Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita changed Posted by pycyn on Tue 23 of Nov, 2004 02:02 GMT posts: 2388 Use this thread to discuss the Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita changed page.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 23 of Nov, 2004 02:02 GMT posts: 2388 > !! Proposed Definition of du'o > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a sumti > as fitting the first place of djuno. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the first place of > djuno and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is known by, > according to, or information gained from the > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > !! Examples of du'o Usage Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails that what is known is true, the reading "according to" is misleading, since it has no such implication and often (with a certain tone of voice to be sure) implicates that the information is false or at best unknown. And, once it is established -- as anybody knowing it would do — the knower is not important, the truth is established. I suppose that what is intended is something "is vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable source of the information. > !! Proposed Definition of se du'o > > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts... Tags a > sumti as fitting the second place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the second > place of djuno and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is associated with the known facts indicated by > the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: > djuno, du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact > that. > > !! Examples of se du'o Usage I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort of association can be introduced in this way? Evidence maybe? > !! Proposed Definition of te du'o > > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about... Tags a > sumti as fitting the third place of djuno. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the third > place of djuno and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is asocciated with a subject of knowledge > indicated or described by the referent of the > tagged sumti. See also: djuno, du'o, se du'o, > ve du'o. > ** Keywords: Knowing about. > > !! Examples of te du'o Usage Ditto in spades. > > !! Proposed Definition of ve du'o > > ;ve du'o (BAI*): Under epistemology... > Tags a sumti as fitting the fourth place of > djuno. Augments the bridi in which it occurs, > adding an extra place with the meaning of the > fourth place of djuno and then fills it with > the tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged > sumti indicates that the event described by the > bridi is associated with an epistemology (that > is, a method of distinguishing true knowledge > from false knowledge) indicated the referent of > the tagged sumti. See also: djuno, du'o, se > du'o, te du'o. > ** Keywords: Under epistemology. > This one does make sense immediately, assuming all the fuss about knowing is dealt with, since what happened is often different on different epistmologies (especially as these include different ontologies). > !! Examples of ve du'o Usage > > !! Proposed Definition of zau > > ;zau (BAI): Approved by... Tags a sumti > as fitting the first place of zanru. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the first place of > zanru and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is approved by > the referent of the tagged sumti. See also: > zanru, se zau. > ** Keywords: Approved by. > > !! Examples of zau Usage > > !! Proposed Definition of se zau > > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a sumti > as fitting the second place of zanru. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the second place of > zanru and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is associated > with approval of the referent of the tagged > sumti. See also: zanru, zau. > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of. > > !! Examples of se zau Usage > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous in a dangerous way: it means "that the referent is approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e., {zau}). > !! Proposed Definition of cu'u > > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a sumti > as fitting the first place of cusku. Augments > the bridi in which it occurs, adding an extra > place with the meaning of the first place of > cusku and then fills it with the tagged sumti. > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > the event described by the bridi is spoken, > written or otherwise expressed by the referent > of the tagged sumti. See also: cusku, se cu'u, > te cu'u, ve cu'u, cu'u ko'a. > ** Keywords: As said by, said. > > !! Examples of cu'u Usage > This is closer to "according to" in English. cf Bertl Isaacs. > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. > cu se nelci mi > ''"The Appassionata", played by Arthur > Rubenstein, is liked by me.'' > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and propositional expressions, not performances per se. So Rubenstein could cusku something (passion, presumably) by means of ({fo}) the Appassionata but not cusku the piece directly. Which does raise the question, "if the tagged item occupies the nth place of the underlying predicate, what place does the sentence to which it is attached occupy?" Why not the fourth just as easily as the second in this case? But what then is *the* rule? > !! Proposed Definition of cu'u ko'a > > ;cu'u ko'a (BAI*): As said by it-1... > Tags the sumti ko'a as fitting the first place > of cusku. Augments the bridi in which it > occurs, adding an extra place with the meaning > of the first place of cusku and then fills it > with ko'a. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is spoken, written or otherwise expressed by > the referent of ko'a, or it-1 (the first > assignable pro-sumti). See also: cusku, cu'u, > se cu'u, te cu'u, ve cu'u. > ** Keywords: Do I have to have a keyword for > this? Yeesh. > > !! Examples of cu'u ko'a Usage > > !! Proposed Definition of se cu'u > > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a > sumti as fitting the second place of cusku. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the second > place of cusku and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is associated with the writing, speaking, or > other expression of the referent of the tagged > sumti. See also: cusku, cu'u, te cu'u, ve > cu'u, cu'u ko'a. > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying. > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage > This "associated with" is getting murkier and murkier. Can it be spelled out for each item? Is there a rule that covers all these specifica cases as deriving from the basic locution? > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > jmive cu selsenva po'o > ''I know culturally that children's songs > express that life is only a dream.'' > Sentence is first place when tagged is second. Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra place on {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: {lo verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive cu selsenvi}? (I always worry about {po'o} but it seems basically right here). In other words, how does the rest of this sentence go? what about or what are chilren's song that express this view? (se'o} makes the English look like this is a sentence, but the Lojban is not or rather is an observative "lo the children's song that..." > !! Proposed Definition of te cu'u > > ;te cu'u (BAI*): As told to... Tags a > sumti as fitting the third place of cusku. > Augments the bridi in which it occurs, adding > an extra place with the meaning of the third > place of cusku and then fills it with the > tagged sumti. In other words, the tagged sumti > indicates that the event described by the bridi > is spoken, written, or otherwise expressed to > referent of the tagged sumti. See also: cusku, > cu'u, se cu'u, ve cu'u, cu'u ko'a. > ** Keywords: As told to. > Flipside of "according to;" something like "for the consumption of." Useful for discussing politicians. > !! Examples of te cu'u Usage > Pity, I expect similar problems with the rest, epistemology being the mess it is.
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 23 of Nov, 2004 09:24 GMT posts: 14214 Trimming would have been nice. I happen to be working on the examples right now. On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a sumti snip > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails that > what is known is true, the reading "according to" > is misleading, since it has no such implication > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be > sure) implicates that the information is false or > at best unknown. And, once it is established -- > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower is > not important, the truth is established. I > suppose that what is intended is something "is > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable > source of the information. Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said: ..oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu Dad knew I left! > > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts... Tags a snip > > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact > > that. > > I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort of > association can be introduced in this way? > Evidence maybe? ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.'' > > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about... Tags a > > ** Keywords: Knowing about. > > Ditto in spades. mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske "I can help, knowing about medicine." > > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a sumti snip > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that > > the event described by the bridi is associated > > with approval of the referent of the tagged > > sumti. See also: zanru, zau. > > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of. > > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous in a > dangerous way: it means "that the referent is > approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e., > {zau}). You are *quite* correct. I noticed this when doing examples. How's this: In other words, the tagged sumti indicates that the event described by the bridi is associated with the someone's or something's approval of that which is described or indicated by the referent of the tagged sumti. > > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a sumti snip > > ** Keywords: As said by, said. > > This is closer to "according to" in English. cf > Bertl Isaacs. Sort of. cu'u indicates that the person actually *expressed* somehting. Anyways, I've made "known by" the default for "du'o". > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain. > > cu se nelci mi > > ''"The Appassionata", played by Arthur > > Rubenstein, is liked by me.'' This was, for the record, straight out of the CLL. > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and > propositional expressions, not performances per > se. Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e. All of these are actual expressions, not concepts. If it was conceptual, it would be du'u, not se du'u. > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > predicate, what place does the sentence to which > it is attached occupy?" A newly created, un-numbered place with the semantics of the nth place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag. I should probably say that in my definitions. > > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a snip > > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying. > > > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage > > This "associated with" is getting murkier and > murkier. Can it be spelled out for each item? If I had some idea how to do it, I suppose. But most of these have seen no usage whatsoever, and their *meaning* is murky. > Is there a rule that covers all these specifica > cases as deriving from the basic locution? What? > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > > jmive cu selsenva po'o > > ''I know culturally that children's songs > > express that life is only a dream.'' > > Sentence is first place when tagged is second. What? > Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra place on > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: {lo > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive cu > selsenvi}? You'd have to ask the original author of the sentence; it's from IRC. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 23 of Nov, 2004 09:25 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > predicate, what place does the sentence to which > it is attached occupy?" The rule is that it occupies one of the other places, or even a new additional place. We can't give a more specific rule that will work for all BAIs. Indeed at least one BAI, {fau}, is based on a gismu with a single place, so by force the sentence must occupy a newly created place. For some BAIs, it is often obvious which place it should be, but for some there may be more than one or none. I haven't really gone through the list to check systematically. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Posted by pycyn on Wed 24 of Nov, 2004 14:13 GMT posts: 2388 While I don't suppose there is any good systematic way to say what can occupy a place in a predicate there does seem to be a general notion that sumti in places stand for components of event being described. Some sumtcita expressions seem not to meet this condition: while the cause of a event may be seen as a component of the event, who knows about it or who has described it does not. These seem rather to adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one of the other places, or to suggest that the surface structure of the claim is inside out the logical claim (the brivla of the added place is the main brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved into some subordinate role). The epistemological sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this category , so that I wonder whether incorporating the "added place" locution is really all that informative. Perhaps just saying that they add information to the basic claim and then selling out the nature of that information in each case would be more elegant (and accurate). <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > Trimming would have been nice. > > I happen to be working on the examples right > now. > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John > E Clifford wrote: > > > > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a > sumti > snip > > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > > > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails > that > > what is known is true, the reading "according > to" > > is misleading, since it has no such > implication > > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be > > sure) implicates that the information is > false or > > at best unknown. And, once it is established > -- > > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower > is > > not important, the truth is established. I > > suppose that what is intended is something > "is > > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable > > source of the information. > > Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said: > > .oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu > Dad knew I left! Note the apparent inversion in the translation. Is this basically a claim about what Dad knew? Is it a joint claim "I left and Dad knew it"? The firsst may just be a problem like of ecxpressing many attitudinals in Emnglish in a way that does not look like a description of my attitude rather than an expression of it. The second is an attempt to get away from that, but now introduces two points of truth evaluation rather than one, as the original would suggest if the sumtcita introduces just another place. Ultimately, how we describe these critters may not actually matter, but some seem to be clearer and more usable. > > > > ;se du'o (BAI*): Knowing facts... > Tags a > snip > > > ** Keywords: Knowing facts, given the fact > > > that. > > > > I'm dying to see example of usage; what sort > of > > association can be introduced in this way? > > Evidence maybe? > > ''ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu > zvati zy'' > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is > there.'' Here