BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita Posted by xorxes on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 19:25 GMT posts: 1912 Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita page.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 20:09 GMT > Examples of se du'o Usage > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.'' What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same people. For a general sentence {broda se du'u la tom cu zvati zy}, "X happens, knowing that Tom is there", are we to assume that the knower has to be the agent of the event X? The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to have a free event place for the main event. In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main event, so {du'o} and {te du'o} (and even {ve du'o}) are not problematic, but {se du'o} already reserves that place for the tagged sumti, so the only meaningfulplace remaining for the main event is the x3 of djuno, since an event can't really be in x1. So perhaps from: la tom djuno lo du'u lo nu ma'a klama lo zarci cu lakne Tom knows that our going to the market is likely. we can also say: ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o lo du'u lo nu no'a cu lakne We go to the market, with known about it that it is likely. I can't think why anyone would want to say it that way, but that's the only way I can think for {se du'o} to modify an event. To say that we are the knowers I would say something like: {ma'a ne se du'o lo du'u la tom cu zvati le zarci cu klama zy} although {noi djuno} would be by far better, of course. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 21:20 GMT > Examples of se cu'u Usage > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i jmive cu selsenva po'o > I know culturally that children's songs express that life is only a dream. That should be {le se du'u}, because {se cu'u} presumably takes a text. > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi > "I read the poem for my family." I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my family", from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu lo pemci}. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 21:41 GMT > Examples of ve cu'u Usage > > mi .e la bancus cu casnu ve cu'u la .irk. > "Bancus and I had a conversation on IRC." s/.e/joi, otherwise it says that you and Bancus each discussed something. I don't know why that would not be "Bancus and I had a conversation, they say on IRC", based on {la irk cu ve djuno lo se du'u mi joi la bancus cu casnu}. It seems to me that the default interpretation for cu'u/te cu'u/ve cu'u is that the main event corresponds to the x2 of cusku, which is the easiest place to relate to events. If not, why not? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 21:48 GMT > Examples of se ca'i Usage > > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > "The army is my job, where I have authority over bombs." I translate "I have a job in the army, making (me?) an authority on bombs", derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri mi}. The obvious place for the main event with {ca'i} is the x2 of {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not available, the second choice is x3, isn't it? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 02:41 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of se du'o Usage > > > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy > > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.'' > > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in > the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same > people. I don't see that the translation particularily implies that either, but would "given the fact that" make you feel better? > For a general sentence {broda se du'u la tom cu zvati zy}, "X > happens, knowing that Tom is there", are we to assume that the > knower has to be the agent of the event X? I wouldn't, no. > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > have a free event place for the main event. That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in general. There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately. > In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main > event, djuno2 doesn't take events. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 02:50 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi > > "I read the poem for my family." > > I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my family", > from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu lo pemci}. I don't respect this transformation. te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste says "as told to", which is quite different from what you have. You're turning the main bridi into something that is textually represented in some other event. I'm not OK with that. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 02:51 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:28:37PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > I don't know why that would not be "Bancus and I had a > conversation, they say on IRC", based on > {la irk cu ve djuno lo se du'u mi joi la bancus cu casnu}. I still don't respect that transformation, nor does the ma'oste. > It seems to me that the default interpretation for cu'u/te cu'u/ve > cu'u is that the main event corresponds to the x2 of cusku, which > is the easiest place to relate to events. If not, why not? Because there's no reason to impose that transformation, because it violates basically all usage, and because it makes the words useless. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 02:53 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:36:56PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of se ca'i Usage > > > > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > > "The army is my job, where I have authority over bombs." > > I translate "I have a job in the army, making (me?) an authority > on bombs", Is that different from what I said in any substantial way. > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri mi}. Again, I think this translation is pointless, and it disagrees with both the ma'oste and usage. > The obvious place for the main event with {ca'i} is the x2 of > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not available, the second > choice is x3, isn't it? Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI always involves putting the main bridi somewhere? -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 06:35 GMT Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri > to have a free event place for the main event. The standard use of *causal* BAIs, yes. But that doesn't work for, say, "bau". Not all BAIs are substitutes for full bridi relationships between events. -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. jcowan@reutershealth.com --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years ago http://www.reutershealth.com
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 13:08 GMT On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:40:06 -0800, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy > > > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.'' > > > > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in > > the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same > > people. > > I don't see that the translation particularily implies that either, "X does Y, knowing Z" does not imply that the knower is the same as the doer? > but would "given the fact that" make you feel better? That works for {fi'o fatci}, but {du'o} brings in a knower. > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > > have a free event place for the main event. > > That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in > general. OK, let me rephrase that: BAIs that have an event or proposition place are relatively easy to interpret (as long as the place in question is not taken by the tagged sumti). BAIs that lack any such free place are not easy to interpret. > There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no > event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately. {tai} comes from {tarmysimsa}. Why does it not come directly from {tarmi}? Because the intention was that it be used for "like", or "as". If we assume that the underlying predicate of {tai} is "x1 is like/as x2", then there is no problem with both x1 and x2 being events. > > In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main > > event, > > djuno2 doesn't take events. Propositions will work too. "We go to the market" is something that can be known, or something that can be known about (x2 or x3 of djuno). It cannot be a knower (x1), and presumably it cannot be an epistemology (x4). mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 13:16 GMT On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:48:56 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi > > > "I read the poem for my family." > > > > I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my family", > > from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu lo pemci}. > > I don't respect this transformation. Okay, but do you use any transormation, or do you just follow the English keywords? > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste says > "as told to", which is quite different from what you have. "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The point is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it was not the audience of the poem-reading. > You're turning the main bridi into something that is textually > represented in some other event. I'm not OK with that. Given the places of {cusku}, the x2 is the one that makes most sense for the main bridi. The main bridi can't be x1 or x3, and probably not x4 either. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 13:28 GMT On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:52:49 -0800, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:36:56PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of se ca'i Usage > > > > > > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > > > "The army is my job, where I have authority over bombs." > > > > I translate "I have a job in the army, making (me?) an authority > > on bombs", > > Is that different from what I said in any substantial way. I think so, yes. {lo jenmi cu jibri mi} is the source of my authority (x3 of catni), instead of the realm of application of my authority. > > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri mi}. > > Again, I think this translation is pointless, and it disagrees with > both the ma'oste and usage. The point is to have some rule. The ma'oste just gives keywords, and usage sometimes tends to follow the keywords instead of following some regular pattern. Maybe my rule is not the best, but then let's find a better one, not just "follow the keywords". > > The obvious place for the main event with {ca'i} is the x2 of > > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not available, the second > > choice is x3, isn't it? > > Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI always involves putting > the main bridi somewhere? Why bizarre? Isn't that the simplest interpretation of {fi'o broda}, that {broda} relates the main bridi to a new argument? How else could the new argument be related to the main bridi through {broda}? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 13:32 GMT posts: 2388 To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection with it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have a meaning that is not exactly to be found in the brivla and conversely. Further, even insofar as the sumtcita and the brivla are directly related, the sumtcita brings into a sentence the semantics of only the one place indicated, not the whole semantics of the brivla. Thus: 1) looking for a transformational equivalent of a sentence with a sumtcita which has the indicated brivla as selbri is never decisive for themeaning of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is often at leat helpful in figuring it out. 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does not mean that that place is usefully to be added to sentences, so looking for all the possible variations on a sumtcita to match the place of the associated brivla is often useless work; wait until the form is used and then figure out what it means — don't borrow trouble.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 13:43 GMT posts: 2388 > > > > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu > lo jenmi cu jibri mi}. > > > > Again, I think this translation is pointless, > and it disagrees with > > both the ma'oste and usage. > > The point is to have some rule. The ma'oste > just gives keywords, > and usage sometimes tends to follow the > keywords instead of > following some regular pattern. Maybe my rule > is not the best, > but then let's find a better one, not just > "follow the keywords". It is nowhere clear that there is or needs to be a rule about these things — and therr are cases that clearly conflict with your proposed rule. In that case, the conventional meaning is the thing to look at, not some abstract and only weakly supported rule. > > > The obvious place for the main event with > {ca'i} is the x2 of > > > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not > available, the second > > > choice is x3, isn't it? > > > > Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI > always involves putting > > the main bridi somewhere? > > Why bizarre? Isn't that the simplest > interpretation of {fi'o broda}, > that {broda} relates the main bridi to a new > argument? How else > could the new argument be related to the main > bridi through > {broda}? > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole predication, not conversely. It just adds one more relation to the original; it does not take the original as a whole as a relatum.
