some years ago:
loi tcatymuclai be li 3 be'o ke sobde sanso
loi taxlai be li 1/2 stagrle,oxari
Of course, I rarely follow the recipe - I make stir-fried random.

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


posts: 1912


John Cowan:
> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
> > Right, and there is nothing for going without origin, destination
> > and vehicle. {litru} comes close, but it has a vehicle. So what
> > does the Earth do? {muvdu} is also too heavy.
>
> Why, it "mluni", which really means "orbits".

Doesn't it rather plini (which also means "orbits")?
Is plini a kind of mluni, mluni a kind of plini, or are they contraries?

> I have also been known
> to use this word for "going around the corner" (of the street).

So mluni does not require a closed orbit?

It's weird that we have words for very specific kinds of movement
(muvdu, mluni, carna) but no word for movement in general.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 152

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:49:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Using CLL's {lo}, {lo noda} = {su'o lo no da}, and you can't have {su'o lo
> > no} of anything.
>
> BTW, what would you take {su'o lo ci da} to be in CLL? Does it
> imply/presuppose that there are three and only three things in the world?

If it were {lo ci du}, it would certainly mean that. When it's {da}, I'm not so
sure. It could mean "some things such that there are only three of them". It's
tough to think of a good example for that. {lo mu da} could refer to the
Platonic solids.

> > In xorlo, it seems to be "a 0-some of {da}", but then {da} doesn't work that
> > way - the {no} is the quantifier of how many {da} there are. (If this weren't
> > the case, any claim involving {noda} would be vacuously true.) It seems that
> > xorlo leaves the LE PA KOhA combination quite undefined.
>
> Yes, I was aware of that. I'm thinking of defining it as {LE PA me KOhA},
> now that I have a definition for me. Then {lo noda} is {lo no me da}.
> But the problem is that we don't have as yet a definition for bare {da},
> at least in XS, where sticking a {su'o} there won't do.

My gut feeling is that, for {da} in particular, you should stick as close to
CLL as possible. CLL turned everything into {da}, so it might be a good idea to
leave that alone. And why doesn't {su'o} work there?

--
Rob Speer



posts: 149

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> > Why, it "mluni", which really means "orbits".
>
> Doesn't it rather plini (which also means "orbits")?

I meant "plini", yes.

> Is plini a kind of mluni, mluni a kind of plini, or are they contraries?

They are vague and overlapping categories.

> > I have also been known
> > to use this word for "going around the corner" (of the street).
>
> So mluni does not require a closed orbit?

Perhaps. Does a parabolic-orbit comet plini around the Sun? I don't know.

> It's weird that we have words for very specific kinds of movement
> (muvdu, mluni, carna) but no word for movement in general.

Remind me what's insufficiently general about muvdu other than its
inapplicability to orbiting.

--
I suggest you call for help, John Cowan
or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing. cowan@ccil.org
--Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


posts: 2388

1>I don't care for it either, but I suspect I have seen worse.
2>I guess I read {marji} differently, as being about kinds of stuff and shape rather than about parts brought together: "a plank is a wood in thin rectangular shape" not "a pencil is cedar and graphite in long octagonal shape" though even the latter does not seem to help for making a world.
3> You can have a destination without getting there, but it may be that that can't be said with {klama} (though I should think that it could with {co'u}, if nothing else, or the opposite of {za'o}).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> Hmmm! Is that the only stripe we have available? Probably, I suppose.
> But the BAI etc derived from gismu etc. are as liberated as lujvo are from
> tanru (perhaps more so).

1>I wouldn't think so. For example, it does not make sense to me to
say: {ta lanci fi'o te tirxu paci da} for "that's a flag with 13
stripes". It's just too weird.

> B> This seems to push the freedom of lujvo a bit further than I am
> comfortable with (the {marji} does not connect naturally with any place of
> {gasnu}),

2>-gau lujvo are very standard. {brodygau} is always {gasnu lo nu broda},
so:

ko'a gasnu lo nu ko'e marji ko'i
ko'a is agent in ko'e being composed of ko'i

Could ko'a be an agent here other than by making ko'e out of ko'i?

> The answer seems to be {carna} but that is suspicious because of "axis;"
> could that be any center of rotation? Ahah! {muvdu} seem to be the
> {klama}-without-a-vehicle sought earlier. So {klama} already exists stripped
> in one way to its essentials (for that meaning of "go/come") — but we lack
> the "using vehicle..."

