WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed


posts: 1912
Use this thread to discuss the Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed page.


posts: 1912

 
> !! Proposed Definition of noi
>
> ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's non-restrictive
> relative clause.

That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something like
that. {noi} itself is not the clause.

> The
> "non-restrictive" part means that the information in the noi
> clause is not sufficient to completely identify the referents of the sumti
> that noi is attached to.

That's not quite like that. The information may very well be sufficient
in some cases (ti noi mamta mi} "this, who is my mother,..."

The "non-restrictive" part means that the information is not used to
select from the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy the
clause.

> For
> logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is entirely outside
> the scope of the statement in which it is contained; its scope occurs at the
> point immediately after the scope in which it was contained dies in the arse.

I'm not sure this is quite dictionary-style language. :-)

I'm not quite sure what the scope of {noi} is exactly either.
In {la djan jinvi lo du'u ti noi mamta mi cu klama}, is the noi
clause a part of John's beliefs or is it the speaker's comment?

> The noi clause should be considerd, for scoping purposes, as occuring in
> its own virtual sentence (techinically, its own "statement"
> production in the formal grammar) after both the one in which it is contained
> and all further statements that are logically connected to the one in which
> it was contained.

That would mean it is not necessarily part of what John believes.

> la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani
> ''The Mad met a mouse, M (The Mad) had acquired it (the mouse), in the
> house.''
> Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in the Lojban
> the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited clause.

Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry",
"the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

> The "restrictive" part
> means that the information in the poi clause is intended to completely
> identify the referents of the sumti that poi is attached to.

Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti
just those that satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more
or less what you say next, but why "completely identify"? You may
not have any of them identified.

> poi clause is also true. poi is often used with da to restrict
> da to some part of all the things which exist. Inside a noi clause,

That would be a "poi" clause.

> pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo
> Question to Pat: that which at the window is what?
> Pat: What is that at the window?

With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
"Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

> particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer bridi). The
> "restrictive" part means that the information in the voi clause
> is intended to completely identify the referents of the sumti that voi is
> attached to.

I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has
just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction
seems unnecessary.

> !! Examples of voi Usage
>
> ti voi nanmu cu ninmu
> This which is (non-veridically) a man is a woman.
> The classic example of voi usage, presumably referring to a case of
> mistaken identity or a transvestite or transgendered individual.

This is non-restrictive. {ti} is already identified by the time
we say it is (non-veridicaly) a man.

> so'e po'o cuxna la cnemokca cedra voi sete pilno le se jmaji

No translation?

> ganse vasxu le nicte vacri voi ranti
> Breathing the night air, which is soft.
> Presumably, voi is being used to deal with the fact that ranti
> probably does not literally apply to air.

This again seems to be a non-restrictive use.

(I'll go over the remaining definitions later.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:19:36PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > !! Proposed Definition of noi
> >
> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's
> > non-restrictive relative clause.
>
> That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something
> like that. {noi} itself is not the clause.

Fixed.

> > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in
> > the noi clause is not sufficient to completely identify the
> > referents of the sumti that noi is attached to.
>
> That's not quite like that. The information may very well be
> sufficient in some cases (ti noi mamta mi} "this, who is my
> mother,..."
>
> The "non-restrictive" part means that the information is not used to
> select from the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy the
> clause.

I used:

The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in the noi
clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti noi
is attached to refers to.

Also inserted for ne and no'u.

> > For logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is
> > entirely outside the scope of the statement in which it is
> > contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the scope
> > in which it was contained dies in the arse.
>
> I'm not sure this is quite dictionary-style language. :-)

Dammit, I was hoping to have that not get noticed for a while yet. :-)

I just think that that Nick-ism should be enshrined somewhere. :-)

> I'm not quite sure what the scope of {noi} is exactly either. In {la
> djan jinvi lo du'u ti noi mamta mi cu klama}, is the noi clause a part
> of John's beliefs or is it the speaker's comment?

That's a bit of a different question, actually.

I say that it is the speaker's comment unless "se'i nai" or "du'o la
djan" or something is used, but I think we need to look at this a bit
more.

> > The noi clause should be considerd, for scoping purposes, as
> > occuring in its own virtual sentence (techinically, its own
> > "statement" production in the formal grammar) after both
> > the one in which it is contained and all further statements that
> > are logically connected to the one in which it was contained.
>
> That would mean it is not necessarily part of what John believes.

No, it doesn't. Logical scoping and abstraction scoping are seperate
issues, IMO. However, the current formalism insists that it's the
speakers comments.

> > la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani ''The Mad met
> > a mouse, M (The Mad) had acquired it (the mouse), in the house.''
> > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in
> > the Lojban the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited
> > clause.
>
> Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry",
> "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

Sorry; I didn't go back to the original, and was hoping you'd check
these sorts of things for me.

> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the
> > poi clause is intended to completely identify the referents of
> > the sumti that poi is attached to.
>
> Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that
> satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what you say
> next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any of them
> identified.

How about:

The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi clause
is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is
attached to refers to.

> > poi clause is also true. poi is often used with da to
> > restrict da to some part of all the things which exist. Inside
> > a noi clause,
>
> That would be a "poi" clause.

Indeed.

> > pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo
> > Question to Pat: that which at the window is what?
> > Pat: What is that at the window?
>
> With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?

> > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer
> > bridi). The "restrictive" part means that the information
> > in the voi clause is intended to completely identify the
> > referents of the sumti that voi is attached to.
>
> I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already
> has just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further
> restriction seems unnecessary.

I, on the other hand, think voi should die in the arse. If we're going
to keep it, though, your point is well taken.

> > !! Examples of voi Usage
> >
> > ti voi nanmu cu ninmu
> > This which is (non-veridically) a man is a woman.
> > The classic example of voi usage, presumably referring to a case of
> > mistaken identity or a transvestite or transgendered individual.
>
> This is non-restrictive. {ti} is already identified by the time we say
> it is (non-veridicaly) a man.

Yep. CLL bug?

> > so'e po'o cuxna la cnemokca cedra voi sete pilno le se jmaji
>
> No translation?

Wasn't supposed to be there.

> > ganse vasxu le nicte vacri voi ranti
> > Breathing the night air, which is soft.
> > Presumably, voi is being used to deal with the fact that ranti
> > probably does not literally apply to air.
>
> This again seems to be a non-restrictive use.

Yep.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

 



Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry",
> "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

"mad" in American English means primarily "angry", not "crazy".

> Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti
> just those that satisfy the relative clause.

This wording is good.

> With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

"poi" serves as a sortal; ta poi mrenu = that (a man) vs. ta poi nazbi
= that (the man's nose).

> I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has
> just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction
> seems unnecessary.

That's a good point abstractly, but can you provide a motivating example?

--
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan
is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901) jcowan@reutershealth.com

 



posts: 1912

 


> > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's
> > > non-restrictive relative clause.
> >
> > That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or something
> > like that. {noi} itself is not the clause.
>
> Fixed.

Same thing for {poi} and {voi}.

> > > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the
> > > poi clause is intended to completely identify the referents of
> > > the sumti that poi is attached to.
> >
> > Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that
> > satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what you say
> > next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any of them
> > identified.
>
> How about:
>
> The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi clause
> is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is
> attached to refers to.

You mean "is used" right?

> > > pau re'i pat ta poi zvati le canko cu mo
> > > Question to Pat: that which at the window is what?
> > > Pat: What is that at the window?
> >
> > With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"
>
> It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?

Probably just what you interpreted. I don't remember who Pat was,
was she the sister?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:28:58PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's
> > > > non-restrictive relative clause.
> > >
> > > That should be "non-restrictive relative clause marker" or
> > > something like that. {noi} itself is not the clause.
> >
> > Fixed.
>
> Same thing for {poi} and {voi}.

Oops.

> > > > The "restrictive" part means that the information in
> > > > the poi clause is intended to completely identify the
> > > > referents of the sumti that poi is attached to.
> > >
> > > Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti just those
> > > that satisfy the relative clause. Which I see is more or less what
> > > you say next, but why "completely identify"? You may not have any
> > > of them identified.
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi
> > clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti
> > poi is attached to refers to.
>
> You mean "is used" right?

Err. Yeah.

> > It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?
>
> Probably just what you interpreted. I don't remember who Pat was, was
> she the sister?

No, I don't think so. Someone in the pepper scene, IIRC, and I probably
don't.

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

Irish gardener in Chapter 4.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > It's from Alice; what did you mean for it to mean?
>
> Probably just what you interpreted. I don't remember who Pat was, was
> she the sister?

No, I don't think so. Someone in the pepper scene, IIRC, and I probably
don't.

-Robin

 




posts: 1912

 
John Cowan wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
> > With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> > used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> > presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> > is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> > "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"
>
> "poi" serves as a sortal; ta poi mrenu = that (a man) vs. ta poi nazbi
> = that (the man's nose).

But that assumes that both the man and the nose are referents of
{ta}, and then the poi clause selects one of them.

{ta noi nanmu} and {ta noi nazbi} would mean "that, which as you
can see is a man" and "that, which as you can see is a nose".
In this case, {ta} has just the intended referent from the start.
The non-restrictive information might be helpful for the listener
for purposes of identification, but it is not used by the speaker
to select certain referent from a number of referents.

Both views are possible, it all depends on how we imagine that
{ta} gets its referents. If it's purely a matter of the speaker's
intentions (and Lojban, at least in theory, is very speaker-centric
in this respect) then {poi} doesn't really make much sense, because
the speaker won't have both the man and the nose in mind as referents
of {ta} from which to select. If the referents of {ta} are more of
a negotiation between speaker and listener, then yes, {poi} makes
sense, as in that case {ta} would be more of a {lo pointed-at} than
a {le pointed-at}.

> > I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has
> > just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction
> > seems unnecessary.
>
> That's a good point abstractly, but can you provide a motivating example?

Not really, I don't really see {voi} as useful in normal usage,
I was thinking more in terms of its use in the definition of {le}.

If we think of {zo'e} as a generalized {ta}, i.e. as something that
gets its referent from context but without the actual physical
pointing (since often it is not even physically pointable) then
as I argue above {zo'e noi ...} is the way to give additional verbal
information about it. {poi} would not be quite right, because the
speaker does not have other things in mind which need restriction.
So, if we define {le broda} as I propose as {zo'e noi mi skicu ...},
and if we want to use {voi} to define {le}, then it makes sense
to define {voi} as a non-restrictive clause marker. Then
{le broda} = {zo'e voi ke'a broda}, parallel to {lo broda}
= {zo'e noi ke'a broda}.

If we on the other hand don't use this generalized {ta} to define
{le}, but rather define {ro le broda} as {ro da poi mi skicu ...},
then it makes sense to define {voi} as restrictive. Then
{ro le broda} = {ro da voi ke'a broda}, parallel to
{su'o lo broda} = {su'o da poi ke'a broda}.

I don't really think {voi} will get used much either way, but
who knows?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Both views are possible, it all depends on how we imagine that
> {ta} gets its referents.

I agree. I don't argue that ta noi is wrong, simply that it is not
a sortal (rather it is an explanation of a sortal that is implicit
in "ta").

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne

 



posts: 1912

 

> !! Proposed Definition of noi
....
> noi
> immediately follows a sumti.

With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku} there
are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and {broda},
between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be different
in some cases.

In other words, the noi bridi is true about the
> sumti noi is attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the things
> the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti noi
> is attached to could refer to.

As I said, I don't think this is necessarily true. The info in
the bridi may very well be enough to pick those things.

The
> noi clause should be considerd, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its

typo "considered"

> la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani
> Fury met a mouse, F (Fury) had acquired it (the mouse), in the house.
> Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in the Lojban
> the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited clause.

"had acquired" is wrong actually, because the noi clause is not meant
to be in the past of the main clause. Probably the mouse was caught
right after they met. In fact the "tail" starts like this:
"Fury said to a mouse, That he met in the house,", but I had to
add {cpacu} to rhyme with {smacu}.

> ti'e ko'a ne li 2.6 cu mutce sutra
> ''By the way it, which has something to do with the number 2.6, is very
> fast.''

{ti'e} is "they say", not "by the way", which is {ta'o}.

> xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do
> ''Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated with the
> form of the weather, which is near you?''
> Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal?

Does it really say that?

> ;pe (GOI):Restrictive phrase. pe is one of Lojban's non-restrictive
> relative phrase markers.

non-restrictive -> restrictive

> that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of no'u is that the
> attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti, which is what the
> "appositive" part means.

Why not just say that they have the same referents? The two sumti
(i.e. the words) are normally not identical, since {ko'a no'u ko'a}
is sort of redundant.

In other
> words, the no'u sumti is associated with the sumti no'u is attached
> to, but is not enough to pick out only the things the speaker has in mind
> among all the possible things that the sumti no'u is attached to could
> refer to.

This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the same
things.

 
> mi ba stidi so'u cnino gismu no'u zo nagra e zo narga e zo ranga e zo ragna
> I will suggest several new gismu: nagra, narga, ranga, and ragna.

so'u = a few

> ;po'u (GOI):Restrictive identity. po'u is Lojban's non-restrictive

non-restrictive -> restrictive

> that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of po'u is that the
> attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti,

Again, the referents are the same, not the word. But this is not true
in the case of po'u: the second sumti selects some of the referents
of the first, so the first sumti may have some referents that the
second doesn't have.

> ;zi'e (ZIhE):Relative clause/phrase joiner. Normally, a relative clause
> or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its immediate left, which means
> that it is impossible to apply more than one relative marker to the same
> sumti.

For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using zi'e.

Using zi'e to mix poi and noi clauses (or pe and ne, and
> so on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well defined.

Shouldn't we define it?

> ;ku'o (KUhO):End relative clause. ku'o is an elidable terminator
> that indicates the end of NOI relative clauses. It can always be replaced by
> some other combination of terminators (ku, vau, and kei in
> particular are often relevant), but its use is preferred in complex clauses,
> where it can often replace several other terminators.

Always?

What do you replace it with in {da poi ge broda gi brode ku'o de}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Always?
>
> What do you replace it with in {da poi ge broda gi brode ku'o de}?

"vau vau"

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
--Hal Abelson

 



posts: 1912

 


> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
>
> > Always?
> >
> > What do you replace it with in {da poi ge broda gi brode ku'o de}?
>
> "vau vau"

ua right!

So, is it demonstrably always replaceable?

mi'e xorxes

 




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> So, is it demonstrably always replaceable?

Yes. I prepared a version of grammar.300 with no ku'o and yacced it;
no conflicts. Therefore it can always be elided if enough other
elidable terminators are provided. That doesn't make ku'o a bad
idea.

--
Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

Corrections I wholly agree with removed.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:36:36PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
>
> > !! Proposed Definition of noi
> ...
> > noi immediately follows a sumti.
>
> With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku}
> there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and
> {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be
> different in some cases.

Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true with
pe, ne, po, and so on?

Reference for this, please?

