WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


> !! Examples of mu'i nai Usage
>
> mi gleki le nu tavla do mu'i nai le cmalu temci
> I like talking to you, regardless of the short amount of time.

Add {kei} before {mu'i}, presumably.


> !! Examples of se mu'i nai Usage
>
> Artificial:
>
> di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji
> Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.

Something wrong in the translation here. {se mu'i} is
"motivated by...", not "results in..."

"Sometimes, I eat not to end my hunger."?

> !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage
>
> .i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi .e lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei ki'unai loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba je'urbai
> I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, and the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but telling the simple truths which some day science will substantiate.

If anything, this should be {ki'u}, not {ki'u nai}:

"It is not the case that: (I purpose being pilloried ... because I am
telling the simple truths)"


> !! Examples of se ki'u Usage
>
> .i mi ca gunka penmi seki'u le nu masno spuda (Slightly modified.)
> I am at a work meeting, which is the reason for my slow replies.

"Thereby" could be added as a keyword here:

"I am at a work meeting, thereby replying slowly."

> !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage
>
> .i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai zekri
> Regardless of that motivation, I will defend the noble Lojban language against word-shape crimes.

That's {i se ki'u nai ku}.
With {bo} it means something like:

"That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban
language against word-shape crimes."

> !! Examples of fau Usage
>
> Artificial:
>
> .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka
> With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.

That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2",
but {cusku} means "x1 expresses something with x2",
so what you want to say is:

mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka
"I express (something) with my standing up, the event
that eating is over."


> !! Examples of se sau Usage
>
> .i pe'u ko sanli vi le serti se sau le nu mi do badgau (Slightly modified.)
> Please stand at the stairs, which is required for my defending you.

{pe'u do'o} or just {e'o}.

{badgau} means "x1 makes x2 defend x3 from x4", not
"x1 defends x2 from x3".


> !! Examples of se ja'e nai Usage
>
> Artificial:
>
> mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce
> I walk regardless of the fact that I own a car.

It would make more sense with {na ponse}. Nobody
would expect that owning a car results in walking, so
what's the point of denying it?

> !! Examples of va'o Usage
>
> .i va'o le nu rodo na kakne le nu damba bau lo lojban. kei pe'u ko na damba
> Under the conditions of y'all not being able to fight in lojban, please don't fight.

s/lo/la
s/pe'u/pe'u do'o/ or {e'o}, and then you need {kei kei}.

Better re-order:

e'o ko na damba va'o lo nu ro do na kakne lo nu
damba bau la lojban

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 14214

Taking this because bancus said I could.

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:34:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > !! Examples of mu'i nai Usage
> >
> > mi gleki le nu tavla do mu'i nai le cmalu temci
> > I like talking to you, regardless of the short amount of time.
>
> Add {kei} before {mu'i}, presumably.

Done.

> > !! Examples of se mu'i nai Usage
> >
> > Artificial:
> >
> > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji
> > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.
>
> Something wrong in the translation here. {se mu'i} is "motivated
> by...",

Umm, no it's not.

> not "results in..."

It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results
in".

In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia.

Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...".

> > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage
> >
> > ''.i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi .e
> > lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei ki'unai
> > loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba je'urbai''
> >
> > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, and
> > the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but telling
> > the simple truths which some day science will substantiate.
>
> If anything, this should be {ki'u}, not {ki'u nai}:
>
> "It is not the case that: (I purpose being pilloried ... because I
> am telling the simple truths)"

I ain't touching this one. bancus? (I think xorxes is right,
though).

> > !! Examples of se ki'u Usage
> >
> > .i mi ca gunka penmi seki'u le nu masno spuda (Slightly modified.)
> >
> > I am at a work meeting, which is the reason for my slow replies.
>
> "Thereby" could be added as a keyword here:
>
> "I am at a work meeting, thereby replying slowly."

Done.

> > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage
> >
> > ''.i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai
> > zekri''
> >
> > Regardless of that motivation, I will defend the noble Lojban
> > language against word-shape crimes.
>
> That's {i se ki'u nai ku}. With {bo} it means something like:
>
> "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language
> against word-shape crimes."

Ah, so it is.

Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or neither?

> > !! Examples of fau Usage
> >
> > Artificial:
> >
> > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka
> >
> > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.
>
> That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2", but {cusku}
> means "x1 expresses something with x2",

I still don't agree, nor do I find your statement to make much
sense.

> so what you want to say is:
>
> mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka
>
> "I express (something) with my standing up, the event that eating
> is over."

That seems totally non-sensical to me. You can't express an event.

> > !! Examples of se sau Usage
> >
> > .i pe'u ko sanli vi le serti se sau le nu mi do badgau
> > (Slightly modified.)
> >
> > Please stand at the stairs, which is required for my defending
> > you.
>
> {pe'u do'o} or just {e'o}.

.e'o

> {badgau} means "x1 makes x2 defend x3 from x4", not "x1 defends x2
> from x3".

fi added.

> > !! Examples of se ja'e nai Usage
> >
> > Artificial:
> >
> > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce
> >
> > I walk regardless of the fact that I own a car.
>
> It would make more sense with {na ponse}. Nobody would expect that
> owning a car results in walking, so what's the point of denying
> it?

Umm, what?

Oh, I see. My problem was with the English implications of
"regardless".

Does this work?:

mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce

I walk, but not because I don't own a car.

I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car.

> > !! Examples of va'o Usage
> >
> > ''.i va'o le nu rodo na kakne le nu damba bau lo lojban. kei
> > pe'u ko na damba''
> >
> > Under the conditions of y'all not being able to fight in lojban,
> > please don't fight.
>
> s/lo/la

> Better re-order:
>
> e'o ko na damba va'o lo nu ro do na kakne lo nu
> damba bau la lojban

Done.

-Robin


> > > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji
> > > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.
>
> It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results
> in".
>
> In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia.
>
> Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...".

So, "sometimes, I eat but this does not motivate (me) to
stop being hunger"?

Does eating ever motivate someone to stop being hungry?
Is one hungry by volition?

> > > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage
> > >
> > > ''.i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai
> > > zekri''
> > >
> > With {bo} it means something like:
> >
> > "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language
> > against word-shape crimes."
>
> Ah, so it is.
>
> Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or neither?

Asserted.

What is negated is the causal relationship with the preceding
sentence.


> > > !! Examples of fau Usage
> > >
> > > Artificial:
> > >
> > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka
> > >
> > > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.
> >
> > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2", but {cusku}
> > means "x1 expresses something with x2",
>
> I still don't agree, nor do I find your statement to make much
> sense.

The x2 of cusku is paradigmatically a text. A text is not
something you express, it is something you say in
order to express something else. The keyword "express"
for {cusku} is misleading.

You say "thank you" to express gratitude.
You say "I am done eating" to express that you are done eating.
You don't express words, you express something _with_ words.

> > so what you want to say is:
> >
> > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka
> >
> > "I express (something) with my standing up, the event that eating
> > is over."
>
> That seems totally non-sensical to me. You can't express an event.

Right, you express _with_ an event, just as you express _with_
words.

{cusku} means "x1 expresses with x2", not "x1 expresses x2".

> > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce
> >
> > It would make more sense with {na ponse}.
>
> Does this work?:
>
> mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce
>
> I walk, but not because I don't own a car.

Yes.

> I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car.

That would be slightly different.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


--
>
> > > !! Examples of fau Usage
> > >
> > > Artificial:
> > >
> > > ''.i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku
> le du'u mo'u citka''
> > >
> > > With the event of standing up, I express
> that the eating is over.
> >
> > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1
> expresses x2", but {cusku}
> > means "x1 expresses something with x2",

This is very strange; can someone give me the
history of what would lead someone to say such a
thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as what
is expressed or said; not whatever the
alternative here claimed is.

> I still don't agree, nor do I find your
> statement to make much
> sense.
>
> > so what you want to say is:
> >
> > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu
> mo'u citka
> >
> > "I express (something) with my standing up,
> the event that eating
> > is over."
>
> That seems totally non-sensical to me. You
> can't express an event.
>
And what here says "in the event of," "if I
should finish eating, I express (something by)
standing up" ???


posts: 2388


>
> The x2 of cusku is paradigmatically a text. A
> text is not
> something you express, it is something you say
> in
> order to express something else. The keyword
> "express"
> for {cusku} is misleading.

This last clainm is certainly true, on the basis
of this discussion
>
> You say "thank you" to express gratitude.
> You say "I am done eating" to express that you
> are done eating.
> You don't express words, you express something
> _with_ words.
>
> > > so what you want to say is:
> > >
> > > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu
> mo'u citka
> > >
> > > "I express (something) with my standing up,
> the event that eating
> > > is over."
> >
> > That seems totally non-sensical to me. You
> can't express an event.
>
> Right, you express _with_ an event, just as you
> express _with_
> words.
>
> {cusku} means "x1 expresses with x2", not "x1
> expresses x2".

This is certainly false according to the present
glossary. Now, whether "express" and "say" are
totally different categories is open to some
dispute. We tend to think of means of
expressions (things said or done) as transparent
to their message, which they often are not, so we
need some devise to explain them — what seems to
be going on here. In any case, a word that had a
place for the means of expression and no place
for what was expressed would be useless, the
oposite meaning would be useful, however. And
notice that {cusku} has a place for the means of
expression, but it is 4, not 2 (don't take
"medium" in too modern a sense). (In that sense
the present sentence is kinda dumb, since the
extra place is redundant.)




On 6/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1
> > expresses x2", but {cusku}
> > > means "x1 expresses something with x2",
>
> This is very strange; can someone give me the
> history of what would lead someone to say such a
> thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as what
> is expressed or said; not whatever the
> alternative here claimed is.

Mine has:

x1 (agent) expresses/says x2 (sedu'u/text/lu'e concept)
for audience x3 via expressive medium x

So x2 is clearly marked as for what is said (se du'u/text/lu'e concept),
not what is expressed by that (du'u/meaning of text/concept).

Besides, {cusku} is always used with a text in x2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 14214

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:05:40PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger
> > > > ending.
> >
> > It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results
> > in".
> >
> > In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia.
> >
> > Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...".
>
> So, "sometimes, I eat but this does not motivate (me) to stop
> being hunger"?

There's supposed to be a lo nu in there. Whoops.

di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai lo nu mi co'u xagji

Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.

> Does eating ever motivate someone to stop being hungry? Is one
> hungry by volition?

No, actually. Whoops. I guess that would be se ri'a nai.

Suggestions?

> > > > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage
> > > >
> > > > ''.i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo
> > > > vlatai zekri''
> > > >
> > > With {bo} it means something like:
> > >
> > > "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language
> > > against word-shape crimes."
> >
> > Ah, so it is.
> >
> > Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or
> > neither?
>
> Asserted.
>
> What is negated is the causal relationship with the preceding
> sentence.

Then I've changed my mind; I stand by my translation, except
s/motivation/reason/

Regardless of that reason, I defend the noble Lojban
language against word-shape crimes.

"That" being the provious sentence. I also removed "will".

> > > > !! Examples of fau Usage
> > > >
> > > > Artificial:
> > > >
> > > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka
> > > >
> > > > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.

s/du'u/se du'u/

> > > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce
> > >
> > > It would make more sense with {na ponse}.
> >
> > Does this work?:
> >
> > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce
> >
> > I walk, but not because I don't own a car.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car.
>
> That would be slightly different.

How so? The causal relationship is not asserted. That's
"regardless".

-Robin


John E Clifford scripsit:

> This is very strange; can someone give me the
> history of what would lead someone to say such a
> thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as what
> is expressed or said; not whatever the
> alternative here claimed is.

The point is that "express" is ambiguous in English; we express
sentences, and we also express propositions by uttering sentences.
Lojban takes the first view exclusively.