Stripping {muvdu} of its agent place was a small victory for the Lean Gismu
movement, but much too scarce.

> I am not sure how spatial tenses — as I understant them — will help with
> {klama}. They don't cover origin or destination or point of arrival or route
> or vehicle (thank God) or pace or just about anything that we might want with
> "come/go."

3>What about direction? "I was going home when I bumped into John, so we
went for a beer instead." I can't use {klama} there because although
home was my intended destination, or the direction I was going, it was
not the actual destination of my going, not the se klama.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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



posts: 1912


Rob Speer:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:49:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > BTW, what would you take {su'o lo ci da} to be in CLL? Does it
> > imply/presuppose that there are three and only three things in the world?
>
> If it were {lo ci du}, it would certainly mean that. When it's {da}, I'm not
> so
> sure. It could mean "some things such that there are only three of them".
> It's
> tough to think of a good example for that. {lo mu da} could refer to the
> Platonic solids.

Or to the five fingers of my left hand. Probably any five things can be
described in some way such that only those five satisfy the description.
If you allow implicit restrictions, then the inner quantifier of CLL
becomes very similar to the one of XS. {lo ci mlatu} would not be the
three cats that there are in all but {lo ci mlatu poi bu'a}, three cats
that satisfy some predicate (i.e. that they are one of those three cats,
for example.)

> > I'm thinking of defining it as {LE PA me KOhA},
> > now that I have a definition for me. Then {lo noda} is {lo no me da}.
> > But the problem is that we don't have as yet a definition for bare {da},
> > at least in XS, where sticking a {su'o} there won't do.
>
> My gut feeling is that, for {da} in particular, you should stick as close to
> CLL as possible.

CLL never has bare {da}, it is always bound by a quantifier, explicitly
or implicitly.

> CLL turned everything into {da}, so it might be a good idea
> to
> leave that alone. And why doesn't {su'o} work there?

I guess it won't hurt, though it won't add anything either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 1912


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
> > So mluni does not require a closed orbit?
>
> Perhaps. Does a parabolic-orbit comet plini around the Sun? I don't know.

I guess with suitable x3 and x4.

> > It's weird that we have words for very specific kinds of movement
> > (muvdu, mluni, carna) but no word for movement in general.
>
> Remind me what's insufficiently general about muvdu other than its
> inapplicability to orbiting.

Orbiting, rotating. Also, movement of parts when the whole doesn't
change place, vibrations. There's no general word like English
"move" that covers them all, except perhaps something like {tolcando}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


Re: Robin's gadri Proposal

Robin:
> The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality. Note that this is
> not si'o; that relates to a whole relationship, not merely the x1
> thing.
> lo sa'e nai broda ~= le sa'e nai broda == su'o zo'e noi ke'a broda
> (which, obviously, I stole from xorlo)

Hmm... you didn't quite steal it though. In XS, when there is no
explicit quantifier, the term is unquantified. You seem to be
restoring implicit quantifiers here.

> Existence — je'u
> su'o da, or something like it: insisting that the thing really
> does exist.

I think {je'u} is better for veridicality rather than for existence.
{lo je'u pavyseljirna} would be something that really is a unicorn,
as opposed to something that I'm calling a unicorn but may be
something else. This is independent of the question of whether
or not unicorns exist.

> Imaginary, or otherwise fundamentally non-existant (with respect
> to the current semantic space).
> lo je'u nai broda == le je'u nai broda

{da'i}?

> Distributivity — .o'e, or mass cmavo.
> (See http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for an explication.
> This relates to what Lojban has historically called "masses".)
> The short version: Distributive just means that the elements are
> only considered as a whole in this predication. "The students
> surround the building" cannot be represented in standard predicate
> logic without distributives / plurals / masses, because it implies
> that each student surrounds the building.

Here you have the terminology backwards. "Each student surrounds
the building" is distributive. "The students surround the building" is
non-distributive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




posts: 2388

Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of the logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier — in something like three different and to me incompatible ways: is it an open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a pronoun for indifferent terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms or is it yet something else again. Much of the apparent value of several arguments here seem to hinge on playing two or more sides of this ambiguity in different places. A clear statement about {zo'e} — as it is being used here, since CLL is pretty clearly ambiguous — would be most helpful.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama
> > > zo'e", exactly?
> >
> > The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o} explicit,
> > you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from context.
>
> I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the first?