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 14:48 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:34:19 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri > > to have a free event place for the main event. > > The standard use of *causal* BAIs, yes. But that doesn't work for, > say, "bau". Not all BAIs are substitutes for full bridi relationships > between events. For some reason I thought the place structure of {bangu} was "x1 is the language used by x2 in circumstances x3", which would fit with my theory, but I see I was wrong about x3. The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu This expansion, which automatically creates an event place for the main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have event/du'u places. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 14:49 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the > connection between a sumtcita and some brivla > mentioned in connection with it is heuristic, not > definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have a > meaning that is not exactly to be found in the > brivla and conversely. I think CLL treats it as definitional. > Further, even insofar as > the sumtcita and the brivla are directly related, > the sumtcita brings into a sentence the semantics > of only the one place indicated, not the whole > semantics of the brivla. This assumes that places have semantics independent of the brivla. I take lojban brivla to be relationships, not collections of several concepts in one word. I think that's the spirit of the language, even though many gismu place structures do look like collections of related concepts instead of one relationship between a number of arguments. Thus: > 1) looking for a transformational equivalent of a > sentence with a sumtcita which has the indicated > brivla as selbri is never decisive for themeaning > of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is often at > leat helpful in figuring it out. I don't have a problem with that. > 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does not > mean that that place is usefully to be added to > sentences, so looking for all the possible > variations on a sumtcita to match the place of > the associated brivla is often useless work; wait > until the form is used and then figure out what > it means — don't borrow trouble. All variations will appear on the dictionary, so we want examples for all, even if they are unlikely to end up being used. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 14:50 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:36:04 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole > predication, not conversely. It just adds one > more relation to the original; it does not take > the original as a whole as a relatum. A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined as a composition G(F(a,b), c), can't it? All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is in terms of the underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument c to F(a,b) to give F'(a,b,c) mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 15:33 GMT > Examples of ta'i Usage > > ta'i ma do cilre la lojban > "By what method did you learn Lojban?" This one is regular. Just slightly odd because {cilre} already has a "by method" place. > Examples of pu'e Usage > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi > "I invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." {pruce} has so many event places that it's hard to say what's related to what by {pu'e}. Wouldn't the writing of whatever I think be the stages (or perhaps the only stage) of the process of inventing stories? If so, this would be an example of {ve pu'e}. It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. Or are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the same process? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 17:14 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: > the > > connection between a sumtcita and some brivla > > mentioned in connection with it is heuristic, > not > > definitional. That is, the sumtcita may have > a > > meaning that is not exactly to be found in > the > > brivla and conversely. > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. Well, we disagree on that point and I cite the several cases of sumtcita that cannot be strictly related to the associated predicate but that pick up on some idea in that predicate's neighborhood semantically or even pragmatically. > > Further, even insofar as > > the sumtcita and the brivla are directly > related, > > the sumtcita brings into a sentence the > semantics > > of only the one place indicated, not the > whole > > semantics of the brivla. > > This assumes that places have semantics > independent > of the brivla. I take lojban brivla to be > relationships, not > collections of several concepts in one word. I > think that's > the spirit of the language, even though many > gismu > place structures do look like collections of > related > concepts instead of one relationship between a > number > of arguments. Yes, so I was a bit unclear there. What I mean is that only the cited place plays a role in the event, the other places are at most implicit -- and not in any systematic way even. Consider even {du'o} which is the most generous case I can think of outside the causals. It does appear that your pattern works here, sort of: the sumti is the person who know and what he knows is the main predication. But that is not quite what the original says; the original is using {djuno} as a stand in for {certu}, though with a proposition (the main bridi) standing in for a generalized event description, combined with {xusra} to give the more specific proposition. Notice, for example, that we do not take the {du'o x} away if the proposition happens to be false (indeed, one major use for this sort of thing is to put forth somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently from {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u y broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o x} and the same seems to be the case with many such transformations. > Thus: > > 1) looking for a transformational equivalent > of a > > sentence with a sumtcita which has the > indicated > > brivla as selbri is never decisive for > themeaning > > of the sumtcita'd sentence, though it is > often at > > leat helpful in figuring it out. > > I don't have a problem with that. Oh, I have been reading you as saying that the transformation — if once we could figure out what it is — *is* the meaning of the sentence. > > 2) the fact that a brivla has a place does > not > > mean that that place is usefully to be added > to > > sentences, so looking for all the possible > > variations on a sumtcita to match the place > of > > the associated brivla is often useless work; > wait > > until the form is used and then figure out > what > > it means — don't borrow trouble. > > All variations will appear on the dictionary, > so we want > examples for all, even if they are unlikely to > end up being > used. And what I am saying is that we should not put in these oblique forms unless they have some usage. And in particular, we should not prejudge what their uses might be on the basis of some abstract rule which ignores the rather considerable role of human ingenuity that still creeps into Lojban.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 17:21 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:36:04 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > A new argument relates its sumti to the whole > > predication, not conversely. It just adds > one > > more relation to the original; it does not > take > > the original as a whole as a relatum. > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined > as a composition > G(F(a,b), c), can't it? > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is > in terms of the > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument > c to F(a,b) > to give F'(a,b,c) The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) need bear any relation to G(F(ab) c). The functor for which the composition rules hold are a very limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I think. For normal predicates it seems that rewriting its expansion will be much more complex and idiosyncratic.
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:13 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:12:22 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > Consider > even {du'o} which is the most generous case I can > think of outside the causals. There are plenty of generous cases: {bai}, {cau}, {de'i}, {di'o}, {du'i}, {fa'e}, {ga'a}, {gau}, {ji'e}, {ji'o}, {kai}, {koi}, {ma'i}, {mau}, {me'a}, {pa'a}, {se pi'o}, {se ra'a}, {ra'i}, {ri'i}, {si'u}, {ta'i}, {ti'i}, {ti'u}, {tu'i}, {va'o}, {se va'u}, {zau}, {zu'e}, to list some. > It does appear > that your pattern works here, sort of: the sumti > is the person who know and what he knows is the > main predication. Right. > But that is not quite what the > original says; the original is using {djuno} as a > stand in for {certu}, though with a proposition > (the main bridi) standing in for a generalized > event description, combined with {xusra} to give > the more specific proposition. Notice, for > example, that we do not take the {du'o x} away if > the proposition happens to be false We don't? If we find out that {la tom klama le zarci} is false, we nevertheless keep insisting that {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan} is true? >(indeed, one > major use for this sort of thing is to put forth > somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently from > {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u y > broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o x} > and the same seems to be the case with many such > transformations. Be that as it may, I'm not really looking for exact transformations but for a guide to the meaning. In {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan}, what role does John play in the going? Is he a knower of anything at all, a knower of anything somehow related to the going, or a knower that the going takes place? I'm arguing that it can't mean that we go ta a market that John knows or that we are known to John, but John doesn't know that we are going to the market. It puts John as a knower that the going takes place. If the knowing is restricted to one of the other sumti, then {du'o la djan} needs to be attached to it. > Oh, I have been reading you as saying that the > transformation — if once we could figure out > what it is — *is* the meaning of the sentence. No, I have only used the transfromations to show why some of the examples provided seemed odd to me. The meaning of the sentence is often different with regards to the things actually claimed. The transformations help to understand what is related to what and how. > > All variations will appear on the dictionary, > > so we want > > examples for all, even if they are unlikely to > > end up being > > used. > > And what I am saying is that we should not put in > these oblique forms unless they have some usage. Actually, I sort of agree with that. In some cases, only the oblique form has usage ({se pi'o} for example), so the example for the {pi'o} entry would use {se pi'o}. There shouldn't be separate entries for the SE-converted BAIs. All the useful transformations should be under the same head word. > And in particular, we should not prejudge what > their uses might be on the basis of some abstract > rule which ignores the rather considerable role > of human ingenuity that still creeps into Lojban. We are defining the language, we should be as precise in our definitions as we can. That is not to say that we can't define some words as having ample meanings if that's what we want. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:18 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:19:36 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be defined > > as a composition > > G(F(a,b), c), can't it? > > > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what G is > > in terms of the > > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds argument > > c to F(a,b) > > to give F'(a,b,c) > > The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) need > bear any relation to G(F(ab) c). What's G*(c)? c is an ordinary argument of F'. > The functor for > which the composition rules hold are a very > limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I think. > For normal predicates it seems that rewriting its > expansion will be much more complex and > idiosyncratic. Not sure what you mean, but I find that cases that are hard to transform are the exception rather than the rule. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:29 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection > > between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection with > > it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the sumtcita may > > have a meaning that is not exactly to be found in the brivla and > > conversely. > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. I think you're very wrong. Citation? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:36 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:28:01 -0800, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection > > > between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection with > > > it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the sumtcita may > > > have a meaning that is not exactly to be found in the brivla and > > > conversely. > > > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. > > I think you're very wrong. Citation? > > -Robin Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily {fi'o bapli}, {gau} is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se ri'a} is not necessarily {fi'o se rinka}, etc.? I don't really care if it's in CLL or not. At least for me that's definitional. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:38 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:34:30PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:28:01 -0800, Robin Lee Powell > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford > > > wrote: > > > > To summarize and old point about sumtcita: the connection > > > > between a sumtcita and some brivla mentioned in connection > > > > with it is heuristic, not definitional. That is, the > > > > sumtcita may have a meaning that is not exactly to be found > > > > in the brivla and conversely. > > > > > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. > > > > I think you're very wrong. Citation? > > Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily {fi'o bapli}, {gau} > is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se ri'a} is not necessarily > {fi'o se rinka}, etc.? Oh. No, I'm not saying that at all. I thought we were talking about the transformation of bridi containing sumtcita. Sorry. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:52 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:06:58AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:40:06 -0800, Robin Lee Powell > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy "We > > > > go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.'' > > > > > > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason > > > in the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are > > > the same people. > > > > I don't see that the translation particularily implies that > > either, > > "X does Y, knowing Z" does not imply that the knower is the same > as the doer? Perhaps, but only mildly. > > but would "given the fact that" make you feel better? > > That works for {fi'o fatci}, but {du'o} brings in a knower. {du'o} does, but {se du'o} does not; it adds a place with a thing known, that's all. > > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > > > have a free event place for the main event. > > > > That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in > > general. > > OK, let me rephrase that: > > BAIs that have an event or proposition place are relatively easy > to interpret (as long as the place in question is not taken by the > tagged sumti). BAIs that lack any such free place are not easy to > interpret. No, I don't agree with that either. BAI tags add a single place with a meaning derived from a gismu. Whether that additional place is easy to understand depends on the sentence and the context, not on the underlying gismu. > > There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no > > event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately. > > {tai} comes from {tarmysimsa}. Why does it not come directly from > {tarmi}? Because the intention was that it be used for "like", or > "as". If we assume that the underlying predicate of {tai} is "x1 > is like/as x2", then there is no problem with both x1 and x2 being > events. Sorry, I forgot it didn't come from tarmi. ka'a, then. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:53 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:22:34AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:34:19 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to > > > have a free event place for the main event. > > > > The standard use of *causal* BAIs, yes. But that doesn't work > > for, say, "bau". Not all BAIs are substitutes for full bridi > > relationships between events. > > For some reason I thought the place structure of {bangu} was "x1 > is the language used by x2 in circumstances x3", which would fit > with my theory, but I see I was wrong about x3. > > The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu > > This expansion, which automatically creates an event place for the > main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have > event/du'u places. I think the whole thing is unnecessary. BAI add a place, that's all. I see no particular need to define a transformation. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 18:56 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:15:04AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:48:56 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:18:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Examples of te cu'u Usage > > > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi "I read the poem > > > > for my family." > > > > > > I would take that to be "I read the poem, they tell my > > > family", from {le lanxu be mi cu te cusku lo se du'u mi tcidu > > > lo pemci}. > > > > I don't respect this transformation. > > Okay, but do you use any transormation, or do you just follow the > English keywords? I do not use any transformation for BAIs, no. I see BaI as adding a place to a bridi. The place is based on the appropriate places of the underlying gismu. That's all they do, but that's rather a lot different from subordinating the main bridi. > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > says "as told to", which is quite different from what you have. > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The point > is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it was not > the audience of the poem-reading. I disagree. It was an audience for some kind of expression; what that expression is is totally unspecified, but as an "audience" place is being added to tcidu, being an audience for the reading seems the only sensible interpretation. I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that those other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning of {se cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 19:00 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:26:56AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:52:49 -0800, Robin Lee Powell > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu lo jenmi cu jibri > > > mi}. > > > > Again, I think this translation is pointless, and it disagrees > > with both the ma'oste and usage. > > The point is to have some rule. The rule is that the bridi gets an extra place, with a meaning determined by the place structure of the underlying gismu of the BAI. This is totally different than a transformation involving and urderlying clasue. IMO (and I admit this may be a reversal from my earlier opinions), fi'o and BAI are irreducible. -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 19:05 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:12:22 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > Consider > > even {du'o} which is the most generous case I > can > > think of outside the causals. > > There are plenty of generous cases: {bai}, > {cau}, {de'i}, > {di'o}, {du'i}, {fa'e}, {ga'a}, {gau}, {ji'e}, > {ji'o}, {kai}, {koi}, > {ma'i}, {mau}, {me'a}, {pa'a}, {se pi'o}, {se > ra'a}, {ra'i}, > {ri'i}, {si'u}, {ta'i}, {ti'i}, {ti'u}, {tu'i}, > {va'o}, {se va'u}, {zau}, > {zu'e}, to list some. > > > It does appear > > that your pattern works here, sort of: the > sumti > > is the person who know and what he knows is > the > > main predication. > > Right. > > > But that is not quite what the > > original says; the original is using {djuno} > as a > > stand in for {certu}, though with a > proposition > > (the main bridi) standing in for a > generalized > > event description, combined with {xusra} to > give > > the more specific proposition. Notice, for > > example, that we do not take the {du'o x} > away if > > the proposition happens to be false > > We don't? If we find out that {la tom klama le > zarci} is false, > we nevertheless keep insisting that {la tom > klama le zarci > du'o la djan} is true? No, but there is an issue of what to make of the sentence. Is the point that John claims the base or that it is true. If the former, then we will still insist {la tam klama le zarci du'o la djan} even if {la tam klama le zarci} is false. If it is the latter, then, of course, the whole is false and John is not reliable. Transformations tend to make things look like the first case, whereas what is meant is very often the second. (This is irrelevant if you are not actually using transformations to give meanings. In that case, I think it is at least as informative to see how the transformation fails as how it succeeds.) > >(indeed, one > > major use for this sort of thing is to put > forth > > somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently > from > > {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u > y > > broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o > x} > > and the same seems to be the case with many > such > > transformations. > > Be that as it may, I'm not really looking for > exact > transformations but for a guide to the meaning. > In {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan}, what > role does > John play in the going? Is he a knower of > anything at all, > a knower of anything somehow related to the > going, or a > knower that the going takes place? I'm arguing > that > it can't mean that we go ta a market that John > knows > or that we are known to John, but John doesn't > know > that we are going to the market. It puts John > as a > knower that the going takes place. If the > knowing is > restricted to one of the other sumti, then > {du'o la djan} > needs to be attached to it. There is another possible example (or a prettying up of this) that makes a different case. Suppose there is a job that Tom can do if he gets some expert advice which John can give him, so he takes the job du'o la djan, with John as the knower (how to do the work), not with John knowing that he has taken the job: Tom might say {mi cpatu'i du'o la djan} in accepting the contract. This actually seems a more systematic use of the form {du'o} than the current one, which looks to be related to {xusra} (from which we do not have a sumtcita, oddly and who relation to the evidential {ju'a} is tenuous in both ways). In general, I have found that the fast way to figure out what a BAI means on the basis of the associated brivla is to give the place a name ("knower" in the case of {du'o}) and then take the sumti in apposition after "with name." When this results in gobbledygook, the BAI is almost certainly either never used or is used in a sense pretty remote from the brivla's. Of course this latter also happens with fairly intelligible cases, as the {du'o} example shows. > > > Oh, I have been reading you as saying that > the > > transformation — if once we could figure out > > what it is — *is* the meaning of the > sentence. > > No, I have only used the transfromations to > show why > some of the examples provided seemed odd to me. > The meaning of the sentence is often different > with > regards to the things actually claimed. The > transformations > help to understand what is related to what and > how. Maybe the relations become clearer, but the transformations do not usually actually show the relations involved. It is that latter step that is dangerous (although the former presents some problems as well — see the {du'o} example again). > > > All variations will appear on the > dictionary, > > > so we want > > > examples for all, even if they are unlikely > to > > > end up being > > > used. > > > > And what I am saying is that we should not > put in > > these oblique forms unless they have some > usage. > > Actually, I sort of agree with that. In some > cases, only the > oblique form has usage ({se pi'o} for example), > so the example > for the {pi'o} entry would use {se pi'o}. There > shouldn't be > separate entries for the SE-converted BAIs. All > the useful > transformations should be under the same head > word. > > > And in particular, we should not prejudge > what > > their uses might be on the basis of some > abstract > > rule which ignores the rather considerable > role > > of human ingenuity that still creeps into > Lojban. > > We are defining the language, we should be as > precise > in our definitions as we can. That is not to > say that we > can't define some words as having ample > meanings if > that's what we want. > But the made up forms are not in the language yet (even in posse, since the connection with brivla is not so close as to automatically offer up the oblique forms), so they are no part of the desciption. When they get used, then they need as good a definition as we can give, by whatever means works.
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 19:13 GMT > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi "I read the poem > > > > > for my family." > > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > > says "as told to", which is quite different from what you have. > > > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The point > > is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it was not > > the audience of the poem-reading. > > I disagree. It was an audience for some kind of expression; what > that expression is is totally unspecified, but as an "audience" > place is being added to tcidu, being an audience for the reading > seems the only sensible interpretation. I don't see the "only sensible interpretation" part. Why is my interpretation not sensible? If you say that {te cu'u} makes no clear connection with the main bridi, then the main bridi as a possible se cusku should be at least as likely as the x2 of tcidu (the read material) as a possible se cusku. > I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that those > other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning of {se > cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi. I'm not disputing any of that. {broda te cu'u ko'a} can be interpreted as saying something along the lines of {ko'a te cusku lo se du'u broda} (my interpretation) or as saying something along the lines of {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a te cusku} (your interpretation: "the event of my reading a story is an event of my family being said something.") Maybe it is left to context to decide which one is closer in each case. Or maybe it should be always mine, or maybe always like yours. I just want to be clear on what the prescription is. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 19:14 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:19:36 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford wrote: > > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be > defined > > > as a composition > > > G(F(a,b), c), can't it? > > > > > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what > G is > > > in terms of the > > > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds > argument > > > c to F(a,b) > > > to give F'(a,b,c) > > > > The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c)) > need > > bear any relation to G(F(ab) c). > > What's G*(c)? c is an ordinary argument of F'. Oops! You have folded the Gness already into F', which makes it harder to make the point, which is that even if a compound predicate could be analyzed, its components need not be any of the pieces that are overtly present in the compound case — F and G in the examples. > > The functor for > > which the composition rules hold are a very > > limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I > think. > > For normal predicates it seems that rewriting > its > > expansion will be much more complex and > > idiosyncratic. > > Not sure what you mean, but I find that cases > that are > hard to transform are the exception rather than > the rule. It may be that the brivla picked to go with BAI (or the BAI that are picked to go with brivla -- I'm not sure which way it goes) gnerally lend themselves to being at least intelligible under your transformations, even if not exactly translatable into those transformation. If so, they seem a special set among predicates, possibly just the set of predicates for which such added places make sense. But the fact that the transformation makes sense need not say anything about what the prepositional form means.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 19:18 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:28:01 -0800, Robin Lee > Powell > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:43AM -0300, > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:31:01 -0800 (PST), > John E Clifford wrote: > > > > To summarize and old point about > sumtcita: the connection > > > > between a sumtcita and some brivla > mentioned in connection with > > > > it is heuristic, not definitional. That > is, the sumtcita may > > > > have a meaning that is not exactly to be > found in the brivla and > > > > conversely. > > > > > > I think CLL treats it as definitional. > > > > I think you're very wrong. Citation? > > > > -Robin > > Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily > {fi'o bapli}, > {gau} is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se > ri'a} is not > necessarily {fi'o se rinka}, etc.? > > I don't really care if it's in CLL or not. At > least for me that's definitional. Point? The fact that some heuristics work extremely well, to the point of defining the word involved, does not mean that they are other than heuristics. some words just have easy definitions. Others may not, but calling attention to a brivla may still help finding what that definition is.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 19:29 GMT posts: 2388 > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be > mi "I read the poem > > > > > > for my family." > > > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with > audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > > > says "as told to", which is quite > different from what you have. > > > > > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" > would work too. The point > > > is that my family was told about my reading > the poem, it was not > > > the audience of the poem-reading. > > > > I disagree. It was an audience for some kind > of expression; what > > that expression is is totally unspecified, > but as an "audience" > > place is being added to tcidu, being an > audience for the reading > > seems the only sensible interpretation. > > I don't see the "only sensible interpretation" > part. Why is my > interpretation not sensible? If you say that > {te cu'u} makes no > clear connection with the main bridi, then the > main bridi as > a possible se cusku should be at least as > likely as the x2 > of tcidu (the read material) as a possible se > cusku. > > > I reject, absolutely, that the other places > of cusku are somehow > > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is > used, and that those > > other places, not the places of tcidu, affect > the meaning of {se > > cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the > tcidu-based bridi. > > I'm not disputing any of that. > > {broda te cu'u ko'a} can be interpreted as > saying something > along the lines of {ko'a te cusku lo se du'u > broda} (my interpretation) > or as saying something along the lines of {lo > nu broda cu nu ko'a > te cusku} (your interpretation: "the event of > my reading a story > is an event of my family being said > something.") Maybe it is left > to context to decide which one is closer in > each case. Or maybe > it should be always mine, or maybe always like > yours. I just want > to be clear on what the prescription is. > The point, I gather, is that there ain't no prescrition, that each case means what it means, whether or not it comes from the associated brivla by some familiar rule. BAI are like tanrus in the way they use their predicates (or better, lujvos, which may be even more remote).