--
May the hair on your toes never fall out! John Cowan
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) jcowan@reutershealth.com


On 6/8/05, John.Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
> The point is that "express" is ambiguous in English; we express
> sentences, and we also express propositions by uttering sentences.
> Lojban takes the first view exclusively.

English is not all that ambiguous though:

"says a sentence" 991 hits
"expresses a sentence" 20 hits

"expresses a proposition" 869 hits
"says a proposition" 29 hits

So I think English pretty clearly distinguishes
"to express (a meaning)" from "to say (something
with meaning)", i.e. One says lo valsi/lo se smuni
to express lo se valsi/lo smuni. It is Lojban that
muddles things by using both words as glosses of
{cusku}.

The problem is that Lojban does not have a good
clear way of saying "x1 (person) expresses/puts forth
(meaning) x2 with words/symbols x3".

{jarco} could be used, but it covers much more ground,
because expression is done through a symbol, but
showing can be direct. We need a good lujvo for "express".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


wrote:
> John E Clifford scripsit:
>
> > This is very strange; can someone give me the
> > history of what would lead someone to say
> such a
> > thing. My wordlist clearly has {cusku2} as
> what
> > is expressed or said; not whatever the
> > alternative here claimed is.
>
> The point is that "express" is ambiguous in
> English; we express
> sentences, and we also express propositions by
> uttering sentences.
> Lojban takes the first view exclusively.

Well, that seems authoritative and is coherent
with the comments in the word list, but it
provides evidence that the people who devised the
definitions sometimes worked in the deep darkness
of their own lower colons. By this definition,
{cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a
description of one: not a translation, not a
summary, not an indirect quotation. By the
xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be
inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation. This
latter is unfortunate, since we need an
"according to" sort of evidential expression now
that the same xorxesian reasoning has removed
{du'o} from that use to the relatively useless
"as known by." The former is also unfortunate as
it deprives us of a natural direct way to express
indirect discourse. To be sure, {cusku lo se
du'u} is not that much longer than {cusku lo
du'u}, but is conceptually more complex, having
to go explicitly by way of the actual expressions
used [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed
up the definition of {du'u} is. By that
definition a complete sentence would have the
format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u} and
the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be li
ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse, needless
(I hope) to say. While in deep structure a
sentence can be a NP, at the surface they always
require some sort of overt mark. The expressions
seems always to have been used — even in CLL
--parallel to the other abstractors in the form
"x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as a
relation between a bridi and a sentence. This
makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian rules,
though this is not a BAI, so the rules may not
apply] My impression is that {cusku} has been
used more loosely, that it has not been treated
as a mere generalization of {bacru} and {ciska},
tied to physical presentation rather than to what
is intended by that presentation. There is also
the logical problem that burying a quantifier in
a predicates is almost always a mistake (or a
deliberate cheat) and {cusku} now means, as
xorxes points out, "x1 expresses something by
saying x2...." I assume that {pinka} is restricte
in the same way. I would suggest loosening both
of these a bit.


posts: 2388


> On 6/8/05, John.Cowan
> <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
> > The point is that "express" is ambiguous in
> English; we express
> > sentences, and we also express propositions
> by uttering sentences.
> > Lojban takes the first view exclusively.
>
> English is not all that ambiguous though:
>
> "says a sentence" 991 hits
> "expresses a sentence" 20 hits
>
> "expresses a proposition" 869 hits
> "says a proposition" 29 hits
>
> So I think English pretty clearly distinguishes

This seems to make it clear that English does;
should Lojban? Apparently at some point the
thinking was that it should not but that all
should be reduced to the English "say." But the
English data given is questionable: is it really
the case that we say "He says "..."" 50 times as
often as "He says that ..."? (I admit that "He
expresses "..."" does strike me as perverse.) I
really doubt it. And that is the issue here, I
suppose.

> "to express (a meaning)" from "to say
> (something
> with meaning)", i.e. One says lo valsi/lo se
> smuni
> to express lo se valsi/lo smuni. It is Lojban
> that
> muddles things by using both words as glosses
> of
> {cusku}.
>
> The problem is that Lojban does not have a good
> clear way of saying "x1 (person) expresses/puts
> forth
> (meaning) x2 with words/symbols x3".
>
> {jarco} could be used, but it covers much more
> ground,
> because expression is done through a symbol,
> but
> showing can be direct. We need a good lujvo for
> "express".
>
Yes, we need a predicate to introduce indirect
discourse and maybe the whole range of symbolic .
speech (usually the finger, it seems). {cusku}
seems to have about the right structure, just the
wrong restriction (and the medium might be more
important than the audience).


posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:09:10AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> {jarco} could be used, but it covers much more ground, because
> expression is done through a symbol, but showing can be direct. We
> need a good lujvo for "express".

smuni + cusku, I think.

-Robin


posts: 2388


<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:09:10AM -0300, Jorge
> Llamb?as wrote:
> > {jarco} could be used, but it covers much
> more ground, because
> > expression is done through a symbol, but
> showing can be direct. We
> > need a good lujvo for "express".
>
> smuni + cusku, I think.
>
So {smucku}, but how to fit the places together?
x1 is {cusku1} the expresser
x3 is {cusku3} and {smuni3} the
hearer/interpreter
x4 might be {cusku4 or 2} and {smuni2}}, the
place for the means of expressing (it should
probably be 3 and audience 4)
x2 = {smuni1}
Cute. But now how do we express an emotion or
the like, not a meaning (or is "meaning" in
{smuni} fairly broad?)


On 6/9/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> By this definition,
> {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a
> description of one: not a translation, not a
> summary, not an indirect quotation.

Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up writing things
like {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u} because cusku
can't apparently quote a translation of what was said.

> By the
> xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be
> inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation.

Not so, thanks to the {se du'u} contraption:
{ko'a cusku lo se du'u brode} can be reformulated
as {brode cu'u ko'a} without violating the xorxesian
BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute
but merely as a guide in any case.


> [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed
> up the definition of {du'u} is. By that
> definition a complete sentence would have the
> format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u} and
> the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be li
> ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse, needless
> (I hope) to say. While in deep structure a
> sentence can be a NP, at the surface they always
> require some sort of overt mark. The expressions
> seems always to have been used — even in CLL
> --parallel to the other abstractors in the form
> "x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as a
> relation between a bridi and a sentence.

