WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 14214

I took the liberty of making use of a new program I wrote to start BPFK sections. Let me know if the format is useful, and if it is I'll go apply it to all the other unstarted sections as well. I know I overwrote your stuff, but I'm hoping you won't mind too much.

-Robin

posts: 1912


> Re: BPFK Section: Highlight Discursives
> I took the liberty of making use of a new program I wrote to start BPFK
> sections. Let me know if the format is useful, and if it is I'll go apply it
> to all the other unstarted sections as well. I know I overwrote your stuff,
> but I'm hoping you won't mind too much.
>
> -Robin

Seems fine to me. It would be useful to apply it to the unsatarted
sections so one can find out quickly which are all the cmavo it covers.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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




posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 01:11:15PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > I took the liberty of making use of a new program I wrote to
> > start BPFK sections. Let me know if the format is useful, and
> > if it is I'll go apply it to all the other unstarted sections as
> > well. I know I overwrote your stuff, but I'm hoping you won't
> > mind too much.
>
> Seems fine to me. It would be useful to apply it to the unsatarted
> sections so one can find out quickly which are all the cmavo it
> covers.

Done. (as is probably obvious). There are probably some errors in
some of them, in particular with extra cmavo being included.

-Robin


(Moved from Intensifiers section.)

On 6/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I guess the basic question is, "What does it mean
> to say that something is intensely additional?"

That the additional case is not an ordinary one, but
an extreme one.

> As near as I can make out, the cvlaim seems to be
> that it is that the addition arouses some intense
> emotion (though not necessarily intensely: "even"
> is more literally {ji'a ue} but not necessarily
> {ji'a ue sai}).

I think extreme cases are often surprising, but they need
not be. It is not a necessary condition for "even" that the
case be surprising. For example, I don't think there is
anything wrong with something like:

lo xagji cribe cu citka lo cinki ku ji'a sai ue nai
A hungry bear will eat even insects, unsurprisingly.

So while "even" often does go together with surprise,
because extreme cases tend to be the stranger ones,
surprise is not really a part of what "even" expresses.

Having said that, if what someone wants is truly to
express surprise, and they would do it with "even" in
English, they might perfectly well do it with {ji'a ue}
in Lojban.

> > Why not? It indicates an additonal case, but an
> > extreme one
> > rather than just any other one.
>
> Well, extreme in what way? Things are added or
> not; there isn't a more extreme adding.

Some things get added more naturally than others,
that's all. What is extreme depends of course on
context.

> Of
> course, what is added may itself be extreme in
> some way, but that seems to be a very different
> matter.

Of course. Insects may be extreme in number, for
example, but what counts in the example is that
they are extreme as food for bears.

> > {ji'a nai} should mean something along the
> > lines of "except", but that's
> > a different point.
>
> Again there is a jump here, though maybe less a
> one than for {jia sai} as "even". I take it
> that, out of all the things that suffexed {nai}
> has been taken to do (the whole range of
> negations and beyond, applied to just about
> anything in the vicinity),

Mostly opposites.

> this is a case of
> negating (perhaps polar, perhaps merely
> contradictory)the efeect of {ji'a}, that is,
> either not adding or actually taking away.

I'd go with the opposite of adding, i.e. taking away, but
I don't think I've ever seen it used.

> On
> the one hand, if we list what is added, we call
> attention with this to what is not added (but
> might be expected to be?). On the other hand, if
> we give the addition in general terms we
> explicitly list the exceptions "all but..." or
> "most but particularly not."

A better way of doing "all but ..." is {ro na'e bo ...}.
It's not clear how a UI could be used in this case,
and perhaps that is why {ji'a nai} is not actually
used.

> Both of these are
> perhaps recoverable, especially if we know what
> {nai} is doing<

{nai} generally reverses the sense of the modified word.

but they still seem to be less
> than literal/compositional. Again, the idiom
> seems fine, if nonliteral idioms are allowed.

Perhaps it is only one of several possible choices, but it
would not be idiomatic in the sense that the meaning can't
be obtained from the meanings of the components.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> (Moved from Intensifiers section.)
>
> On 6/27/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I guess the basic question is, "What does it
> mean
> > to say that something is intensely
> additional?"
>
> That the additional case is not an ordinary
> one, but
> an extreme one.

The question now becomes, What is an extreme
case? I suppose that it might be anything
depending on what was at issue, so this does not
help much.
> > As near as I can make out, the cvlaim seems
> to be
> > that it is that the addition arouses some
> intense
> > emotion (though not necessarily intensely:
> "even"
> > is more literally {ji'a ue} but not
> necessarily
> > {ji'a ue sai}).
>
> I think extreme cases are often surprising, but
> they need
> not be. It is not a necessary condition for
> "even" that the
> case be surprising. For example, I don't think
> there is
> anything wrong with something like:

Well, strictly speaking, of course, what is
involved is low a priori probability; surprise is
merely a usual concommitant of unlikely things
happening. So, yes, the example is not
contradictory — though it is odd to some
speakers, I think (English, not necessarily
Lojban).

