#923
4:18 AM Thu 1 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Tagged termsets  and errata
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



Clark says:

>According to le cukta, "It is grammatical for a
>termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag rather than a sumti,
>...."
>
>Unfortunately, the grammar(s) in the very same book say otherwise. In a
>term, a tag (or FA) can precede either a simple sumti or a KU. A term
>can also be an unadorned termset. It can't be a tagged termset.

I think I never used termsets, and I hadn't realized this, but looking at
the formal grammar it seems you're right!

>Since le cukta is self-contradictory, this qualifies as an erratum.
>Several interesting questions suggest themselves:
>
>1. Which way should the conflict be resolved? I remember some of the
>discussions pointing out the need for a facility like this, and I
>acknowledge the lack without it. On the other hand ... well, it's rather
>unfortunate to have to modify the grammar after the baseline.

I believe the formal grammar takes precedence over the explanatory
text. In any case, the example could be changed to {nu'i zu'a la djordj
la'u lo mitre be li mu nu'u}, which is grammatical.

I still prefer the no-termset method: {zu'a la djordj va lo mitre be li mu}.


co'o mi'e xorxes





------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#924
9:22 AM Thu 1 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: la zen.
 From:  Robin  Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





Pablo Stafforini wrote:






> From: "Pablo Stafforini" cancrian-@iname.com
>
>         For me, making a lujbo for "zen" would imply puting together contradictory
> words. In fact, I wonder if one could not make a *sintactically* incorrect
> lujbo so as to approximate its meaning... ;)

#925
10:27 AM Thu 1 Apr 99
 Subject:  Restrictive phrases, etc., ...
 From:  c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk

OK, so using the restrictive clause type thingies,
I can say ...

    mi puzi tcidu le cukta poi ke'a cpana le jubme
    I/we recently read the book,
                 which is the thing upon the table.

and

    le cukta poi ke'a cpana le jubme ku'o barda
    the book, which is the thing on the table, is big.

Yes?

Now, avoiding the restrictive phrases, where do I put
the tenses?  How would I say these in a more directly
lojbanic manner?


cdw
===
" If you never go off at a tangent
  you will forever run in circles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.onelist.com
Sign up for a new email list today
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#926
10:50 AM Thu 1 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Restrictive  phrases, etc., ...
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la sidirait. cusku di'e

> OK, so using the restrictive clause type thingies,
> I can say ...
>
>     mi puzi tcidu le cukta poi ke'a cpana le jubme
>     I/we recently read the book,
>                  which is the thing upon the table.
>
> and
>
>     le cukta poi ke'a cpana le jubme ku'o barda
>     the book, which is the thing on the table, is big.
>
> Yes?
>
> Now, avoiding the restrictive phrases, where do I put
> the tenses?  How would I say these in a more directly
> lojbanic manner?
>

How about, for the first one:

mi puzi tcidu le cukta pe ca tu'i le jubme

or (and I'm not sure about this)

puziku mi tcidu le cavi jubme cukta

That, even if it is grammatical, means that it is a here-and-now
table-type-of book, rather than specifically a book which is on the table
now; it is to avoid this vagueness that relative clauses are sometimes
required.

The second one seems a bit easier:

le cukta pe vi le jubme cu barda

or even perhaps

le vi jubme cukta cu barda

co'o mi'e robin.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come check out our brand new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: Making the Internet intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#927
5:02 PM Thu 1 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: la zen.
 From:  Pablo Stafforini

From: "Pablo Stafforini" cancrian-@iname.com

> For example, in Lojban, {ninmu} means "a female humanoid person".
>  The English word
> "woman" means "a female human adult", the Greek "gineka" means "a
> married female
> human" and the Turkish "kadIn" means "a female human non-virgin"
> (actually, it's not
> even that simple, since the meaning also changes according to
> context).  Leaving
> _everything_ up to everyday use would result in different
> meanings of {ninmu} similar
> to some of the translation errors we see between natlangs.  I've
> just finished writing
> a piece on Turkish, which concludes with the following exchange I
> had with a Turkish
> student (in English) ...

First, sorry about the misspelling of lujvo. I guess I confused the "jvo"
with the "jbo" because of the rafsi {jbo} for the gismu {lojbo}. (bad
excuse!)

As regards the text by robin, I would say the problem is that there's never
an exact definition for a lujvo, since its construction derives from 2 or
more gismu (or cmavo). It's never perfectly clear what "xxx type-of yyy"
means. In fact, I believe the claim for semantical precision is illusory,
since, well, there's always a level of "tolerance" for interpreting a
certain word. Every word is, strictly speaking, a metaphor. It certainly
takes a high degree of abstraction (= "metaphorization") to apply the notion
of the "middle" of a square to the "middle" of the day, or the "middle" of a
process. And we can take this example to any degree whatsoever. For example,
the "door" of a car is not the "door" of a house; etc. We must, if we want
to stick to our claim of "unambiguity", to go on and create new words ad
infinitum.
	Don't get me wrong: I think Lojban has done a great job for getting rid of
ambiguity in orthography, phonology, and grammar. But as regards the
semantical part, I think there are some problems. As I said before, the
problem of ambiguity in semantics is very complex. Now, the problem I
perceive with lojban is that it gives fixed definitions for words (gismu), a
thing which is just oposed to the essence of semantics, since words are
understood by their use, and at the same time they are defined by their use,
so that the real meaning is the complex sum of all its everyday uses. A
dictionary only tries to approximate that, but it's always aimed to a person
that have already learned his vocabulary in a "natural" way. So, we have a
clear contradiction here: lojban, one the one hand, defines the gismu from
english words already in existence, which were and are used in this
"natural" way; and on the other, wants to "freeze" the meanings and create
new words out of them (lujvo), which are supposed to have a priori
definitions. As I suggested in my other mail, these definitions must be only
a hint, so as to let the word "start" and then, with its everyday use, get
really defined. But this is obviously not what lojban preaches, is it? So we
always get in trouble when we try to give a lujvo for a certain word,
because the definition must be contained by the word itself. In this way, it
will be never be possible to have complex concepts, since we would need
endless lujbos to define them.

mu'o

co'o mi'e. pablov




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas on how we can improve ONElist?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out the Suggestion Box feature on our new web site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#928
6:08 AM Fri 2 Apr 99
 Subject:  semantics ...
 From:  c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk

coi rodo

.i mi pu djica lenu mi cusku di'e rodo
.iku'i mi na kakne lenu mi cusku
          lei pluja sidbo bau la lojban.


la pablov. puzi cusku di'e:

> First, sorry about the misspelling of lujvo. I guess
> I confused the "jvo" with the "jbo" because of the
> rafsi {jbo} for the gismu {lojbo}. (bad excuse!)

Easy to do, easy mistake to make.  I still push many,
even most, of my lojban utterances through the parser
and then through my lujvo splitter and lookup program
to make sure that what I say is grammatically correct,
and that the words mean what I think they mean.


la robin. puzi cusku di'e:

> Lojban, {ninmu}  means  "a female humanoid person"
> English "woman"  means  "a female human adult"
> Greek  "gineka"  means  "a married female human"
> Turkish "kadIn"  means  "a female human non-virgin"
(snip)
> Leaving _everything_ up to everyday use would result
> in different meanings of {ninmu} similar to some of
> the translation errors we see between natlangs.

.ice'o la pablov. cusku di'e:

> I would say the problem is that there's never an
> exact definition for a lujvo,

{pe'i}  The stronger statement is that *all* words in
*every* language can never have *exact* definitions.  To
a greater or lesser extent, the semantics associated with
every word in every language will always be fuzzy.  The
only thing that we or anyone can ever hope for is that
the fuzziness is not so great as to cause significant
misunderstandings.

How do we express to someone else the meaning of a word?
We use more words, and the fuzziness can never disappear.


> It's never perfectly clear what "xxx type-of yyy"
> means. In fact, I believe the claim for semantic
> precision is illusory, since, well, there's always
> a level of "tolerance" for interpreting a certain
> word.

It's not clear to me that there has ever been a real
claim that there is semantic precision.  The explicit
claim is that a tanru is always a metaphor, and that a
lujvo is intended to have one meaning, not withstanding
the fuzziness that will always accompany any word.

It's likely to be the case that  { relxilma'e }  will
always explicitly mean bicycle, rather than the more
general concept of a two wheeled vehicle, which could
include a dicycle (which has the wheels side-by-side,
not inline (and yes, I have ridden one)).


> Every word is, strictly speaking, a metaphor.

Hmm.  I think I disagree with that, because to me, the
word  "metaphor"  means  "an application of a name or
descriptive term to which it is not literally applicable."
As such, any word that *is* literally applicable in some
situation cannot possibly be a metaphor.

However, what I think you mean to say is effectively what
I was saying earlier.  Every word has a greater or lesser
degree of fuzziness.

Back to lojban, however.

> if we want to stick to our claim of "unambiguity", to
> go on and create new words ad infinitum.

As I say above, I don't think the claim of a total lack
of ambiguity is sustainable, and I think that anyone who
thinks that such a claim has been made has misunderstood,
as indeed has anyone who makes such a claim.  The lack of
ambiguity has always been in the realm of parsing,
grammar, etc., and not in the field semantics.

In essence, I'm saying that you're perfectly correct in
almost every respect.  I only disagree with your belief
about what claims have actually been made, and the
consequences of them.


> the problem I perceive with lojban is that it gives
> fixed definitions for words (gismu), a thing which
> is just opposed to the essence of semantics, since
> words are understood by their use, and at the same
> time they are defined by their use, so that the real
> meaning is the complex sum of all its everyday uses.

Hmm. I do agree that lojban gives fixed definitions for
gismu, but I don't believe that doing so is opposed to
the essence of semantics. Words are understood by their
use, yes, but why is that a problem?  If the gismu in
lojban are always used according to their original and
intended definitions, then usage agrees with definition.
Linguistic semantic drift will be an interesting thing
to watch in the case of lojban.


> A dictionary only tries to approximate that, but it's
> always aimed to a person that have already learned his
> vocabulary in a "natural" way.

This isn't always true.  I use both a French dictionary
and a German dictionary, and I've learned neither sets of
vocabulary in a "natural" way.  Please note that I freely
admit that this example is probably not very helpful in
clarifying the situation, however.


> So, we have a clear contradiction here: lojban -

> defines the gismu from english words already in
> existence, which were and are used in this "natural"
> way;

> wants to "freeze" the meanings and create new words out
> of them (lujvo), which are supposed to have a priori
> definitions.

Let me say again that you're making valid and valuable
points here, and much of what you say I agree with.
However, I think the  "contradiction"  that you claim
here is rather less clear than you seem to be saying.
It seems that my understanding of these matters differs
significantly from yours, so let me explain what I think
is true, and we can see where the difference lies.  I'll
start with the basics that we all agree with, and develop
my points as I go.


Lojban has structure words, {cmavo}, and root predicate
words, {gismu}.  Cmavo have many purposes, from simple
bracketing of linguistic constructions, through to the
complex modifications of existing constructions to give
new meanings.

The root predicate words are each intended to occupy a
single point in semantic space. In other words, they are
intended to have one specific meaning.  However, it is
recognised that it is in the nature of language and its
usage that there will always be a greater or lesser
degree of "fuzziness" associated with each gismu.  This
fuzziness is inevitable, and is intended to be only as
large as necessary for communication.  Metaphorical use
of gismu is generally to be discouraged.

In order to warp or modify the meaning of a given gismu
so as to to match the desired meaning,  gismu (and more
generally {brivla} )  can be gathered together into a
{tanru}.  Each of the brivla in a tanru modifies the next
in a manner that depends upon the context.  The order of
modification is specifically defined by the grammar - the
words in a tanru always associate to the left.  B1 B2 B3
is always to be understood as  (B1 B2) B3.  This is one
specific example of where lojban is completely
unambiguous.


The meaning of a tanru is largely determined by context,
and a given tanru could have several potential meanings.
The place structure is taken from the last brivla in the
tanru, and the meaning is generally a restriction of the
meaning with that brivla alone.

Gismu can also be glued together to make a compound word,
called a {lujvo}.  In principle, a lujvo can have just as
many possible meanings as the equivalent tanru.  However,
a lujvo is intended to enter the language with one of
those meanings chosen as  "the"  meaning for that lujvo.

Given this description we can see that it is not always
possible  /a priori/  to know for certain the one true
meaning associated with a given lujvo.  However, it is
guaranteed that the meaning will be one of the possible
meanings of the corresponding tanru. It is expected that
it will usually be obvious, but perhaps not always.  It
is, however, expected that the meaning of a lujvo should
be generally guessable, and if a listener knows that a
guess has been made then no deep-seated misunderstandings
should happen.

What I do not know at the moment is how that one true
meaning for a given lujvo will be decided.  So far it
seems to have been the case that a lujvo is coined, and
then people have agreed that it's reasonable, and so it
has been adopted officially.  Er, whatever that means.


Finally to return to your posting about lujvo:

> we always get in trouble when we try to give a lujvo
> for a certain word, because the definition must be
> contained by the word itself.

This is largely true, although not entirely.  The
definition must be one of those possible from the
associated tanru, yes, and if that's what you mean
then fine.


> In this way, it will be never be possible to have
> complex concepts, since we would need endless lujvos
> to define them.

Now, this seems to be your final conclusion, and while it
has some merit  (which I'll come to in a moment)  I think
it goes just a little too far.  Complex concepts can be
embodied in tanru with their meanings pinned down by the
specific context.  This is what happens with natural
languages, and I think every usable language will have
this same property.  If I have an idea that you haven't
ever come across, I will have to shape that idea in your
mind using words you already know.  In English we don't
(often) create entirely words for ideas we have.

Well, not often.  It does happen on occasion, and I have
explicitly used the idea in both my previous research as
a mathematician and in my current work as principal
researcher for a commercial company specialising in
radar.  ( Side note: the word "radar" originally came an
acronym - "RAdio Detection And Ranging", but it is now a
word that has come into English in its own right.)

In my research I and my colleagues often discuss several
complex ideas over a period of a few hours, or even days.
To each of these complex ideas, constructions or concepts
we give nonsense names, invented words.  Concept builds
upon concept, and we need to be able to refer to each one
quickly and effectively, and so we deliberately build a
dictionary of nonsense words.

At the end of the session, those nonsense words whose
definitions we can still remember magically correspond to
the important concepts, because that's the way the brain
works.

We could do the same thing in lojban by inventing proper
names all the time - la glob., la tat., la kanet., and so
on, but in the end we may want a new word in the language
to cover the new concept, a concept not easily covered by
a tanru, and hence not easily covered by a lujvo.

Tricky.


mu'o

co'o mi'e. sidirait.
====================
" If you never go off at a tangent
  you will forever run in circles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#929
6:35 AM Sat 3 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

coi rodoi

{.o'i} long theoretical piece - delete if you're not interested in
semantics!

This current discussion on semantics has got me onto my favourite
hooby-horse, categorisation theory.  Briefly, there are two opposing
interpretations of categorisation, with a few people like Adrienne Lehrer,
Ray Jackendoff and, of course, myself, sitting (sometimes uncomfortably) in
the middle.  In the one camp, we have what we can call "classical
semantics", which assumes that complex concepts can be broken down into
simple features, which constitute the "meaning" of the word, in the sense of
its truth conditions (which is not always the way the word is used - such
things are removed to the lowly realm of pragmatics).

For example, the English word "woman" refers to a category WOMAN, having the
features [+HUMAN][+FEMALE][+ADULT].  In other words, if the statements

H(x)
F(x)
A(x)

are all true, then

W(x)

is true.  Similarly, for Turkish KADIN, {H(x) ^ F(x) ^ ~V(x)} => K(x) ,
where V -> "is a virgin".

In the other camp, we have the cognitivist, fuzzy, prototype-based, "all
thought is metaphorical" people - George Lakoff, Mark Johnson and the rest.
From this point of view, WOMAN is a category resting on a prototypical idea
of "woman", maybe with metaphorical extensions and associations.  Categories
are fuzzy, and some members are more central to the category than others -
to give Eleanor Rosch's celebrated example, a robin is more of a bird than
an ostrich.

However, as Anna Wierzbicka has pointed out, this doesn't explain why an
ostrich is still definitely a bird, and a bat is not.  We therefore need to
be careful when dealing with, in her words, "the fashionable prejudice that
human thinking is 'fuzzy'."  Looking at WOMAN, the feature [+ADULT] is
derived from a category, ADULT, that is fuzzy (except in strictly legal
terms) so you may sometimes be unsure as to whether to call a particular
female human a "woman" or a "girl", but the other two features are pretty
unfuzzy - an adult female bird is definitely not a woman, and when Captain
Kirk says of the Enterprise, "she is a beautiful woman, and I love her," he
is being obviously and deliberately metaphorical (in this case in order to
confuse a hostile alien).  The problem is that one cannot always, or even
often, deduce the boundaries of a category from its prototype.  Margaret
Thatcher is, many would claim, some way removed from the prototype of WOMAN
({zo'o} or even of HUMAN), but, (zo'onai} she definitely _is_ a woman,
whereas many people who possess more of the features of a prototypical woman
are excluded from the category because of the rather obvious fact that they
are male.

What I have proposed is a division of features into "defining" and "typical"
features (similar to Lehrer's "obligatory" and "optional" features).  Thus
WOMAN has the defining features [+HUMAN][+FEMALE][+ADULT] and a whole bundle
of typical features, such as [-VIRGIN][+BREASTS] etc. etc.  I also divided
features into those which may change status and those which are pretty much
invariable (e.g. [+ADULT] is a weak defining feature, since there are some
situations where it doesn't apply.

So how does all this apply to defining gismu, lujvo etc.?  I would argue
that a gismu definition gives the defining features of a category, but not
its typical features, except perhaps in cases where one of the sumtiplaces
has a default value.  Thus if I say {lo ninmu} I simply mean
[+HUMAN][+FEMALE] and am not making claims about anything else.  If,
however, I say {lo'e ninmu} - typical woman- or {le'e ninmu} -
stereotypical woman, that's when things get really fuzzy and culturally
specific, because I am drawing on a a load of typical features which are not
present in the gismu definition.  {lo'e ninmu} is bound to have different
meanings in different cultures, even amongst native speakers of Lojban, if
such beings ever come into existence.  And of course, if I say {le ninmu}, I
could mean just about anything, though Gricean maxims demand that it be
something pretty closely related to {lo ninmu}, if not the same thing, and
Lojban etiquette demands that I mark it with {pe'a} if it is definitely not
female or humanoid in any way.

When it comes down to the lexicographical business of writing authoritative
definitions for gismu, we will (as I think Pablo said) run into serious
problems when we move outside English.  For those who weren't around during
the infamous {djuno} debate - the definition of {djuno} is:

x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4

Unfortunately, while the word "know" in English normally implies that what
you know is true, the equivalent words in many other languages do not (e.g.
in Turkish you can say "dog^ru biliyorsam" - "?if I know rightly").  This
led to a massive string on whether you could use {djuno} for something which
is false.

What this indicates is that before going multilingual with the gismu list
(which it is high time we did) we need to think carefully about our
lexicography.  One solution would be to adopt a feature-based analysis of
the gismu involved, using features which are, as far as possible, consistent
across cultures.  An alternative would be to use the Natural Semantic Model
proposed by Anna Wierzbicka, which aims to define terms using a limited
number of universally accepted words (I think the current total is 90).  I'm
actually pretty sceptical about Wierzbicka's view of semantics, but
lexicographically speaking, NSM makes a lot of sense.

None of this, of course, will provide us with rock-solid definitions which
are universally applicable - this kind of thing only existed in a
pre-Wittgensteinian universe.  Nevertheless, I think a bit of semantic
analysis now might save us a lot of grief later.

co'o mi'e robin.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Da! Come see our new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: A free email community service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#930
11:08 AM Sat 3 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics
 From:  Pablo Stafforini

coi rodo

	You are right, Robin. The division between defining and typical features is
essential to the analysis of this problem.
	I have some points that I would like to express, but they all depend on one
aspect of lojban that is not very clear to me: Are lojban words defined by
the typical ENGLISH features? When you say "...before going multilingual
with the gismu list (which it is high time we did) we need to think
carefully about our lexicography." I perceive that you are affirming my
question. But, at the same time, this would be strange, since lojban has
always aimed to be a "culturally neutral" language.
	More to come, after this point is clarified...

co'o mi'e. pablov.


> From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr
>
> coi rodoi
>
> {.o'i} long theoretical piece - delete if you're not interested in
> semantics!
>
> This current discussion on semantics has got me onto my favourite
> hooby-horse, categorisation theory.  Briefly, there are two opposing
> interpretations of categorisation, with a few people like Adrienne Lehrer,
> Ray Jackendoff and, of course, myself, sitting (sometimes
> uncomfortably) in
> the middle.  In the one camp, we have what we can call "classical
> semantics", which assumes that complex concepts can be broken down into
> simple features, which constitute the "meaning" of the word, in
> the sense of
> its truth conditions (which is not always the way the word is used - such
> things are removed to the lowly realm of pragmatics).
>
> For example, the English word "woman" refers to a category WOMAN,
> having the
> features [+HUMAN][+FEMALE][+ADULT].  In other words, if the statements
>
> H(x)
> F(x)
> A(x)
>
> are all true, then
>
> W(x)
>
> is true.  Similarly, for Turkish KADIN, {H(x) ^ F(x) ^ ~V(x)} => K(x) ,
> where V -> "is a virgin".
>
> In the other camp, we have the cognitivist, fuzzy, prototype-based, "all
> thought is metaphorical" people - George Lakoff, Mark Johnson and
> the rest.
> From this point of view, WOMAN is a category resting on a
> prototypical idea
> of "woman", maybe with metaphorical extensions and associations.
> Categories
> are fuzzy, and some members are more central to the category than others -
> to give Eleanor Rosch's celebrated example, a robin is more of a bird than
> an ostrich.
>
> However, as Anna Wierzbicka has pointed out, this doesn't explain why an
> ostrich is still definitely a bird, and a bat is not.  We
> therefore need to
> be careful when dealing with, in her words, "the fashionable
> prejudice that
> human thinking is 'fuzzy'."  Looking at WOMAN, the feature [+ADULT] is
> derived from a category, ADULT, that is fuzzy (except in strictly legal
> terms) so you may sometimes be unsure as to whether to call a particular
> female human a "woman" or a "girl", but the other two features are pretty
> unfuzzy - an adult female bird is definitely not a woman, and when Captain
> Kirk says of the Enterprise, "she is a beautiful woman, and I
> love her," he
> is being obviously and deliberately metaphorical (in this case in order to
> confuse a hostile alien).  The problem is that one cannot always, or even
> often, deduce the boundaries of a category from its prototype.  Margaret
> Thatcher is, many would claim, some way removed from the
> prototype of WOMAN
> ({zo'o} or even of HUMAN), but, (zo'onai} she definitely _is_ a woman,
> whereas many people who possess more of the features of a
> prototypical woman
> are excluded from the category because of the rather obvious fact
> that they
> are male.
>
> What I have proposed is a division of features into "defining"
> and "typical"
> features (similar to Lehrer's "obligatory" and "optional" features).  Thus
> WOMAN has the defining features [+HUMAN][+FEMALE][+ADULT] and a
> whole bundle
> of typical features, such as [-VIRGIN][+BREASTS] etc. etc.  I also divided
> features into those which may change status and those which are
> pretty much
> invariable (e.g. [+ADULT] is a weak defining feature, since there are some
> situations where it doesn't apply.
>
> So how does all this apply to defining gismu, lujvo etc.?  I would argue
> that a gismu definition gives the defining features of a category, but not
> its typical features, except perhaps in cases where one of the sumtiplaces
> has a default value.  Thus if I say {lo ninmu} I simply mean
> [+HUMAN][+FEMALE] and am not making claims about anything else.  If,
> however, I say {lo'e ninmu} - typical woman- or {le'e ninmu} -
> stereotypical woman, that's when things get really fuzzy and culturally
> specific, because I am drawing on a a load of typical features
> which are not
> present in the gismu definition.  {lo'e ninmu} is bound to have different
> meanings in different cultures, even amongst native speakers of Lojban, if
> such beings ever come into existence.  And of course, if I say
> {le ninmu}, I
> could mean just about anything, though Gricean maxims demand that it be
> something pretty closely related to {lo ninmu}, if not the same thing, and
> Lojban etiquette demands that I mark it with {pe'a} if it is
> definitely not
> female or humanoid in any way.
>
> When it comes down to the lexicographical business of writing
> authoritative
> definitions for gismu, we will (as I think Pablo said) run into serious
> problems when we move outside English.  For those who weren't
> around during
> the infamous {djuno} debate - the definition of {djuno} is:
>
> x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4
>
> Unfortunately, while the word "know" in English normally implies that what
> you know is true, the equivalent words in many other languages do
> not (e.g.
> in Turkish you can say "dog^ru biliyorsam" - "?if I know rightly").  This
> led to a massive string on whether you could use {djuno} for
> something which
> is false.
>
> What this indicates is that before going multilingual with the gismu list
> (which it is high time we did) we need to think carefully about our
> lexicography.  One solution would be to adopt a feature-based analysis of
> the gismu involved, using features which are, as far as possible,
> consistent
> across cultures.  An alternative would be to use the Natural
> Semantic Model
> proposed by Anna Wierzbicka, which aims to define terms using a limited
> number of universally accepted words (I think the current total
> is 90).  I'm
> actually pretty sceptical about Wierzbicka's view of semantics, but
> lexicographically speaking, NSM makes a lot of sense.
>
> None of this, of course, will provide us with rock-solid definitions which
> are universally applicable - this kind of thing only existed in a
> pre-Wittgensteinian universe.  Nevertheless, I think a bit of semantic
> analysis now might save us a lot of grief later.
>
#931
1:57 PM Sat 3 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk


From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

<snip long but interesting introductory material>

> ... before going multilingual with the gismu list
> (which it is high time we did) we need to think
> carefully about our lexicography.

This is unquestionably true.

> One solution would be to adopt a feature-based analysis
> of the gismu involved, using features which are, as far
> as possible, consistent across cultures.

> An alternative ... use the Natural Semantic Model ... which
> aims to define terms using a limited number of universally
> accepted words (I think the current total is 90).

In the end, aren't these two methods basically the same?
In the final analysis, don't they both say ...

  There is a small, enumerated list of points in semantic
    space which have the following properties:

    1. Every language has a word at that location
    2. Between them they cover *all* of semantic space.

??


> ... I think a bit of semantic analysis now might
> save us a lot of grief later.

Er, surely you mean  "... a lot of semantic analysis ..."


co'o mi'e sidirait.
" If you never go off at a tangent
  you will forever run in circles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas on how we can improve ONElist?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out the Suggestion Box feature on our new web site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#932
2:25 PM Sat 3 Apr 99
 Subject:  English, lojban,  definitions ...
 From:  c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk

As I understand it, the intention is that the definitions
of all words in lojban are quite specifically intended not
to carry any of the baggage from English.  I expect that
the main (and perhaps only) reason(s) they are currently
defined in English is because:

  a. English is the first language of most
       of the people doing most of the work;

  b. Most people with access to the lojban
       materials read English.

I would certainly expect that the definitions should be
elaborated sufficiently to ensure that there are very few
real opportunities for significant misunderstandings.


cdw
===
" If you never go off at a tangent
  you will forever run in circles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Da! Come see our new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: A free email community service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#933
4:55 AM Sun 4 Apr 99
 Subject:  Do you have one?
 From:  watkin-
Some people called the Ricky Willaims Heiman Siloutte shirt, others call it the
 Dreaded Football Player shirt.  UT and the Downtown Athletic Club have tried to
 ban them through the Collegiate Licensing Company, but unsuccessfully.
 Thousands of people have got their hands on one of these shirts.  We have some
 as well and are offering you a chance to get yours.  This is the exact same
 shirt that was featured in the Austin American Stateman on December 15, 1998 in
 the Lifestyles section.   Prices are as follows:

White shirt with burnt orange siloutte.  Sizes are S, M, L, XL, and XXL.  XXL's
 ARE $3.00 MORE!!!

1.  $16 +3.20 shipping =$19.20
2.  $32 +3.20 shipping =$36.20
3.  $48 +4.30 shipping =$52.30
4.  $62 +4.30 shipping =$66.30
5.  $70 +5.40 shipping =$75.40

Each shirt after 5 shirts is $14.00 each.  Please add $1.10 shipping for every 2
 shirts over 5 shirts.

Burnt orange shirt with white siloutte.  Sizes are L, XL, and XXL.  XXL's ARE
 $3.00 MORE!!!

1.  $18 +3.20 shipping =$21.20
2.  $36 +3.20 shipping =$39.20
3.  $52 +4.30 shipping =$56.30
4.  $66 +4.30 shipping =$70.30
5.  $80 +5.40 shipping =$85.40

Each shirt after 5 shirts is $16.00 each.  Please add $1.10 shipping for every 2
 shirts over 5 shirts.

WE ALSO HAVE  3.5" x 3.5" PEELOUT  VINYL STICKERS THAT GO GREAT ON WINDOWS.
We will ship one free sticker per tshirt ordered.  If you would like extras they
 are $2 each.

Shipping prices reflect US Priority Mail which takes 2-3 day delivery.

REMEMBER TO ADD $3.00 IF YOU WANT XXL.  IF YOU DO NOT ADD THE $3.00 WE WILL SEND
 YOU AN XL INSTEAD.

Please send check or money order to:

JERIMIAH DOWDY
PO BOX 2596
AUSTIN, TX  78768

Thank you for your time and have a Happy Easter.

PS:  If you are still skeptical about this offer, please send a Self Addressed
 Stamped Envelope along with your email address and/or telephone # and we will
 contact you to give you more information and a URL.  We will not call you if it
 is long distance, so be sure to send an email address as well.

THIS IS LIMITED OFFER!  AFTER MAY 1, 1999, WE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING ANY MORE
 ORDERS.
#934
6:23 AM Sun 4 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la sidirait. cusku di'e

> > One solution would be to adopt a feature-based analysis
> > of the gismu involved, using features which are, as far
> > as possible, consistent across cultures.
>
> > An alternative ... use the Natural Semantic Model ... which
> > aims to define terms using a limited number of universally
> > accepted words (I think the current total is 90).
>
> In the end, aren't these two methods basically the same?
> In the final analysis, don't they both say ...
>
>   There is a small, enumerated list of points in semantic
>     space which have the following properties:
>
>     1. Every language has a word at that location
>     2. Between them they cover *all* of semantic space.
>
> ??

Well, yes, more or less, which is what I find questionable about both,
especially the second claim.  OK, maybe you could produce a minimal set of
words to cover all semantic space, but it would end up with some hopelessly
vague categories, in the same way that Klingon covers all of grammatical
space by classifying words as "nouns, verbs and everything else".

However, if we leave the more exaggerated claims of both methods aside, and
concentrate on what they can do in practice, I think it's largely a matter
of taste as to which one you use.  In my own work I use a variable weighted
feature approach, since that I find that is the most convenient way of
describing the structure of a category, but NSM may be more useful for
definition-writing.  For example

ninmu
x1 [is female] AND {[is human] OR [is like a human]}

Obviously with 5-place gismu it gets a bit more complicated.

Also, in compiling a master definitions list, you don't have to break every
entry down into your minimal set of words/features - you can define the more
common compounds at the start.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is ONElist important to you?  Has it changed your life?
http://www.onelist.com
Come visit our new web site and share with us your stories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#935
6:33 AM Sun 4 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics
 From:  Robin  Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la pablov. cusku di'e






> coi rodo
>
>         You are right, Robin. The division between defining and typical features is
> essential to the analysis of this problem.
>         I have some points that I would like to express, but they all depend on one
> aspect of lojban that is not very clear to me: Are lojban words defined by
> the typical ENGLISH features?
#936
10:18 AM Sun 4 Apr 99
 Subject:  semantics
 From:  bestat-
From: bestat-@aol.com

I like the idea of defining gismu in terms of semantic primitives.  Such
definitions should make it possible for machines to understand them and
better interact with people.  Someone already mentioned defining common gismu
first, then using those gismu in later definitions.  Seems like a good idea.
How about a Lojban dictionary in Lojban?  There are lots of people on this
list, and if each one wrote a definition for a single gismu, a lot of
definitions would get written, especially if a format were chosen beforehand
to adhere to.  Has anyone ever written *any* definition in Lojban?  How did
it turn out?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#937
10:38 AM Mon 5 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" lojba-@lojban.org

At 05:36 PM 4/3/99 +0300, Robin Turner wrote:
>For example, the English word "woman" refers to a category WOMAN, having the
>features [+HUMAN][+FEMALE][+ADULT].  In other words, if the statements
>
>H(x)
>F(x)
>A(x)
>
>are all true, then
>
>W(x)
>
>is true.  Similarly, for Turkish KADIN, {H(x) ^ F(x) ^ ~V(x)} => K(x) ,
>where V -> "is a virgin".
>
>In the other camp, we have the cognitivist, fuzzy, prototype-based, "all
>thought is metaphorical" people - George Lakoff, Mark Johnson and the rest.
>From this point of view, WOMAN is a category resting on a prototypical idea
>of "woman", maybe with metaphorical extensions and associations.  Categories
>are fuzzy, and some members are more central to the category than others -
>to give Eleanor Rosch's celebrated example, a robin is more of a bird than
>an ostrich.

I suspect that I am firmly in this latter camp.  Why?  because in Lojban we
can use the descriptive "le" about an referent that is not in truth what it
is described to be, and a listener can still understand.  Thus the classic
Lojban example "le nanmu cu ninmu" about a woman who is dressed up as a
man, being identified as such by a speaker. The woman does not have the
features of "nanmu" but can still be identified as such.  This is possible
with prototype/metaphorical logic.

>However, as Anna Wierzbicka has pointed out, this doesn't explain why an
>ostrich is still definitely a bird, and a bat is not.

The first and most obvious question is: do ALL languages of peoples
interacting with these creatures identify ostriches with birds and bats
with non-birds.  Modern/western languages are strongly influenced by
Linnean classification and modern science into categorizing things based on
the scientific system of classification, but this is not inherent to the
linguistic sense of the words.

But not all do this. Thus my sister-in-law, an artist and serious nature
lover, seems to attribute to "animal" the exclusion of birds (this led to
an awkward semantics argument one day).  It might be for her that "animal"
is synonymous with "mammal" or even with "beast" (I never thought to ask
her whether a lizard or a bat was an "animal".)

>We therefore need to
>be careful when dealing with, in her words, "the fashionable prejudice that
>human thinking is 'fuzzy'."  Looking at WOMAN, the feature [+ADULT] is
>derived from a category, ADULT, that is fuzzy (except in strictly legal

>terms) so you may sometimes be unsure as to whether to call a particular
>female human a "woman" or a "girl", but the other two features are pretty
>unfuzzy - an adult female bird is definitely not a woman, and when Captain
>Kirk says of the Enterprise, "she is a beautiful woman, and I love her," he
>is being obviously and deliberately metaphorical (in this case in order to
>confuse a hostile alien).  The problem is that one cannot always, or even
>often, deduce the boundaries of a category from its prototype.

I think that to some extent the boundaries of a category may be person and
situation dependent, and hence are idiolect and not descriptive of the
language as a whole.  Again, I cite my sister-in-law's example.  But I
think also that individuals speaking the same language might have slightly
different boundaries between, say, red and orange.

>When it comes down to the lexicographical business of writing authoritative
>definitions for gismu, we will (as I think Pablo said) run into serious
>problems when we move outside English.  For those who weren't around during
>the infamous {djuno} debate - the definition of {djuno} is:
>
>x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4
>
>Unfortunately, while the word "know" in English normally implies that what
>you know is true, the equivalent words in many other languages do not (e.g.
>in Turkish you can say "dog^ru biliyorsam" - "?if I know rightly").  This
>led to a massive string on whether you could use {djuno} for something which
>is false.

A thought. The primary constraint on gismu definitions is that they conform
to their place structures.  It is possible that if you adequately define
the semantics of the place structures you will have defined the gismu.
That this would be adequate has been an assumption of mine. This is, I
think, unlike what is possible with non-predicate languages.  (I hope this
thought is not too incoherent).

lojbab



------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#938
2:44 PM Mon 5 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  John Minot

From: John Minot minot-@texas.net

la lojbab pu benji
> But not all do this. Thus my sister-in-law, an artist and serious nature
> lover, seems to attribute to "animal" the exclusion of birds (this led to
> an awkward semantics argument one day).  It might be for her that "animal"
> is synonymous with "mammal" or even with "beast" (I never thought to ask
> her whether a lizard or a bat was an "animal".)

On this subject, you might want to look at the Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Language (u'ucai, I don't have it with me and can't find the page
number).  It had a small box discussing the curiousity in English of
multiple meanings of the word 'animal' (in nonscientific discourse, of
course).  It showed a chart something like this:

Plants			Animals
			/     \
	      Non-mammals     Animals
			      /     \
	                 Humans     Animals


co'o be'i la djan maynat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist:  The leading provider of free email list services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#939
3:53 PM Mon 5 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



>From: bestat-@aol.com
>
>How about a Lojban dictionary in Lojban?  There are lots of people on this
>list, and if each one wrote a definition for a single gismu, a lot of
>definitions would get written, especially if a format were chosen
beforehand
>to adhere to.  Has anyone ever written *any* definition in Lojban?  How did
>it turn out?


Yes, I have written and sent to the list some definitions. The format that I
used was something like this:

i zo ninmu zo'u  ko'a fetsi lo'e remna a lo'e re'asmi

i zo casnu zo'u  ko'a simxu le ka tavla fi ko'e

i zo dunda zo'u  ko'i cpacu ko'e ko'a

i zo djuno zo'u  ko'a krici ko'e ko'i ije ko'e jetnu ko'o

i zo klama zo'u  ko'a cliva ko'i ko'o ije ko'a litru ko'o ko'u
                             ije ko'o pluta ko'e ko'i

Of course, the definitions could be improved, but I think
using ko'a, ko'e, etc for x1, x2, x3 is a good method. In any case,
the definitions necessarily must give the full place structure of
the word being defined.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#940
4:06 PM Mon 5 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics
 From:  Thorild Selen
From: Thorild Selen thoril-@update.uu.se

Jorge J. Llambas writes:
 > >How about a Lojban dictionary in Lojban?  There are lots of people on this
 > >list, and if each one wrote a definition for a single gismu, a lot of
 > >definitions would get written, especially if a format were chosen
 > >beforehand
 > >to adhere to.  Has anyone ever written *any* definition in Lojban?  How did
 > >it turn out?

That would be useful to those who already have a reasonably large
Lojban vocabulary. It would be more useful if you use only a small
set of words for definitions, then one could use the dictionary
without already knowing most of them.

Here's an interesting puzzle: Given a Lojban dictionary in Lojban,
make up semantics for the words so that the definitions make sense.
(Assume that you know the grammar, but no gismu.)

/Thorild

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is ONElist important to you?  Has it changed your life?
http://www.onelist.com
Come visit our new web site and share with us your stories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#941
8:59 PM Mon 5 Apr 99
 Subject:  di'e preti zo nu
 From:  xod
From: xod xo-@bway.net





ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u





-----
 I've detected a vast, multi-wing conspiracy to provide me with Slack. They can't fool me!!








 New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
 http://www.onelist.com Sign up for a new email list today
#942
9:31 PM Mon 5 Apr 99
 Subject:  Animal chart
 From:  bestat-

From: bestat-@aol.com

The animal chart is on page 105 and looks like this:

LIVING-----animal-----------------animal------------------animal
              \                                  \
     \
               \----vegetable              \-----bird
\-----human
                                                    \
                                                      \-----fish
                                                        \
                                                          \---insect

Or as an outline:
LIVING
1.  vegetable
2.  animal
	a.  bird
	b.  fish
	c.  insect
	d.  animal
		i.  human
		ii.  animal



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist:  The leading provider of free email list services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#943
2:48 AM Tue 6 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la lojbab. cusku di'e







#944
5:18 PM Tue 6 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



la xod presku di'e

>ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u

If I understand correctly, you're asking why don't we write
{lo nu} instead of {le nu}. I will give you my answer, which
does not necessarily agree with what others think.

Sometimes I do use {lo nu}, but you're right that {le nu}
is much more frequent. I don't think this has anything
to do with {nu} in particular. It reflects the fact that {le}
is much more frequently used than {lo} in general.

As I understand it, {le} is used when the referent has
been already identified or is readily identifiable by the
description, whereas {lo} is used for unidentified or
even unidentifiable referents. Some people get fixated
on the veridicality issue and forget this other distinction,
which I consider much more significant in determining
the choice of article. I think the veridicality property is
just a consequence of this more basic one of
identifiability, and rarely helps in deciding which
article should be used.

For example, if I say:

        le plise cu cpana le jubme
        The apple is on the table.

I am giving you valuable information. Presumably you
already know which apple and which table I'm talking
about, and if not, you should not have much trouble
in identifying them. If there are no clues in the context
about which apple or which table I mean, then I should
not have used {le}. Of course, in all likelihood the apple
is a real apple and the table is a real table, so the
veridicality isssue doesn't enter into it.

If I say:

        lo plise cu cpana le jubme
        There is some apple on the table.

I am telling you something slightly different. Now you still
have to know which table I mean, but you may not have
any knowledge about the apple. I am telling you that there
is one (real) apple on the table. Similarly:

           le plise cu cpana lo jubme
           The apple is on some table.

Here you know which apple we're talking about, but not
which table. And finally:

            lo plise cu cpana lo jubme
            There is some apple on some table.

is hopelessly uninformative. It is probably true, but who cares?
This shows why {lo} has to be veridical: if it wasn't, the little
information that contains that sentence would be lost and
it would be utterly meaningless. With {le}, on the other hand,
we can be more flexible and still convey a lot of information.
{le nanmu poi na nanmu} is an example of this, but it shouldn't
be taken as the prototypical use of {le}! In most cases,
{le broda cu broda} is actually true. That {le} allows for some
leeway in this respect does not mean that veridicality is a
significant issue in the choice of article.

Now, in the specific case of {nu}, in most cases we have
a specific and identifiable event in mind:

        mi gleki le nu do presku le selsnu
        I am happy that you asked about the subject.

I am happy about a readily identifiable event: your asking
about this subject. The context makes it clear that it is this
subject that we're discussing now, and that it is this recent
event of you asking. If I had used {lo}, I would not be identifying
which event I mean.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#945
7:25 AM Wed 7 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la xorxes cusku di'e

> la xod presku di'e
>
> >ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u
>
> If I understand correctly, you're asking why don't we write
> {lo nu} instead of {le nu}. I will give you my answer, which
> does not necessarily agree with what others think.
>
> Sometimes I do use {lo nu}, but you're right that {le nu}
> is much more frequent. I don't think this has anything
> to do with {nu} in particular. It reflects the fact that {le}
> is much more frequently used than {lo} in general.
>

True, though maybe not for the reasons below.

>
> As I understand it, {le} is used when the referent has
> been already identified or is readily identifiable by the
> description, whereas {lo} is used for unidentified or
> even unidentifiable referents. Some people get fixated
> on the veridicality issue and forget this other distinction,
> which I consider much more significant in determining
> the choice of article. I think the veridicality property is
> just a consequence of this more basic one of
> identifiability, and rarely helps in deciding which
> article should be used.

While I am reluctant to reopen the notorious le/lo debate, I think we really
need to clarify this point.  The veridical/non-veridical distinction is
semantic, while the known/unknown distinction is pragmatic.  We need to
decide which takes precedence, and unfortunately the book is not terribly
helpful here.

>
> For example, if I say:
>
>         le plise cu cpana le jubme
>         The apple is on the table.
>
> I am giving you valuable information. Presumably you
> already know which apple and which table I'm talking
> about, and if not, you should not have much trouble
> in identifying them. If there are no clues in the context
> about which apple or which table I mean, then I should
> not have used {le}.

This is hard to justify in terms of Lojban semantics as they currently
exist, which enable one to use {le} for anything except for cmene.  I tend
to use {le} as a default article, and {lo} P to mean a member of the set P
(OK, it could be more than one member, but the default is one, I think).  I
suppose this is like Turkish "bir".

> Of course, in all likelihood the apple
> is a real apple and the table is a real table, so the
> veridicality isssue doesn't enter into it.

In this particular example, true.  But not always.

[cut]

> {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is an example of this, but it shouldn't
> be taken as the prototypical use of {le}!

I don't think it was intended as a prototype.  {le plise cu cpana le jubme}
is prototypical, {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is peripheral, and hence more
useful in drawing the boundary between {le} and {lo}, just as the perihperal
cases of ostriches and bats are more useful in drawing the line between
birds and mammals than prototypes such as robins and cows.

> In most cases,
> {le broda cu broda} is actually true. That {le} allows for some
> leeway in this respect does not mean that veridicality is a
> significant issue in the choice of article.

But in the grammar as we have it, the opposite is the case.

>
> Now, in the specific case of {nu}, in most cases we have
> a specific and identifiable event in mind:
>
>         mi gleki le nu do presku le selsnu
>         I am happy that you asked about the subject.
>
> I am happy about a readily identifiable event: your asking
> about this subject. The context makes it clear that it is this
> subject that we're discussing now, and that it is this recent
> event of you asking. If I had used {lo}, I would not be identifying
> which event I mean.
>

Neither, strictly speaking, are you doing so with {le}; it is the context
which identifies, not the article.  As Jorge himself wrote some time back


> Maybe we can even make a properly lojbanic proverb based on
> this and playing with complements and opposites:
>
>     i le zunle cu se pritu
>     i le gapru cu se cnita
>     i le xamgu cu se xlali
>

It is not clear which left-person, high-person and good-person is referred
to, and in fact, since these are Lojbanic proverbs, noparticular referent is
intended.


Perhaps, post-baseline, the best thing to do is scrap {lo} altogether.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#946
11:33 AM Wed 7 Apr 99
 Subject:  ramcitri xivo
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

xu da poi selvla ku'o simsa lo noryru'i poi kansa cadzu (Is
the meaning of a word like a ghost that walks beside?) .i xu
da simsa lo te cartu (Is it coordinates on a map?) .i xu da
simsa lo keljva poi turni lenu le kelsi'i ka'e pilno setai
ke'a (Is it the rules for how a game-piece can move?) .i xu
da simsa lo nilfatci poi te sicni le valsi (Is it the amount
of reality a word can be redeemed for?) .i xu da simsa lo
ciksne poi fatri mi'o (Is it a fantasy we share?) .i xu da
simsa lo mubytcica .a lo terkavbu .a lo nunjitfa (Is it a
trick, a snare, a fraud?) .i xu da simsa lo xemymri pe le
mipypau be lemi'o zazyzva (Is it a postman for the secret-part
of our being here?) .ija xu da simsa lo prenu poi cmene le ti
valsi (Or is it the person which that word is a name for?)

.i lo se gismu cu simsa loi plini be lo tarci (The meaning of
a gismu is like the planets of a star.)


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#947
2:35 PM Wed 7 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <Pine.LNX.3.96.990405235853.25866G-
10000-@ida.bway.net la xod xo-@bway.net cu cusku di'e
>From: xod xo-@bway.net
>
>ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u
>
.i so'ida go'i .i ro le rinka cu srana lei stura bepe loi besna
.i e'u zo krinu

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#948
5:59 PM Wed 7 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>While I am reluctant to reopen the notorious le/lo debate, I think we
really
>need to clarify this point.

I think it's a good thing to discuss this from time to time. Maybe some
people joined the list after the latest rehash and were never exposed
to the debate. And besides, I always learn something new from the new
participants in the discussion.

>The veridical/non-veridical distinction is
>semantic, while the known/unknown distinction is pragmatic.  We need to
>decide which takes precedence, and unfortunately the book is not terribly
>helpful here.

I'm not sure we have a choice as to which takes precedence.
First of all, there is a semantic distinction even if we ignore the
veridicality property. {le cipni} is by definition the same as
{ro le su'o cipni} = "each one of the at least one bird which we're
discussing". {lo cipni} is by definition the same as {su'o lo ro cipni}
= "at least one of all the birds that there are".

You strongly need pragmatics in the case of {le} to determine
what are _all_ the birds, and much more weakly in the case of {lo},
but aside from that, there is an important semantic difference:
the implicit quantifier! Once you have used pragmatics to identify
the complete set of birds (all those under discussion, in the case
of {le}, often only one, and all those that there are, in the case of
{lo}), usually a large number, we are still left with the quantifier:
using {le} you refer to all the members of  the set, and therefore
once you've identified the set you need no further identification.
Using {lo} you only say some property applies to at least one of
the members of the set, but you never identify which member.
This is a semantic difference, not pragmatic. Your claim in one
case applies to an identified referent and in the other case to
an unidentified one.

>> If there are no clues in the context
>> about which apple or which table I mean, then I should
>> not have used {le}.
>
>This is hard to justify in terms of Lojban semantics as they currently
>exist, which enable one to use {le} for anything except for cmene.

Not really. For example, I can't use {le} here:

                le ci verba cu citka lo plise
                Each of the three children eats an apple.

In that example with {lo} each child might be eating a different apple.
Had I used {le plise}, the meaning necessarily would have been that
each child ate the same apple (or apples, but each child eats them all).

The most likely meaning is that each child ate their own apple,
so I couldn't have used {le}.


>>     i le zunle cu se pritu
>>     i le gapru cu se cnita
>>     i le xamgu cu se xlali
>>
>It is not clear which left-person, high-person and good-person is referred
>to, and in fact, since these are Lojbanic proverbs, noparticular referent
is
>intended.

I'm sure you know that proverbs are particularly problematic for this kind
of analysis, certainly they don't always follow the same grammar as normal
speech in many languages. Maybe I should have used {lo'e} there instead
of {le}? Or maybe {ro pritu}, {ro gapru} and {ro xamgu} would make for a
stronger saying?

In any case, the way I would interpret it is something like "imagine any
situation where you have two or more people, then we can say that {le zunle
cu se pritu} = the one on the left has someone to the right." In that
context,
{le zunle} indeed does serve to refer to an identified referent, even if
it's an
imaginary one. On the other hand, if I say {lo zunle cu se pritu}, I'm
saying
a trite nothing, there's someone on the left who has someone to the right,
but there would be nothing to lead you to the proverb's conclusion. Maybe
someone else on the left doesn't have someone to the right and so maybe
being good is not always bad for you after all.


>Perhaps, post-baseline, the best thing to do is scrap {lo} altogether.

I'm not sure we can at this point. In any case, if we were to choose
one single article the best one would be {lei} rather than {le}, but
that's for another discussion.

co'o mi'e xorxes



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#949
8:38 PM Wed 7 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  xod
From: xod xo-@bway.net





On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Jorge J. Llambas wrote:






>
>                 le ci verba cu citka lo plise
>                 Each of the three children eats an apple.
>
> In that example with {lo} each child might be eating a different apple.
> Had I used {le plise}, the meaning necessarily would have been that
> each child ate the same apple (or apples, but each child eats them all).
#950
12:40 AM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> la robin cusku di'e

[cut]

>
> >The veridical/non-veridical distinction is
> >semantic, while the known/unknown distinction is pragmatic.  We need to
> >decide which takes precedence, and unfortunately the book is not terribly
> >helpful here.
>
> I'm not sure we have a choice as to which takes precedence.
> First of all, there is a semantic distinction even if we ignore the
> veridicality property. {le cipni} is by definition the same as
> {ro le su'o cipni} = "each one of the at least one bird which we're
> discussing". {lo cipni} is by definition the same as {su'o lo ro cipni}
> = "at least one of all the birds that there are".
>

The second is undoubtedly true, but I would render {ro le su'o cipni} as "each
one of the at least one of things that I am calling a bird".  Using "we're
discussing" brings another person into the equation, and I don't think {le}
_logically_ implies this, though.

>
> You strongly need pragmatics in the case of {le} to determine
> what are _all_ the birds, and much more weakly in the case of {lo},
> but aside from that, there is an important semantic difference:
> the implicit quantifier! Once you have used pragmatics to identify
> the complete set of birds (all those under discussion, in the case
> of {le}, often only one, and all those that there are, in the case of
> {lo}), usually a large number, we are still left with the quantifier:
> using {le} you refer to all the members of  the set, and therefore
> once you've identified the set you need no further identification.
> Using {lo} you only say some property applies to at least one of
> the members of the set, but you never identify which member.
> This is a semantic difference, not pragmatic. Your claim in one
> case applies to an identified referent and in the other case to
> an unidentified one.

Maybe the confusion lies in the use of "that" the English glosses: "that which I
call" and "that which really is".  What precisely does "that" mean here?  The
normal deictic use of "that" would make both {le} and {lo} refer to a particular
thing - I was assuming that this was not the case, but rather that

{le cipni} = something that I call a bird
{lo cipni} = something that really is a bird

(leaving aside the problematic nature of "really is").  I can see no _semantic_
justification for treating one "that" as deictic and not the other.

>
> >> If there are no clues in the context
> >> about which apple or which table I mean, then I should
> >> not have used {le}.
> >
> >This is hard to justify in terms of Lojban semantics as they currently
> >exist, which enable one to use {le} for anything except for cmene.
>
> Not really. For example, I can't use {le} here:
>
>                 le ci verba cu citka lo plise
>                 Each of the three children eats an apple.
>
> In that example with {lo} each child might be eating a different apple.
> Had I used {le plise}, the meaning necessarily would have been that
> each child ate the same apple (or apples, but each child eats them all).
>

I don't think {le} demands this, though it may suggest it.  Going back to the
discussion of proverbs, you made the same point about my


>   le lajgerku na batci le lajgerku
>

which you said meant that no dog bites itself".  This is not necessarily true,
just as in English "the dog didn't bite the dog" could mean either "the dog
didn't bite itself", or, more probably, "the dog didn't bite the other dog".  In
classical (truth conditional) semantics, both interpretations are possible, but
in pragmatic terms, in English, Lojban and every other language I know, the
former meaning would be expressed by a reflexive.

[cut]

>
> >Perhaps, post-baseline, the best thing to do is scrap {lo} altogether.
>
> I'm not sure we can at this point. In any case, if we were to choose
> one single article the best one would be {lei} rather than {le}, but
> that's for another discussion.

{.a'u.ue}  I find {lei} quite useful.  Consider the difference between

mi se batci le gerku
mi se batci lei gerku
mi se batci le ci gerku
mi se batci lei ci gerku

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#951
1:19 AM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu  - erratum
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

mi puzi cusku di'e

> .ie .i zo rinka se fanva zoi gy. physical cause gy.

There should of course be a {fu} before the {zoi}

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
shop.theglobe.com * One Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in the U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Gourmet, Jewelry, Kids, Outdoors, Sports, More!
             http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#952
2:48 AM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

Colin Fine wrote:

> From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk
>
> vecu'u le notci po'u <Pine.LNX.3.96.990405235853.25866G-
> 10000-@ida.bway.net la xod xo-@bway.net cu cusku di'e
> >From: xod xo-@bway.net
> >
> >ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u
> >
> .i so'ida go'i .i ro le rinka cu srana lei stura bepe loi besna
> .i e'u zo krinu
>

.ie .i zo rinka se fanva zoi gy. physical cause gy. .i pe'i zo krinu .a zo
mukti cu xagmau zo rinka

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#953
3:01 AM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Introductory text is up
 From:   Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

coi rodoi

The introduction to Lojban is finally up on my website at

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8309/lojban.html

Thanks to all who offered their opinions and suggestions, most of
which have been incorporated into the revised version, and
particular thanks to Seth Golub for "demoronizing" the Microsft
dumbquotes.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#954
8:50 AM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: ramcitri xivo
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

michael helsem wrote:

> From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com
>
> xu da poi selvla ku'o simsa lo noryru'i poi kansa cadzu (Is
> the meaning of a word like a ghost that walks beside?) .i xu
> da simsa lo te cartu (Is it coordinates on a map?) .i xu da
> simsa lo keljva poi turni lenu le kelsi'i ka'e pilno setai
> ke'a (Is it the rules for how a game-piece can move?) .i xu
> da simsa lo nilfatci poi te sicni le valsi (Is it the amount
> of reality a word can be redeemed for?) .i xu da simsa lo
> ciksne poi fatri mi'o (Is it a fantasy we share?) .i xu da
> simsa lo mubytcica .a lo terkavbu .a lo nunjitfa (Is it a
> trick, a snare, a fraud?) .i xu da simsa lo xemymri pe le
> mipypau be lemi'o zazyzva (Is it a postman for the secret-part
> of our being here?) .ija xu da simsa lo prenu poi cmene le ti
> valsi (Or is it the person which that word is a name for?)
>
> .i lo se gismu cu simsa loi plini be lo tarci (The meaning of
> a gismu is like the planets of a star.)
>

{.u'e.ui}  Looks like Lojban has found its Wittgenstein!

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#955
11:23 AM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  xa'unro'a xize
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com


.o'u judytirna ko'a goi lo zgike pe seku'u ko'e goi loi mela
ctomei pe li paze (Listening to Baroque music.) .i ze'ucaku
zu'i ko'a pilno lenu ri sinxa le zampanpi (These days it's
used to signify peacefulness,).e le puzu co'u cedra poi clite
(a long-lost age of decorum,) .iseki'unaibo mi tirna jenai go'i
(but i hear otherwise.) .i ku'i .i'o cinri zgike (To me it's
exciting music,) .i ko'a ge smuni gi kunti carmi (full of meaning,
& also full of emptiness.) .i zu'u leko'a smuni cu srana le poi
vlile zi'e poi pluja ku'o pupcne co gubni je sivni nuntra ku ca
ko'e (Its meaning is concerning the wild, complicated changing
of the personal & political life of that time.) .i zu'unai leko'a
kamkunti cu srana le claxu be lo pe ma'i leko'e velmle ku'o krati
bei le pupcne (Its emptiness is the lack of any way to refer to
this changefulness within the canons of beauty for that time.)
.i mi .enai ko'e ka'e jimpe le ta ranxi (I can see an irony there
that they could not.) .i fi le kamvai be ko'e ca'o zmadu ledu'u
zo'e melbi kei ledu'u ri fatci skicu (To them it was more important
to be beautiful than realistically descriptive.) .i li'anai mi
na.e ko'e ka'e jimpe le ti bi'u ranxi (But another irony, ours,
is lost to me:) be lenu ko'i goi lemi'o zgike noi rufydri zi'onai
noi xuldri ge'u ku'o ka'enai broda cei krati le cabdra nuntra
ji'a (from the viewpoint of the 17c., our rough-sad or else
smooth-sad music contains none of our real life either,) .i
seki'unaibo mi'o ba'e jgira ledu'u fu'eje'unai ko'i broda carmi
fu'o (though we insist on being proud of how much it does.) .i
ni'i lenu mi'o krici le kamstace lo larcu keikuku (In our belief
in the sincerity of art,) se tcica ke tiftce zmadu
kuzo'ocu'inaisai (we are by far the more deceived.)


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#956
12:47 PM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: introduction
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

Excellent! -with a few quibbles:

"because of it's other benefits." shd be- "because of its other
benefits."

"how complicated and illogocal the grammar was " shd be
"illogical"

"To say la djim. du xlali would meaning something totally d
ifferent" shd be- "du le (or lo)" & "mean"

""it is equally bad"), and even la djim. xlali" shd be- ""he
is a bad one"" & "la djim. cu xlali"

 "le nu la djim. gasnu cu xlali " shd be- "lenu la djim. zukte
cu xlali"


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#957
10:49 PM Thu 8 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: introduction
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la maykl. cusku di'e

>
> Excellent! -with a few quibbles:
>
> "because of it's other benefits." shd be- "because of its other
> benefits."
>
> "how complicated and illogocal the grammar was " shd be
> "illogical"
>

Hmm - a bit embarrassing for an English teacher to be doing this!

>
> "To say la djim. du xlali would meaning something totally d
> ifferent" shd be- "du le (or lo)" & "mean"
>
> ""it is equally bad"),

According to Jorge, {du} can form a tanru with {xlali} to give that meaning
(which kind of surprised me, but makes sense).  However, it should of course
be "Jim [not it] should be equally bad."

> and even la djim. xlali" shd be- ""he
> is a bad one"" & "la djim. cu xlali"
>

I don't see where the "one" comes in here.

>
>  "le nu la djim. gasnu cu xlali " shd be- "lenu la djim. zukte
> cu xlali"
>

{le nu ko'a gasnu cu xlali} is from the gismu list for {xlali}, though
{zukte} would work just as well - without context there is no difference
between "do" and "act".  It is an English convention to use "do" with "bad"
in the practical sense, and "act" with "bad" in it's moral sense, but I'm
not sure if the distinction carries over that well into Lojban.

co'o mi'e robin. ___________________________________________________________

> Get Free Email

[and the Melissa virus]

> and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#958
10:22 AM Fri 9 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

la robin. cusku di'e

> While I am reluctant to reopen the notorious le/lo debate, I think we really
> need to clarify this point.  The veridical/non-veridical distinction is
> semantic, while the known/unknown distinction is pragmatic.  We need to
> decide which takes precedence, and unfortunately the book is not terribly
> helpful here.

The book was written by someone who thinks that the entire
semantics/pragmatics distinction is pernicious, so expect no help
from me.  However, I personally (not as author of the Book)
think that the specific/non-specific distinction is the most
important one in practice.  Relaxing veridicality is important
so as to preserve specificity: a Lojban sentence cannot be
false solely because a sumti described with "le" fails to meet
its description.

> This is hard to justify in terms of Lojban semantics as they currently
> exist, which enable one to use {le} for anything except for cmene.  I tend
> to use {le} as a default article, and {lo} P to mean a member of the set P
> (OK, it could be more than one member, but the default is one, I think).

No, the default is "one or more".


> >         mi gleki le nu do presku le selsnu
> >         I am happy that you asked about the subject.
> >
> > I am happy about a readily identifiable event: your asking
> > about this subject. The context makes it clear that it is this
> > subject that we're discussing now, and that it is this recent
> > event of you asking. If I had used {lo}, I would not be identifying
> > which event I mean.
> >
>
> Neither, strictly speaking, are you doing so with {le}; it is the context
> which identifies, not the article.

It is the article which tells whether the speaker's intention is
controlling (le) or the facts of the matter are controlling (lo).

A "lo" version of the above example would mean something like
"Some events(s) of your asking about the subject make(s) me happy."

> Perhaps, post-baseline, the best thing to do is scrap {lo} altogether.

Without "lo" or its equivalents "da poi" and indefinite description,
it's hard to make existential statements.  Certainly "lo" is redundant
to the more flexible "da", but it's useful because it conceptually
chunks the notion "some number of".

--
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowa-@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 115,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#959
12:49 PM Fri 9 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: introduction
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

Robin Turner wrote:

> According to Jorge, {du} can form a tanru with {xlali} to give that meaning
> (which kind of surprised me, but makes sense).

Yes, tanru with "du" are mostly embarrassments, and at first they
weren't allowed, until we noticed that "du ja zmadu" is the natural
way to say "greater than or equal to".  In Old Loglan, there were
separate cmavo for "greater than" and "less than" in math contexts
so as to avoid du-tanru.

  However, it should of course
> be "Jim [not it] should be equally bad."
>
> > and even la djim. xlali" shd be- ""he
> > is a bad one"" & "la djim. cu xlali"
> >
>
> I don't see where the "one" comes in here.

I think la maykl. (should be maikl., unless MAH-uckle is the intended
pronunciation) is thinking that names can participate in tanru;
they can't.

--
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowa-@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#960
5:14 AM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Pronunciation ...
 From:  c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk

OK, now I'm confused.  I've downloaded a copy of the
textbook to check on a few things (my copies of the
reference grammar haven't arrived yet.  Bob ??)  and
I've just re-read the bit about pronunciation.  In
particular, the letter  "a".  Here's a complete clip:

txt_bk> The basic Lojban vowels are best described as
txt_bk> being similar to the vowels of Spanish and
txt_bk> Italian.  These languages use pure vowels,
txt_bk> whereas English commonly uses vowels that are
txt_bk> complexes of two or more pure vowels called
txt_bk> diphthongs (2-sounds) or triphthongs (3-sounds).
txt_bk> English speakers must work at keeping the sounds
txt_bk> pure; a crisp, clipped speech tends to help,
txt_bk> along with keeping the lips and tongue tensed
txt_bk> (for example by smiling tightly) while speaking.
txt_bk>
txt_bk> There are five common vowels (a, e, i, o, u), and
txt_bk> one special purpose vowel (y). English words that
txt_bk> are close in pronunciation are given, but few
txt_bk> English speakers pronounce these words with the
txt_bk> purity and tension needed in Lojban pronunciation.
txt_bk>
txt_bk> a  /ah/  'top',   'father'  patfu    /PAHT,foo/
txt_bk> e  /eh/  'bet',   'lens'    lenjo    /LEHN,zhoh/
txt_bk> i  /ee/  'green', 'machine' minji    /MEEN,zhee/
txt_bk> o  /oh/  'joke',  'note'    notci    /NOH,chee/
txt_bk> u  /oo/  'boot',  'shoe'    cutci    /SHOO,chee/
txt_bk>
txt_bk> y  /uh/  'sofa',  'above'  lobypli /LOHB,uh,plee/
txt_bk>
txt_bk> The sound represented by y, called 'schwa', is
txt_bk> a totally relaxed sound, contrasting with all
txt_bk> the other tensed vowels. In this way, the Lojban
txt_bk> vowels are maximally separated among possible
txt_bk> vowel sounds. The English speaker must be
txt_bk> especially careful to ensure that a final
txt_bk> unstressed a in a Lojban word is kept tensed,
txt_bk> and not relaxed as in the English 'sofa'
txt_bk> (compare the equivalent Lojban sfofa /SFO,fah/).


and the bit that *really* confuses me is the line:

txt_bk> a  /ah/  'top',   'father'  patfu    /PAHT,foo/

To me,  "top"  and  "father"  have nothing in common,
and, in particular, to me, the  "a"  in  "father"  sounds
just like the  "a"  in  "sofa".

So, just how *does* one pronounce the  "a" ??
Which of the following gives the best approximation?

    "top", "often", "off", "octet", "October"
    "gas", "grab", "dab", "action", "actual"
    "tug", "mug", "undo", "father", "money"


e'osai ko sarji la lojban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#961
8:23 AM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Samples from Nora's  Parser/Glosser
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

Well, Nora has given her program over to John Cowan for an independent
check before we make it available (partly because the program requires John
to release his parser).  But I can let you see what it does.  Here are two
recent Lojban List texts - on an exchange involving Jorge, and the other a
post by Michael Helsem.

The list of place structure tags will be in plaintext and tunable, and
indeed we will want people to provide inputs for improved tags.

Comments welcome

lojbab


Example 1

> mi na jetnu djuno .i mi na zgana lo tarmi be le temci .i mi jinvi le
> du'u le pensi be ro prenu cu na'e banzu le nu skicu le munje temci .i
> .ai mi na skicu le munje ja jetnu temci .i .ai mi skicu le se lifre be
> mi temci

i li'a i cu'u do le se lifri be do temci na sirji i mi na jimpe le du'u do
te smuni di'u makau i xu do na jinvi le du'u le temci cu purci gi'a cabna
gi'a balvi

> .i se'o mi ka'e frili denpa .i se'o mi so'i lo prenu cu prami .i se'o mi
> na'e cafne pensi la djes. .iu

i ki'anai i mi pu krici le du'u do dy pamrai

> ni'o ca le cabdei ku mi mutci pensi lo drata pendo be mi be'o noi se
> cmene la djEsikas. .a'uro'u .i .ue .uisai mi caca'o tavla ko'a .i ti'e
> le'e citno cu fenki zifre


i xamgu i a'o do joi la djEsikas cu nelsi'u ro'u i funza'a ko

co'o mi'e xorxes

          mi   na       jetnu djuno i             mi   na       zgana
{knower}: me   not true true  know  . {observer}: me   not true observe
          KOhA NA       GISMU GISMU I             KOhA NA       GISMU

                  lo   tarmi be                      le  temci i
{thing observed}: some shape of {object with shape}: the time  .
                  LE   GISMU BE                      LE  GISMU I

             mi   jinvi            le  du'u
{evaluator}: me   opine {opinion}: the fact that {sufficient thing}:
             KOhA GISMU            LE  NU

le  pensi be                    ro    prenu  cu        na'e
the think of {subject}:/prenu-2 every person (is/does) other-than-
LE  GISMU BE                    PA    GISMU  CU        NAhE

banzu              le  nu       skicu                       le
suffice {purpose}: the event of describe {thing described}: the
GISMU              LE  NU       GISMU                       LE

munje    temci i ai                     mi   na       skicu
universe time  . (I will!) {describer}: me   not true describe {thing
GISMU    GISMU I UI                     KOhA NA       GISMU

            le  munje    ja     jetnu temci i ai
described}: the universe and/or true  time  . (I will!) {describer}:

            LE  GISMU    JA     GISMU GISMU I UI


mi   skicu                       le  se           lifre       be mi
me   describe {thing described}: the 2nd place of *Not-Found* of me
KOhA GISMU                       LE  SE           GISMU       BE KOhA

temci i li'a     i cu'u         do                     le  se
time  . Clearly, . (as) said by you  {straight thing}: the 2nd place of
GISMU I UI       I BAI          KOhA                   LE  SE

lifri      be                do   temci na       sirji    i
experience of {experiencer}: you  time  not true straight . {one who
GISMU      BE                KOhA GISMU NA       GISMU    I

              mi   na       jimpe              le  du'u
understands}: me   not true understand {fact}: the fact that
              KOhA NA       GISMU              LE  NU

             do   te           smuni                        di'u
{evaluator}: you  3rd place of meaning {thing interpreted}: what I just
             KOhA SE           GISMU                        KOhA

                makau    i xu                       do   na       jinvi
said {meaning}: who/what . Is it true? {evaluator}: you  not true opine
                KOhA+UI  I UI                       KOhA NA       GISMU

           le  du'u
{opinion}: the fact that {past thing}:/{current thing}:/{future thing}:
           LE  NU

le  temci cu        purci gi'a   cabna gi'a   balvi  i se'o
the time  (is/does) past  and/or now   and/or future . (I just FEEL
LE  GISMU CU        GISMU GIhA   GISMU GIhA   GISMU  I UI



               mi   ka'e                frili denpa i se'o
it!) {waiter}: me   innately capable of easy  wait  . (I just FEEL it!)
               KOhA CAhA                GISMU GISMU I UI

         mi              so'i      lo   prenu  cu        prami i
{lover}: me   {beloved}: many (of) some person (is/does) love  .
         KOhA            PA        LE   GISMU  CU        GISMU I

se'o                         mi   na'e        cafne pensi            la
(I just FEEL it!) {thinker}: me   other-than- often think {subject}:
UI                           KOhA NAhE        GISMU GISMU            LA

djes iu      i ki'anai       i             mi   pu     krici
djes (Love!) . Understanding . {believer}: me   before believe
NAME UI      I UI+NAI        I             KOhA PU     GISMU

          le  du'u      do   dy pamrai           ni'o  ca
{belief}: the fact that you  d  love+superlative     _ At the time (of)
          LE  NU        KOhA BY LUJVO            NIhO  PU

le  cabdei       ku            mi   mutci       pensi            lo

the now+full-day    {thinker}: me   *Not-Found* think {subject}: some

LE  LUJVO        KU            KOhA GISMU       GISMU            LE

drata pendo  be                   mi   be'o noi     se           cmene
other friend of {one befriended}: me   ,    , which 2nd place of name
GISMU GISMU  BE                   KOhA BEhO NOI     SE           GISMU

        la djesikas a'u         ro'u      i ue      ui       sai
{name}:    djesikas (interest!) (-sexual) . (What!) (Wheee!) (-strong
        LA NAME     UI          UI        I UI      UI       CAI

                    mi   ca               ca'o         tavla
emotion!) {talker}: me   at the time (of) continues in talk  {one
                    KOhA PU               ZAhO         GISMU

            ko'a i ti'e                      le'e              citno
addressed}: it-1 . I hear {one who is free}: the stereotypical young
            KOhA I UI                        LE                GISMU

cu        fenki zifre i xamgu i a'o       do   joi           la
(is/does) crazy free  . Good  . (I hope!) you  together with
CU        GISMU GISMU I GISMU I UI        KOhA JOI           LA

djesikas cu        nelsi'u     ro'u      i funza'a        ko   co'o
djesikas (is/does) fond+mutual (-sexual) . Luck+favorable YOU! goodbye
NAME     CU        LUJVO       UI        I LUJVO          KOhA COI

mi'e    xorxes
and I'm xorxes
COI     NAME


Example 2  (from Michael Helsem after removing his English)

xu da poi selvla ku'o simsa lo noryru'i poi kansa cadzu .i xu da simsa lo
te cartu .i xu da simsa lo keljva poi turni lenu le kelsi'i ka'e pilno
setai ke'a .i xu da simsa lo nilfatci poi te sicni le valsi .i xu da simsa
lo ciksne poi fatri mi'o  .i xu da simsa lo mubytcica .a lo terkavbu .a lo
nunjitfa .i xu da simsa lo xemymri pe le mipypau be lemi'o zazyzva  .ija xu
da simsa lo prenu poi cmene le ti valsi .i lo se gismu cu simsa loi plini
be lo tarci


xu                                    da           poi
Is it true? {thing which is similar}: something #1 that
UI                                    KOhA         NOI

selvla            ku'o simsa                     lo
2nd-place-of+word ,    similar {referent thing}: some
LUJVO             KUhO GISMU                     LE

noryru'i                 poi  kansa cadzu i xu
not-particularly-+spirit that with  walk  . Is it true? {thing which is
LUJVO                    NOI  GISMU GISMU I UI

          da           simsa                     lo   te
similar}: something #1 similar {referent thing}: some 3rd place of
          KOhA         GISMU                     LE   SE

cartu i xu                                    da           simsa
chart . Is it true? {thing which is similar}: something #1 similar
GISMU I UI                                    KOhA         GISMU

                  lo   keljva    poi  turni                  le  nu
{referent thing}: some play+rule that govern {one governed}: the event
                  LE   LUJVO     NOI  GISMU                  LE  NU

           le  kelsi'i   ka'e                pilno setai
of {user}: the play+coin innately capable of use   as a form of
           LE  LUJVO     CAhA                GISMU SE+BAI

ke'a      i xu                                    da           simsa
he/she/it . Is it true? {thing which is similar}: something #1 similar
KOhA      I UI                                    KOhA         GISMU



                  lo   nilfatci       poi  te           sicni
{referent thing}: some degree-of+fact that 3rd place of coin  {issuer}:
                  LE   LUJVO          NOI  SE           GISMU

le  valsi i xu                                    da           simsa
the word  . Is it true? {thing which is similar}: something #1 similar
LE  GISMU I UI                                    KOhA         GISMU

                  lo   ciksne      poi  fatri                   mi'o
{referent thing}: some awake+dream that distribute {recipient}: me and
                  LE   LUJVO       NOI  GISMU                   KOhA

    i xu                                    da           simsa
you . Is it true? {thing which is similar}: something #1 similar
    I UI                                    KOhA         GISMU

                  lo   mubytcica         a      lo
{referent thing}: some *UNKNOWN*+deceive and/or some
                  LE   LUJVO             A      LE

terkavbu             a      lo   nunjitfa       i xu
3rd-place-of+capture and/or some event-of+false . Is it true? {thing
LUJVO                A      LE   LUJVO          I UI

                   da           simsa                     lo
which is similar}: something #1 similar {referent thing}: some
                   KOhA         GISMU                     LE

xemymri        pe  le  mipypau     be le  mi'o       zazyzva     ija
*UNKNOWN*+mail of  the secret+part of the me and you state-of+at ; or
LUJVO          GOI LE  LUJVO       BE LE  KOhA       LUJVO       I+JA

xu                                    da           simsa
is it true? {thing which is similar}: something #1 similar {referent
UI                                    KOhA         GISMU

        lo   prenu  poi  cmene          leti       valsi i
thing}: some person that name  {named}: this one's word  . {thing which
        LE   GISMU  NOI  GISMU          LE+KOhA    GISMU I

             lo   se           gismu     cu        simsa
is similar}: some 2nd place of root word (is/does) similar {referent
             LE   SE           GISMU     CU        GISMU

        loi             plini  be            lo   tarci
thing}: the mass of all planet of {primary}: some star
        LE              GISMU  BE            LE   GISMU




----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#962
8:23 AM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  LogFest 99
 From:  Bob  LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

It was pointed out to me that I hjad not actually announced the final
determination for LogFest, so here goes.

Logfest 99, the official annual meeting of the membership of The Logical
Language Group, and associated mini-con will be held the weekend of July
16-18, 1999 here at my house in the Washington DC suburb of Fairfax VA.
The actual official meeting will be held Sunday July 18, 1999 at 10AM.

While we have no confirmation from him, we are hoping that Nick Nicholas
will be here for much of the weekend.  Nick is now living in Soutern
California, and is interested in coming, but has no leave time yet and thus
would have to fly here and back entirely within the weekend.

No specific promises have been made, but comments made by some of you
suggest that attendance will be significantly greater than recent years,
during which attendance has generally been between 10 and 18.

We are located near the Washiongton Metro (subway) making rental cars
unnecessary, and most who come use sleeping bags and our few spare beds so
that attending is relatively cheap (we ask for a voluntary $30 or whatever
you can afford to help cover expenses).

We have not in recent years planned much in the way of a "program", but
suggestions are welcome.  Conversation goes on for much of the night, and
is not always about Lojban, as Lojbanists who attend often have other
interests in common.  We usually get on IRC at some specific times to
involve those who cannot attend in person, and in previous years there has
been talk of a simulataneous UK gathering, though this has not yet come
together.  We usually try to have a couple of periods where some of us try
to converse only in Lojban.  If Nick is here, I think that will happen
rather more than ever before.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#963
2:35 PM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation ...
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk scripsit:

> To me,  "top"  and  "father"  have nothing in common,
> and, in particular, to me, the  "a"  in  "father"  sounds
> just like the  "a"  in  "sofa".

Those examples presume American English, unfortunately.
The best Lojban "a" is Spanish "a" or Australian "ar".
If you speak RP or a closely related dialect, then your "ar" is a
suitable variant.

American English or Scottish or Irish "ar" would be terrible!
In those dialects, the "a" of "father" is the right thing.
In American English only (outside New England), but not Canadianj
English, the vowel of "top" is the vowel of "father", but shorter.

--
John Cowan					cowa-@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
shop.theglobe.com * One Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in the U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Gourmet, Jewelry, Kids, Outdoors, Sports, More!
             http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#964
3:47 PM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  More ...
 From:   c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk

cdw> To me,  "top"  and  "father"  have nothing in
cdw> common, and, in particular, to me, the  "a"  in
cdw> "father"  sounds just like the  "a"  in  "sofa".

jc> Those examples presume American English, unfortunately.
jc> The best Lojban "a" is Spanish "a" or Australian "ar".
jc> If you speak RP or a closely related dialect, then your

jc> "ar" is a suitable variant.


jc> American English or Scottish or Irish "ar" would be
jc> terrible!  In those dialects, the "a" of "father" is
jc> the right thing.  In American English only  (outside
jc> New England), but not Canadian English, the vowel of
jc> "top" is the vowel of "father", but shorter.



OK, so now I'm completely, totally and utterly lost. I'm an
Australian who is living in the UK, has lived in Lousiana,
California and New Jersey,  and I can mimic many,  perhaps
most pronunciations. I've been listening to the television,
both American and British programmes, and I still can't
hear how you can say that there's any similarity between
the vowels in "top" and "father."  My experience with
French suggests that I have a good ear for sounds, and I
can't at all hear what you are suggesting is there.

So, there's clearly something here that you can hear and
that I don't. The bottom line is that I still don't know
how to pronounce the lojban  "a".  I'm not trying to be
difficult, it just seems to come naturally!


Suggestions, anyone?


The next question is this.

        "le solri gusni"   ->   "sunlight"

Is there anything wrong with the lujvo  "solgus" ??  My
lujvo splitter rejects it, but accepts  "solgu'i".  I'm
wondering if there is a problem with my splitter, or with
my understanding of what's permitted in lujvo's.


Thanks for all your help.  My lojban improves slowly.  Now
if only I could think of something both within my abilities
and worth saying!



cdw
===
" If you never go off at a tangent
  you will forever run in circles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 115,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#965
3:54 PM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation ...
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u 199904101214.naa1225-@nickel.cix.co.uk la
c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk cu cusku di'e
>From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
>
>OK, now I'm confused.  I've downloaded a copy of the
>textbook to check on a few things (my copies of the
>reference grammar haven't arrived yet.  Bob ??)  and
>I've just re-read the bit about pronunciation.  In
>particular, the letter  "a".  Here's a complete clip:
>
You must remember that Lojban being an international language, its
materials are written firmly in American vau zo'o.
>
>and the bit that *really* confuses me is the line:
>
>txt_bk> a  /ah/  'top',   'father'  patfu    /PAHT,foo/
>
>To me,  "top"  and  "father"  have nothing in common,
>and, in particular, to me, the  "a"  in  "father"  sounds
>just like the  "a"  in  "sofa".

For most people on the ropno side of the pond "top" and "father" have
nothing in common; but nor, I suggest do many people pronounce the <a>
in "sofa" like that in "father". (I do so pronounce the <a> in 'tonic
sol-fa')
>
>So, just how *does* one pronounce the  "a" ??
>Which of the following gives the best approximation?
>
>    "top", "often", "off", "octet", "October"
>    "gas", "grab", "dab", "action", "actual"
>    "tug", "mug", "undo", "father", "money"
>
For most in southern England, "father" does indeed provide the best
guide. "tug" is not too bad, being fairly low; but in other dialects,
this vowel is more central, and confusable with the schwa.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#966
3:56 PM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: More ...
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk scripsit:

> OK, so now I'm completely, totally and utterly lost. I'm an
> Australian who is living in the UK, has lived in Lousiana,
> California and New Jersey,  and I can mimic many,  perhaps
> most pronunciations. I've been listening to the television,
> both American and British programmes, and I still can't
> hear how you can say that there's any similarity between
> the vowels in "top" and "father."  My experience with
> French suggests that I have a good ear for sounds, and I
> can't at all hear what you are suggesting is there.

Well, listening to myself, I hear them as the same.
Anyhow, the vowel of Australian "cup" or "carp" (short and
long low central vowels) will do the job rather well.
So will either RP or GenAm "father".

So will French "a" (the vowel of "bas" not "pate" for the minority
of francophones that make a difference.

--
John Cowan					cowa-@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#967
5:21 PM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: semantics ...
 From:  Christopher Reid Palmer

From: Christopher Reid Palmer rei-@pconline.com

Robin Turner wrote:

> > A thought. The primary constraint on gismu definitions is that they conform
> > to their place structures.  It is possible that if you adequately define
> > the semantics of the place structures you will have defined the gismu.
> > That this would be adequate has been an assumption of mine. This is, I
> > think, unlike what is possible with non-predicate languages.  (I hope this
> > thought is not too incoherent).

I am sympathetic towards this view myself.

> How then would you distinguish between {blanu} and {crino}?  Same
> place-structure, different meanings.

But the meanings of what go in the places are different. (Note that if
you define meaning as 'place structure' -- which is to say, a usage
pattern -- then you have to assume that any place-filler is (at least
prototypically) a predicate itself.)

innerfire.visi.com/pala-kalloejna/Namespaces.html


-- Chris

_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : rei-@pconline.com : http://innerfire.visi.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#968
6:38 PM Sat 10 Apr 99
 Subject:  Pronounciation
 From:  xod
From: xod xo-@bway.net





On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:






#969
6:33 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation  ...
 From:  c.d.wrigh-

From: c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk


cdw> I've just re-read the bit about pronunciation.  In
cdw> particular, the letter  "a".

cf> You must remember that Lojban being an international
cf> language, its materials are written firmly in American
cf> vau zo'o.

.u'isai

cdw> and the bit that *really* confuses me is the line:
txt_bk> a  /ah/  'top'  'father'   patfu    /PAHT,foo/

cdw> To me, "top"  and  "father"  have nothing in common,
cdw> and, in particular, to me, the  "a"  in  "father"
cdw> sounds just like the  "a"  in  "sofa".

cf> For most people on the ropno side of the pond "top" and
cf> "father" have nothing in common; but nor, I suggest do
cf> many people pronounce the <a> in "sofa" like that in
cf> "father". (I do so pronounce the <a> in 'tonic sol-fa')

I pronounce "father" and "farther" more-or-less the same,
the difference being only in a slight lengthening of the
sound.


cdw> So, just how *does* one pronounce the  "a" ??
cdw> Which of the following gives the best approximation?
cdw>   "top", "often", "off", "octet", "October"
cdw>   "gas", "grab", "dab", "action", "actual"
cdw>   "tug", "mug", "undo", "father", "money"

cf> For most in southern England, "father" does indeed
cf> provide the best guide.  "tug" is not too bad, being
cf> fairly low; but in other dialects, this vowel is more
cf> central, and confusable with the schwa.

I've just spoken with a linguist friend who, upon being
told that the lojban vowels are tensed, widely spaced,
and not easily confused with the schwa, came up, without
significant prompting, with

        /u/   boot, toot, flute, chute
        /o/   top, cot, motley, monster
        /i/   clean, green, machine
        /e/   bet, lens, enemy
        /a/   cat, bat, mat, dab, action


And as a footnote, there is no need in general to send
emails both to me and the list - it just means I get
them twice.  It doesn't matter, but it isn't necessary.


cdw
===
" If you never go off at a tangent
  you will forever run in circles. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#970
8:11 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: more
 From:  Robin  Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

{solgus} won't parse as a lujvo because it ends in a consonant,
and would thus have to be a cmene. {solgusri} would work, though,
and {pe'i} sounds nicer than {solgu'i}.

co'o mi'e robin


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#971
9:45 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation ...
 From:  bestat-

From: bestat-@aol.com


>I've just spoken with a linguist friend who, upon being
>told that the lojban vowels are tensed, widely spaced,
>and not easily confused with the schwa, came up, without
>significant prompting, with

>        /u/   boot, toot, flute, chute
>        /o/   top, cot, motley, monster
>        /i/   clean, green, machine
>        /e/   bet, lens, enemy
>        /a/   cat, bat, mat, dab, action

As examples of tense vowels I would agree with the linguist, but that just
tells me that the lojban 'a' (and 'o') is not a tense vowel.  Surely there is
enough leeway in the pronunciation of these vowels as to cause no confusion
if they aren't all identical, but I don't think the examples of 'a' given
above are representative of the lojban 'a'.
For that matter, the examples for 'o' are more representative of the lojban
'a' than 'o'.
This whole discussion is getting more into phonetics and idiolects and away
from Lojban.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that we add over 1,000 new e-mail communities every day?
http://www.ONElist.com
Explore a new hobby, discover a new friend, laugh at a new joke!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#972
10:30 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation  ...
 From:  Christopher Reid Palmer

From: Christopher Reid Palmer rei-@pconline.com

bestat-@aol.com wrote:

> >        /u/   boot, toot, flute, chute
> >        /o/   top, cot, motley, monster
> >        /i/   clean, green, machine
> >        /e/   bet, lens, enemy
> >        /a/   cat, bat, mat, dab, action
>
> As examples of tense vowels I would agree with the linguist,

Actually, no. Those are not tense /e/s, and low vowels (at least in
English) like /a/ are underspecified for tenseness (which means that
native speakers would not consider them two different words if you
pronounced 'cat' with a tense /a/ and then a lax /a/).

For my Midwestern American English, the /o/ and /a/ above are both low
vowels, mid-back and front, respectively.


-- Chris

_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : rei-@pconline.com : http://innerfire.visi.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
shop.theglobe.com * One Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in the U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Gourmet, Jewelry, Kids, Outdoors, Sports, More!
             http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#973
10:39 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: More ...
 From:  Christopher Reid Palmer

From: Christopher Reid Palmer rei-@pconline.com

c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> Try as I might, I can't imagine (or remember - but my
> memory is non-aural) any vowel sound that I can put
> into both "top" and "father".

Well, it's clear that we're speaking different dialects of English. :)

Try putting your 'father' sound in place of the vowel for 'top', and
you'll have an idea of what I sound like. And I think I know what you
sound like...

> crp> Any chance your 'top' is a lax 'o', similar to
> crp> 'father' 'a' but a bit rounded ('off', ...
>
> Hmm.  My "top" is as in
>
>     "octet", "October", "off", "on", "conscious"
>       "ostensibly", "long", "monster" ...

Yep -- for me, 'off' and 'on' have rounded low-mid back vowels, while
the others you list have /a/, a low, mid-back vowel. Your having a
single vowel for all (presumably the lax /O/, my 'off') is what I hear
as a big part of RP.



-- Chris

_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : rei-@pconline.com : http://innerfire.visi.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#974
11:12 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Samples from  Nora's Parser/Glosser
 From:  PILCH Hartmut

From: PILCH Hartmut ph-@a2e.de

On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:

> Well, Nora has given her program over to John Cowan for an independent
> check before we make it available (partly because the program requires John
> to release his parser).  But I can let you see what it does.

Great.  Finally I feel there is someone serious about wanting people to
learn this language.  This will get me off the ground, and it might get
Lojban off the ground, too.  I'd like to start playing with the source
code soon.

--
phm


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#975
11:15 AM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation  ...
 From:  xod
From: xod xo-@bway.net





On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:






>
> I've just spoken with a linguist friend who, upon being
> told that the lojban vowels are tensed, widely spaced,
> and not easily confused with the schwa, came up, without
> significant prompting, with
>
>         /u/   boot, toot, flute, chute
>         /o/   top, cot, motley, monster
>         /i/   clean, green, machine
>         /e/   bet, lens, enemy
>         /a/   cat, bat, mat, dab, action
>
#976
4:33 PM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



>From: xod xo-@bway.net

>
>I don't see this. And if it's true, it seems dangerous to associate the
>fact that there is one apple vs many apples, with the fact that the things
>are objectively apples, as opposed to something that it simply being
>called an apple for the sake of this discussion. I want to be able to
>express all four combinations of {one apple, many apples} and {objective,
>subjective}.

You can express all four:

(1)        le ci verba cu citka le plise
(2)        le ci verba cu citka su'o le plise
(3)        le ci verba cu citka ro lo plise poi cpana le jubme
(4)        le ci verba cu citka lo plise

In (1) and (3) I'm saying that every apple is eaten by each of
the three children. In (1) it is every apple under discussion, in (3)
it is every apple that's on the table (I added the restriction to
avoid making the even more nonsensical claim that each child
eats every single apple that there is.)

In (2) and (4) each child eats at least one apple. In (2) it is
one of the apples under discussion, in (4) it's just one "objective"
apple.

So (1) and (4) differ in at least two properties. My claim is that the
difference in the quantifier is much more significant than the
difference in "veridicality".

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#977
5:14 PM Sun 11 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>Maybe the confusion lies in the use of "that" the English glosses: "that
which I
>call" and "that which really is".  What precisely does "that" mean here?
The
>normal deictic use of "that" would make both {le} and {lo} refer to a
particular
>thing - I was assuming that this was not the case, but rather that
>
>{le cipni} = something that I call a bird
>{lo cipni} = something that really is a bird

The second is correct, but the first one is not, it should be "everything
that I'm
calling a bird". The quantifier matters! I'm not taking it as deictic in
either case.

I changed "I call" to "I am calling" so as not to confuse it with
"everything
that I usually call a bird", which is not what {le cipni} means.

>>                 le ci verba cu citka lo plise
>>                 Each of the three children eats an apple.
>>
>> Had I used {le plise}, the meaning necessarily would have been that
>> each child ate the same apple (or apples, but each child eats them all).
>>
>I don't think {le} demands this, though it may suggest it.

It demands it. It maps directly to what would be in logical notation
something like:

        For every x which is one of the three children, and for every y
which
        is one of the apples, x eats y.

>Going back to the
>discussion of proverbs, you made the same point about my
>
>>   le lajgerku na batci le lajgerku
>>
>which you said meant that no dog bites itself".

This is not the same point. Here I said that repeating the same
description in one sentence suggests to me that the described is the
same object. In any case, that means:

                It is not the case that: for every x which is one of the
dogs
                and for every y which is one of the dogs, x bites y.

>This is not necessarily true,
>just as in English "the dog didn't bite the dog" could mean either "the dog
>didn't bite itself", or, more probably, "the dog didn't bite the other
dog".

It could mean either, I agree. But this is not a quantification problem.

> In
>classical (truth conditional) semantics, both interpretations are possible,
but
>in pragmatic terms, in English, Lojban and every other language I know, the
>former meaning would be expressed by a reflexive.

Yes, and the other would be expressed with some qualification
like "other". But I insist that this is not the same issue.

>{.a'u.ue}  I find {lei} quite useful.  Consider the difference between
>
>mi se batci le gerku
>mi se batci lei gerku
>mi se batci le ci gerku
>mi se batci lei ci gerku

I never said {lei} wasn't useful. In {mi se batci lei ci gerku} I may or may
not receive three bites, is that what you mean? The difference is more
striking in examples like:

            le ci gerku cu grake li munoki'o
            lei ci gerku cu grake li munoki'o

which clearly have to refer to different situations. All I meant was that
if you had to choose one single article and drop all others then it should
be {lei} which is in my opinion the most basic.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#978
1:11 AM Mon 12 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:   Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la xorxes cusku di'e

> >> Had I used {le plise}, the meaning necessarily would have been that
> >> each child ate the same apple (or apples, but each child eats them all).
> >>
> >I don't think {le} demands this, though it may suggest it.
>
> It demands it. It maps directly to what would be in logical notation
> something like:
>
>         For every x which is one of the three children, and for every y
> which
>         is one of the apples, x eats y.
>

Does it say this in the formal grammar?  After all, {le} is not necessarily
singular.

> I never said {lei} wasn't useful. In {mi se batci lei ci gerku} I may or may
> not receive three bites, is that what you mean? The difference is more
> striking in examples like:
>
>             le ci gerku cu grake li munoki'o
>             lei ci gerku cu grake li munoki'o
>
> which clearly have to refer to different situations. All I meant was that
> if you had to choose one single article and drop all others then it should
> be {lei} which is in my opinion the most basic.

I misunderstood you - I thought you were saying that if you were going to drop
any article, it would be {lei}.  Actually I only think articles are of much use
in identifying something as a sumti rather than a selbri - if this weren't vital
in order to parse a lojban sentence, I wouldn't bother with articles at all.  As
my Turkish wife says, "artikeller gereksiz" (unnecessary).

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#979
10:24 AM Mon 12 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Pronunciation ...
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

bestat-@aol.com wrote:

> >        /u/   boot, toot, flute, chute
> >        /o/   top, cot, motley, monster
> >        /i/   clean, green, machine
> >        /e/   bet, lens, enemy
> >        /a/   cat, bat, mat, dab, action

> [...] but I don't think the examples of 'a' given
> above are representative of the lojban 'a'.
> For that matter, the examples for 'o' are more representative of the lojban
> 'a' than 'o'.

As Dr. Johnson might have said, "Sir, I perceive you are a vile American."

> This whole discussion is getting more into phonetics and idiolects and away
> from Lojban.

Indeed.  What the phonology chapter says is as clear and authoritative
as I could make it, and refers to IPA characters with well-understood
meanings.

--
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowa-@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that we add over 1,000 new e-mail communities every day?
http://www.ONElist.com
Explore a new hobby, discover a new friend, laugh at a new joke!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#980
1:24 PM Mon 12 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: More ...
 From:  Richard Curnow

From: Richard Curnow richar-@rrbcurnow.freeserve.co.uk


On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>
> The next question is this.
>
>         "le solri gusni"   ->   "sunlight"
>
> Is there anything wrong with the lujvo  "solgus" ??  My
> lujvo splitter rejects it, but accepts  "solgu'i".  I'm
> wondering if there is a problem with my splitter, or with
> my understanding of what's permitted in lujvo's.
>

Only cmene (names of things) are allowed to end in consonants, everything
else including lujvo must end in vowels.  So "solgus" might be useful if,
for example, you were talking about a place named Sunlight (la solgus),
however for "sunlight" (with a small "s") you need to use solgu'i to get a
valid lujvo.

Richard

--
Richard P. Curnow
Stevenage, England


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#981
8:05 PM Mon 12 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>>         For every x which is one of the three children, and for
>>         every y which is one of the apples, x eats y.
>>
>Does it say this in the formal grammar?  After all, {le} is not necessarily
>singular.

Every x eats every one of the apples, it may well be more than one.

>I misunderstood you - I thought you were saying that if you were going to
drop
>any article, it would be {lei}.

No, If I were to drop articles {lei} is the only one I'd keep. {le'i} and
{lo'i}
would be the first ones I'd drop.

> Actually I only think articles are of much use
>in identifying something as a sumti rather than a selbri - if this weren't
vital
>in order to parse a lojban sentence, I wouldn't bother with articles at
all.  As
>my Turkish wife says, "artikeller gereksiz" (unnecessary).

I would agree if we were starting from scratch. I would use a single
article to identify a sumti, and nothing else. But that's not how Lojban
works. In Lojban, articles serve at least two other functions besides
identifying a sumti: to distinguish collective vs. distributive plurals,
lei vs. le, and the le vs. lo distinction, whatever we want to call it.
(There's also the function of {lo'e}, but I'm not yet confident that
I understand that one.) It is not possible to ignore these distinctions
and remain within the logical constraints of the language. These
logical aspects could have been taken care of by other means, but
the fact is that they were put into the articles.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#982
10:15 PM Mon 12 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Samples from Nora's  Parser/Glosser
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 09:37 AM 4/12/99 +0200, you wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:
>> I will warn you that Nora's "program" is not particularly programmer
>> friendly.  It is written in Turbo-Pascal, and the program relies on
>> building a .bat file that calls the parser and then calls some other
>...
>
>OK, this persuades me that it's not the right kind of code for me.
>Even porting to Linux seems difficult.  Will it run on Dosemu?

Not sure what that is.  It is a DOS program and not a Windows program,
though it runs under Win95 and Win98.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#983
12:34 AM Tue 13 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la xorxes. cusku di'e

>
> No, If I were to drop articles {lei} is the only one I'd keep. {le'i} and
> {lo'i}
> would be the first ones I'd drop.

{.ie} I've never seen any point in these, though perhaps that's because I'm not
a logician.  I suppose one of Lojban's strengths is as a language for
philosophy, so philosophers might well want to use these to talk about sets.


> (There's also the function of {lo'e}, but I'm not yet confident that
> I understand that one.)
>

I also find {lo'e} and {le'e} a bit confusing.  {lo'e} is described in the cmavo
list as "the typical one(s) that really is (are) ..." which implies that we have
a (subjective) judgement of typicality on top of on objective classification.
{le'e} is "the stereotype of those described as ..." which implies an objective
stereotypicality (since one person cannot create a stereotype) on top of a
subjective classification.  Confusing indeed.


> I would agree if we were starting from scratch. I would use a single
> article to identify a sumti, and nothing else. But that's not how Lojban
> works. In Lojban, articles serve at least two other functions besides
> identifying a sumti: to distinguish collective vs. distributive plurals,
> lei vs. le, and the le vs. lo distinction, whatever we want to call it.
>

What is called for is a default / all-purpose article, analogous to {nu} as the
all-purpose abstractor.  I think {le} serves this purpose quite well, though
Jorge would of course disagree.

co'o mi'e robin.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#984
6:22 AM Tue 13 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Samples from Nora's  Parser/Glosser
 From:  Rob Zook

From: Rob Zook rzoo-@informix.com

At 01:20 AM 4/13/99 -0400, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:
>From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org
>
>At 09:37 AM 4/12/99 +0200, you wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote:
>>> I will warn you that Nora's "program" is not particularly programmer
>>> friendly.  It is written in Turbo-Pascal, and the program relies on
>>> building a .bat file that calls the parser and then calls some other
>>...
>>
>>OK, this persuades me that it's not the right kind of code for me.
>>Even porting to Linux seems difficult.  Will it run on Dosemu?
>
>Not sure what that is.  It is a DOS program and not a Windows program,
>though it runs under Win95 and Win98.

dosemu is an emulator package for Linux that lets you run DOS programs
under Linux. If the program is written in Turbo Pascal it should be
fairly trivial to convert it to C. Both have extremely close structural
similarities. The biggest differences is that C doesn't have the same
kind of support for a SET as Pascal.

In fact, I think that someone as already written a C to Pascal parser
program, and there exist a couple of Linux Pascal compilers.


Rob Z.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that we add over 1,000 new e-mail communities every day?
http://www.ONElist.com
Explore a new hobby, discover a new friend, laugh at a new joke!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#985
10:49 AM Tue 13 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  John Cowan
From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org





Robin Turner wrote:








#986
4:11 AM Wed 14 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:   Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





John Cowan wrote:






#987
6:31 PM Wed 14 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>(3)  lo'e merko cu cladu tavla
>(3) would mean that if a person fulfills both the commonly agreed-on
criteria for
>being American and also has characteristics that are actually held by the
majority of
>Americans but not of people in general, that person talks loudly.

You seem to be saying that {lo'e merko} is equivalent to {ro lo fadni be le
ka merko}
= "Every one who is typical as an American". Is that what you mean?

When I have used {lo'e} it has been with a different meaning, and I used it
because I thought that neither {le} nor {lo} made sense, so I needed
something
else and {lo'e} seemed to be the best there was. One much discussed example
I remember was {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}, "I need a box".

The distinction between the three would be something like this:

(1)    mi nitcu le tanxe
(2)    mi nitcu lo tanxe
(3)    mi nitcu lo'e tanxe

(1) "I need the box." The question "which box?" shouldn't normally need to
be asked because the speaker is assuming that the audience undersands
which box. If the ausience doesn't understand what is it that the speaker is
referring to by {le tanxe} then they have to ask in order to understand the
full
meaning of what the speaker is trying to comunicate.

(2) "There is a box that I need." The question "which box?" has not been
addressed, but it is a valid question. The full meaning of the sentence
is understood without need of identifying which box the speaker needs,
but the audience is being told that there is at least one box which is the
one needed by the speaker.

(3) "I need a box (any box)." The question "which box?" does not make
sense in this case (or rather, the answer is "any one") because there
is no box such that I need that particular one. Here I cannot use {lo}
or {le} and be logically consistent, so I use {lo'e} for lack of anything
else, not because this has all that much to do with typicality. But if this
is right, then {lo'e merko} is not the same as {ro lo fadni be le ka merko}.

>(4)  le'e merko cu cladu tavla
>(4) would mean that a person who corresponds to my idea of an American,
talks loudly.

What would be the difference between {le'e merko} and {le merko}? By "a
person"
do you mean "any person" or "a person I have in mind"?

>If we can agree on and clarify {lo'e} and {le'e}, they could become very
useful tools
>in argument, particularly in avoiding sweeping generalisations etc.

I have found a different use for {lo'e}. I don't know if {lo broda fadni} is
such a
frequently used concept that needs a special shorthand article for it.
Besides
{lo'e broda} is not really all that much shorter than {lo broda fadni}.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#988
3:23 AM Thu 15 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la xorxes. cusku di'e






#989
12:28 PM Fri 16 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Quantum Seep

From: Quantum Seep qsee-@berserker.lensflare.com

pa lo lobypli cu pu cusku lu

> But if this
> is right, then {lo'e merko} is not the same as
> {ro lo fadni be le ka merko}.

lu'i

If I understand the grammar correctly, the correct translation is:

  ro lo fadni be le ka merko
  all of the ordinariness of the properties of Americans

Which clearly does not mean

  lo'e merko
  American(s) exhibiting typical properties of Americans

/-------- Quantum Seep, qsee-@iname.com ---
  "His funny bone's connected to the M-bone"
   PGP fingerprint: 5B 3B 7B EC AA 5B 4B 7F  65 7D 2A CD 69 11 29 2A


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#990
4:15 PM Fri 16 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Re Pri humaneco.
 From:   Steven Belknap

From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu

I would suggest that the lojban/loglan schism is not a strange and terrible
abberancy. Rather it is an interesting phenomenon which should be viewed as
data being generated by the experiment that Dr. Brown began. Such schisms
are worthy of study in their own right. Humans are tribal creatures. We
live in a world in which tribal behavior is often antithetical to the goals
of the "tribe." I believe this is the case here.

Tribes like to distinguish themselves from others. One way of doing this is
through culture and language. Lojbanistanis/loglanders may find it
interesting to review the  research of Muzafer Sherif, a Turkish-born
social scientist. (Sherif, M. et al. Intergroup conflict and Cooperation:
The Robbers' Cave Experiment. Norman, Oklahoma: Univesity of Oklahoma
Institute of Intergroup Relations 1961.)

In these studies, boys at a camp were divided into two groups. Simply
dividing them into groups resulted in their competing vigorously with
eachother. The members of each group  expressed dislike for for members of
the other group.  The two groups were then put in a situation where
cooperation would be advantageous. The members of each group then expressed
friendship towards members of the other group.

Similar observations have been made about churches, political parties, and
most other organizations. There is a tendency to schism, and once schismed,
there is a tendency to feel dislike for the members of the other group.

Some may argue that such analogies do not apply here. One party may cite
the bad behavior of some other party as justification for continued bad
feelings. The other party may also have citations at hand. I've heard the
story from members of both camps, and I'm not convinced that the nominal
issues are the real point of the dispute. These are distractions which may
obscure the origin of the dispute, and more generally the schismatic nature
of human tribes.

If members of the Loglan camp and the lojban camp are interested in healing
the schism, it might be possible to do this by picking some project of
common interest, and working together to accomplish a mutually agreeable
goal. I've suggested this before, but apparently this is unthinkable.

The entire Loglan/lojban schism is fascinating to me. It may be the most
interesting result of Dr. Brown's experiment to date. Could the gradually
drifting of languages apart from eachother be due to more than geographical
isolation? Could this be a general phenomenae due to tribal neologism? It
is interesting that human tribes, from hip hop culture to the American
Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics develop jargons which
make it difficult for outsiders to understand what the tribe is saying.
Much of this jargon is unnecessary, and may actually interfere with
scientific discourse, in the case of scientific tribes.

-Steven

>Vjacxeslav' Ivanov' scripsit:
>
>> You seem to accuse me of being maybe even a racist! It's not fare
>> of you. I don't feel hate to any language or nationality, maybe
>> because I am so fond of languages. I live in the Caucasus and we
>> have here so many languages of every language family, that I don't
>> devide already languages into "human" and "not-human".
>
>I am very glad to hear it.  My Esperanto is not all it could be;
>perhaps I misinterpreted your use of "humane".
>
>> Let us stop
>> the discussion of how the Lojban sounds. To tell you the truth, I
>> never heard Lojban speech. The only thing that I want to say again
>> and again, is that for me , as a young member of Lo??an society,
>> it's a very great pity, that we are in different camps now. And
>> the camps are too often military ones, uu.
>
>So say we all.
>
>>  You say that Dr.Brown
>> is higly appriciated in all Lojban texts. Maybe. But why haven't
>> you appriciated him then, when your people made that split?!
>
>At that time, the Loglan Institute was claiming a copyright on
>every word of the language, and as a result, on everything published
>in it, written by whatever author.  (Private conversations and
>letters were allowed by license.)
>
>I have written documentation of this claim.
>
>Lojban is and always has been in
>the public domain, as to its basic word lists, machine grammars, etc.
>and even our published grammar book has a very generous license
>allowing reproduction without payment to us.
>
>> There
>> cannot be any excuse. You could lead your negotiations till some
>> peace. And now, know it, the younger generation on both sides is
>> very angry of both sides' chiefs, who made the movement be twice
>> weak in both directions.
>
>I agree; but we have tried for a rapprochement several times with
>no success.  The Institute's terms have always been the same:
>total capitulation or no discussion at all.  We cannot accept this.
>
>As one who never knew Dr. Brown personally, I regret this state of
>affairs immensely.  I have no resentment toward him or the Loglan
>community.
>
>--
>John Cowan					cowa-@ccil.org
>		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.

Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#991
5:21 PM Fri 16 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la kuontym sip cusku di'e

>If I understand the grammar correctly, the correct translation is:
>
>  ro lo fadni be le ka merko
>  all of the ordinariness of the properties of Americans

No, {fadni} means "xi is ordinary/typical in property x2", and
therefore {ro lo fadni be le ka merko} means "every one
of those that are ordinary/typical in the property of being
American".

"Ordinariness/typicality" would be {le ka fadni}, not just
{lo fadni}.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#992
5:54 PM Fri 16 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la xod presku di'e

>Does le ka fadni imply le ka ce'u fadni by default?

I think it doesn't strictly imply it, but it is the most likely
interpretation.
There was at some point talk of a convention that {ce'u} goes in the
first empty slot, but I can't find it mentioned in the book.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#993
8:13 PM Fri 16 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>Consider the translation of {lo zarci} in the Book:
>"one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-markets".
>In this sense {mi nitcu lo tanxe} would mean "I need
>one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-boxes".

The problem with direct substitution of the English is that
the same English expression can have different meanings
in different contexts. It is easier to see it in logical notation:
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex, T(x) & N(I,x)
There is at least one x such that x is a box and I need x.
This is not equivalent to the colloquial "I need a box".

>I would see "There is a box that I need" as a near equivalent of "I
>need the box", since the defining relative clause implies a specific box.

Obviously I'm failing to get my point across with my glosses.
I meant the logical expression above, which is undoubtedly
what the Lojban means.

>I would
>therefore use {le tanxe} in both cases [note that I am slowly
>coming round to Jorge's view that specificity is more important
>than veridicality!].


If you say {mi nitcu lo tanxe}, all I need to understand is the
meaning of {tanxe} in order to understand what you mean.
I won't know which box you say you need, but I know you say
there is one that you need, and that is all you're saying.

If you say {mi nitcu le tanxe}, understanding the meaning
of {tanxe} is not enough to understand what you mean, I also
have to be able to work out from the context which is the
object that you're calling tanxe to understand what is it that
you say you need. If I can't, I'm forced to ask "which box?",
or {le ki'a tanxe}.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#994
9:40 AM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  SwiftRain

From: SwiftRain swiftrai-@geocities.com

"Jorge J. Llambas" wrote:
>
> (3) "I need a box (any box)." The question "which box?" does not make
> sense in this case (or rather, the answer is "any one") because there
> is no box such that I need that particular one. Here I cannot use {lo}
> or {le} and be logically consistent, so I use {lo'e} for lack of
> anything else, not because this has all that much to do with
> typicality.

pe'i the appropriate something else, according to my own lojbanic
intuition & if i understand it correctly the reference grammar as well
(chapter 16 section 8), is {lo nu}:

mi nitcu le tanxe
 - i need the box (& we both know what i mean by "box")
mi nitcu lo tanxe
 - there is a da such that i need da & da is a box
mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo tanxe
 - i need an event of my possessing a box

pe'i "mi nitcu lo'e tanxe" would mean "one of the properties of the
typical box is to be needed by me," that is, it would seem to assert
that i need a great number of boxes, probably most of them.


ta'o, is this not an appropriate situation for tu'a?  it seems to
translate the english sentence pretty well, without requiring any extra
information to be specified:

"mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe"
 - i need [something about] a box.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#995
10:06 AM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  xa'unro'a xibi
 From:  michael helsem
From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com











mi'a ze'a se zdile le skina peme'e la greku (We went to a movie  called "The Matrix".) .i ri ge ckaji leka skami raxyklu gi cabdra  dunli le pu ctejoldimna skina (It's cyberpunk, the modern version  of film noir.) .i .a'usai kanla tcica mutce (Lots of special effects-- good.) .i .ienai pu'u vlile jinga (Violence--not so good.) .i traji co  nelci le soljdika kalgai poi jarki je kurfa (I liked best the narrow rectangular sunglasses.) .ibazibo te vecnu ko'a goi le simsa be  ra (I immediately went out & bought a pair.) .i ko'a se dasni tu'i
 le galtu be le nazbi (They sit up high on my nose,) gi'e rinka
 lenu le flira co'i clani simlu (& make my face look long) setai lo
 remsmi smani (like a chimpanzee.) .isemu'ibo lu smanykemkalgai  li'u na'o tcita ko'a ca'i mi (Therefore i call them "Chimp Specs")  .ija ji'a cmene fa lai sman. (or just "Chimps".)








Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com





------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking to expand your world? http://www.ONElist.com ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
#996
10:08 AM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  makfa xire
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com


fu'epe'a pa lei cimymanku tricu cu sudblabi (Among the wet-
dark trees, one is dry-white.) .i pa lei snodenmi karce cu sutra
fu'o (In the slow-dense mass of cars, one fast one.) .i jimte
claxu zazyprami (Love without limits.)

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 115,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#997
12:13 PM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

SwiftRain:
>pe'i the appropriate something else, according to my own lojbanic
>intuition & if i understand it correctly the reference grammar as well
>(chapter 16 section 8), is {lo nu}:
>
>mi nitcu le tanxe
> - i need the box (& we both know what i mean by "box")
>mi nitcu lo tanxe
> - there is a da such that i need da & da is a box
>mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo tanxe
> - i need an event of my possessing a box

That is indeed right, but in my opinion it is not a general solution.
In this case, for some reason {nitcu} can mean both "x1 needs object x2"
and "x1 needs that event x2 happen". I never understood why for some
predicates this sort of thing is ok and for others it is called sumti
raising.

But there are other predicates for which it's not so easy to change
to an event. For example, consider a relationship
"x1searches/looks for object x2". Unfortunately {sisku} is not defined
this way, so let's make a lujvo for it, for example {zvafaktoi} = "x1 tries
to find out the whereabouts of x2".

Now, again we have the three possibilities:

{mi zvafaktoi le tanxe} = "I'm looking for the box"
For example, the box where I keep some old photographs, and if
you don't understand that by {le tanxe} I mean that particular box then
you don't really understand what I'm saying.

{mi zvafaktoi lo tanxe} = there is a da such that I look for da & da is a
box.
Here again it may be that I'm looking for that box with the photographs,
but all I'm saying is that there is some box such that I look for it. You
may
not know anything about that particular box, and you don't need to in order
to understand what I mean

?{mi zvafaktoi lo'e tanxe} = "I'm looking for a box", for example because
I need one to keep some more pictures. But I'm not claiming that there
is somewhere some actual box and that box is the one I'm looking for.
There is no such object that I can say is actually the goal of my search.

Now, in this case to use the event trick I have to change the predicate,
because "I'm looking for an event of my possessing a box" doesn't
sound quite right, and much less "I'm trying to find out the whereabouts
of an event of my possessing a box". To me this shows that the {nitcu}
example is based on the particularity that "need" works for objects as
well as for events, but it is not a general solution.

Now, suppose that I see something that might be what I'm looking for.
I need a predicate that means "x1 appears to be x2", {du'omlu} is a good
lujvo for that. Then I say:

{ta du'omlu le tanxe} = "That appears to be the box" i.e. that object that
I'm pointing at appears to be the box that we know contains the pictures.

{ta du'omlu lo tanxe} = there is a da such that that thing there appears
                                         to be it & da is a box.
This is a very unlikely thing to say, but it may come up for example in the
same case where I had told you {mi zvafaktoi lo tanxe}, that there was
some actual box I was looking for, and now I tell you that there is some
actual box such that the object I'm pointing at appears to be it.

But what about the more common "That appears to be a box"? I would
say {ta du'omlu lo'e tanxe}. I'm not claiming the existence of any actual
box such that that object there appears to be it. Again changing to an
event is not really satisfactory. I suppose "that appears to be an event
of something being a box" does make sense, but the referent of {ta}
has shifted from the object to the event.

>pe'i "mi nitcu lo'e tanxe" would mean "one of the properties of the
>typical box is to be needed by me," that is, it would seem to assert
>that i need a great number of boxes, probably most of them.

I don't think it is clear that {lo'e tanxe} is supposed to refer to all
actual
boxes that are typical boxes (ro lo fadni be le ka tanxe) or to at least one
actual typical box (lo fadni be le ka tanxe). I would much prefer it to not
refer to any actual box but rather to be used in the cases where we need
as an argument not some actual object but an ideal. I just don't think
it has to be the "typical", but unfortunately that's how it was glossed.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#998
12:53 PM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>If this is the case, then both the cmavo list and the reference grammar are
>seriously misleading.  I took it as more like "There is a set of boxes
containing
>at least one member, and I need at least one member of that set."  I won't
>comment on the symbolic representation or suggest alternatives, since my
>predicate logic ain't what it used to be.

You can't use the usual symbolic representation for that if by "need"
you mean "x1 needs object x2". Allowing for events, you can put it
into some form like:
There is a set of boxes B and Need(I, (Ex x belongs to B & Have(I,x) )
but this is definitely not {mi nitcu lo tanxe}, it is
{mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe}.

>> I meant the logical expression above, which is undoubtedly
>> what the Lojban means.
>
>Undoubtedly?  If there were no doubt, the whole le/lo problem would never
have
>arisen in the first place.

Well, if there is any doubt that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex T(x) &
N(mi,x),
then I have no idea how {lo} works. This should be valid for any predicate,
not just {nitcu} and {tanxe}. Besides, the reference from the Book that
SwifRain posted confirms it.

>  I said that however confident people may
>be about Esperanto, Interlingua, Occidental or whatever, I for one would
prefer
>Lojban to grow comparitively slowly for a while, so that we have time to
sort out
>glitches, especially in the pragmatics of the language.  These questions
about
>articles were what I had in mind at the time.

Yes, it would be interesting, for example, to get a list of all the usage
that {lo'e}
has seen so far. A good chunk of it would be my own usage, as I'm trying to
describe it here, but seeing if and how other people use it can give us
better
ideas than trying to make up examples.

>Oh well, look on the bright side - nobody has _ever_ managed to come up
with a
>satisfactory explanation of English articles!

Not even in Esperanto, which has only one article, is the usage fully
explained,
but of course in that case it is based on the usage of other languages. We
should
at least try to sort it out in Lojban though.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#999
1:47 PM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  michael helsem
From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

.u'inairo'e .i fu'ebe'ucu'i zo le gadri le steci .ije zo lo
gadri le sucta .i .e'u pilno le'i tavla cmavo tu'a le fatci
fu'o ("Le" can handle the specific & "lo" the general;
discursives for issues of veridicality.)

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1000
2:56 PM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Re Pri  humaneco.
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <v04020a01b33d16a6626c@[128.248.250.241]> la Steven
Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu cu cusku di'e
>From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu
>
>I would suggest that the lojban/loglan schism is not a strange and terrible
>abberancy. Rather it is an interesting phenomenon which should be viewed as
>data being generated by the experiment that Dr. Brown began. Such schisms
>are worthy of study in their own right. Humans are tribal creatures. We
>live in a world in which tribal behavior is often antithetical to the goals
>of the "tribe." I believe this is the case here.
>

Of course it is not a strange and terrible aberrancy, in the canvas of
human institutions. It is nonetheless very sad, and remarkably
reminiscent of the split that was one of the factors that killed
Volapk.

It is hard, however, to see how it can usefully be regarded as part of
Jim's experiment.

>Tribes like to distinguish themselves from others. One way of doing this is
>through culture and language. Lojbanistanis/loglanders may find it
>interesting to review the  research of Muzafer Sherif, a Turkish-born
>social scientist. (Sherif, M. et al. Intergroup conflict and Cooperation:
>The Robbers' Cave Experiment. Norman, Oklahoma: Univesity of Oklahoma
>Institute of Intergroup Relations 1961.)
>
>In these studies, boys at a camp were divided into two groups. Simply
>dividing them into groups resulted in their competing vigorously with
>eachother. The members of each group  expressed dislike for for members of
>the other group.  The two groups were then put in a situation where
>cooperation would be advantageous. The members of each group then expressed
>friendship towards members of the other group.
>
>Similar observations have been made about churches, political parties, and
>most other organizations. There is a tendency to schism, and once schismed,
>there is a tendency to feel dislike for the members of the other group.
>
>Some may argue that such analogies do not apply here. One party may cite
>the bad behavior of some other party as justification for continued bad
>feelings. The other party may also have citations at hand. I've heard the
>story from members of both camps, and I'm not convinced that the nominal
>issues are the real point of the dispute. These are distractions which may
>obscure the origin of the dispute, and more generally the schismatic nature
>of human tribes.

Part of the process of maintaining a conflict lies in justifying one's
own side and blaming the other. The origins of the dispute are rarely
relevant.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1001
6:46 PM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  SwiftRain
From: SwiftRain swiftrai-@geocities.com

"Jorge J. Llambas" wrote:
>
> That is indeed right, but in my opinion it is not a general solution.

hmm, are you quite sure there are unacceptable logical implications of
using zo lo for this circumstance?

for instance, what if i were to say:

mi nitcu lo tanxe noi cumki zasti
 - i need a box which may exist

this seems to assert only that there is either
 * lo tanxe poi zasti, a box which does exist, OR
 * lo tanxe poi na zasti, a box which does not exist.

& is it not true that any reference to "lo tanxe" could be a reference
to "lo tanxe noi cumki zasti" whose property of possible-existance has
simply not been mentioned?

> I don't think it is clear that {lo'e tanxe} is supposed to refer to
> all actual boxes that are typical boxes (ro lo fadni be le ka tanxe)
> or to at least one actual typical box (lo fadni be le ka tanxe). I
> would much prefer it to not refer to any actual box but rather to be
> used in the cases where we need as an argument not some actual object
> but an ideal. I just don't think it has to be the "typical", but
> unfortunately that's how it was glossed.

lo'e broda doesn't refer to an actual object, but it does refer to an
imaginary object which has the typical qualities of lo'i broda.

from the refgram:

"The relationship between ``lo'e cinfo'' and ``lo'i cinfo'' may be
explained thus: the typical lion is an imaginary lion-abstraction which
best exemplifies the set of lions."

thus example 6.5.1:
lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
 - the lion dwells in africa

& following that pattern:
lo'e tanxe cu se nitcu mi
 - the box is needed by me

i'm sure you don't want to assert that the box is needed by you in the
same sense that the lion dwells in africa!

co'o mi'e bret.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1002
7:18 PM Sat 17 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e  preti zo nu
 From:  Gerald Koenig

From: Gerald Koenig jl-@netcom.com

>
>From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar
>
>la robin cusku di'e
>
>>If this is the case, then both the cmavo list and the reference grammar are
>>seriously misleading.  I took it as more like "There is a set of boxes
>containing
>>at least one member, and I need at least one member of that set."  I won't
>>comment on the symbolic representation or suggest alternatives, since my
>>predicate logic ain't what it used to be.
>
>You can't use the usual symbolic representation for that if by "need"
>you mean "x1 needs object x2". Allowing for events, you can put it
>into some form like:
>There is a set of boxes B and Need(I, (Ex x belongs to B & Have(I,x) )
>but this is definitely not {mi nitcu lo tanxe}, it is
>{mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe}.
>
>>> I meant the logical expression above, which is undoubtedly
>>> what the Lojban means.
>>
>>Undoubtedly?  If there were no doubt, the whole le/lo problem would never
>have
>>arisen in the first place.
>

Jorge said:

>Well, if there is any doubt that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex T(x) &
>N(mi,x),
>then I have no idea how {lo} works. This should be valid for any predicate,
>not just {nitcu} and {tanxe}. Besides, the reference from the Book that
>SwifRain posted confirms it.

Hi Jorge,

Seeing this example that we kicked around so many times years ago
surface again gave me so much nostalgia that I have to return to the
lojban list for a moment to comment on it.

From the gismu list the x2 of nitcu is "necessity". "Necessity" is a
noun, it is defined by Webster as (1) quality or state of being
necessary; (2) Something necessary. "Quality" and "state" are also
nouns.

So if the definition is to be followed, only a noun or equivalent
phrase can be put in x2.  I agree as always that  "lo tanxe" means E(x)
T(x) where the x referred to is the same in each form, ie the scope of
x is the sentence.  So we have: mi nitcu E(x) T(x). We have put a full
predication, a compound sentence, in a slot calling for a noun. It's
not going to work.

Since I moved on from lojban I wrote a set of modals (need is a modal)
for NGL. I got around the problem by requiring that the modal take a
proposition in all cases as grammatical object, never a noun. I _think_
that to do that in lojban the object proposition in x2 would have to be
declared with bu'a, but I've forgotten a lot. In any case, to predicate
about a proposition is a second order claim.

Que le vaya bien,

djer
,

djer



>>  I said that however confident people may
>>be about Esperanto, Interlingua, Occidental or whatever, I for one would
>prefer
>>Lojban to grow comparitively slowly for a while, so that we have time to
>sort out
>>glitches, especially in the pragmatics of the language.  These questions
>about
>>articles were what I had in mind at the time.
>
>Yes, it would be interesting, for example, to get a list of all the usage
>that {lo'e}
>has seen so far. A good chunk of it would be my own usage, as I'm trying to
>describe it here, but seeing if and how other people use it can give us
>better
>ideas than trying to make up examples.
>
>>Oh well, look on the bright side - nobody has _ever_ managed to come up
>with a
>>satisfactory explanation of English articles!
>
>Not even in Esperanto, which has only one article, is the usage fully
>explained,
>but of course in that case it is based on the usage of other languages. We
>should
>at least try to sort it out in Lojban though.

>
>co'o mi'e xorxes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1003
6:02 AM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e  preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la xorxes. cusku di'e





#1004
6:08 AM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la maikl. cusku di'e


>
> .u'inairo'e .i fu'ebe'ucu'i zo le gadri le steci .ije zo lo
> gadri le sucta .i .e'u pilno le'i tavla cmavo tu'a le fatci
> fu'o ("Le" can handle the specific & "lo" the general;
> discursives for issues of veridicality.)

Seems a logical solution, though it would require changes to the Book.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1005
6:24 AM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  xa'unro'a xibi
 From:  SwiftRain
From: SwiftRain swiftrai-@geocities.com

michael helsem wrote:
>
> mi'a ze'a se zdile le skina peme'e la greku

ti'e ko'e xamgu skina .iku'i mi ze'epu na viska ko'e .u'uru'e
.i mi sruma le du'u do stidi le nu mi'a viska ko'e .i xu jetnu?

> .ibazibo te vecnu ko'a goi le simsa be ra

do kulnu se jitro .u'i

mi'e bret.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1006
7:21 AM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: makfa xire
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u 19990417170833.12920.qmai-@hotmail.com la michael
helsem graywyver-@hotmail.com cu cusku di'e
>From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com
>
>
>fu'epe'a pa lei cimymanku tricu cu sudblabi (Among the wet-
>dark trees, one is dry-white.) .i pa lei snodenmi karce cu sutra
>fu'o (In the slow-dense mass of cars, one fast one.) .i jimte
>claxu zazyprami (Love without limits.)

I am confused by 'pa lei' - it seems to me to mean 'one of the-
mass(es)-of' - in other words, the whole mass, taken once. I think that
once you have massified by 'lei', you need 'pi' to pick out part of the
mass again - but there is no obviously appropriate number.

I wonder why you are massifying at all? 'pa le li'o tricu' would work.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1007
8:30 AM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u 199904180218.taa1109-@netcom14.netcom.com la
Gerald Koenig jl-@netcom.com cu cusku di'e

>Jorge said:
>
>>Well, if there is any doubt that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex T(x) &
>>N(mi,x),
>>then I have no idea how {lo} works. This should be valid for any predicate,
>>not just {nitcu} and {tanxe}. Besides, the reference from the Book that
>>SwifRain posted confirms it.
>
>Hi Jorge,
>
>Seeing this example that we kicked around so many times years ago
>surface again gave me so much nostalgia that I have to return to the
>lojban list for a moment to comment on it.
>
>From the gismu list the x2 of nitcu is "necessity". "Necessity" is a
>noun, it is defined by Webster as (1) quality or state of being
>necessary; (2) Something necessary. "Quality" and "state" are also
>nouns.
>
>So if the definition is to be followed, only a noun or equivalent
>phrase can be put in x2.  I agree as always that  "lo tanxe" means E(x)
>T(x) where the x referred to is the same in each form, ie the scope of
>x is the sentence.  So we have: mi nitcu E(x) T(x). We have put a full
>predication, a compound sentence, in a slot calling for a noun. It's
>not going to work.

I think you are doubly on the wrong tack in this argument (which is not
to say that the argument itself is necessarily wrong).

First, it is pointless resorting to an English dictionary to settle
arguments of Lojban semantics. If the dictionary does not support the
way that the writers of the gi'uste used an English word, tough. (Agreed
that this can make it hard to understand the meanings in the gi'uste,
but the only plausibly relevant authorities are the devisers of the
gi'uste and those who have since used and thought about Lojban. English
lexicographers are irrelevant).

Secondly, the whole point of using terms like sumti and selbri in
discussing Lojban grammar is that they are not nouns and verbs, and this
is designed to keep us from being misled by irrelevant considerations of
English grammar.

You are touching on a useful and important distinction of Lojban (and
Loglan), but you seem to have it wrong.

In Lojban, by definition,
- the only thing that can fill a place of a selbri is a sumti
- one form of sumti consists of a gadri (such as lo) followed by a
selbri
- one form of selbri consists of an abstractor (such as nu) followed by
a jufra (sentence or predication).

It is probably also true that there is a feature, which one might call
+/-abstract (or kamsucta) which characterises every sumti; that this can
also characterise a selbri and be inherited from it in a selgadri; and
(more controversially) that some tersumti subcategorise for this
feature.

But the conclusion that you seem to be trying to draw is that a
predication is a different kind of animal from a(n abstract) noun. This
may be true in English, but it is not in Lojban: NU turns a jufra into a
selbri co ckaji lo kamsucta, and then LO (including lo, le and loi)
turns this into a sumti co ckaji lo kamsucta. Grammatically it does not
matter whether the selbri has an abstractor (a fortiori whether it is nu
or ka).

I think your point may be interpretable in terms of Lojban grammar by
assuming a further subcategorisation - suppose that some tersumti
subcategorise not just for kamsucta, but for kamfasnu (event) or
kamselckaji (property). You may be right, and nitcu is no doubt a word
where this question is significant.

If this is correct, your argument is that nitcu requires a property and
not a predication or state-of-affairs. This is a possible position to
take, but it does not seem to me to be useful, or supported by the
arguments and usage of those who have considered or used nitcu in the
past. What is clear is that it cannot be supported by the choice of form
used in the English gloss.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1008
10:16 AM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e  preti zo nu
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 04:01 PM 4/18/99 +0100, you wrote:
>From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk
>vecu'u le notci po'u 199904180218.taa1109-@netcom14.netcom.com la
>Gerald Koenig jl-@netcom.com cu cusku di'e
>I think you are doubly on the wrong tack in this argument (which is not
>to say that the argument itself is necessarily wrong).
>
>First, it is pointless resorting to an English dictionary to settle
>arguments of Lojban semantics. If the dictionary does not support the
>way that the writers of the gi'uste used an English word, tough. (Agreed
>that this can make it hard to understand the meanings in the gi'uste,
>but the only plausibly relevant authorities are the devisers of the
>gi'uste and those who have since used and thought about Lojban. English
>lexicographers are irrelevant).

Especially since what we were trying to do in the gismu list was something
other than traditional lexicography.  First of all, we were trying to
convey the full place structure and second of all we were trying to confine
the gloss to a specific number of characters to fit the needs of LogFlash.

>Secondly, the whole point of using terms like sumti and selbri in
>discussing Lojban grammar is that they are not nouns and verbs, and this
>is designed to keep us from being misled by irrelevant considerations of
>English grammar.

Vitally important.

>You are touching on a useful and important distinction of Lojban (and
>Loglan), but you seem to have it wrong.
>
>In Lojban, by definition,
>- the only thing that can fill a place of a selbri is a sumti
>- one form of sumti consists of a gadri (such as lo) followed by a
>selbri
>- one form of selbri consists of an abstractor (such as nu) followed by
>a jufra (sentence or predication).
>
>It is probably also true that there is a feature, which one might call
>+/-abstract (or kamsucta) which characterises every sumti; that this can
>also characterise a selbri and be inherited from it in a selgadri; and
>(more controversially) that some tersumti subcategorise for this
>feature.
>
>But the conclusion that you seem to be trying to draw is that a
>predication is a different kind of animal from a(n abstract) noun. This
>may be true in English, but it is not in Lojban: NU turns a jufra into a
>selbri co ckaji lo kamsucta, and then LO (including lo, le and loi)
>turns this into a sumti co ckaji lo kamsucta. Grammatically it does not

>matter whether the selbri has an abstractor (a fortiori whether it is nu
>or ka).

I agree entirely.

>I think your point may be interpretable in terms of Lojban grammar by
>assuming a further subcategorisation - suppose that some tersumti
>subcategorise not just for kamsucta, but for kamfasnu (event) or
>kamselckaji (property). You may be right, and nitcu is no doubt a word
>where this question is significant.

Here I am not sure.  If I need a ride to a meeting, I don't think it is the
case that I need a property abstract but an event abstract.  If I need my
computer to be monitoring for new incoming mail, I need a state abstract.

>If this is correct, your argument is that nitcu requires a property and
>not a predication or state-of-affairs. This is a possible position to
>take, but it does not seem to me to be useful, or supported by the
>arguments and usage of those who have considered or used nitcu in the
>past. What is clear is that it cannot be supported by the choice of form
>used in the English gloss.

We can use the gismu list gloss to get some idea of intent, but glossing
has limitations.  Especially if there is conflict, bona fide communicative
usage (as opposed to usage intended to experiment or lead to change) is in
the long term going to predominate.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1009
3:00 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  le cfapau pe lei lisri  be la kantabaris
 From:  Richard Curnow

From: Richard Curnow richar-@rrbcurnow.freeserve.co.uk


I've had a go at translating the opening paragraph of Chaucer's epic
Canterbury Tales.  Enjoy (!)

ca le nu le titla vitcarvi pe ca la vomoi masti
         pu pagre le cavycau pe la cimoi masti ro genja
    gi'e tisgau ro ricblutu'u le litki poi le ke'a kamvli cu fingau lo xrula kei

 e ji'a le nu la stici brife gau le titla se vasxu
       pu jmive dunda fi le cifnu ricydegji tu'i ro tumla ju rictu'a kei

 e le nu le citno solri pu fanmo le xadba litru be la nakni lanme kei

 e le nu ko'a goi lo cmalu cipni noi kalri kanla sipna ca le mulno nicte
       cu sanga ri'a le nurma vanbi noi djica setca fi le ko'a risna kei

ge zu'i ze'u djica co darmasyvi'e
gi ko'e goi le darmasyvi'e cu djica co sisku tu'a le tolsau xaskoi
   gi'e vitke fi le vu malsi poi misno ne'i le vrici gugde
   gi'e klama la kantabaris le daryrai jimte be ro glico gugypau
      tezu'e le nu sisku le censa ceirselzau kriselcatra
           noi pu sidju ko'e ca le nu vreta jeri'abo bilma

fa'o

co'o mi'e ritcyd


--
Richard P. Curnow
Stevenage, England


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that we add over 1,000 new e-mail communities every day?
http://www.ONElist.com
Explore a new hobby, discover a new friend, laugh at a new joke!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1010
3:54 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  mutual  project
 From:  Steven Belknap
From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu

>Colin says "Part of the process of maintaining a conflict lies in
>justifying one's own side and blaming the other. The origins of the dispute
>are rarely relevant."
>Many of you on the list have perhaps come on since the dispute, and have
>only heard stories from one side or the other on how or why it came about.
>Let us not rehash the stories, but some discussion, particularly from
>recent arrivals, on what, if anything, might be done about it, to turn
>competition into cooperation, as suggested by Dr. Belknap.
>
>Jelhaisto,
>Hue Bab
>(rmcivo-@macsrule.com)

As a start, could those lojbanistanis interested in Loglan please subscribe
to the Loglan list and those Loglanders interested in lojban please
subscribe to the lojban list. Maybe someone could post to each list how to
subscribe to the other list, how to get paper copies of journals published,
how to get access to the web site, etc. Such posting should be with the
approval of the listmaster, of course, just as a matter of netiquette.
Also, it would be nice if those who post to the private Loglan list could
send a copy of your message to the public Loglan list where this seems
appropriate. The lack of access to the private lists results in the
impression that relatively little activity is occurring in Loglan
cyberspace, which is of course not accurate.

One possible project would be developing and testing an automatic
translator lojban<->Loglan. My general impression is that the two languages
are very similar except for vocabulary. In order to begin, we would need a
clearer sense of what the differences are between the languages. Can anyone
help me understand how the languages differ?

lojban:  co'o mi'e stivn
Loglan: Hue Stivn
Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 115,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1011
5:56 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e  preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>I was acting on the assumption that {mi nitcu lo tanxe}
>was the equivalent of {mi nitcu lenu mi ponse lo tanxe}.

They are different in one important respect with regards to
this discussion: the scope of the quantifier. The first one
means "there is some box x, such that I need x", the second
one means "I need that there be some box x such that I
have x".

In Lojban terms, {lo tanxe} is introduced in the first case
in the prenex of the bridi whose selbri is nitcu, and in the
second case in the prenex of the bridi whose selbri is
ponse, which is within the x2 of nitcu. This makes all the
difference.

> As someone just pointed out, this is a from of
>sumti-raising which the definition of {nitcu} seems to allow.

Yes, {nitcu} allows both types of x2, but that doesn't
make them have the same meaning.

> It works like this
>in every language I know (admittedly a very small subset of the set of
>languages!).

It works like that in Lojban too, when there are no quantification
conflicts. For example, there is no significant difference between
{mi nitcu lei tanxe} and {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lei tanxe}. In this
case "for these boxes, I need them" and "I need that for these
boxes, I have them" are practically equivalent.

>Since this is a question of clarifying the language more than of
>changing it, we don't have to wait for the end of the baseline
>period.  {.e'usai} Jorge, John, Bob and any other interested elders
>shut themselves away in a virtual chateau for a while, then come
>up with a specific and authoritative pronouncement.

I'm not sure I quite qualify as an elder, and besides, it would
be a very long while before lojbab and I manage to reach
some form of agreement on this kind of discussions.
Also, I much prefer reasoned debate over authoritative
pronouncements.

>Obviously we
>can't force usage on people, but I for one would be happy to use
>articles in any way that is suggested, so long as the suggestion
>is clear enough.

Me too. But clarity seems to be hard to achieve on this issue.

co'o mi'e xorxes



------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1012
6:44 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



la bret cusku di'e

>mi nitcu lo tanxe noi cumki zasti
> - i need a box which may exist
>
>& is it not true that any reference to "lo tanxe" could be a reference
>to "lo tanxe noi cumki zasti" whose property of possible-existance has
>simply not been mentioned?

I don't think this has to do with zasti-existence. When I say
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} I am claiming that there is some object,
existent or non-existent, I don't care, but such that between
that object (of which it must be true that it is a tanxe) and
{mi} the relationship {nitcu} holds. If there is no such object
of which it can be said to be in relationship {nitcu} with {mi},
then I can't make that claim. (I'm not sure what I would need
a non-existent box for though.)

>lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
> - the lion dwells in africa
>
>lo'e tanxe cu se nitcu mi
> - the box is needed by me
>
>i'm sure you don't want to assert that the box is needed by you in the
>same sense that the lion dwells in africa!

No, I don't. That's why I said from the start that my use of {lo'e} is not
what can be deduced from its definition. I use {lo'e} because it's the
only article that refers to an abstraction rather than to actual objects,
but I don't really want the restriction of typicality. I would say that
the sentences above are not so much statements about "the lion"
and "the box", but rather about Africa and me:

lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a
Africa is lion-inhabited.

mi nitcu lo'e tanxe
I am box-needful.

I know that this is not how {lo'e} has been defined, but having
to choose between misusing {lo} or misusing {lo'e} I choose
the second, because {lo} already has a well defined logical
function, and I don't find {lo'e} all that useful if restricted to
the typical.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1013
7:02 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



coi djer

It's good to hear from you again!

>I agree as always that  "lo tanxe" means E(x)
>T(x) where the x referred to is the same in each form, ie the scope of
>x is the sentence.  So we have: mi nitcu E(x) T(x). We have put a full
>predication, a compound sentence, in a slot calling for a noun. It's
>not going to work.

It can be made to work using a nu abstraction, which
allows us to have a new prenex embedded in the x2 slot:

            mi nitcu le nu da poi tanxe zo'u mi ponse da
            "I need that for some x which is a box, I have x."

>Since I moved on from lojban I wrote a set of modals (need is a modal)
>for NGL. I got around the problem by requiring that the modal take a
>proposition in all cases as grammatical object, never a noun.

Maybe it makes more sense to define {nitcu} as "x1 needs that
proposition x2 (du'u) obtains" rather than "x1 needs that event
x2 (nu) happens", but I don't know, sometimes I think it doesn't
really gets us anything to distinguish nu and du'u.

But your point still holds: whether nu or du'u, we need a prenex
inside the x2 of nitcu in order to be able to use {lo tanxe}.

co'o mi'e xorxes



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1014
7:24 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e  preti zo nu
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la kolin spuda la djer di'e

>I think your point may be interpretable in terms of Lojban grammar by
>assuming a further subcategorisation - suppose that some tersumti
>subcategorise not just for kamsucta, but for kamfasnu (event) or
>kamselckaji (property). You may be right, and nitcu is no doubt a word
>where this question is significant.

I think most tersumti that subcategorise for kamsucta do also
further subcategorise for kamfasnu/kamselckaji. For example
zmadu definitely requires a selckaji in x3, and no fasnu will do.
This is true of most places that require properties.

>If this is correct, your argument is that nitcu requires a property and
>not a predication or state-of-affairs. This is a possible position to
>take, but it does not seem to me to be useful, or supported by the
>arguments and usage of those who have considered or used nitcu in the
>past. What is clear is that it cannot be supported by the choice of form
>used in the English gloss.

I hope nitcu doesn't go the same way sisku went for this very same
reason I think. The "solution" that turned "x1 looks for x2" into "x1 looks
for something with property x2" is really no solution, because we could
always construct a lujvo meaning "x1 looks for object x2" and the same
difficulty surfaces again. In fact, as far as I can tell sisku is still
being
used with its original meaning, which is the more useful one.
Changing {nitcu} to "x1 needs something with property x2" I think would
be a mistake.

co'o mi'e xorxes






------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1015
9:34 PM Sun 18 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  xod
From: xod xo-@bway.net





On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Steven Belknap wrote:





#1016
1:30 AM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  adv: Important Psychic  Message For You...
 From:  silvia_brow-

LIVE PERSONAL PSYCHIC!    (as seen on T.V.)

LEARN TODAY WHAT YOUR FUTURE HOLDS FOR
LOVE,  MONEY,  MARRIAGE,  JOB,  & HEALTH

ASTROLOGY          CLAIRVOYANCY
NUMEROLOGY        TAROT

ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY!

REALIZE YOUR DESTINY!      CALL RIGHT NOW!

1-900-226-4140  or 1-800-372-3384 for VISA, MC, & AMEX

(These are not sex lines!)

This message is intended for Psychic Readers, Psychic Users and people who are
 involved in the $1 Billion a year Psychic Industry. If this message has reached
 you in error, please disregard it and accept our apoligies. To be removed from
 this list, please respond with the subject "remove". Thank You.














LIVE PERSONAL PSYCHIC!    (as seen on T.V.)#1017
1:50 AM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 08:19 PM 4/16/99 -0300, you wrote:
>From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar
>la robin cusku di'e
>>Since this is a question of clarifying the language more than of
>>changing it, we don't have to wait for the end of the baseline
>>period.  {.e'usai} Jorge, John, Bob and any other interested elders
>>shut themselves away in a virtual chateau for a while, then come
>>up with a specific and authoritative pronouncement.
>
>I'm not sure I quite qualify as an elder, and besides, it would
>be a very long while before lojbab and I manage to reach
>some form of agreement on this kind of discussions.
>Also, I much prefer reasoned debate over authoritative
>pronouncements.

At this point I will not even contemplate making authoritative
pronouncements.  If it is in the book, it is part of the design.  If it is
not in the book, the most I would do is ask Cowan what he intended.  This
discussion is a rehash of what was discussed just prior to the baselining
and I see no reason why we are more able to decide now than we were then.
Maybe less because I doubt that Cowan or I is half as proficient in the
language as we were when actively working on the book and engaging in these
debates ourselves.  Real life has taken over .uucai

The spirit of the baseline is that we should not make authoritative
pronouncements anyway.  We are trying to transition to a usage-based
decision process.  So decide what you like; write using that approach, and
see if people understand.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1018
3:21 AM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: di'e preti zo nu
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la lojbab. cusku di'e






#1019
7:27 AM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  aa7q-
From: aa7q-@aol.com

In a message dated 18-Apr-99 3:54:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
sbelkna-@uic.edu writes:

> From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu
>
>  >Colin says "Part of the process of maintaining a conflict lies in
>  >justifying one's own side and blaming the other. The origins of the
dispute
>  >are rarely relevant."
>  >Many of you on the list have perhaps come on since the dispute, and have
>  >only heard stories from one side or the other on how or why it came about.
>  >Let us not rehash the stories, but some discussion, particularly from
>  >recent arrivals, on what, if anything, might be done about it, to turn
>  >competition into cooperation, as suggested by Dr. Belknap.
>  >
>  >Jelhaisto,
>  >Hue Bab
>  >(rmcivo-@macsrule.com)
>
>  As a start, could those lojbanistanis interested in Loglan please subscribe
>  to the Loglan list and those Loglanders interested in lojban please
>  subscribe to the lojban list. Maybe someone could post to each list how to
>  subscribe to the other list, how to get paper copies of journals published,
>  how to get access to the web site, etc. Such posting should be with the
>  approval of the listmaster, of course, just as a matter of netiquette.
>  Also, it would be nice if those who post to the private Loglan list could
>  send a copy of your message to the public Loglan list where this seems
>  appropriate. The lack of access to the private lists results in the
>  impression that relatively little activity is occurring in Loglan
>  cyberspace, which is of course not accurate.
>
>  One possible project would be developing and testing an automatic
>  translator lojban<->Loglan. My general impression is that the two languages
>  are very similar except for vocabulary. In order to begin, we would need a
>  clearer sense of what the differences are between the languages. Can anyone
>  help me understand how the languages differ?
>
>  lojban:  co'o mi'e stivn
>  Loglan: Hue Stivn
>  Steven Belknap, M.D.
>  Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
>  U
I have been a member of both lists for about a year now. I am concentrating
on learning Loglan (not very hard right know) because Lojban looks wierd to
me with all of those apostraphes between vowels. It is probably the most used
character in the Lojban alphabet.

Tcyk

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1020
11:20 AM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <Pine.LNX.3.96.990419001957.2273B-
10000-@ida.bway.net la xod xo-@bway.net cu cusku di'e
>
>I speak as someone introduced to Lojban within the last 6 months.
>
>I am not quite sure why the Loglan/Lojban split is considered a bad thing.
>It's a fascinating example of languages splitting off into dialects which
>eventually become mutually unintelligible. I cannot understand a single
>sentence of Loglan.

Agreed, that aspect could be interesting. Why it is sad is that there
are groups of people working on similar projects and having little or no
communication.

>I cannot imagine any benefits associated with "cooperation" between the
>two languages. Since there is no hope of the two languages fusing into
>one, I am afraid such activity would weaken both languages by wasting
>time. That effort would be better spent creating translators into English
>or Chinese.

I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in
coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in
some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more
interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you
do that instead, and let's see what effects they have".

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1021
12:19 PM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <v04020a05b3400f71dbc8@[128.248.9.107]> la Steven
Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu cu cusku di'e
>From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu
>
>
>As a start, could those lojbanistanis interested in Loglan please subscribe
>to the Loglan list and those Loglanders interested in lojban please
>subscribe to the lojban list. Maybe someone could post to each list how to
>subscribe to the other list, how to get paper copies of journals published,
>how to get access to the web site, etc. Such posting should be with the
>approval of the listmaster, of course, just as a matter of netiquette.
>Also, it would be nice if those who post to the private Loglan list could
>send a copy of your message to the public Loglan list where this seems
>appropriate. The lack of access to the private lists results in the
>impression that relatively little activity is occurring in Loglan
>cyberspace, which is of course not accurate.

ui mi danza lepo takna go kinci le logli e le lojbo I duo ie?
.ui mi danza lenu tavla co kansa lei logli jo'u lojbo prenu .i ta'i ma

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1022
2:41 PM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual  project
 From:  William Tanksley

From: William Tanksley wtanksl-@dolphin.openprojects.net

BTW, I just noticed that the loglanists are hosted from my school, UCSD.
Do you guys meet on campus?

On Mon, Apr 19, 1999 at 06:31:07PM +0100, Colin Fine wrote:
> From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

> vecu'u le notci po'u <Pine.LNX.3.96.990419001957.2273B-
> 10000-@ida.bway.net la xod xo-@bway.net cu cusku di'e

> >I speak as someone introduced to Lojban within the last 6 months.

I've kept out of the conversation until now for a similar reason (I've
only been looking at Lojban for a couple of weeks).

> >I am not quite sure why the Loglan/Lojban split is considered a bad thing.
> >It's a fascinating example of languages splitting off into dialects which
> >eventually become mutually unintelligible. I cannot understand a single
> >sentence of Loglan.

> Agreed, that aspect could be interesting. Why it is sad is that there
> are groups of people working on similar projects and having little or no
> communication.

I don't find it too suprising, simply because the project approaches are
so dissimilar.  The Loglanders (if I may) have a non-fixed language which
can be tinkered with and improved; the Lojbanistanis have a static
language which can be studied.  We (as always) have quite a bit to learn
from the results of our studies, but very little to help the studies
themselves.

If there's any suprise to be found, it's that Lojban was started from
something as seemingly unsuited to it as Loglan (no insult intended, let
me explain).  Lojban, as far as I can tell, was intended to be a free
language, like Linux is a free OS.  It's odd that the founders used
Loglan, a non-free (copyrighted with trade secrets) language as a basis.

Oh well.  I like both languages; I like the fundamental research that I
see on the Loglan page, and I like the exploration which I see in the
Lojban group.

> >I cannot imagine any benefits associated with "cooperation" between the
> >two languages. Since there is no hope of the two languages fusing into
> >one, I am afraid such activity would weaken both languages by wasting
> >time. That effort would be better spent creating translators into English
> >or Chinese.

> I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in
> coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in
> some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more
> interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you
> do that instead, and let's see what effects they have".

One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from
such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change
for at least five years.

The Loglanders would indeed do well (I suspect) to watch Lojban and
imitate the successes while shunning the mistakes -- but how can we tell
the differences?  Artificial selection doesn't work when we don't have a
selection criterion.

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
"But you shall not escape my iambics."
           -- Gaius Valerius Catullus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1023
6:01 PM Mon 19 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual  project
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar


la kolin cusku di'e
( Colin said: )

>ui mi danza lepo takna go kinci le logli e le lojbo I duo ie?
>.ui mi danza lenu tavla co kansa lei logli jo'u lojbo prenu .i ta'i ma


Is the second danza meant to be djica? You seem to know
Loglan better than Lojban :)

Also, shouldn't Lojbanist be lojbi in Loglan and Loglanic be
loglo in Lojban?

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1024
3:19 AM Tue 20 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Planned languages
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

Richard wrote:
(with some cuts)


>  A few weeks ago I left dangling a thread about Loglan, a planned
>  human language begun in the 1950s to test the Whorf Hypotheses that
>  language controls or greatly influences thought.  Its creator
>  decided to optimize Loglan for logically unambiguous expression, to
>  see if those learning the language would acquire enhanced abilities
>  to think logically, and in order to facilitate comparison and
>  measurement, to develop a vocabulary more or less cognate with as
>  many major world languages as practical, to minimize any relative
>  advantage or disadvantage for students from different backgrounds,
>  such as might be the case with Esperanto, whose vocabulary is
>  predominantly European.

I'm not sure how testable the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis really is, but it's a
noble effort.

>
>
>  (Note: I've been assured by some Asians that they know that they
>  must learn a European language anyway, and that Esperanto is far
>  preferable to English and the other unplanned languages.  Even if
>  they eventually learn another European language, Esperanto was given
>  as the best place to start, more than making up for the time
>  required to learn two languages rather than one.  Controlled studies
>  of grade school students learning one year of Esperanto followed by
>  one year of another language showed greater mastery of the second
>  language than demographically matched students with two years of the
>  second language alone; and this applied across several languages.

This is very interesting.  Do you have the references for these tests?

>
>  I know very little about Lojban except that it is an offshoot of
>  Loglan which came about over a copyright dispute (perhaps in the
>  mid-1980s?).  As I understand it some of those working with JCB
>  wanted to make it public domain, he wanted to retain legal
>  ownership, so the others claimed his copyright applied to the
>  individual words, not the structure of the language, which they had
>  helped develop.  Lojban is *almost* isomorphic with Loglan, except
>  for vocabulary.
>

AFAIK this is the case.  It would have been pretty hard for JCB to claim
copyright on the structure, since this would really mean claiming
copyright on predicate logic!  The other problem was that not only was JCB
claiming copyright, but he was continually changing the language.  This
combination frustrated people somewhat.

>  Far from being all but dead, I see Loglan building for
>  greater activity than ever before.  The listserv is getting
>  significant participation from those whose native language is not
>  English, including native speakers of Russian, Ossetian, German, and
>  Esperanto.  (Actually, most of the Esperantists are not native
>  speakers; but not all of them know English nor Loglan, so there is
>  interest in developing a Loglan-Esperanto / Esperanto-Loglan
>  dictionary).
>

I must admit I was surprised at this resurgence of activity (as postings
on the Lojban list show as well).

>
>  Blanu is roughly equivalent to "blue", "bleu", "azul", "azure",
>  etc., but does not mean "blue" in the absolute sense it would in
>  other languages.

Well, if Berlin etc. have taught us anything, it is that these words are
not absolute anyway.

>  I don't know about Lojban, but in Loglan it is a
>  two-place predicate, comparing X to Y (or ba to be, or da to de, to
>  use colloquial Loglan terms).  Loglan predicates by default make
>  relative comparisons rather than absolute declarations.  After all,
>  there are many different shades of blue and not quite so blue:  so
>  "da blanu de" means that "da" (= it(1) ) is more blue than "de" (=
>  it(2) ).  It is perfectly regular and common to omit trailing
>  arguments of a predicate, so "da blanu" means simply "it's blue".
>

According to what you've just said, it means "It's bluer", which kind of
obliges you to either fill in the missing argument or supply a default
value in the definition.

>
>  Loglan structure requires (and presumably the same or something very
>  similar applies to Lojban) that leading predicates be expressed at
>  least by blank place holders, so as I understand it, one way to say
>  that an item currently under consideration is less than ultimately
>  blue, is *"Ba blanu de".  (something, it doesn't matter what, is
>  more blue than it(2).)  * I could be mistaken about the choices of
>  "ba" and "de", but the principle here is sound loglan.
>

In Lojban, colours are one-place predicates.  "da blanu" just menas that X
is-blue by generally accepted atandards of blueness, not that it is bluer
than something (though obviously there is a logical implication that a
blue thing is bluer than a red thing).  Since there are no sharp colour
distinctions, we can read "da blanu" as "the colour of X approximates to
prototypical BLUE".  Of course, colour term vary across languages, but
there seems to be substantial agreement on prototypes.

>  I, for one, like discussion of Loglan and other planned languages,
>  and I would think that Coglingites would have much to offer a
>  planned language being finallized just before going public in a big
>  way; and conversely the spread of Loglan would make a rare
>  opportunity to test theories of Language and Cognition as a newly
>  created and perfectly regular language is acquired by people
>  wherever the Internet reaches.  The entirety of Loglan grammar has
>  been designed and tested by computer, making its properties known in
>  a way that should facilitate testing.

Ditto Lojban.  I too would appreciate discussion of planned languages (and
planned reforms of natural languages) here so long as we can avoid:

(a) knee-jerk reactions that Loglan, Esperanto etc. are not "real"
languages and are thus unworthy of serious consideration (as usually
happens when the subject is raised on sci.lang!)
(b) exaggerated claims by overenthusiastic proponents of particular
planned languages.

I suspect that most cognitive linguists would regard Loglan and Lojban as
quixotic projects (which is why I too remained silent on the subject for a
long time).  Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear people's ideas.

Robin Turner



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1025
11:50 AM Tue 20 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Planned languages
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

Robin Turner wrote:

> >  I know very little about Lojban except that it is an offshoot of
> >  Loglan which came about over a copyright dispute (perhaps in the
> >  mid-1980s?).  As I understand it some of those working with JCB
> >  wanted to make it public domain, he wanted to retain legal
> >  ownership, so the others claimed his copyright applied to the
> >  individual words, not the structure of the language, which they had
> >  helped develop.

Actually, it was JCB who made that claim; I have written documentation
of this.

> >  I don't know about Lojban, but in Loglan it is a
> >  two-place predicate, comparing X to Y (or ba to be, or da to de, to
> >  use colloquial Loglan terms).  Loglan predicates by default make
> >  relative comparisons rather than absolute declarations.  After all,
> >  there are many different shades of blue and not quite so blue:  so
> >  "da blanu de" means that "da" (= it(1) ) is more blue than "de" (=
> >  it(2) ).  It is perfectly regular and common to omit trailing
> >  arguments of a predicate, so "da blanu" means simply "it's blue".
> >
>
> According to what you've just said, it means "It's bluer", which kind of
> obliges you to either fill in the missing argument or supply a default
> value in the definition.

In particular, it legitimizes saying that grass is "blanu", since
grass is undoubtedly bluer than, say, blood is.  The Lojban definitions,
which allow but do not require specifications of color schemes
(HSB, RGB, etc.), illumination conditions, etc., don't have this
problem.

> >
> >  Loglan structure requires (and presumably the same or something very
> >  similar applies to Lojban) that leading predicates be expressed at
> >  least by blank place holders, so as I understand it, one way to say
> >  that an item currently under consideration is less than ultimately
> >  blue, is *"Ba blanu de".  (something, it doesn't matter what, is
> >  more blue than it(2).)  * I could be mistaken about the choices of
> >  "ba" and "de", but the principle here is sound loglan.
> >
>
> In Lojban, colours are one-place predicates.  "da blanu" just menas that X
> is-blue by generally accepted atandards of blueness, not that it is bluer
> than something (though obviously there is a logical implication that a
> blue thing is bluer than a red thing).  Since there are no sharp colour
> distinctions, we can read "da blanu" as "the colour of X approximates to
> prototypical BLUE".  Of course, colour term vary across languages, but
> there seems to be substantial agreement on prototypes.

Note the following Loglan-Lojban mappings:

                        Loglan          Lojban
predicate variables     ba, be, bi      da, de, di
pronouns                da, de, di      ko'a, ko'e, ko'i

 --
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowa-@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1026
12:15 PM Tue 20 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <01be8a2f$ede11600$localhos-@jorge la "=?iso-
8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar cu cusku di'e
>From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar
>
>
>la kolin cusku di'e
>( Colin said: )
>
>>ui mi danza lepo takna go kinci le logli e le lojbo I duo ie?
>>.ui mi danza lenu tavla co kansa lei logli jo'u lojbo prenu .i ta'i ma
>
>
>Is the second danza meant to be djica? You seem to know
>Loglan better than Lojban :)

.ie Loglan still sometimes gets in the way when I'm trying to talk
Lojban.
>
>Also, shouldn't Lojbanist be lojbi in Loglan and Loglanic be
>loglo in Lojban?
>
.ii
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1027
2:53 PM Tue 20 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Planned languages
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u 371c54b3.aeb9f4e-@bcc.bilkent.edu.tr la Robin
Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr cu cusku di'e
>From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr
>
>Richard wrote:
>(with some cuts)
>
>
>>  A few weeks ago I left dangling a thread about Loglan, a planned
>>  human language begun in the 1950s to test the Whorf Hypotheses that
>>  language controls or greatly influences thought.  Its creator
>>  decided to optimize Loglan for logically unambiguous expression, to
>>  see if those learning the language would acquire enhanced abilities
>>  to think logically, and in order to facilitate comparison and
>>  measurement, to develop a vocabulary more or less cognate with as
>>  many major world languages as practical, to minimize any relative
>>  advantage or disadvantage for students from different backgrounds,
>>  such as might be the case with Esperanto, whose vocabulary is
>>  predominantly European.
>
>I'm not sure how testable the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis really is, but it's a
>noble effort.

Speaking as a Loglanist from the '70s, I never believed in the
practicality of testing it - not even when Jim wrote a proposal for a
specific test. I was always much more interested in the grand game of
constructing a language and seeing (in a subjective way) what it did to
my thinking.

Note also that the respects in which Loglan was supposed to have
influence in the Sapir-Whorf sense were NOT primarily in vocabulary. It
had to have a vocabulary, so some strategy was required to generate it;
but the unique properties were to be in various aspects of the
grammatical structure.
>
>>
>>  I know very little about Lojban except that it is an offshoot of
>>  Loglan which came about over a copyright dispute (perhaps in the
>>  mid-1980s?).  As I understand it some of those working with JCB
>>  wanted to make it public domain, he wanted to retain legal
>>  ownership, so the others claimed his copyright applied to the
>>  individual words, not the structure of the language, which they had
>>  helped develop.  Lojban is *almost* isomorphic with Loglan, except
>>  for vocabulary.
>>
>
>AFAIK this is the case.  It would have been pretty hard for JCB to claim
>copyright on the structure, since this would really mean claiming
>copyright on predicate logic!  The other problem was that not only was JCB
>claiming copyright, but he was continually changing the language.  This
>combination frustrated people somewhat.

Actually it was never accepted that he could copyright even the words,
but the devisers of Lojban took the opportunity to rebuild the
vocabulary from an updated set of languages, and with some new
guidelines concerning combining forms.
>
>>  Far from being all but dead, I see Loglan building for
>>  greater activity than ever before.  The listserv is getting
>>  significant participation from those whose native language is not
>>  English, including native speakers of Russian, Ossetian, German, and
>>  Esperanto.  (Actually, most of the Esperantists are not native
>>  speakers; but not all of them know English nor Loglan, so there is
>>  interest in developing a Loglan-Esperanto / Esperanto-Loglan
>>  dictionary).
>>
>
>I must admit I was surprised at this resurgence of activity (as postings
>on the Lojban list show as well).
>
>>
>>  Blanu is roughly equivalent to "blue", "bleu", "azul", "azure",
>>  etc., but does not mean "blue" in the absolute sense it would in
>>  other languages.
>
>Well, if Berlin etc. have taught us anything, it is that these words are
>not absolute anyway.
>
>>  I don't know about Lojban, but in Loglan it is a
>>  two-place predicate, comparing X to Y (or ba to be, or da to de, to
>>  use colloquial Loglan terms).  Loglan predicates by default make
>>  relative comparisons rather than absolute declarations.  After all,
>>  there are many different shades of blue and not quite so blue:  so
>>  "da blanu de" means that "da" (= it(1) ) is more blue than "de" (=
>>  it(2) ).  It is perfectly regular and common to omit trailing
>>  arguments of a predicate, so "da blanu" means simply "it's blue".
>>
>
>According to what you've just said, it means "It's bluer", which kind of
>obliges you to either fill in the missing argument or supply a default
>value in the definition.
>
The trouble with the Loglan standard of making most or all 'adjectival'
predwords two-place is that they either require or imply (I'm not sure
which) that there is a scale of (in this case) blueness. I accepted this
when I was using Loglan, but now that it has been questioned, I am
dubious.
>>
>>  Loglan structure requires (and presumably the same or something very
>>  similar applies to Lojban) that leading predicates be expressed at
>>  least by blank place holders, so as I understand it, one way to say
>>  that an item currently under consideration is less than ultimately
>>  blue, is *"Ba blanu de".  (something, it doesn't matter what, is
>>  more blue than it(2).)  * I could be mistaken about the choices of
>>  "ba" and "de", but the principle here is sound loglan.
>>
In fact it is one of the differences between Loglan and Lojban (unless
Loglan has changed since I looked) that predicates with the first
argument omitted have different meanings. In Loglan AFAIK they are
imperatives, whereas Lojban requires an explicit pro-argument 'ko' to
express that. Sentences lacking the first argument are grammatically
'observatives' in Lojban, glossed as 'Lo! Something blue!' and the like;
but a number of writers (including myself) have taken the licence to
omit the first arg as a generalisation of the licence to omit any other,
and will happily use 'blanu' as a sentence in connected discourse to
mean e.g. 'it was blue' - first arg omitted and understood just as any
other can be.

All of which does not affect your point, which is that, given an
intrinsically comparative pred (such as loglan 'blanu' or lojban
'blamau' [blue-more]) it is possible to express less-than-superlative by
saying 'something is bluer than it':  'ba blanu da'/'da blamau ko'a'
>
>In Lojban, colours are one-place predicates.  "da blanu" just menas that X
>is-blue by generally accepted atandards of blueness, not that it is bluer
>than something (though obviously there is a logical implication that a
>blue thing is bluer than a red thing).  Since there are no sharp colour
>distinctions, we can read "da blanu" as "the colour of X approximates to
>prototypical BLUE".  Of course, colour term vary across languages, but
>there seems to be substantial agreement on prototypes.
>

>I suspect that most cognitive linguists would regard Loglan and Lojban as
>quixotic projects (which is why I too remained silent on the subject for a
>long time).  Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear people's ideas.

I don't disclaim that epithet. But I am delighted to be able to discuss
Loglan and Lojban together after all this time.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1028
2:53 PM Tue 20 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u 19990419144105.b58-@dolphin.dolphin.openprojects.n
et> la William Tanksley wtanksl-@dolphin.openprojects.net cu cusku
di'e
>BTW, I just noticed that the loglanists are hosted from my school, UCSD.
>Do you guys meet on campus?
>
>
>I don't find it too suprising, simply because the project approaches are
>so dissimilar.  The Loglanders (if I may) have a non-fixed language which
>can be tinkered with and improved; the Lojbanistanis have a static
>language which can be studied.  We (as always) have quite a bit to learn
>from the results of our studies, but very little to help the studies
>themselves.

>If there's any suprise to be found, it's that Lojban was started from
>something as seemingly unsuited to it as Loglan (no insult intended, let
>me explain).  Lojban, as far as I can tell, was intended to be a free
>language, like Linux is a free OS.  It's odd that the founders used
>Loglan, a non-free (copyrighted with trade secrets) language as a basis.
>
That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way.

>Oh well.  I like both languages; I like the fundamental research that I
>see on the Loglan page, and I like the exploration which I see in the
>Lojban group.
>
>
>> I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in
>> coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in
>> some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more
>> interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you
>> do that instead, and let's see what effects they have".
>
>One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from
>such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change
>for at least five years.

Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people
tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we
make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part
of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us
'exploring' as you put it.

>
>The Loglanders would indeed do well (I suspect) to watch Lojban and
>imitate the successes while shunning the mistakes -- but how can we tell
>the differences?  Artificial selection doesn't work when we don't have a
>selection criterion.
>
There are probably not going to be many objective mistakes. But there
can be subjective preferences, and sometimes things that usage shows
work better or not so well.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1029
2:54 PM Tue 20 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: More ...
 From:  Burke,Carl D.

From: "Burke,Carl D." cburk-@mitre.org

>From: Christopher Reid Palmer rei-@pconline.com
>
>c.d.wrigh-@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:
...
>> Hmm.  My "top" is as in
>>
>>     "octet", "October", "off", "on", "conscious"
>>       "ostensibly", "long", "monster" ...
>
>Yep -- for me, 'off' and 'on' have rounded low-mid back vowels, while
>the others you list have /a/, a low, mid-back vowel. Your having a
>single vowel for all (presumably the lax /O/, my 'off') is what I hear
>as a big part of RP.

As another data point, of perhaps little interest, "off" and "long"
have the same vowel sound, different from "top" and the rest of that
list and more prototypically "O"-like to my ear; "off" and "on" do not
share the same vowel sound in my dialect.  The sound in "on" is closer
to what the dentist says when he tells you to "open your mouth and
say 'Ah'", whereas the sound in "off" is closer to "awful".  For a true
"O" sound, though, you need the first vowel in "odor".

But then, I'm an American, so what can you expect?  :)

--
Carl Burke
cburk-@mitre.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1030
12:34 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  Planned languages
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 06:22 PM 4/20/99 +0100, you wrote:
>From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk
>vecu'u le notci po'u 371c54b3.aeb9f4e-@bcc.bilkent.edu.tr la Robin
>Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr cu cusku di'e
>>From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr
>
>Note also that the respects in which Loglan was supposed to have
>influence in the Sapir-Whorf sense were NOT primarily in vocabulary. It
>had to have a vocabulary, so some strategy was required to generate it;
>but the unique properties were to be in various aspects of the
>grammatical structure.

The intent was to devise a vocabulary that was learnable by a meaningful
strategy, but sufficiently unlike any one natlang so as to bias the
linguistics.  I am not sure how much JCB was thinking about this, but the
problem of semantics transfer is far worse when the words are cognates.
This is clear in looking at the Esperanto/Interlingua family of languages,
with especially Glosa suffering from English semantics transfer.  (And of
course "Basic English" relies on English idiom almost totally to convey
complex meanings, as the ultimate example of the weakness of cognate
languages).

>>AFAIK this is the case.  It would have been pretty hard for JCB to claim
>>copyright on the structure, since this would really mean claiming
>>copyright on predicate logic!

JCB did claim copyright on the formal grammar when he found that we had
remade the words to evade his copyright claims on them.  But he was on even
weaker ground there because the YACC grammar had been originally written by
people other than JCB who never granted him rights.

>>The other problem was that not only was JCB
>>claiming copyright, but he was continually changing the language.  This
>>combination frustrated people somewhat.
>
>Actually it was never accepted that he could copyright even the words,

Indeed - we remade the words because we thought it silly to get into an
expensive legal battle over an artificial language design, only to be
forced into it two years later anyway.

>but the devisers of Lojban took the opportunity to rebuild the
>vocabulary from an updated set of languages, and with some new
>guidelines concerning combining forms.

Actually we withdrew some of the sound changes for combining forms that he
had made in 1982, so that Lojban's sound combinations are more conservative
of the 1975 language than the so-called original.

We started with a vocabulary rebuilding because we thought this would show
the need for compromise, and I had a class full of people who wanted to
learn the language.  (JCB refused my order for 10 copies of the Loglan
dictionary needed to teach the class I had started here in Virginia,
because I had not agreed to his copyright claims).  There was no
contemplation of change, nor of making a "new" language until months later.

>>>  Far from being all but dead, I see Loglan building for
>>>  greater activity than ever before.  The listserv is getting
>>>  significant participation from those whose native language is not
>>>  English, including native speakers of Russian, Ossetian, German, and
>>>  Esperanto.  (Actually, most of the Esperantists are not native

>>>  speakers; but not all of them know English nor Loglan, so there is
>>>  interest in developing a Loglan-Esperanto / Esperanto-Loglan
>>>  dictionary).

A bit exaggerated, IMHO. The Loglanists List has been noteworthy for weeks
of silence between messages, and the non-English posters prior to the last
week could be counted on one hand.  The most prolific poster on Lojban List
in the last few years has been Spanish-native Jorge Llambias.  Jorge and
Goran Topic of Croatia, along with several others, kept a running Lojban
conversation going on the Lojban mailing list for a couple of months back
in 1996.

>>I must admit I was surprised at this resurgence of activity (as postings
>>on the Lojban list show as well).

Lojban List now has close to 150 subscribers and 30-40% were clearly non-US
the last time I looked.

>>According to what you've just said, it means "It's bluer", which kind of
>>obliges you to either fill in the missing argument or supply a default
>>value in the definition.
>>
>The trouble with the Loglan standard of making most or all 'adjectival'
>predwords two-place is that they either require or imply (I'm not sure
>which) that there is a scale of (in this case) blueness. I accepted this
>when I was using Loglan, but now that it has been questioned, I am
>dubious.

The prototype model of semantics does seem to be the predominant one these
days (the cogling people may know this better than I do),  It would require
that comparative "blanu" mean something like "X is more similar than Y to
prototypical blue, and not more similar to some other basic color prototype
than it is to blue.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1031
8:11 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Planned languages
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr


coi kolin. .i do cusku di'e

>
> In fact it is one of the differences between Loglan and Lojban (unless
> Loglan has changed since I looked) that predicates with the first
> argument omitted have different meanings. In Loglan AFAIK they are
> imperatives, whereas Lojban requires an explicit pro-argument 'ko' to
> express that. Sentences lacking the first argument are grammatically
> 'observatives' in Lojban, glossed as 'Lo! Something blue!' and the like;
> but a number of writers (including myself) have taken the licence to
> omit the first arg as a generalisation of the licence to omit any other,
> and will happily use 'blanu' as a sentence in connected discourse to
> mean e.g. 'it was blue' - first arg omitted and understood just as any
> other can be.

AFAIK, this is part of the grammar anyway - Lojban can be seen as pro-drop e.g.

dunda ti mi
Someone gave this to me.

{blanu} can mean both "Lo! Something is blue" or "It is/was blue" depending on
the context.

co'o mi'e robin.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1032
8:27 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la kolin. cusku di'e

>
> >One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from
> >such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change
> >for at least five years.
>
> Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people
> tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we
> make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part
> of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us
> 'exploring' as you put it.

zo'o .ie lenu zo lo'e se pilno la xorxes. cu mupli

co'o mi'e robin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1033
9:21 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  William Tanksley

From: William Tanksley wtanksl-@dolphin.openprojects.net

On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 05:59:24PM +0100, Colin Fine wrote:
> [wtanksle wrote:]
> >BTW, I just noticed that the loglanists are hosted from my school, UCSD.
> >Do you guys meet on campus?

Still curious...

> >I don't find it too suprising, simply because the project approaches are
> >so dissimilar.  The Loglanders (if I may) have a non-fixed language which
> >can be tinkered with and improved; the Lojbanistanis have a static
> >language which can be studied.  We (as always) have quite a bit to learn
> >from the results of our studies, but very little to help the studies
> >themselves.

> >If there's any suprise to be found, it's that Lojban was started from
> >something as seemingly unsuited to it as Loglan (no insult intended, let
> >me explain).  Lojban, as far as I can tell, was intended to be a free
> >language, like Linux is a free OS.  It's odd that the founders used
> >Loglan, a non-free (copyrighted with trade secrets) language as a basis.

> That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way.

That's a newbie's impression gained by reading most of the web pages,
which is all I have available.  I assume from your words that you know how
it actually happened; I'm all ears.

Such documentation would, I suspect, be a good thing to post on both web
pages.  I suspect that if done right it would help to heal some parts of
the rift (although as I said before, I don't think the two languages will
ever merge).

> >> I can imagine such benefits - in cross-fertilisation, and indeed in
> >> coordinated difference. If Lojban goes one way and Loglan another in
> >> some respect, this might be interesting. It might be even more
> >> interesting were we to say "We'll try doing this in our version and you
> >> do that instead, and let's see what effects they have".

> >One problem is that Lojban has (AFAIK) nothing whatsoever to gain from
> >such an experiment -- its definition is frozen, and will not admit change
> >for at least five years.

> Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people
> tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we
> make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part
> of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us
> 'exploring' as you put it.

Nothing stops anyone -- we're all free agents.  We still generally start
out wanting to do something, and choosing the best tool for that job.  If
you want to modify a language, you'll prefer a language which is open for
modification.

> >The Loglanders would indeed do well (I suspect) to watch Lojban and
> >imitate the successes while shunning the mistakes -- but how can we tell
> >the differences?  Artificial selection doesn't work when we don't have a
> >selection criterion.

> There are probably not going to be many objective mistakes. But there
> can be subjective preferences, and sometimes things that usage shows
> work better or not so well.

That's the hope.  Well, good luck to us all.

> |     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
"But you shall not escape my iambics."
           -- Gaius Valerius Catullus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1034
9:58 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Another  Lojban prayer/meditation
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

coi rodoi

Since a couple of people liked the last prayer / meditation,
here's the latest ...

.i mi dunda lei selpencu le dertu
.i mi dunda lei vrusi le djacu
.i mi dunda lei selviska le fagri
.i mi dunda lei selsumne le vacri
.i mi dunda lei seltirna le canlu

.i banro .i stodi .i fusra .i mi dunda roda le selpramrai


The last line is a direct(ish) translation of the Sanskrit "Hrim
srim krim paramesvari svaha" (not that I know Sanskrit, but this
is what I'm told it means!).

{canlu} is a substitute for "akasha", incorrectly believed to be
the medium through which sound travels, and usually translated as
"ether" which was incorrectly thought to be ... etc. etc.  I have
occasionally seen "space" used as a translation, which struck me
as the least dubious.  Theosophically-inspired stuff about
"akashic records" and so on is just a lot of flim-flam grafted
onto some already misunderstood Indian metaphysics.  But what the
hell, I needed a fifth element (shades of Luc Besson!).

I noticed some incongruities in the gismu list while writing
this.  Compare {viska} etc. to {vrusi}, which has the
place-structure reversed (and buggers up the metre into the
bargain!).  "Smell" has two gismu, while "feel" in the sense of
"perceive through the sense of touch" has none.

Speaking of incongruities, perceptive readers may notice that I
use {fagri} in two different systems in (slightly) different
ways.  Don't blame me, I'm just following the Kaula tradition
here, where fire is both one of the five elements and the three
lights.  I would guess the former is its property of heat, while
the latter is its property of giving light.  Or something like
that. {.uanai.e'enai}

As I said before, the aim of writing these pieces (apart from my
personal use) is to try and extract the core of various
"spiritual" practices while ditching the cultural baggage and
some of the more dubious metaphysics ({.oiro'ese'i} - just
noticed the mixed metaphor!).  I usually find that straight
translations into English sound either absurd, obscure or trite.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1035
9:59 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

William Tanksley wrote:

> > That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way.
>
> That's a newbie's impression gained by reading most of the web pages,
> which is all I have available.  I assume from your words that you know how
> it actually happened; I'm all ears.
>
> Such documentation would, I suspect, be a good thing to post on both web
> pages.  I suspect that if done right it would help to heal some parts of
> the rift (although as I said before, I don't think the two languages will
> ever merge).

Or make it worse.  The history of a dispute is difficult to write
until all the participants have died off.  1/2 :-)

This can be said, however: that a dispute about legalities and about
organizational rules caused an organizational fission: an attempt,
on the part of the offshoot, to avoid further disputes about legalities
caused a fission of the languages: positions then hardened on both
sides.  Loglan remains mutable and proprietary: Lojban is public
domain, but is no longer changing by the conscious choice of its
creators.  (Natural language drift is expected to occur, as in
all languages.)

> > Its definition may be frozen, but do you suppose that stops people
> > tinkering with it? The point is that we know that any suggestions we
> > make (that touch the matter which has been baselined) cannot become part
> > of the language, at least until the next baseline. That doesn't stop us
> > 'exploring' as you put it.
>
> Nothing stops anyone -- we're all free agents.  We still generally start
> out wanting to do something, and choosing the best tool for that job.  If
> you want to modify a language, you'll prefer a language which is open for
> modification.

The view of LLG (the Lojban organization) is that many people
will not learn a language that they perceive as showing a substantial
risk of change, for they are not willing to have to unlearn what
they have learned.  At the present time both Lojban (de jure) and
Loglan (de facto) have stabilized, as far as I can tell.

> That's the hope.  Well, good luck to us all.

Indeed.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowa-@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1036
10:56 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  xod
From: xod xo-@bway.net





On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, John Cowan wrote:





#1037
11:27 AM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  lisri
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com


le nunlenku co narcne ve'aki galcpana le bansusybilga
cmana (Up here on the language-task mountain it's
always cold.) .i .a'a carmi solri (But the sun is bright.)
.i .a'a ca'u kruvi joi jgana dinju (Ahead there's a
curviangular building.) .i mi .e lemi bavyspe goi ko'a ge
ru'inai degji vasxu gi co'e le vorme bele ckafybarja (My
fiancee & i are blowing on our fingers as we enter the
coffeehouse.).i .i'o.i'unai.o'ubu'o mligla je kafpanci je
remvru (Pleasant, strange, relaxing: warmth & coffee-smell
& human bustle.) .i ko'a noi du la djunas. jubme jdice ca
lenu mi selpinxe cpacu (Djuna finds a table while i get our
drinks.) .i ko'a cuxna lo fomladru ckafi (She wants a latte)
.ije mi cuxna lo relrau kafcai (while i want a double
espresso.) .i le guksmi sance bele kafca'a di'inai gacri le
tavla (The scraping sound of the coffeemaker sometimes drowns
out the talk,) ne za'a bau le glico .e le spano .e lo
camberyro'o .eji'a le'i bangu poi se cmima ko'e goi fu'eju'o-
cu'i slovo simsa (which i notice is in English, Spanish, some
Scandanavian tongue & othersincluding one that sounds at first
like quasi-Slavic.) .i mi mo'iga'u catlu .ija'ebo viska re
klacpare selpli poi simjorne fi'o jgarau fe'u li sono fu'o (I
lift my eyes & see a pair of crossed climbing-axes.)


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1038
3:28 PM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  xa'unro'a xibi
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

la bret. cusku lu .i mi sruma le du'u do stidi le nu mi'a viska ko'e
.i xu jetnu? li'u

.i viska je tirna je senva bo lifri lo skina
co'omi'e maikl.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share the wealth!
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell a friend about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1039
5:08 PM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Another Lojban  prayer/meditation
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

i melbi pespemci ki'e doi robin i mi terpinka loi valsi selcu'a

>.i banro .i stodi .i fusra .i mi dunda roda le selpramrai
>
>The last line is a direct(ish) translation of the Sanskrit "Hrim
>srim krim paramesvari svaha" (not that I know Sanskrit, but this
>is what I'm told it means!).

Would you consider {i zenba i stodi i jdika}?
I understand that in English "grow" and "decay" are much
more poetic and have more appropriate connotations here
than "increase" and "decrease", but in Lojban banro/stodi/fusra
are really very incongruous. zenba/stodi/jdika are all of the
same form: increases/remains/decreases in property x2.

Another possibility would be something like banro/taisto/tolba'o:
x1 grows to form x2 from x3.
x1 stays at form x2.
x1 shrinks to form x2 from x3.

Or even if you want: selfre/zilsto/fusra ({zilsto} is meant to be {stodi be
zi'o}.):
x1 flourishes under conditions x2.
x1 remains unchanged under conditions x2.
x1 decays under conditions x2.

>{canlu} is a substitute for "akasha", incorrectly believed to be
>the medium through which sound travels, and usually translated as
>"ether" which was incorrectly thought to be ... etc. etc.  I have
>occasionally seen "space" used as a translation, which struck me
>as the least dubious.  Theosophically-inspired stuff about
>"akashic records" and so on is just a lot of flim-flam grafted
>onto some already misunderstood Indian metaphysics.  But what the
>hell, I needed a fifth element (shades of Luc Besson!).

It's unfortunate that the four (five?) elements have such disparate
place structures, too, but here I have more difficulty in finding good
alternatives. I think {vacri}, which brings in the planet, is the
worst. Of course it sounds better than {gapci} if you think in terms
of the English keywords, but it seems wrong if you think about
the whole place structure.

>I noticed some incongruities in the gismu list while writing
>this.  Compare {viska} etc. to {vrusi}, which has the
>place-structure reversed (and buggers up the metre into the
>bargain!).  "Smell" has two gismu, while "feel" in the sense of
>"perceive through the sense of touch" has none.

