BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita Posted by xorxes on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 18:59 GMT posts: 1912 Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita page.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 28 of Mar, 2005 19:23 GMT > Examples of ni'i Usage > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. Strictly, there is a premise missing here. "Plato dies" follows logically from "Plato is human" and "all humans die", but not just from "Plato is human". ..i la platos mrobi'o ni'i lo du'u ge py remna gi ro remna cu morsi > Examples of ni'i ma Usage > > .i ni'i ma do krici > By what logic do you believe (that)? That doesn't ask for logical support for the belief though, just logical support for the fact that you believe. A logically valid answer would be, for example {lo du'u ro krici}. "Everybody believes (that) logically entails that you believe (that)". To ask "What makes you believe that?" we need either a different causal, or put the logical entailment causal inside the belief: {do krici lo du'u ni'i ma go'i}, "what is it that you believe entails that?" mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 01:28 GMT On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 16:13 -0300, Jorge LlambÃas wrote: > > Examples of ni'i Usage > > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. > > Strictly, there is a premise missing here. "Plato dies" > follows logically from "Plato is human" and "all humans die", > but not just from "Plato is human". > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i lo du'u ge py remna gi ro remna cu morsi I knew that, but I wasn't sure how to get both parts of that in there. > > Examples of ni'i ma Usage > > > > .i ni'i ma do krici > > By what logic do you believe (that)? > > That doesn't ask for logical support for the belief though, > just logical support for the fact that you believe. > A logically valid answer would be, for example {lo du'u ro krici}. > "Everybody believes (that) logically entails that you believe (that)". I am aware of this. That's a valid answer in the English, too. mu'omi'e.bancus
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 02:33 GMT On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:27:33 -0800, Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 16:13 -0300, Jorge LlambÃas wrote: > > > Examples of ni'i Usage > > > > > > Examples of ni'i ma Usage > > > > > > .i ni'i ma do krici > > > By what logic do you believe (that)? > > > > That doesn't ask for logical support for the belief though, > > just logical support for the fact that you believe. > > A logically valid answer would be, for example {lo du'u ro krici}. > > "Everybody believes (that) logically entails that you believe (that)". > > I am aware of this. That's a valid answer in the English, too. I don't know, the English seems to ask for something that supports the belief. Asking for a proposition that logically entails {do krici} seems like a totally uninteresting question. The answer "I believe it because everybody (else) believes it" is not a logical entailment. "Everybody (including me) believes it, therefore I believe it" is a logical entailment, but is that the kind of answer you expect? mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 06:31 GMT Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > > Examples of ni'i Usage > > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. > > Strictly, there is a premise missing here. "Plato dies" > follows logically from "Plato is human" and "all humans die", > but not just from "Plato is human". A sorites is just as much a logical argument as a syllogism, no matter how many premises are omitted. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold: "Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one." English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: "Only on Barrayar you risk to lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon."
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 12:48 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:30:18 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py remna > > > Plato dies, which follows logically because he is human. > > A sorites is just as much a logical argument as a syllogism, no matter > how many premises are omitted. What's a sorites? I found this: << extended syllogism (sorites) When syllogisms (consisting of only categorical sentences) have more than two premisses, they have more that a total of three terms. Such syllogisms, when they are valid, can be demonstrated to be valid by treating them as a linked series of valid categorical syllogisms. Such extended syllogisms are also called sorites (so-ri'-tes). For example, "Some A are B. All B are C. All C are D. All D are E. No E are F. So, some A are not F." >> But nothing about omitting premises. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by pycyn on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 13:22 GMT posts: 2388 enthymeme. > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:30:18 -0500, John Cowan > wrote: > > > > .i la platos mrobi'o ni'i le du'u py > remna > > > > Plato dies, which follows logically > because he is human. > > > > A sorites is just as much a logical argument > as a syllogism, no matter > > how many premises are omitted. > > What's a sorites? I found this: > > << > extended syllogism (sorites) > > When syllogisms (consisting of only categorical > sentences) have more > than two premisses, they have more that a total > of three terms. Such > syllogisms, when they are valid, can be > demonstrated to be valid by > treating them as a linked series of valid > categorical syllogisms. Such > extended syllogisms are also called sorites > (so-ri'-tes). For example, > "Some A are B. All B are C. All C are D. All D > are E. No E are F. So, > some A are not F." > >> > > But nothing about omitting premises. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 14:47 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:21:07 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > enthymeme. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme>: << An enthymeme is a syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. First example: Socrates is mortal because he's human. The complete syllogism would be the classic: All humans are mortal. (major premise - assumed) Socrates is human. (minor premise - stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion - stated) >> Objection withdrawn, Your Honour. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 14:47 GMT On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:21:07 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote: > enthymeme. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme>: << An enthymeme is a syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. First example: Socrates is mortal because he's human. The complete syllogism would be the classic: All humans are mortal. (major premise - assumed) Socrates is human. (minor premise - stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion - stated) >> Objection withdrawn, Your Honour. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 29 of Mar, 2005 17:01 GMT Jorge LlambÃas scripsit: > Objection withdrawn, Your Honour. Sorry for mixing up sorites and enthymeme. My pipeline to Aristotle must have developed an enstasis. -- John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too. Try hanging up and phoning in again.' --Beverly Erlebacher
Posted by arj on Sun 29 of May, 2005 17:15 GMT posts: 953 Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, which IIRC we were talking about doing. --arj
Posted by arj on Fri 03 of Jun, 2005 00:02 GMT posts: 953 Typos: stat -> state stares -> stairs Words not in Jbovlaste: je'urbai Typographical: Please remove the apostrophes at the start and end of the examples. '.i do nenri sau tu'a le ckiku vorme' 'You enter, with requirement the key word.' ITYM "ckiku valsi". 'Under the conditions of yall not being able to fight in lojban, please don't fight.' It is spelt "y'all", or, more standardly, "you". As for the section on bai itself, what this word should mean is all but obvious. If we follow the system in which all BAI are based upon the corresponding brivla, we get that the place is filled by a force which compels something. But people have been used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, including people and objects. This is also the case for the one example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). So, how do we solve this? 1) Disconnect this one BAI cmavo from bapli, its corresponding brivla. 2) Choose another brivla to associate it with 3) Weasel out of the constraints imposed by "bapli" (saying that the "x1 force (ka)" means something else than it seems to mean) 4) Widen the definition of bapli to fit usage 5) Something else entirely? -arj
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:15:32AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind > about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, > which IIRC we were talking about doing. "Seperate out" in what sense? I'd rather take them all together, but it's hardly important to me. -Robin
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:44 GMT posts: 953 On Tue, 31 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:15:32AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: >> Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind >> about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, >> which IIRC we were talking about doing. > > "Seperate out" in what sense? Create a new BPFK section with these general remarks in. Possibly also add this to the dictionary preface. This is because it looks strange with these remarks in only one section, and copying them out to each relevant section risks cohesion problems. > I'd rather take them all together, but it's hardly important to me. Yes, that is what I'm proposing. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Den tredje dagen* tar jeg en dusj. ... Jeg har ikke savnet vaske meg engang. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen (*dvs. den tredje dagen p sydpolen, 53 dager etter avreise fra Patriot Hills.)