Not sure what definition you're looking at.
{NU [bridi] KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri.
The selbri {du'u [bridi] kei} has two places, the
first one for the proposition and the second one for
a sentence that expresses the proposition.
For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i}
Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e klama"
and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed by
that sentence.

> This
> makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian rules,
> though this is not a BAI, so the rules may not
> apply]

No idea what you mean, but probably the "rules"
for BAI don't apply to abstractors, no.

> My impression is that {cusku} has been
> used more loosely, that it has not been treated
> as a mere generalization of {bacru} and {ciska},
> tied to physical presentation rather than to what
> is intended by that presentation.

I don't think {cusku} is much used other than
in {cusku lu ... li'u}, {cusku di'u}, {cusku di'e}, and
{cusku lo se du'u ...}, and in the totally made up
{cusku la apasionatas}. What other usages do you
have in mind?

> I assume that {pinka} is restricte
> in the same way.

{pinka} has the advantage of having an "about" place,
so the frequent {te pinka}, "x1 comments about x2",
is not about a text. {di'e pinka ...} is also relatively
common.

> I would suggest loosening both
> of these a bit.

You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between
"x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning x2"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


On 6/9/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> But now how do we express an emotion or
> the like, not a meaning (or is "meaning" in
> {smuni} fairly broad?)

lo nu ko'a gleki cu smuni lo nu ko'a cisma
"Ko'a's happiness is the meaning of ko'a's smiling."

la djan smusku lo nu gleki kei mi'a lo nu cisma
"John expresses his happiness to us by 'saying' a smile."

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 14214

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:21:53PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > By this definition, {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a
> > description of one: not a translation, not a summary, not an
> > indirect quotation.
>
> Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up writing things like
> {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u} because cusku can't
> apparently quote a translation of what was said.

For the record: later in the story I don't bother; I simply wanted
to make it painfully clear what was going on in the first parts of
the story.

-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: 2388


> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > By this definition,
> > {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a
> > description of one: not a translation, not a
> > summary, not an indirect quotation.
>
> Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up
> writing things
> like {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u}
> because cusku
> can't apparently quote a translation of what
> was said.


I'll take your word for what Robin wrote, but the
point remains.

> > By the
> > xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be
> > inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation.
>
> Not so, thanks to the {se du'u} contraption:
> {ko'a cusku lo se du'u brode} can be
> reformulated
> as {brode cu'u ko'a} without violating the
> xorxesian
> BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute
> but merely as a guide in any case.

If they are only meant as guides, why do you keep
insisting on taking them literally when simpler
and more direct reading make more sense
practically? Loosen up and be practical.

>
> > [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed
> > up the definition of {du'u} is. By that
> > definition a complete sentence would have the
> > format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u}
> and
> > the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be
> li
> > ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse,
> needless
> > (I hope) to say. While in deep structure a
> > sentence can be a NP, at the surface they
> always
> > require some sort of overt mark. The
> expressions
> > seems always to have been used — even in CLL
> > --parallel to the other abstractors in the
> form
> > "x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as
> a
> > relation between a bridi and a sentence.
>
> Not sure what definition you're looking at.
> {NU [bridi] KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri.

Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS
STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF [BRIDI]"
and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION [BRIDI] EXPRESSED
BY X2"
So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the fact
that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence,
presumably quoted to make it available for use.
It could be argued that it goes the other way, of
course, but it must be one or the other to make
any sense at all (even the bad sense it makes).
As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 IS
THE PROPOSITION THAT [BRIDI]" and never as
described. It has, in fact never been used as a
relation so far as I can tell.

> The selbri {du'u [bridi] kei} has two places,
> the
> first one for the proposition and the second
> one for
> a sentence that expresses the proposition.
> For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i}
> Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e
> klama"
> and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed
> by
> that sentence.
>
Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a bridi
since it is a replacement for a sumti. {di'u} or
some such thing could be used in the second
place, since it refers to a sentence.

> > This
> > makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian
> rules,
> > though this is not a BAI, so the rules may
> not
> > apply]
>
> No idea what you mean, but probably the "rules"
> for BAI don't apply to abstractors, no.

I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation
(definition to the contrary notwithstanding) {se
du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.

> > My impression is that {cusku} has been
> > used more loosely, that it has not been
> treated
> > as a mere generalization of {bacru} and
> {ciska},
> > tied to physical presentation rather than to
> what
> > is intended by that presentation.
>
> I don't think {cusku} is much used other than
> in {cusku lu ... li'u}, {cusku di'u}, {cusku
> di'e}, and
> {cusku lo se du'u ...}, and in the totally made
> up
> {cusku la apasionatas}. What other usages do
> you
> have in mind?

{cusku lo du'u [bridi}} "said that [bridi]"

> > I assume that {pinka} is restricted
> > in the same way.
>
> {pinka} has the advantage of having an "about"
> place,
> so the frequent {te pinka}, "x1 comments about
> x2",
> is not about a text. {di'e pinka ...} is also
> relatively
> common.
>
> > I would suggest loosening both
> > of these a bit.
>
> You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between
> "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning
> x2"?

I'm not sure that I agree it is ambiguous — in
Lojban, but yes: "say" in the full "ambiguity" of
the English.


posts: 2388


> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > But now how do we express an emotion or
> > the like, not a meaning (or is "meaning" in
> > {smuni} fairly broad?)
>
> lo nu ko'a gleki cu smuni lo nu ko'a cisma
> "Ko'a's happiness is the meaning of ko'a's
> smiling."
>
> la djan smusku lo nu gleki kei mi'a lo nu cisma
> "John expresses his happiness to us by 'saying'
> a smile."
Okay, then. And do {ko'a smusku le du'u ko'a
gleki kei mi'a lo nu cisma} or {... mia lo nu
bacru li mi gleki li'u} also work?