> lo xagji cribe cu citka lo cinki ku ji'a sai
> ue nai
> A hungry bear will eat even insects,
> unsurprisingly.
>
> So while "even" often does go together with
> surprise,
> because extreme cases tend to be the stranger
> ones,
> surprise is not really a part of what "even"
> expresses.
>
> Having said that, if what someone wants is
> truly to
> express surprise, and they would do it with
> "even" in
> English, they might perfectly well do it with
> {ji'a ue}
> in Lojban.
>
> > > Why not? It indicates an additonal case,
> but an
> > > extreme one
> > > rather than just any other one.
> >
> > Well, extreme in what way? Things are added
> or
> > not; there isn't a more extreme adding.
>
> Some things get added more naturally than
> others,
> that's all. What is extreme depends of course
> on
> context.

Ahah! It is not the adding that is extreme but
what is added. I think this is different from the
emotion cases, where it is the emotion that is
intensified. Here, it is not easy to call this
intensification, since there is not prior
information about where the added item lies along
whatever scale might be relevant (probability for
the first guess, of course). So now we are
getting closer to {ji'a la'anai} but not quite
because the {la'anai} tends to seem to have wider
scope and so make it something unlikely to be
added rather than adding something implausible.
The case of {la'a} is not very useful, since it
comes with a scale already in place and clearly
can be coordinated with the 7- or 9-point scale
(or the 3-point one, for that matter); adding nor
exemlariness does not.

> > Of
> > course, what is added may itself be extreme
> in
> > some way, but that seems to be a very
> different
> > matter.
>
> Of course. Insects may be extreme in number,
> for
> example, but what counts in the example is that
> they are extreme as food for bears.

In any way other than probability or, perhaps,
conditionality (i.e., bears will eat them only
under extreme — and that can probably be
unpacked — conditions)?

> > > {ji'a nai} should mean something along the
> > > lines of "except", but that's
> > > a different point.
> >
> > Again there is a jump here, though maybe less
> a
> > one than for {jia sai} as "even". I take it
> > that, out of all the things that suffexed
> {nai}
> > has been taken to do (the whole range of
> > negations and beyond, applied to just about
> > anything in the vicinity),
>
> Mostly opposites.
>
> > this is a case of
> > negating (perhaps polar, perhaps merely
> > contradictory)the efeect of {ji'a}, that is,
> > either not adding or actually taking away.
>
> I'd go with the opposite of adding, i.e. taking
> away, but
> I don't think I've ever seen it used.
>
> > On
> > the one hand, if we list what is added, we
> call
> > attention with this to what is not added (but
> > might be expected to be?). On the other
> hand, if
> > we give the addition in general terms we
> > explicitly list the exceptions "all but..."
> or
> > "most but particularly not."
>
> A better way of doing "all but ..." is {ro na'e
> bo ...}.
> It's not clear how a UI could be used in this
> case,
> and perhaps that is why {ji'a nai} is not
> actually
> used.
>
> > Both of these are
> > perhaps recoverable, especially if we know
> what
> > {nai} is doing<
>
> {nai} generally reverses the sense of the
> modified word.

"Reverses" is as obscure as "negation;" see
above. And, it is not at all clear that that is
the usual sense of {nai} as opposed to negating
or reversing some other thing in the area (see
{nai} with ordinary connectives and with BAI, for
example), so it is not obvious --in some cases,
at least — how to generalize it into new areas.
I basically wouldn't but just define what it
means in each case, giving it some meaning
plusibly connected (however loosely) with the
base word and negation/reversal.

> but they still seem to be less
> > than literal/compositional. Again, the idiom
> > seems fine, if nonliteral idioms are allowed.
>
> Perhaps it is only one of several possible
> choices, but it
> would not be idiomatic in the sense that the
> meaning can't
> be obtained from the meanings of the
> components.

But in all the other nonliteral cases you have
objected to the meaning can be obrtained from the
components, just not by some presecribed set of
rules. That seems also to be the case here:
{ji'a sai} can be interpreted — largely ad hoc
-- as "even," but it is very unlikely that any
set of rules given beforehand (or the method used
in this case generalized to others) gives the
desired results.

As noted, I have no objection to the usage, just
to the presentation that suggests (and is
apparently intended) that the given
interpretation comes from the interpretation of
the components in some regular way.


On 6/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ahah! It is not the adding that is extreme but
> what is added.

Right, the additional case.

I think this is different from the
> emotion cases, where it is the emotion that is
> intensified.