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:48 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:53:26PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:15:32AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > >wrote: > >>Y'know, this section would be much easier to make up one's mind > >>about if we separated out SE BAI, BAInai, na'eBAI and to'eBAI, > >>which IIRC we were talking about doing. > > > >"Seperate out" in what sense? > > Create a new BPFK section with these general remarks in. Possibly > also add this to the dictionary preface. Already done; see http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Dictionary+Preface&bl > This is because it looks strange with these remarks in only one > section, and copying them out to each relevant section risks > cohesion problems. Agreed. Stuff that was moved to the preface removed from Causation sumtcita. > >I'd rather take them all together, but it's hardly important to > >me. > > Yes, that is what I'm proposing. Erm, I meant "all together" in the sense of having to'e ri'a and ri'a and se ri'a all in the same section. (bancus, if this bothers you, go put it back or something) -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:50 GMT wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit: > As for the section on bai itself, what this word should mean is all > but obvious. If we follow the system in which all BAI are based upon > the corresponding brivla, we get that the place is filled by a force > which compels something. But people have been used "bai" for all kinds > of stuff, including people and objects. This is also the case for the > one example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). > > So, how do we solve this? > > 1) Disconnect this one BAI cmavo from bapli, its corresponding brivla. > 2) Choose another brivla to associate it with > 3) Weasel out of the constraints imposed by "bapli" (saying that the > "x1 force (ka)" means something else than it seems to mean) > 4) Widen the definition of bapli to fit usage > 5) Something else entirely? Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source gismu. --
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 22:53 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: > wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit: > > > As for the section on bai itself, what this word should mean is > > all but obvious. If we follow the system in which all BAI are > > based upon the corresponding brivla, we get that the place is > > filled by a force which compels something. But people have been > > used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, including people and objects. > > This is also the case for the one example (".i za'a bai lo skami > > mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). > > > > So, how do we solve this? > > > > Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source > gismu. How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): Implicit sumti Raising If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:01 GMT On 6/3/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or > a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete > object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" > in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in > which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction. What does it mean "if a gismu place specifies that..."? Is that about how the current gi'uste deals with that, or are you proposing a thorough revision of place structures? For example, consider {xamgu}: x1 (object/event) is good/beneficial/nice/acceptable for x2 by standard x3 lo djacu cu xamgu lo spati "Water is good for plants." That could be interpreted as {tu'a lo djacu} (receiving water, for example), and also as {tu'a lo spati} (for the growth of plants, for example): lo nu cpacu lo djacu cu xamgu lo nu lo spati cu banro But why stop there? That could also be interpreted as {tu'a lo nu cpacu lo djacu}, (that receiving water happens frequently, for example)) and also as {tu'a lo nu lo spati banro} (that the growth occurs intensely, for example): lo nu lo nu cpacu lo djacu cu cafne cu xamgu lo nu lo nu lo spati cu banro cu mutce When do we stop? And the markings in the current gi'uste are rather haphazard: x1 of xamgu is marked (object/event), x2 of xamgu is left unmarked. Other places that would seem to work just like these are marked as event only. Often the markings were constrained by the definition being required to not exceed a certain number of characters. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:02 GMT posts: 953 On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: >> wikidiscuss@lojban.org Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: >> >>> ... But people have been >>> used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, including people and objects. >>> This is also the case for the one example (".i za'a bai lo skami >>> mi nalviska le se cinri nu casnu"). >>> >>> So, how do we solve this? >>> >> >> Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source >> gismu. > > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or > a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete > object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" > in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in > which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction. Thanks for taking the effort to write up this paragraph. I think doing it this way will solve the problem. However, I think new problems will appear in its stead. Determining what is a concrete object and what isn't will prove a major headache. Just consider these few cases: mi broda bai lo na badna Non-banana object (not raised), or non-banana abstraction (raised)? mi broda bai lo se nelci be do Cf. the definition of {nelci}. Object (not raised) or state (raised)? mi broda bai ma Whatever the answer is will determine whether the asker is using sumti-raising or not! -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ There is a great deal of drinking in Japan, unbridled by licensing hours. It forms an important part of semi-official end of work or business negotiations ..., but is also rampant without any such excuse. — Ballhatchet, Kaiser: Teach Yourself Japanese
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:06 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:50:16AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 6/3/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an > > abstraction, or a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), > > then if a concrete object appears in that place, it should be > > considered to have "tu'a" in front of it. This also applies to > > BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in which the underlying gismu place > > requires an abstraction. > > What does it mean "if a gismu place specifies that..."? > > Is that about how the current gi'uste deals with that, or are you > proposing a thorough revision of place structures? I'm proposing deferring this issue entirely. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:06 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:31:09PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: > >>wikidiscuss@lojban.org Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: > >> > >>>... But people have been used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, > >>>including people and objects. This is also the case for the one > >>>example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu > >>>casnu"). > >>> > >>>So, how do we solve this? > >>> > >> > >>Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source > >>gismu. > > > >How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > >would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > > >!!! Implicit sumti Raising > > > >If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, > >or a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a > >concrete object appears in that place, it should be considered to > >have "tu'a" in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI > >sumti tcita in which the underlying gismu place requires an > >abstraction. > > Thanks for taking the effort to write up this paragraph. I think > doing it this way will solve the problem. > > However, I think new problems will appear in its stead. > Determining what is a concrete object and what isn't will prove a > major headache. Just consider these few cases: Indeed. Once again, I say that the whole marking gismu places as being only abstractions or only objects is A Mistake, and this is yet another symptom of that underlying problem. To put it another way, I think that the metaphysics of whether (WRT the x1 of bapli) an object can force something to happen, or only a property, is entirely outside the scope of the BPFK and the language design. That's up to the speakers. I was attempting to work within this mistake, however, because no-one seems to agree with me. I no longer have a solution to the "bai" problem at hand, within the scope of enforced place structures, except to say that most usage of "bai" (and probably of "bapli") thus far is wrong. I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion (Broca, if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues section (which should be unlocked). -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:07 GMT On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 19:00 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > How about adding this to the Preface section (and, of course, it > would need to be stuck in the CLL somewhere; ideas?): > > !!! Implicit sumti Raising > > If a gismu place specifies that it normally takes an abstraction, or > a particular type of abstraction (ka, nu, etc), then if a concrete > object appears in that place, it should be considered to have "tu'a" > in front of it. This also applies to BAI and SE BAI sumti tcita in > which the underlying gismu place requires an abstraction. I don't like this, mostly because I actually recently came up with something else: "ko senva tu'a lo melbi" = "Dream of beautiful things." "ko senva lo melbi" = "Have beautiful dreams." I'm unsure about the correctness of this, but I find it rather elegant. -- Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us>
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:09 GMT posts: 953 On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:31:09PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen > wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:49:26PM -0400, John.Cowan wrote: >>>> wikidiscuss@lojban.org Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: >>>> >>>>> ... But people have been used "bai" for all kinds of stuff, >>>>> including people and objects. This is also the case for the one >>>>> example (".i za'a bai lo skami mi nalviska le se cinri nu >>>>> casnu"). >>>>> >>>>> So, how do we solve this? >>>>> >>>> cowan: >>>> Explicitly allow sumti-raising in BAIs, relative to the source >>>> gismu. >>> arj: >> >> However, I think new problems will appear in its stead. >> Determining what is a concrete object and what isn't will prove a >> major headache. Just consider these few cases: > > Indeed. > > Once again, I say that the whole marking gismu places as being only > abstractions or only objects is A Mistake, and this is yet another > symptom of that underlying problem. To put it another way, I think > that the metaphysics of whether (WRT the x1 of bapli) an object can > force something to happen, or only a property, is entirely outside > the scope of the BPFK and the language design. That's up to the > speakers. > > I was attempting to work within this mistake, however, because > no-one seems to agree with me. > > I no longer have a solution to the "bai" problem at hand, within the > scope of enforced place structures, except to say that most usage of > "bai" (and probably of "bapli") thus far is wrong. Yes. Or maybe the supplicatory model...? > I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion (Broca, > if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues section > (which should be unlocked). (Note to those not on IRC: I am Broca.) Sure, I'll do it. Feel free to whip me along if I forget about it. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:11 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:43:37PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >I no longer have a solution to the "bai" problem at hand, within > >the scope of enforced place structures, except to say that most > >usage of "bai" (and probably of "bapli") thus far is wrong. > > Yes. Or maybe the supplicatory model...? Done. -Robin
Posted by arj on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 953 On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >> I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion (Broca, >> if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues section >> (which should be unlocked). > > Sure, I'll do it. Feel free to whip me along if I forget about it. Is this issue now subsumed by http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+gismu+Section%3A+Problems+With+ka , or do you want me to write a general piece wrt object/event/abstraction subcategorisation and the question of whether or not parenthesised remarks in gismu definitions have defining force? -- 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 Xenolinguistics
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Aug, 2005 23:59 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:32:51PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > >>I would very much like someone to summarize this discussion > >>(Broca, if you wouldn't mind?) and stick it in the gismu issues > >>section (which should be unlocked). > > > >Sure, I'll do it. Feel free to whip me along if I forget about > >it. > > Is this issue now subsumed by > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+gismu+Section%3A+Problems+With+ka > , or do you want me to write a general piece wrt > object/event/abstraction subcategorisation and the question of > whether or not parenthesised remarks in gismu definitions have > defining force? If you wouldn't mind, I think that would be an Excellent Idea. This is an issue we're going to have to address. Feel free to link it off the BPFK gismu page. -Robin