The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}.
{mi ja'a klama le zarci} is not the same answer as
{mi ja'a klama su'o le zarci} to the question
{xu do klama le zarci}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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




posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>I don't think {noda} can be elided. Certainly {mi klama le zarci}
>is not a case of elision of {bai noda}.
>
>{mi klama le zarci bai noda} does not say that I do go to the
>market and that nothing forces me to do so. It says much less:
>that there is nothing that forces me to go to the market.
>I may go unforced, or maybe I don't go: in both cases nothing
>is forcing me to go.
>
>{klama} has five argument places, no more, no less.
>{klama bai} has six argument places.
>
>They are different relationships, even if not completely unrelated.
>If {klama bai} holds of some six argument values, then {klama} will
>hold of the corresponding five, but from klama holding of some five
>arguments I can conclude nothing about {klama bai}: it may or may
>not hold of some six arguments.
>
>{noda} is a term, it is not an argument (value). In fact, it says
>that no value in that position will make the relationship true.
>
>

When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?
Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
different selbri.

Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
Lojban? Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
"ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
that we had a destination?

In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?

>Quantified terms are not argument values, they only
>say how many values will satisfy the relationship.
>
>{zo'e} stands for an implicit (obvious or irrelevant) value, not
>for a term.
>
>

But the number of terms should obey the same properties as obviousness
and irrelevance. It should be free to be zero as easily as three.



>If any bridi had any number of implicit arguments, then {zi'o}
>would be pointless. {broda zi'o} would be equivalent to
>{broda zi'o fi'o se broda zo'e}, which means that the argument
>place we remove with {zi'o} is still always there through
>{fi'o se broda}.
>
>

Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda, but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
real number?

Whatever the case, I should think that zi'o would prevent the ghost zo'e
from re-appearing in that place.

In your scheme, there is no point ever in BAU zi'o.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>xod:
>
>
>>When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
>>different selbri.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>
>

Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.


>{klama} is the selbri, which is said to not hold in this case.
>
>
>
>>Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
>>understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
>>context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
>>Lojban?
>>
>>
>
>It would be interesting to see such case.
>
>
>
>>Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
>>"ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
>>reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
>>that we had a destination?
>>
>>
>
>The canonical answer:
>The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
>There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
>at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
>intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.
>
>

Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

>My answer:
>Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
>which means they force you to say things you don't want to
>(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).
>
>
>
>>In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
>>an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?
>>
>>
>
>Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
>is simply {naku su'oda}.
>
>


You're being consistent. You would prefer to eliminate any places that
aren't physically forced to be filled with non-zero values. My position
hinges on the idea that this is not currently the case, whether or not I
am able to provide an unassailable example!


>>Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,
>>
>>
>
>Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.
>
>

Ah, splitting hairs between "=" and "entails".


>>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
>>real number?
>>
>>
>
>{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
>understand what you mean there.
>
>

Eliminating it from the place structure doesn't mean it has no value.
But it would prevent the ghost zo'e from appearing, allowing zero in
there as a quantity, as well as non-zero numbers.



--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>xod:
>
>
>>>{klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>>>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>>>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>>>
>>>
>>Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
>>second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.
>>
>>
>
>No, it is not the same as saying it is true with zero xes
>in that place. It says that there is no value you can put
>in that place to make the relationship hold.
>
>

What is the difference between "patfu noda" and "patfu no selpatfu". I
have no kids, I have zero kids, I don't have any kids, it's not true
that I have at least one kid...

>You can put a term that says that no value applies, namely
>{noda}, but you cannot put a term that stands for a value.
>If you fill it with {su'oda} or {cida} you are not putting
>values either, all you are saying is that there is at least
>one, or exactly three, values that will satisfy the relationship.
>An actual value might be {le zarci}. {noda}, {pada}, {reda} are
>not values, they just tell you how many values there are that
>make the relationship true.
>
>
>
>>Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
>>would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
>>to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
>>'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.
>
>

Then you're making the strong claim that "zero thingies" is NEVER, EVER
implied in the context of any discussion.


--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.




Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
A few questions/comments about the proposal. First of all, you define things in terms of a completely generic "LX" gadri. Is it your intention that such a thing be created, or would we use the existing gadri (with various tags to override defaults) to get whatever meaning we want?

Similarly, is it possible to leave an axis unspecified, to be glorked from context, or are they all always specified. That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology, do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).

I do approve of the change to da'i and je'u for nonexistance and veradicality, but make sure you update the definitions at the top of the page to match.

And finally, I think .o'avu'enai (as close to hubris as I can get) that you've got the issue of veradicality slightly wrong with respect to le. I think the je'u an je'unai you have defined are very useful, but the real definition of le would be more je'ucu'i: Contained identifier is neither asserted nor denied; rather, the containing bridi is considered agnostic to the truth or falsehood of the description. Perhaps that could be better said, but the point is that usually le is used with a description that is true, but is incidentally true, where the primary purpose is to identify the object in question, not to point out that the description may be inaccurate. I do see a use for a je'unai that's defined the way you use it, as a way of saying "I know this is wrong, but work with me here." It's just that, as I've always read it, that's not what le says. If I'm wrong here I'd appreciate if someone would correct me.



On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Eimi, please sign off your posts. Thanks.

vi'odo'u .u'u Sorry about that, I remembered it as soon as I hit post. Is it
at all possible to change the web-to-mail gateway to just do the right thing
there?


>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
> > Re: Robin's gadri Proposal A few questions/comments about the
> > proposal. First of all, you define things in terms of a completely
> > generic "LX" gadri. Is it your intention that such a thing be
> > created,
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> > Similarly, is it possible to leave an axis unspecified, to be glorked
> > from context, or are they all always specified?
>
> The default for at least some of the axes is "cu'i", aka unspecified.
> Well, OK, that's not *quite* unspecified, but it's basically the same
> thing.
>
> > That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible
> > for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of
> > explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology,
> > do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo
> > pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).
>
> If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I would
> expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite surpised at you
> talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what lo actually means.
>
> > I do approve of the change to da'i and je'u for nonexistance and
> > veradicality, but make sure you update the definitions at the top of
> > the page to match.
>
> Fixed. Thank you.
>
> > And finally, I think .o'avu'enai (as close to hubris as I can get)
> > that you've got the issue of veradicality slightly wrong with respect
> > to le. I think the je'u an je'unai you have defined are very useful,
> > but the real definition of le would be more je'ucu'i:
>
> You are *absolutely* correct. Fixed.
>
> -Robin
>
>

--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Eothain: 'Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?'
Aragorn: 'A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the
legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of
legend, though you tread it under the light of day!

Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
Do we need to worry about goos?

Do we need to worry about the difference between a goo of people / water /whatever and any other form of non-distributiveness?

I don't think so, but I thought I'd ask. Seems to me that all the gadri system needs to encode is the non-distributiveness, and goo can be grabbed from context or selbri (te marxa) or whatever, but maybe I'm wrong.

-Robin



Re: Robin's gadri Proposal

> Personal Specificity — sa'e
> The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le", but without implication
> of veridicality).

I insist that {le} has no implication of veridicality, so the comment
'"le", but without implication of veridicality' does not make sense.

> le broda ~= lo sa'e broda == su'o da poi mi pensi ke'a zi'e
> poi ke'a broda

"~=" here means approximately equal, right? (Sometimes "~" is
used for negation.) Does this mean that you are dropping CLL's
default {[ro] le}?

Consider:

le prenu cu klama le zarci

CLL: Each of the people I have in mind goes to each of the
markets I have in mind.
RGP: At least one of the people I have in mind goes to at
least one of the markets I have in mind.
XS: The people I have in mind go to the markets I have in mind.

I believe XS is closest to usage, and CLL is the canonical
prescription, but your version is neither.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




posts: 14214

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:04:40AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
>
> > Personal Specificity ??? sa'e The specific thing(s) I have in mind
> > (i.e. "le", but without implication of veridicality).
>
> I insist that {le} has no implication of veridicality, so the comment
> '"le", but without implication of veridicality' does not make sense.

Fair.