{ji'a} indicates an additional case, not an emotion,
so yes, there are differences. More comparable
would be something like {po'o sai}, which I would
take to indicate not just the only relevant case or
cases but the only one(s) by a long shot.

Here, it is not easy to call this
> intensification, since there is not prior
> information about where the added item lies along
> whatever scale might be relevant (probability for
> the first guess, of course).

Well, there is the same information as to what it
is an additional case for. For whatever it is that it is
indicated as an additional case, it is indicated as
an extreme one.

> > > Of
> > > course, what is added may itself be extreme
> > in
> > > some way, but that seems to be a very
> > different
> > > matter.
> >
> > Of course. Insects may be extreme in number,
> > for
> > example, but what counts in the example is that
> > they are extreme as food for bears.
>
> In any way other than probability or, perhaps,
> conditionality (i.e., bears will eat them only
> under extreme — and that can probably be
> unpacked — conditions)?

We have to work that out from context. (In the case
of English "even" too.)


> {ji'a sai} can be interpreted — largely ad hoc
> — as "even," but it is very unlikely that any
> set of rules given beforehand (or the method used
> in this case generalized to others) gives the
> desired results.

Then use something that works for you. If you like
{ji'a ue} better, use that. For me, {ji'a sai} gives the
desired results. I don't have a problem with "even"
as an extreme form of "also". If you want to call it
ad hoc, or propose something else that for you is
less ad hoc, you are welcome to do so.

> As noted, I have no objection to the usage, just
> to the presentation that suggests (and is
> apparently intended) that the given
> interpretation comes from the interpretation of
> the components in some regular way.

Ok, noted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 6/27/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Ahah! It is not the adding that is extreme
> but
> > what is added.
>
> Right, the additional case.
>
> I think this is different from the
> > emotion cases, where it is the emotion that
> is
> > intensified.
>
> {ji'a} indicates an additional case, not an
> emotion,
> so yes, there are differences. More comparable
> would be something like {po'o sai}, which I
> would
> take to indicate not just the only relevant
> case or
> cases but the only one(s) by a long shot.

Now I really have trouble: what is more only than
"only," an absolute concept I would have thought
(it is just a quantified conditional after all).
Are you saying that {po'o} means "only relevant
case" and {po'o sai} means "only case period"?
That actually makes sense, but is ungeneralizable
to other concepts, "addition" for example. Each
of these critters (even the ones that are all
emotions) has its own logic and the 7-point scale
(or the 3-point) interacts with that logic in a
unique way, often not predictable (or regu;arly
explicable) from the logic and scale addition.

> Here, it is not easy to call this
> > intensification, since there is not prior
> > information about where the added item lies
> along
> > whatever scale might be relevant (probability
> for
> > the first guess, of course).
>
> Well, there is the same information as to what
> it
> is an additional case for. For whatever it is
> that it is
> indicated as an additional case, it is
> indicated as
> an extreme one.

Still, the notion of adding an extreme case is
very different from almost any other use of
{sai}, so, even if this makes sense here, it is
not generalizable as a useful guide to what {sai}
means away from emotions (and that is not great
for some of the emotion cases even).

> > > > Of
> > > > course, what is added may itself be
> extreme
> > > in
> > > > some way, but that seems to be a very
> > > different
> > > > matter.
> > >
> > > Of course. Insects may be extreme in
> number,
> > > for
> > > example, but what counts in the example is
> that
> > > they are extreme as food for bears.
> >
> > In any way other than probability or,
> perhaps,
> > conditionality (i.e., bears will eat them
> only
> > under extreme — and that can probably be
> > unpacked — conditions)?
>
> We have to work that out from context. (In the
> case
> of English "even" too.)

I don't see "even" as presenting the same
problem; we may wonder about what is the source
of the improbability of the improbable addition
but we know that it is a matter of probability,
not some other unknown scale).

> > {ji'a sai} can be interpreted — largely ad
> hoc
> > — as "even," but it is very unlikely that
> any
> > set of rules given beforehand (or the method
> used
> > in this case generalized to others) gives the
> > desired results.
>
> Then use something that works for you. If you
> like
> {ji'a ue} better, use that. For me, {ji'a sai}
> gives the
> desired results. I don't have a problem with
> "even"
> as an extreme form of "also". If you want to
> call it
> ad hoc, or propose something else that for you
> is
> less ad hoc, you are welcome to do so.

I have no problem with ad hoc explanations or
using them to help one remember or consider
reasonable some interpretation of a form. My
problem is with talk like "{ji'a sai} gives the
desired result" as though those results were
inherent in the form (and surrounding apparatus)
rather than in you — though you do qualify it
this time with "for me," which suggests a more
subjective approach.

> > As noted, I have no objection to the usage,
> just
> > to the presentation that suggests (and is
> > apparently intended) that the given
> > interpretation comes from the interpretation
> of
> > the components in some regular way.
>
> Ok, noted.