the phrase seems to be adjectival to {ma'a}, though it could be argued that the state of mind of the agent is a factor in the situation itself -- unlike who knows about the situation. Notice that the inversion does not work here, the main clause does not fit sensibly into any place of {djuno}, though the first argument does. > > > > ;te du'o (BAI*): Knowing about... > Tags a > > > ** Keywords: Knowing about. > > > > Ditto in spades. > > mi ka'e sidju te du'o lo mikse saske > "I can help, knowing about medicine." Same comment as for the previous one. Here a causal reading seems to be implied. > > > > ;se zau (BAI*): Approving... Tags a > sumti > snip > > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates > that > > > the event described by the bridi is > associated > > > with approval of the referent of the tagged > > > sumti. See also: zanru, zau. > > > ** Keywords: Approving, with approval of. > > > > "the approval of the referent" is ambiguous > in a > > dangerous way: it means "that the referent is > > approved," not "the referent approves" (i.e., > > {zau}). > > You are *quite* correct. I noticed this when > doing examples. > > How's this: > > In other words, the tagged sumti indicates > that the event > described by the bridi is associated with > the someone's or > something's approval of that which is > described or indicated by > the referent of the tagged sumti. Yes, though this is a little obscure: "We left, our passport having been approved" or some such. If so, we get causal notions or the like again. > > > ;cu'u (BaI): As said by... Tags a > sumti > snip > > > ** Keywords: As said by, said. > > > > This is closer to "according to" in English. > cf > > Bertl Isaacs. > > Sort of. cu'u indicates that the person > actually *expressed* > somehting. > Just so — that is what "according to" says or at the least implicates. > Anyways, I've made "known by" the default for > "du'o". Good > > > la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. > rubnstain. > > > cu se nelci mi > > > ''"The Appassionata", played by Arthur > > > Rubenstein, is liked by me.'' > > This was, for the record, straight out of the > CLL. No surprise there — this is why BPFK exists: to reconcile the various things that CLL says and that on examination do not cohere. > > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and > > propositional expressions, not performances > per > > se. > > Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e. > All of these are > actual expressions, not concepts. If it was > conceptual, it would be > du'u, not se du'u. Yes, {cusku2} is text in some form. {cusku3} is ideational, however — certainly none of them is a performance. > > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > > predicate, what place does the sentence to > which > > it is attached occupy?" > > A newly created, un-numbered place with the > semantics of the nth > place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag. "nth" as in "whatever place fits, if any" Several examples simply do not fit the sentence into any place in the underlying predicate and the new place seems to be pretty much ad lib -- outside any rules other than "what makes sense to me now. > I should probably say that in my definitions. > > > > ;se cu'u (BAI*): Expressing... Tags a > snip > > > ** Keywords: Expressing, saying. > > > > > > !! Examples of se cu'u Usage > > > > This "associated with" is getting murkier and > > murkier. Can it be spelled out for each > item? > > If I had some idea how to do it, I suppose. > But most of these have > seen no usage whatsoever, and their *meaning* > is murky. > > > Is there a rule that covers all these > specifica > > cases as deriving from the basic locution? > > What? > > > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > > > jmive cu selsenva po'o > > > ''I know culturally that children's songs > > > express that life is only a dream.'' > > > > Sentence is first place when tagged is > second. > > What? "Sentence" is wrong here, there isn't one. {verba selsanga} occupies the first place of {cusku} because (?) {le du'u...po'o} occupies the second (as flagged). Looking for a pattern here, but not finding it. > > Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra > place on > > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: > {lo > > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive > cu > > selsenvi}? > > You'd have to ask the original author of the > sentence; it's from > IRC. Putting this out to all and sundry is meant to get input from anyone who lnows anything about it. Hopefully including the author.
Posted by pycyn on Wed 24 of Nov, 2004 14:14 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > pc: > > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > > predicate, what place does the sentence to > which > > it is attached occupy?" > > The rule is that it occupies one of the other > places, > or even a new additional place. We can't give a > more > specific rule that will work for all BAIs. > Indeed > at least one BAI, {fau}, is based on a gismu > with > a single place, so by force the sentence must > occupy > a newly created place. For some BAIs, it is > often > obvious which place it should be, but for some > there > may be more than one or none. I haven't really > gone > through the list to check systematically. > Can we then say in each case what the relationship is, either in terms of the underlying brivla or, for new places, absolutely? If so, this seems an important piece of info for a dictionary entry to have.