> > le broda ~= lo sa'e broda == su'o da poi mi pensi ke'a zi'e poi ke'a
> > broda
>
> "~=" here means approximately equal, right? (Sometimes "~" is used for
> negation.) Does this mean that you are dropping CLL's default {[ro]
> le}?

No, I just forgot about it.

> Consider:
>
> le prenu cu klama le zarci
>
> CLL: Each of the people I have in mind goes to each of the
> markets I have in mind.
> RGP: At least one of the people I have in mind goes to at
> least one of the markets I have in mind.
> XS: The people I have in mind go to the markets I have in mind.
>
> I believe XS is closest to usage, and CLL is the canonical
> prescription, but your version is neither.

RGP? You meant RLP, yes? In which case, where did you find a keyboard
where G is close to L? :-)

-Robin


posts: 2388

RGP is presumably "Robin's Gadri Proposal"

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:04:40AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: Robin's gadri Proposal
>
> > Personal Specificity ??? sa'e The specific thing(s) I have in mind
> > (i.e. "le", but without implication of veridicality).
>
> I insist that {le} has no implication of veridicality, so the comment
> '"le", but without implication of veridicality' does not make sense.

Fair.

> > le broda ~= lo sa'e broda == su'o da poi mi pensi ke'a zi'e poi ke'a
> > broda
>
> "~=" here means approximately equal, right? (Sometimes "~" is used for
> negation.) Does this mean that you are dropping CLL's default {[ro]
> le}?

No, I just forgot about it.

> Consider:
>
> le prenu cu klama le zarci
>
> CLL: Each of the people I have in mind goes to each of the
> markets I have in mind.
> RGP: At least one of the people I have in mind goes to at
> least one of the markets I have in mind.
> XS: The people I have in mind go to the markets I have in mind.
>
> I believe XS is closest to usage, and CLL is the canonical
> prescription, but your version is neither.

RGP? You meant RLP, yes? In which case, where did you find a keyboard
where G is close to L? :-)

-Robin




posts: 1912


> > Re: Robin's gadri Proposal

> > Consider:
> > le prenu cu klama le zarci
> >
> > CLL: Each of the people I have in mind goes to each of the
> > markets I have in mind.
> > RGP: At least one of the people I have in mind goes to at
> > least one of the markets I have in mind.
> > XS: The people I have in mind go to the markets I have in mind.
> >
> > I believe XS is closest to usage, and CLL is the canonical
> > prescription, but your version is neither.
>
> RGP? You meant RLP, yes? In which case, where did you find a keyboard
> where G is close to L? :-)

See this thread's subject line. :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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


posts: 2388

In keeping with my view that gadri are not ready yet, I suggest that this solution is premature (though cute). We have been directed toward considering plurality more carrefully. I suggest the same might be said for goo, which can, in Lojban, be viewed as a kind of collective, and one that can take numeration: "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two cups of water." Of course it is not clear where these numerations go, but the "this is in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:Robin:
> Oh, btw, I was hoping for a response from you to my goo question.

I think I agree with what you say there.

You don't say what you would do with inner PA's, but I think
inner {tu'o} is enough to indicate that you are dealing with
non-count stuff, and inner {su'o} clearly indicates countables
when you need to.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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




posts: 2388

Yes, Lojban needs to do something about measurements. I thought at one time that maybe {ni} could be used somehow, but it does not work well with things like water, even if it gets clearly separated from {jei}. A good general solution would help, but I don't think that the tanru (or lujvo) solution is the way to go either and even the "obvious" quantifier route has problems (not least the complexity of such locutions).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> I suggest the same might be said for
> goo, which can, in Lojban, be viewed as a kind of collective, and one that
> can take numeration: "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two cups of
> water." Of course it is not clear where these numerations go, but the "this
> is in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.

It's not even clear how to say that. Probably something like:

ti noi djacu cu klani li re lo kabri
This, which is water, amounts to 2 measured in cups.

But {lo djacu} is not a sumti there. As a sumti:

lo djacu je klani be li re bei lo kabri
Water and amount 2 in cups.

Another possibility is to use the number "2 cups" as a quantifier
of {djacu}:

vei mo'e re kabri ve'o djacu

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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




posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 06:45:29AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> pc:
> > I suggest the same might be said for goo, which can, in Lojban, be
> > viewed as a kind of collective, and one that can take numeration:
> > "three teaspoons of salt" or, more clearly, "two cups of water." Of
> > course it is not clear where these numerations go, but the "this is
> > in cups number two of water" does not seem the best solution.
>
> It's not even clear how to say that. Probably something like:
>
> ti noi djacu cu klani li re lo kabri
> This, which is water, amounts to 2 measured in cups.
>
> But {lo djacu} is not a sumti there. As a sumti:
>
> lo djacu je klani be li re bei lo kabri
> Water and amount 2 in cups.

Err, what?

lo djacu cu klani li re lo kabri

Read klani a bit more carefully.

> Another possibility is to use the number "2 cups" as a quantifier
> of {djacu}:
>
> vei mo'e re kabri ve'o djacu

That works too.

-Robin

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


posts: 1912


> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 06:45:29AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > ti noi djacu cu klani li re lo kabri
> > This, which is water, amounts to 2 measured in cups.
> >
> > But {lo djacu} is not a sumti there. As a sumti:
> >
> > lo djacu je klani be li re bei lo kabri
> > Water and amount 2 in cups.
>
> Err, what?
>
> lo djacu cu klani li re lo kabri

That's not a sumti, it's a bridi, and it's practically what I
wrote above. We were looking for a way to say "two cups of water".

> Read klani a bit more carefully.

How does any of what I wrote conflict with the definition of klani?

> > Another possibility is to use the number "2 cups" as a quantifier
> > of {djacu}:
> >
> > vei mo'e re kabri ve'o djacu
>
> That works too.

Unfortunately, we can't get rid of the bracketing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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


posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:02:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 06:45:29AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > > ti noi djacu cu klani li re lo kabri This, which is water,
> > > amounts to 2 measured in cups.
> > >
> > > But {lo djacu} is not a sumti there. As a sumti:
> > >
> > > lo djacu je klani be li re bei lo kabri Water and amount 2 in
> > > cups.
> >
> > Err, what?
> >
> > lo djacu cu klani li re lo kabri
>
> That's not a sumti, it's a bridi, and it's practically what I wrote
> above. We were looking for a way to say "two cups of water".
>
> > Read klani a bit more carefully.
>
> How does any of what I wrote conflict with the definition of klani?

No, I was confused.

-Robin

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


posts: 2388

1>I don't care for it either, but I suspect I have seen worse.
2>I guess I read {marji} differently, as being about kinds of stuff and shape rather than about parts brought together: "a plank is a wood in thin rectangular shape" not "a pencil is cedar and graphite in long octagonal shape" though even the latter does not seem to help for making a world.
3> You can have a destination without getting there, but it may be that that can't be said with {klama} (though I should think that it could with {co'u}, if nothing else, or the opposite of {za'o}).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> Hmmm! Is that the only stripe we have available? Probably, I suppose.
> But the BAI etc derived from gismu etc. are as liberated as lujvo are from
> tanru (perhaps more so).

1>I wouldn't think so. For example, it does not make sense to me to
say: {ta lanci fi'o te tirxu paci da} for "that's a flag with 13
stripes". It's just too weird.

> B> This seems to push the freedom of lujvo a bit further than I am
> comfortable with (the {marji} does not connect naturally with any place of
> {gasnu}),

2>-gau lujvo are very standard. {brodygau} is always {gasnu lo nu broda},
so:

ko'a gasnu lo nu ko'e marji ko'i
ko'a is agent in ko'e being composed of ko'i

Could ko'a be an agent here other than by making ko'e out of ko'i?

> The answer seems to be {carna} but that is suspicious because of "axis;"
> could that be any center of rotation? Ahah! {muvdu} seem to be the
> {klama}-without-a-vehicle sought earlier. So {klama} already exists stripped
> in one way to its essentials (for that meaning of "go/come") — but we lack
> the "using vehicle..."

Stripping {muvdu} of its agent place was a small victory for the Lean Gismu
movement, but much too scarce.

> I am not sure how spatial tenses — as I understant them — will help with
> {klama}. They don't cover origin or destination or point of arrival or route
> or vehicle (thank God) or pace or just about anything that we might want with
> "come/go."

3>What about direction? "I was going home when I bumped into John, so we
went for a beer instead." I can't use {klama} there because although
home was my intended destination, or the direction I was going, it was
not the actual destination of my going, not the se klama.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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