WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita

posts: 14214
Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita page.
posts: 14214

So it seems to me that BAI are just grunt work. With a few notable
exceptions, like va'o, there's really nothing interesting about
them.

I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are just
those two cases.

My initial suggestion for the first case:

bai (BAI)
Compelled by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of bapli. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra place with the meaning of the first place of bapli, and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the action described by the bridi was forced by or compelled by the force that is the tagged sumti.


I am rather concerned about the BAI NAI case, because the causals use "despite"
and "nevertheless", but the only two non-causal cases are utterly different:

semaunai — not more than

seme'anai — not less than

This is *very* different from:

ri'anai — despite cause

The former seem to mean "BAI + NAI lo broda" == "BAI lo na broda", but the
latter seems to be something more like "BAI + NAI" == "BAI + ku'i".

The two cases above make *much* more sense with what NAI is supposed to mean,
but would break the "despite" cases entirely if followed as a general rule.

I can't make "despite" in my mind mean the same thing as "not caused by", which
is what it seems that "ri'a nai" should mean.

Suggestions?

-Robin

posts: 1912

Robin:
> I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
> non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI.

I'd like a general template for all tags, not just BAIs,
along the lines of the one I propose in
BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+sumtcita+Formants>

> I am rather concerned about the BAI NAI case, because the causals use
> "despite"
> and "nevertheless", but the only two non-causal cases are utterly different:
>
> semaunai — not more than
>
> seme'anai — not less than
>
> This is *very* different from:
>
> ri'anai — despite cause
>
> The former seem to mean "BAI + NAI lo broda" == "BAI lo na broda", but the
> latter seems to be something more like "BAI + NAI" == "BAI + ku'i".
>
> The two cases above make *much* more sense with what NAI is supposed to mean,
> but would break the "despite" cases entirely if followed as a general rule.
>
> I can't make "despite" in my mind mean the same thing as "not caused by",
> which
> is what it seems that "ri'a nai" should mean.
>
> Suggestions?

Every BAI can be written as {fi'o broda} for some suitable broda.
(This can be extended to every tag, but in the case of BAIs the
broda is always already given.)

For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find the corresponding
{broda}.

mau = fi'o zmadu
maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu
ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2")
ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't prevent x2")

{rinka} and {fanta} are also somewhat related by negation:

ko'a fanta lo nu broda = ko'a rinka lo nu na broda

So {ri'anai} = {fi'o na'e fanta} is not completely illogical,
but it is somewhat weird, because it takes two negations
to go from "because of" to "in spite of". They are in fact
the dual of each other, but {nai} is not usually used to
get the dual.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 07:25:10AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> Robin:
> > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
> > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI.
>
> I'd like a general template for all tags, not just BAIs, along the
> lines of the one I propose in
> BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants
>

That's not quite the kind of template I meant, but that's helpful.

Why the jai?

Don't you mean fi'o selbri1 fe'u *ku* in the first case?

[the problem of ri'a nai vs. mau nai]
> Every BAI can be written as {fi'o broda} for some suitable broda.
> (This can be extended to every tag, but in the case of BAIs the
> broda is always already given.)



> For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find the corresponding
> {broda}.
>
> mau = fi'o zmadu
> maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu
>
> ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2")
> ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't prevent x2")

Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a pattern*. I'd like to
be able to make a general statement about what BAI+NAI means, but I
can't.

-Robin


posts: 1912


> > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants
> >
>
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+sumtcita+Formants>
>
> That's not quite the kind of template I meant, but that's helpful.
>
> Why the jai?

Because in general we don't know in which place of selbri1
the main bridi will fall. For example, consider {se pi'o},
i.e. {fi'o se pilno}. We want {broda fi'o se pilno ko'a}
to be {ko'a se pilno fi lo nu broda}. I write this
as {lo nu broda cu jai se pilno fai ko'a} which puts
ko'a in the x2 of pilno and {lo nu broda} in some place
of {pilno}.

> Don't you mean fi'o selbri1 fe'u *ku* in the first case?

Both will work. Without {ku} the tag is directly on the
selbri, and with {ku} it is in the place of a term, but
the meaning is the same, at least when there are no other
intervening terms.

> > For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find the corresponding
> > {broda}.
> >
> > mau = fi'o zmadu
> > maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu
> >
> > ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2")
> > ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't prevent x2")
>
> Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a pattern*. I'd like to
> be able to make a general statement about what BAI+NAI means, but I
> can't.

Right. That's just to show where the pattern breaks down.
The only kind of general statement you can make is
something like "NAI changes the0 underlying selbri of the
tag into a selbri that is somehow opposite to the original".

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 06:17:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants
> > >
> >
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+sumtcita+Formants>
> >
> > That's not quite the kind of template I meant, but that's
> > helpful.
> >
> > Why the jai?
>
> Because in general we don't know in which place of selbri1 the
> main bridi will fall. For example, consider {se pi'o}, i.e. {fi'o
> se pilno}. We want {broda fi'o se pilno ko'a} to be {ko'a se pilno
> fi lo nu broda}. I write this as {lo nu broda cu jai se pilno
> fai ko'a} which puts ko'a in the x2 of pilno and {lo nu broda} in
> some place of {pilno}.

That's a good point, but it is not what "jai selbri" means.

ko'a cu jai selbri == tu'a ko'a cu selbri

See Chapter 11. something-to-do-with ko'a is in the x1 place of
selbri in either case, unless I'm very badly mis-reading something.

For what you want, I suggest {fa xi zo'e}.