> > In other words, the noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is
> > attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the things the
> > speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti
> > noi is attached to could refer to.
>
> As I said, I don't think this is necessarily true. The info in the
> bridi may very well be enough to pick those things.

s/not enough/not necessarily enough/

> > la fengu lo smacu noi fy ke'a cpacu cu penmi le zdani
> > ''Fury met a mouse, F (Fury) had acquired it (the mouse), in the
> > house.''
> > Had to re-order the translation a bit to make the English work; in
> > the Lojban the "met" part comes after the comma-delimited
> > clause.
>
> "had acquired" is wrong actually, because the noi clause is not meant
> to be in the past of the main clause. Probably the mouse was caught
> right after they met. In fact the "tail" starts like this: "Fury said
> to a mouse, That he met in the house,", but I had to add {cpacu} to
> rhyme with {smacu}.

s/had acquired/got/

> > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do
> > ''Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated
> > with the form of the weather, which is near you?''
> > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal?
>
> Does it really say that?

That's how I read it. Do you disagree?

> > that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of no'u is
> > that the attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti,
> > which is what the "appositive" part means.
>
> Why not just say that they have the same referents?

Because I'm trying to be gentle.

> The two sumti (i.e. the words) are normally not identical, since {ko'a
> no'u ko'a} is sort of redundant.

Point. Done.

> > In other words, the no'u sumti is associated with the sumti
> > no'u is attached to, but is not enough to pick out only the
> > things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that
> > the sumti no'u is attached to could refer to.

s/not enough/not necessarily enough/

> This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the
> same things.

Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive; you
can have that argument with him if you like.

The example that convinced me was:

ro da no'u la jeeg cu cevni

ro da po'u la jeeg cu cevni

> > that it is followed by another sumti. The meaning of po'u is
> > that the attached sumti is absolutely identical to the first sumti,
>
> Again, the referents are the same, not the word. But this is not true
> in the case of po'u: the second sumti selects some of the referents of
> the first, so the first sumti may have some referents that the second
> doesn't have.

Fixed.

> > ;zi'e (ZIhE):Relative clause/phrase joiner. Normally, a
> > relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its
> > immediate left, which means that it is impossible to apply more than
> > one relative marker to the same sumti.
>
> For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using
> zi'e.

Example, please.

> > Using zi'e to mix poi and noi clauses (or pe and ne, and so
> > on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well defined.
>
> Shouldn't we define it?

No, we really shouldn't. Or, at least, I am not capable of so doing.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> > With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku}
> > there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and
> > {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can be
> > different in some cases.
>
> Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true with
> pe, ne, po, and so on?

Yes.

> Reference for this, please?

I think CLL mentions it.

{ci lo ro broda noi brode ku noi brodi cu brodo}

says of all brodas that they are brode, but only of the three brodas that
brodo that they are brodi.

 
> > > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do
> > > ''Is it not the case that those among the norm which is associated
> > > with the form of the weather, which is near you?''
> > > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal?
> >
> > Does it really say that?
>
> That's how I read it. Do you disagree?

I think "Don't you normally have such weather?" or something,
but I don't really know. {le tai tcima} is definitely "such
weather", probably referring to some kind of weather being talked
about, but I don't really understand how the other two sumti fit.
{le tai tcima ne vi do" is "such weather of yours". So:
"Is it not the normal of such weather of yours?" Maybe it made
sense in context.

> > This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly the
> > same things.
>
> Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive; you
> can have that argument with him if you like.

I agree it is not restrictive. That doesn't mean that the two sumti
don't have the same referents. I don't think the point you repeat about
identification has anything to do with restrictiveness.

> The example that convinced me was:
>
> ro da no'u la jeeg cu cevni
>
> ro da po'u la jeeg cu cevni

The first one says that Jeeg is/are the only god(s), the second
one allows for there being other gods. So?

> > For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using
> > zi'e.
>
> Example, please.

lo noi broda ku'o brode noi brodi ku noi brodo cu brodu

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 1912

 
> ! Formal Definitions
>
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA broda cu
> brodi

Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a quantified
term does not provide referents outside the scope of the quantifier, so
you can't really take the noi-clause out.

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.

does not say that exactly three people came and exactly
three people are beautiful. It says that exactly three people
came and that *those same three people that came* are beautiful.

So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi},
but it won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have
a quantified term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the
prenex and only then apply this transformation, and you can't take
the noi outside the scope of the quantifier in such cases.

> voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi skicu lo ka
> ke'a broda cu brodi

Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?

 
> ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode
> po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode
> po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode
> po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana
> PA2 brode

I would define these much more generally:

ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti
pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti
no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti
po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti

etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular
form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

> vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda
> [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]

This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be
distributive.

> zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du PA1 broda
> zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode

This one doesn't work in general either.
You could define it something like:

noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
poi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
voi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion will
also apply. Mixed cases are a separate issue.

> goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du [sumti 2]
> ku'o
> goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi binxo da poi
> mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o

These are not true equivalents.

> * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with sumtcita
> clauses.

For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have:

pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti
ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have
similar conversion formulas for them, but I don't know what
it would mean to use tcita with goi, po'u, or no'u.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 1912

 


> noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
> poi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
> voi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

I meant:

noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
voi subsentence1 zi'e voi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > ! Formal Definitions
> >
> > (AKA conversion formulas)

In this episode, xorxes rips Robin's conversion formulas a new ganxo.

Not that I mind.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA
> > broda cu brodi
>
> Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a
> quantified term does not provide referents outside the scope of
> the quantifier, so you can't really take the noi-clause out.
>
> ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
>
> Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.
>
> does not say that exactly three people came and exactly three people
> are beautiful. It says that exactly three people came and that *those
> same three people that came* are beautiful.

Point.

> So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it
> won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified
> term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only
> then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the
> scope of the quantifier in such cases.

I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you have a
solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?

> > voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi
> > skicu lo ka ke'a broda cu brodi
>
> Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?

Actually, I'm going with just {poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u brode}.

But yes, your basic point is correct.

> > ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> > pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> > no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode
> > po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode
> > po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode
> > po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana
> > PA2 brode
>
> I would define these much more generally:
>
> ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti
> pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti
> no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti
> po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti
>
> etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular
> form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

Good point.

> > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda
> > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]
>
> This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be
> distributive.

Example? Solution?

> > zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du
> > PA1 broda zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode
>
> This one doesn't work in general either.
> You could define it something like:
>
> noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
> poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
> voi subsentence1 zi'e voi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
>
> ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion
> will also apply.

Cool, thanks.

> Mixed cases are a separate issue.

Yes; they should die in the ares.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > [sumti 2] ku'o
> > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi
> > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o
>
> These are not true equivalents.

You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?

> > * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with
> > sumtcita clauses.
>
> For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have:
>
> pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti
>
> ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Why 'jai'?

> Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have
> similar conversion formulas for them,

I think po'e as it stands is fine; do you have a problem with it?

> but I don't know what it would mean to use tcita with goi,
> po'u, or no'u.

Neither do I.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > ! Formal Definitions
> >
> > (AKA conversion formulas)

BTW, xorxes, what's your preferred form for voi?

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:35:49PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > > ! Formal Definitions
> > >
> > > (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> BTW, xorxes, what's your preferred form for voi?

I'd love to see everyone else chime in too, of course.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> > So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it
> > won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified
> > term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only
> > then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the
> > scope of the quantifier in such cases.
>
> I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you have a
> solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?

Well, an example would be something like:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
= ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama
= ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

 
> > > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda
> > > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]
> >
> > This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be
> > distributive.
>
> Example? Solution?

lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ...
The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode,
which has 3 members,...

That the intersection has three members does not mean that each
of the sets has three members.

I'm not sure how to write a replacement formula, it's just
a matter of bracketing.

> > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > > [sumti 2] ku'o
> > > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi
> > > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o
> >
> > These are not true equivalents.
>
> You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?

There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I reassign
the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not become that something
else.

> > For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have:
> >
> > pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti
> >
> > ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti
>
> Why 'jai'?

Because we don't know in general which place of broda ke'a will fill.
We do know that the tagged sumti will fill the x1 of broda, which goes
to fai after jai conversion.

> > Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have
> > similar conversion formulas for them,
>
> I think po'e as it stands is fine; do you have a problem with it?

Other than it is never really needed, no.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it
> > > won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a
> > > quantified term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the
> > > prenex and only then apply this transformation, and you can't take
> > > the noi outside the scope of the quantifier in such cases.
> >
> > I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you
> > have a solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?
>
> Well, an example would be something like:
>
> ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama
> = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

What is this an example *of*, exactly?

Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi?

> > > > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1
> > > > broda [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]
> > >
> > > This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not
> > > be distributive.
> >
> > Example? Solution?
>
> lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ...
>
> The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode,
> which has 3 members,...

Ah. What about:

[sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]

> > > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > > > [sumti 2] ku'o
> > > > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi
> > > > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o
> > >
> > > These are not true equivalents.
> >
> > You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?
>
> There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I reassign
> the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not become that
> something else.

Oh! Point.

Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:

> > Well, an example would be something like:
> >
> > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> > = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama
> > = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama
>
> What is this an example *of*, exactly?

Of how to expand {PA broda noi brode cu brodi}.

> Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi?

I'm not sure what you mean by my solution. The example shows that
{noi} cannot escape the scope of the quantifier when it is applied
to a quantified term.

> > lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ...
> >
> > The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode,
> > which has 3 members,...
>
> Ah. What about:
>
> [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]

That won't always work, especially if da is a singular variable.
Besides, which sumti is the relative attached to on the right hand side?

> > There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I reassign
> > the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not become that
> > something else.
>
> Oh! Point.
>
> Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you?

No, there is nothing that becomes a cat here. Try an example
and you will see it makes no sense. If "ko'a" starts with some
referents and you want to make it have other, different referents,
then there is no possible restriction on the first set of referents
that will get you the second set. If it starts with no referent,
then no restriction on that will get you what you want either.
{goi} is just not a type of {poi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from earlier {lo}s). But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > ! Formal Definitions
> >
> > (AKA conversion formulas)

In this episode, xorxes rips Robin's conversion formulas a new ganxo.

Not that I mind.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA
> > broda cu brodi
>
> Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a
> quantified term does not provide referents outside the scope of
> the quantifier, so you can't really take the noi-clause out.
>
> ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
>
> Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.
>
> does not say that exactly three people came and exactly three people
> are beautiful. It says that exactly three people came and that *those
> same three people that came* are beautiful.

Point.

> So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi}, but it
> won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have a quantified
> term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the prenex and only
> then apply this transformation, and you can't take the noi outside the
> scope of the quantifier in such cases.

I only barely followed that. Can you give an example, and do you have a
solution? Does zo'u work with tu'e?

> > voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi
> > skicu lo ka ke'a broda cu brodi
>
> Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?

Actually, I'm going with just {poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u brode}.

But yes, your basic point is correct.

> > ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> > pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> > no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode
> > po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode
> > po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode
> > po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana
> > PA2 brode
>
> I would define these much more generally:
>
> ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti
> pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti
> no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti
> po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti
>
> etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular
> form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

Good point.

> > vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda
> > [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]
>
> This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be
> distributive.

Example? Solution?

> > zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du
> > PA1 broda zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode
>
> This one doesn't work in general either.
> You could define it something like:
>
> noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
> poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
> voi subsentence1 zi'e voi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
>
> ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion
> will also apply.

Cool, thanks.

> Mixed cases are a separate issue.

Yes; they should die in the ares.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > [sumti 2] ku'o
> > goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi
> > binxo da poi mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o
>
> These are not true equivalents.

You mean that "du" is wrong, or that he formula are wrong?

> > * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with
> > sumtcita clauses.
>
> For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have:
>
> pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti
>
> ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Why 'jai'?

> Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have
> similar conversion formulas for them,

I think po'e as it stands is fine; do you have a problem with it?

> but I don't know what it would mean to use tcita with goi,
> po'u, or no'u.

Neither do I.

-Robin

 




posts: 1912

 
pc:
> Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference
> directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking
> open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the
> quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from
> earlier {lo}s).

No doubt that's how things work in natlangs. It's harder to
see how it works in Lojban where pronouns tend to be more rigid in
how they get their referents.

> But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is
> outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

We know what happens when there is no quantifier:

lo nu ti noi broda cu brode cu rinka ko'a

That does not say that lo nu ti broda is part of the cause.
But then we are faced with something like:

lo nu ci broda noi brode cu brodi cu rinka ko'a

and if we don't want the brodeing to be part of the cause
then we need to take the noi clause outside the scope
of the quantifier.

BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama

as:

ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

which is not quite right. An expansion like that would
work for {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex
beasts. The expansion for {ci} would be something like:

ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:43:23PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > > Well, an example would be something like:
> > >
> > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama
> > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama
> >
> > What is this an example *of*, exactly?
>
> Of how to expand {PA broda noi brode cu brodi}.

OK.

> > Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by my solution. The example shows that
> {noi} cannot escape the scope of the quantifier when it is applied to
> a quantified term.

"solution" in the sense of "conversion formula that will work in as many
situations as humanly possible.

> > > lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ...
> > >
> > > The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode, which
> > > has 3 members,...
> >
> > Ah. What about:
> >
> > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]
>
> That won't always work, especially if da is a singular variable.

Point.

> Besides, which sumti is the relative attached to on the right hand side?

Heh. That's probably fixable.

Got any ideas for how to make this work?

> > > There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I
> > > reassign the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not
> > > become that something else.
> >
> > Oh! Point.
> >
> > Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you?
>
> No, there is nothing that becomes a cat here.

sinxa for a cat.

> {goi} is just not a type of {poi}.

  • nod*

 
ko'a goi ko'e = le se sinxa be ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be ko'a

?

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded:
>
> ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
>
> as:
>
> ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama
>
> which is not quite right. An expansion like that would work for
> {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex beasts.

> The expansion for {ci} would be something like:
>
> ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

That doesn't much differ from what I have now. I thought you were worred
about breaking it out into two sentences.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

 



posts: 1912

 


> > > Ah. What about:
> > >
> > > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]
> >
> Got any ideas for how to make this work?

[connected sumti] vu'o [relative]
= ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative]

seems better, but I won't swear for it.

> > {goi} is just not a type of {poi}.
>
> *nod*
>
> ko'a goi ko'e = le se sinxa be ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be ko'a
>
> ?

This of course is not a conversion formula but a description
of what the goi expression does (which is useful too).

I guess you mean: {le se sinxa be zo ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be
zo ko'a}, but that's not quite what's going on. {le se sinxa be zo ko'a}
is normally an object in the world, and there are no transformations
of objects in the world going on here.

{zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts
referring to ko'a".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> >
> > ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi
>
> That doesn't much differ from what I have now. I thought you were worred
> about breaking it out into two sentences.

No, the number of sentences does not worry me at all, but what you have
now has a different meaning. "Exactly three people came and exactly
three people are beautiful" is very different from "exactly three
people came and every thing that is a person and came is beautiful".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > Ah. What about:
> > > >
> > > > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list]
> > > > [relative]
> > >
> > Got any ideas for how to make this work?
>
> [connected sumti] vu'o [relative]
> = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative]

Hmm. Why not just:

[connected sumti] goi ko'a [relative]

> {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts
> referring to ko'a".

