WikiDiscuss

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:39:07AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> I have already voted yes, but here are some more comments anyway.
>
> > !! Proposed Definition of ma
> >
> > ;ma (KOhA7): Sumti question. ma is a pro-sumti (meaning
> > it takes the
> ...
> > requests that the listener provide a sumti as an answer. The
> > sumti response should fill the place where ma was in the
> > original bridi in such a way as to have a true bridi result from
> > the combination.
>
> That's assuming the listener can and wants to answer with the
> truth, which need not be the case. All we can really say is: "The
> sumti response fills the place where ma was in the original
> bridi and the resulting bridi is the answer offered to the
> question."

Done.

> To reject the
> > basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value
> > that could make that bridi true), use no da.
>
> I would eliminate "To reject the basis of a question (i.e.," from
> here. Answering {noda} doesn't seem to reject the basis of a
> question, it just says that no value applies.

Done.

> > na'i. A bridi with more than one ma should be responded
> > to with an unconnected string of sumti.
>
> I'd say "can be responded". You can always respond with a full
> bridi as well.

Done.

> > ;zi'o (KOhA7): Nonexistent it.
>
> I think "nonexistent it" is very misleading. "Nonexistent argument
> place" would be better.

Done.

> > lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do ''A name (regardless of
> > whether some thing is actually being named or not) is attending
> > and attentive to you.''
>
> What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less
> attentive?

I have no idea; I was short on zi'o examples. Replaced.

> > zo'e can represent, or be replaced with, just about
> > anything.
>
> I think that can be misleading. Replacing it with something will
> usually change the sentence in some way, at least in the
> pragmatics. Replacing {zo'e} with anything else will normally make
> a sentece less vague.

Comma clause removed.

> > into a question. zo'e can represent a referant of any
> > complexity. To fully specify the thing represented by zo'e
> > may require very complex Lojban, including abstractions,
> > relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and combinations thereof.
>
> The complexity of a referent has nothing to do with the complexity
> of the sumti used to refer to it.

I thought I was clear on that point.

> {zo'e} refers to things, and their complexity is not relevant.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.

> The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to
> refer to those same things is also not relevant.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.

Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these statements?
They are intended for clarification.

> > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning
> > it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i
> > represents some value that is typical for the bridi place it
> > fills.
>
> I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a
> better proposal for {zu'i}.

Neither do I.

-Robin