WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

Judging from what Nick wrote at
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri+report%2C+aug+2003
this is a field of active research in linguistics/philosophy, and we
should not expect to arrive at a consensus solution here. To do so would
mean that we either had broken significant ground worthy of publishing,
or more likely, that we had succeeded in deluding ourselves. The BF
commissioners should attempt to clarify the situation beyond its current
state, but not expect a solution that lies beyond all criticism. ju'a
..e'unai lo prane cu bradi lo xamgu


Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>pc:
> =20
>
>>And
>>most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all):
>>generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like =96 things that ar=
e more
>>or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not it=
s
>>ground at all).
>> =20
>>
>
>But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are
>everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker
>should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found
>most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did=20
>not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced=20
>easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with=20
>current Lojban.
>
>Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time.
>I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples.
>That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts,
>which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims
>are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced
>in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban
>will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.=20
>
> =20
>
>>ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu
>>Children should always show great forbearance
>>toward grown-up people.
>> =20
>>
>It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether=20
>you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it=20
>differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively=20
>frequent in any language?=20
> =20
>


It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,
should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every
member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative
usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily prope=
r.


>>ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe
>>i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu
>>But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of
>>boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.
>>=20
>>I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the firs=
t
>>sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), si=
nce it
>>reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existenti=
ally:
>>=93any sheep through any box=94 (is =93the walls of=94 just a flourish?=
This eems to
>>apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.=20
>> =20
>>
>
>The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sa=
is
>pas voir les moutons =E0 travers les caisses." I guess context helps mak=
e it=20
>clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince
>is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had reject=
ed
>all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another.
>So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo.
>(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more
>concrete claim, though.)
>=20
> =20
>
>>The {lo}
>>in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is g=
oing
>>on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reaso=
nable
>>start of working out how to talk about species.
>> =20
>>
>
>But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu pren=
u}?
>Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?=20
>
>The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the=20
>previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", no=
t=20
>the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}=20
>that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?
>
> =20
>
>>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja
>>At night lions hunt for food.
>> =20
>>
>
>I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of
>this translation.
> =20
>

This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find in
an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo
cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.

Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca lo
nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general
claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or
food. (It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence
should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to
wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion,
so'a cinfo will do.


>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi
>>One picture is worth a thousand words.
>>
>>Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi=
}
>>looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}=20
>> =20
>>
>
>But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the
>thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.=20
>{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such tha=
t=20
>the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the=20
>picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000=20
>times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000=20
>words put together.=20
> =20
>

Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest some
lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.


>>=96 presumably the
>>words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways,
>>indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either
>>universal or about species or perhaps {la=92e}.
>> =20
>>
>
>So what is a Lojban speaker to say?
>
> =20
>
>>de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42
>>In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.
>>
>>Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen=
there
>>was =96 implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds=92 =96 now=
extinct =96
>>eggs, certified organic, =85). Iam inclining more and more to {la=92e}=
here.
>> =20
>>
>
>Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous=
=20
>one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too muc=
h
>of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of
>doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say
>{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another=20
>thread altogether.)
>
> =20
>
>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni
>>The teacher will divide the class
>>into five groups of four students.
>>
>>Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this se=
ems to
>>be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei se=
lctu}.
>> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.
>> =20
>>
>
>The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:
>
>"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes
>
>The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.=20
>For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim=85)
>
>The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column=
..
>
>The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.
>
>The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down=
=20
>in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher wil=
l=20
>ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."
>
>It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker=20
>has in mind. It is more general.
> =20
>


It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a
particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that
specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le;
the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and
the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.



--=20
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20
assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=
im=20
Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=
=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."