That's do, but doesn't the word ko'e start referring to the referrant of
ko'a?

{zo ko'e co'a sinxa la'e ko'a} ?

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:55:10AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:30:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > >
> > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> > >
> > > ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi
> >
> > That doesn't much differ from what I have now. I thought you were
> > worred about breaking it out into two sentences.
>
> No, the number of sentences does not worry me at all, but what you
> have now has a different meaning. "Exactly three people came and
> exactly three people are beautiful" is very different from "exactly
> three people came and every thing that is a person and came is
> beautiful".

  • AH*. My version doesn't bind them to being the same three people.

Duh. Thanks.

What about:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
= ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama ije ro ko'acu melbi

?

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> > [connected sumti] vu'o [relative]
> > = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative]
>
> Hmm. Why not just:
>
> [connected sumti] goi ko'a [relative]

You'd need to add a {vu'o} in front of the goi...

> > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts
> > referring to ko'a".
>
> That's do, but doesn't the word ko'e start referring to the referrant of
> ko'a?
>
> {zo ko'e co'a sinxa la'e ko'a} ?

No, it's {ko'a mlatu}, not {la'e ko'a mlatu}.
{zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a noi mlatu ku'o enai la'e ko'a lu'u noi se sinxa
lo mlatu}

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



posts: 1912

 


> > > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
>
> What about:
>
> ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> = ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama ije ro ko'acu melbi
>
> ?

Yes, that seems to work. You probably don't even need
the {ro}, so as to include non-distributive noi-clauses.

The quantifier {no} would be a special case: {no broda noi
brode cu brodi} seems to be either nonsensical or the noi-clause
is irrelevant, because there is nothing to apply it to.
Within any negation scope, in fact, modifying a quantified
term with a noi-clause gives nonsense.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:26:00AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > [connected sumti] vu'o [relative]
> > > = ko'a goi [connected sumti] zi'e [relative]
> >
> > Hmm. Why not just:
> >
> > [connected sumti] goi ko'a [relative]
>
> You'd need to add a {vu'o} in front of the goi...

Yep. And looking at yours more closely, that's a nice trick.

> > > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a} is more like it: "the word 'ko'e' starts
> > > referring to ko'a".
> >
> > That's do, but doesn't the word ko'e start referring to the
> > referrant of ko'a?
> >
> > {zo ko'e co'a sinxa la'e ko'a} ?
>
> No, it's {ko'a mlatu}, not {la'e ko'a mlatu}.
>
> {zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a noi mlatu ku'o enai la'e ko'a lu'u noi se
> sinxa lo mlatu}

OK. Anyone else have a problem here, speak up.

Doing conversion formula for goi and vu'o is so iffy I'm willing to just
drop the whole thing, but I think these work.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:40:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> The quantifier {no} would be a special case: {no broda noi brode cu
> brodi} seems to be either nonsensical or the noi-clause is irrelevant,
> because there is nothing to apply it to. Within any negation scope, in
> fact, modifying a quantified term with a noi-clause gives nonsense.

I don't see the need to point this out, as it expands to:

no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi

which clearly makes the noi clause irrelevant, although still
meaningful.

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

Well, Lojban is intended to be a natural language in some obvious sense, so contextual referencing has a place. And can be brought under fairly rigid controls — at least as good as that for anaphoric pronouns (OK, so it won't be too good, but it will be enough).

Jorge Llambías wrote:
pc:
> Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference
> directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking
> open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the
> quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from
> earlier {lo}s).

No doubt that's how things work in natlangs. It's harder to
see how it works in Lojban where pronouns tend to be more rigid in
how they get their referents.

> But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is
> outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

We know what happens when there is no quantifier:

lo nu ti noi broda cu brode cu rinka ko'a

That does not say that lo nu ti broda is part of the cause.
But then we are faced with something like:

lo nu ci broda noi brode cu brodi cu rinka ko'a

and if we don't want the brodeing to be part of the cause
then we need to take the noi clause outside the scope
of the quantifier.

BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama

as:

ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

which is not quite right. An expansion like that would
work for {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex
beasts. The expansion for {ci} would be something like:

ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 




posts: 1912

 


> I don't see the need to point this out, as it expands to:
>
> no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
>
> which clearly makes the noi clause irrelevant, although still
> meaningful.

What does it mean, given that no referent is assigned to ko'a?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

Just a last plea to separate legal ownership from use rights (and getting rid of inaleineable rights as a separate notion beyond what is in the place structure of the word for the object involved).

 



posts: 1912

 
I have voted yes on this page. I think the definitions can be made more
precise on some points. I don't know if they need to, because there
are basically no disagreements about the meanings, but anyway here are
some more comments.

> ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's non-restrictive
> relative clause marker. The "relative" part means that it attaches
> to a sumti to provide additional information about that sumti.

I assume a sumti is a word. {noi} attaches to a sumti to provide
additional info about that sumti's referent(s), not about the sumti
itself.

When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly have
referents) the issue is a bit more complex.

> noi
> immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti it can appear in a
> variety of places, the semantics of which are beyond the scope of this
> definition.

It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that appears
with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti, which can
also be quantified.

{le broda noi}, {LE broda ku noi}, {LE noi ... ku'o broda} are
all just like {ko'a noi}.

For unquantified {LE broda}, the point of attachment is irrelevant.
The clause gives additional info about the referents of the sumti.
(Inner quantifiers don't change this.)

The difficulties arise with outer quantifiers, but these apply to
description sumti as much as to simple sumti.

When there are outer quantifiers, the CLL rule is that relative clauses
applied before the {ku} are as if they were applied to the bare
(unquantified) sumti. After the {ku} the clause applies to the
quantified sumti. So:

{PA LE broda ku noi} and {PA broda ku noi} are like {PA ko'a noi}.

{PA LE broda noi}, {PA broda noi} and {PA LE noi...ku'o broda} ignore
the outer quantifier from the point of view of the relative clause.

 
The "non-restrictive"
> part means that the information in the noi clause is not used to restrict
> the set of things that the sumti noi is attached to refers to. In other
> words, the noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, but
> is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the speaker has in mind
> among all the possible things that the sumti noi is attached to could
> refer to.

I don't think the "in other words" part says the same as the first part,
and I don't think it has much to do with what noi means, but it is not
false.

> Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti
> have already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to give
> additional information.

Is that true?

> For logical scoping purposes,
> the scope of a noi clause is entirely outside the scope of the statement
> in which it is contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the
> scope in which it was contained ends. The noi clause should be
> considered, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its own virtual sentence
> (techinically, its own "statement" production in the formal
> grammar) after both the one in which it is contained and all further
> statements that are logically connected to the one in which it was contained.

I think that's true for attachment to unquantified sumti. When attached to
a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more complex. Some
quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi clause to apply to.

> As a side effect, movement of na ku through a sentence has no effect on
> noi clauses.

When there are quantifiers involved, this is not obvious. Consider:

naku su'o broda ku noi brode cu brodi
=? ro broda ku noi brode naku brodi

If we remove the noi-clause, both sentences are equivalent.
With the noi clause, are they still equivalent? Does the
first one say that all brodas are brode, like the second one
does?

> ;poi (NOI):Restrictive clause. poi is Lojban's restrictive relative
> clause marker. The "relative" part means that it attaches to a
> sumti to provide additional information about that sumti.

Again, it doesn't really provide info about the sumti. In the case of
{poi}, I wouldn't say it provides "additional" info either, that's what
{noi} does. Anyway, it is clear what is meant, I just don't like the way
it is expressed.

> poi
> immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti it can appear in a
> variety of places, the semantics of which are beyond the scope of this
> definition.

Again, this shouldn't be the case, because any unclarity that exists
with descriptions is already present with simple sumti. The various
points of attachment don't really introduce new complications.

The "restrictive" part
> means that the information in the poi clause is used to restrict the set
> of things that the sumti poi is attached to refers to. In other words,
> out of all the possible things the sumti that poi is attached to could
> refer to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti is a great many
> things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker to refer only to
> those things that the sumti could refer to for which the bridi in the poi
> clause is also true.

Again, the intent is clear but I don't like the wording.

It's not about what the sumti "could" refer to but what it "does" refer
to. The sumti does have a number of referents, and the poi clause restricts
from *that* number (not from any other that the sumti in some other context
could refer to) to only those that satisfy the clause.
If {ko'a} refers to John, Paul and Mary, then {ko'a poi femti} restricts
the referents of ko'a to just those that are female, presumably just
Mary. What {ko'a} could refer to in other contexts is irrelevant.

> poi is often used with da to restrict da to
> some part of all the things which exist.

The referents of {da} are all the things that there are ("exist" is
a charged word, so I wouldn't use it here), so {da poi} does restrict to
just those that satisfy the clause.

> ;vu'o (VUhO):Long scope relative clause/phrase marker. Normally, a
> relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its immediate
> left, regardless of logical connectors. To have a relative clause or phrase
> bind to every member of a connected group of sumti, place vu'o after the
> sumti and before the relative clause or phrase cmavo.

Logical connectors are not special here. It applies to all connectors

> immediately after the zi'e. Using zi'e to mix poi and noi
> clauses (or pe and ne, and so on) is, for very subtle reasons, not well
> defined.

It shouldn't be too difficult to make some definitory statements about
it though. I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi
clause applies to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ...
zi'e noi ...} it applies to just those referents that are left after
the poi restriction.

> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a
> cu brodi

Works often, but not a general formula.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da poi broda zo'u da ga nai brode
> gi brodi
> poi + su'o | su'o broda poi brode cu brodi | su'o da poi broda zo'u da ge
> brode gi brodi

These are correct, but don't really get rid of {poi}.

> goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du [sumti 2]

This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with,
you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2

> error than anything else. The winner of the no-usage prize, however, seems
> to be ge'u. This, however, seems to have been a serious error: {mi po do
> ge'u .e da} means something completely different than {mi po do .e da}, and I
> don't think anyone noticed but xorxes.

I doubt I was the only one, at least the designers must have noticed it too.
Anyway, are we really voting on whether anyone else noticed? :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Just a last plea to separate legal ownership from use rights (and
> getting rid of inaleineable rights as a separate notion beyond what is
> in the place structure of the word for the object involved).

Give me a clear proposal and I'll see what I can do.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:43:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > I don't see the need to point this out, as it expands to:
> >
> > no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> >
> > which clearly makes the noi clause irrelevant, although still
> > meaningful.
>
> What does it mean, given that no referent is assigned to ko'a?

In my opinion, binding a variable to nothing is different than an
unbound variable. I would say that the second sentence means exactly:

no broda cu brodi

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

{pe} as given
{po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, but not necessarily legal ownership
{po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).

Ther is also the notion of "inalienable possession" such as obtains for one's body and body parts and a few other things (culturally defined). Those that Lojban (i.e. European culture) recognizes as such are marked in the place structure of the corresponding brivla; similar connection required by other cultures will be indicated by appropriate nonce forms.

(And then the gismu people have to make sure the claim about place structure is true — and perhps find a good source for a nonce form.)

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Just a last plea to separate legal ownership from use rights (and
> getting rid of inaleineable rights as a separate notion beyond what is
> in the place structure of the word for the object involved).

Give me a clear proposal and I'll see what I can do.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:27:48AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> {pe} as given
>
> {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, but not necessarily legal ownership

Isn't that what it says now?

Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?

> {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).

Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


>
> > > no broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> > >
> In my opinion, binding a variable to nothing is different than an
> unbound variable. I would say that the second sentence means exactly:
>
> no broda cu brodi

But that's not how {ko'a} works in general, it would be a very
idiosyncratic use in Lojban, and not backed up by anything in
natlangs either. {ko'a} does not repeat words, it repeats
referrents.

In English you can't say "nothing brodas, and it brodes"
to mean "nothing brodas and nothing brodes". "It" is not
used to repeat the word "nothing".

In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless:

no da broda ije ri brode

no da broda ije le go'i cu brode

no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode

{ri}, {le go'i} and {ko'a} just fail to pick up any referent,
so the second sentence is just meaningless. none of those
cases is equivalent to:

no da broda ije no de brode

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use,
> > but not necessarily legal ownership
>
> Isn't that what it says now?
>
> Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?
>
> > {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).
>
> Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

What counts as "legal ownership" is in any case extremely messy. Anglo-
American law recognizes two kinds of ownership (legal and equitable)
and two kinds of possession (possession proper and natural detention).
These usually all subsist in the same person, but not necessarily.

Suppose that Alice gives a valuable object to Bob in trust for Carol.
Carol then lends the object to Dave, but unfortunately it is stolen by
Mallory before Dave can return it. Now Bob has legal title, Carol has
equitable title, Dave has possession, and Mallory has natural detention.
Each of them has a distinct set of legal rights and duties as a result.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless:
>
> no da broda ije ri brode
>
> no da broda ije le go'i cu brode
>
> no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode

Umm, I have no trouble with any of those.

This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should
know.

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

A> No, now it includes legal ownership

B> Well, the present use for this is redundant — or very rare — and here is a distinction that is often important and moderately common.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:27:48AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> {pe} as given
>
> {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use, but not necessarily legal ownership

A>Isn't that what it says now?

Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?

> {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).

B>Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

Yes, the law in its full force is messy and would require (and would create) a language all its own. Conversational language, however, makes fewer distinctions (as do laws of other countries and societies — or more, but certainly different) and this vague one between "mine to use" and "owned by me" seems to be the most active one (even though several people might claim either of these on various grounds).

John Cowan wrote:Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use,
> > but not necessarily legal ownership
>
> Isn't that what it says now?
>
> Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?
>
> > {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).
>
> Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

What counts as "legal ownership" is in any case extremely messy. Anglo-
American law recognizes two kinds of ownership (legal and equitable)
and two kinds of possession (possession proper and natural detention).
These usually all subsist in the same person, but not necessarily.

Suppose that Alice gives a valuable object to Bob in trust for Carol.
Carol then lends the object to Dave, but unfortunately it is stolen by
Mallory before Dave can return it. Now Bob has legal title, Carol has
equitable title, Dave has possession, and Mallory has natural detention.
Each of them has a distinct set of legal rights and duties as a result.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"

 




posts: 2388

 

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless:
>
> no da broda ije ri brode
>
> no da broda ije le go'i cu brode
>
> no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode

Umm, I have no trouble with any of those.

This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should
know.

-Robin

 

In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to repeat words, not referents, and these are particularly common with quantified expressions (where, lacking a referent outside its scope, repetitions of referent are not possible). So far as I can tell though neither {ko'a} nor anything introduced by {goi} has been used in this way (and most of the cases that do seem to work that way are open to other interpretations).



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:02:57AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
>
>
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23,
> 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless:
> >
> > no da broda ije ri brode
> >
> > no da broda ije le go'i cu brode
> >
> > no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode
>
> Umm, I have no trouble with any of those.
>
> This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should
> know.
> -Robin
>
PC:

Could you please find a mail program that quotes properly? There are
dozens, many of them free. Here's how to do it in outlook:

http://www.slipstick.com/mail1/quote.htm

> In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in
> natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to
> repeat words, not referents,

Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as
a referant.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 05:54:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental clause. noi is Lojban's
> > non-restrictive relative clause marker. The "relative"
> > part means that it attaches to a sumti to provide additional
> > information about that sumti.
>
> I assume a sumti is a word. {noi} attaches to a sumti to provide
> additional info about that sumti's referent(s), not about the sumti
> itself.

