WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: lerfu Shifts

posts: 1912


> xorxes:
> "P" is to "py" as "Q" is to "kybu"

("kybu" should have been "ky.bu")

> Thanks. I can never remember how to handle odd letters in Lojban’s deficient
> alphabet. I suppose that {kuy} is illegit in some way. Pity.

h, q and w are {.y'y.bu}, {ky.bu} and {vy.bu}.

CLL lists iy and uy among the Lojban diphthongs, but they can only
appear in cmene. I avoid them completely, as I find them very
hard to pronounce.

> <<
> pybu implik.bu kybubu vlina le natfe be py boi kybu
>
> But, shouldn't it be {me'o pybu implik.bu kybubu}?>>
>
> Thanks again. The {me’o}, however otherwise obnoxious, does allow me to come
> down a {bu} and still avoid the pronoun problem (which I did not avoid
> anyhow, as you note).

That still leaves the question as to the difference if any between
{me'o py. implik.bu ky.bu} and {me'o vei py. ni'e nafyvlina ky.bu} and
{me'o vei py. na.a ky.bu}. They are all grammatical, but are they all
sensical?, and if so, do they mean the same thing?

...
> Though the names
> varied, there were usually at least the following types of “meanings” of
> expressions:
>
> The physical expression itself: “Man has three letters”
> The expression as a bit of language: “Man is a noun”

Those two would appear to be {zo nanmu} in Lojban:

zo nanmu cu lerfu mumoi
zo nanmu cu gismu

> The expression as referring to a concept: “Man is subsumed under animal.”
> The expression as presenting a concept: “Man is a rational animal”
> The exprssion as referring to objects “Man is any human or any male human”

Those three would be {lo nanmu} with my understanding of {lo}:

lo nanmu cu klesi lo danlu
lo nanmu cu racli danlu
lo nanmu cu du ro nakni remna

> What is happening here is a failure to distinguish among some of the earlier
> of these critters.

Lojban at least makes a two-way distinction, where English makes none.

> I think I was looking for a way to present the physical
> expression orally rather than in writing. In that case, different forms of
> the implication sign would probably have different representations.

What would be the analogous of the first two "man" for symbols?
"1+1" is pronounced in Lojban "(li/me'o) pa su'i pa"
So we could say:

zo su'i kruca
"+" is a cross

zo su'i mekfancu valsi
"su'i" is a MEX operator word

> But I
> may have meant bits of language (and I a pretty certainly shifted back and
> forth between at least these two), in which case the shape of the sign would
> be unimportant and its function (as a contrast to say alternation sign or
> quantifier) would be more significant.

But so far there appears to be no reason to leave "zo" or eventually
"lu-li'u" to talk about these things, which is the normal Lojban way
to deal both with physical expressions and with bits of language.

{me'o} for example can't deal with {su'i} because it is not a complete
expression. Similarly it can't deal with the physical expression nor with
the bit of language {na.a}.

> In the sentence I aimed at and
> missed, however, I was pretty clearly dealing with meaning and so the logical
> function comes to the fore, the shape being even less important than before.

I can't quite grasp what {me'o} is about. Is it about bits of language,
like gismu/cmavo/mekso?

> Now, quite frankly, I want to do at least all three of these things – on
> different occasions – and to keep them clearly separated when they come close
> to one another (and it would be nice if this could be by devices that could
> be extended throughout MEX, since it seems to be pervaded by this kind of
> imprecision – leaving aside all its other problems).

It seems so to me too.

> And it does not seem to
> me that we can always rely on context to sort these critters out, so we
> “need” (no one but an occasional philosopher is going to get caught in this
> except occasionally – Korzybski to the contrary notwithstanding) either
> different symbols or a disambiguating device to be called up when needed.

It would be useful to first have some examples of the kinds of things
we would like to say about these things.

> I
> have no problem with descriptive names, suitably modified to indicate they
> are symbols ({lo xircutri tanxi sinxa} is just the wrong grammatical type for
> use in the form of an expression as such): {zai xircutri bu}

{zai xircutci bu} would seem to select the Horse-shoe alphabet...

>or {lau…} or
> whatever does for that. Similarly, {nafyvlina bu} does find once the
> conceptual level is
> reached; the linguistic one could go either way I guess.

ko ciska lo xircutci tarmi sinxa le tanbo
Write a horse-shoe symbol on the board.

?ko ciska me'o xircutci bu le tanbo
?Write the expression consisting of the horse-shoe (operand) on the board.

?ko ciska me'o nafyvlina bu le tanbo
?Write the expression consisting of the implication (operand) on the board.

ko ciska me'o vei py na.a ky.bu le tanbo
Write the expression "if P then Q" on the board.
(Would this be satisfied by writing "P->Q"?)

?ko ciska me'o py nafyvlina bu ky.bu le tanbo

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html