On 6/9/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute
> > but merely as a guide in any case.
>
> If they are only meant as guides, why do you keep
> insisting on taking them literally when simpler
> and more direct reading make more sense
> practically? Loosen up and be practical.

I take them literally because I meant them literally.

The "rule" goes something like this: When the underlying
selbri of a BAI has an available place suitable for a bridi, the
most natural interpretation for the added place is given by
the relationship established by the underlying selbri between
that place and the main bridi in the available suitable place.

Not all underlying selbri have a suitable place for a bridi,
so this rule is not always applicable.

Which example do you have in mind where a "more direct" reading
makes more sense? How can you have a more direct reading than
that?

For those cases where the underlying selbri has no available
place for a bridi, I find that the most natural interpretation
for {broda BAI ko'a} is something like {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a BAPLI},
where BAI is fi'o BAPLI.

> > Not sure what definition you're looking at.
> > {NU bridi KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri.
>
> Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS
> STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF BRIDI"
> and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION BRIDI EXPRESSED
> BY X2"

{nu...kei} has a single place and {du'u...kei} has two places,
that's a difference.

> So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the fact
> that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence,
> presumably quoted to make it available for use.

I think you are confused here. A sumti can refer to anything at all,
in particular it can refer to a bridi, just like "proposition" is a noun in
English that refers to a proposition.

> It could be argued that it goes the other way, of
> course, but it must be one or the other to make
> any sense at all (even the bad sense it makes).

The bridi goes in x1 and the sentence in x2, that's how it has
always been and that's what the definition says.

> As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 IS
> THE PROPOSITION THAT BRIDI" and never as
> described.

"x1 is the proposition that bridi as expressed in sentence x2",
yes.

> It has, in fact never been used as a
> relation so far as I can tell.

NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they are almost
always used as descriptions, yes, but "never" is a bit
strong.

>
> > The selbri {du'u bridi kei} has two places,
> > the
> > first one for the proposition and the second
> > one for
> > a sentence that expresses the proposition.
> > For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i}
> > Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e
> > klama"
> > and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed
> > by
> > that sentence.
> >
> Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a bridi
> since it is a replacement for a sumti.

Of course {ko'a} can refer to a bridi, whyever not?

> {di'u} or
> some such thing could be used in the second
> place, since it refers to a sentence.

Yes. And {ko'i} can also be assigned to refer to a sentence.

> I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation
> (definition to the contrary notwithstanding) {se
> du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.

{du'u bridi kei} is a two-place relation, and can be converted
with SE like any other selbri.

Other NU's with more than one place include ni, li'i, pu'u
and probably some other I'm forgetting.

> > You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between
> > "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning
> > x2"?
>
> I'm not sure that I agree it is ambiguous — in
> Lojban, but yes: "say" in the full "ambiguity" of
> the English.

"Say" in English can be used for indirect speech, but not for
the full range of "express". You can say "I express feelings"
but hardly "I say feelings". For indirect speech we already
have {lo se du'u}, so cusku already does cover the full
range of English "say". It doesn't cover "express" though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388




> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > BAI rule, which was never meant as an
> absolute
> > > but merely as a guide in any case.
> >
> > If they are only meant as guides, why do you
> keep
> > insisting on taking them literally when
> simpler
> > and more direct reading make more sense
> > practically? Loosen up and be practical.
>
> I take them literally because I meant them
> literally.

But it is fairly clear that the original
intention ofthe dictionary writers was not
literal. Hence the conflicts, changes, and
additions of nonsense.

> The "rule" goes something like this: When the
> underlying
> selbri of a BAI has an available place suitable
> for a bridi, the
> most natural interpretation for the added place
> is given by
> the relationship established by the underlying
> selbri between
> that place and the main bridi in the available
> suitable place.
>
> Not all underlying selbri have a suitable place
> for a bridi,
> so this rule is not always applicable.

And occasionally results in garbage even when
applicable.

> Which example do you have in mind where a "more
> direct" reading
> makes more sense? How can you have a more
> direct reading than
> that?

So, "more direct" is a bad choice of words: try
"more natural or useful." The two classic cases
so far have been {du'o}, which functioned nicely
as "according to" and now has been shifted by
literalness to "as is known by," which has very
little use, and {ri'anai} which worked pretty
well for "despite" and now has been shifted to
some negative causal matter (rarely used) and
"despite" taken over by a more literally correct
but unwieldy complex.

> For those cases where the underlying selbri has
> no available
> place for a bridi, I find that the most natural
> interpretation
> for {broda BAI ko'a} is something like {lo nu
> broda cu nu ko'a BAPLI},
> where BAI is fi'o BAPLI.
>
> > > Not sure what definition you're looking at.
> > > {NU bridi KEI} converts a bridi to a
> selbri.
> >
> > Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS
> > STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF
> BRIDI"
> > and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION BRIDI
> EXPRESSED
> > BY X2"
>
> {nu...kei} has a single place and {du'u...kei}
> has two places,
> that's a difference.

But {du'u} is never — I couldn't find a case --
used in this way, but rather as a simple
predicate with a bridi expression incorporated
into structure, exactly like {nu} in fact.

> > So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the
> fact
> > that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence,
> > presumably quoted to make it available for
> use.
>
> I think you are confused here. A sumti can
> refer to anything at all,
> in particular it can refer to a bridi, just
> like "proposition" is a noun in
> English that refers to a proposition.

The point is, what is the natureal sumti to
refewr to a bridi (taking this in the
non-linguistic sense). We can call it anything,
but at some point we have to give it a structural
name. Since we cannot at this point use {du'u}
(circularity is messy and it won't work in this
case anyhow) we are left with a sentence (bridi
in the linguistic sense) as the only strutural
way to refer to a bridi. But sentences are not
sumti, and so cannot go in the x1 position of
{du'u}. Similarly, x2 has to refer to a sentence
and the best structural way to do that is with a
quote. This is a sumti at least, but I have
never seen it used; we say {du'u ko'a co'e} not
{du'u li ko'a co'e li'u}. And, more forcefully,
we do not use {le du'u be ...} just {le du'u
...}. We can almost always avoid these
problems, of course, by calling the proposition
"Alfred" and the sentence "Bruce" and by pointing
(at the sentence at least) when asked to identify
it (notice that {ko'a} can't be assigned
structurally), but in fact we don't do that at
all. I think, in short, that the definition
should be rewritten to reflect our uniform usage.