Fixed.

> When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly
> have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.

Too esoteric.

> > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti
> > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are
> > beyond the scope of this definition.
>
> It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that
> appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti,
> which can also be quantified.

The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's the
effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of scope,
because the definition is already big enough.

> The difficulties arise with outer quantifiers, but these apply to
> description sumti as much as to simple sumti.

Sure, but the various positions do *not* apply.

> When there are outer quantifiers, the CLL rule is that relative
> clauses applied before the {ku} are as if they were applied to the
> bare (unquantified) sumti.

You can't put a {ku} after {ko'a}; this only applies to description
sumti.

> > The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in
> > the noi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that
> > the sumti noi is attached to refers to. In other words, the
> > noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to, but is
> > not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the speaker has
> > in mind among all the possible things that the sumti noi is
> > attached to could refer to.
>
> I don't think the "in other words" part says the same as the first
> part, and I don't think it has much to do with what noi means, but it
> is not false.

"In other words" removed.

> > Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti have
> > already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to
> > give additional information.
>
> Is that true?

Yes, IME.

> > For logical scoping purposes, the scope of a noi clause is
> > entirely outside the scope of the statement in which it is
> > contained; its scope occurs at the point immediately after the scope
> > in which it was contained ends. The noi clause should be
> > considered, for scoping purposes, as occuring in its own virtual
> > sentence (techinically, its own "statement" production in
> > the formal grammar) after both the one in which it is contained and
> > all further statements that are logically connected to the one in
> > which it was contained.
>
> I think that's true for attachment to unquantified sumti. When
> attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more
> complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi
> clause to apply to.

Yep. I see no way to add that to the definition without turning it into
a chapter.

> > As a side effect, movement of na ku through a sentence has no
> > effect on noi clauses.
>
> When there are quantifiers involved, this is not obvious. Consider:
>
> naku su'o broda ku noi brode cu brodi
> =? ro broda ku noi brode naku brodi
>
> If we remove the noi-clause, both sentences are equivalent.
> With the noi clause, are they still equivalent? Does the
> first one say that all brodas are brode, like the second one
> does?

I don't know. Any other logic geeks want to take a crack at this?

Even if they *are* different, I can't think of a solution.

> > ;poi (NOI):Restrictive clause. poi is Lojban's restrictive
> > relative clause marker. The "relative" part means that it
> > attaches to a sumti to provide additional information about that
> > sumti.
>
> Again, it doesn't really provide info about the sumti. In the case of
> {poi}, I wouldn't say it provides "additional" info either, that's
> what {noi} does. Anyway, it is clear what is meant, I just don't like
> the way it is expressed.

s/additional/specifying/, plus the "referants" thing, which was applied
throughout.

> > poi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti
> > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are
> > beyond the scope of this definition.
>
> Again, this shouldn't be the case, because any unclarity that exists
> with descriptions is already present with simple sumti.

Again, the CLL disagrees with you.

> > The "restrictive" part means that the information in the
> > poi clause is used to restrict the set of things that the sumti
> > poi is attached to refers to. In other words, out of all the
> > possible things the sumti that poi is attached to could refer to
> > (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti is a great many
> > things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker to
> > refer only to those things that the sumti could refer to for which
> > the bridi in the poi clause is also true.
>
> Again, the intent is clear but I don't like the wording.

Let me know what you think of the new version.

> > poi is often used with da to restrict da to some part of
> > all the things which exist.
>
> The referents of {da} are all the things that there are ("exist" is a
> charged word, so I wouldn't use it here), so {da poi} does restrict to
> just those that satisfy the clause.

Fixed.

> > ;vu'o (VUhO):Long scope relative clause/phrase marker. Normally,
> > a relative clause or phrase sumti binds to the last sumti to its
> > immediate left, regardless of logical connectors. To have a
> > relative clause or phrase bind to every member of a connected group
> > of sumti, place vu'o after the sumti and before the relative clause
> > or phrase cmavo.
>
> Logical connectors are not special here. It applies to all connectors

Sorry. s/logical/sumti/

> > immediately after the zi'e. Using zi'e to mix poi and
> > noi clauses (or pe and ne, and so on) is, for very subtle
> > reasons, not well defined.
>
> It shouldn't be too difficult to make some definitory statements about
> it though.

> I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies
> to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...}
> it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi
> restriction.

Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and poi,
though. Kills them dead.

> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i
> > je ko'a cu brodi
>
> Works often, but not a general formula.

It's your formula. I don't have anything better.

> > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da poi broda zo'u da ga
> > nai brode gi brodi
> >
> > poi + su'o | su'o broda poi brode cu brodi | su'o da poi broda zo'u
> > da ge brode gi brodi
>
> These are correct, but don't really get rid of {poi}.

Whoops. Changed.

> > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > [sumti 2]
>
> This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with,
> you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2

Suggestions?

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?. My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to figure who said what. Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you want?

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:02:57AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
>
>
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23,
> 2004 at 07:50:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > In Lojban, all of these would be equally meaningless:
> >
> > no da broda ije ri brode
> >
> > no da broda ije le go'i cu brode
> >
> > no da goi ko'a broda ije ko'a brode
>
> Umm, I have no trouble with any of those.
>
> This may very well be an error on my part, but I thought you should
> know.
> -Robin
>
PC:

Could you please find a mail program that quotes properly? There are
dozens, many of them free. Here's how to do it in outlook:

http://www.slipstick.com/mail1/quote.htm

> In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in
> natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to
> repeat words, not referents,

Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as
a referant.

-Robin

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?.

You top post.

You don't quote properly (using >).

> My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so
> many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to
> figure who said what.

Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it.

> Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you
> want?

We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is
impossible for the rest of us to read.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> > When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly
> > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.
>
> Too esoteric.

We can ignore the issue, but then we are not defining the language.

> > > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti
> > > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are
> > > beyond the scope of this definition.
> >
> > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that
> > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti,
> > which can also be quantified.
>
> The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's the
> effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of scope,
> because the definition is already big enough.

On what point does the CLL seem to disagree?

I suspect I didn't make myself clear.

Simple sumti present two cases:

S1 {ko'a noi broda}
S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}

Description sumti present seven cases:

D1 {le brode noi broda}
D2 {le brode ku noi broda}
D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}
D4 {PA le brode noi broda}
D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda}
D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}
D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}

D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1
D5 and D7 behave like S2

The different points of application for the description cases
do not introduce any complication that is not already present
in the simple case.

> > When
> > attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more
> > complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi
> > clause to apply to.
>
> Yep. I see no way to add that to the definition without turning it into
> a chapter.

I'll try to come up with a concise way of putting it.

> > I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies
> > to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...}
> > it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi
> > restriction.
>
> Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and poi,
> though. Kills them dead.

Why?

> > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i
> > > je ko'a cu brodi
> >
> > Works often, but not a general formula.
>
> It's your formula. I don't have anything better.

Yes, but when I offered it I did say it was not general.

> > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > > [sumti 2]
> >
> > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with,
> > you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2
>
> Suggestions?

The same description as for both assigned should work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

Oh boy! Do you mean "with there not being a referent"? In that case, how can the referent carry over. Do you mean "having something called 'nothing' as a referent"? In that case, Fridegesis, what sort of thing is it and so on along that line. What you say sounds incredibly like the latter, but I expect you mean the former, which does leave the problem noted, in need of some careful exposition and clear way of dealing.

 
robin:
> pc:
>In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in
> natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to
> repeat words, not referents,

Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as
a referant.

-Robin

 




posts: 2388

Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted material marked off with a solid line along the side. The flaw in this is that it does not allow me to make comments directly attached to the quoted passage being commented upon, hence the top comments. I can move them to the bottom if you would like that better. As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly inclined to convert to it, especially since the only person who regularly reads what I write has never complained about it. Perhaps you all would consider getting your defective systems upgraded to something more 21st century.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?.

You top post.

You don't quote properly (using >).

> My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so
> many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to
> figure who said what.

Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it.

> Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you
> want?

We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is
impossible for the rest of us to read.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:43:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly
> > > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.
> >
> > Too esoteric.
>
> We can ignore the issue, but then we are not defining the language.

We can't define *everything* in the word definitions! There will still
be a CLL, and other learning materials.

Do you have a specific suggestion?

You trimmed too much, by the way.

> > > > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions
> > > > smuti it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of
> > > > which are beyond the scope of this definition.
> > >
> > > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that
> > > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple
> > > sumti, which can also be quantified.
> >
> > The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's
> > the effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of
> > scope, because the definition is already big enough.
>
> On what point does the CLL seem to disagree?

The CLL seems to say that the cases where position matters are only
relevant to description sumti, and that those cases, while requiring
quantification, are a seperate issue from those issues surrounding
quantification of simple sumti.

> I suspect I didn't make myself clear.
>
> Simple sumti present two cases:
>
> S1 {ko'a noi broda}
> S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}

I don't understand what the difference between those two things is, and
I don't see anything in the CLL that indicates that there is a
difference. Chatper and verse, please.

> Description sumti present seven cases:
>
> D1 {le brode noi broda}
> D2 {le brode ku noi broda}
> D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}
> D4 {PA le brode noi broda}
> D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda}
> D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}
> D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}
>
> D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1
> D5 and D7 behave like S2

All of the exmples in the CLL that talk about the positional variants
(this would be in section 6 of chapter 8) use both inner *and* outer
quantifiers, and make it clear that only when you have both does it
really matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but it's not the same thing
at all.

> The different points of application for the description cases do not
> introduce any complication that is not already present in the simple
> case.

Again, the CLL disagrees.

> > > I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause
> > > applies to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ...
> > > zi'e noi ...} it applies to just those referents that are left
> > > after the poi restriction.
> >
> > Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and
> > poi, though. Kills them dead.
>
> Why?

ko'a noi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
= ko'a cu broda .i je ko'a cu brodi zi'e poi brode cu brodi
= ko'a cu broda .i je ko'a cu brodi .i je da me ko'a .i je da ge brode
gi brodi

Huh. Guess not. Tweaking zi'e for an .i je version.

> > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> > >
> > > Works often, but not a general formula.
> >
> > It's your formula. I don't have anything better.
>
> Yes, but when I offered it I did say it was not general.

Do you have anything better? I don't.

> > > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > > > [sumti 2]
> > >
> > > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin
> > > with, you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2
> >
> > Suggestions?
>
> The same description as for both assigned should work.

That can't go in both directions. I've compromised.

BTW, making a mild change to poi; let me know if there's a problem.

poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:51:04PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Oh boy! Do you mean "with there not being a referent"?

Nope.

> Do you mean "having something called 'nothing' as a referent"?

Yep.

> In that case, Fridegesis,

Huh?

> what sort of thing is it and so on along that line.

It's nothing. I don't see a problem with "See that variable? OK, it
represents nothing-ness.".

Clearly other people see a problem with this.

-Robin

> robin:
> > pc:
> >In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in
> > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to
> > repeat words, not referents,
>
> Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as
> a referant.
>
> -Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted
> material marked off with a solid line along the side.

I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you'd like to start by telling
me what mail program you're using to read these mails?

You *are* reading them as mails, right?

> The flaw in this is that it does not allow me to make comments
> directly attached to the quoted passage being commented upon,

Why don't you just insert your comments by adding lines in the middle,
like everybody else dose?

> hence the top comments. I can move them to the bottom if you would
> like that better.

Good god no.

> As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became
> the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly
> inclined to convert to it, especially since the only person who
> regularly reads what I write has never complained about it.

If you mean xorxes, trust me, it annoys him too.

> Perhaps you all would consider getting your defective systems upgraded
> to something more 21st century.

I've already warned you about this, at least half a dozen times. I use,
run, and operate computers for my livelyhood. You are the only person
who makes insulting comments about the systems I run and the programs I
use. If you like, I will *happily* save you from having to not deal
with my "defective" systems, by globally blocking you from using
lojban.org resources.

Stop insulting my hard work. Tell me *exactly* what you are having
problems with, in private e-mail, with clearly stated issues,
preferrably including screenshots.

You cannot *imagine* the work I put into lojban.org, and you are the
only person who consistently complains, no matter what I do, and yet I
still *TRY* to help you, and I *try* to understand what your issues are.

If you insult my systems again, I will cease communicating with you, even
by proxy, and this time it will be permanent.

-Robin

> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:36:12PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> > What exactly is the problem (i.e., what is "improper")?.
>
> You top post.
>
> You don't quote properly (using >).
>
> > My stuff comes to me looking much better than the people who have so
> > many tiers of indents and arrows that it is virtually impossible to
> > figure who said what.
>
> Then your mail program is *BROKEN*, and you should fix it.
>
> > Y'all didn't like my old stuff with continental quotes; what do you
> > want?
>
> We want you to do with the rest of us are doing, because your crap is
> impossible for the rest of us to read.
>
> How many times do we have to tell you this?
>
> -Robin
>
>

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

 



posts: 1912

 


> The CLL seems to say that the cases where position matters are only
> relevant to description sumti, and that those cases, while requiring
> quantification, are a seperate issue from those issues surrounding
> quantification of simple sumti.

If CLL says that, then I believe CLL is mistaken. I'll take
a closer look at what it says tonight.

> > Simple sumti present two cases:
> >
> > S1 {ko'a noi broda}
> > S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}
>
> I don't understand what the difference between those two things is, and
> I don't see anything in the CLL that indicates that there is a
> difference. Chatper and verse, please.

{ko'a noi broda} is just what it looks like, noi applies to
all referents of ko'a.

{PA ko'a noi broda} = {PA da poi me ko'a zi'e noi broda}
noi applies to a restriction of the referents of ko'a.

> > Description sumti present seven cases:
> >
> > D1 {le brode noi broda}
> > D2 {le brode ku noi broda}
> > D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}
> > D4 {PA le brode noi broda}
> > D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda}
> > D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}
> > D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}
> >
> > D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1
> > D5 and D7 behave like S2
>
> All of the exmples in the CLL that talk about the positional variants
> (this would be in section 6 of chapter 8) use both inner *and* outer
> quantifiers, and make it clear that only when you have both does it
> really matter.

D1 {le brode noi broda}
D2 {le brode ku noi broda}
D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}

D1, D2 and D3 are all equivalent, with or without inner
quantifiers. In all cases, the noi claus applies to the referents
of {le broda} without any restrictions. If you see a difference,
please point it out.

D4 {PA le brode noi broda}
D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}

These are both {PA da poi me le brode noi broda}
i.e. the noi clause applies to the referents of le brode,
again without any restrictions, before the quantifier acts.

Finally:

D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda}
D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}

These are:

D5: PA da poi me le brode zi'e noi broda
D6: PA da poi brode zi'e noi broda

i.e. the noi clause acts after the restriction introduced
by the quantifier, just as in the {PA ko'a noi broda} case.