-Robin


posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> > > For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find
> the corresponding
> > > {broda}.
> > >
> > > mau = fi'o zmadu
> > > maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu
> > >
> > > ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2")
> > > ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't
> prevent x2")
> > robin:
> > Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a
> pattern*. I'd like to
> > be able to make a general statement about
> what BAI+NAI means, but I
> > can't.
>
> Right. That's just to show where the pattern
> breaks down.
> The only kind of general statement you can make
> is
> something like "NAI changes the0 underlying
> selbri of the
> tag into a selbri that is somehow opposite to
> the original".
>
The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to be
"would have caused the opposite {na'e} or {to'e}
but failed" This seems to derive pragmatically
from "is not the cause of." Ask why someone
would mention a non-cause for something that
happens. One possibility is that it could be a
cause but is not in this case either because it
did not occur to be a cause or because, though it
occurred, the event was differently caused. We
would only use the first case if the sumti here
were so usual and expected a cause as to set a
case without it apart. But then the significant
way to convey this information is simply that
that event did not occur — maybe with an "even
though." The causal aspect is needless
information for the assumed cooperative
interlocutor to give. The second — the causal
event did occur but did not function causally in
this case — is saying more than we can guarantee
generally: if a potential cause is present, how
are we to be sure it was not efficacious, even if
there are other adequate causes around? This
leaves the possibility that it is not the sort of
thing that could be a cause. In which case, why
mention it? The most likely answer would seem to
be that it is present and that it is generally a
cause of an event incompatible with what actually
occurred. So, even though a cause of not-a was
present, a managed to occur.

On the other hand, you might just notice that
these definitions were made by old-time
Lojbanists, folks in the tradition of JCB, whose
sensitivity to the nuances of word ranks up there
with Mrs. Malaprop, James Fennimore Cooper, and
the Duke of Bilgewater. That is, even though
they pointed to the third case above, they meant
the second or even the first, which fit into the
pattern without calculation.


posts: 1912


> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 06:17:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > BPFK Section: sumtcita Formants
>
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+sumtcita+Formants>
> > >
> > > Why the jai?
> >
> > Because in general we don't know in which place of selbri1 the
> > main bridi will fall. For example, consider {se pi'o}, i.e. {fi'o
> > se pilno}. We want {broda fi'o se pilno ko'a} to be {ko'a se pilno
> > fi lo nu broda}. I write this as {lo nu broda cu jai se pilno
> > fai ko'a} which puts ko'a in the x2 of pilno and {lo nu broda} in
> > some place of {pilno}.
>
> That's a good point, but it is not what "jai selbri" means.

It's close enough.

In {jai tag selbri}, {jai tag} works like a SE that brings
the tag place to x1 and sends the x1 to the fai-place.

In {jai selbri}, the x1 is sent to the fai-place and some
unspecified place is brought to x1.

> ko'a cu jai selbri == tu'a ko'a cu selbri

That's a special case. In general:

ko'a jai broda fai ko'e == ko'e broda fai ko'a

> For what you want, I suggest {fa xi zo'e}.

{xi no'o} maybe. That may not work for every broda
though. For example {ka'a} is based on {klama}, which
doesn't have a place for the event, so in this case
we do need to introduce some new unnumbered place

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 84

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>For what you want, I suggest {fa xi zo'e}.
>
>
XI takes lerfu or numbers, not sumti. {fa xi ma'u} maybe? Or {fa xi
no'o}? We don't seem to have a PA number for "some unspecified X" {fa
xi vei da}?

~mark



posts: 1912


pc:
> The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to be
> "would have caused the opposite {na'e} or {to'e}
> but failed"

i.e. "...did not prevent..."

X causes Y == Y because of X
X doesn't-prevent Y == Y despite X

> This seems to derive pragmatically
> from "is not the cause of."

In the same sense in which "some don't" derives
pragmatically from "some do".

But there is a more interesting direct relationship.
"because" and "despite" are duals:
because = NOT despite NOT
despite = NOT because NOT

> Ask why someone
> would mention a non-cause for something that
> happens.

Perhaps because it may seem like a possible cause?
"I went not-because she asked me to" (She didn't
in fact ask me to go, you may think that I would
only go if she asked me to, but in fact I went
because I wanted, so not-because she asked.

> One possibility is that it could be a
> cause but is not in this case either because it
> did not occur to be a cause or because, though it
> occurred, the event was differently caused. We
> would only use the first case if the sumti here
> were so usual and expected a cause as to set a
> case without it apart.

Right. That would be the normal usage, I would think.

> But then the significant
> way to convey this information is simply that
> that event did not occur — maybe with an "even
> though."

Not sure why that would be _the_ significant way,
but it would be another way, yes.

> The causal aspect is needless
> information for the assumed cooperative
> interlocutor to give. The second — the causal
> event did occur but did not function causally in
> this case — is saying more than we can guarantee
> generally: if a potential cause is present, how
> are we to be sure it was not efficacious, even if
> there are other adequate causes around? This
> leaves the possibility that it is not the sort of
> thing that could be a cause. In which case, why
> mention it? The most likely answer would seem to
> be that it is present and that it is generally a
> cause of an event incompatible with what actually
> occurred. So, even though a cause of not-a was
> present, a managed to occur.

That seems very convoluted.

> On the other hand, you might just notice that
> these definitions were made by old-time
> Lojbanists, folks in the tradition of JCB, whose
> sensitivity to the nuances of word ranks up there
> with Mrs. Malaprop, James Fennimore Cooper, and
> the Duke of Bilgewater. That is, even though
> they pointed to the third case above, they meant
> the second or even the first, which fit into the
> pattern without calculation.

  • "Despite" should derive from a BAI based on

{fanta}, but there is no such BAI.

  • "Despite" is probably needed more often than

"not-because".

  • "Despite" is "not-because not"


All that probably conspired to define {ri'anai}
and the others as "despite".

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to
> be
> > "would have caused the opposite {na'e} or
> {to'e}
> > but failed"
>
> i.e. "...did not prevent..."
>
> X causes Y == Y because of X
> X doesn't-prevent Y == Y despite X
>
> > This seems to derive pragmatically
> > from "is not the cause of."
>
> In the same sense in which "some don't" derives
> pragmatically from "some do".
>
> But there is a more interesting direct
> relationship.
> "because" and "despite" are duals:
> because = NOT despite NOT
> despite = NOT because NOT

This is not exactly right. It is not the absence
of the cause that generates despite, but rather
its presence without effect. If the potential
cause did not occur, we might say "not z (namely
y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. But
we wouldn't say despite, since that requires
(even etymologically) x to be around to be
overriden or whatever it is. (The fact that "not
z because not x" where x is a cause of z is also
bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary
cause of z — does contribute to this not quite
working as well.)

As for the convoluted nature of the rest of the
derivation, that is what pragmatic derivations
generally look like, requiring as they do looking
into unasked and often barely answerable
questions about intentions and the like --
mysterious creatures all.


posts: 1912


pc:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> wrote:
> > But there is a more interesting direct
> > relationship.
> > "because" and "despite" are duals:
> > because = NOT despite NOT
> > despite = NOT because NOT
>
> This is not exactly right. It is not the absence
> of the cause that generates despite, but rather
> its presence without effect.

It is not the absence of the cause, and I never said
it was. I said it is the absence of the prevention.

X prevents Y = X causes not Y

X does not prevent Y = Y despite X

> If the potential
> cause did not occur, we might say "not z (namely
> y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. But
> we wouldn't say despite, since that requires
> (even etymologically) x to be around to be
> overriden or whatever it is.

And I never said we would.

> (The fact that "not
> z because not x" where x is a cause of z is also
> bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary
> cause of z — does contribute to this not quite
> working as well.)

Right, but it doesn't address my point.

> As for the convoluted nature of the rest of the
> derivation, that is what pragmatic derivations
> generally look like, requiring as they do looking
> into unasked and often barely answerable
> questions about intentions and the like --
> mysterious creatures all.

"Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. It
is simply the dual of "because". Not its negation!

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > --- Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> > > But there is a more interesting direct
> > > relationship.
> > > "because" and "despite" are duals:
> > > because = NOT despite NOT
> > > despite = NOT because NOT
> >
> > This is not exactly right. It is not the
> absence
> > of the cause that generates despite, but
> rather
> > its presence without effect.
>
> It is not the absence of the cause, and I never
> said
> it was. I said it is the absence of the
> prevention.
>
> X prevents Y = X causes not Y
>
> X does not prevent Y = Y despite X

I seem to have misread your abbreviated notation;
I took "not because not" to man "not y because
not x," i.e., "not x cause not y." Now I am not
sure what it means:apparently "it is not the case
that x causes not y."

> > If the potential
> > cause did not occur, we might say "not z
> (namely
> > y) because not x" where x is a cause of z.
> But
> > we wouldn't say despite, since that requires
> > (even etymologically) x to be around to be
> > overriden or whatever it is.
>
> And I never said we would.
>
> > (The fact that "not
> > z because not x" where x is a cause of z is
> also
> > bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary
> > cause of z — does contribute to this not
> quite
> > working as well.)
>
> Right, but it doesn't address my point.
>
> > As for the convoluted nature of the rest of
> the
> > derivation, that is what pragmatic
> derivations
> > generally look like, requiring as they do
> looking
> > into unasked and often barely answerable
> > questions about intentions and the like --
> > mysterious creatures all.
>
> "Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to
> me. It
> is simply the dual of "because". Not its
> negation!
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>



posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > --- Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> > > But there is a more interesting direct
> > > relationship.
> > > "because" and "despite" are duals:
> > > because = NOT despite NOT
> > > despite = NOT because NOT
> >
> > This is not exactly right. It is not the
> absence
> > of the cause that generates despite, but
> rather
> > its presence without effect.
>
> It is not the absence of the cause, and I never
> said
> it was. I said it is the absence of the
> prevention.
>
> X prevents Y = X causes not Y
>
> X does not prevent Y = Y despite X

Apparently I misread your abbreviated notation so
that you appeared to say it was the absence of
the cause; mentioning prevention (which you did
not) would have helped a bit. I read "not
because not" as "not y because not x," i.e., "not
x causes not y" (plus not x and not y, of
course). Apparently you meant "It is not the
case that x causes not y" (plus x and y).
The parentheses are important here, else we get
just the denial of a causal claim which opens a
number of possibilities, none of them relevant to
"despite." But with them, "despite" is not quite
the dual of "because" since the part here
parenthesized remains the same.

> > If the potential
> > cause did not occur, we might say "not z
> (namely
> > y) because not x" where x is a cause of z.
> But
> > we wouldn't say despite, since that requires
> > (even etymologically) x to be around to be
> > overriden or whatever it is.
>
> And I never said we would.
>
> > (The fact that "not
> > z because not x" where x is a cause of z is
> also
> > bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary
> > cause of z — does contribute to this not
> quite
> > working as well.)
>
> Right, but it doesn't address my point.
>
> > As for the convoluted nature of the rest of
> the
> > derivation, that is what pragmatic
> derivations
> > generally look like, requiring as they do
> looking
> > into unasked and often barely answerable
> > questions about intentions and the like --
> > mysterious creatures all.
>
> "Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to
> me. It
> is simply the dual of "because". Not its
> negation!
>
And I, of course, never said it was the negation
of "because," merely that there was a case to be
made — however tenuously — for reading {ri'a
nai} as "despite." It is still not clear what
{ri'a nai} ought to mean in some systematic way;
the notes on {nai} talk only about some relevant
negative notion, where "not that x causes" and
"not-x causes" and even "x causes not-" are
possible (and — since the various negations
collapse at this point — "not" in any of several
senses). Cases can be found in the accepted
vocabulary for each of these patterns, I think,
so analogy alone is not obviously going to solve
this issue. We need also t0o consider which of
these possibilities is most likely to be intended
and used. And then "despite" seems to me to be a contender.


posts: 1912


pc:
> It is still not clear what
> {ri'a nai} ought to mean in some systematic way;
> the notes on {nai} talk only about some relevant
> negative notion, where "not that x causes" and
> "not-x causes" and even "x causes not-" are
> possible (and — since the various negations
> collapse at this point — "not" in any of several
> senses).

(1) "not that x causes" would be the obvious first choice.
(2) "x causes not-" (i.e. "x prevents") I can see as a
possible choice.
(3) "not-x causes" seems extremely unlikely, because here
{nai} would not really be affecting {ri'a} but its
complement.

None of those, however, give "despite". "Despite" would
require:

(4) "not that x causes not-", i.e. a double negative
from a single {nai}.

> Cases can be found in the accepted
> vocabulary for each of these patterns, I think,
> so analogy alone is not obviously going to solve
> this issue.

I can find many cases analogous to (1) or (2).
I can't find any analogous to (3) and only the
ri'anai/ki'unai/mu'inai series for (4).

> We need also t0o consider which of
> these possibilities is most likely to be intended
> and used. And then "despite" seems to me to be a contender.

There's that, and there's also the usage history.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 1912


> (1) "not that x causes" would be the obvious first choice.
> (2) "x causes not-" (i.e. "x prevents") I can see as a
> possible choice.
> (3) "not-x causes" seems extremely unlikely, because here
> {nai} would not really be affecting {ri'a} but its
> complement.
> (4) "not that x causes not-", i.e. a double negative
> from a single {nai}.
>
> I can find many cases analogous to (1) or (2).
> I can't find any analogous to (3) and only the
> ri'anai/ki'unai/mu'inai series for (4).

I missed the obvious cases analogous to (3): logical
connectives. In {enai}, {nai} does not negate {e}
but one of its arguments.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 953

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:

> I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
> non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are just
> those two cases.

I am of the reductionist opinion that dictionary entries for sequences =
of=20
multiple words, such as as SE BAI, BAI NAI, and SE BAI NAI (which you h=
ave=20
in BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita should be avoided. The meaning =
of=20

  • any* word sequence should be deduceable from either the CLL, or the=20

definitions of one of the cmavo. So, what I suggest is for the BAI=20
template to contain descriptions of swapped places and negations.=20
Something like this:

If preceded by "se", tags a sumti as fitting the 2nd place of rinka=
=2E If
followed by "nai", tags a sumti as not fitting the 2nd place of rin=
ka
or whatever you agreed that it meant.

If this gets too gnarly/unwieldly, I'm willing to keep the multi-word=20
dictionary entries.

--=20
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=
/
Leser =ABCatcher in the Rye=BB. Skal bli fint =E5 bli ferdig med den s=E5=
jeg
f=E5r litt mer dopapir. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpo=
len


posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:27:51PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen
wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
>
> > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
> > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are
> > just those two cases.
>
> I am of the reductionist opinion that dictionary entries for
> sequences of multiple words, such as as SE BAI, BAI NAI, and SE
> BAI NAI (which you have in BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita
> should be avoided. The meaning of *any* word sequence should be
> deduceable from either the CLL, or the definitions of one of the
> cmavo.

In theory, but in practice explaining what {te pu'e} or {te ta'i}
means is rather difficult, and doing so is easier if it's a seperate
entry.

-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/


posts: 1912


> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:27:51PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
> > > non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are
> > > just those two cases.
> >
> > I am of the reductionist opinion that dictionary entries for
> > sequences of multiple words, such as as SE BAI, BAI NAI, and SE
> > BAI NAI (which you have in BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita
> > should be avoided. The meaning of *any* word sequence should be
> > deduceable from either the CLL, or the definitions of one of the
> > cmavo.
>
> In theory, but in practice explaining what {te pu'e} or {te ta'i}
> means is rather difficult, and doing so is easier if it's a seperate
> entry.

It seems we are dealing with two different issues:

(1) Should the meaning of SE BAI NAI be deduceable from the
meanings of its components, or could it have a fixed idiomatic
meaning that is only more or less related to the meanings of
the components?

(2) Should compounds such as SE BAI NAI be listed as separate
entries?

The two issues are independent. We could have strictly deduceable
meanings listed under the same BAI entry or under a separate entry,
and we could have idiomatic meanings listed under the same BAI
entry or under a separate entry.

I think we should have deduceable meanings as much as possible.
Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to
the dictionary editor.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 953

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> It seems we are dealing with two different issues:
>
> (1) Should the meaning of SE BAI NAI be deduceable from the
> meanings of its components, or could it have a fixed idiomatic
> meaning that is only more or less related to the meanings of
> the components?

I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from the meanin=
gs=20
of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free as possible; preferab=
ly=20
completely idiom-free.

> (2) Should compounds such as SE BAI NAI be listed as separate
> entries?
>
> ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to
> the dictionary editor.

Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the responsibili=
ty=20
of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to decide. And we should deci=
de=20
now, so that BAI sections can be as uniform as possible.

My opinion on this is not very strong; however I think that everything=20
related to one BAI cmavo should go in one place. While there are practi=
cal=20
disadvantages with readability, there are also practical *advantages* i=
n=20
that the user does not have to read through several different entries.

Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable cmavo=20
compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there is a risk tha=
t=20
the user sees a separate dictionary entry as implicating an idiomatic=20
meaning.

--=20
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=
/
The names of a species, empire, language, homeworld, homestar and so
on will all be self-evidently related; Ogrons come from Ogros,
Arisians come from Arisia, Arcturans come from Arcturus, and Humans no
doubt come from Humus. --Justin B. Rye in A Primer In SF Xenolinguistic=
s


posts: 1912


>
> I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from
> the meanings of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free
> as possible; preferably completely idiom-free.

I agree. I don't know if we can achieve that (conservative
forces are strong, and some idioms are very entrenched) but
we certainly should aim for that goal.


> > ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to
> > the dictionary editor.
>
> Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the
> responsibility of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to
> decide. And we should decide now, so that BAI sections can be
> as uniform as possible.

I'm not sure the BPFK should be that concerned with the
presentation format. The content of the definitions is
really what matters.

....
> Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable
> cmavo compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there
> is a risk that the user sees a separate dictionary entry as
> implicating an idiomatic meaning.

Also, there is the question of which compounds to include.
Why would {ki'u nai} be there but {bau nai} not, for example.
So I tend to agree with you, but I don't think it matters much
one way or the other. A compromise might be to make the entries
separate but mark them as sub-entries of a head word. That way
when the dictionary is published it can be decided how best
to present them.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:42:42PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> >
> > I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from the
> > meanings of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free as
> > possible; preferably completely idiom-free.
>
> I agree. I don't know if we can achieve that (conservative forces
> are strong, and some idioms are very entrenched) but we certainly
> should aim for that goal.

I absolutely agree.

> > > ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up
> > > to the dictionary editor.
> >
> > Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the
> > responsibility of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to
> > decide. And we should decide now, so that BAI sections can be as
> > uniform as possible.
>
> I'm not sure the BPFK should be that concerned with the
> presentation format. The content of the definitions is really what
> matters.

How's this:

As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo
that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to
the contrary exists.

Let's hear it for arbitrary use of power. :-)

> > Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable
> > cmavo compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there
> > is a risk that the user sees a separate dictionary entry as
> > implicating an idiomatic meaning.
>
> Also, there is the question of which compounds to include. Why
> would {ki'u nai} be there but {bau nai} not, for example.

Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what
BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally
include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on.

-Robin


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo
> that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to
> the contrary exists.

Compound cmavo, however, are not cmavo. When the cmaste was designed,
the intention was to include a sprinkling of frequently used compounds,

  • not* that the particular compounds chosen were themselves magic.

Exception: the UI ru'e and UI nai compounds.

> Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what
> BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally
> include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on.

CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just contradictory
negation.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
--Hal Abelson


posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:02:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all
> > cmavo that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling
> > reason to the contrary exists.
>
> Compound cmavo, however, are not cmavo.

Pbbbbbt.

"any word in the ma'oste", then.

> When the cmaste

small list?

> was designed, the intention was to include a sprinkling of
> frequently used compounds, *not* that the particular compounds
> chosen were themselves magic. Exception: the UI ru'e and UI nai
> compounds.

<nod>

> > Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what
> > BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally
> > include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide
> > on.
>
> CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just
> contradictory negation.

I'm not sure what *that* means, though.

{mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want
to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go,
though I want to"?

-Robin


posts: 1912


> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> > As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo
> > that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to
> > the contrary exists.
>
> Compound cmavo, however, are not cmavo. When the cmaste was designed,
> the intention was to include a sprinkling of frequently used compounds,
> *not* that the particular compounds chosen were themselves magic.
> Exception: the UI ru'e and UI nai compounds.

An example of a compound cmavo in the ma'oste that we definitely
don't want to define separately is {sozepimu}.

> > Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what
> > BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally
> > include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on.
>
> CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just contradictory
> negation.

That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if
BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 1912


> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:02:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just
> > contradictory negation.
>
> I'm not sure what *that* means, though.
>
> {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want
> to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go,
> though I want to"?

lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama
My liking is not the motivation of my going.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:

> > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just contradictory
> > negation.
>
> That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if
> BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA

Actually, it defines punai as na pu, so baunai would be na bau. Now
if bau ku means bau zo'e, then baunai ko'a would be bau ko'a...na.
I don't say this is *useful*, but it is what precedent says.

/me hates -nai.

--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash,
The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!"
It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall,
But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.
--The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > When the cmaste
>
> small list?

Old rafsi, I think.

> {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want
> to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go,
> though I want to"?

I read it as "It is false that (I go because I want to)"; exactly where
the part that makes it false is, is not given.

--
Do what you will, John Cowan
this Life's a Fiction jcowan@reutershealth.com
And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com
Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


posts: 1912


> > That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if
> > BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA
>
> Actually, it defines punai as na pu, so baunai would be na bau. Now
> if bau ku means bau zo'e, then baunai ko'a would be bau ko'a...na.
> I don't say this is *useful*, but it is what precedent says.

That's what {fi'o na broda} amounts to when you do all the
transformations, at least in the basic case:

fi'o na broda ko'a brode
= ko'a na broda fai lo nu brode
= naku zo'u ko'a broda fai lo nu brode
= naku zo'u fi'o broda ko'a brode

It will be a bit more complicated when quantifiers and
connectives are involved, but CLL doesn't mention any
interaction with them, so precedent is not a problem there.

> /me hates -nai.

I think -nai is a neat and compact way of doing some negations.
It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar
it has.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:

> I think -nai is a neat and compact way of doing some negations.

True.

> It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar
> it has.

I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable,
and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths
led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder,
the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo


posts: 1912


> Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
>
> > It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar
> > it has.
>
> I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable,
> and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.

The most obvious meaning for {nu nai} is {na nu}. That's hardly
ever useful, but it is perfectly well defined. I don't want to
extend the grammar of NAI because the new constructs would be
necessarily useful (some of them might be, most probably not) but
because it reduces the complexity of the grammar. Given that
{nai} really forms a set with {cu'i}, {ru'e}, {sai}, {cai}, it
is hard to understand why it has a more restrictive grammar.

There are other words that produce far more unexplainable
constructs and nobody worries about them. I am willing to go
over every selmaho and produce a plausible meaning for the NAI
construction. I already did it for many of them in a similar
discussion I had with Jordan some months ago.

One thing I would gladly eliminate are connected NUs though.
They are never used and their meaning is hard to determine.
The set of things that can be connected is quite reduced:
sentences, bridi-tails, sumti, tanru-units, operators,
operands, tags and NUs. Clearly NUs are out of place in that
list since they are basically structure words. It would be
similar if we allowed connected LEs, for example.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:12:46PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Jorge Llamb???as scripsit:
>
> > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just
> > > contradictory negation.
> >
> > That's basically how I would define it. More specifically, if
> > BAI = FIhO BRODA, then BAI NAI = FIhO NA BRODA
>
> Actually, it defines punai as na pu, so baunai would be na bau.

If that was grammatical, which it's not.

-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/


posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:24:03PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't
> > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I
> > don't go, though I want to"?
>
> I read it as "It is false that (I go because I want to)"; exactly
> where the part that makes it false is, is not given.

Ummm.

So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is equivalent to
{na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}?

That seems like a *bad* idea to me.

-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/


posts: 149

Robin Powell scripsit:

> So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is equivalent to
> {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}?
>
> That seems like a *bad* idea to me.

  • shrug*


It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact that
"mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama",
an identity which has held since Loglan days.

--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com cowan@ccil.org
We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals;
more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more
leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of
the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. --Samuel Gompers


On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want
> to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go,
> though I want to"?

"I go, but not because I want to."
"I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama mu'inai o nu mi na nelci".
"I go, it is not the case that I want to" is "mi klama .i mi na nelci", if I
understand you right.
"I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci" or
"mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci kei naku".

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci


On Monday 22 November 2004 23:44, John Cowan wrote:
> I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable,
> and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.

NU NAI, AFAICT, is intended for constructions such as {jalge le ninai je jei
do dunda}, "It depends on whether you give, not how much".

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci


posts: 2388



> Robin Powell scripsit:
>
> > So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is
> equivalent to
> > {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}?
> >
> > That seems like a *bad* idea to me.
>
> *shrug*
>
> It's the only interpretation that's consistent
> with the fact that
> "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama
> .ije mi ca klama",
> an identity which has held since Loglan days.

But it can at least be plausibly argued that the
{nai} in this is tied semantically to the {je},
not to the {pu}, whatever the grammar says (and
regardless of the claim it should then be {na}).
{punai} by itself doesn't seem to occur, but
looks like "at some present or futuree time if at
all."


posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 06:42:24PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:02:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > > CLL already defines BAI+NAI before the selbri: it's just
> > > contradictory negation.
> >
> > I'm not sure what *that* means, though.
> >
> > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't want
> > to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I don't go,
> > though I want to"?
>
> lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama
> My liking is not the motivation of my going.

See, the problem with that (and it's a serious problem) is that in
makes the event of my going non-veridical.

Perhaps we could make it a sentence connection?

-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/


posts: 14214

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 08:29:16AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Powell scripsit:
>
> > So {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is equivalent to
> > {na ku mi klama mu'i lo nu mi nelci}?
> >
> > That seems like a *bad* idea to me.
>
> *shrug*
>
> It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact that
> "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", an
> identity which has held since Loglan days.

Those are *VERY* different.

The {mu'i} one reduces the main bridi to a non-veridical status.

-Robin


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact that
> > "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", an
> > identity which has held since Loglan days.
>
> Those are *VERY* different.
>
> The {mu'i} one reduces the main bridi to a non-veridical status.

Well, so does the punai one. I'm trying to keep it consistent.

--
"While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan
the Candensian plane, which is very much like jcowan@reutershealth.com
ours, only more of it consists of Toronto." http://:www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Ursula K. Le Guin, Changing Planes


posts: 14214

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 03:32:09PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > > It's the only interpretation that's consistent with the fact
> > > that "mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca
> > > klama", an identity which has held since Loglan days.
> >
> > Those are *VERY* different.
> >
> > The {mu'i} one reduces the main bridi to a non-veridical status.
>
> Well, so does the punai one.

It most certainly does *not*.

{naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama}

definately still means that I ca klama. It's a seperate sentence,
and sentences are veridical.

The version you snipped for BAI+NAI relegated the original bridi to
a {lo nu} clause, which are, IIRC, *not* veridical.

It's a radical difference.

-Robin


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> {naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama}
>
> definately still means that I ca klama. It's a seperate sentence,
> and sentences are veridical.

Oh, I see, I skipped a step. If
"mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", then
it follows that "mi punai klama" means "naku mi pu klama", that's obvious.

I further claim that "mi punai la linuxepok. klama" means "It's false
that I went (there) before 1970-01-01T12:00:00 UTC", and finally that
"mi punai lo nu mi jbena kei klama" means "It's false that I went (there)
before the event of my birth".

> The version you snipped for BAI+NAI relegated the original bridi to
> a {lo nu} clause, which are, IIRC, *not* veridical.

Correct. But under negation *nothing* is veridical. I'm simply claiming
that "BAI nai" is equivalent to "naku ... BAI". IOW, "mi citka mu'inai lo nu
mi xagji" can mean that I don't eat at all, or merely that hunger isn't the
motivation for my eating: the contradictory negation leaves it vague.

--
It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held way in this
forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
--"The Passage of the Marshes" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


posts: 1912


> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 06:42:24PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci}
> >
> > lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama
> > My liking is not the motivation of my going.
>
> See, the problem with that (and it's a serious problem) is that in
> makes the event of my going non-veridical.
>
> Perhaps we could make it a sentence connection?

We can: {mi klama i mu'i nai bo mi nelci}. But that doesn't
advance us much WRT what {nai} does there.

If you prefer, we could say:

mi klama ije lo nu mi nelci cu na mukti lo nu mi klama

I don't think we have the realis/irrealis event distinction
well sorted out, though. Main bridi don't always describe
realis events, and I don't see why subordinate bridi can't
be realis in some cases. In any case, I'm not at this point
advancing any suggestions one way or the other. (I prefer
to leave the term "veridical" for descriptions. We can have
a veridical description of an irrealis event, and a non-veridical
description of a realis event, as well as the other way.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes







__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


On Wednesday 24 November 2004 14:07, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> See, the problem with that (and it's a serious problem) is that in
> makes the event of my going non-veridical.
>
> Perhaps we could make it a sentence connection?

What about {secau} as a sentence connection? In {ko'a cliva .isecaubo mi
djuno}, do I necessarily know that she left (even if I didn't know it at the
time)? Do I have to say {mi da'i djuno} if I never find out?

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci


Pierre Abbat scripsit:

> What about {secau} as a sentence connection? In {ko'a cliva .isecaubo mi
> djuno}, do I necessarily know that she left (even if I didn't know it at the
> time)? Do I have to say {mi da'i djuno} if I never find out?

Modal sentence connections assert both sentences. Although "cau" is semantically
negative, in Lojban it's treated as a positive.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra


posts: 1912


> What about {secau} as a sentence connection? In {ko'a cliva .isecaubo mi
> djuno}, do I necessarily know that she left (even if I didn't know it at the
> time)? Do I have to say {mi da'i djuno} if I never find out?

If you never find out, it's hard to understand why you would say
that sentence at all. A better example might be {mi cliva isecaubo
ko'a djuno la'e di'u}.

If {ju'a} is assumed for both sentences, then it doesn't seem to make
much sense. I leave, she knows it, and my leaving lacks her knowing it?

Although {ju'a} is often the intended mood for an unmarked utterance,
I don't think we should stipulate that in the absence of any mood
marker we _must_ assume {ju'a}. I'd rather allow context to be able
to override that.

But better say {mi cliva secau lo nu ko'a djuno}, just in case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 14214

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:28:50AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I go, although I don't
> > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that I want to", or "I
> > don't go, though I want to"?
>
> "I go, but not because I want to."

Agreed.

> "I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi na
> nelci".

No, that Lojban is "I go, but not because I don't want to", which is
kind of non-sensical. "I go, although I don't want to" is
"despite", and is much, much harder than that.

> "I go, it is not the case that I want to" is "mi klama .i mi na
> nelci", if I understand you right.

That's kind of trivial, but yeah.

> "I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e klama mu'inai lo nu mi
> nelci" or "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci kei naku".

Nope, that's "despite" again. Yours says "I other-than go, but not
because I want to" (was there something wrong with "na"??) and "I
go, but not because I want to" (na ku at the end dose nothing,
IIRC).

I'm piggybacking on this for a mini-essay on the topic I wrote this
morning. It turns out that "despite" is a rather complicated
concept.

I'm working from point-form notes here, so my apologies if it
stinks.

We basically have five cases to cover: cause, prevent, does not
cause, despite with occurence, and despite without occurence. That
last is what is normally meant by "despite". The second-last is
what people have been treating "despite" to mean.

lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu na Y == X/not-X causes not-Y ==
X/not-X prevents Y

lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu ja'a Y == X/not-X causes Y

lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == X does not cause Y

lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu na Y == X does not prevent Y == Y may or
may not occur, but it's despite X == despite without occurence

Y .i je lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == Y occurs, and X does not
prevent it == despite with occurence (because "lo nu" clauses are
irrealis).

Now, some of these are fairly easy to translate into BAI style.
"cause" is just {ri'a}. "does not cause" is just {ri'a nai}.

"prevent" is harder, assuming you want to use {ri'a} and not {se
ri'a} because you have to negate the main bridi, so the BAI alone
can't do it.

na Y ri'a lo nu ja'a/na X == X prevents Y

I see no way to do despite-without-occurence with BAI tags.

So far as I can tell, despite cannot be done using BAI tags alone,
at all. The best I have for "despite with occurence" (who cares
about without??) is

X do'e lo nu Y na rinka lo nu na no'a

This could also be done with va'o.

I find it a bit unsatisfying, so here's another option:

Suppose we allow:

lo nu X to'e rinka lo nu Y == X prevents Y == lo nu X cu rinka lo nu
na Y

This means that Y to'e ri'a X == na Y ri'a X, which is definately a
bit wierd because you have a BAI clause invalidating the main bridi,
but I can't imagine another use for "to'e rinka", so maybe it's not
so bad.

Then we can do:

lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs, and
it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X

-Robin


posts: 1912


> Then we can do:
>
> lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs, and
> it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X

Yes, that's the same form I reached here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/23441

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com


posts: 2388

While I am glad that this mess is settling down,
the whole dispute seems to me to be based on a
false assumption, namely that there is some fixed
connection between BAI and heuristically noted
BRIVLA. this assumption means that frequently
usedc notions are hard to formulate and rare
(typically never used) ones are easy. The loose
association approach — essentially that of CLL
-- makes sure the ones we use get in and ignores
the other possibilities. Of course it means we
have to know what we are saying before we say it
but that is merely normal in natural languages
and usual in constructed ones.


<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:28:50AM -0500,
> Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee
> Powell wrote:
> > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I
> go, although I don't
> > > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that
> I want to", or "I
> > > don't go, though I want to"?
> >
> > "I go, but not because I want to."
>
> Agreed.

Here is a case of a rare construction with an
easy format. Maybe not really rare but probably
less common than "despite" (the CLL gloss).

> > "I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama
> mu'inai lo nu mi na
> > nelci".
>
> No, that Lojban is "I go, but not because I
> don't want to", which is
> kind of non-sensical. "I go, although I don't
> want to" is
> "despite", and is much, much harder than that.
>
> > "I go, it is not the case that I want to" is
> "mi klama .i mi na
> > nelci", if I understand you right.
>
> That's kind of trivial, but yeah.
>
> > "I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e
> klama mu'inai lo nu mi
> > nelci" or "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci
> kei naku".
>
> Nope, that's "despite" again. Yours says "I
> other-than go, but not
> because I want to" (was there something wrong
> with "na"??) and "I
> go, but not because I want to" (na ku at the
> end dose nothing,
> IIRC).
>
> I'm piggybacking on this for a mini-essay on
> the topic I wrote this
> morning. It turns out that "despite" is a
> rather complicated
> concept.
>
> I'm working from point-form notes here, so my
> apologies if it
> stinks.
>
> We basically have five cases to cover: cause,
> prevent, does not
> cause, despite with occurence, and despite
> without occurence. That
> last is what is normally meant by "despite".

Nope. Not in English (if I understand what you
are saying). If you mean that "Y despite X" can
be true if X does not occur (or, of course, if Y
does not) that is some different convcept from
usual despite, which requires both — and a
usual almost causal connection from X to Y.

> The second-last is
> what people have been treating "despite" to
> mean.

Treating because (if I understand your remark
correctly) it is what it means: "despite X" when
X does not occur makes no sense — it isn't there
to spite.

> lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu na Y == X/not-X
> causes not-Y ==
> X/not-X prevents Y

Well, "prevent" is a little strong, since it
suggests that Y was in the offing, which, in this
irrealis discussion, is not guaranteed. That is,
to say that X (say) prevents Y means not only
that X causes ~Y but also that ~X allows Y
("allows" being another concept roughly "causes
neither Y nor ~Y")

> lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu ja'a Y ==
> X/not-X causes Y
>
> lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == X does not cause
> Y
>
> lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu na Y == X does not
> prevent Y == Y may or
> may not occur, but it's despite X == despite
> without occurence

This use of "despite" is not English, if I
understand what you are saying, which — since
this is all irrealis — I may not.

> Y .i je lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == Y
> occurs, and X does not
> prevent it == despite with occurence (because
> "lo nu" clauses are
> irrealis).

This misses "despite" again. It needs for X to
occur as well. Of course, X may not cause Y
simply because X does not occur, but that is not
"despite X"

> Now, some of these are fairly easy to translate
> into BAI style.
> "cause" is just {ri'a}. "does not cause" is
> just {ri'a nai}.
>
> "prevent" is harder, assuming you want to use
> {ri'a} and not {se
> ri'a} because you have to negate the main
> bridi, so the BAI alone
> can't do it.
>
> na Y ri'a lo nu ja'a/na X == (not-)X prevents Y
>
> I see no way to do despite-without-occurence
> with BAI tags.

Good, since I can't think of any interesting case
for using it.