> > It could be argued that it goes the other
> way, of
> > course, but it must be one or the other to
> make
> > any sense at all (even the bad sense it
> makes).
>
> The bridi goes in x1 and the sentence in x2,
> that's how it has
> always been and that's what the definition
> says.

But it has never been done that way, even in CLL.

> > As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1
> IS
> > THE PROPOSITION THAT BRIDI" and never as
> > described.
>
> "x1 is the proposition that bridi as
> expressed in sentence x2",
> yes.

Never ever done (well, if you find a case, let me
know).

> > It has, in fact never been used as a
> > relation so far as I can tell.
>
> NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they
> are almost
> always used as descriptions, yes, but "never"
> is a bit
> strong.

Frinstance?

> >
> > > The selbri {du'u bridi kei} has two
> places,
> > > the
> > > first one for the proposition and the
> second
> > > one for
> > > a sentence that expresses the proposition.
> > > For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei
> ko'i}
> > > Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e
> > > klama"
> > > and {ko'a} refers to the proposition
> expressed
> > > by
> > > that sentence.
> > >
> > Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a
> bridi
> > since it is a replacement for a sumti.
>
> Of course {ko'a} can refer to a bridi, whyever
> not?


I meant that it cannot be assigned a bridi
directly, by the natural structural description
because that natural description is not a sumti.

> > {di'u} or
> > some such thing could be used in the second
> > place, since it refers to a sentence.
>
> Yes. And {ko'i} can also be assigned to refer
> to a sentence.
>
> > I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation
> > (definition to the contrary notwithstanding)
> {se
> > du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.
>
> {du'u bridi kei} is a two-place relation, and
> can be converted
> with SE like any other selbri.
>
> Other NU's with more than one place include ni,
> li'i, pu'u
> and probably some other I'm forgetting.

{jei, si'o, su'u and zu'o}

Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the
definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since the
others do not involve linguistic items in the
same way. The "bridi" in the definition does
not refer — as it appears to on first reading --
to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that point
in the whole, a convention used for all the
abstracts but different from the one used for,
say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not very
well) in a different way and several other places
where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on
places or on meanings (which is also done
elsewhere with parentheses). So, while you are
reworking cmavo definitions it might be a good
idea to revise and standardize these indicators.
The present "system" is ambiguous to the point of
occasionally being misleading (as just demonstrated).


On 6/10/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > It has, in fact never been used as a
> > > relation so far as I can tell.
> >
> > NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they
> > are almost
> > always used as descriptions, yes, but "never"
> > is a bit
> > strong.
>
> Frinstance?

For instance:

-----------------------------
On 4/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford
> > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > The suggestion to put it into abstract form,
> > {nu}
> > > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it is
> > hard
> > > to see what the appropriate sentences would
> > be;
> > > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti.
> >
> > ko'a nu la suzan klama
> > i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
> > i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
> > i la suzan sruma ko'i
>
> Nice!
---------------------------

...
> Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the
> definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since the
> others do not involve linguistic items in the
> same way. The "bridi" in the definition does
> not refer — as it appears to on first reading --
> to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that point
> in the whole, a convention used for all the
> abstracts

Right.

> but different from the one used for,
> say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not very
> well) in a different way

True.

> and several other places
> where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on
> places or on meanings (which is also done
> elsewhere with parentheses).

True. The gi'uste conventions are not very systematic.

> So, while you are
> reworking cmavo definitions it might be a good
> idea to revise and standardize these indicators.

Yes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388




> On 6/10/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > It has, in fact never been used as a
> > > > relation so far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > NU's are hardly ever used as relations,
> they
> > > are almost
> > > always used as descriptions, yes, but
> "never"
> > > is a bit
> > > strong.
> >
> > Frinstance?
>
> For instance:
>
>
-----------------------------
> On 4/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > The suggestion to put it into abstract
> form,
> > > {nu}
> > > > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it
> is
> > > hard
> > > > to see what the appropriate sentences
> would
> > > be;
> > > > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti.
> > >
> > > ko'a nu la suzan klama
> > > i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
> > > i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
> > > i la suzan sruma ko'i
> >
> > Nice!
>
This is an example of getting {ko'V} to apply to
abstractions, but not of {du'u} used overtly as a
relation (I forget what the point of the
discussion was — not that it matters here).

>
> ...
> > Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the
> > definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since
> the
> > others do not involve linguistic items in the
> > same way. The "bridi" in the definition
> does
> > not refer — as it appears to on first
> reading --
> > to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that
> point
> > in the whole, a convention used for all the
> > abstracts
>
> Right.
>
> > but different from the one used for,
> > say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not
> very
> > well) in a different way
>
> True.
>
> > and several other places
> > where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on
> > places or on meanings (which is also done
> > elsewhere with parentheses).
>
> True. The gi'uste conventions are not very
> systematic.
>
> > So, while you are
> > reworking cmavo definitions it might be a
> good
> > idea to revise and standardize these
> indicators.
>
> Yes.
>
I would suggest for these cases that are
schematic (abstractors and MOI and MAI and
problably some others) that you give the full
schema: "numbermoi = x1 in the numberth item
member of set x2 ordered by rule x3" and so on
and have a uniform way of indicating what needs
to be suppied to get a meaningful expression. So,
in the instant case "du'u bridi = x1 is the
proposition that bridi as exprssed in the
sentence x2" or some such.


> > > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage
> > >
> > > ''.i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi .e
> > > lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei ki'unai
> > > loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba je'urbai''
> > >
> > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit, and
> > > the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but telling
> > > the simple truths which some day science will substantiate.

This example is the only one stopping me from voting for this
section. It makes no sense to me. Here is a proposed alternative:

la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi ki'u lo
nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo gubni jibri kei
lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu
"West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because he
is a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his public
office to solicit sexual favors."