It would be nice if it were acted upon as well,
and retroactively to some earlier cases.


On 6/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Are you saying that {po'o} means "only relevant
> case" and {po'o sai} means "only case period"?

Not necessarily, just more emphatic. Something like
"the only" and "the very only", if that were possible in
English.

But don't worry if it makes no sense to you. I have never
used it or seen it used and I don't really see much point
in trying to explain further if it's not immediately obvious.

> Still, the notion of adding an extreme case is
> very different from almost any other use of
> {sai}, so, even if this makes sense here,

{ji'a} takes care of the additional case bit. {sai} just
adds the extremeness part, which is what {sai}
normally does.

> > > As noted, I have no objection to the usage,
> > just
> > > to the presentation that suggests (and is
> > > apparently intended) that the given
> > > interpretation comes from the interpretation
> > of
> > > the components in some regular way.
> >
> > Ok, noted.
>
> It would be nice if it were acted upon as well,
> and retroactively to some earlier cases.

I note what your objection is, but since I don't share it, I'm not
sure what kind of action you expect.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 6/27/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Are you saying that {po'o} means "only
> relevant
> > case" and {po'o sai} means "only case
> period"?
>
> Not necessarily, just more emphatic. Something
> like
> "the only" and "the very only", if that were
> possible in
> English.

I don't think it is; in any clearly meaningful
way, surely not.

> But don't worry if it makes no sense to you. I
> have never
> used it or seen it used and I don't really see
> much point
> in trying to explain further if it's not
> immediately obvious.

But you seem to think it makes sense, which
raises the question "What sense does it make?"
As usual when you make these kinds of claims, I
have provided a possible meaning, which you say
is not it. If this is coming by a rule, what is
the rule and how does it apply here. Since the
case is very different from the other ones, it
does not seem to be a generalization from them
(they intensify the sense of the moodified term,
this apparently intensifies some scalable feature
associated with some attached sumti).

> > Still, the notion of adding an extreme case
> is
> > very different from almost any other use of
> > {sai}, so, even if this makes sense here,
>
> {ji'a} takes care of the additional case bit.
> {sai} just
> adds the extremeness part, which is what {sai}
> normally does.

But it normally makes stronger (not extreme, your
habits to the contrary notwithstanding) whatever
is the meaning of the word it modifies
grammatically; here it does not work that way at
all and, indeed, does not obviously make anything
present in the sentence stronger.

> > > > As noted, I have no objection to the
> usage,
> > > just
> > > > to the presentation that suggests (and is
> > > > apparently intended) that the given
> > > > interpretation comes from the
> interpretation
> > > of
> > > > the components in some regular way.
> > >
> > > Ok, noted.
> >
> > It would be nice if it were acted upon as
> well,
> > and retroactively to some earlier cases.
>
> I note what your objection is, but since I
> don't share it, I'm not
> sure what kind of action you expect.

It is a pity you do not share my objection, since
it has the virtue of not involving me in what has
so far been mainly an unsuccessful (even
ludicrous) attempt to explain disparate bits of
Lojban by some single schema (which doesn't even
work in its home ground in the way you seem to
think it does there and elsewhere). It also
relieves me of the task (which you have but will
refuse as usual to undertake) of actually saying
how this schema works in particular cases. As
usual, I would hope (but never expectafter all
these years) that you would put up what is needed
or not make the claims in the first place (or
withdraw them once made).


It turns out I did use {po'o sai} at least once before:

-- i o'e le mi xrula zo'u mi fuzme tu'a xy i xy tai ruble
i xy tai zanbebna i xy ponse lo vo kinli ku po'osai
tepi'o lo nu bandu xy le munje

(closeness) as for my flower, I'm responsible for her.
She's so weak. She's so naive. She has four thorns
only-intense to defend her from the world.

(The original:

"Tu sais... ma fleur... j'en suis responsable! Et elle est
tellement faible ! Et elle est tellement naïve. Elle a
quatre épines de rien du tout pour la protéger contre
le monde...")

mu'o mi'e xorxes


On Monday 27 June 2005 15:18, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> A better way of doing "all but ..." is {ro na'e bo ...}.
> It's not clear how a UI could be used in this case,
> and perhaps that is why {ji'a nai} is not actually
> used.

I think {ji'anai} is pretty close in meaning to {po'o}:
mi pilno lo treci'e ji'anai
I use the metric system, not in addition to another.
The difference is that I could still say that if I use metric as my main
system and use some other units additionally.

phma
--
1 m = 3*3*5*7*47*44351/73/293339 * Cs133


On 7/9/05, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org> wrote:


> mi pilno lo treci'e ji'anai
> I use the metric system, not in addition to another.
> The difference is that I could still say that if I use metric as my main
> system and use some other units additionally.

I think I would prefer {ra'u} for that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes