WikiDiscuss

---

**************
>
> ! About xorlo
>
> "xorlo" is our (the baupla fuzykamni's) pet
> name for the gadri (articles, like "the" and
> "a" in English) BPFK proposal written mostly by
> xorxes. It has the advantage of being a
> gismu form. The gadri
> proposal (which has now been accepted by a
> vote of 11 to 0 by the BPFK, although it is
> technically subject to future changes until we
> declare ourselves done) is quite complete, but
> rather full of technical jargon.

I won't rehearse all the reasons that this
acceptance was a Bad Idea, but we are now seeing
one part of the problem: since the proposal is
internally contradictory, everything follows from
it and thus we get "explanations" which push even
beyond the already wrongheaded changes clearly
made in the original proposal.

> Also, it's the biggest change we (the BPFK)
> have made to the language, and, God willin' and
> the creek don't rise, the biggest one we'll
> ever make. By far.
>
> Hence, a tutorial seems prudent.
>
> Something that needs to be noted in general:
> we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we
> do not make rulings on ontological or
> metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell
> you whether phrase X has meaning or validity.
> That is discussion and speaker specific, and
> not our job. In some discussions, saying "mi
> kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally
> means "there exists one thing that is a
> unicorn, and I am hunting it")

That's not what it means literally at all. That
pa lo pavyseljirna exists is at most a pragmatic
implication, which, given the usual meaning of
{kalte}, does not go through. Because Lojban
does not mark its intensional contexts well --
and every effort to get it to do so has been
rejected by the same people who keep mucking up
with them — this expression does allow the
inference to something like {pa da poi
pavyseljirna se kalte mi} which does mean the
claimed literal meaning but which can be false
even when the original (as usually understood) is
true . The language — putatively logical in
some way — thus justifies and invalid inference,
not a very logical thing to do

>is perfectly
> reasonable, in others it's a reason to put
> someone in a mental hospital. In a similar
> vein, "lo" is now completely generic. This
> means that there are going to be disagreements
> about how broad it can be.

Hey, there are arguments about what, if anyhting,
that means at all. If we are going to make major
changes, we ought at least be clear what the Hell
they are. As it stands, the calim that something
is generic has been used to justify a number of
incompatible and impossible claims. Perhaps,
rather this primer should start with a definition
or at least an explanation of what "generic"
means — and "completely gneric" even more so.
As it stands, this is a loophole which might be
used to drive any truck one wanted through (and
has been).

For example, I
> think that "bear goo" is perfectly validly "lo
> cribe". Arnt does not. That's OK, albeit
> somewhat obnoxious should I ever need to
> talk about "bear goo". Of course, I can just
> use "lo pesxu be lo cribe".

{loi spisa be lo cribe} makes more sense for what
"bear goo" usually means in this context.

> !! General Notes
>
> If you choose to read the proposal itself,
> there are a couple of things you should know.
> If you just want the high-level overview, and
> have no intention of reading the proposal, skip
> this section.
>
> * "distributively" means "not as a group", and
> is a term we owe largely to
> McKay,
> whom we should give money to or something.
> Basically, "three men carried the piano" when
> handled distributively means that they each
> carried it. lo, le, and la are all
> distributive. The outer quantifier of loi,
> lei and lai is distributive over groups of
> number indicated by the inner quantifier.

Do what? Can you give an example of what this
might possibly mean — or better what it really
is intended to mean. I have a problem also (ib
addition to the muddled expression here) with the
notion of a quantifier being distributive, though
I think it may come clear when the rest of this
passage is laid out (and I have read McKay and
discussed with him about some things in his
system even).

> * "non-distributively" means "as a group".
> "Three men carried the piano" when handled
> distributively means that they all did it.

That is they all did it *together* no one — or
even two — of them did it on his (their) own.

> * There are no default quantifiers. At all.
> For example, the default outer quantifier of
> "lo" used to be "su'o", which means "at least
> one", but that is no longer the case. "lo
> cribe" could be one, or a billion, or none
> (although expect listener hostility!!), or the
> idea of bear-ness (as in "bears like honey"),
> or bear goo (as in after a car accident
> involving a really, really big truck).

This is an incredibly huge move away from clarity

and precision toward hopeless muck. If I cannot
tell whether you are talking about a thing or a
concept or a mass (in the real — non-Lojban --
sense), how am I to judge the truth of what you
say, since I don't know what you may well claim
to have said (a claim I can't check). Context
only helps so far and assumes that some things in
the context are settled; this leaves it all up in
the air. It is also not even hinted at (except
in saying {lo} is generic) in the original
proposal — either version.

> * A side effect of the above is that in xorlo,
> if you mean "one bear", consider actually
> saying "pa cribe". It's ever so much more
> specific.

Nu? Of course specifying the exact number is
more specific than not specifying. What does
that have to do with the case? Does {lo cribe}
mean "one bear" or "one concept of a bear" or
"one puddle of bear goo?" Hopefully only the
first.