I also have qualms about this example:

> .i ni'i ma do krici
> By what logic do you believe (that)?

but I won't push it if nobody else cares.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 953

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> I also have qualms about this example:
>
>> .i ni'i ma do krici
>> By what logic do you believe (that)?
>
> but I won't push it if nobody else cares.

Jorge, your criticisms are usually sound. For this reason, please do
explain to us why you dislike the example.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengevter. Forutsatt at ingen p basen p
Sydpolen driver med slikt, da. --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen


On 6/10/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> > I also have qualms about this example:
> >
> >> .i ni'i ma do krici
> >> By what logic do you believe (that)?
> >
> > but I won't push it if nobody else cares.
>
> Jorge, your criticisms are usually sound. For this reason, please do
> explain to us why you dislike the example.

The English suggests (at least to me) that the logic asked for
are the logical reasons {do} has for believeing something, but the
question as posed in Lojban is not about {do}'s reasons, it is about
some fact from which {do krici} will logically follow. "From what
premise does it logically follow that you believe?" What kind of
answer is expected to that?

I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the
(logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than
"what are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding
that you believe that?".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the
> (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what
> are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that
> you believe that?".

Boy, yeah, I don't think that second one was intended.

Fixing.

-Robin


posts: 14214

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:52:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage
> > > >
> > > > ''.i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi
> > > > .e lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei
> > > > ki'unai loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba
> > > > je'urbai''
> > > >
> > > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit,
> > > > and the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but
> > > > telling the simple truths which some day science will
> > > > substantiate.
>
> This example is the only one stopping me from voting for this
> section. It makes no sense to me. Here is a proposed alternative:

I believe it was selected because it was Actual Usage.

> la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi ki'u
> lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo gubni
> jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu
>
> "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because he is
> a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his public
> office to solicit sexual favors."

I assume this is artificial?

-Robin


On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:52:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > > !! Examples of ki'u nai Usage
> > > > >
> > > > > ''.i mi na zukte fi loza'i se ckasu lo selgubni .e lo malsi
> > > > > .e lo ternuzba kei .e lenu bai mupli le barda tcica kei
> > > > > ki'unai loza'i mi cusku le sampu jetnu poi le saske cu ba
> > > > > je'urbai''
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not purpose being pilloried by the public, the pulpit,
> > > > > and the press, and held up as a colossal liar when I am but
> > > > > telling the simple truths which some day science will
> > > > > substantiate.
> >
> > This example is the only one stopping me from voting for this
> > section. It makes no sense to me. Here is a proposed alternative:
>
> I believe it was selected because it was Actual Usage.

To me {ki'unai} there makes no sense, even with the "despite" meaning.

>
> > la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi ki'u
> > lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo gubni
> > jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu
> >
> > "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because he is
> > a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his public
> > office to solicit sexual favors."
>
> I assume this is artificial?

The English was grabbed from some news item, the Lojban is a translation.
Does that count as artificial? Isn't the other one a translation as well?
I would be very surprised if the Lojban was the original and the English
was a translation, so the two pieces seem to be of the same kind.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the
> > (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what
> > are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that
> > you believe that?".
>
> Boy, yeah, I don't think that second one was intended.
>
> Fixing.

But my point was that the second one is not a correct reading
of the Lojban, even though that's probably what was intended.

ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u

Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma}

mu'o mi'e xorxes


On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 6/11/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:24:05PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > I suspect the intention was the much more natural "What are the
> > > (logical) reasons you have for believing that?" rather than "what
> > > are the logical reasons that one would need for concluding that
> > > you believe that?".
> >
> > Boy, yeah, I don't think that second one was intended.
> >
> > Fixing.
>
> But my point was that the second one is not a correct reading
> of the Lojban, even though that's probably what was intended.
>
> ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u
>
> Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma}
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u}, although I
admit the English gloss leaves much to be desired. I never said I'd make
a good commissioner. zo'o

--
Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us>

On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u
> >
> > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma}
>
> I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u}, although I
> admit the English gloss leaves much to be desired. I never said I'd make
> a good commissioner. zo'o

But what answer can one give to that? Why would anyone be interested
in asking that? So even if the English gloss was perfectly clear, I don't
think it's a good example simply because the question just sounds too
unlikely.

In any case, I'm not withholding my vote for this example but for the
{ki'u nai} one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 14214

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:33:55AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e
> > > di'u
> > >
> > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u ne ni'i ma}
> >
> > I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do krici la'e di'u},
> > although I admit the English gloss leaves much to be desired. I
> > never said I'd make a good commissioner. zo'o
>
> But what answer can one give to that?

lo du'u mi nibli le du'u li pa su'i pa du li re

> Why would anyone be interested in asking that?

I'm interested in the chain of logical reasoning in others' beliefs
all the time.

-Robin


posts: 14214

On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:43:03AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > la uest cu se nabmi ge ki'u nai lo nu ubu mitcinpa'i nanmu gi
> > > ki'u lo nu ubu simlu lo ka djica lo nu pilno lo nu catni fi lo
> > > gubni jibri kei lo nu cpedu lo cinse nu selfu
> > >
> > > "West is in trouble not because he is a gay man, but because
> > > he is a man who was apparently willing to use the power of his
> > > public office to solicit sexual favors."
> >
> > I assume this is artificial?
>
> The English was grabbed from some news item, the Lojban is a
> translation. Does that count as artificial? Isn't the other one a
> translation as well? I would be very surprised if the Lojban was
> the original and the English was a translation, so the two pieces
> seem to be of the same kind.

Sorry, I mean "made up for this purpose". The other example
previously existed and was not made up solely for BPFK usage.
Marked as such.

Done.

-Robin


posts: 2388



<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:33:55AM -0300, Jorge
> Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 6/12/05, Theodore Reed
> <treed@surreality.us> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 11:51 -0300, Jorge
> Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > ni'i ma do krici la'e di'u -> ma nibli lo
> du'u do krici la'e
> > > > di'u
> > > >
> > > > Not the same as: {do krici la'e di'u lu'u
> ne ni'i ma}
> > >
> > > I did in fact intend {ma nibli lo du'u do
> krici la'e di'u},
> > > although I admit the English gloss leaves
> much to be desired. I
> > > never said I'd make a good commissioner.
> zo'o
> >
> > But what answer can one give to that?
>
> lo du'u mi nibli le du'u li pa su'i pa du li re
>
> > Why would anyone be interested in asking
> that?
>
> I'm interested in the chain of logical
> reasoning in others' beliefs
> all the time.
>
I've been trying to figure this discussion out
for a while now. I seem to be deterred by three
factors. 1) I am not sure what is going to count
as the first place of {nibli}, since I don't
understand what can logically necessitate (etc.)
and event; logic is about words (as the name
says). I suppose that this means something like
"a claim that x1 takes places entails (etc.) a
claim that x2 takes place, according to system
x3" So, x1 and x2 are going to be events of some
sort. 2) I apparently don't know all the
subtleties of modifications in Lojban, so it is
not always clear to me what is modifying what in
the examples and thus what the differences are
among the various options presented. 3) The
English glosses help hardly at all, since most of
them are ambiguous in ways that cover several of
the possibilities here.
I take those possibilities to be:
A. It is known that x2 is necessitated by
something and that you believe you know what that
something is; the question now is "What is that
thing that you believe necessitates x2":
(Lojbans iffy in the extreme even for my shots)
{do krici lo du'u ma nibli x2}
An answer here would be some piece of evidence
you believe and that you believe necessitates x2"
(notice that x2 is an even here though a
proposition in the original sentence — as x2 of
{krici} rather than {nibli}.
B. You believe x2. Presumably, you have a reason
for this belief and, let us suppose,that reason
takes the form of believing that it is
necessitated by something else. The question now
is "What is that something else, whose
necessitating x2 justifies your belief in x2?"
An answer would be some piece(s) of evidence you
believe.
(I despair of getting this right in Lojban
sentences involving {nibli} that convey the right
associations, since another causal connective
will be needed to make it work and I am unsure
which to use and how to get the grouping right).
C. You believe x2. That you do so is
necessitated by something. Now the question is
"What necessitates your believing x2?" (Possible
answers include that you are perfectly rationa
and all the evidence (which is adequate) supports
x2.

Now, given {nibli} as written, only the third of
these (C) seems to work, for only it deals with
events exclusively. I take it that this is what
xorxes hold the various examples given all say.
xorxes also seems to think that what was intended
is B, which deals with propositions on one end at
least, hence the need for {la'e} to fit into
{nibli}. A seems to artificial to be a likely
reading in this contextless presentation, but it
would be nice to sort it out as well.
It seems what is needed is to distinguish among
A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of the
{du'u} after {krici}
I gather this is something like {do krici lo du'u
x2 ni'i ma}
B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the scope
of {du'u} and {krici}
{do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma} (?????????)
C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the
whole sentence)
{ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici le
du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}


On 6/14/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> It seems what is needed is to distinguish among
> A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of the
> {du'u} after {krici}
> I gather this is something like {do krici lo du'u
> x2 ni'i ma}
> B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the scope
> of {du'u} and {krici}
> {do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma} (?????????)
> C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the
> whole sentence)
> {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici le
> du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}

Yep, that's about it.

I find C an unlikely question, and in any case looking
into the dialogue from where the example was taken, it
turns out that although C was said {ni'i ma do krici lo
du'u gendra}, almost certainly A was intended:
{do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. (Assuming that's where
the example came from, but that's the only one Google
finds.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 14214

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:30:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> I find C an unlikely question, and in any case looking into the
> dialogue from where the example was taken, it turns out that
> although C was said {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra}, almost
> certainly A was intended: {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}.
> (Assuming that's where the example came from, but that's the only
> one Google finds.)

That's where it came from, yeah.

-Robin


On 6/14/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:30:33PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I find C an unlikely question, and in any case looking into the
> > dialogue from where the example was taken, it turns out that
> > although C was said {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra}, almost
> > certainly A was intended: {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}.
> > (Assuming that's where the example came from, but that's the only
> > one Google finds.)
>
> That's where it came from, yeah.

The fact that in English question words always have to be
fronted probably had to do with the mix-up.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388

Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my
believing not the reason I believed to hold.



> On 6/14/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > It seems what is needed is to distinguish
> among
> > A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of
> the
> > {du'u} after {krici}
> > I gather this is something like {do krici lo
> du'u
> > x2 ni'i ma}
> > B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the
> scope
> > of {du'u} and {krici}
> > {do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma}
> (?????????)
> > C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the
> > whole sentence)
> > {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici
> le
> > du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}
>
> Yep, that's about it.
>
> I find C an unlikely question, and in any case
> looking
> into the dialogue from where the example was
> taken, it
> turns out that although C was said {ni'i ma do
> krici lo
> du'u gendra}, almost certainly A was intended:
> {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. (Assuming
> that's where
> the example came from, but that's the only one
> Google
> finds.)
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>



On 6/14/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my
> believing not the reason I believed to hold.

That was my guess without seeing the context, but
with context, I'd say it's A:

ko'a: ba'e na gendra
ko'e: ni'i ma
ko'a: ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388




> On 6/14/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my
> > believing not the reason I believed to hold.
>
> That was my guess without seeing the context,
> but
> with context, I'd say it's A:
>
> ko'a: ba'e na gendra
> ko'e: ni'i ma
> ko'a: ni'i ma do krici lo du'u gendra

I'm not as confident as you are, partly because I
am now aving a considerable problem separating
the two. Indeed, in a person acting rationally
they would hardly be different: does kohe believe
"It is grammatical because it tests out on the
parser (say)" or does he believe "It is
grammatical" because it test out on the parser?
Assuming he has run the parser test (or
whatever), I don't see how to separate the two
cases empirically. But it is clear that C. is
wrong (although, as noted, "Because it tests out
on the parser; whatever does that is grammatical;
and I always follow the conclusions of valid
inferences from true premises" is a good answer).