> So far as I can tell, despite cannot be done
> using BAI tags alone,
> at all. The best I have for "despite with
> occurence" (who cares
> about without??) is
>
> X do'e lo nu Y na rinka lo nu na no'a

An argument for loosening up the BAI-BRIVLA
connection (or rather leaving it in the loose
form it had originally: CLL is much tighter than
Loglan already). Again, not "despite," since Y
can fail to cause ~X simply by not occurring.

> This could also be done with va'o.
>
> I find it a bit unsatisfying, so here's another
> option:
>
> Suppose we allow:
>
> lo nu X to'e rinka lo nu Y == X prevents Y ==
> lo nu X cu rinka lo nu
> na Y
I'm not sure this is a good "polar opposite" but
then that notion is vague enough to work (why so
liberal here but not with {ri'a}?).

> This means that Y to'e ri'a X == na Y ri'a X,
> which is definately a
> bit wierd because you have a BAI clause
> invalidating the main bridi,
> but I can't imagine another use for "to'e
> rinka", so maybe it's not
> so bad.

How much worse can it be than taking back the
assertion you just made? To be sure, that
happens in other cases as well, but rather more
systematically ({na.a} and the like).

> Then we can do:
>
> lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a
> nai X == Y occurs, and
> it is not the case that X prevents it == Y
> despite X

The first identity is, of course, not identity
but just the BRIVLA-BAI connection, since the
first sentence does not assert either X or Y
while the second asserts Y (only then denies it
-- messy: so it says something definite about Y,
which the first does not). Neither asserts X,
which is needed for "despite."
> -Robin
>
>
>



posts: 14214

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 07:08:28PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > Then we can do:
> >
> > lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a nai X == Y occurs,
> > and it is not the case that X prevents it == Y despite X
>
> Yes, that's the same form I reached here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/23441

That fact that it took me two weeks an a couple of hours of
concentrated thought to understand something that you felt
sufficiently expressed in *two* *sentences* might help you
understand why I often badger you to expand your definitions.

I am not very good at reading out implications. Furthermore, I
assume that anyone reading what I write is worse at it, and less
knowledgable, than I am. I'd rather some people have to read more
than they need than have some people not understand what I wrote.

I'd like to see more of this attitude from other BPFKers (not
particularily speaking as jatna there).

-Robin


posts: 2388


<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:


> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Then we can do:
>
> lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e
> ri'a nai X == Y occurs,
> > > and it is not the case that X prevents it
> == Y despite X
> >

As always, negations are relatively indefinite,
so {X na to'e rinka Y} might be true just because
X did not occur. {to'e rinka} for "prevent" is
loose, relative to the standards insisted upon
elsewhere, but better than {rinka lo nu na Y}
which fails in cases like:
A light has two states, blue and yellow.
I set it to yellow. I thereby caused it to
be not red (something incompatible with red) and
so also, by present Lojban standards, not to be
red. But I did not prevent it from being red,
since it was not threatening to be red, indeed
could not be red. If anything prevented it from
being red, it was the setup which allowed only
yellow and blue, not my action in picking one.
(I did probably prevent it from being blue, of
course)

I notice that the "despite" line is used for
several occurrences of {BAInai}, suggesting that
this is the most common negative remark to be
made with more than just {ri'a}.


Re: BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
So it seems to me that BAI are just grunt work. With a few notable
exceptions, like va'o, there's really nothing interesting about
them.

I'd like to work on coming up with a general template for
non-special case BAI / SE BAI and BAI NAI. I think there are just
those two cases.

My initial suggestion for the first case:

bai (BAI)
Compelled by... Tags a sumti as fitting the first place of bapli. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra place with the meaning of the first place of bapli, and then fills it with the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the action described by the bridi was forced by or compelled by the force that is the tagged sumti.


I am rather concerned about the BAI NAI case, because the causals use "despite"
and "nevertheless", but the only two non-causal cases are utterly different:

semaunai — not more than

seme'anai — not less than

This is *very* different from:

ri'anai — despite cause

The former seem to mean "BAI + NAI lo broda" == "BAI lo na broda", but the
latter seems to be something more like "BAI + NAI" == "BAI + ku'i".

The two cases above make *much* more sense with what NAI is supposed to mean,
but would break the "despite" cases entirely if followed as a general rule.

I can't make "despite" in my mind mean the same thing as "not caused by", which
is what it seems that "ri'a nai" should mean.

Suggestions?

-Robin




posts: 14214

So, ellipses or not?

I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as:

te ti'i (BAI*)
Suggested to...


But in at least one other section I just use a single period.

Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the dictionary, so think about it from that perspective.

-Robin

On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:28 -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
> So, ellipses or not?
>
> I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as:
>
> ;te ti'i (BAI*): Suggested to...
>
> But in at least one other section I just use a single period.
>
> Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the dictionary, so think about it from that perspective.
>
> -Robin

It could just be my experience with computers where ending ellipses in a
menu item indicate that to perform that action further input is needed,
I prefer those for this purpose.
--
Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us>

posts: 14214

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:16:57AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:28 -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> > So, ellipses or not?
> >
> > I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as:
> >
> > ;te ti'i (BAI*): Suggested to...
> >
> > But in at least one other section I just use a single period.
> >
> > Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the
> > dictionary, so think about it from that perspective.
> >
> > -Robin
>
> It could just be my experience with computers where ending
> ellipses in a menu item indicate that to perform that action
> further input is needed, I prefer those for this purpose.

I'm having trouble dereferencing both "those" and "this" in the
final clause of that insane sentence. :-)

I *think* you're saying you prefer elipses?

-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/


On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 04:16 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:16:57AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:28 -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> > > So, ellipses or not?
> > >
> > > I just noticed that in one section I use ellipses, such as:
> > >
> > > ;te ti'i (BAI*): Suggested to...
> > >
> > > But in at least one other section I just use a single period.
> > >
> > > Opinions on which is better? This would be going in the
> > > dictionary, so think about it from that perspective.
> > >
> > > -Robin
> >
> > It could just be my experience with computers where ending
> > ellipses in a menu item indicate that to perform that action
> > further input is needed, I prefer those for this purpose.
>
> I'm having trouble dereferencing both "those" and "this" in the
> final clause of that insane sentence. :-)
>
> I *think* you're saying you prefer elipses?
>
> -Robin

Heh. Yeah.
--
Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us>