I don't believe CLL is in disagreement with any of that, even
though it doesn't explain it like that. In any case, I will
check tonight.

If CLL is in disagreement, then how does CLL deal with each case?

>
> BTW, making a mild change to poi; let me know if there's a problem.
>
> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je
> da ge brode gi brodi

(I don't think that's right. More later.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

Read the beginning of Chapter 16 in CLL. Fridegesis, by the way, was a 9th century schoolmaster who noted "Of course "nothing" must be a name for something, since God made the world out of it." "Nothing" just exactly denies that there is something, so can hardly be a name for some something.

Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:51:04PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Oh boy! Do you mean "with there not being a referent"?

Nope.

> Do you mean "having something called 'nothing' as a referent"?

Yep.

> In that case, Fridegesis,

Huh?

> what sort of thing is it and so on along that line.

It's nothing. I don't see a problem with "See that variable? OK, it
represents nothing-ness.".

Clearly other people see a problem with this.

-Robin

> robin:
> > pc:
> >In Robin's defense, there do seem to be cases where pronouns (in
> > natural languages, not yet officially in Lojban) do seem merely to
> > repeat words, not referents,
>
> Actually, it's just that I don't have a problem with having nothing as
> a referant.
>
> -Robin

 




posts: 1912

 
Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something
like this:

noi (NOI)
Non-restrictive relative clause marker. It attaches a clause to

the sumti which it follows, providing additional information about the
referents of that sumti. Inside the clause, ke'a indicates the precise
place of the bridi that the sumti fills. For unquantified sumti, the clause
applies to all the referents of the sumti. For quantified sumti, the clause
applies to the restriction of the referents of the sumti determined by the
quantifier. With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in this case the clause applies
to all the referents of the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.
The relative clause is terminated with ku'o, which is often elidable.

poi (NOI)
Restrictive relative clause marker. It attaches a clause to the

sumti which it follows, putting a restriction on the referents of that sumti.
Inside the clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of the bridi that the
sumti fills. The clause selects from all the referents of the sumti just those
that satisfy it. With description sumti, the relative clause can also be
attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri. The relative clause is
terminated with ku'o, which is often elidable.

(In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause doesn't
make a diference.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 1912

 
> ! Formal Definitions
>
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a
> cu brodi

You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because the brodi
sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the brode sentence
is the one claimed of those referents, not the other way around. It may
very well be true that the number of brodas that brode is more than PA.

Also, I insist the formula is not valid for all PA. In particular, it
is not valid for {no}, but also it is inaccurate for {su'ePA} quantifiers,
because it turns them into {su'ePA .e su'o}.

I think that no conversion formula is better than one that is not quite
right.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi
> brodi

This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that everything
is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.

> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je
> da ge brode gi brodi

The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda, the one
on the right does not.

{PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:

PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode

More generally, for any sumti:

[PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e
broda

> zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]

This one is wrong, just try some example:

da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
=/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi

> goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a

For both unassigned, that's not meaningful. You could have instead
something like:

zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo ka ce'u sinxa
"ko'a" and "ko'e" from now on co-refer.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
>
>
>>As for the barbarous quoting technique that somehow ages ago became
>>the norm and has not changed with the times, I am not strongly
>>inclined to convert to it,
>>

By "barbarous" do you mean inserting the responses immediately after
what they refer to, saving the reader the trouble of scrolling back and
forth between the 2 regions?

I suggest you try Thunderbird for email, which you can get at
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ It's $free, has a very
modern feature set, blocks junk mail effectively, runs wonderfully on
Windows, is more secure than Outlook/Express with respect to hostile
email viruses, and generally is looked upon favorably by the heavens.

 

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




xod posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

> Read the beginning of Chapter 16 in CLL. Fridegesis, by the way, was
> a 9th century schoolmaster who noted "Of course "nothing" must be a
> name for something, since God made the world out of it." "Nothing"
> just exactly denies that there is something, so can hardly be a name
> for some something.

 
My mother used to think that warmth outside would first cool off the
apartment before warming it, since the heat would drive the cold out of
the walls and into the room. But an electron hole is a particle with a
positive charge and a mass slightly less than that of the electron.

I seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on
whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 1912

 


> I seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on
> whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment.

Yes, though it was never clear what you meant by special treatment.

When {no da broda} is true, i.e. when there is no thing x such that
x brodas, zo'e cannot refer to a thing that brodas, because there
aren't any. That seems clear enough.

{zo'e} is not a replacement for words. {zo'e} refers to things.
(Those things can eventually be referred to by other means as well,
using other words, but that's not what's important about {zo'e}.)

The value zero, i.e. (li no), is a perfectly valid value for {zo'e}
to refer to.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



xod posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod:
>
>
>>I seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on
>>whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, though it was never clear what you meant by special treatment.
>
>When {no da broda} is true, i.e. when there is no thing x such that
>x brodas, zo'e cannot refer to a thing that brodas, because there
>aren't any. That seems clear enough.
>
>{zo'e} is not a replacement for words. {zo'e} refers to things.
>
>

 
zo'e/ (KOhA7)/

  • unspecif it*

 
pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes
bridi true

 
So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then
it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can
represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple
sumti.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 1912

 


> zo'e/ (KOhA7)/
>
> *unspecif it*
>
> pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes
> bridi true

The definition as it stands is obviously wrong, because not
all bridi with zo'e are true.

But, if we consider only true bridi's, then zo'e represents
an obvious or irrelevant value that indeed makes the bridi true.
If no value in that position makes the bridi true, then zo'e
cannot represent a value, can it?

> So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then
> it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can
> represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple
> sumti.

The definition says that zo'e represents a value, not an expression.

The definition is obviously broken: if no value makes the bridi
true, zo'e cannot possibly have a value which makes the bridi true.

One way to fix that is to say that in cases where no value makes
the bridi true, zo'e can't be used.

Another way is to say that {zo'e} doesn't really need to have values,
it just represents words, so it can stand for example for the words
{no da}, which have meaning in a full sentence, but don't refer to any
value. This would not be a fix, though, it would break the
definition even more.

{zo'e} can stand for the empty set, of course, that's a value.
We rarely make claims about the empty set in everyday discourse,
but if the empty set is the obvious value, there's no problem in
{zo'e} referring to it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



xod posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>{zo'e} can stand for the empty set, of course, that's a value.
>We rarely make claims about the empty set in everyday discourse,
>but if the empty set is the obvious value, there's no problem in
>{zo'e} referring to it.
>
>

I think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set
when appropriate.

We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we
could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and
that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 1912

 


> I think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set
> when appropriate.

When would you need it, for example?

> We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we
> could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and
> that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true.

Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars, and
{ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they couldn't
both be true at the same time! The second one says that nothing is
related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the first one says that
the value li no is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship. Only
one of them can be true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



xod posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod:
>
>
>>I think that is all I ever wanted: that zo'e can refer to the empty set
>>when appropriate.
>>
>>
>
>When would you need it, for example?
>
>

When the other places are interesting. A discussion about the contents
of lidless bottles.

>>We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is free, we
>>could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it has a value, and
>>that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They are both true.
>>
>>
>
>Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars, and
>{ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they couldn't
>both be true at the same time! The second one says that nothing is
>related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the first one says that
>the value li no is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship. Only
>one of them can be true.
>
>

But stepping away from the Lojban symbols you can see that not only can
they both be so, but that each implies the other! Which would you use to
discuss a free item, and why would the other form then be false?

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:18:55PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >--- xod:
> >>We could make an analogy with monetary values. If something is
> >>free, we could say that it has no (monetary!) value, or that it
> >>has a value, and that value's magnitude happens to be 0. They
> >>are both true.
> >
> >Well, in Lojban {ta rupnu li no} says that it costs zero dollars,
> >and {ta rupnu no da} says that it has no monetary value. But they
> >couldn't both be true at the same time! The second one says that
> >nothing is related to ta by the {rupnu} relationship, and the
> >first one says that the value li no is related to ta by the
> >{rupnu} relationship. Only one of them can be true.
>
> But stepping away from the Lojban symbols you can see that not
> only can they both be so, but that each implies the other!

Absolutely not!

{ta rupnu no da} == {ta na rupnu da} ~= {ta na rupnu li no}

{ta rupnu li no} ~= {ta rupnu da}

These two are not even *slightly* similar assertions!

One is "free", the other is "not for sale at any price",
approximately.

-Robin

 



posts: 2388

 
Fredegisus (I looked it up finally) is getting a
workout here, along with several other guys.

1. {ta broda no da} just denies in a simpler way
(because the negation is already confined) {ta
broda su'o da}.

2. {li no} does refer to something, the number
zero, so that {ta broda li no} cannot be true at
the same time as {ta broda no da} is.

3. {li no} does not refer to the empty set
(except in very strange situations — mirroring
arithmetic in set theory, say), but the empty set
is something, too, so {ta broda le nomei} can't
be true at the same time as {ta broda no da}

4. Put another way, neither {li no} nor {le
nomei} refers to nothing.

5. Capless bottle have usually been discussed
not in terms of {botpi fo no da}, things which
are incomplete bottles because they lack lids,
but rather in terms of {botpi fo zi'o} a totally
different predicate which, however, does seem to
be about things like bottle except that they do
not definitionally have lids — vases maybe. It
does not mean that its referents are bottle
without lids, since they are not bottles at all
in Lojban, not botbi but botpi fo zi'o. And they
are certain not bottles for which nothing is a
lid ("and a damned poor lid it would be too" as
Fred might say).

6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either, since
it doesn't refer at all but just plugs a place in
a predicate, taking it out of play. (the answer
to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i}, the
presupposition of the question — that {zi'o}
refers — is false).

7. And of course no other expression refers to
nothing either, since there is no nothing to
refer to — and worse, no expression can even
purport to refer to nothing.

(Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly but
literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na zaste}.)

One of the upshots of all this is that sentences
with "nothing" or "no" or other denial words in
them need special treatment insofar as certain
kinds of formulae will not work for them: they
can't be internal quantifiers for example,
general constructions of numeric quantifiers
can't cover them within a single formula with the
other numbers (this is also true of "at most"
formulae — although, in fact, the numeric forms
of all these can be defined recursively).

More to the present point, {zo'e} of course can't
refer to nothing, but also {no da} is not a
permissible substitute for {zo'e}. This is
because replacing {zo'e} with {no da} would not
merely (indeed, not at all) specify an object, IT
WOULD ALSO NEGATE THE SENTENCE, that is not only
fail to specify but change the sentence about as
much as possible. This is not an appropriate
thing for specifiction to do.

 



posts: 1912

 
pc:
> 6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either,

Here you seem to talk about a nothing that is something,
and claiming that {zi'o} does not refer to it. What
you should say is that {zi'o} does indeed refer to
nothing, i.e. it does not refer to anything.

> (the answer
> to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i}, the
> presupposition of the question — that {zi'o}
> refers — is false).

I think {zo zi'o sinxa no da} is perfectly fine and
requires no {na'i}: "There is no x such that {zi'o}
refers to x".

> (Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly but
> literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na zaste}.)

Literally from the French? I can't say I know how
exactly "néant" works in French, but the usual
Spanish translation is "El ser y la nada", where
"nada" means "nothing" (and is used, just as in
English, in both senses, logical and reified).
The English translation is usually "Being and
Nothingness", but sometimes "Being and Nothing"
too.

Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would rather
use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it
really about zasti at all?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > 6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either,
>
> Here you seem to talk about a nothing that is
> something,
> and claiming that {zi'o} does not refer to it.
> What
> you should say is that {zi'o} does indeed refer
> to
> nothing, i.e. it does not refer to anything.

I am trying to talk to people who think "nothing"
is the name of something and here am telling them
(for the fourth time, I think) that this is not a
case of that sort.

> > (the answer
> > to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i},
> the
> > presupposition of the question — that {zi'o}
> > refers — is false).
>
> I think {zo zi'o sinxa no da} is perfectly fine
> and
> requires no {na'i}: "There is no x such that
> {zi'o}
> refers to x".

OK, if you want to, but that still seems to allow
that {zi'o} is the sort of thing that refers but
just doesn't happen to: are you happy with {zo i
sinxa no da}?

> > (Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly
> but
> > literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na
> zaste}.)
>
> Literally from the French? I can't say I know
> how
> exactly "néant" works in French, but the usual
> Spanish translation is "El ser y la nada",
> where
> "nada" means "nothing" (and is used, just as in
> English, in both senses, logical and reified).
> The English translation is usually "Being and
> Nothingness", but sometimes "Being and Nothing"
>
> too.
>
> Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would
> rather
> use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it
> really about zasti at all?
>
Yes, it seems to be, although it may take
advantage of the second place of {zasti}, "under
metaphysics." The subtitle is "An Essay in
Phenomenological Ontology." One standard summary
says "Being is never exhausted by any of its
phenomenal aspects, no particular perspective
reveals the entire character of being." and then
goes into details, in particular,
"being-for-itself is derived from being-in-itself
by an act of nihilation, for being-for-itself is
a nothingness at the heart of being."
"neant" appears to be a present active
participle, "non-being," here as a noun,
ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state or
something in that state — both different from
"nothing," in the sense of the lack of something.
So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of
existential quantification, that is involved.

 



posts: 2388

 
Oops!. I forgot to credit: Frank Magill,
Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary Form,
vol. II, New York, Salem Press, 1961 (the grad
student's and professor's best friend).

 



posts: 1912

pc:
> OK, if you want to, but that still seems to allow
> that {zi'o} is the sort of thing that refers but
> just doesn't happen to: are you happy with {zo i
> sinxa no da}?

Not particularly unhappy, but in the case of {zi'o},
there is more of a reason to think that it might refer,
because it is in a selma'o where most other members
usually do refer, so pointing out that it in particular
does not is pertinent. (Not that we are disagreeing on
anything substantial here.)

> > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would
> > rather
> > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it
> > really about zasti at all?
> >
> Yes, it seems to be, although it may take
> advantage of the second place of {zasti}, "under
> metaphysics."

Third place, actually. The second one is for the observer.
A charged word if there is one.

 
> "neant" appears to be a present active
> participle, "non-being," here as a noun,
> ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state or
> something in that state — both different from
> "nothing," in the sense of the lack of something.
> So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of
> existential quantification, that is involved.

I'm not fully convinced, but I'll take your word
for it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>One is "free", the other is "not for sale at any price",
>approximately.
>
>

 
Alright. I selected a poor example.

A plane has no thickness. It also has a thickness of zero. Here each one
implies the other.

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 1912

 


> A plane has no thickness. It also has a thickness of zero. Here each one
> implies the other.

That only shows that "thickness" can be used with two different
senses, {lo ni rotsu} and {lo ka rotsu}.

How would we say those in Lojban?

lo plita cu mitre li no lo ni rotsu
A plane meters zero in the amount of being thick.

lo plita na ckaji lo ka rotsu.
A plane does not have the property of being thick.

lo plita cu ckaji no ka rotsu
A plane has no property of being thick.

(The way rotsu is defined, this is doubtful though. What
is the smallest dimension of a plane? Is it its second or
third most significant dimension? If the second, then a
planar figure can be rotsu, which would be the same as
saying that it is ganra.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



xod posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

> It
>does not mean that its referents are bottle
>without lids, since they are not bottles at all
>in Lojban, not botbi but botpi fo zi'o.
>

(Assuming that the definition of "bottle" includes a lid, even in
English) this argument is unfair. The description of the item is "bottle
without lid", not "bottle". One cannot complain that the description
"bottle without lid" is wrong because it's not a bottle. The description
/says /that it's not a bottle. This is a grouping issue. We can call the
vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as
"botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the
same physical situation.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




On Wednesday 25 August 2004 12:02, xod wrote:
> (Assuming that the definition of "bottle" includes a lid, even in
> English) this argument is unfair. The description of the item is "bottle
> without lid", not "bottle". One cannot complain that the description
> "bottle without lid" is wrong because it's not a bottle. The description
> /says /that it's not a bottle. This is a grouping issue. We can call the
> vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as
> "botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the
> same physical situation.

What's the difference between a lidless (bottle) and a lidless bottle? "botpi
fo noda" doesn't mean "is a lidless bottle", it means "is not a bottle with a
lid".

phma
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

 



xod posts: 143

Pierre Abbat wrote:

>On Wednesday 25 August 2004 12:02, xod wrote:
>
>
>>(Assuming that the definition of "bottle" includes a lid, even in
>>English) this argument is unfair. The description of the item is "bottle
>>without lid", not "bottle". One cannot complain that the description
>>"bottle without lid" is wrong because it's not a bottle. The description
>>/says /that it's not a bottle. This is a grouping issue. We can call the
>>vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as
>>"botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the
>>same physical situation.
>>
>>
>
>What's the difference between a lidless (bottle) and a lidless bottle? "botpi
>fo noda" doesn't mean "is a lidless bottle", it means "is not a bottle with a
>lid".
>
>phma
>
>

You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:22:12PM -0400, xod wrote:
> You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda

As this is exactly equivalent to "xu da na botpi fo da", I respond
"go'i".

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

 



posts: 1912

 


> We can call the
> vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as
> "botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the
> same physical situation.

We should distinguish descriptions from predications here.

{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.
That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing,
which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda}
is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}.

If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying
{ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> > > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would
> > > rather
> > > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}.
> Is it
> > > really about zasti at all?
> > >
> > Yes, it seems to be, although it may take
> > advantage of the second place of {zasti},
> "under
> > metaphysics."
>
> Third place, actually. The second one is for
> the observer.
> A charged word if there is one.

Especially since the first place is one of those
troublesome words that are either opaque or
limited to abstractions (or ampliating, but that
amounts to the first in this case).
>
> > "neant" appears to be a present active
> > participle, "non-being," here as a noun,
> > ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state
> or
> > something in that state — both different
> from
> > "nothing," in the sense of the lack of
> something.
> > So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of
> > existential quantification, that is involved.
>
> I'm not fully convinced, but I'll take your
> word
> for it.
>
Thanks; existentialism is not my thing, but this
seems pretty clear. In particular, there are
people who have non-being — due to false
consciousness: refusal to define themselves (in
shorthand, the details are long, boring and
totally muddling if not muddled) — so non-being
seems clearly seprate from quantification.

 



xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:22:12PM -0400, xod wrote:
>
>
>>You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda
>>
>>
>
>As this is exactly equivalent to "xu da na botpi fo da", I respond
>"go'i".
>
>
>

Is
la .pier. botpi fo noda
somehow equivalent to
da na botpi fo da

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:46:51PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:22:12PM -0400, xod wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You are not a bottle with a lid. xu do botpi fo noda
> >
> >As this is exactly equivalent to "xu da na botpi fo da", I
> >respond "go'i".
>
> Is
>
> la .pier. botpi fo noda
>
> somehow equivalent to
>
> da na botpi fo da

Absolutely.

More specifically, it is *excatly* equivalent to

la .pier. na botpi su'o da

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

 



posts: 1912

 


> Is
> la .pier. botpi fo noda
> somehow equivalent to
> da na botpi fo da

That says that it is not the case that a thing botpis fo itself.

{la pier botpi fo noda} is equivalent to {la pier na botpi fo su'oda}

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



___
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

 



posts: 152

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:38:32PM -0400, xod wrote:
> So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then
> it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can
> represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple
> sumti.

I don't think that the empty set is very often a replacement for "zo'e".
Though it could be for, say, "zo'e cmacyselcmi", or "zoimy {} my sinxa zo'e".

You're just really grasping for a way that something called "nothing" can be
something. If you do that, you have to be very careful, or else you get into
classic tricks:

Nothing is better than eternal life.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal life.

--
Rob Speer

 



Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> {lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.

So it is, but it also refers to horses, camels, stars, and beetles,
since they too na botpi be fo da. Descriptions with contradictory
negations in them just aren't very useful, except under peculiar
ontologies where we identify "Fido" as the whole universe except Fido
(lo na me la fidon.) and similarly for all other objects. (Oddly,
this ontology is just as consistent as the ordinary one.)

--
Do NOT stray from the path! John Cowan
--Gandalf http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

 



xod scripsit:

> Is
> la .pier. botpi fo noda
> somehow equivalent to
> da na botpi fo da

Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which serve as
their own lids. Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second
follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, then there
is at least something in the universe which is not a bottle-with-lid.
To deny it is to claim that the universe contains only bottles-with-lids,
in which case either the bottles must be their own lids, or some bottles
must serve as lids for other bottles.

"You can't fool me, young man; *it's turtles all the way down.*"

--
There is / One art John Cowan
No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com
To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With art- / Lessness — Piet Hein

 



posts: 1912

 


> xod scripsit:
> > Is
> > la .pier. botpi fo noda
> > somehow equivalent to
> > da na botpi fo da
>
> Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second
> follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, then there
> is at least something in the universe which is not a bottle-with-lid.

It's nice to see you use the sane {na} scope. :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> > Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second
> > follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid, then there
> > is at least something in the universe which is not a bottle-with-lid.
>
> It's nice to see you use the sane {na} scope. :-)

Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one. What's
really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a very very bad
decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders and nobody else
(JCB got this one right).

--
One Word to write them all, John Cowan
One Access to find them, http://www.reutershealth.com
One Excel to count them all, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
And thus to Windows bind them. --Mike Champion

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
>
> > > Assuming you meant "de na botpi fo da", then the second
> > > follows from the first: if Pier is not a bottle-with-lid,
> > > then there is at least something in the universe which is not
> > > a bottle-with-lid.
> >
> > It's nice to see you use the sane {na} scope. :-)
>
> Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one.
> What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a
> very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders
> and nobody else (JCB got this one right).

I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this
exchange to me in small words?

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one.
> > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a
> > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders
> > and nobody else (JCB got this one right).
>
> I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this
> exchange to me in small words?

John interpreted {da na botpi fo de} as:

su'o da naku su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

"For some x, it is not the case that there
is a y such that y is the lid of x."

But CLL says it should be interpreted as:

naku su'o da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

"It is not the case that for some x there
is some y such that y is the lid of x."

The first one is clearly true, it's easy to find examples
of things that don't have lids. The second one is clearly
false, it's easy to find bottles that do have lids.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



xod posts: 143

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit:
>
>
>
>>Is
>>la .pier. botpi fo noda
>>somehow equivalent to
>>da na botpi fo da
>>
>>
>
>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which serve as
>their own lids.
>

Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
> >xod scripsit:
> >
> >>Is
> >>la .pier. botpi fo noda
> >>somehow equivalent to
> >>da na botpi fo da
> >
> >Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which
> >serve as their own lids.
>
> Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.

I now have no idea what you are talking about.

-Robin

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this
> exchange to me in small words?

We are used to the idea that scope reads left to right: that roda su'ode
means "For all X's there is a Y" whereas su'ode roda means "There is a
Y such that for all X's" etc. etc. Allowing na before the selbri to
mean the same as naku (which is the general negator) at the beginning
of the bridi breaks this rule, and leads to errors. It would have been
better to get rid of na and just use naku (which in that case could be
shortened to na, obviously).

Jorge wants to change the rules and treat na and naku as the same.
I agree in principle, but think it's too big a change now.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to Sam, a grey-clad
moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes,
but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him
does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are
but memories of his girth and his majesty. --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"

 



posts: 1912

 


> What's
> really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a very very bad
> decision and one that can be blamed on the Founders and nobody else
> (JCB got this one right).

I never understood why this was seen as a problem. {naku} means
just what {na} means, but with sane scope, so it is not as if we
didn't have other means to negate quantifiers that precede the
selbri when that is what's wanted. Allowing {na} before the selbri
is like allowing tenses there. It is useful for {lo na broda} type
of descriptions. But there is no compelling reason for that {na}
to have scope over preceding quantifiers.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



xod posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:
>
>
>>We can call the
>>vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as
>>"botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the
>>same physical situation.
>>
>>
>
>We should distinguish descriptions from predications here.
>
>{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.
>That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing,
>which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda}
>is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}.
>
>

Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
to camels, stars, etc)

>If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying
>{ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something".
>
>

How does this even work?

ta botpi fo no da
= noda zo'u ta botpi fo da
= ?

 
And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that convention getting overhauled too?

 

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote:
>
>
>>John Cowan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>xod scripsit:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is
>>>>la .pier. botpi fo noda
>>>>somehow equivalent to
>>>>da na botpi fo da
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which
>>>serve as their own lids.
>>>
>>>
>>Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.
>>
>>
>
>I now have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>-Robin
>
>

Look at the structure of the 2 sentences. la .pier. is not da.

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:48:21PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote:
> >
> >
> >>John Cowan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>xod scripsit:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Is
> >>>>la .pier. botpi fo noda
> >>>>somehow equivalent to
> >>>>da na botpi fo da
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which
> >>>serve as their own lids.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I now have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Look at the structure of the 2 sentences. la .pier. is not da.

Fully aware. I have no idea what your point is, though.

-Robin

 



xod scripsit:

> Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
> lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
> performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
> to camels, stars, etc)

So much the worse for usage. This is core logical-language stuff.

> ta botpi fo no da
> = noda zo'u ta botpi fo da
> = ?

The next step is naku su'oda zo'u ta botpi fo da, which is a core
first-order predicate logic sentence: ~ Ex botpi_fo(Ta, x) where "Ta"
is a constant.

> And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid
> doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that
> convention getting overhauled too?

No, it isn't being overhauled. Bottles which don't have lids may be
bottles, but they aren't botpi, and you need to use some other predicate
to describe them.

--
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it jcowan@reutershealth.com
isn't a man. --Jewish saying http://www.reutershealth.com

 



xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:48:21PM -0400, xod wrote:
>
>
>>Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0400, xod wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Cowan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>xod scripsit:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is
>>>>>>la .pier. botpi fo noda
>>>>>>somehow equivalent to
>>>>>>da na botpi fo da
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Did you mean to double up da here? I know of no bottles which
>>>>>serve as their own lids.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Right, that's what I was trying to draw attention to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I now have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>Look at the structure of the 2 sentences. la .pier. is not da.
>>
>>
>
>Fully aware. I have no idea what your point is, though.
>
>-Robin
>
>

You're insisting that
dE botpi fo nodA
is equivalent to
dA na botpi fo nodA.

 

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 1912

 


> Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
> lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
> performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
> to camels, stars, etc)

Can you give examples?

I don't think people say things like {mi patfu noda} to
mean "I am indeed a father, one that happens to have no children".

The {botpi} example is odd because {botpi} has a weird place
structure which does not correspond to its keyword. Try examples
with natural place structures an you will see that {noda} works
as you would expect.

> >If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying
> >{ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something".
>
> How does this even work?
>
> ta botpi fo no da
> = noda zo'u ta botpi fo da
> = ?

Yes.

= naku su'oda zo'u ta botpi fo da

noda = naku su'oda
no thing = not the case that at least one thing

> And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid
> doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that convention
> getting overhauled too?

Nothing is getting overhauled here. Lidless bottles are hard to
discuss in terms of {botpi} just because {botpi} has the wrong
place structure for that concept. {caircau zilbotpi} would be
"lidless bottle", where {zilbotpi} is a more general concept
than {botpi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:02:24PM -0400, xod wrote:
> You're insisting that
>
> dE botpi fo nodA
>
> is equivalent to
>
> dA na botpi fo nodA.

Then I made a mistake.

I insist that

da botpi fo no de

is equivalent to

da na botpi fo de

But as I recall, the original sentence used *ta*, not *da*. Your
second sentence is a double negative, by the way.

-Robin

 



xod posts: 143

John Cowan wrote:

>xod scripsit:
>
>
>
>>Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
>>lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
>>performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
>>to camels, stars, etc)
>>
>>
>
>So much the worse for usage. This is core logical-language stuff.
>
>

 
Alright. Sorry! I'm going to go away and quit annoying everyone until I
learn predicate logic.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 2388

 


 
> John Cowan wrote:
>
> >xod scripsit:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Do you realize that in usage, people usually
> use "noda" to mean "lacks a
> >>lid", and not this contradiction of the
> entire sentence which you are
> >>performing, which generally results in
> something meaningless (applicable
> >>to camels, stars, etc)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So much the worse for usage. This is core
> logical-language stuff.

well, it is the core of the logical part but not
necessarily of the language part. We blithely
toss around this is equivalent to that and so on
and that is probably tri\ue in a pure;y semantic
sense. However, that does not mean that the two
sentences are approriately used in the same
contexts; they may well carry different pragmatic
freight: different implicatures or
presuppositions etc. So, using {ta botpi no da}
may quite reasonably be useful in discussions of
lidless bottleq, since it implicates that ta
would be a botpi but for its lack of lid. Some
of the equivalent forms do not carry this
sugggestion and others carry others. We don't
really want to get too narrow here — though we
do not want to violate logic either, of course.

 



posts: 152

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:47:08PM -0400, xod wrote:
> >{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.
> >That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing,
> >which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda}
> >is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}.
> >
> >
>
> Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
> lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
> performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
> to camels, stars, etc)

Funny, I thought that in usage people used "noda" to mean "nothing".

I'm pretty sure that it's more useful to keep things like "mi viska noda"
meaning "I don't see anything", than to facilitate talking about lidless
bottles.

It's not meaningless. You might as well be complaining that describing
something as "not green" is meaningless, because that description fits
elephants as well as it fits red things. Something can have a lot of referents
and still be meaningful.

--
Rob Speer

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:24:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one.
> > > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a
> > > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the
> > > Founders and nobody else (JCB got this one right).
> >
> > I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this
> > exchange to me in small words?
>
> John interpreted {da na botpi fo de} as:
>
> su'o da naku su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de
>
> "For some x, it is not the case that there
> is a y such that y is the lid of x."
>
> But CLL says it should be interpreted as:
>
> naku su'o da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de
>
> "It is not the case that for some x there
> is some y such that y is the lid of x."
>
> The first one is clearly true, it's easy to find examples
> of things that don't have lids. The second one is clearly
> false, it's easy to find bottles that do have lids.

Hmm.

OK. So which one is derivable from {da botpi fi no de}?

I think only the first one, {da na ku botpi fi su'o de}, is, but I'm
not sure.

In which case, I think I mis-represented things to xod.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > ! Formal Definitions
> >
> > (AKA conversion formulas)
> >
> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
>
> You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because
> the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the
> brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the
> other way around.

I don't see how it is *possible* for order to matter around an
{i je}, aside from scoping issues. It's a symmetrical relationship;
both haves are equally binding.

> Also, I insist the formula is not valid for all PA. In particular,
> it is not valid for {no},

Adding a case for {no} doesn't bother me.

> but also it is inaccurate for {su'ePA} quantifiers, because it
> turns them into {su'ePA .e su'o}.

I don't follow that at all.

> I think that no conversion formula is better than one that is not
> quite right.

Ummm, you've already admitted that your own conversion formulae do
not apply in all cases.

> > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga
> > nai brode gi brodi
>
> This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that
> everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.

Whoops. Would swapping the sentences fix that?

> > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA
> > da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi
>
> The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda,
> the one on the right does not.

Which of those "rights" was supposed to be a left?

> {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:
>
> PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode
>
> More generally, for any sumti:
>
> [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me
> sumti gi'e broda

Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.

> > zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]
>
> This one is wrong, just try some example:
>
> da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
>
> =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi

Why? {i je} is symmetrical; both halves must be equally binding on
{da}, else what's the point?

> > goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'e co'a
> > sinxa ko'a
>
> For both unassigned, that's not meaningful. You could have instead
> something like:
>
> zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo ka ce'u sinxa
> "ko'a" and "ko'e" from now on co-refer.

Sneaky. Thanks.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

Test, sorry.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something
> like this:
>
> ;noi (NOI):
snip to important part
> With description sumti, the relative
> clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the
> selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of
> the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.
> relative clause is terminated with ku'o, which is often
> elidable.
>
> ;poi (NOI):
snip to important part
> With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
> inside the sumti, before or after the selbri.
>
> (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause doesn't
> make a diference.)

I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of
http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html
section 6.

In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not
"noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no
difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.

-robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 11:43:27PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > Concise definitions for noi and poi might go something
> > like this:
> >
> > ;noi (NOI):
> snip to important part
> > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
> > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in this case the
> > clause applies to all the referents of the sumti, whether there
> > is an outer quantifier or not. relative clause is terminated
> > with ku'o, which is often elidable.
> >
> > ;poi (NOI):
> snip to important part
> > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
> > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri.
> >
> > (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause
> > doesn't make a diference.)
>
> I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html
> section 6.
>
> In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not
> "noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no
> difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.

I lied; there are some examples with {noi}, but they only apply to
(old-style) lo clauses, and seem to be a bit of a different issue,
although it's hard to tell because your way of describing it is so
completely different.

In xorlo, it would appear that the lo + noi examples require
explicitely doing something like {PA lo ro prenu noi blabi}.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> >
> > You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because
> > the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the
> > brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the
> > other way around.
>
> I don't see how it is *possible* for order to matter around an
> {i je}, aside from scoping issues. It's a symmetrical relationship;
> both haves are equally binding.

It would be symmetrical if {ko'a} repeated words. But {ko'a} does not
repeat words, it repeats referents, and when you have ko'a assigned
to a quantified sumti, you need the whole sentence to determine its
referents. {PA broda goi ko'a} is not enough to determine the referents
of ko'a. {PA broda goi ko'a cu brode} tells you that the referents of
ko'a are the PA broda that brode, not any PA broda.

Let's do an example:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.

Now let's compare the two expansions:

ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama i ko'a melbi
Exactly three people (from now on ko'a) came.
They (= the three people that came) are beautiful.

That works. The expansion the way you have it:

ci prenu goi ko'a cu melbi i ko'a klama
Exactly three people (from now on ko'a) are beautiful.
They (= the three people that are beautiful) came.

That's not what the original says.

 
> > > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga
> > > nai brode gi brodi
> >
> > This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that
> > everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.
>
> Whoops. Would swapping the sentences fix that?

Nope.

> > > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA
> > > da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi
> >
> > The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda,
> > the one on the right does not.
>
> Which of those "rights" was supposed to be a left?

The second one.

> > {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:
> >
> > PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode
> >
> > More generally, for any sumti:
> >
> > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me
> > sumti gi'e broda
>
> Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.

It works for any PA, including ro and no, as far as I can tell.

> > > zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> > > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]
> >
> > This one is wrong, just try some example:
> >
> > da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
> >
> > =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi
>
> Why? {i je} is symmetrical; both halves must be equally binding on
> {da}, else what's the point?

OK, maybe you're right. These are very non-standard ways of
doing things from the point of view of logical notation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > ;noi (NOI):
> snip to important part
> > With description sumti, the relative
> > clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the
> > selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of
> > the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.

To bring in line with CLL, change to:

With description sumti, the relative
clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the
selbri; when attached before the selbri (right after the gadri) it
is equivalent to a clause attached after the terminated sumti; when
attached after the selbri (before the terminator ku) the clause
applies to all the referents of the sumti, whether there is an outer
quantifier or not.

 
> > ;poi (NOI):
> snip to important part
> > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be attached
> > inside the sumti, before or after the selbri.
> >
> > (In the case of {poi}, the point of attachment of the clause doesn't
> > make a diference.)
>
> I don't believe this matches, even a little, the contents of
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter8.html
> section 6.
>
> In particular, note that *all* of those examples use "poi", not
> "noi", whereas you are saying that with "poi" it makes no
> difference. The CLL flatly contradicts you on this point.

You're right, I missed a distinction that applies with poi.
Change to:

poi (NOI)
Restrictive relative clause marker. It attaches a clause

to the sumti which it follows, putting a restriction on the referents of
that sumti. Inside the clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of
the bridi that the sumti fills. For unquantified sumti, the clause
selects from all the referents of the sumti just those that satisfy it
(when an inner quantifier is present it indicates how many those
referents are). For quantified sumti, the quantification is over just
those referents of the sumti that satisfy the clause. With description
sumti, the relative clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before
or after the selbri; when attached before the selbri (right after the
gadri) it is equivalent to a clause attached after the terminated sumti;
when attached after the selbri (before the terminator ku), the inner
quantifier indicates the number of referents that satisfy the clause
even if there is an outer quantifier. The relative clause is terminated
with ku'o, which is often elidable.

And now here is a trick question:

If I say {ro le mu prenu ku poi ninmu cu klama le zarci}, how
many people do I say went to the market?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



posts: 1912

 
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a
> cu brodi

This one requires changing brode and brodi in the last part, other than
that I think it's fine. I withdraw my previous objection that it won't work
for {no}: {no broda noi brode} is nonsense to start with, so it is proper
that the conversion gives nonsense too.

The formula could be made much more general though, for any sumti:

.... sumti noi ke'a broda ku'o ...
| tu'e ... sumti goi ko'a ... tu'u .i je ko'a broda

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi
> brodi
> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je
> da ge brode gi brodi

Those don't work at all. I think this one will:

[PA] sumti poi ke'a broda
| [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

> zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]

I'm still uneasy about that one.

> goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo
> ka ce'u sinxa
> goi, right unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'a co'a sinxa ko'e

More generally (ignoring oddball cases like both unassigned
or both assigned) for unquantified sumti we have:

sumti goi ko'a = ko'a goi sumti | zo ko'a co'a sinxa sumti

For quantified sumti the issue is a bit more complex. Maybe
something like:

.... PA sumti goi ko'a ...
| zo ko'a co'a sinxa PA sumti poi ... ke'a ...

Perhaps you should move the goi definitions to the top, since
many of the other conversions use goi. And maybe even put them
in a separate table, because they are not really conversion
formula but descriptions of what goes on.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



xod posts: 143

Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:47:08PM -0400, xod wrote:
>
>
>>>{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.
>>>That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing,
>>>which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda}
>>>is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
>>lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
>>performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
>>to camels, stars, etc)
>>
>>
>
>Funny, I thought that in usage people used "noda" to mean "nothing".
>
>I'm pretty sure that it's more useful to keep things like "mi viska noda"
>meaning "I don't see anything", than to facilitate talking about lidless
>bottles.
>
>

Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer that
doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I suppose it
is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't see anything. If
you don't see anything, you're a potential or previous seer, but not one
at the moment and in that context. So a better translation is probably
"mi na viska", instead of "mi viska noda".

 
>It's not meaningless. You might as well be complaining that describing
>something as "not green" is meaningless, because that description fits
>elephants as well as it fits red things. Something can have a lot of referents
>and still be meaningful.
>
>

I think it's more along the lines of trying to say "lidless bottle" or
"seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying "camel or star". Not very
helpful!

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




posts: 2388

 


 
> Rob Speer wrote:

> >It's not meaningless. You might as well be
> complaining that describing
> >something as "not green" is meaningless,
> because that description fits
> >elephants as well as it fits red things.
> Something can have a lot of referents
> >and still be meaningful.
> >
> >
>
> I think it's more along the lines of trying to
> say "lidless bottle" or
> "seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying
> "camel or star". Not very
> helpful!
>

If this is the problem — that contradictory
negation opens too many possibilities — then
maybe you want merely contrary negation, {na'e},
which requires that what is true is in the same
general area (although this is a matter of degree
-- what is true in contradictory negation has
also to be something that excludes what is
negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless
camels definitionally are not green).

 



xod posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

>>I think it's more along the lines of trying to
>>say "lidless bottle" or
>>"seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying
>>"camel or star". Not very
>>helpful!
>>
>>
>
>If this is the problem — that contradictory
>negation opens too many possibilities — then
>maybe you want merely contrary negation, {na'e},
>which requires that what is true is in the same
>general area (although this is a matter of degree
>-- what is true in contradictory negation has
>also to be something that excludes what is
>negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless
>camels definitionally are not green).
>
>

Hence lidless bottle = botpi fo na'ebo roda ?

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 




John E Clifford scripsit:

> "not green" can't mean "camel" unless
> camels definitionally are not green).

Why isn't it enough that camels are contingently not green?

--
BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU jcowan@reutershealth.com
BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

 



xod scripsit:

> Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer that
> doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I suppose it
> is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't see anything. If
> you don't see anything, you're a potential or previous seer, but not one
> at the moment and in that context. So a better translation is probably
> "mi na viska", instead of "mi viska noda".

These both express what is not the case, but they deny different things:
the former denies "I see it", where "it" is to be figured out from
context; the latter denies "There exists something such that I see it".
So the former often applies to me (who notoriously can't see what's
right in front of him) but not the latter (for I am not blind).

--
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan
WELCOME TO jcowan@reutershealth.com
DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

 



posts: 2388

 


 
> John E Clifford scripsit:
>
> > "not green" can't mean "camel" unless
> > camels definitionally are not green).
>
> Why isn't it enough that camels are
> contingently not green?
>
Good enough for practical purposes, but it does
get into problems in Dr. Seuss for example, where
camels might well be green. Of course, even when
something is technically possible --e.g., "not
red" when the fact is "is a spirit" — the first
tendency is to take the lowest level
incompatible, in this case another color. {na'e}
points to that lowest level incompatibility
(however, the ordering of level is dense, so
there is always a lower level than the one chosen
and so, by parity, any one can be taken as lowest
level). the difference is mainly pragmatic, what
our expectations should be: {na'e} another
whatever it is that is denied, {na} no
expectations supported (not that the inference
from 'not a' to any particular b is ever
justified anyhow).

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

This is a *VERY* long mail, but I strongly suggest reading it. xod,
you in particular *need* to read it, as I wrote it for you. :-)

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:18:32PM -0400, xod wrote:
> John E Clifford wrote:
>
> >>I think it's more along the lines of trying to say "lidless
> >>bottle" or "seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying "camel
> >>or star". Not very helpful!
> >
> >If this is the problem — that contradictory negation opens too
> >many possibilities — then maybe you want merely contrary
> >negation, {na'e}, which requires that what is true is in the same
> >general area (although this is a matter of degree — what is true
> >in contradictory negation has also to be something that excludes
> >what is negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless camels
> >definitionally are not green).
>
> Hence lidless bottle = botpi fo na'ebo roda ?

Ideally, in Lojban, a lidless bottle is botpi fi zi'o

About this whole discussion in general:

The confusion here has been an unnecessary proliferation of "da".

We started with:

ta botpi fo no da

"This is a bottle with no lid".

Which is equivalent to:

ta botpi na ku fo su'o da

Which is equivalent to:

ta na botpi fo su'o da

"This is not a bottle that has at least one thing that is a
lid".

Because of the place structure of botpi, these two really are
equivalent; something that does not have a lid is *not* a botpi.

However, at some point someone (xod?) introduced the sentence:

da botpi fo no de

or something like that, now with two "da" variables. I'm pretty
sure that this was an error, that someone read "ta" as "da".
Regardless, This is a very different thing! It means:

"There exists at least one thing which is a bottle that has no
things to be its lid".

This sentence is equivalent to:

su'o da botpi na ku fo su'o de

Which is equivalent to:

su'o da na ku botpi fo su'o de

Which is equivalent to:

na ku ro da botpi fo su'o de

Which is equivalent to:

ro da na botpi fo su'o de

Which means:

"It is not the case that everything is a bottle with a lid."

My first draft of this mail had:

"It is not the case that for each thing that is a bottle, it has
a lid."

Which is *very* different thing indeed! This is actually a
conditional:

na ku ro da su'o de zo'u ga nai da botpi gi da botpi de

I carelessly (confused by the introduction of an extra "da"
variable) indicated in an earlier thread that {da botpi fo no de}
was, in fact, equivalent to:

da na botpi fo su'o de

Which is a very diffrenet thing! It means that:

"It is not the case that there exists a bottle with a lid."

So, my bad there.

Phew. Done with the predicate logic. As you can see, anything with
"no da" in it can (eventually) be converted to samething with "na"
in front of the selbri. This is a very basic feature of predicate
logic, but one I can try to expound on if people wish.

Now, we've been conflating in to the predicate logic issue a

  • completely* seperate issue! Bad us.

 
The other issue is thruth.

A third issue is whether or not it makes any sense at all to talk
about a predicate in Lojban where one of the places cannot be
filled.

Truth first:

ro da na botpi fo su'o de

AKA

na ku ro da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

is definately true. Literally, "It is not the case that for each
thing X, there exists a Y such that X is a bottle with lid Y.", or,
"It is not the case that everything is a bottle with a lid.".

What's important to understand is that this is *NOT* equivalent
to "There exists a bottle with no lid", which is what

da botpi no de

  • appears* to be saying. This is where most of the confusion has

been coming from. To say "There exists a bottle with no lid", you
need to say:

da poi botpi cu botpi no da

Those of us who speak Lojban regularily as a conversational language
without much regard to the logical formalism (and I'm thinking here
of me and xod in particular, although there are certainly others)
develop an intuiting that says "Anything in the first place of broda
is always a broda". This is simply not true with contradictory
negation, and "no da" hides a contradictory negation in itself.

{da botpi no de} actually says *nothing* about things that are
botpi (that is, things that can truthfully appear in the first place
of the botpi predicate). It says only that there exist things that
are *not* related by botpi (to a botpi x4, i.e. a bottle lid, in
particular, but that's a secondary issue).