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:00 GMT Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu > > This expansion, which automatically creates an event place > for the main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have > event/du'u places. The trouble with that is that it's semantically vacuous. -- Here lies the Christian, John Cowan judge, and poet Peter, http://www.reutershealth.com Who broke the laws of God http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and man and metre. jcowan@reutershealth.com
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:03 GMT Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > Are you saying that {bai} is not necessarily {fi'o bapli}, > {gau} is not necessarily {fi'o gasnu}, {se ri'a} is not > necessarily {fi'o se rinka}, etc.? bai is necessarily fi'o bapli, but that's not the same as saying what fi'o "means". It just reduces the 64 undefined BAI to a single construction also undefined. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:11 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:58:52 -0500, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote: > Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > > > The expansion I would propose for {bau} then is: > > > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a bangu > > > > This expansion, which automatically creates an event place > > for the main bridi, might also work for other BAIs that don't have > > event/du'u places. > > The trouble with that is that it's semantically vacuous. How is it vacuous? mi'o casnu bau la lojban "We discuss in Lojban." lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu "Our discussing is an event of lojban being the language used." It says of the event of our discussion that it is an event in which Lojban is the language used. That doesn't seem vacuous to me. If we discuss in English, then our discussion is not an event in which Lojban is the language used, and neither should {mi'o casnu bau la lojban} be true in that case, even if we are discussing Lojban for example. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:17 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:58:52 -0500, John Cowan > <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote: > > Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > > > > > The expansion I would propose for {bau} > then is: > > > > > > broda bau ko'a = lo nu broda cu nu ko'a > bangu > > > > > > This expansion, which automatically creates > an event place > > > for the main bridi, might also work for > other BAIs that don't have > > > event/du'u places. > > > > The trouble with that is that it's > semantically vacuous. > > How is it vacuous? > > mi'o casnu bau la lojban > "We discuss in Lojban." > > lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu > "Our discussing is an event of lojban being the > language used." > > It says of the event of our discussion that it > is an event in which > Lojban is the language used. That doesn't seem > vacuous to me. > If we discuss in English, then our discussion > is not an event in > which Lojban is the language used, and neither > should > {mi'o casnu bau la lojban} be true in that > case, even if we > are discussing Lojban for example. > But it says "Our discussion is an event of Lojban being a language (used by someone for some communication)" It is hard to imagine — now -- any event which is not that, in some loose sense at least.
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:17 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:01:31 -0500, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote: > bai is necessarily fi'o bapli, but that's not the same as saying what > fi'o "means". It just reduces the 64 undefined BAI to a single construction also > undefined. Indeed. What I'm trying to work out is the definition of {fi'o}. It is not completely undefined though. We know a lot of things it can be and a lot of things it can't, even if we don't have a precise definition yet. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:23 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:15:39 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: > > mi'o casnu bau la lojban > > "We discuss in Lojban." > > > > lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu > > "Our discussing is an event of lojban being the > > language used." > > > But it says "Our discussion is an event of Lojban > being a language (used by someone for some > communication)" It is hard to imagine — now -- > any event which is not that, in some loose sense > at least. I don't see how a discussion in English for example could be an event of Lojban being used. I can only see it as an event of English being used. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:28 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: The fact that some heuristics work > extremely well, to the point of defining the > word > involved, does not mean that they are other > than > heuristics. some words just have easy > definitions. Others may not, but calling > attention to a brivla may still help finding > what > that definition is. > Looking this over, it occurs to me that "heuristic was the wrong word; "mnemonic" is better. It is not that knowing the associated brivla will help you figure out what the BAI means — though it might, it is that the associated brivla will help you remember whatever it is that the BAI means. Some even give a rule (more or less) for reconstructing that meaning, other just work by association. Obviously, the rule cases are a little better for their job than the free-form ones (though sometimes not much: which place does the abstraction go in and what results from putting it there?) Some are pretty remote: {du'o} being the example of the day. (You know {xu'a} is available for the meaning given {du'o} — and it even works as a mild pun in my idolect.) But either may serve to trigger memory -- by association in lists, if not by content.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:35 GMT posts: 2388 > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:15:39 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > mi'o casnu bau la lojban > > > "We discuss in Lojban." > > > > > > lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu > > > "Our discussing is an event of lojban being > the > > > language used." > > > > > But it says "Our discussion is an event of > Lojban > > being a language (used by someone for some > > communication)" It is hard to imagine — now > -- > > any event which is not that, in some loose > sense > > at least. > > I don't see how a discussion in English for > example could > be an event of Lojban being used. I can only > see it as an > event of English being used. > The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be used, implicit in its being a language. And, insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the defining predication holds, every event now is one in which Lojban is a language (for someone -- not necessarily us — to convey a message — not necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la lojban lo bangu} or some such.
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 20:47 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:34:19 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu > nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used > in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there > about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be > used, implicit in its being a language. We seem to have very different undesrstandings about what counts as a {nu bangu}. For me, an event of language requires lenguage to be in actual use. And an event of language with Lojban as the language requires Lojban to be in actual use in that event. > And, > insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the > defining predication holds, every event now is > one in which Lojban is a language (for someone -- > not necessarily us — to convey a message — not > necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I > think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la > lojban lo bangu} or some such. No, I did mean {cu nu la lojban bangu}, but obviously we have very different ideas about what counts as such an event. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 00:57 GMT Examples of ja'i Usage mi cpacu lo bolci ja'i li vo "I take the ball by rule #4." mi cpacu lo bolci se ja'i lo nu da poi se darxi cu curmi "I take the ball by the rule that says that one who is hit is permitted." mi kavbu do te ja'i la mergu'e "I arrest you by the laws of America." In all cases, the idea seems to be that the main bridi event complies with a rule, which is given by name, by content, or by the community where it applies. You make this explicit in the definition of {ja'i}: "the event described by the bridi is enacted according to the rule ...", but not in the other cases. We could expand them as: broda ja'i ko'a = lo nu broda cu mapti lo javni be fa ko'a broda se ja'i ko'a = lo nu broda cu mapti lo javni be ko'a broda te ja'i ko'a = lo nu broda cu mapti lo javni be fi ko'a BTW, is "I arrest you by the laws of America" meant as a performative (i.e. "I hearby arrest you")? If so, then you might add a {ca'e}. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 06:27 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that those > other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning of {se > cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi. +1 -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 07:05 GMT John E Clifford scripsit: > The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu > nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used > in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there > about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be > used, implicit in its being a language. And, > insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the > defining predication holds, every event now is > one in which Lojban is a language (for someone -- > not necessarily us — to convey a message — not > necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I > think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la > lojban lo bangu} or some such. Exactly. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@reutershealth.com There is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin. Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may have important survival value. --Ian Johnston
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 18:16 GMT Examples of ci'e Usage lo li'i bau cusku cu sidju lo li'i pensi ci'e lo logji "The experience of linguistically expressing helps the experience of thinking in logical systems." I suppose that's {sidju fi}. (I can't comment on the {ci'e} examples because I don't really understand {ciste} very well to begin with.) mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 18:47 GMT Examples of se ji'o Usage > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > "I work with three underlings." Could one of the three underlings be {mi}? > Examples of du'o Usage > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > Does not exist, according to Google. Should we redefine {du'o} as {fi'o djuno/fi'o jinvi/fi'o te datni}? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:46PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of ta'i Usage > > > > ta'i ma do cilre la lojban > > "By what method did you learn Lojban?" > > This one is regular. Just slightly odd because {cilre} already has > a "by method" place. Added another example. > > Examples of pu'e Usage > > > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi > > "I invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." > > {pruce} has so many event places that it's hard to say what's > related to what by {pu'e}. > > Wouldn't the writing of whatever I think be the stages (or perhaps > the only stage) of the process of inventing stories? If so, this > would be an example of {ve pu'e}. I don't think ve pu'e can tag a single lo nu. Needs to be more than one, and ideally ce'o should be involved. > It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will > describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. Or > are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the same > process? You have this strange belief that if one uses a BAI tag, one is automatically relegating the main bridi to a place in whatever the underlying selbri of the BAI tag is. I simply don't agree. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:11:50PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > mi tcidu lo pemci te cu'u le lanzu be mi "I read the > > > > > > poem for my family." > > > > te cu'u is pretty clearly "with audience", IMO. The ma'oste > > > > says "as told to", which is quite different from what you > > > > have. > > > > > > "I read the poem, as told to my family" would work too. The > > > point is that my family was told about my reading the poem, it > > > was not the audience of the poem-reading. > > > > I disagree. It was an audience for some kind of expression; > > what that expression is is totally unspecified, but as an > > "audience" place is being added to tcidu, being an audience for > > the reading seems the only sensible interpretation. > > I don't see the "only sensible interpretation" part. Why is my > interpretation not sensible? If you say that {te cu'u} makes no > clear connection with the main bridi, then the main bridi as a > possible se cusku should be at least as likely as the x2 of tcidu > (the read material) as a possible se cusku. Umm, I say thet se cusku doesn't enter in to it at all. I have imported only the x3 of cusku, and couldn't care less about any other places of cusku. > > I reject, absolutely, that the other places of cusku are somehow > > imported, unfilled, just because {se cu'u} is used, and that > > those other places, not the places of tcidu, affect the meaning > > of {se cu'u}. {se cu'u} adds a place to the tcidu-based bridi. > > I'm not disputing any of that. > > {broda te cu'u ko'a} can be interpreted as saying something along > the lines of {ko'a te cusku lo se du'u broda} (my interpretation) > or as saying something along the lines of {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a > te cusku} (your interpretation: "the event of my reading a story > is an event of my family being said something.") Ummm, I think they *both* suck. BAI adds a new place. That's it, and that's all. Using BAI absolutely does not place the main bridi into a subordinate event, or anything like it. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:14:40PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Examples of ci'e Usage > > lo li'i bau cusku cu sidju lo li'i pensi ci'e lo logji > "The experience of linguistically expressing helps the experience of > thinking in logical systems." > > I suppose that's {sidju fi}. Fixed. > (I can't comment on the {ci'e} examples because I don't really > understand {ciste} very well to begin with.) Join the club. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:20:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > In all cases, the idea seems to be that the main bridi event > complies with a rule, which is given by name, by content, or by > the community where it applies. You make this explicit in the > definition of {ja'i}: "the event described by the bridi is enacted > according to the rule ...", but not in the other cases. Fixed. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Examples of se ji'o Usage > > > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > > "I work with three underlings." > > Could one of the three underlings be {mi}? Huh. I don't think so, but that's a semantic issue; whether the speaker/listener believes that one can control oneself. > > Examples of du'o Usage > > > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > > Does not exist, according to Google. > > Should we redefine {du'o} as {fi'o djuno/fi'o jinvi/fi'o te datni}? I don't understand. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:46PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of pu'e Usage > > > > > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi > > > "I invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." > > > > It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will > > describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. Or > > are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the same > > process? > > You have this strange belief that if one uses a BAI tag, one is > automatically relegating the main bridi to a place in whatever the > underlying selbri of the BAI tag is. I simply don't agree. I don't have that belief (indeed in many cases the underlying selbri of the BAI does not have an available place for the main bridi). I do believe that when the underlying selbri does have such a place, it provides the most natural interpretation for the BAI tag. In any case, in this example, why is {lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi} a process, and is {pu'e} being used as just a variant of {ta'i}? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Examples of se ji'o Usage > > > > > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > > > "I work with three underlings." > > > > Could one of the three underlings be {mi}? > > Huh. > > I don't think so, but that's a semantic issue; whether the > speaker/listener believes that one can control oneself. So the jitro is necessarily {mi}? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:17 GMT On Sun, 15 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >> Examples of se ji'o Usage >>> >>> mi jibri se ji'o ci remna >>> "I work with three underlings." Apologies if this got mentioned before, but if so I missed it (so much traffic). I think you mean {mi se jibri} instead of {mi jibri}. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom. — Gandalf
Posted by arj on Sun 29 of May, 2005 16:55 GMT posts: 953 Typo: businuss -> business mentod -> method precscribing -> prescribing Words not in Jbovlaste (two can play that game ;) ): jongau seltcana Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan This is only a slightly edited version of: 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo cu ba'e du le loglo Other points: mi krici lo prane ji'u la .platos. mi nelci lo se prije be la .sokrates. be se ji'u la .platos. Plato's Greek name was "Platon", and I think it is natural to lojbanise that to "platon". lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama pe'i ro jibri cu fasnu .i lo jenmi na fasnu .i semu'ibo mi stidi tu'a zo selplijibri .a lo simsa lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) __ve pu'e (BAI*) Apparently missing underscores at the end to complete bold formatting. mi cpacu lo bolci ja'i li vo Unless you are prepared to say that the number 4 is a rule, I suggest you say "le vomoi". so'a da pikci lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda "pikci" is too narrow in meaning for prayer, IMO. I suggest "so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer . Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main clause? so'a da nelci lo rismi ku'u lo ponjo s/ku'u/se ku'u --arj, using the web interface, since he has deleted the root of the thread in his mail reader long ago.
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:36:59PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:46PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > Examples of pu'e Usage > > > > > > > > mi finti lo lisri pu'e lo nu ciska ro da poi mi pensi "I > > > > invent stories by writing down whatever I think of." > > > > > > It seems to me that if pu'e tags a pruce, the main bridi will > > > describe the input, the output or the stages of the process. > > > Or are the main bridi and the tagged sumti identified as the > > > same process? > > > > You have this strange belief that if one uses a BAI tag, one is > > automatically relegating the main bridi to a place in whatever > > the underlying selbri of the BAI tag is. I simply don't agree. > > I don't have that belief (indeed in many cases the underlying > selbri of the BAI does not have an available place for the main > bridi). I do believe that when the underlying selbri does have > such a place, it provides the most natural interpretation for the > BAI tag. > > In any case, in this example, why is {lo nu ciska ro da poi mi > pensi} a process, Umm, why wouldn't it be? > and is {pu'e} being used as just a variant of {ta'i}? Yes. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:43:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/15/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Examples of se ji'o Usage > > > > > > > > mi jibri se ji'o ci remna "I work with three underlings." > > > > > > Could one of the three underlings be {mi}? > > > > Huh. > > > > I don't think so, but that's a semantic issue; whether the > > speaker/listener believes that one can control oneself. > > So the jitro is necessarily {mi}? Oh. Of course not, sorry. So then yes, one of them could be {mi}. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:29:09PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > On Sun, 15 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:45:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > >>Examples of se ji'o Usage > >>> > >>>mi jibri se ji'o ci remna > >>>"I work with three underlings." > > Apologies if this got mentioned before, but if so I missed it (so > much traffic). I think you mean {mi se jibri} instead of {mi > jibri}. Yep, thanks. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:40 GMT > du'o (BAI) > Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of djuno > and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the > tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, > te du'o, ve du'o. If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > Does not exist, according to Google. Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}? > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > Clarke. Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} BTW, why {kakne lo nu} but {djica le ka}? I think it has to be {djica lo nu}. > Examples of te du'o Usage > > Artificial: > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > "I can help, knowing about medicine." s/mikse/mikce But this is {mi ne te du'o ...}. > Examples of cu'u Usage > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me. How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"? Can {cusku} be used for that? >Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > >cu'u ko'a (BAI*) >As said by it-1... Tags the sumti ko'a as fitting the first place >of cusku. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, >un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of cusku >and then fills it with ko'a. In other words, the tagged sumti >indicates that the event described by the bridi is spoken, written >or otherwise expressed by the referent of ko'a, or it-1 (the first >assignable pro-sumti). See also: cusku, cu'u, se cu'u, te cu'u, >ve cu'u. > >Keywords: Do I have to have a keyword for this? Yeesh. > >Examples of cu'u ko'a Usage > >See cu'u. I suggest removing all of that. >Examples of te ca'i Usage > >Artificial: > >lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >"My leaving is permitted, based on the command of the king.'' s/minde be/te minde be fi But the command is the basis for whose authority over what? Proposed Definition of te ta'i Proposed Definition of ta'i ma >Examples of ve pu'e Usage > >Artificial: > >mi zbasu lo botpi ve pu'e lo nu cpacu lo blaci grana vau >ce'o lo nu gasnu co runme lo grana vau ce'o lo drata >"I make bottles by the stages of getting glass rods, >melting the rods, and others." s/gasnu co runme/rumgau (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) >Examples of se ja'i Usage > >Artificial: > >mi cpacu lo bolci se ja'i lo nu da poi se darxi cu curmi >"I take the ball by the rule that says that one who is hit >is permitted." s/curmi/zifre >Examples of ku'u Usage > >Artificial: > >This kinda sucks. ie u'i >Examples of se ku'u Usage > >so'a da nelci lo rismi ku'u lo ponjo >"Almost everyone likes rice, according to Japanese culture." s/ku'u/se ku'u >Examples of tai Usage > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu >"A burrito as big as a head." s/tai/tai tu'a > mi zbasu lo blaci tai le ti bolci > "I make glass in the form of this here ball." s/tai/pe tai >Examples of te tai Usage > >mi zbasu lo blaci te tai lo bolci >"I make glass in the form of a ball." s/te tai/pe te tai >Examples of te ga'a Usage > >mi catlu lo tarci te ga'o lo lenjo >"I examine the stars by means of lenses." s/ga'o/ga'a mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:40 GMT > du'o (BAI) > Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of djuno > and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the > tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, > te du'o, ve du'o. If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > Does not exist, according to Google. Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}? > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > Clarke. Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} BTW, why {kakne lo nu} but {djica le ka}? I think it has to be {djica lo nu}. > Examples of te du'o Usage > > Artificial: > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > "I can help, knowing about medicine." s/mikse/mikce But this is {mi ne te du'o ...}. > Examples of cu'u Usage > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me. How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"? Can {cusku} be used for that? >Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > >cu'u ko'a (BAI*) >As said by it-1... Tags the sumti ko'a as fitting the first place >of cusku. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, >un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of cusku >and then fills it with ko'a. In other words, the tagged sumti >indicates that the event described by the bridi is spoken, written >or otherwise expressed by the referent of ko'a, or it-1 (the first >assignable pro-sumti). See also: cusku, cu'u, se cu'u, te cu'u, >ve cu'u. > >Keywords: Do I have to have a keyword for this? Yeesh. > >Examples of cu'u ko'a Usage > >See cu'u. I suggest removing all of that. >Examples of te ca'i Usage > >Artificial: > >lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >"My leaving is permitted, based on the command of the king.'' s/minde be/te minde be fi But the command is the basis for whose authority over what? Proposed Definition of te ta'i Proposed Definition of ta'i ma >Examples of ve pu'e Usage > >Artificial: > >mi zbasu lo botpi ve pu'e lo nu cpacu lo blaci grana vau >ce'o lo nu gasnu co runme lo grana vau ce'o lo drata >"I make bottles by the stages of getting glass rods, >melting the rods, and others." s/gasnu co runme/rumgau (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) >Examples of se ja'i Usage > >Artificial: > >mi cpacu lo bolci se ja'i lo nu da poi se darxi cu curmi >"I take the ball by the rule that says that one who is hit >is permitted." s/curmi/zifre >Examples of ku'u Usage > >Artificial: > >This kinda sucks. ie u'i >Examples of se ku'u Usage > >so'a da nelci lo rismi ku'u lo ponjo >"Almost everyone likes rice, according to Japanese culture." s/ku'u/se ku'u >Examples of tai Usage > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu >"A burrito as big as a head." s/tai/tai tu'a > mi zbasu lo blaci tai le ti bolci > "I make glass in the form of this here ball." s/tai/pe tai >Examples of te tai Usage > >mi zbasu lo blaci te tai lo bolci >"I make glass in the form of a ball." s/te tai/pe te tai >Examples of te ga'a Usage > >mi catlu lo tarci te ga'o lo lenjo >"I examine the stars by means of lenses." s/ga'o/ga'a mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > du'o (BAI) Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place > > of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an > > extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of > > djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, > > ve du'o. > > If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that > the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. I don't see a conflict there. Can you expand on that. > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > > Does not exist, according to Google. > > Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}? Sure. Why not? > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > > Clarke. > > Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} I would certainly feel comfortable phrasing it that way. > BTW, why {kakne lo nu} but {djica le ka}? I think it has to be > {djica lo nu}. Agreed. > > Examples of te du'o Usage > > > > Artificial: > > > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > > "I can help, knowing about medicine." > > s/mikse/mikce Fixed. > But this is {mi ne te du'o ...