I don't think {vrusi} is like {viska} in reverse. I agree that there
is something missing though:

viska    jvinu
tirna    sance
sumne    panci
vu'irga'e    vrusi
pencu?    tengu

Maybe:
te'urga'e    tengu

co'o mi'e xorxes


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1040
5:33 PM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  la'o .gy  the matrix .gy
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

  .i pi so'i do'o la'o .gy the matrix .gy cu pu viska vau xu... .i mi le
du'u ri xamgu co mutce cu jinvi...  .i ba'o remoi viska...

  .i ca le prulamdei nu remoi viska  .i puzi la'e di'u vi ti noi la'o .gy
denver .gy fasnu ba le ckule nuncecla goi ko'a  .ibabo mi le se cradi cu
tirna  .i so'u le cradi cusku cu jinvi le du'u le ra skina cu pagbu lei
rinka be ko'a...

  .i mi na tugni...... .i pe'i fenki...


bavpe'i,

trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1041
5:43 PM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  oops...
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


  pu cusku djica lu .i ca le prulamdei nu re_mei_ viska  li'u...  pe'i ri
drani... ^_^

bavpe'i...

tore-chan. (trevyr)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1042
5:59 PM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  lo'e danfu  co mela maiky'elsym.
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

.au tanxu (I want a box!)


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 130,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1043
6:25 PM Wed 21 Apr 99
 Subject:  who i am
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

Peter Michael Garcia asked:
"Who are you?"

ganai zo'e me mi

        gi le me mi cu zasti


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1044
12:26 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Fwd: da blanu de
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:05:12 -0500 (CDT)
>To: lojba-@lojban.org
>From: John Clifford sjepar-@umslvma.umsl.edu
>Subject: da blanu de
>
>>From my occasional drops-in on Lojban list (MyGAWD are they on the second
>place of nitcu again/still?!)I see that things are stuck in the same cycling
>rut.  But I see one historical question arising anew (i.e., I haven't seen
>it for several years) namely, why Loglan blanu was two-placed.  So, because
>i actually liked that feature and the related one, I offer a recap:
>The background is a linguistic/philosophic discussion in the late 60's about
>semantic primes.  Two features of this slid into Loglan at the time: that
>all predicates were inherently potential, becoming actualized only in
>context (borrowed from Quine eventually, I think -- or at least blamed on
>him) and that all "absolute" terms were actually relative.  It was not clear
>to what they were relative and trying to work this out was what led to
>Lojban dropping this feature (that and the fact that you and John did not
>like it) (The potential meaning was dropped even in Instiloglan in practice
>at least because no one could figure out how to tell when the context had
>actualized a term and when not.) But the cases underlying the original
>comparative blanu remain to be dealt with, e.g, that a blue house is usually
>much less blue than a blue sky or a blue sapphire but more so than a blue
>baby and so on.  The classics are things like tall dwarfs and short giants
>(OK, small elephants and enormous ants).  The skipped second place was
>normally taken to be the typical of the named class of the first term: a
>tall dwarf was (quite correctly) one taller than the typical dwarf, and so
>on.  But this came in conflict with the usual elision variable "something,"
>leaving everything blanu apparently (well, bluer than SOMEthing).
>The new "by standard..." does not solve that problem, nor does appeal to
>general paradigm cases.  But people seem to get by just by using the rule
>they use in English (or whatever), which is what the original insight was an
>attempt to make explicit.
>pc

----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 130,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1045
4:09 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lo'e  danfu co mela maiky'elsym.
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

michael helsem wrote:

> From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com
>
> .au tanxu (I want a box!)
>

Best suggestion yet!

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1046
6:32 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Lojban Mad-libs?
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

Some has just suggested to me that Lojban writers could write "mad-libs" in
Lojban.  These are stories in which selected words are omitted, but
labelled with a part of speech or other indicator as to what needs to be
filled in.  Someone else then supplies words of the indicated part of
speech and the resulting story is read, random-sounding and usually funny.

This sounds a little like what the random sentence generator produces, but
the latter has everything random and not just selected words, so there is
no cohesion to the story.  But in any case the exercise could be useful in
teaching vocabulary and grammar.

Note that the clues might be  "at least 4 place brivla"  "number", and not
"noun", "verb", "adjective" as in English Madlibs.

Any writers out there?

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1047
7:50 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Lojban Mad-libs?
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org
>
> Some has just suggested to me that Lojban writers could write "mad-libs" in
> Lojban.  These are stories in which selected words are omitted, but
> labelled with a part of speech or other indicator as to what needs to be
> filled in.  Someone else then supplies words of the indicated part of
> speech and the resulting story is read, random-sounding and usually funny.
>

.a'u pe'u ko cusku lo tordu mupli

{fu'e zo'o} that's {lo} in the sense of something-that-really-is.  I am not
inferring that there exists a short example such that I am asking you to express
it {fu'o}

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1048
8:03 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Lojban Mad-libs?
 From:  Thorild Selen

From: Thorild Selen thoril-@update.uu.se

Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group writes:
 > From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org
 >
 > Some has just suggested to me that Lojban writers could write "mad-libs" in
 > Lojban.  These are stories in which selected words are omitted, but
 > labelled with a part of speech or other indicator as to what needs to be
 > filled in.  Someone else then supplies words of the indicated part of
 > speech and the resulting story is read, random-sounding and usually funny.
 >
 > This sounds a little like what the random sentence generator produces, but
 > the latter has everything random and not just selected words, so there is
 > no cohesion to the story.  But in any case the exercise could be useful in
 > teaching vocabulary and grammar.
 >
 > Note that the clues might be  "at least 4 place brivla"  "number", and not
 > "noun", "verb", "adjective" as in English Madlibs.

I believe that without additional information, these sentences/stories
will be even more nonsensical than in English! Just think of how
places in a place structure can be used for all kinds of purposes!

"O John! From the time of something being flammable and onwards, I
hopefully ceased to be a sphere made out of the event of this having
been moving about or going to the market, PLEASE?"

Are you expecting more meaningful sentences than this? :)

/Thorild


P.S.: Exercise left to the reader: Translate the text above into Lojban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 130,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1049
8:31 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  da blanu de
 From:  Steven Belknap
From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu

>The new "by standard..." does not solve that problem, nor does appeal to
>general paradigm cases.  But people seem to get by just by using the rule
>they use in English (or whatever), which is what the original insight was an
>attempt to make explicit.
>pc

I certainly agree with pc that the "by standard" place does not completely
resolve the problem of what we mean by <da blanu de>. The dialectic
regarding this issue seems to drift aimlessly, never being resolved
definitively. Some time ago I suggested that this dilemma might be an
instance of circular definition or failure to acknowledge axioms. If one
wishes to avoid circular definitions and unproven postulates, some terms
must be left undefined, and some axioms must be left unproven. For example,
in Euclidean geometry, the undefined terms are <line, point, set,
betweeness>. The axioms are Euclid's five.

Color is a particularly vexing issue, as it has cultural determinants. We
apparently do *not* all agree on what blue <blanu> is. So leaving it is an
undefined term is problematic. It is simply not the case that understanding
what we mean by blue is axiomatic. This could, I suppose, be solved by
specifying the particular wavelengths involved, or the particular retinal
aldehyde reactions involved, but as has been previously discussed, neither
of these is really satisfactory. So I can't tell you what I mean by blue,
but I know it when I see it.

-Steven
Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1050
9:39 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

tcy-@aol.com wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, what might this strong feature be?

The "baseline" refers to an organizational decision by the
Logical Language Group that, after the publication of the
grammar book in 1997, no more changes to the language would be
made for *five years*.  (There is an exemption for the place
structures of complexes/lujvo.)

In 2002 (weather permitting), we
will review all proposals for changes, make one final batch
(possibly of zero size), and then freeze the prescription forever.
No more tinkering. Just like Esperanto.

This doesn't mean that the language won't evolve naturally as
it is used.  It just means that the creators have stopped
making conscious changes to it.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowa-@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1051
10:36 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: da blanu de
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la stivn. cusku di'e





#1052
10:50 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mutual project
 From:  Robert A. McIvor

From: "Robert A. McIvor" rmcivo-@sprynet.com

>William Tanksley wrote:
>
>> > That's what history looks like from the rear. It didn't happen that way.
>>
>> That's a newbie's impression gained by reading most of the web pages,
>> which is all I have available.  I assume from your words that you know how
>> it actually happened; I'm all ears.
>>
>> Such documentation would, I suspect, be a good thing to post on both web
>> pages.  I suspect that if done right it would help to heal some parts of
>> the rift (although as I said before, I don't think the two languages will
>> ever merge).
> From John Cowan
>Or make it worse.  The history of a dispute is difficult to write
>until all the participants have died off.  1/2 :-)

        I fear that is so. Any attempt to go into detail would bring
contrasting versions from both sides which would not be helpful to any
cooperation.  Let us just say it happened, both sides probably regret it
since the competition discourages the newcomers we need to build up a
critical mass of logical language users.


Sincerely,
Robert A. McIvor
(rmcivo-@macsrule.com)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1053
10:51 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  la ja le greku
 From:  michael helsem
From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com











gu'e steci fasnu skicki gi na ke vanbi ganse (We analyze  what happens instead of seeing what's all around us.) .i lenu  tavla fi le rinka cu basti lenu jimpe le pruce (Talking about the  causes is a substitute for understanding the process.) .i mi ku'i judysanji lenu le pomi nuntra pu'o vlile jonai seltro (I see in my
 own conduct the seeds of violence, & its suppression.) .i ba'e
 claxu leka bebna lenu mi jitfa jinvi ledu'u mi djuno ledu'u mi na
 catra dunli (I only lack the folly of pretending to know that i am  not a killer.)








Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com





------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend. http://www.ONElist.com ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!#1054
11:49 AM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

Alex Leith wrote (what is your Loglan name, please?):

> Mi danza ia, supo lo logli ze lo lojbi fua kintaa. I muu fa suksi tio duo
> hu?

Okay, in Lojban that would be:

mi djica .ie su'o nu loi .loglan. zei prenu joi loi lojpre ta'e casnu
.i ma'a ba snada la'e di'u pu'e ma

All the words are different except "mi" and "i", but the grammar
is the same except for the following differences (in Loglan terminology)

1. Lojban doesn't have declensions, which were introduced into Loglan
after the split.  (LLG comment: "Does one decline "godzi" when the
goer is male vs. female?  If not, why not?").  Instead, we use the
obvious complexes: "lojpre" = "lojbo prenu" = "Lojbanic person",
expending one letter but saving on conceptual machinery.

There is no prim for "Loglandic" in Lojban, so we make a pseudo-complex
with the LW "zei", which binds together the two surrounding words (only),
producing a complex even if (as is the case) one of them is a name.
The metaphor "me la loglan. prenu" would work too.

2.  I'm not sure why you didn't use the prim "dislu" (Lojban "casnu")
rather than a complex; the equivalent Lojban complex is "kanta'a".

3.  There is no separate LW for the referents of just-spoken sentences.
Instead, we use the LW for the sentence itself, prefixed by "la'e"
("lae" in Loglan) to get the referent.  This would work in Loglan
too.

4.  There are several plausible translations for "duo" in Lojban:
I have chosen "by process" rather than "by method".

And if you don't like the apostrophes, it is possible to live without
them for the most part: they basically indicate which VV pairs are
two syllables and which are not.  Lojban does use both "a'i" and "ai",
etc.; pronounce the apostrophe as "h" (which Lojban does not have).

> To which I'd say:
>    Ea muo togri !!
>    Let us (= speaker + audience + others, acting individually)  agree !!!

That is "e'u lu'a ma'a tugni", where "lu'a" converts what follows
to individuals; "ma'a" is inherently a mass.

Loglan->Lojban terminology map:  prim<->gismu, complex<->lujvo,
LW (little word)<->cmavo.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowa-@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1055
1:22 PM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

John Cowan wrote:

>
> There is no prim for "Loglandic" in Lojban, so we make a pseudo-complex
> with the LW "zei", which binds together the two surrounding words (only),
> producing a complex even if (as is the case) one of them is a name.
> The metaphor "me la loglan. prenu" would work too.

Thanks - I'd been wondering how to get round this!

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1056
1:30 PM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  A Lojban  lesson
 From:  Robin Turner
coi redoi

Despite my fairly lousy Lojban, I've decided to write a set of
beginners lessons to put on the web.  This is largely because
although various people have proposed various kinds of teaching
materials, nothing has been made available so far apart from the
draft textbook, which has been in cold storage for some time.
What I propose is that everyone who's interested in producing
teaching materials does so, circulates it among the lobypli for
comments, then publishes.

The lesson here is on imperatives and questions, and is the
third.  Yhe other two need tidying up a bit - the first is on
pronunciation and cmene, and the second gives the basic bridi
structure.

I'd appreciate comments, in particular on my use of {ko} and
{na}, which some people might consider not totally kosher.

Anyway, I hope my HTML is a little cleaner this time!

co'o mi'e robin.




Lesson 3
Commands, Requests and Questions
So far we've looked at simple propositions, sentences that say that something is true.  You can, in theory, say anything you want with propositions, but it's pretty inconvenient.  For example, if I want you to run, I could say just that:

I want you to run

but I'd probably just say:

Run!

How do we do this in Lojban?  We can't copy English grammar and just say bajra, since, as we've seen, this means "Someone/something runs".  Instead we say

ko bajra

ko means you, the person I'm talking to, but only in commands (in normal sentences it's do).  Normally it comes in the first place of the bridi, since normally you're asking people to do something or be something, not to have something done to them.  However, you can put it elsewhere, e.g.

nelci ko

This means something like "Act so that [someone unspecified] likes you", and sounds pretty odd in English, but you could use it in the sense of "Try to make a good impression."  Another example is:

mi dunda le cifnu ko

or "Act so that I give the baby to you," with the possible meaning "Get up and put your cigarette out - I'm going to pass you the baby."

You can even have ko in two places in a bridi, for example,

ko kurji ko
[Act so that] you take care of you

or in other words, "Take care of yourself."  In fact, since we can put the selbri anywhere other than the beginning of the sentence (since this would imply "someone/something" for the first place), we can (and do) say

ko ko kurji

Exercise 1
Imagine that someone says these things to you.  What is it that they want you to do?
ko klama miko bajra la .alis.ko dunda le cukta mila .IZabel. nelci koko sutrako cmila koko ko nelciko muvdu le karcila meilis. cmila ko

So far we've looked at simple commands.  However, outside the army, we don't normally use these very much - normally we ask people politely.  Foreigners in England often make the mistake of thinking that putting "Please" in front of a command makes it into a polite request, which it doesn't (in English we usually have to make it into a question e.g. "Could you open the window?").  Fortunately, in Lojban, "please" really is the magic word.  Putting pe'u before a sentence with ko transforms it into a request e.g.


pe'u ko dunda le cukta mi


is literally "Please give me the book," but is actually more like "Could you give me the book, please?"



Questions
In English, we make a yes/no question by changing the order of the words (e.g. "You are ..." -> "Are you ...") or putting some form of "do" at the beginning (e.g. "Does she smoke?").  This seems perfectly natural to someone whose native language is English (or German, or whatever) but  is actually unnecessarily complicated (as any speaker of Chinese or Turkish will tell you).  In Lojban we can turn any proposition into a yes/no question by simply putting  xu at the beginning.  Some examples:


xu do nelci la bil.
Do you like Bill?
xu mi klama
Am I coming?
xu crino
Is it green?


There are two ways to answer these questions.  Lojban, like some other languages, does not have words that mean "yes" or "no". One way to answer "yes" is to repeat the selbri e.g.


xu do nelci la bil.
nelci

We can also use go'i, which repeats the last bridi.  In this case, though, it doesn't mean do nelci la bil. but mi nelci la bil. - it is the meaning, rather than the words of the bridi which are repeated.  In other words, in an answer to a yes/no question, it means "yes".

What about negative answers?  Any bridi can be made negative by using na.  This negates the whole of the bridi, so you can put it anywhere you want - most people either put it right at the beginning, or before the selbri (I prefer the beginning, since then it is clearer that I'm negating the whole thing).  So na mi nelci la bil. means "It is not true that I like Bill," or in other words, "I don't like Bill."

As an answer to a question, we do the same thing, so we just say na nelci or na go'i.

Logical note: Negatives are a lot more complicated than they look, in both English and Lojban.  Strictly speaking, na mi nelci la bil. is true even if I've never heard of Bill (since it's pretty hard to like someone you know nothing about).  We'll look at some other negatives later, but for the time being na will do fine.  Just as in English, if you ask someone if they like Bill, and they reply "No" because they haven't met him, they're being amazingly unhelpful.


English also has a number of "wh-" questions - "who", "what" etc.  In Lojban we use one word for all of these: ma.  This is like an instruction to fill in the missing place.  For example:


do klama ma
la london.

"Where are you going?"
"London"

ma klama la london.
la klaudias.

"Who's going to London?"
"Claudia."

mi dunda ma do
le cukta

"I give what to you?" (probably meaning "What was it I was supposed to be giving you?")
"The book."


(strictly speaking, la london, le cukta and so on are not grammatical Lojban (or English) sentences - you can have a selbri on its own but not a sumti - but in practical conversation this doesn't really matter)

Finally we have mo.  This is like ma, but questions a selbri, not a sumti - it's like English "What does X do?" or "What is X?" (remember being and doing are the same!).  More logically, we can see mo as asking someone to describe the relationship between the sumti in the question.  For example:


do mo la klaudias.
"You ??? Claudia"


The answer depends on the context.  Possible answers to this question are:


nelci - "I like her."
prami - "I adore/am in love with her."
xebni - "I hate her."
fengu - "I'm angry with her."
cmila - "I laugh at her"
cinba - "I kissed her"


Note that the time is not important here: just as cinba can mean "kiss", "kissed", "will kiss" and so on, mo does not ask a question about any particular time.  There are ways to specify time in Lojban, but it's not necessary to use them (just to satisfy your curiosity though, "I kissed Claudia" is mi pu cinba la klaudias.).

We've said that mo can also be a "What is ..." type of question.  The simplest example is ti mo - "What is this?".  You could also ask la meilis. mo, which could mean "Who is Mei Li?", "What is Mei Li?", "What is Mei Li doing?" and so on.  Again, the answer depends on the context. For example:


ninmu - "She's a woman."
jungo - "She's Chinese."
pulji - "She's a policewoman."
sanga - "She's a singer" or "She's singing."
melbi - "She's beautiful." (possibly a pun, since this is what "meili" means in Chinese!)


 There are ways to be more specific, but these normally involve a ma question; for example la meilis. gasnu ma ("Mei Li does what?").

There are more question words in Lojban, but xu, ma and mo are enough for most of what you might want to ask. Three other important questions, xo ("How many?") ca ma ("When?) and pei ("How do you feel about it?") will come in the lessons on numbers, time and attitudes.

Exercise 2: Lojban general knowledge quiz
Answer the following questions (in Lojban, of course).  Most of the answers are very easy; the trick is to understand the question!
la brutus. mo la .iulius.ma prami la djuliet.xu la paris. nenri la .iunaityd.steits.ma ciska la .ana.kaREninas.xu la porc. sutrala .ozuald. catra maxu la djorj.eliot. ninmula sakyamunis. mola cekspir. ciska mala dolorez.kleiborn. moxu la xardis. fengu la lorel.



Answers to Exercises
Exercise 1

Come to me.
Run to Alice.
Give me the book.
Act so that Isabel likes you (or "Butter up Isabel" perhaps)
Be fast ("Hurry up!")
Laugh at yourself.
Like yourself. (note that changing the word order doesn't change the meaning here)
Move the car (probably it's parked in the wrong place).
Act so that Mei Li laughs at you (or more naturally "Make Mei Li laugh")


Exercise 2

catra (assuming it's Julius Caesar we're talking about)
la romios. (assuming it's that Juliet)
na nenri or na go'i, unless we're talking about Paris, Texas.
la tolstois.
Trick question. lanames a specific Porsche, not Porsches in general, so it might go fast or not (e.g. it could have just broken down and not go at all).
la KEnydis.
ninmu or go'i (Despite the pen-name, George Eliot was a woman)
Not much we can say with the vocabulary we have at the moment other than prenu (maybe emphasising that Sakyamuni - the Buddha - was a person, not a God or somesuch).  Other possible answers would be xindo - Indian, or pavbudjo - first Buddhist.
Anything Shakespeare wrote, e.g. la xamlyt., la .otelos. ...
cukta (it's a novel by Stephen King)
fengu or go'i - we're talking about Laurel and Hardy here.






#1057
5:12 PM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la djan cusku di'e

>"lojpre" = "lojbo prenu" = "Lojbanic person",
>expending one letter but saving on conceptual machinery.

It should be {jbopre}. loj- is a rafsi for {logji}. Also, there is nothing
wrong with using simply {le lojbo} / {lo lojbo}, "the lojbanic one",
when it is obvious that we are talking of a person. Just as {le klama},
{le tavla}, etc.

>2.  I'm not sure why you didn't use the prim "dislu" (Lojban "casnu")
>rather than a complex; the equivalent Lojban complex is "kanta'a".

I think {ta'arsi'u} (or eventually {simta'a}) is a closer substitute
for {casnu}. I would interpret {kanta'a} as "talking to and in the
company of x2" an opposed to {fonta'a}, "talking on the phone",
{xa'arta'a}, "talking by letter", etc.

>3.  There is no separate LW for the referents of just-spoken sentences.
>Instead, we use the LW for the sentence itself, prefixed by "la'e"
>("lae" in Loglan) to get the referent.  This would work in Loglan
>too.

Can {di'u} stand for a subclause of the previous sentence, as
we want in this case (and in many other cases)? The previous
sentence was {mi djica le nu ...} and what we want to suceed
at is what comes after {le nu}, not at the wishing.

>>    Let us (= speaker + audience + others, acting individually)  agree !!!
>
>That is "e'u lu'a ma'a tugni", where "lu'a" converts what follows
>to individuals; "ma'a" is inherently a mass.

I think this is right, provided that the default quantifier for {lu'a}
is {ro} and not {su'o}. "Let each of us agree" and not "let at least
one of us agree".

This brings me to a recent comment by Colin about the meaning
of Michael's {pa lei karce}, which was intended to mean "one of
the cars" and Colin took it to mean "the one mass of cars". I tend
to prefer the first meaning because it is so much more useful and
cannot, as far as I can tell, cause any ambiguity. I would tend to
interpret a quantifier of individuals (pa, re, ci, su'o, ro, so'i, etc) as
itself converting from mass to individual bypassing the need to
use {lu'a}. (Of course pisu'o, piro, piso'i, etc still work for masses.)
If that is acceptable, then in this case we could also say:
{e'u ro ma'a tugni}. Another example (used by several people) is
{coi ro do}, "Hello to each of you". If not interpreted like this, {ro}
is pretty meaningless there since there is only one "mass you".

co'o mi'e xorxes





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1058
7:32 PM Thu 22 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: Lojban Mad-libs?
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la robin cusku di'e

>.a'u pe'u ko cusku lo tordu mupli
>
>{fu'e zo'o} that's {lo} in the sense of something-that-really-is.  I am not
>inferring that there exists a short example such that I am asking you to
express
>it {fu'o}

I agree that's what it means. Of the two possibilities:

(1) I request that there be a short example such that you express it.
(2) There is a short example such that I request that you express it.

I think (1) is the correct interpretation: the scope of the request
is broader than the scope of the existential quantifier. But {lo} always
has the sense of something-that-really-is. The contrast with English
comes usually as a result of the scope of negation, the command,
the opaque context, etc, which don't always follow in Lojban the same
pattern as in English. In this case of the imperative they do.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1059
11:35 AM Fri 23 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <01be8b8d$85f30b20$localhos-@jorge la "=?us-
ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar cu cusku di'e
>
>This brings me to a recent comment by Colin about the meaning
>of Michael's {pa lei karce}, which was intended to mean "one of
>the cars" and Colin took it to mean "the one mass of cars". I tend
>to prefer the first meaning because it is so much more useful and
>cannot, as far as I can tell, cause any ambiguity. I would tend to
>interpret a quantifier of individuals (pa, re, ci, su'o, ro, so'i, etc) as
>itself converting from mass to individual bypassing the need to
>use {lu'a}. (Of course pisu'o, piro, piso'i, etc still work for masses.)
>If that is acceptable, then in this case we could also say:
>{e'u ro ma'a tugni}. Another example (used by several people) is
>{coi ro do}, "Hello to each of you". If not interpreted like this, {ro}
>is pretty meaningless there since there is only one "mass you".

I like this suggestion (which I hadn't thought of). But I'm not entirely
sure it works in general. The problem is that (in the feature analysis I
am still toying with) I see +/-mass (kamgunma) as a feature of sumti and
terbri, which must then match for a sentence to be semantically well-
formed. I have no problem with an operator (some cmavo) explicitly
altering this feature - 'lei' explicitly sets +kamgunma, and "lu'a" (if
I've got the right one) sets -kamgunma. But your suggestion means that a
na'uvla may or may not change the feature, depending on its numerical
value, and I'm not happy with this.
I need to think about this further - it may depend simply on the
presence of 'pi', in which case we can in principle analyse the features
without having to determine the meaning; but I'm not sure.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a new hobby?  Want to make a new friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Come join one of the 130,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1060
8:27 PM Fri 23 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: la'o .gy the matrix  .gy
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

coi trevyr

>  .i pi so'i do'o la'o .gy the matrix .gy cu pu viska vau xu...

i mi na go'i i za'o na jarco bu'u ti po'u lei darjarbu be le munje
i skina ma

> .i mi le
>du'u ri xamgu co mutce cu jinvi...  .i ba'o remoi viska...

i la maikl ji'a zabna te pinka i ri do tugni le du'u xamgu i mi kucli

>  .i ca le prulamdei nu remoi viska  .i puzi la'e di'u vi ti noi la'o .gy
>denver .gy fasnu ba le ckule nuncecla goi ko'a  .ibabo mi le se cradi cu
>tirna  .i so'u le cradi cusku cu jinvi le du'u le ra skina cu pagbu lei
>rinka be ko'a...
>
>  .i mi na tugni...... .i pe'i fenki...

i mi na djuno le du'u makau rinka i ku'i pe'i li'a lei merko
ke nalselri'u ke cecla flalu cu filgau le nu fasnu i pe'ipei

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1061
8:35 PM Fri 23 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  oops...
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

>  pu cusku djica lu .i ca le prulamdei nu re_mei_ viska  li'u...  pe'i ri
>drani... ^_^


i lu re re'u viska li'u cu dramau

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby. Meet a new friend.
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1062
1:06 AM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 11:21 PM 4/22/99 +0300, you wrote:
>From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr
>
>John Cowan wrote:
>> There is no prim for "Loglandic" in Lojban, so we make a pseudo-complex
>> with the LW "zei", which binds together the two surrounding words (only),
>> producing a complex even if (as is the case) one of them is a name.
>> The metaphor "me la loglan. prenu" would work too.
>
>Thanks - I'd been wondering how to get round this!

There having been a formal decision by the LLG board that "Lojban is
Loglan", the correct word for "loglandic" is of course "lojbo".  We can
make a lujvo from dzena-lojbo for the ancestral language culture, to which
one can prefix mal- if one sees fit zo'o.  To refer to the other
organization and its version of the language as distinct from our
predecessors, the most accurate would be "me la TLIn prenu".

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1063
1:06 AM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: da blanu de
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 10:30 AM 4/22/99 -0500, Steven Belknap wrote:
>From: Steven Belknap sbelkna-@uic.edu
>
>>The new "by standard..." does not solve that problem, nor does appeal to
>>general paradigm cases.  But people seem to get by just by using the rule
>>they use in English (or whatever), which is what the original insight was an
>>attempt to make explicit.
>>pc
>
>I certainly agree with pc that the "by standard" place does not completely
>resolve the problem of what we mean by <da blanu de>. The dialectic
>regarding this issue seems to drift aimlessly, never being resolved
>definitively. Some time ago I suggested that this dilemma might be an
>instance of circular definition or failure to acknowledge axioms.

No, it is a dilemma of explcitly acknowledging a complex set of competing
axioms, with no way to choose among them.  Faced with the fact that we use
color words in a variety of ways which imply a variety of oblique places,
we chose to decide that none were obligatory and that any could be added
using BAI tags.

>Color is a particularly vexing issue, as it has cultural determinants. We
>apparently do *not* all agree on what blue <blanu> is. So leaving it is an
>undefined term is problematic.

We agree on what color "blue" refers to more or less, but we do not agree
as to whether something is blue is dependent on a standard, on additive or
subtractive color formulae, whether it is observer dependent (if a
colorblind person sees only black and white, does that mean that nothing is
blue?), whether blue is determined by prototype, by a spectral range, how
much of the mass of the object is blue (a blue house does not normally have
every square inch of its surface in that color).

The ONLY thing we seem to agree about blanu is the relationship between the
x1 and the concept "blue", so a truthful place structure for blanu might be
"x1 pertains to some concept of the color blue".

The right way to solve the problem is to add BAI places as needed.  This
could have been done for other gismu as well, but it is a clumsiness to be
avoided where possible.

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1064
1:22 AM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

>From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk
>vecu'u le notci po'u <01be8b8d$85f30b20$localhos-@jorge la "=?us-
>ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar cu cusku di'e
>>
>>This brings me to a recent comment by Colin about the meaning
>>of Michael's {pa lei karce}, which was intended to mean "one of
>>the cars" and Colin took it to mean "the one mass of cars". I tend
>>to prefer the first meaning because it is so much more useful and
>>cannot, as far as I can tell, cause any ambiguity.

But why was pa le karce not used?  That would just as easily mean "one of
the cars", and there is NO known problems with it.  Why introduce problems
by trying for a nonstandard interpretation of the mass descriptor?

>> I would tend to
>>interpret a quantifier of individuals (pa, re, ci, su'o, ro, so'i, etc) as
>>itself converting from mass to individual bypassing the need to
>>use {lu'a}. (Of course pisu'o, piro, piso'i, etc still work for masses.)
>>If that is acceptable, then in this case we could also say:
>>{e'u ro ma'a tugni}. Another example (used by several people) is
>>{coi ro do}, "Hello to each of you". If not interpreted like this, {ro}
>>is pretty meaningless there since there is only one "mass you".

"do" is indeterminate whether it is a mass or individuals, per Chap 6
section 13 of the book.

>I like this suggestion (which I hadn't thought of). But I'm not entirely
>sure it works in general.

I think that it plain does not work specifically for "lei".  "lei broda"
need not be a massification of a plural set; it is a single mass, and the
components are of unknown cardinality.  On the other hand, with "lei"
unlike "loi" there could be a plural number of masses.  With 10 people, I
think you could have "mu lei re prenu".

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show mom you love her.  Check out our great Mother's Day Gifts!
14K Gold and gemstone jewelry, leather and cloth wallets and purses,
gardening, gourmet, kitchen, more! Free Shipping in the US!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1065
9:00 AM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la lojbab cusku di'e

>"do" is indeterminate whether it is a mass or individuals, per Chap 6
>section 13 of the book.

Then that solves it for personal pronouns. {coi ro do} is meaningful
and we can say {ro ma'a} for "each of us" without the need of {lu'a}.

>I think that it plain does not work specifically for "lei".  "lei broda"
>need not be a massification of a plural set; it is a single mass, and the
>components are of unknown cardinality.

Plurality is not really a problem. Obviously if you said
{re lei broda} you would mean {re lei su'ore broda}, but this
is no different than {re le broda} meaning {re le su'ore broda}.

>  On the other hand, with "lei"
>unlike "loi" there could be a plural number of masses.  With 10 people, I
>think you could have "mu lei re prenu".

I think that with {lei} you should only have one mass, just as with loi,
but it doesn't matter much. As you say, you can always use {le} in
these cases. Where I do find it useful that the quantifier should
determine mass/individual is for the personal pronouns, and this
is already the case so I'm happy. I wonder what happens with
other pronouns... For example:

    ko'a goi lei ci nanmu cu vecnu lo xirma mi lo rupnu be li cinono
    The three men sold a horse to me for an amount of $300.

    i mi pleji fi ro ko'a fe lo rupnu be li panono
    I paid to each of them an amount of $100.

Is that correct? I need the mass in the first sentence because
without it I would be saying that I bought three horses, one from
each men, but I want to say that I bought one horse from the three
of them.

I need the individuals in the second sentence because I am paying
them $100 each, not $100 for them to split. Does {ro ko'a} do the
job I want there, or do I need {ro lu'a ko'a}? I think {ro ko'a} should
work, just like for personal pronouns.

co'o mi'e xorxes



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1066
9:00 AM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la lojbab cusku di'e

>There having been a formal decision by the LLG board that "Lojban is
>Loglan", the correct word for "loglandic" is of course "lojbo".

That is the officially correct word, but I doubt people will
use it that way, because it is too confusing (as well as provocative,
which is the least we want to do in a context of rapprochement).
I prefer to use loglo, which probably everyone will understand even
before it makes it into the dictionary. I'm not sure what the status
of five-letter fuhivla is, but I have already incorporated loglo, spero
and xorvo to my lexicon.

>We can
>make a lujvo from dzena-lojbo for the ancestral language culture, to which
>one can prefix mal- if one sees fit zo'o.

This sounds right (I mean dzena, not mal- :) but I would rather make
it jbodze: dzena be le lojbo.

>To refer to the other
>organization and its version of the language as distinct from our
>predecessors, the most accurate would be "me la TLIn prenu".


And how would you refer to a Lojbanist as distinct form a
generic Loglanist? "me la lojbangirz prenu"? I think I will stick
to lojbo and loglo.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1067
2:35 PM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <01be8b8d$85f30b20$localhos-@jorge la "=?us-
ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar cu cusku di'e
>
>This brings me to a recent comment by Colin about the meaning
>of Michael's {pa lei karce}, which was intended to mean "one of
>the cars" and Colin took it to mean "the one mass of cars". I tend
>to prefer the first meaning because it is so much more useful and
>cannot, as far as I can tell, cause any ambiguity. I would tend to
>interpret a quantifier of individuals (pa, re, ci, su'o, ro, so'i, etc) as
>itself converting from mass to individual bypassing the need to
>use {lu'a}. (Of course pisu'o, piro, piso'i, etc still work for masses.)
>If that is acceptable, then in this case we could also say:
>{e'u ro ma'a tugni}. Another example (used by several people) is
>{coi ro do}, "Hello to each of you". If not interpreted like this, {ro}
>is pretty meaningless there since there is only one "mass you".

I like this suggestion (which I hadn't thought of). But I'm not entirely
sure it works in general. The problem is that (in the feature analysis I
am still toying with) I see +/-mass (kamgunma) as a feature of sumti and
terbri, which must then match for a sentence to be semantically well-
formed. I have no problem with an operator (some cmavo) explicitly
altering this feature - 'lei' explicitly sets +kamgunma, and "lu'a" (if
I've got the right one) sets -kamgunma. But your suggestion means that a
na'uvla may or may not change the feature, depending on its numerical
value, and I'm not happy with this.
I need to think about this further - it may depend simply on the
presence of 'pi', in which case we can in principle analyse the features
without having to determine the meaning; but I'm not sure.

On further thought, I don't like it. I think that your suggestion, while
probably workable, is unnecessary, and pandering to those that think
'lei' is plural.

I don't agree that 'do' is a mass: it seems to me much more reasonable
to individuate it.

I suggest that almost all uses of your terkancu to unmassify will be
followed by a 'lei' or 'loi', in which case the appropriate question is,
why has the utterer chosen to use a massifier and then immediately
counteracted it? Is there a difference between 're lei prenu' and 're le
prenu'?
I would like to encourage precision (in the use of masses/individuals)
by requiring an explicit unmassifier (or fractional quantifier)

I see this as a similar kind of argument to the sumti raising question.
We realised that we were fudging an issue (in my terms, the feature
+/-kamsucta), and actually changed the language to allow precision, and
starting teaching people to use that precision.
I claim to have found a similar imprecision in the use of another of
Lojban's unique features, and have proposed (without changing the
language) a way of being precise. Your solution introduces an *implicit*
conversion which allows unwary speakers to fudge the issue again. It is
implicit because (I think) it will in general be necessary to evaluate
the quantifier in order to determine whether it is converting or not
(and what if the quantifier evaluates to .99999?).

You say it is more useful to interpret it your way - I disagree. It
would be more useful only in the sense that allowing 'mi gleki lemi
bersa' would be more useful: finding a way to assign a meaning to an
inherently imprecise construction simply to allow speakers the luxury of
not having to think about how they are using the language.

But then I have never approved of omitting 'lo' in 'ci prenu' .u'i
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1068
2:57 PM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  xa'unro'a xize
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

i cinri fa lei pinka be le pazemoi ctona'a zgike bei la maikl
i mi lifri lo frica ca le nu tirna lo zgike i ta'e na pensygau mi
le cedra pe le nu le zgike cu se finti i lo zgike ka'e stidi
fi le pruxi fe le ka gleki a le ka badri a le ka fengu a le ka
surla a ji'a le ka clite a lo so'imei drata i ku'i pe'i le se stidi
cu se krasi le zgike kujoi le tirna enai le finti enai le vanbi
be le finti i mi krici le du'u lo'e larcu dacti cu krati ji'o sai le
zgana gi'enai so'eroi ve cusku le zgana da le finti i seki'ubo
le du'u xukau lo lardai ca fatci ve skicu cu se jdice le cabna
zgana i cumki fa le nu le se skicu poi cabna na mintu
le se skicu poi le finti pu troci a le se skicu poi lei pu zgana
cu cpacu isejubo ie la'a ma'a se tcica fi so'e le se krici

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1069
5:05 PM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la kolin cusku di'e

>I don't agree that 'do' is a mass: it seems to me much more reasonable
>to individuate it.

I think it's a good thing that it be taken in general as a mass. Masses
are much safer than distributive individuation when it comes to issues
of scopes and such. For example:

            do dunda lo xrula la djan

Does that mean "you (all) gave a flower to John"? Or does it mean
"each of you gave a flower to John"? I think the first one. Or:

            ko na dunda lo titla la djan

Is that "Don't give sweets to John!", or is it "Don't everyone of you
give sweets to John!", meaning that it's ok if only some of you do?

>I suggest that almost all uses of your terkancu to unmassify will be
>followed by a 'lei' or 'loi', in which case the appropriate question is,
>why has the utterer chosen to use a massifier and then immediately
>counteracted it? Is there a difference between 're lei prenu' and 're le
>prenu'?

I was mostly thinking of pronouns. The book says that personal
pronouns already work the way I suggest, so at least in that case
I have the canon on my side. And no, I think there would be no
difference between {re lei prenu} and {re le prenu}.

Come to think of it, there should be no difference either between
{piro lei ci prenu} and {piro le ci prenu}. Not only are count numbers
de-massifiers, but mass numbers are themselves massifiers.

>I would like to encourage precision (in the use of masses/individuals)
>by requiring an explicit unmassifier (or fractional quantifier)

Aren't quantifiers very explicit? What more explicit than that can
you get?

>I see this as a similar kind of argument to the sumti raising question.
>We realised that we were fudging an issue (in my terms, the feature
>+/-kamsucta), and actually changed the language to allow precision, and
>starting teaching people to use that precision.

Perhaps we should start another thread about this. Can you explain
what criterion was used to determine which places were passible
of sumti raising and which weren't? For example:

(1)            le vi ladru cu banzu le nu zmadu lo titnanba
                 This milk is enough to make a cake.

(2)            le nu pilno le vi ladru cu banzu le nu zmadu lo titnanba
                 Using this milk is enough to make a cake.

(3)            mi djica le vi ladru le nu zmadu lo titnanba
                 I want this milk to make a cake.

(4)            mi djica le nu pilno le vi ladru kei le nu zmadu lo titnanba
                 I want to use this milk to make a cake.

If I understand the gi'uste, (3) is sumti raising and (4) is the correct
way of saying it, but (1) is acceptable and I suppose so is (2), so
there is no sumti raising there. Is that right? Is there any reason why
that is so? And there are at least tens of such dubious cases.

>I claim to have found a similar imprecision in the use of another of
>Lojban's unique features, and have proposed (without changing the
>language) a way of being precise. Your solution introduces an *implicit*
>conversion which allows unwary speakers to fudge the issue again. It is
>implicit because (I think) it will in general be necessary to evaluate
>the quantifier in order to determine whether it is converting or not
>(and what if the quantifier evaluates to .99999?).

I don't think there can be any doubt about it. Individuating quantifiers
are all the PAs that make sense as quantifiers except those that start
with {pi} and eventually those with {fi'u} or {ce'i}. The PAs that don't
make sense as quantifiers are those containing ka'o, pai, pi'e, te'o
and maybe tu'o, although probably {tu'o} could be given some
interesting use. But the two classes are very distinct.

.99999 is obviously a mass quantifier.

>You say it is more useful to interpret it your way - I disagree. It
>would be more useful only in the sense that allowing 'mi gleki lemi
>bersa' would be more useful: finding a way to assign a meaning to an
>inherently imprecise construction simply to allow speakers the luxury of
>not having to think about how they are using the language.

I don't think I'm advocating lack of precision here. Could you give
an example where there could be any doubt? The only things I can
think of are things such as Lojbab proposed like {mu lei re prenu}
meaning "five couples", but I think that is stretching even more
the logic of masses.

>But then I have never approved of omitting 'lo' in 'ci prenu' .u'i

I didn't like it the first time I saw it either. I thought {ci prenu} should
have been a selbri meaning "x1 are the three people", the same
way numbers work as inner quantifiers.

co'o mi'e xorxes



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
http://www.ONElist.com
Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1070
7:00 PM Sat 24 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: le cfapau pe lei  lisri be la kantabaris
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

coi ritcyd
i melbi cfapau

Even though it is all one long complex sentence it is not too difficult
to follow thanks to your formatting. Very nice translation! Here are some
comments:

>    gi'e tisgau ro ricblutu'u le litki poi le ke'a kamvli cu fingau lo
xrula kei

It should be {tisygau} and {ricyblutu'u}. {fingau} is an interesting
choice of word, what was the original?

> e le nu le citno solri pu fanmo le xadba litru be la nakni lanme kei

I think it's {le xadba nu litru ...}

> e le nu ko'a goi lo cmalu cipni noi kalri kanla sipna ca le mulno nicte
>       cu sanga ri'a le nurma vanbi noi djica setca fi le ko'a risna kei

I don't understand the incidental clause about the rural surroundings.
Who wants to put what in the bird's heart?

>      tezu'e le nu sisku le censa ceirselzau kriselcatra

{le kriselcatra} is someone killed by a believer? Or someone killed
as a believer? A martyr?

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1071
5:22 AM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la kolin. cusku di'e





#1072
7:46 AM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: A Lojban lesson
 From:  Robin Turner
coi rodoi

Thanks to all who made comments on, and corrections to, the
lesson I wrote - I shall revise accordingly.

Find attatched the first lesson in the series, which deals with
pronunciation, cmene, and a few attitudinals.

co'o mi'e robin.











LESSON 1

Sounds, names and a few attitudes



The first thing you need to do when you learn a foreign language is to
become familiar with the sounds of the language and how they are written,
and the same goes for Lojban.  Fortunately, Lojban sounds (phonemes) are
fairly straightforward.



Vowels

There are six vowels in Lojban.



a - as in "father" (not as in "hat")

e - as in "ge" (not as in "bet")

i - as in Italian "vino" (not as in "hit")

o - as in "so"

u - as in "pull" (not as in "but")



These are pretty much the same as vowels in Italian or Spanish.  The sixth
vowel, y, is called a "schwa" in the language trade, and is
pronounced like the first and last A's in "America" (that's English
"America", not Spanish).  It's the sound that comes out when the mouth is completely relaxed.



Two vowels together are pronounced as one sound (diphthong).  Some
examples are:


ai - as in "high"
au - as in "how"
ei - as in "hey"
oi - as in "boy"
ia - like German "Ja"
ie - like "yeah"
iu - like "you"
ua - as in "quark"
ue - as in "suede"
uo - as in "quote"
ui - like "we", or French "oui"

Doubling a vowel lengthens it, although this is not very common.  An example is ii, which is pronounced like English "ee" (preferably "eeee", just to make it clear!).



Consonants

Most Lojban consonants are the same as English, but there are some
exceptions:


c - "sh", as in "ship"
j - as in "measure" or French "bonjour"
x - as in German "Bach", Spanish "Jose" or Arabic "Khaled"

The English sounds "ch" and "j" are written as tc and dj.
Lojban doesn't use the letters H, Q or W.



Special Characters

Lojban has no punctuation, but some of the characters normally used in
punctuation affect the way Lojban is pronounced.   A full stop (period) is
a short pause to stop words running into each other.  An apostrophe
separates two vowels, and is pronounced like an H.  For example, ui
is normally pronounced "we", but u'i is "oohee".
Commas are rare in Lojban, but can be used to stop two vowels blurring together when you don't want to use an apostrophe (which would put a "h" between them).  No Lojban words have commas, but they're sometimes used in writing non-Lojban names, for example pi,ER (Pierre).

Capital letters are not normally used in Lojban.  We use them in non-Lojban words (like Pierre) when the stress of a word is different from the Lojban norm.  This is to put the stress on the last-but-one syllable, so, for example, kurmikce (nurse) is kurmikce, not kurmikce.  The name "Juliette" would be written djuli,et. if pronounced in an English way, but julIET. if pronounced as in French.

"Correct" pronunciation
You don't have to be very precise about Lojban pronunciation, because the phonemes are designed so  that it is hard to mistake one sound for another.  This means that rather than one "correct" pronunciation, there is a range of acceptable pronunciation - the general principle is that anything is OK so long as it doesn't sound too much like something else.  For example, Lojban r can be pronounced like the R in English, Scottish or French.

Two things to be careful of, though, are pronouncing Lojban i and u like Standard British English "hit" and "but" (Northern English "but" is fine!).  This is because non-Lojban vowels, particularly these two, are used to separate consonants by people who find them hard to say.  For example, if you have problems spitting out the zd in zdani (house), you can say "zIdani" - the first I is very short, but the second has to be long.


Lojban with attitude!

If you tried pronouncing the vowel combinations above, you've already said some Lojban words!  Lojban has a class of words called "attitudinal indicators", which express how the speaker feels about something.  The most basic ones consist of two vowels, sometimes with an apostrophe in the middle. Here are some of the most useful ones.


.a'o - hope
.au - desire
.a'u - interest
.ie - agreement
.i'e - approval
.ii - fear (think of "Eeek!")
.iu - love
.oi - complaint
.ua - discovery, "Ah, I get it!"
.ue - surprise
.u'e - wonder, "Wow!"
.ui - happiness
.u'i - amusement
.uu - pity, sympathy*
.u'u - repentance, "I'm sorry!"



* In English, people have started to avoid the word "pity", because it has come to have associations of superiority. .uu is just the raw emotion - if you wanted to express pity in this rather condescending way, you'd probably say .uuga'i - "pity combined with a sense of superiority," or .uuvu'e - "pity combined with a sense of virtue."  There again, you would probably just keep your mouth shut.

You can make any of these into its opposite by addnig nai, so .uinai means "I'm unhappy", .aunai is disgust, .uanai is confusion ("I don't get it") and so on. You can also combine them.  For example, .iu.uinai would mean "I am unhappily in love."  In this way you can even create words to express emotions which your native language doesn't have.

Attitudinal indicators are extremely useful and it is well worth making an effort to learn the most common ones.  One of the biggest problems people have when trying to speak in a foreign language is that, while they've learnt how to buy a kilo of olives or ask the way to the post office, they can't express feelings, because many languages do this in a round-about way (outside group therapy, very few British people would say outright that they were sad, for example!).  In Lojban you can be very direct, very briefly (there are ways of "softening" these emotions, which we'll get to in a later lesson).  In fact, these attitudinals are so useful that some Lojbanists use them even when they're writing in English, rather like emoticons (those e-mail symbols like ;-) , :-( etc.).


Exercise 1
Using the attitudinal indicators above (including negatives), what might you say in the following situations?


You've just realised where you left your keys.
Someone treads on your toes.
You're watching a boring film.
Someone's just told you a funny story.
You disagree with someone.
Someone's just taken the last cookie in the jar.
You really don't like someone.
You are served a cold, greasy meal.
Your friend has just failed a test.
There is a large green beetle crawling towards you.


Lojban Names (cmene)

Watch any film where people don't know each other's language.  They start
off saying things like "Me Tarzan," which is as good a place to start
learning Lojban as any.  So here we go .



mi'e robin.
I-am-named Robin
I'm Robin




mi'e is related to mi, which is "I", "me" and so on.  It's a
good example of the apostrophe separating two vowels, and sounds a bit like "me
hey".



I am lucky because my name goes directly into Lojban without any changes.
However, there are some rules for Lojban names which mean that some names
have to be "Lojbanised".  This may sound strange - after all, a name is a
name - but in fact all languages do this to some extent.  For example,
English speakers tend to pronounce "Jose" something like "Hozey", and
"Margaret" in Chinese is magelita. Some sounds just don't exist in
some languages, so the first thing you need to do is rewrite the name so
that it only contains Lojban sounds, and is spelt in a Lojban way.



Let's take the English name "Susan".  The two S's are pronounced
differently - the second one is actually a Z - and the A is not really an
"a" sound, it's the "schwa" we just mentioned.  So "Susan" comes out in
Lojban as suzyn. .



You may have noticed the extra full stop (period) there.  This is
necessary because if you didn't pause, you might not know where the name
ended and the next word began.  In addition, if a name begins with
a vowel, you need a full stop there as well.  For example:



.an. - Anne
.axmet. - Ahmet
.eduard. - Edward
.ibraxim. - Ibrahim
.odin. - Odin



You can also put a full stop in between a person's first and last names
(though it's not compulsory), so "Jim Jones" becomes djim.djonz. .



An important rule for Lojbanising names is that the last letter of a
Lojban name (or cmene in Lojban) must be a consonant.  Again, this
is to prevent confusion as to where a name ends, and what is and is not a
name (all other Lojban words end in a vowel).  We usually use S for this,
so in Lojban, "Mary" becomes >meris.<I> , "Joe" becomes djos.
and so on.  An alternative is to leave out the last vowel, so "Mary" would become meir. .



The final point is stress.  As we've seen, Lojban words are stressed on the penultimate syllable, and if a name has different stress, we use capital
letters.  This means that the English and French names "Robert" come out
differently in Lojban:  the English name is >robert.<I> but the French
is roBER. .



To give an idea of how all this works, here are some names of famous
people in their own language and in Lojban.




English



Margaret Thatcher - magryt.tatcys. (no "th" in Lojban because most
people around the world can't say it!)

Mick Jagger - mik.djagys.





French



Napoleon - napolion.

Juliette Binoche - julIET.binOC.





Chinese



Laozi - laudzys.

Mao Zedong - mau.dzeDYNG.





Turkish



Mustafa Kemal - MUStafa.kemal.

Erkin Koray - .erkin.korais.





German



Ludwig Wittgenstein - ludvig.vitgynctain.

Clara Schumann - klara.cuman.





Spanish



Isabel Allende - IZabel.aliende.

Che Guevara - tcegevaras.





Exercise 2

Where are these places?



niu,IORK.

romas.

kitos.

kardif.

.beidjin.

.ankaras.

prictinas.

keiptaun.

taibeis.

bon.

delis.

nis.

.atinas.

lidz.

xelsinkis.





Exercise 3

Lojbanise the following names



John

Melissa

Amanda

Matthew

Michael

David Bowie

Jane Austen

William Shakespeare

Sigourney Weaver

Richard Nixon

Alabama

Istanbul

Madrid

Tokyo

San Salvador


Lojban words as names
By now you should be able to Lojbanise your own name.  However, if you prefer, you can translate your name into Lojban (if you know what it means, of course) or adopt a completely new Lojban identity.  Native Americans generally do this when speaking English, partly because they have meaningful names, and partly because they don't expect the wasichu to be able to pronounce words in Lakota, Navaho or whatever!

All Lojban words end in a vowel, and although you can use them as neames as they stand, it's common to leave of the final vowel to make it absolutely clear that this is a name and not something else (Lojban goes for overkill when it comes to possible misunderstanding).  So if your name or nickname is Cat (Lojban mlatu), you can either add s like a normal cmene to make mlatus., or just chop the end off and call yourself mlat. .

Here are a few examples:


Fish - finpe - finp.
Bear - cribe - crib.
Green - crino - crin.
Wolf - labno - labnos.
Mei Li (Chinese = beautiful) - melbi - melb.
Ayhan (Turkish = Moon Lord) - lunra nobli (= lurnobli) - lurnoblis.






Answers to Exercises
Exercise 1

.ua
.oi
.a'unai
.u'i
.ienai
.oi , .i'enai, or even .oi.i'enai
.iunai
Probably .aunai.oi, unless you like cold greasy food, of course.
.uu
Depends on your feelings about beetles.  .ii if you have a phobia, .aunai if you are merely repelled by it, .a'u if you're an entomologist, and so on.



Exercise 2



New York

Rome

Quito

Cardiff

Beijing (note the dj - the BBC always get this wrong!)

Ankara

Prishtina

Cape Town

Tai Pei (note b, not p)

Bonn

Delhi

Nice

Athens

Leeds

Helsinki





Exercise 3

There are usually alternative spellings for names, either because people
pronounce the originals differently, or because the exact sound doesn't exist in Lojban, so you need to choose between two Lojban letters.  This doesn't matter, so long as everyone knows who or where you're talking about.



djon. (or djan. with some accents)

melisys.

.amandys. (again, depending on your accent, the final y's may
be a

matius.

maikl.

deivd.bau'i.

djein.ostin.

.uiliam.cekspir.

sigorni,uivyr.

ritcyd.niksyn.

.alabamas.

.IStanbul. with English stress, .istanbul. with Turkish

maDRID

tokios.

san.SALvador.















<




#1073
8:24 AM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: A Lojban lesson  [erratum]
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

Oops, I've already noticed one mistake.  In the answer key, I
lojbanised "Istanbul" as

> 12. .IStanbul. with English stress, .istanbul. with Turkish.
>
the Turkish is correct, but the English should of course be
.istanBUL.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.ONElist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1074
12:26 PM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Colin Fine

From: Colin Fine coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk

vecu'u le notci po'u <01be8f5a$abe20ea0$localhos-@jorge la "=?iso-
8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar cu cusku di'e
>From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar
>
>la kolin cusku di'e
>
>>I don't agree that 'do' is a mass: it seems to me much more reasonable
>>to individuate it.
>
>I think it's a good thing that it be taken in general as a mass. Masses
>are much safer than distributive individuation when it comes to issues
>of scopes and such. For example:
>
>            do dunda lo xrula la djan

What has 'safe' to do with anything? You seem to mean 'people would find
it easier', but that was not an argument that was given much weight in
the discussion that led to "tu'a"; and my interest in Lojban is that we
explore the intricacies that follow from parts of our design, rather
than sweeping them under the carpet.

>
>Does that mean "you (all) gave a flower to John"? Or does it mean
>"each of you gave a flower to John"? I think the first one. Or:

I think the second one.
>
>            ko na dunda lo titla la djan
>
>Is that "Don't give sweets to John!", or is it "Don't everyone of you
>give sweets to John!", meaning that it's ok if only some of you do?

I don't understand what you mean. I read it as an instruction to 'each
of you' that you make it the case that (the same) you do not give sweets
to John.
>
>>I suggest that almost all uses of your terkancu to unmassify will be
>>followed by a 'lei' or 'loi', in which case the appropriate question is,
>>why has the utterer chosen to use a massifier and then immediately
>>counteracted it? Is there a difference between 're lei prenu' and 're le
>>prenu'?
>
>I was mostly thinking of pronouns. The book says that personal
>pronouns already work the way I suggest, so at least in that case
>I have the canon on my side. And no, I think there would be no
>difference between {re lei prenu} and {re le prenu}.
>
You're right, the book does. .ue.oi. I don't like this at all. I accept
that there are going to be occasions when you want them massified (ko
bevri le pipno), but I see individuals as more fundamental, and also
believe that they will more often be useful. I would advocate "lu'oko
bevri le pipno". Apparently I am advocating a change in the language.

>Come to think of it, there should be no difference either between
>{piro lei ci prenu} and {piro le ci prenu}. Not only are count numbers
>de-massifiers, but mass numbers are themselves massifiers.

I agree that if the implicit conversion is allowed, it should be allowed
both ways. I don't like the implicit conversion.
>
>>I would like to encourage precision (in the use of masses/individuals)
>>by requiring an explicit unmassifier (or fractional quantifier)
>
>Aren't quantifiers very explicit? What more explicit than that can
>you get?
>
No, because the grammatical operation depends crucially on the VALUE of
the quantifier - not its form or the words it is made of. Remember "vei
ny" is a perfectly good quantifier.

>>I see this as a similar kind of argument to the sumti raising question.
>>We realised that we were fudging an issue (in my terms, the feature
>>+/-kamsucta), and actually changed the language to allow precision, and
>>starting teaching people to use that precision.
>
>Perhaps we should start another thread about this. Can you explain
>what criterion was used to determine which places were passible
>of sumti raising and which weren't? For example:

No, I can't (at the moment). I've no doubt there is plenty of fudging
and unexamined cases in the allocation of +kamsucta to terbridi. I am
talking about the principle.
>
>(1)            le vi ladru cu banzu le nu zmadu lo titnanba
>                 This milk is enough to make a cake.
>
>(2)            le nu pilno le vi ladru cu banzu le nu zmadu lo titnanba
>                 Using this milk is enough to make a cake.
>
>(3)            mi djica le vi ladru le nu zmadu lo titnanba
>                 I want this milk to make a cake.
>
>(4)            mi djica le nu pilno le vi ladru kei le nu zmadu lo titnanba
>                 I want to use this milk to make a cake.
>
>If I understand the gi'uste, (3) is sumti raising and (4) is the correct
>way of saying it, but (1) is acceptable and I suppose so is (2), so
>there is no sumti raising there. Is that right? Is there any reason why
>that is so? And there are at least tens of such dubious cases.
>
>>I claim to have found a similar imprecision in the use of another of
>>Lojban's unique features, and have proposed (without changing the
>>language) a way of being precise. Your solution introduces an *implicit*
>>conversion which allows unwary speakers to fudge the issue again. It is
>>implicit because (I think) it will in general be necessary to evaluate
>>the quantifier in order to determine whether it is converting or not
>>(and what if the quantifier evaluates to .99999?).
>
>I don't think there can be any doubt about it. Individuating quantifiers
>are all the PAs that make sense as quantifiers except those that start
>with {pi} and eventually those with {fi'u} or {ce'i}. The PAs that don't
>make sense as quantifiers are those containing ka'o, pai, pi'e, te'o
>and maybe tu'o, although probably {tu'o} could be given some
>interesting use. But the two classes are very distinct.
>
No, for the reason I've given above.

>.99999 is obviously a mass quantifier.
>
>>You say it is more useful to interpret it your way - I disagree. It
>>would be more useful only in the sense that allowing 'mi gleki lemi
>>bersa' would be more useful: finding a way to assign a meaning to an
>>inherently imprecise construction simply to allow speakers the luxury of
>>not having to think about how they are using the language.
>
>I don't think I'm advocating lack of precision here. Could you give
>an example where there could be any doubt? The only things I can
>think of are things such as Lojbab proposed like {mu lei re prenu}
>meaning "five couples", but I think that is stretching even more
>the logic of masses.

You are advocating a lack of precision, in the same way as 'mi gleki le
zdani' is imprecise. It is not that the meaning is unclear (to us
natlang speakers - it might be to a Martian), but that the categories of
the language are being used in a way that does not match without a
hidden conversion.

>
>>But then I have never approved of omitting 'lo' in 'ci prenu' .u'i
>
>I didn't like it the first time I saw it either. I thought {ci prenu} should
>have been a selbri meaning "x1 are the three people", the same
>way numbers work as inner quantifiers.

I don't like it because it allows people (mu'u mi) to translate 'three
people' without realising that we mean 'three of all the people there
are'. It's a gloss over a unique feature of Lojban.
>
>co'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet?
>http://www.ONElist.com
>Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  coli-@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1075
1:26 PM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: le  cfapau pe lei lisri be la kantabaris
 From:  Richard Curnow

From: Richard Curnow richar-@rrbcurnow.freeserve.co.uk


coi la xorxes e ro drata tcidu be fi le mriste

On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Jorge J. Llambas wrote:

> From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar
>
> coi ritcyd
> i melbi cfapau
>
> Even though it is all one long complex sentence it is not too difficult
> to follow thanks to your formatting. Very nice translation! Here are some
> comments:
>
> >    gi'e tisgau ro ricblutu'u le litki poi le ke'a kamvli cu fingau lo
> xrula kei
>
> It should be {tisygau} and {ricyblutu'u}. {fingau} is an interesting
> choice of word, what was the original?

Thanks, I should have run my lujvo-making program to check them first :-)

{zo fingau zo'u} The whole phrase is paraphrased in modern English by
something like : ".. and bathed every vein in that liquid by whose power
flowers are produced", so "produced" is the answer (Chaucer's word is
"engendred").  On reflection, just 'finti' might have done OK.

>
> > e le nu le citno solri pu fanmo le xadba litru be la nakni lanme kei
>
> I think it's {le xadba nu litru ...}

Probably :-)  The phrase is supposed to mean "when the young Sun has
completed half its journey through Aries" - which sets the time as being 2
weeks after the spring equinoxe I suppose.

>
> > e le nu ko'a goi lo cmalu cipni noi kalri kanla sipna ca le mulno nicte
> >       cu sanga ri'a le nurma vanbi noi djica setca fi le ko'a risna kei
>
> I don't understand the incidental clause about the rural surroundings.
> Who wants to put what in the bird's heart?

The original of the whole phrase in Chaucer's English (circa 1300?) is :

And smale fowles maken melodye
That slepen al the night with open ye,
So priketh hem nature in hir corages

'corages' allegedly means 'hearts' in today's English, so the meaning is
supposed to be "when Nature gives their hearts the urge".

>
> >      tezu'e le nu sisku le censa ceirselzau kriselcatra
>
> {le kriselcatra} is someone killed by a believer? Or someone killed
> as a believer? A martyr?

A martyr.  Incidentally, 'ceirselzau' was intended to mean 'blessed',
which I paraphrased as "approved of by God" to come up with a tranlation.

co'o mi'e ritcyd

--
Richard P. Curnow
Stevenage, England


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1076
2:04 PM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la kolin cusku di'e

>What has 'safe' to do with anything?

:)  Sorry! I have to remember to use different arguments with
different peple. I do think masses are easier to use, but I also
think that they are in a sense more basic. My own goal is to make
the language as usable as possible without sacrificing any
of its precision. I certainly don't believe in fudging to make it
easier to use.

>You seem to mean 'people would find
>it easier', but that was not an argument that was given much weight in
>the discussion that led to "tu'a"; and my interest in Lojban is that we
>explore the intricacies that follow from parts of our design, rather
>than sweeping them under the carpet.

I'm with you all the way! That's what this discussion is about.
My objection to {tu'a} is that, as far as I can tell, it is not a fully
satisfactory solution to the issue it was supposed to solve,
not that there is no underlying issue to take into account.

>You're right, the book does. .ue.oi. I don't like this at all. I accept
>that there are going to be occasions when you want them massified (ko
>bevri le pipno), but I see individuals as more fundamental, and also
>believe that they will more often be useful. I would advocate "lu'oko
>bevri le pipno". Apparently I am advocating a change in the language.

The reason that I think masses are more fundamental is that, roughly
speaking, with masses one sentence refers to one situation, but
with many individuals one sentence refers to many situations.

                lei ci nixli cu dunda lei cukta lei re nanla
                The three girls gave the book(s) to the two boys.

That's one event being described.

                le ci nixli cu dunda le mu cukta le re nanla
                Each of the three girls gave each of the five books
                to each of the two boys.

That's thirty events being described, with the five books
changing hands over and over again.

This is very general: sentences with distributive {le} describe
a whole array of parallel situations, and I don't think this is
the case with normal sentences in other languages.

The reason this is not as noticeable in general as one would
expect is that the most common use of {le} is for singular
descriptions, in which case this splitting of situations obviously
does not happen.

>>Aren't quantifiers very explicit? What more explicit than that can
>>you get?
>>
>No, because the grammatical operation depends crucially on the VALUE of
>the quantifier - not its form or the words it is made of. Remember "vei
>ny" is a perfectly good quantifier.

Yes, I remembered {vei} after I sent my reply. My excuse is that I think
MEX should be scrapped from the language anyway. I don't see in what
real situation this could come up, but I understand your objection.
One possible way to deal with that (I admit not a very elegant one)
is to make only PA numbers have this mass/unmass property, not
quantifiers in general.

>>Perhaps we should start another thread about this. Can you explain
>>what criterion was used to determine which places were passible
>>of sumti raising and which weren't? For example:
>
>No, I can't (at the moment). I've no doubt there is plenty of fudging
>and unexamined cases in the allocation of +kamsucta to terbridi. I am
>talking about the principle.

My argument is that we haven't dealt with the issue in a satisfying
manner. The places marked in the gismu list as specifically abstraction
only seem arbitrary. There are places marked explicitly as "object",
there are places that specifically allow both, and there are places
without any mark at all. And as far as I can tell there are no guidelines
to identify when sumti raising is a problem and when it is not. In my
experience, I often find myself using objects in places where I know
they are specifically forbidden because using tu'a would make the
sentence too confusing.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1077
2:11 PM Sun 25 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: le  cfapau pe lei lisri be la kantabaris
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la ritcyd cusku di'e

>> >    gi'e tisgau ro ricblutu'u le litki poi le ke'a kamvli cu fingau lo
>> xrula kei
>
>{zo fingau zo'u} The whole phrase is paraphrased in modern English by
>something like : ".. and bathed every vein in that liquid by whose power
>flowers are produced", so "produced" is the answer (Chaucer's word is
>"engendred").  On reflection, just 'finti' might have done OK.

Yes, either just {finti}, or {zasygau}, or {jbegau}.
{fingau} means that x1 makes x2 create x3.

>> > e le nu ko'a goi lo cmalu cipni noi kalri kanla sipna ca le mulno nicte
>> >       cu sanga ri'a le nurma vanbi noi djica setca fi le ko'a risna kei
>
>And smale fowles maken melodye
>That slepen al the night with open ye,
>So priketh hem nature in hir corages
>
>'corages' allegedly means 'hearts' in today's English, so the meaning is
>supposed to be "when Nature gives their hearts the urge".

Ok, I hadn't understood {djica setca}. Maybe {setca le kamdji le ko'a risna}
would be clearer.

>> {le kriselcatra} is someone killed by a believer? Or someone killed
>> as a believer? A martyr?
>
>A martyr.  Incidentally, 'ceirselzau' was intended to mean 'blessed',
>which I paraphrased as "approved of by God" to come up with a tranlation.

Yes, that's what I thought it was. It's a good lujvo, I think.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.ONElist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1078
7:06 AM Mon 26 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: mut
 From:  John Cowan

From: John Cowan cowa-@locke.ccil.org

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> la lojbab cusku di'e
>
> >There having been a formal decision by the LLG board that "Lojban is
> >Loglan", the correct word for "loglandic" is of course "lojbo".
>
> That is the officially correct word, but I doubt people will
> use it that way, because it is too confusing (as well as provocative,
> which is the least we want to do in a context of rapprochement).

Indeed, I wrote a sentence to that effect ("Loglandic" = "lojbo")
but deleted it before posting for the reasons Jorge gives.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowa-@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1079
8:16 AM Mon 26 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  Lesson 1
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





coi .arnt.






#1080
9:25 AM Mon 26 Apr 99
 Subject:  Masses [was Re: mut]
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





la xorxes. cusku di'e






> The reason that I think masses are more fundamental is that, roughly
> speaking, with masses one sentence refers to one situation, but
> with many individuals one sentence refers to many situations.
>
>                 lei ci nixli cu dunda lei cukta lei re nanla
>                 The three girls gave the book(s) to the two boys.
>
> That's one event being described.
>
>                 le ci nixli cu dunda le mu cukta le re nanla
>                 Each of the three girls gave each of the five books
>                 to each of the two boys.
>
> That's thirty events being described, with the five books
> changing hands over and over again.
>#1081
4:50 PM Mon 26 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: la'o  .gy the matrix .gy
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


>i mi na djuno le du'u makau rinka i ku'i pe'i li'a lei merko
>ke nalselri'u ke cecla flalu cu filgau le nu fasnu i pe'ipei
>
>co'o mi'e xorxes

.ie pe'i ji'a lei cecla flalu cu nabmi .i ku'i pe'i lei lifri tadji ke sidbo
ja krici ke'e pe lei tadni goi ko'u cu ji'a filgau nabmi...

.i pe'i ganai da'i ko'u na nalklufactoi lei cecla.. gi'a na bartu catke ri
gi'a na fanza ri.. ge .iepei na betri....


.i lojbo besna cortu....aargh. ;)

bavpe'i...

la trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show mom you love her.  Check out our great Mother's Day Gifts!
14K Gold and gemstone jewelry, leather and cloth wallets and purses,
gardening, gourmet, kitchen, more! Free Shipping in the US!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1082
5:23 PM Mon 26 Apr 99
 Subject:  pervasive 'y's...
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


  I really hate those y's everywhere in the lujvo... Since lojban's
baselined now, i guess i can say that I never intend to use them at all. :)
I think more people will eventually come around to this too, since speaking
lojban sounds much more natural without them.  And, it will still be easy to
parse correctly, but will require some changes to the parser......  oh well.
;)

la trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1083
8:34 PM Mon 26 Apr 99
 Subject:  Brochure into  Japanese...
 From:  trevor hill
I think i'll translate the brochure into japanese... If I actually get thru
it, maybe i'll do chinese too.

Anyway, here's the first bit (it's pretty extemporaneous), but if you read
japanese, please let me know whatever suggestions you might have... :)

thanks,

la trevyr.#1084
3:31 AM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: pervasive 'y's...
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la trvyr. cusku di'e

>
>   I really hate those y's everywhere in the lujvo... Since lojban's
> baselined now, i guess i can say that I never intend to use them at all. :)
> I think more people will eventually come around to this too, since speaking
> lojban sounds much more natural without them.  And, it will still be easy to
> parse correctly, but will require some changes to the parser......  oh well.
> ;)

Well often you can construct lujvo so as to avoid them, but I don't find they
sound too bad - schwa sounds pretty unobtrusive to my ears. It's those 'r's in
fu'ivla that really bug me!

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show mom you love her.  Check out our great Mother's Day Gifts!
14K Gold and gemstone jewelry, leather and cloth wallets and purses,
gardening, gourmet, kitchen, more! Free Shipping in the US!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1085
8:58 AM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: New  use for an auxlang
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

Marcos Franco wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:51:02 +0300, Robin Turner
> robi-@bilkent.edu.tr skripted:
>
> >Marcos -
> >
> >The unambiguous, machine-readable "superauxlang" you propose already
> >exists.  Lojban's grammar is unambiguously machine-parsable, and in fact a
> >parser has been available on the Lojban FTP site for a few years.
>
> Yes, I know of Lojban unambiguity, and its parsability, yet for what I
> know about it, it seems not the most appropiate possible conlang to be
> machine translated to european languages, because of the relatively
> big grammatical and semanthical differences there are between these
> and lojban. However, an euroclone loglang would certainly not be the
> best to translate to oriental languages.
>

To be easily and unambiguously machine-readable, a Eoruclone auxlang would have
to depart from Indo-European grammar so radically that it wouldn't be a
Euroclone any more.  I don't see major problems with Lojban semantics, since
they tend to be more, rather than less specified than European natlangs.

>
>  There is
> >also a web-based glosser, which can deconstruct compound words with almost
> >total accuracy (in all the time I've used it, I've only known it make one
> >mistake, and I have suspicions about the compound in question anyway).
> >Since there is no homonymy in Lojban, and unmarked metaphor and idiom are
> >strongly discouraged, a Lojban gloss should be pretty unambiguous in any
> >language (you may get some problems with different semantic fields, but
> >these are inevitable in any kind of translation, not just machine
> >translation).  Nora Chevalier has just finished the "beta version" of a
> >parser-glosser, which will take Lojban sentences and spit them out in what
> >could be called "Loglish"  - understandable but not grammatical (and
> >certainly not idiomatic) English.
>
> I'm not very well versed on parsers, but AFAIK they analize a sentence
> and identify its components and the correspondant part-of-speech to
> every word (please correct me if I'm wrong). What's what you get as
> output from a parser?
>

Depends on the parser, but basically the structure of a sentence.  Not a lot of
use in itself, but an essential first stage in machine translation.  The
advantage Lojban has is that a grammatically correct sentence can only be
parsed in one way, compared with natlangs (and probably most conlangs) which
allow different parsings of the same sentence.  For example

Time flies like an arrow
NP(N) VP{V, AdP(Ad, Art, N)}
NP(N, N) VP(V, Art, N)
V NP{N AdP(Ad, Art, N)}

>
> >So basically we have the "front end" of a machine translator.  The tricky
> >bit is at the natlang end - translating the parsed and glossed Lojban into
> >acceptable English, Spanish, Chinese etc.  I can understand the stuff that
> >Nora's parser-glosser outputs, but maybe that's only because I'm familiar
> >with Lojban (just as I can follow the weird English that Turkish students
> >sometimes come out with, because I know what they're translating from).
>
> I wonder couldn't Lojban parser be implemented to an already existant
> multilingual translator so you can get proper translations Lojban ->
> NL?

I've no idea, but it doesn't sound too likely.  I'm CCing this to the Lojban
list, since this is where the computer wizards hang out.

co'o mi'e robin.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1086
9:52 AM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Attention:  Coupon fraud  alert!
 From:  rhaa-

Please forward this article.

Texas Textbooks Coupon Fraud "On or Off the Drag"

by Richard Haas

Texas Textbooks, Inc. may have conspired to commit coupon fraud against 7-UP/Dr.
 Pepper.  Sources claim that the President of Texas
Textbooks, Inc., Morris Woods, instructed managers to have his employees
 separate coupons and candies from Buy Back Promotional
Packages, that were put together by Market Source, Inc., and www.taponline.com.
  Within the Buy Back Promotional Packages were various
candies, gum, and a coupon for a free 20 oz. 7-UP, as well as other
 advertisements and promotions from various companies, such as Chevy,
University Subscription Service, Citibank, American Airlines, TIME magazine,
 Student Financial Services, BMG Music Service, and Sprint.
According to sources, the 7-UP coupons and candied were separated and put into
 boxes, while the rest of the packages were thrown into the
dumpster behind Texas Textbooks.  These Buy Back Promotional Packages were
 supposed to have been given to students during the Fall Buy
Back season during finals week in December, 1998.  The marketing company behind
 the packages, Market Source, Inc. was notified about the
problem in early January, 1999, but refused to do anything about it.  Woods,
 when telephone regarding the alleged coupon fraud against
7-UP/Dr.Pepper, denied having any knowledge of the incident, and hung up the the
 telephone on a reporter.  Several former employees claimed
that they were threatened with being fired when they refused to participate in
 the separation of the items. "Committing a possible felony is not
worth five dollars an hour," said a former employee.  Seven Up/Dr. Pepper,
 University Subscription Service, Sprint, Chevrolet Motor
Company, and the Coupon Information Center (CIC) have also been notified of
 these activities.  Fraud is a crime punishable under both state
and federal laws.   Under Federal Law, a person convicted of mail fraud can be
 sentenced up to five years in prison and a fine of up to
$250,000 for each count of the indictment.  In cases where the proceeds of the
 fraud are not reported for Federal Income Tax purposes,
conviction of tax evasion is punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and up to
 a million dollar fine for each count.

Photos available at:

  http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/8879/fraud.htm


                            If you would like to express your concern about
 this, please contact:

                                                Morris Woods

                                         President, Texas Textbooks, Inc.

                                                1514 Parker Ln
                                             Austin, TX 78741-2563

                                                (512) 462-2149

                                            gsdesig-@studybreaks.com

                                               Texas Textbooks
                                            2410B E. Riverside Drive
                                               Austin, TX 78741
                                                (512) 443-1257


                                               Texas Textbooks
                                                2338 Guadalupe
                                               Austin, TX 78705
                                                (512) 478-9833


                                   Bonnie O'Neill-Totin
 boneil-@marketsource.com
#1087
11:56 AM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: New use for an  auxlang
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

  I have thought about this a lot, and it seems to me that what we need for
this sort of application is not so much an unambiguous grammar, which we
already have in many forms, but a clear description of what semantic
information is necessary for each target language for each type of sentence.
Then we could construct statements in the unambiguous grammar that don't
leave out semantic information required to put the statement in any of the
target languages...


trevor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show mom you love her.  Check out our great Mother's Day Gifts!
14K Gold and gemstone jewelry, leather and cloth wallets and purses,
gardening, gourmet, kitchen, more! Free Shipping in the US!
          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1088
5:00 PM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  Masses [was Re: mut]
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb=E

From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

>>                 lei ci nixli cu dunda lei cukta lei re nanla
>>                 le ci nixli cu dunda le mu cukta le re nanla

la robin cusku di'e

>I guess Jorge and I are never going to see eye to eye on articles!   I see
{lei}
>and {loi} as ways of clarifying {le} and {lo}.

Is what you say really so different from what I say?
I said {lei ci nixli cu dunda lei mu cukta lei re nanla} describes
a single relationship, while {le ci nixli cu dunda le mu cukta le re nanla}
describes thirty different relationships.

What you say about {mi se batci lo/loi ci gerku} is very similar.
However, be careful with lo/loi and inner quantifiers. {lo ci gerku}
means "at least one of the three books that there are in all".
You meant {ci lo gerku}, "three of all the books that there are in all".
Also {loi ci gerku} is "some part of the mass of three dogs that
there are in all", and you meant probably {lu'o ci lo gerku}
or {lo gerku cimei}, "some mass of three dogs".

The inner quantifier is useful with le/lei because it quantifies
the complete set of what is under discussion or one has in mind.
The inner quantifier with lo/loi should in general best be left
unspecified, because it quantifies the set of all those that really
are, and we normally are not in a position to give an exact number
for that.

>On
>the other hand, it could still mean that I was bitten by a pack of three
dogs,
>because whether I view them as a mass or as three individual dogs is
subjective.

In your example you're absolutely right. If you were bitten by a pack
of dogs and each one of them bit you, you might describe the
situation both as {mi se batci le ci gerku} and {mi se batci lei ci
gerku}. You can view it both as one relationship between you and
the pack, or as three relationships, one with each dog.

But other examples are not that subjective at all. The piano example,
for example:

>le(i) ci prenu cu bevri le pipno
>
>With {lei} it's straightforward - they get together and carry the piano.
With
>{le} the standard interpreation would be that ko'a, ko'e and ko'o
individually
>carry the piano on three separate occasions.  However, just to be
controversial,
>I shall propose that with {le} it is also possible that they carried the
piano at
>the same time, which from the point of view of the observer is the same as
them
>carrying the piano _en masse_.

That can only be right if it is true that {ko'a bevri le pipno ije ko'e
bevri
le pipno ije ko'i bevri le pipno}. Whether it is acceptable to say that
this is true or not, depends exclusively on the semantics of bevri. Is
the x1 of bevri supposed to be the full carrier, or a simple participation
is enough to be called a bevri?  I would say a participation does
not make one into a bevri, but in any case if we disagree we are
disagreeing about the meaning of {bevri}, not of le/lei.


There are examples where this disagreement is less likely.
For example:

             le ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o
             Each of the three persons weighs 120 kg.

            lei ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o
            The three persons (together) weigh 120 kg.

Obviously those two situations are very very different, so you
cannot use {le} there in place of {lei}.

>du'u le ci prenu cu bevri le pipno kei nibli du'u le prenu goi ko'a cu
bevri le
>pipno kei .e du'u le prenu goi ko'e cu bevri le pipno kei .e du'u le prenu
goi
>ko'o cu bevri le pipno .i pe'i la'e ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le
pipno kei
>du la'e lei ci prenu goi ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le pipno

Change {bevri le pipno} to {grake li parenoki'o} and you will see
that it is not a logical implication at all. The fallacy is in identifying
{lei ci prenu} with {ko'a e ko'e e ko'o}. The correct identification
is with {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'o}, which is not distributive!

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1089
5:54 PM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: oops...
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la trevyr presku di'e

>.i zo re'u smuni ma... .i mi puze'epu na viska ra...

i zo re'u cu cmavo zo roi i mu'a lu rere'u broda li'u
cu te skicu le krefu be le nu broda kei bei li re
i lo velcki cu zvati le recinomoi paprysfe be le gerna
cukta

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that we add over 1,000 new e-mail communities every day?
http://www.ONElist.com
Explore a new hobby, discover a new friend, laugh at a new joke!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1090
5:54 PM Tue 27 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: pervasive 'y's...
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la trevyr cusku di'e

>  I really hate those y's everywhere in the lujvo... Since lojban's
>baselined now, i guess i can say that I never intend to use them at all. :)
>I think more people will eventually come around to this too, since speaking
>lojban sounds much more natural without them.  And, it will still be easy
to
>parse correctly, but will require some changes to the parser......  oh
well.
>;)

Actually, I think y's could be dropped as separators of nonpermissible
consonant clusters. We could write things like {lobpli} or {lobbau}
without ambiguity, but in four letter rafsi they are sometimes
unavoidable. Otherwise, we could not distinguish, for example
between the two component {xrisylojbo} and the three component
{xrislojbo}.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1091
8:14 AM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  lisri xire
 From:  michael helsem
From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com












jaivi purci (Same place.) .i ko'a bacru lu .a'apei ko'e goi le bitmu ca'o tengu murse li'u (She says: "Notice how the walls are shimmering?") .i mi spuda fi lu ko'e na'e mulno girzu bo se finti caku li'u (I answer, "They are not completely group-created yet.") .i zgike tirna (We hear music.) .i ca sanga lu
     mi besna je betfu
          speni do
     .i .aubu'onai vanju
          co me na'e do
     .i mi besna je betfu
          speni do
li'u (Someone is singing: "Body & soul I belong to you; I
crave no other wine. Body & soul, I belong to you.") .i le
zgike gu badri simlu fi mi'a gi nu'o stidi fi do fe le drata
ckaji (The music seemed sad to us, but to you it might
suggest something else.) .i mi bacru lu levi selsanga goi
ko'i cu blanu le dunra tsani be le mexno jbiplu li'u (I said,
"That song is the blue of the winter sky over Baja.") .i
ko'a bacru lu ko'i blanu la cart. poi ba'o porpi li'u (She
said, "It is the blue of Chartres, broken.")#1092
11:42 AM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  pervasive 'y's...
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


  That's a great idea...  I think in those lujvo are composed of all full
forms (i.e. xrisylojbo) the 'y' could be kept, but in all others just make
them optional... :)

  The other thing i don't really like about them, is that 'y' sounds a lot
like 'a' or 'e' when you say it fast, even if you're not doing the american
thing, so it's really hard to tell whether someone said 'ckule nixli' or
'ckulynixli', which probably wouldn't, but might have slightly different
meanings....  oh well.  ;)  pronounce those vowels clearly, man... :)

bavpe'i...
mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.onelist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1093
11:58 AM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  oops...
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

>i lo velcki cu zvati le recinomoi paprysfe be le gerna
>cukta

.uacu'e ki'e doi pendo... .ui

mi'e la trevyr.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautifully crafted. For Mother's Day, Graduation , etc. Many styles,
in every price range.14K Gold, Gemstones, Pearls, Necklaces, earrings
Satisfaction Guaranteed, No Hassle Returns, Free Shipping in U.S.
             http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1094
1:33 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: pervasive 'y's...
 From:  bestat-
From: bestat-@aol.com

In a message dated 4/28/99 2:42:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, thil-@quark.com
writes:

<< thing, so it's really hard to tell whether someone said 'ckule nixli' or
 'ckulynixli', which probably wouldn't, but might have slightly different
 meanings....  oh well.  ;)  pronounce those vowels clearly, man... :)
  >>
The stress is different too, so the vowels aren't the only distinguishing
feature.
Steven

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist now offers the richest set of
group communications tools on the Internet?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out our homepage for details on these new tools!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1095
1:57 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: pervasive 'y's...
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

I thought that this would be like

  CKUle NIXli, and

  ckulyNIXli...

the latter it seems would still have a little stress on the 'cku', but not
as much as the former, so ...  am i totally wrong here?  They still seem
very similar to me.......

co'o
mi'e trevyr.



-----Original Message-----
From: bestat-@aol.com
To: lojba-@onelist.com
Sent: 99-4-28 14:32
Subject: [lojban] Re: pervasive 'y's...

From: bestat-@aol.com

In a message dated 4/28/99 2:42:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
thil-@quark.com
writes:

<< thing, so it's really hard to tell whether someone said 'ckule nixli'
or
 'ckulynixli', which probably wouldn't, but might have slightly
different
 meanings....  oh well.  ;)  pronounce those vowels clearly, man... :)
  >>
The stress is different too, so the vowels aren't the only
distinguishing
feature.
Steven

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist now offers the richest set of
group communications tools on the Internet?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out our homepage for details on these new tools!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.onelist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1096
3:52 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: masses
 From:  michael helsem
From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

i think of LEI (&, i suppose, LOI & LAI) as the Lojbanic
equivalent of those quaint old English phrases "a clowder of
cats", "a midnight of ravens", ktp. i should prefer to be
able to not have to specify whether some, most, or all of
them performed a given action since that feature can be
added separately. Or by anaphora, e.g. KO'A GOI KO'E .E KO'I
.E KO'O...to lift that ol' pianoforte.

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooking, health, entertainment, travel, politics, business...
http://www.onelist.com
Whatever your interest, ONElist has something for everyone!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1097
4:33 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  masses
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com



Actually, i'm kindof curious why lojban doesn't just have some simple words
like 'each' and 'all together' -- maybe as variations of 'ro', which seems
ambiguous in this sense, since its definition says 'each/all'...  ???

then you could say 'ro'a le mlatu' meaning they all did something together,
and 'ro'u le mlatu' meaning they did something individually...

But i guess these would be equivalent to 'lei mlatu' and 'le mlatu'
respectively?????  yes?? :)

co'o doi do noi da poi zasti...

mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.onelist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1098
5:17 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  masses
 From:  Jorge_J._Lla

From: "=?windows-1252?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la trevyr cusku di'e

>Actually, i'm kindof curious why lojban doesn't just have some simple words
>like 'each' and 'all together' -- maybe as variations of 'ro', which seems
>ambiguous in this sense, since its definition says 'each/all'...  ???

But it does. {ro} is not ambiguous at all, it means "each", even if it is
not
clear from the gloss. "All" in English is ambiguous between "each" and
"all together", but {ro} is not.

"All together" in Lojban is {piro}, which might seem cryptic at first, but
that's how it is.

>then you could say 'ro'a le mlatu' meaning they all did something together,
>and 'ro'u le mlatu' meaning they did something individually...

And so you can: {ro le mlatu} means each of the cats individually, (and
by the way, is exactly equivalent to simply {le mlatu}.

{piro lei mlatu} means they all did something together, and should
be equivalent to {lei mlatu}, even though the Book says otherwise.

>But i guess these would be equivalent to 'lei mlatu' and 'le mlatu'
>respectively?????  yes?? :)

Yes!

>co'o doi do noi da poi zasti...

That should be {co'o doi do noi [ke'a] du da poi zasti}, o just
{co'o doi do noi [ke'a] zasti}. You didn't have any selbri to go
with {noi}.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.onelist.com
ONElist has over 130,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1099
5:24 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: masses
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com



>That should be {co'o doi do noi [ke'a] du da poi zasti}, o just
>{co'o doi do noi [ke'a] zasti}. You didn't have any selbri to go
>with {noi}.
>
>co'o mi'e xorxes

.iesai... .i ku'i zo du .e zo da frica xu smuni ??

co'o
mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start a new hobby.  Meet a new friend.
http://www.onelist.com
ONElist:  The leading provider of free e-mail list services!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1100
5:43 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: masses
 From:  Jorge_J._Lla

From: "=?windows-1252?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar



>.iesai... .i ku'i zo du .e zo da frica xu smuni ??
>
>co'o
>mi'e trevyr.


i ju'o zo da zo du frica le ka smuni
i zo da sumti  i zo du selbri

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always wanted to set up a book club, but can't find the time?
http://www.onelist.com
Create an online book club through ONElist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1101
6:52 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: masses
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


>i zo da sumti  i zo du selbri
>
>co'o mi'e xorxes

.ie.....  .i ma drata selbrivla co simsa befe zo du ?

co'o
mi'e trevyr...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does Public Radio's "Ask Dr. Science Show" know that you don't...?
http://www.onelist.com
...That ONElist hosts the largest free e-mail lists on the Internet today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1102
7:04 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: masses
 From:  Jorge_J._Lla

From: "=?windows-1252?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar


>.ie.....  .i ma drata selbrivla co simsa befe zo du ?
>
>co'o
>mi'e trevyr...


i zo du e zo mo e zo co'e e zo nei e zo no'a e zo bu'a
e zo bu'e e zo bu'i e zo go'a e zo go'e e zo go'i e zo go'o
e zo go'u cmavo zo go'a

co'o mi'e xorxes





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.ONElist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1103
9:14 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  lu makau li'u
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


.i ca mi puzize'u cilre la lojban.. mi cu jinvi le du'u lu makau li'u goi
ko'a cu mutce cizra... .i mu'i ma ko'a se zbasu ??

.i le lojbo girna<?> cukta se nenri lo selsku poi simsa befe
  lu
     .i mi djuno le du'u la djan cu pu catru makau kei ku
  li'u...

.i ku'i pe'i ri na mutce logji .i
  lu
     .i mi djuno da poi le du'u ko'a catru ke'e kei ku
  li'u

pe'ipei??  .i pe'i ri xagmau....

co'o
mi'e trevyr

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the new ONElist home page lately?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: The Leading e-mail list and community service on the Internet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1104
9:32 PM Wed 28 Apr 99
 Subject:  oops...  again.
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


.i mi pu ckudji
  lu
     .i mi djuno da poi le du'u ko'a catru *ke'a* kei ku
  li'u


.i na frili morji .iepei..... ;)

co'o
mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention small business owners:
http://www.onelist.com
Did you know that ONElist is a great way for small business owners
to stay in touch with their customers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1105
4:17 AM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: masses
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la xorxes cusku di'e

> la trevyr cusku di'e
>
> >Actually, i'm kindof curious why lojban doesn't just have some simple words
> >like 'each' and 'all together' -- maybe as variations of 'ro', which seems
> >ambiguous in this sense, since its definition says 'each/all'...  ???
>
> But it does. {ro} is not ambiguous at all, it means "each", even if it is
> not
> clear from the gloss. "All" in English is ambiguous between "each" and
> "all together", but {ro} is not.
>
> "All together" in Lojban is {piro}, which might seem cryptic at first, but
> that's how it is.
>

Seems very straightforward, given the maths of {pi}.  {piro le prenu}="point
everything of the people".

>
> >then you could say 'ro'a le mlatu' meaning they all did something together,
> >and 'ro'u le mlatu' meaning they did something individually...
>

Except that would mean "socially" and "physically" respectively! Cmavo-space can
get pretty crowded sometimes ;-)

>
> And so you can: {ro le mlatu} means each of the cats individually, (and
> by the way, is exactly equivalent to simply {le mlatu}.
>
> {piro lei mlatu} means they all did something together, and should
> be equivalent to {lei mlatu}, even though the Book says otherwise.
>
> >But i guess these would be equivalent to 'lei mlatu' and 'le mlatu'
> >respectively?????  yes?? :)
>
> Yes!

Looks like Jorge and I are slowly coming to agreement on articles.
{zo'ole'oro'e} but I'll never accept his use of {lo'e}!

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that you can now set up a shared calendar to
post events of interest to your community?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out our homepage for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1106
4:39 AM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: New  use for an auxlang
 From:  Robin Turner
From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr





Marcos Franco wrote:





#1107
1:31 PM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  zo ja .e  zo jo
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


  i mi se jinvi fe le nunpilno be fa la'e zo .o...

i ca lo nunpilno be la gicban cu ka'e cusku zoi .gy a or b or c .gy poi
smuni la'e zoi .gy a xor b xor c .gy........  i pe'i nunpilno be la lojban
poi sampu je ke jimpe frili fa lu .abu .apo'o .by .apo'o .cy li'u... i do'o
jinvi ma..... .i cumki fa nu xagmau befa lu .abu po'o .a .by po'o .a .cy
po'o li'u.........

bavpe'i..

mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to learn more about your list users...?
their opinions, interests, thoughts?
http://www.onelist.com
You can now survey them with our new User Survey Tool
Check out our homepage for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1108
6:36 PM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu makau li'u
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la trevyr cusku di'e

>.i le lojbo girna<?> cukta se nenri lo selsku poi simsa befe
>  lu
>     .i mi djuno le du'u la djan cu pu catru makau kei ku
>  li'u...
>
>.i ku'i pe'i ri na mutce logji .i
>  lu
>     .i mi djuno da poi le du'u ko'a catru ke'e kei ku
>  li'u
>
>pe'ipei??  .i pe'i ri xagmau....

i ri na gendra i xu do skudji lu da poi ko'a catra ke'a li'u

i ku'i da poi ko'a catra ke'a cu prenu
i lo se djuno na ka'e prenu i lo'e se djuno cu fatci

i da'i do djuno le du'u ko'a catra ko'e
i seki'ubo do djuno le du'u ko'a catra makau
ije do djuno le du'u makau catra ko'e
ije do djuno le du'u makau catra makau
ije do djuno le du'u ko'a mokau ko'e
ije do djuno le du'u makau mokau makau

i lu mi djuno da poi ko'a catra ke'a li'u
cu smuni mintu lu mi djuno ko'e li'u
i ku'i lo prenu ka'e se slabu do gi'enai
se djuno do

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always wanted to set up a book club, but can't find the time?
http://www.onelist.com
Create an online book club through ONElist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1109
7:32 PM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: zo ja .e zo jo
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la trevyr cusku di'e

>  i mi se jinvi fe le nunpilno be fa la'e zo .o...

i zo o na smuni mintu zoi gy xor gy
i lu onai li'u go'i

>i ca lo nunpilno be la gicban cu ka'e cusku zoi .gy a or b or c .gy poi
>smuni la'e zoi .gy a xor b xor c .gy........  i pe'i nunpilno be la lojban
>poi sampu je ke jimpe frili fa lu .abu .apo'o .by .apo'o .cy li'u... i do'o
>jinvi ma..... .i cumki fa nu xagmau befa lu .abu po'o .a .by po'o .a .cy
>po'o li'u.........

i ie i pe'i le remoi cu xagmau i ji'a lu pa lu'a abu ce by ce cy li'u cu
cumki

co'o mi'e xorxes



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that knowledge is power?
http://www.ONElist.com
Join a new ONElist e-mail community and strengthen your mind!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1110
8:03 PM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu makau li'u
 From:  trevor hill
From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

> i ri na gendra i xu do skudji lu da poi ko'a catra ke'a li'u

go'i.

>i ku'i da poi ko'a catra ke'a cu prenu
>i lo se djuno na ka'e prenu i lo'e se djuno cu fatci

>co'o mi'e xorxes

.ie. .i xu mi xagmau da'i pu cusku lu mi djuno le cmene be le poi ko'a catru
ke'a li'u... i mi na pu viska lu le poi li'u.. i ku'i jinvi le du'u ri ka'e
se pilno...

ni'o .i morji le du'u lo simsa be fe zoi .gy "I know who John killed." is
equivalent to ".i mi djuno le du'u la .djan pu catru makau" .gy cu nenri le
gerna cukta...  i xu la'e di'u drani..

Trevor Hill
thil-@quark.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for an easy, effective way to research an important topic?
http://www.onelist.com
Joining a ONElist community is your answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1111
8:49 PM Thu 29 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu  makau li'u
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar


>>i ku'i da poi ko'a catra ke'a cu prenu
>>i lo se djuno na ka'e prenu i lo'e se djuno cu fatci
>
>.ie. .i xu mi xagmau da'i pu cusku lu mi djuno le cmene be le poi ko'a
catru
>ke'a li'u... i mi na pu viska lu le poi li'u.. i ku'i jinvi le du'u ri ka'e
>se pilno...

i mu'a lu le poi ko'a catra ke'a prenu li'u cu gendra gi'e smuni
mintu lu le prenu poi ko'a catra ke'a

i lu mi djuno le cmene li'u lu mi djuno le prenu li'u cu dunli
le ka se srera i lu mi djuno le du'u makau cmene le se catra
be ko'a li'u cu drani

>ni'o .i morji le du'u lo simsa be fe zoi .gy "I know who John killed." is
>equivalent to ".i mi djuno le du'u la .djan pu catru makau" .gy cu nenri le
>gerna cukta...  i xu la'e di'u drani..

i drani

    mi djuno le du'u la djan catra la djim
    I know John killed Jim.

    mi djuno le du'u la djan catra makau
    I know who John killed.

    mi djuno le du'u makau catra la djim
    I know who killed Jim.

    mi djuno le du'u makau catra makau
    I know who killed whom.

    mi djuno le du'u makau mokau makau
    I know who did what to whom.

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to expand your world?
http://www.onelist.com
ONElist has over 130,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1112
7:40 AM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu  makau li'u
 From:  michael helsem

From: "michael helsem" graywyver-@hotmail.com

.ie .i zo'o ku'i na glijbo


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
http://www.ONElist.com
Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1113
11:50 AM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu  makau li'u
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com



.ie.uinairu'e.. i simlu fa le du'u zoi .ly da djuno de poi prenu .ly na
lojdra kei fe drani..

i ku'i jinvi le du'u lojdramau fa lu le danfu be lu ma catru la djan li'u cu
nenri le mi besna li'u .i ku'i ta'i ma pilno zo djuno .e zo du'u le nu cusku
la'e ra. ?

co'o
mi'e trevyr...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift for a friend?
http://www.onelist.com
Tell them about ONElist's 130,000 free e-mail communities!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1114
2:47 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: la'o .gy the matrix  .gy
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

la trevyr cusku di'e

>.ie pe'i ji'a lei cecla flalu cu nabmi .i ku'i pe'i lei lifri tadji ke
sidbo
>ja krici ke'e pe lei tadni goi ko'u cu ji'a filgau nabmi...

i mi na terpa le nu ko'u zifre le ka se sidbo ja krici ro da poi
ko'u djica i mi terpa le nu ko'u zifre le ka ponse loi vlipa cecla

>.i pe'i ganai da'i ko'u na nalklufactoi lei cecla.. gi'a na bartu catke ri
>gi'a na fanza ri.. ge .iepei na betri....

i mi na mulno jimpe i nalklufactoi ki'a

co'o mi'e xorxes




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow your list the most and receive a $5000 donation
to the charity of your choice.
http://www.onelist.com
See our homepage for details on our new ONEreach incentive programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1115
4:13 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re:  Masses [was Re: mut]
 From:  Robin Turner

From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> What you say about {mi se batci lo/loi ci gerku} is very similar.
> However, be careful with lo/loi and inner quantifiers. {lo ci gerku}
> means "at least one of the three books that there are in all".
> You meant {ci lo gerku}, "three of all the books that there are in all".
> Also {loi ci gerku} is "some part of the mass of three dogs that
> there are in all", and you meant probably {lu'o ci lo gerku}
> or {lo gerku cimei}, "some mass of three dogs".
>
> The inner quantifier is useful with le/lei because it quantifies
> the complete set of what is under discussion or one has in mind.
> The inner quantifier with lo/loi should in general best be left
> unspecified, because it quantifies the set of all those that really
> are, and we normally are not in a position to give an exact number
> for that.
>

Yeah, I always get confused about this.  It's actually become a lot clearer in
my head as a result of trying to write the lesson on numbers (coming soon)
where I use the pack of dogs example, and caught myself translating {lo ci
gerku} as "three dogs", which as you say, would only be possible if there were
only three dogs in the world of discourse.  Presumably one could use
quantification in cases like {lo xa braplu} (six continents) or with restrctive
relative phrases e.g. {lo ci gerku poi batci mi}.  Interestingly, in these
cases {lo} would translate as "the" rather than the more usual "a".

>
> >On
> >the other hand, it could still mean that I was bitten by a pack of three
> dogs,
> >because whether I view them as a mass or as three individual dogs is
> subjective.
>
> In your example you're absolutely right. If you were bitten by a pack
> of dogs and each one of them bit you, you might describe the
> situation both as {mi se batci le ci gerku} and {mi se batci lei ci
> gerku}. You can view it both as one relationship between you and
> the pack, or as three relationships, one with each dog.
>
> But other examples are not that subjective at all. The piano example,
> for example:
>
> >I shall propose that with {le} it is also possible that they carried the
> piano at
> >the same time, which from the point of view of the observer is the same as
> them
> >carrying the piano _en masse_.
>
> That can only be right if it is true that {ko'a bevri le pipno ije ko'e
> bevri
> le pipno ije ko'i bevri le pipno}. Whether it is acceptable to say that
> this is true or not, depends exclusively on the semantics of bevri. Is
> the x1 of bevri supposed to be the full carrier, or a simple participation
> is enough to be called a bevri?  I would say a participation does
> not make one into a bevri, but in any case if we disagree we are
> disagreeing about the meaning of {bevri}, not of le/lei.
>

Quite.

>
> There are examples where this disagreement is less likely.
> For example:
>
>              le ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o
>              Each of the three persons weighs 120 kg.
>
>             lei ci prenu cu grake li parenoki'o
>             The three persons (together) weigh 120 kg.
>
> Obviously those two situations are very very different, so you
> cannot use {le} there in place of {lei}.
>

Good example - I may use this in the lesson!

>
> >du'u le ci prenu cu bevri le pipno kei nibli du'u le prenu goi ko'a cu
> bevri le
> >pipno kei .e du'u le prenu goi ko'e cu bevri le pipno kei .e du'u le prenu
> goi
> >ko'o cu bevri le pipno .i pe'i la'e ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le
> pipno kei
> >du la'e lei ci prenu goi ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'o cavi bevri le pipno
>
> Change {bevri le pipno} to {grake li parenoki'o} and you will see
> that it is not a logical implication at all. The fallacy is in identifying
> {lei ci prenu} with {ko'a e ko'e e ko'o}. The correct identification
> is with {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'o}, which is not distributive!
>

Point accepted!

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of empty chat rooms and out of date bulletin boards?
http://www.ONElist.com
ONElist: Making the Internet Intimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1116
4:24 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: la'o .gy the  matrix .gy
 From:  trevor hill
From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

>>.i pe'i ganai da'i ko'u na nalklufactoi lei cecla.. gi'a na bartu catke
ri
>>gi'a na fanza ri.. ge .iepei na betri....
>
>i mi na mulno jimpe i nalklufactoi ki'a
>
>co'o mi'e xorxes

i mi skudji le se du'u su'a le tadni na pu kulnu ja sidbo ja krici ke facki
je jimpe ke'e bo troci le re pu cecla tadni goi ko'u... i pe'i ko'u na se
cinmo slabu. ija'e su'a le va prenu mutce se spaji le betri.... pe'ipei...

co'o
mi'e trevyr..

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist now offers the richest set of
group communications tools on the Internet?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out our homepage for details on these new tools!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1117
5:55 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu makau li'u
 From:  Jorge_J._Llamb

From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" jorg-@intermedia.com.ar

>i ku'i jinvi le du'u lojdramau fa lu le danfu be lu ma catru la djan li'u
cu
>nenri le mi besna li'u .i ku'i ta'i ma pilno zo djuno .e zo du'u le nu
cusku
>la'e ra. ?

i lu mi djuno le danfu be lu ma catra la djan li'u cu smuni
mintu lu mi djuno le du'u makau catra la djan li'u
i pe'i le remoi cu sapmau i lo danfu ja'a ka'e se djuno

i si'a lu ko'a cusku le du'u makau catra la djan li'u
lu ko'a cusku le danfu be lu ma catra la djan li'u mintu

i si'a lu ko'e nalmorji le du'u makau catra la djan li'u
lu ko'e nalmorji le danfu be lu ma catra la djan li'u mintu

co'o mi'e xorxes


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist now offers the richest set of
group communications tools on the Internet?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out our homepage for details on these new tools!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1118
6:29 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  le  vajnuzba
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com

.i me la cynyny munje vajnuzba

.i ca le se detri li cino pi'e vo pi'e pasososo ku
.i ca le se tcika li ze pi'e papa li xa ku

ni'o .i le turni be la gu'eriugoslavia cu friti le nunpanpi
gi'e ku'i na curmi le nu papku'i vi la gu'erkosovo.

ni'o .i vi lo barja poi vi la tcarlyndyn. porpi spoja.

ni'o .i le jenmi jitro kavbu le me la gu'erkomoros gumsaxje'a

ni'o .i loi previ'i toljisgau lei xaskoi be la tcanrio

ni'o .i loi prenu vi lo tcadu poi vi la gu'erxeiti cu pante
le nu ca li pasosoxa poi nanca lo vindu festi pe la
gu'erubusy'abu cu pu se nalkujpu'i

ni'o .i jdice fa le detri be le fladjinru'e be la .okalan noi me
la nairkurd fapda'a jatna

.i ckire...



co'o
mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always wanted to set up a book club, but can't find the time?
http://www.onelist.com
Create an online book club through ONElist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1119
6:43 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  le lujvo  pe le vajnuzba
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


vajnuzba -- important news

papku'i -- peacekeeper

gumsaxje'a -- republic

previ'i -- sewage/human waste

toljisgau -- foul/spoil/tarnish

xaskoi -- beach

nalkujpu'i -- dump/leave/drop

flajdinru'e -- trial (typo in last message.)

fapda'a -- rebel fighter

co'o
mi'e trevyr


------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.onelist.com
Sign up for a new e-mail list today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1120
6:50 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: lu makau li'u
 From:  trevor hill

From: trevor hill thil-@quark.com


ie......  :)  se mansa. :)

co'o
mi'e trevyr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has ONElist changed your life?
http://www.ONElist.com
Visit our homepage and share with us your experiences at ONElist of the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1121
8:17 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: New use for an  auxlang
 From:  Bob LeChevalier-Logical Langu

From: Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group lojba-@lojban.org

At 02:38 PM 4/29/99 +0300, you wrote:
>From: Robin Turner robi-@bilkent.edu.tr
>> >To be easily and unambiguously machine-readable, a Eoruclone auxlang
would have
>> >to depart from Indo-European grammar so radically that it wouldn't be a
>> >Euroclone any more.
>>
>> For what I've read of DLT project (and they were experts on this), it
>> seems that necessary departure was not so "radical".
>
>Can you clarify?

The DLT project used a modified Esperanto as its Interlingua, using
auxiliary markings to disambiguate.  The DLT intenral language could not be
said to be speakably unambiguous, but apparently it was so in
computer-media.  But the project was never finsished so it is less than
clear how universally effective the DLT language was.  One of the former
DLT linguists is an occasional Lojbanist not active on this list.

>> >I don't see major problems with Lojban semantics, since
>> >they tend to be more, rather than less specified than European natlangs.
>>
>> However, I think the semantic range of terms of a european-based lang
>> (eg. esperanto) fit very closely to those of the languages where those
>> terms are taken from. I doubt something similar can be said for
>> Lojban, which on its origins was designed to prove the Sapir-Wolf
>> hypothesis.

Loglan/Lojban semantics were not designed to be "different", but rather to
be linguistically rather neutral.  The version of Sapir-Whorf that we had
in mind focussed on grammar/structure rather than on semantics.

Lojban does not have the psychological links based on etymological
similarity that some European languages have.  This can make some aspects
of machine translation harder, but can also eliminate many more errors that
would be caused by false-friend assumptions.  As I have often noted, the
various Euro language words for "morning" have differences of meaning from
language to language, and using the same interlingua word for each will
work most of the time, but fail randomly when one target language uses a
different word.  For example, I arose at "2:30 in the morning", to log on
and check mail.  In some languages that phrase in literal translation makes
no sense.


>The Sapir-Whorf aspect of the project was less to force people to speak in
a weird
>way (though I admit it does that sometimes) but to give the opportunity to
express a
>lot more things in a lot more ways.

Specifically, it was designed to remove restrictions of certain kinds from
language, while it does impose other kinds of distinctions not found in
typical natlangs.  The latter, however are mostly optional, and hence
probably not affect computer applications, which would undoubtedly use a
convenient subset of the language.

>Actually Lojban has been criticised by some for having an English bias in its
>concepts - just can't please some people.  I think the question is how
well you
>expect people to know the IAL that is used in this project.  Some with
good Lojban
>would have no problems in expressing the concepts of any Eurolang they
were familiar
>with, I think.  It's getting it back that's a bit of a problem, but a
reasonably
>large dictionary (so you don't have top work out every compound word from
scratch)
>would probably do the trick, once usage has standardised use of compound
words a bit
>more.

The difficulty of machine translation using an Interlingua is almost
entirely on respresenting the source language into the Interlingua.  Going
th other way is relatively easy, especially if you are willing to tolerate
some unidiomatic usage.  Even Nora's glosser, a fairly unsophisticated
program linguistically compared to current machine translation efforts,
works pretty well on simple sentences.

lojbab


----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojba-@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
  see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
  Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to learn more about your list users...?
their opinions, interests, thoughts?
http://www.onelist.com
You can now survey them with our new User Survey Tool
Check out our homepage for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
#1122
8:30 PM Fri 30 Apr 99
 Subject:  Re: DLT
 From:  bestat-
From: bestat-@aol.com

The DLT project has intrigued me since I first heard about it about 12 years
ago.  I sorry to hear it's not finished.  I read a long description of it on
the net a while back, and some of the modifications to esperanto seem like
really good ideas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that ONElist now offers the richest set of
group communications tools on the Internet?
http://www.onelist.com
Check out our homepage for details on these new tools!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscrib-@onelist.com