Posted by rlpowell on Wed 24 of Nov, 2004 14:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:05:35AM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > While I don't suppose there is any good > systematic way to say what can occupy a place in > a predicate there does seem to be a general > notion that sumti in places stand for components > of event being described. Some sumtcita > expressions seem not to meet this condition: > while the cause of a event may be seen as a > component of the event, who knows about it or who > has described it does not. I can see that one either way, myself. > These seem rather to > adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one of > the other places, or to suggest that the surface > structure of the claim is inside out the logical > claim (the brivla of the added place is the main > brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved > into some subordinate role). Yeah, I don't like that solution in general myself. > The epistemological > sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this > category , so that I wonder whether incorporating > the "added place" locution is really all that > informative. Perhaps just saying that they add > information to the basic claim and then selling > out the nature of that information in each case > would be more elegant (and accurate). That's a pretty massive change, though. Also, they *do* take sumti, which makes them sumti tags, like FA. > --- Robin Lee Powell > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > Trimming would have been nice. > > > > I happen to be working on the examples right > > now. > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:31:04PM -0800, John > > E Clifford wrote: > > > > > > > ;du'o (BAI): According to... Tags a > > sumti > > snip > > > > se du'o, te du'o, ve du'o. > > > > ** Keywords: According to, known by. > > > > > > Since {djuno}, like English "know," intails > > that > > > what is known is true, the reading "according > > to" > > > is misleading, since it has no such > > implication > > > and often (with a certain tone of voice to be > > > sure) implicates that the information is > > false or > > > at best unknown. And, once it is established > > -- > > > as anybody knowing it would do — the knower > > is > > > not important, the truth is established. I > > > suppose that what is intended is something > > "is > > > vouched for by" citing the presumed reliable > > > source of the information. > > > > Actually, I'm using it for exactly what I said: > > > > .oi sai mi cliva du'o la patfu > > Dad knew I left! > > Note the apparent inversion in the translation. It's a non-literalistic translation. > Is this basically a claim about what Dad knew? > Is it a joint claim "I left and Dad knew it"? The latter more than the former, I would say. But really, neither. It's a claim about a four-place predicate, call it broda, with the place structure: x1 leaves/goes away/departs/parts/separates from x2 via route x3 with knower of departure x4 where we tag the x4 place with du'o. About "se zau": > Yes, though this is a little obscure: "We left, > our passport having been approved" or some such. > If so, we get causal notions or the like again. More permissive than causal, which is what we want here. > > > {cusku} seems to deal with conceptual and > > > propositional expressions, not performances > > per > > > se. > > > > Erm, no. cusku takes a se du'u, text, or lu'e. > > All of these are > > actual expressions, not concepts. If it was > > conceptual, it would be > > du'u, not se du'u. > > Yes, {cusku2} is text in some form. {cusku3} is > ideational, however — certainly none of them is > a performance. Yeah, you seem to be correct in the letter of the law, but it seems to me that cusku was intended for expression *in* *general*. > > > Which does raise the question, "if the tagged > > > item occupies the nth place of the underlying > > > predicate, what place does the sentence to > > which > > > it is attached occupy?" > > > > A newly created, un-numbered place with the > > semantics of the nth > > place of the predicate underlying the BAI tag. I'm sorry, I was anwering a completely different question. I don't know the answer to yours. I'm inclined to say "None of them; the transformation is not reversible in that fashion.", but I confess to not having thoroughly thought it through. > > > > se'o verba selsanga secu'u le du'u lo za'i > > > > jmive cu selsenva po'o > > > > ''I know culturally that children's songs > > > > express that life is only a dream.'' > > > > > > Sentence is first place when tagged is > > second. > > > > What? > > "Sentence" is wrong here, there isn't one. > {verba selsanga} occupies the first place of > {cusku} because (?) {le du'u...po'o} occupies the > second (as flagged). Looking for a pattern here, > but not finding it. Again, I don't necessarily accept the transformation you are trying to impose as valid. > > > Reasonable but... . Why is this an extra > > place on > > > {selsanga} rather than directly expressed: > > {lo > > > verba selsanga cu cusku le du'u le za'i jmive > > cu > > > selsenvi}? > > > > You'd have to ask the original author of the > > sentence; it's from > > IRC. > > Putting this out to all and sundry is meant to > get input from anyone who lnows anything about > it. Hopefully including the author. Indeed, but my point was that that is a stylistic issue, and not one we need to address here. -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Wed 24 of Nov, 2004 19:12 GMT posts: 2388 <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:05:35AM -0800, John > E Clifford wrote: > > While I don't suppose there is any good > > systematic way to say what can occupy a place > in > > a predicate there does seem to be a general > > notion that sumti in places stand for > components > > of event being described. Some sumtcita > > expressions seem not to meet this condition: > > while the cause of a event may be seen as a > > component of the event, who knows about it or > who > > has described it does not. > > I can see that one either way, myself. Really? I can't imagine a description of an event being declared incomplete because it failed to mention who knew about it or who all desribed it. > > These seem rather to > > adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to > one of > > the other places, or to suggest that the > surface > > structure of the claim is inside out the > logical > > claim (the brivla of the added place is the > main > > brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved > > into some subordinate role). > > Yeah, I don't like that solution in general > myself. > > > The epistemological > > sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this > > category , so that I wonder whether > incorporating > > the "added place" locution is really all that > > informative. Perhaps just saying that they > add > > information to the basic claim and then > selling > > out the nature of that information in each > case > > would be more elegant (and accurate). > > That's a pretty massive change, though. Also, > they *do* take sumti, > which makes them sumti tags, like FA. > What is it a change from that really is working? The "new place" locution has been around for donkey years and is more or less grammatically sound (though in fact the grammar is not quite that of FA anyhow) but the present issues are semantic (and maybe pragmatic, if there are no semantic differences between various ways of sliding a reference to who know it or such like). And the "new place" line is no help and may be a hindrance if it blocks us from understanding some cases. I am sure it is no help; whether it is actually keeping us from solutions is not clear, but seems a real possibility.
Posted by pycyn on Thu 25 of Nov, 2004 17:48 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > While I don't suppose there is any good > systematic way to say what can occupy a place > in > a predicate there does seem to be a general > notion that sumti in places stand for > components > of event being described. Some sumtcita > expressions seem not to meet this condition: > while the cause of a event may be seen as a > component of the event, who knows about it or > who > has described it does not. These seem rather to > adverbial to the main bridi, adjectival to one > of > the other places, or to suggest that the > surface > structure of the claim is inside out the > logical > claim (the brivla of the added place is the > main > brivla and the apparent main clause is shoved > into some subordinate role). The > epistemological > sumtcita seem particularly to fall into this > category , so that I wonder whether > incorporating > the "added place" locution is really all that > informative. Perhaps just saying that they add > information to the basic claim and then selling > out the nature of that information in each case > would be more elegant (and accurate). > On later thought, it seems to be less the "added place" that is the heart of the problem Ithough it still plays a role) and more a problem with connecting the sumtcita to a selbri in some literal or transformational sense. If we take the related predicate as merely a useful (and hopefully not too misleading) mnemonic device then many of the problems arising so far disappear. We don't have to find some rule for what various modified forms means as functions of the underlying predicate, we don't have to deal with any number of never used forms presented because they are possible for the predicate. To be sure, we now have to define each tag individually, without rule gooverned relation to the predicate. But the rules are working very well anyhow, so that most cases need some side comments to make the connection at all: where is the main sentences in all of this, how, exactly, is the connection - to the selbri, to an argument, to the bridi as a whole, and so on. There are enough cases that clearly do not work in the paraphrase mode to make it fairly clear that the mention of predicates with the tags was originally intended (as CLL actually says somewhere, I recall) as an aide memoire not a transformation guide. Thus, for example, {ri'anai} just means something that is generally in the area of negations and causation, in which area "despite" is the most likely to be useful, simpler ones being rarely used or just plain muddled.