}. Fixed. > > Examples of cu'u Usage > > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me. > > How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"? Erm, that's what we just said, is it not? Except for the "now" part. {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > >Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > > I suggest removing all of that. Agreed. All references to it removed as well. > >Examples of te ca'i Usage > > > >Artificial: > > > >lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > >"My leaving is permitted, based on the command of the king.'' > > s/minde be/te minde be fi nod* > But the command is the basis for whose authority over what? My authority over the decision to leave. > >Examples of ve pu'e Usage > > > >Artificial: > > > >mi zbasu lo botpi ve pu'e lo nu cpacu lo blaci grana vau ce'o lo > >nu gasnu co runme lo grana vau ce'o lo drata > > > >"I make bottles by the stages of getting glass rods, melting the > >rods, and others." > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) nod* Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? > >Examples of tai Usage > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > s/tai/tai tu'a Why? -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:45 GMT On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > du'o (BAI) Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place > > > of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an > > > extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of > > > djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi > > > is known by, according to, or information gained from the > > > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, > > > ve du'o. > > > > If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say that > > the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. > > I don't see a conflict there. Can you expand on that. A knower is not the same as a source of information. Someone may nknow something and not inform anyone, and someone who doesn't know may still emit information. "According to X, broda" makes a different claim than "as X knows, broda". > > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. > > > Does not exist, according to Google. > > > > Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e zasti}? > > Sure. Why not? Well, maybe after the singularity. Don't you have to have cognition in order to know? But my objection wasn't really because of that. If {du'o} means "as X knows", then that would say, "it does not exist, as Google knows", not "for all Google knows". > > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka zifre > > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger > > > Clarke. > > > > Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} > > I would certainly feel comfortable phrasing it that way. To me those are two different things. If I don't think that data wants to be free, I won't say that R.C. knows it. > > > Examples of cu'u Usage > > > > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > > > > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by me. > > > > How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The Appassionata"? > > Erm, that's what we just said, is it not? Except for the "now" > part. > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) > > *nod* > > Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? -gau lujvo have trivial place structure if the place structure of the first component is known, so there is no need to add it. > > >Examples of tai Usage > > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > Why? Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:45 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > du'o (BAI) Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first > > > > place of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, > > > > adding an extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the > > > > first place of djuno and then fills it with the tagged > > > > sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the > > > > event described by the bridi is known by, according to, or > > > > information gained from the referent of the tagged sumti. > > > > See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > > > > > If {du'o} is to have this extended meaning, we should not say > > > that the tagged sumti fills the x1 of djuno. > > > > I don't see a conflict there. Can you expand on that. > > A knower is not the same as a source of information. Someone may > nknow something and not inform anyone, and someone who doesn't > know may still emit information. > > "According to X, broda" makes a different claim than "as X knows, > broda". OK. Fixed. > > > > .i na'e zasti du'o la gugl. Does not exist, according to > > > > Google. > > > > > > Would we say, for exampole, {la gugl djuno lo du'u na'e > > > zasti}? > > > > Sure. Why not? > > Well, maybe after the singularity. Don't you have to have > cognition in order to know? But my objection wasn't really because > of that. Right; that's outside the BPFK's scope. > If {du'o} means "as X knows", then that would say, "it does not > exist, as Google knows", not "for all Google knows". Hmmm. OK, example dropped. > > > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni cu kakne lo nu djica le ka > > > > zifre Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to > > > > Rodger Clarke. > > > > > > Or {la rodjer klark djuno lo du'u lo datni ...} > > > > I would certainly feel comfortable phrasing it that way. > > To me those are two different things. If I don't think that data > wants to be free, I won't say that R.C. knows it. I've edited the translation to: Data is capable of wanting to be free, as Rodger Clarke knows. Is that OK? > > > > Examples of cu'u Usage > > > > > > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. cu se nelci mi > > > > > > > > "The Appassionata", played by Arthur Rubenstein, is liked by > > > > me. > > > > > > How do we say "Arthur Rubenstein is now playing The > > > Appassionata"? > > > > Erm, that's what we just said, is it not? Except for the "now" > > part. > > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? Yes. It's a musical work, in fact. > > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > > > > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) > > > > *nod* > > > > Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? > > -gau lujvo have trivial place structure if the place structure of > the first component is known, so there is no need to add it. Not for you, but jbovlaste isn't just for people like you or me. It's for alll levels of Lojbanist, including my gf that doesn't speak a word of the language but reads my LiveJournal entries with jbofihe -x and jbovlaste. > > > >Examples of tai Usage > > > > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > Why? > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but then I don't understand tamsmi. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:45 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:55:55AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Words not in Jbovlaste (two can play that game ;) ): > jongau > seltcana Heh. I'll see what I can do. > Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: > cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan > This is only a slightly edited version of: > 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo cu ba'e du le loglo Erm, that's not tagged as artificial. > Other points: > mi krici lo prane ji'u la .platos. > mi nelci lo se prije be la .sokrates. be se ji'u la .platos. > Plato's Greek name was "Platon", and I think it is natural to lojbanise that to "platon". Done. > lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama > > pe'i ro jibri cu fasnu .i lo jenmi na fasnu .i semu'ibo mi stidi > tu'a zo selplijibri .a lo simsa xu lu lo nu sonci cu jibri mi li'u cu xamgu > lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > > s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) mi pilno lu te minde li'u > Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" without > restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo lijda" > sufficient to constrain quantification in the main clause? Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that not sufficient? -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:46 GMT On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact. Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text? I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, beyond a string of words with meaning. > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > Why? > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > then I don't understand tamsmi. I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like". mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:46 GMT On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact. Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text? I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, beyond a string of words with meaning. > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > Why? > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > then I don't understand tamsmi. I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like". mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:46 GMT On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I suppose. > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact. Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text? I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, beyond a string of words with meaning. > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu > > > > >"A burrito as big as a head." > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > Why? > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > then I don't understand tamsmi. I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like". mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by JohnCowan on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:46 GMT posts: 149 Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text? > > I would say for example {la artr rubnstain cu tigni la apasionatas}. > I guess I'm just not very clear on what the x2 of cusku can be, > beyond a string of words with meaning. Nuncusku and nuntigni are, I think, overlapping categories. When I talk to you, that is a nuncusku but not a nuntigni; Rubenstein's playing or a ballerina's dancing is both (because playing the piano and dancing are ve cusku, expressive media). If I were to leap about on my toes on stage, that would be a nuntigni but hardly a nuncusku, because I wouldn't express anything by it. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:46 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:45:23PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/1/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > On 5/31/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> > > > > {la .apasionatas ca se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.}, I > > > > suppose. > > > > > > So {apasionatas} is the name of something like a text? > > > > Yes. It's a musical work, in fact. > > Yes, what I mean is, is a musical work something like a text? Dude, it's a CLL example. If you want to contest it, we really should open a CLL eratta page or something. > > > > > >loi cidjrburito noi barda tai lo'e stedu "A burrito as > > > > > >big as a head." > > > > > > > > > > s/tai/tai tu'a > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Isn't it {noi ke'a barda tai lo nu lo'e stedu cu barda}? > > > > Can something be in the farm of an event? I don't think so, but > > then I don't understand tamsmi. > > I don't get {tamsmi} either. I use {tai} as if it came from > {simsa}, i.e. basically as "like". Ernh. OK, I'll make the change. -Robin
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:47 GMT posts: 953 On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: >> cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan >> This is only a slightly edited version of: >> 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo cu ba'e du le loglo > > Erm, that's not tagged as artificial. The line below says: "Artificial? From the CLL:" I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see CLL examples as live usages. >> lo jenmi cu jibri mi se ca'i lo jbama >> >> pe'i ro jibri cu fasnu .i lo jenmi na fasnu .i semu'ibo mi stidi >> tu'a zo selplijibri .a lo simsa > > xu lu lo nu sonci cu jibri mi li'u cu xamgu pe'i go'i >> lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >> >> s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) > > mi pilno lu te minde li'u Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for authority? >> Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" without >> restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo lijda" >> sufficient to constrain quantification in the main clause? > > Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that > not sufficient? I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal claims). -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ - Hvorfor snakker man engelsk p Internet? - Har du hrt om minste felles nevner?
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:47 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:38:37AM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >>Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: cu'u le jbogri .e le > >>flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan This is only a slightly > >>edited version of: 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo > >>cu ba'e du le loglo > > > >Erm, that's not tagged as artificial. > > The line below says: The keyword here would be "below". > "Artificial? From the CLL:" That whole line refers to the next example. > I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see > CLL examples as live usages. Ah. I have no evidence that the CLL example wasn't simple made up, however. > >>lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > >> > >>s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) > > > >mi pilno lu te minde li'u > > Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the > action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for > authority? Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the authority to carry it out. > >>Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" > >>without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo > >>lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main > >>clause? > > > >Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that > >not sufficient? > > I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are > constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be > impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal > claims). You're saying, then, that: ro da limna is a true statement, because quantified claims are not constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm... It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that makes quantified claims true or untrue (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah). -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:48 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:16:41PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:18:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > s/gasnu co runme/rumgau > > > > (As it is, the grana are in the temperature place.) > > *nod* > > Mind adding it to jbovlaste for me? Did it myself. -Robin
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:48 GMT posts: 953 On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > That whole line refers to the next example. Fair enough. >>>> lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru >>>> >>>> s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) >>> >>> mi pilno lu te minde li'u >> >> Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the >> action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for >> authority? > > Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the > authority to carry it out. Are you saying that lo te minde cu te catni? If so, then the edited example is okay. >>>> Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da" >>>> without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo >>>> lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main >>>> clause? >>> >>> Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that >>> not sufficient? >> >> I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are >> constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be >> impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal >> claims). > > You're saying, then, that: > > ro da limna > > is a true statement, because quantified claims are not constrained > by the main selbri. Ummmm... On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim will be false. Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of picking out a universe of discourse. > It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that > makes quantified claims true or untrue I don't understand this at all. > (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah). I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the BPFK scope. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Den tredje dagen* tar jeg en dusj. ... Jeg har ikke savnet vaske meg engang. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen (*dvs. den tredje dagen p sydpolen, 53 dager etter avreise fra Patriot Hills.)
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:49 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see > > CLL examples as live usages. > > Ah. I have no evidence that the CLL example wasn't simple made up, > however. Most of them were. --
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:50 GMT On 6/2/05, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote: > Nuncusku and nuntigni are, I think, overlapping categories. When I talk to > you, that is a nuncusku but not a nuntigni; Rubenstein's playing or a > ballerina's dancing is both (because playing the piano and dancing are ve cusku, > expressive media). If I were to leap about on my toes on stage, that would > be a nuntigni but hardly a nuncusku, because I wouldn't express anything by it. I'm still unclear about what the x2 of cusku is. It is not the thing expressed, but something by which someone expresses something, right? For example: I express my gratitude with a "thank you". I express my frustration with a grunt. The ballerina expresses something with her dance. Rubenstein expresses something with the Appassionata. The x2 of cusku is the "thank you", the grunt, the dance and the Appassionata? Is the place structure of {cusku} soemthing like "x1 expresses something with x2 to x3 in medium x4"? Are all of these correct: mi cusku zo ki'e mi cusku lo se cmoni le dansu cu cusku lo nu dansu la rubinstein cu cusku la apasionatas {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for the thing by which one expresses something. Would that be right? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:50 GMT On 6/2/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote: > You are > quantifying over all the entities in the universe, unrestricted. Since > there will always be non-swimming entities (such as myself, or that book > on my table), such a universal claim will be false. > > Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", but this > is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of picking out a > universe of discourse. It seems to me that it is much easier to pick out a universe of discourse for a given discourse than have "all the entities in the universe" determined once and for all for every possible discourse. Who is going to decide what does and what does not count as such an "entity in the universe". I hope not the BPFK. > > (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah). > > I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the BPFK > scope. How quantification works can be found in any introductory Logic text. There is no need to have all entities in the universe determined for all contexts in order to use quantification. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:51 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:55:55AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > wrote: > > Words not in Jbovlaste (two can play that game ;) ): > > jongau > > seltcana Done (with arj's help; thanks). -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:52 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 01:15:26AM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >>>>lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru > >>>> > >>>>s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi) > >>> > >>>mi pilno lu te minde li'u > >> > >>Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the > >>action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis > >>for authority? > > > >Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the > >authority to carry it out. > > Are you saying that lo te minde cu te catni? If so, then the > edited example is okay. In this case, sure. > >>I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are > >>constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be > >>impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal > >>claims). > > > >You're saying, then, that: > > > >ro da limna > > > >is a true statement, because quantified claims are not > >constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm... > > On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You > are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, > unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities > (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim > will be false. Right. > Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", > but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of > picking out a universe of discourse. True. > >It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that > >makes quantified claims true or untrue > > I don't understand this at all. The quantification specifies a number of things; the truth/false of the statement is determined by whether the claim applies to that number of things. > >(from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah > >blah). > > I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the > BPFK scope. It's not, but the semantics of the resulting sentence (i.e. whether the sentence is true or false) is. OK, getting back to the problem. so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above and: so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure. Nor do I know how to decide. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:52 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:31:56PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/2/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote: > > You are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, > > unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities > > (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal > > claim will be false. > > > > Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of > > discourse", but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any > > explicit way of picking out a universe of discourse. > > It seems to me that it is much easier to pick out a universe of > discourse for a given discourse than have "all the entities in the > universe" determined once and for all for every possible > discourse. Who is going to decide what does and what does not > count as such an "entity in the universe". I hope not the BPFK. That was sort of my point about semantics being outside the scope of the BPFK. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:53 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:21:19PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/2/05, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote: > > Nuncusku and nuntigni are, I think, overlapping categories. > > When I talk to you, that is a nuncusku but not a nuntigni; > > Rubenstein's playing or a ballerina's dancing is both (because > > playing the piano and dancing are ve cusku, expressive media). > > If I were to leap about on my toes on stage, that would be a > > nuntigni but hardly a nuncusku, because I wouldn't express > > anything by it. > > I'm still unclear about what the x2 of cusku is. It is not the > thing expressed, but something by which someone expresses > something, right? > > For example: > > I express my gratitude with a "thank you". > > I express my frustration with a grunt. > > The ballerina expresses something with her dance. > > Rubenstein expresses something with the Appassionata. > > The x2 of cusku is the "thank you", the grunt, the dance and the > Appassionata? > > Is the place structure of {cusku} soemthing like "x1 expresses > something with x2 to x3 in medium x4"? Gaaah. This is hurting my head. I would phrase those all the other way around: My saying "thank you" indicates my gratitude. My grunting indicated my frustration. The ballerina dances, thus indicating he's incredibly gay. (I'm going to la .bais. for that) Rubenstein plays the Appassionata, thus indicating his froo-froo artsy-ness. In other words, the thank you, the grunt, text, whatever *ARE* the thing expressed. Expressing these things may, or may not, indicate something else. > Are all of these correct: > > mi cusku zo ki'e > > mi cusku lo se cmoni > > le dansu cu cusku lo nu dansu > > la rubinstein cu cusku la apasionatas Seems OK to me, although I normally use cusku only for things that carry verbal information. As I said, though, the example came from the CLL. > {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for > the thing by which one expresses something. I don't see it that way at all. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:54 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for > > the thing by which one expresses something. > > I don't see it that way at all. Put it this way: a se cusku is the expressive action, not the meaning of the action, and the latter has no regular cusku place at all. -- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half jcowan@reutershealth.com of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo http://www.reutershealth.com
Posted by cmecau on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:54 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > {cusku} does not have a place for the thing expressed, only for > > the thing by which one expresses something. > > I don't see it that way at all. Put it this way: a se cusku is the expressive action, not the meaning of the action, and the latter has no regular cusku place at all. -- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half jcowan@reutershealth.com of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo http://www.reutershealth.com
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:58 GMT > so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above > and: > > so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure. > Nor do I know how to decide. Well, I think I'd tend to read the first one as {so'a da poi ka'e cusku}, i.e. basically "most people". mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:00 GMT Can {bau} be used to indicate an alphabet or other encoding scheme? Example: la grant.sa'ib. se ciska bau lo gurmuki mu'omi'e pier. -- My monthly periods happen once per year. -Les Perles de la médecine
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:01 GMT On 6/4/05, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org> wrote: > Can {bau} be used to indicate an alphabet or other encoding scheme? Example: > la grant.sa'ib. se ciska bau lo gurmuki ko ciska la grant sa'ib bau la lojban fi'o se lerfu le latmo fi'o te mifra la carpacib It could get confusing if you use {bau} for {fi'o se lerfu} and {fi'o te mifra} as well as for {fi'o bangu}. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:03 GMT posts: 953 On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: arj: >>>> I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are >>>> constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be >>>> impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal >>>> claims). >>> rlpowell: >>> You're saying, then, that: >>> >>> ro da limna >>> >>> is a true statement, because quantified claims are not >>> constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm... >> >> On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You >> are quantifying over all the entities in the universe, >> unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities >> (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim >> will be false. > > Right. > >> Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse", >> but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of >> picking out a universe of discourse. > > True. > >>> It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that >>> makes quantified claims true or untrue >> >> I don't understand this at all. > > The quantification specifies a number of things; the truth/false of > the statement is determined by whether the claim applies to that > number of things. > >>> (from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah >>> blah). >> >> I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the >> BPFK scope. > > It's not, but the semantics of the resulting sentence (i.e. whether > the sentence is true or false) is. > > OK, getting back to the problem. > > so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above > and: > > so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure. > Nor do I know how to decide. It's unfortunate that we're having this discussion on a mostly unrelated part of the example sentence, when we should be concentrating in getting BAI done. I suggest that we just agree for now that quantification is a matter of dispute, and leave a note on this on whichever section contains ro, so'a, and friends. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ There is a great deal of drinking in Japan, unbridled by licensing hours. It forms an important part of semi-official end of work or business negotiations ..., but is also rampant without any such excuse. — Ballhatchet, Kaiser: Teach Yourself Japanese
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:04 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:36:38PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > It's unfortunate that we're having this discussion on a mostly > unrelated part of the example sentence, when we should be > concentrating in getting BAI done. > > I suggest that we just agree for now that quantification is a > matter of dispute, and leave a note on this on whichever section > contains ro, so'a, and friends. Please, feel free. In the meantime, so'a da poi prenu cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda "Almost everyone prays to their god(s) in religious cultures." -Robin
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:08 GMT posts: 953 On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:36:38PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >> It's unfortunate that we're having this discussion on a mostly >> unrelated part of the example sentence, when we should be >> concentrating in getting BAI done. >> >> I suggest that we just agree for now that quantification is a >> matter of dispute, and leave a note on this on whichever section >> contains ro, so'a, and friends. > > Please, feel free. > > In the meantime, > > so'a da poi prenu cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda > > "Almost everyone prays to their god(s) in religious cultures." Great, thanks. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:52 GMT posts: 14214 Forwarded from Adam Lopresto: Sorry for dumping so many suggestions in at the very end, here. Aside from the comments about {se ta'i}, I don't think anything that follows is very important (and I'm not even sure my take on {se ta'i} is that important, or necessarily right, but....). And none of them should be enough to hold up voting for the section (which I just did). First of all, I wonder whether the template would be less redundant but just as meaningful with s/the tagged sumti indicates that //. So a sample definition would be something like Known by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the first place of djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the event described by the bridi is known by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. For an example for {zau}, you have mi cliva zau la patfu I left with dad's permission. Probably should be "with Dad's permission". (Dad here being used as a proper noun, therefore). {ca'i} has no keywords assigned (just copy "By authority of..." from the definition) Is there a reason {ta'i ma do cilre la lojban} is listed as an example of {ta'i} but not {ta'i ma}, while {ta'i ma do zbasu le danmo} is listed under both? (And why, oh why, does {ta'i ma} need a separate definition anyway? Nevermind.) The proposed definition of {se ta'i} doesn't sit right with me. I would have expected that it's basically the reverse of {ta'i}. mi cilre la lojban ta'i lo nu mi'o casnu mi'o casnu se ta'i lo nu mi cilre la lojban I learn lojban from our chats. If that's the case, I would have expect the defintion to be As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of tadji and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi is a method associated with doing or performing the actions described or indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: tadji, ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. That's also much more in keeping with the keyword (which doesn't mean it's right, but means that if it's not the keyword may need to be chaged). Perhaps another keyword for {te ja'i} is "by rule governing" Possible artificial example sentence for {ku'u} (and {ja'i}, or actually {ja'i nai}). Feel free to modify or reject it completely, but maybe it can replace the "this kinda sucks". lo prenu na pinfu ja'i no da ku'u lo za'i zifre People are not held prisoner for no reason in a culture of freedom. (Probably not a really good translation.) "Proposed Definition of sera'a" I think you mean "se ra'a" (with a space). Under "Examples of se tai Usage", you have "See tai above; they are functionally identical." If so, then why are their definitions different? It would probably also be handy to note that in the defitions of each. mi galfi le ti bolci le ta bolci ve tai lo ka skari "I turn this ball into that ball with respect to colour." I have no idea what this means, in either language. But I don't really understand tamsmi anyway, so I can't come up with anything better. For {ma'i}, it might be nice to have a non-cultural example (since I think that's more in line with the definition). le mi ckafi cu dukse glare ma'i lo se pinxe My coffee is too hot, by the standard of drinks. My coffee is too hot to drink. Perhaps "under the control of" should be added as a keyword for {ji'o}. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Linux: The choice of a GNU generation
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:14:25PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > First of all, I wonder whether the template would be less > redundant but just as meaningful with s/the tagged sumti indicates > that //. So a sample definition would be something like Agreed. Fixed (even in other people's sections; y'all can revert if you disagree). > For an example for {zau}, you have > > mi cliva zau la patfu > > I left with dad's permission. > > Probably should be "with Dad's permission". (Dad here being used > as a proper noun, therefore). Done. > {ca'i} has no keywords assigned (just copy "By authority of..." > from the definition) Done. > Is there a reason {ta'i ma do cilre la lojban} is listed as an > example of {ta'i} but not {ta'i ma}, while {ta'i ma do zbasu le > danmo} is listed under both? No. > (And why, oh why, does {ta'i ma} need a separate definition > anyway? Nevermind.) Because it's exceedinly common and useful. It's the English word "how". > The proposed definition of {se ta'i} doesn't sit right with me. I > would have expected that it's basically the reverse of {ta'i}. Reverse? In what sense? > mi cilre la lojban ta'i lo nu mi'o casnu > > mi'o casnu se ta'i lo nu mi cilre la lojban > > I learn lojban from our chats. I can see that. > If that's the case, I would have expect the defintion to be > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of tadji and > then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged > sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi is a method > associated with doing or performing the actions described or > indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: tadji, > ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did was drop using some method or technique unspecified (it can be specified with ta'i, however). I don't understand why. {se ta'i} should always be associated with tadji, so it must have something to do with methods of some kind. > That's also much more in keeping with the keyword All you did was remove clarifying information; I don't see how that makes it more in keeping with the keyword. > Perhaps another keyword for {te ja'i} is "by rule governing" Done. > Possible artificial example sentence for {ku'u} (and {ja'i}, or > actually {ja'i nai}). Feel free to modify or reject it > completely, but maybe it can replace the "this kinda sucks". > > lo prenu na pinfu ja'i no da ku'u lo za'i zifre > > People are not held prisoner for no reason in a culture of freedom. > (Probably not a really good translation.) Slightly modified: lo prenu na pinfu ja'i no da ku'u lo te flalu "People are not held prisoner for no reason in a law-based culture." Added to ja'i, but *not* ja'i nai. {ja'i no da} != {jai nai da}. > "Proposed Definition of sera'a" > > I think you mean "se ra'a" (with a space). Fixed. > Under "Examples of se tai Usage", you have "See tai above; they > are functionally identical." If so, then why are their > definitions different? It would probably also be handy to note > that in the defitions of each. I have no idea; I don't understand tamsmi. > mi galfi le ti bolci le ta bolci ve tai lo ka skari > > "I turn this ball into that ball with respect to colour." This ball is red, that ball is blue; I make this ball blue. > For {ma'i}, it might be nice to have a non-cultural example (since > I think that's more in line with the definition). > > le mi ckafi cu dukse glare ma'i lo se pinxe > > My coffee is too hot, by the standard of drinks. > > My coffee is too hot to drink. Thanks. > Perhaps "under the control of" should be added as a keyword for {ji'o}. Done. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of tadji and > > then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged > > sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi is a method > > associated with doing or performing the actions described or > > indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: tadji, > > ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. > > There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did was > drop > > using some method or technique unspecified (it can be specified > with ta'i, however). He also added "the event described by the bridi *is a method*..." > All you did was remove clarifying information; I don't see how that > makes it more in keeping with the keyword. The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main bridi. That's what "as a method for..." says. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > > > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > > > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of > > > tadji and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the > > > bridi is a method associated with doing or performing the > > > actions described or indicated by the referent of the tagged > > > sumti. See also: tadji, ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. > > > > There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did > > was drop > > > > using some method or technique unspecified (it can be > > specified with ta'i, however). > > He also added "the event described by the bridi *is a method*..." Ah, didn't see that. > > All you did was remove clarifying information; I don't see how > > that makes it more in keeping with the keyword. > > The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main bridi. > That's what "as a method for..." says. See, and I just don't agree. Guess I have to change the keyword. "se ta'i" attaches a methodologically performed event to the main bridi; it does not *necessarily* turn the main bridi into a method, although that's certainly a reasonable reading. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main bridi. > > That's what "as a method for..." says. > > See, and I just don't agree. Guess I have to change the keyword. > "se ta'i" attaches a methodologically performed event to the main > bridi; it does not *necessarily* turn the main bridi into a method, > although that's certainly a reasonable reading. But do you think that's just a quirk of {se ta'i}, or do you also have to change the definitions of {ta'i} so that the main bridi is not necessarily the se tadni, and {ki'u} so that the maiun bridi is not necessarily the se krinu, and {te zu'e} so that the main bridi is not necessarily the se zukte, and {se pi'o} so that the main bridi is not necessarily the te pilno, etc.? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:17:11PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > The method is not unspecified, it is specified by the main > > > bridi. That's what "as a method for..." says. > > > > See, and I just don't agree. Guess I have to change the > > keyword. "se ta'i" attaches a methodologically performed event > > to the main bridi; it does not *necessarily* turn the main bridi > > into a method, although that's certainly a reasonable reading. > > But do you think that's just a quirk of {se ta'i}, or do you also > have to change the definitions of {ta'i} so that the main bridi is > not necessarily the se tadni, and {ki'u} so that the maiun bridi > is not necessarily the se krinu, and {te zu'e} so that the main > bridi is not necessarily the se zukte, and {se pi'o} so that the > main bridi is not necessarily the te pilno, etc.? The latter; BAI adds places with a fuzzy connection to the main bridi. IMO. Are those the only ones with that problem? -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:17:11PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > But do you think that's just a quirk of {se ta'i}, or do you also > > have to change the definitions of {ta'i} so that the main bridi is > > not necessarily the se tadni, and {ki'u} so that the maiun bridi > > is not necessarily the se krinu, and {te zu'e} so that the main > > bridi is not necessarily the se zukte, and {se pi'o} so that the > > main bridi is not necessarily the te pilno, etc.? > > The latter; BAI adds places with a fuzzy connection to the main > bridi. IMO. > > Are those the only ones with that problem? No, those were just examples. All the causals work like that, for example, as well as many others. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 12:06:28PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > As a method for... Tags a sumti as fitting the second place of > > > tadji. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra, > > > un-numbered place with the meaning of the second place of > > > tadji and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, > > > the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the > > > bridi is a method associated with doing or performing the > > > actions described or indicated by the referent of the tagged > > > sumti. See also: tadji, ta'i, te ta'i, ta'i ma. > > > > There was no point in repeating the whole thing, as all you did > > was drop > > > > using some method or technique unspecified (it can be > > specified with ta'i, however). > > He also added "the event described by the bridi *is a method*..." Ah, OK. Stolen. -Robin