>We (those of us that have actually
> been using xorlo for the last few months; there
> are at least half a dozen active users on
> #lojban now) have found that context is almost
> always sufficient, however.
>
> !! lo
>
> lo is where the biggest changes occured. In
> fact, it's fair to say that everything but the
> changes to lo (and to default quantification)
> were mere clarifications. Here's how lo works
> now:
>
> * lo is the default gadri; if in doubt, use lo
> * lo with no outer or inner quantifier is
> absolutely generic; "lo broda" means
> "something(s) or other to do with broda", and
> that's about it. Thankfully, context is plenty
> 99% of the time.

An optimistic estimate.

> Expect to see a lot more lo!
> * In particular, you almost always want "lo nu"
> rather than "le nu". "lo nu" is "some event of
> ...", "le nu" is "some particular event of ...
> that I have in mind".
> * lo with an outer quantifier, which is exactly
> the same thing as just sticking a number before
> an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == "mu bakni" ==
> "five cows), works pretty much as before: "five
> things that really are cows"

Whoa, Nelly. If {mu lo bakni} is just the same
as {mu bakni} then it does not mean anything
like that but rather "five things that are
somehow related to cows", possibly a cow, a cow
pie, a side of beef, a quart of milk, and
cowness. You can't have it both ways, unless you
want to say that {mu bakni} really is different
from {mu lo bakni} (which might make sense for
other reasons as well).

> * lo's inner quantifier indicates the number if
> things we're talking about, but in a slightly
> different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri lo
> pipno" means "There were 5 cows; each of them
> carried a piano individually". "lo mu bakni cu
> bevri lo pipno" is ambiguous as to whether they
> did it individually or as a group. To be clear
> about group-ness, use loi and friends.

While having a vague (not really ambiguous: it
doesn't mean both, just fails to mean either)
expression is useful, it isalso useful to have a
very clear distributive expression, not
necessarily involving quantifiers — a job {lo}
used to do. Note by the way that no diddling
with the form of sumti will ever completely cover
the distributive-nondistributive distinction.

> * The above is actually a substantial change;
> "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno" used to mean
> "All the cows in the universe, of which there
> are 5, carry the piano". That sucked. It is
> still possible to say the above in xorlo, but I
> don't remember the easy way off the top of my
> head; someone please replace this with an
> example of that.

Yes, this is not a wrongheaded idea!

> !! le
>
> le is basically unchanged. Because it now
> carries more baggage then lo, rather than
> less as before, it is no longer the default
> choice for the discerning Lojbanist. In my
> post-xorlo writings, lo outnumbers le by about
> three to one (at a guess). I only use le when
> I'm talking about a specific item.

That was always the rule, wasn't it? I think
there was some dispute about just where
specificity kicked in but that is about all.

> * le is used for particular things you have in
> mind.
> * Because you have them in mind in your own
> mind, it implies that your definition of
> whatever (i.e. bakni in "le bakni") may not
> agree with everyone elses (hence the famous "le
> nanmu cu ninmu" for a crossdresser example).

So, {lo} is always appropriate whenever {le}
because by using {le bakni} you have established
that the thing has something to do with cows.
This is another change-- or rather another odd
consequence of the earlier mentioned changes.

> * If you wish to use le and not have the
> implication that you might be messing with your
> user's head, you can use "le je'u <whatever>",
> but in practice we all assume that you're not
> being a jerk and that the selbri after le
> actually matches reality as you understand it.
> * The outer and inner quantifiers of le act
> exactly like xorlo for most purposes.
>
> !! la
>
> la is unchanged save for clarification.
>
> * la has no inner quantifier; a number after la
> is considered part of the name.
> * la's outer quantifier is just like lo's.
>
> !! The lVi Series
>
> This is loi, lei, and lai. They act exactly
> like lo, le and la, respectively, except that:
>
> * They make things into groups (aka masses, aka
> non-distributive groups) for purposes of the
> rest of the bridi. For example, "loi mu bakni
> cu bevri lo pipno" definately means that
> all the cows carried the piano together, as a
> group.

Since in the real world a nondistributive group
is a very narrowly specified mathematical object
and a mass is a fairly clearly defined linguistic
concept, it turns out to be a good idea to call
what we have here bunches (or something else of
that sort).

> * The inner quantifier (which lai does not
> have) indicates the size of the group.
> * You almost always want to use an inner
> quantifier with loi and lei, not an outer one.
> This may take a bit of getting used to.

Why?

> * The outer quantifier gives a number of
> groups. These are not then grouped together!
> This means that "re loi mu bakni cu bevri lo
> pipno" means that there are two groups of five
> cows, and that each group of five cows carried
> the piano.

A major change and one for which an adequate
(indeed any) justification has never been
presented (except that one person used it that
way a lot, possibly originally by mistake).

> * That example should give an idea of the power
> of xorlo; some very specific things can be
> said in xorlo very easily.

Frinstance? The description here sugests that
saying anything specific is going to be very
hard, much harder than saying some of the "new
easy expressions" in the old system.

> * Note that it is not necessarily the case that
> those two groups of five cows are completely
> distinct. They could share some members in
> common. Using this fact without making it
> clear to your listener you are doing so,
> however, is very poor form.
> * A fractional outer quantifier selects a
> portion of the group. So "pa pi re loi xa
> bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means that one half of
> some group of six cows (i.e. 3 cows) carried
> the
message truncated