Posted by stevo on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 13:26 GMT posts: 381 In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:55:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, webmaster@lojban.org writes: > The page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita was changed by rlpowell at Wed > 30 of Mar, 2005 01:54 UTC > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > This doesn't seem to be referring to Star Trek's Data (and if it is, it's not done correctly), so wouldn't "Data are" be better English? stevo
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 13:41 GMT > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. {du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre bridi there. Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have scope over du'o: "It is possible that (according to RC data wants to be free)." Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not {fi'o djuno}, to get the English gloss I would say: du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu djica lo nu zifre mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 15:09 GMT posts: 2388 > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la > rodjer.klark > > ''Data is capable of wanting to be free, > according to Rodger Klark.'' > > {du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre > bridi there. > > Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have > scope over du'o: > "It is possible that (according to RC data > wants to be free)." > > Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not > {fi'o djuno}, to get the > English gloss I would say: > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu > djica lo nu zifre > Which raises an interesting question about scopes (again) and afterthought additions. How do we cut off the scope of some operator (tense/modal, say) to add something which has even longer scope. Strictly speaking, even placing the mdoifier at the front ought not technically to help since modals behave more or less like {na} (with restrictions that really need better specification). In this particular case, there seems to be a way out, however {lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre sei la rodjer.klark xusra} (or {jinvi} or whatever {du'o} is filling in for). And the {sei} chunk floats free in the sentence. But this is not a general solution.
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 15:18 GMT On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:07:25 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Which raises an interesting question about scopes > (again) and afterthought additions. How do we > cut off the scope of some operator (tense/modal, > say) to add something which has even longer > scope. With {.i}. And then using go'i, di'u, etc. to get back to it. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 16:43 GMT posts: 2388 > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:07:25 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Which raises an interesting question about > scopes > > (again) and afterthought additions. How do > we > > cut off the scope of some operator > (tense/modal, > > say) to add something which has even longer > > scope. > > With {.i}. And then using go'i, di'u, etc. to > get back to it. > Yeah, that will work eventually, but is not very Zipfy. And it still leaves the question of restricting scope within the sentence -- preferrably without throwing everything into prenex form. >
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 17:34 GMT On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:41:22 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Yeah, that will work eventually, but is not very > Zipfy. And it still leaves the question of > restricting scope within the sentence -- > preferrably without throwing everything into > prenex form. There's {zo'au} for afterthought postnex: <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Experimental+anaphorics&bl> mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Wed 30 of Mar, 2005 18:55 GMT posts: 2388 > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:41:22 -0800 (PST), John > E Clifford > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Yeah, that will work eventually, but is not > very > > Zipfy. And it still leaves the question of > > restricting scope within the sentence -- > > preferrably without throwing everything into > > prenex form. > > There's {zo'au} for afterthought postnex: > <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Experimental+anaphorics&bl> > & is at his opaque best here. After two readings, it is not clear how a large part of this is more than abbreviatory nor how the (very useful, though still not adequate) postnex interacts with preneces. I think these are discussed but, as I said, they are not clear.
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:24:41AM -0500, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:55:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, > webmaster@lojban.org writes: > > > > The page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita was changed by rlpowell at Wed > > 30 of Mar, 2005 01:54 UTC > > > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > > > This doesn't seem to be referring to Star Trek's Data (and if it > is, it's not done correctly), so wouldn't "Data are" be better > English? I've always heard it as "Information wants to be free". I think "Data are capable" sounds horrible; it's a mass noun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun -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/
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la rodjer.klark > > Data is capable of wanting to be free, according to Rodger Klark. > > {du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre bridi there. > > Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have scope over du'o: > "It is possible that (according to RC data wants to be free)." > > Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not {fi'o djuno}, to get the > English gloss I would say: > > du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu djica lo nu zifre You forgot the cu. Done. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Fri 20 of May, 2005 18:16 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > I've always heard it as "Information wants to be free". I think > "Data are capable" sounds horrible; it's a mass noun. Originally "data" was a plural count noun, and it still can be. It's only recently that it's been treated as a mass noun, and some old fogies still complain about that usage. -- Do I contradict myself? John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself. jcowan@reutershealth.com I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass http://www.reutershealth.com