Similarily, {mi patfu no da} is exactly equivalent to {mi na patfu
da}. Both of these things mean "I am a father to nothing", which is
the same as "I am not a father".

When a contradictory negation occurs, *nothing* is said about what
is *true*. {mi patfu no da} seems intuitively to be saying {mi
patfu}, but it is *NOT* saying that, and that's where the confusion
comes in. {mi patfu no da} is, as a contradictory negative
statment, saying *nothing*, when you get right down to it. I mean,
it says I'm not a father, but that's it, and that's all.

About the third issue, whether or not it makes any sense at all to
talk about a predicate in Lojban where one of the places cannot be
filled, we're all pretty clear: something without a lid cannot be
related to with the {botpi} predicate. Something without a child
cannot be related to with the {patfu} predicate. *Unless* a
negation is occuring. See
http://www.lojban.org/tiki//all+places+equally+important+gotcha

I think this exhastively (and exhaustingly) covers the current
confusion. Please let me know if I've missed anything.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:56:44PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> xod scripsit:
>
> > Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer
> > that doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I
> > suppose it is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't
> > see anything. If you don't see anything, you're a potential or
> > previous seer, but not one at the moment and in that context. So
> > a better translation is probably "mi na viska", instead of "mi
> > viska noda".
>
> These both express what is not the case, but they deny different
> things: the former denies "I see it", where "it" is to be figured
> out from context; the latter denies "There exists something such
> that I see it". So the former often applies to me (who notoriously
> can't see what's right in front of him) but not the latter (for I
> am not blind).

Note, however, that {mi na viska da} *is* equivalent to {mi viska no
da}. People have been dropping {da} all over the place in this
discussion, and picking up the wrong ones, and so on.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:46:00AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > >
> > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> > >
> > > You have brode and brodi interchanged.

Correct. Fixed.

> > > {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:
> > >
> > > PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode
> > >
> > > More generally, for any sumti:
> > >
> > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me
> > > sumti gi'e broda
> >
> > Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.
>
> It works for any PA, including ro and no, as far as I can tell.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all:

PA lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

Using your gadri formula:

= PA da poi ke'a me ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

Immediately and fatally recursive.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:28:16AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> The formula could be made much more general though, for any
> sumti:
>
> ... sumti noi ke'a broda ku'o ...
> | tu'e ... sumti goi ko'a ... tu'u .i je ko'a broda

Done. Made it even more general.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 
> || noi | [stuff1] sumti noi ke'a [bridi] ku'o [stuff2] | tu'e
> [stuff1] sumti goi ko'a [stuff2] tu'u .i je ko'a [bridi]

You can't strictly put any bridi there. The general formula would
have sentence-with-ke'a and sentence-with-ko'a-in-place-of-ke'a.
Maybe you meant selbri?

I think we can use {ke'a broda} to represent any-sentence-with-ke'a,
as the generalization is obvious. {ke'a selbri} is slightly more
general than {ke'a broda}, but still not the fully general case.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi
> brodi
> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je
> da ge brode gi brodi

A recursive definition, or no definition, is better than one that is wrong.

> goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | ko'a du ko'e

I prefer the kansa version, since we can only say something about the
words at this stage. {ko'a du ko'e} is about the referents,
but there are none.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:48:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > ;noi (NOI):
> > snip to important part
> > > With description sumti, the relative
> > > clause can also be attached inside the sumti, before or after the
> > > selbri; in this case the clause applies to all the referents of
> > > the sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.
>
> To bring in line with CLL, change to:

Added your stuff.

Also changed the format of the definitions; I think this'll be much
easier for everybody.

Still have to add the positional quantification stuff to things
other than voi, poi and noi.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:37:22PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:48:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:23:30PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as
> > > wrote:
> > > > ;noi (NOI):
> > > snip to important part
> > > > With description sumti, the relative clause can also be
> > > > attached inside the sumti, before or after the selbri; in
> > > > this case the clause applies to all the referents of the
> > > > sumti, whether there is an outer quantifier or not.
> >
> > To bring in line with CLL, change to:
>
> Added your stuff.
>
> Also changed the format of the definitions; I think this'll be
> much easier for everybody.
>
> Still have to add the positional quantification stuff to things
> other than voi, poi and noi.

Done. Done without much thought, however. Hopefully I didn't mess
anything up.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 
Mostly nitpicking...

> ;noi (NOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative clause marker.
> ** The "relative" part means that it attaches to a sumti to provide
> additional information about the referants of that sumti.

I would rather say: "The relative part means that it relates a clause
to a sumti".

That the clause provides additional info about the referents of
the sumti is true, but it is not what the "relative" part contributes.
(This also applies to the other NOIs and GOIs.)

> ** The "non-restrictive" part means that the information in the
> noi clause is not used to restrict the set of things that the sumti
> noi is attached to refers to. The noi bridi is true about the sumti
> noi is attached to, but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the
> things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti
> noi is attached to could refer to.

I would replace

"The noi bridi is true about the sumti
noi is attached to, but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the
things the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti
noi is attached to could refer to."

with "The noi bridi gives additional information about the referents
of the sumti noi is attached to."

We can't know in general that the information given will always be true,
maybe the speaker is lying or mistaken about it, so instead of "is true"
you should say "is claimed".

Neither {poi} nor {noi} are concerned with the possible things that
the sumti in question could refer to. They are only concerned with
the things that the sumti does refer to in the given context.
Given those things that the sumti does refer to, noi adds info about
them whereas poi selects some of them. So, while it is true that the
noi clause "is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the
speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti
noi is attached to could refer to", exactly the same could be
said of a poi clause.

> ** Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the sumti have
> already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to give
> additional information.

If you say that, then the equivalent for poi would be:

    • Generally, poi is only used when the referents of the sumti have

already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker wishes to select
some of them.

I don't think either comment is particularly relevant to the definition.

> ** Inside a noi clause, ke'a indicates the precise place of the bridi
> that the sumti is intended to fill, and translates some uses of the English
> word "it".

I don't know if that comment is helpful for English speakers or not.
The combo {noi+ke'a} (or {poi+ke'a}) is what normally translates
the relative pronouns "which", "what", "who", "where":

le cukta poi mi ke'a do dunda
The book which I gave you.
?The book which I gave you it.

And, if "it" ever really translates {ke'a}, then so will all other
pronouns:

do noi mi nelci ke'a
You, who I like (?you),

Or maybe I'm missing the point of the "it" comment.

> ;poi (NOI):Restrictive relative clause marker.
>
>
> ** The "restrictive" part means that the information in the poi
> clause is used to restrict the set of things that the sumti poi is
> attached to refers to.

OK.

> In other words, out of all the referants of the sumti
> that poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti
> is a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually intended by the speaker
> to refer only to those things that the sumti could refer to for which the
> bridi in the poi clause is also true.

I get the idea, but I'm not too happy with the wording of that.
{lo dacti} gets referents when it is used in a context. It doesn't
have a fixed set of referents for all contexts, so we can't just
say that it has a lot of referents. The poi clause narrows down the
referents that the speaker started out with.

>poi is often used with da
> to restrict da to just those things which satisfy the poi clause.

That's right, {da} refers to anything that counts as a thing in a given
context, and poi restricts any quantifier on da to the things that satisfy
the clause.

 
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> zi'e | sumti' relative' zi'e relative' rest' | ko'a goi sumti
> relative' rest' .i je ko'a relative' rest'

I think these:
sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2
| sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2
| sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

are much superior as conversion formulas, and are more general
because they don't require a particular context. The other won't
work in general when the sumti is not at the beginning of a bridi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:04:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> Mostly nitpicking...

  • You*, nitpicking? Say it ain't so!

 
> > ;noi (NOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative clause
> > marker. ** The "relative" part means that it attaches
> > to a sumti to provide additional information about the referants
> > of that sumti.
>
> I would rather say: "The relative part means that it relates a
> clause to a sumti".

Added.

> > ** The "non-restrictive" part means that the
> > information in the noi clause is not used to restrict the
> > set of things that the sumti noi is attached to refers to.
> > The noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached
> > to, but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things
> > the speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the
> > sumti noi is attached to could refer to.
>
> I would replace
>
> "The noi bridi is true about the sumti noi is attached to,
> but is not necessarily enough to pick out only the things the
> speaker has in mind among all the possible things that the sumti
> noi is attached to could refer to."
>
> with "The noi bridi gives additional information about the
> referents of the sumti noi is attached to."

Done. Similar forms added for ne and no'u.

> > ** Generally, noi is only used when the referents of the
> > sumti have already been explained, or are obvious, and the
> > speaker wishes to give additional information.
>
> If you say that, then the equivalent for poi would be:
>
> ** Generally, poi is only used when the referents of the sumti
> have already been explained, or are obvious, and the speaker
> wishes to select some of them.
>
> I don't think either comment is particularly relevant to the
> definition.

They are not really intended to be integral to the definition;
they're intended to be helpful.

However, these are already damned long definitions. Dropped.

> > ** Inside a noi clause, ke'a indicates the precise place
> > of the bridi that the sumti is intended to fill, and translates
> > some uses of the English word "it".
>
> I don't know if that comment is helpful for English speakers or
> not. The combo {noi+ke'a} (or {poi+ke'a}) is what normally
> translates the relative pronouns "which", "what", "who", "where":
>
> le cukta poi mi ke'a do dunda
> The book which I gave you.
> ?The book which I gave you it.

The book such that I gave it to you.

Might as well drop it, though.

> > In other words, out of all the referants of the sumti that
> > poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of ''lo
> > dacti'' is a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually
> > intended by the speaker to refer only to those things that the
> > sumti could refer to for which the bridi in the poi clause
> > is also true.
>
> I get the idea, but I'm not too happy with the wording of that.
> {lo dacti} gets referents when it is used in a context. It doesn't
> have a fixed set of referents for all contexts, so we can't just
> say that it has a lot of referents. The poi clause narrows down
> the referents that the speaker started out with.

How about:

In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that poi
is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti
can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually
intended by the speaker to refer only to those things for which
the bridi in the poi clause is also true.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> How about:
>
> In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that poi
> is attached to (which, for example, in the case of lo dacti
> can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is actually
> intended by the speaker to refer only to those things for which
> the bridi in the poi clause is also true.

That's better, yes.

But make it "referEnts" please. (Well, I had to find something :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:29:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > In other words, out of the referants of the sumti that
> > poi is attached to (which, for example, in the case of
> > lo dacti can be a great many things indeed) the sumti is
> > actually intended by the speaker to refer only to those
> > things for which the bridi in the poi clause is also
> > true.
>
> That's better, yes.

Done.

> But make it "referEnts" please. (Well, I had to find something :-)

Done throughout.

-Robin

 



xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> What's important to understand is that this is *NOT* equivalent
>
>to "There exists a bottle with no lid", which is what
>
> da botpi no de
>
>*appears* to be saying. This is where most of the confusion has
>been coming from. To say "There exists a bottle with no lid", you
>need to say:
>
> da poi botpi cu botpi no da
>
>

I really hope you meant "da poi botpi cu botpi fo node"

>I think this exhastively (and exhaustingly) covers the current
>confusion. Please let me know if I've missed anything.
>
>
>

Other than that one point, thanks. But I'm still going to away until I
read and understand this
.

 
--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 04:54:58PM -0400, xod wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> >What's important to understand is that this is *NOT* equivalent
> >
> >to "There exists a bottle with no lid", which is what
> >
> > da botpi no de
> >
> >*appears* to be saying. This is where most of the confusion has
> >been coming from. To say "There exists a bottle with no lid",
> >you need to say:
> >
> > da poi botpi cu botpi no da
>
> I really hope you meant "da poi botpi cu botpi fo node"

Of course.

> >I think this exhastively (and exhaustingly) covers the current
> >confusion. Please let me know if I've missed anything.
>
> Other than that one point, thanks.

Woohoo!

> But I'm still going to away
> until I read and understand this
> .

Let us know how it goes.

-Robin

 



On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 webmaster@lojban.org wrote:

> !! Proposed Definition for ne
>
> ;ne (GOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative phrase marker.
>
> ** The "relative" part means that it relates a clause to a sumti. It attaches to a sumti to provide additional information about the referents of that sumti.

It attaches a phrase to a sumti, not a clause. Basically, overcopying (and the
same for pe, po, po'e, po'u, and no'u).

> ! Formal Definitions
>
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri xi rau broda toi

If we're putting it immediately after the sumti, can we just use ri instead of
ri xi rau?

> * The "ri xi rau" in "noi" is intended to count back to the preceding sumti.
>

In which case, we could get rid of this.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

"I need a new computer."
"There's still life in that one."
"Good point; I need an exterminator, too."

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 04:13:49PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 webmaster@lojban.org wrote:
>
> > !! Proposed Definition for ne
> >
> > ;ne (GOI):Incidental (non-restrictive) relative phrase
> > marker.
> >
> > ** The "relative" part means that it relates a clause
> > to a sumti. It attaches to a sumti to provide additional
> > information about the referents of that sumti.
>
> It attaches a phrase to a sumti, not a clause. Basically,
> overcopying (and the same for pe, po, po'e, po'u, and no'u).

Duh. Fixed.

> > ! Formal Definitions
> >
> > (AKA conversion formulas)
> >
> > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri xi rau broda
> > toi
>
> If we're putting it immediately after the sumti, can we just use
> ri instead of ri xi rau?

No, because we don't know exactly what "ri" means yet. Consider:

lo nu broda lo brode vau noi ke'a broda

Straight "ri" won't work here.

-Robin

 



On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:05:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > With a simple sumti like ko'a, yes. For a sumti like {le broda ku}
> > > there are three points where it can be atatched: between {le} and
> > > {broda}, between {broda} and {ku}, or after {ku}. The meanings can
> > > be different in some cases.
> >
> > Oh FFS. Is that true with poi and voi too? If so, is it also true
> > with pe, ne, po, and so on?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Reference for this, please?
>
> I think CLL mentions it.
>
> {ci lo ro broda noi brode ku noi brodi cu brodo}
>
> says of all brodas that they are brode, but only of the three brodas
> that brodo that they are brodi.

s/a sumti/a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti it can appear in a
variety of places, the semantics of which are beyond the scope of this
definition/

Any objections?

> > > > xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do
> > > > ''Is it not the case that those among the norm which is
> > > > associated with the form of the weather, which is near you?''
> > > > Isn't it true that the weather near you is normal?
> > >
> > > Does it really say that?
> >
> > That's how I read it. Do you disagree?
>
> I think "Don't you normally have such weather?" or something, but I
> don't really know.

Yeah, that's a bit better.

Context:

ma fasnu vi do

le vacri cu muvdu

xu naku me le cnano pe le tai tcima ne vi do .i pau do tavba'u mu'i ma

> > > This does not make much sense, since both sumti pick out exactly
> > > the same things.
> >
> > Nope. John convinced me that no'u is definately not restrictive;
> > you can have that argument with him if you like.
>
> I agree it is not restrictive. That doesn't mean that the two sumti
> don't have the same referents. I don't think the point you repeat
> about identification has anything to do with restrictiveness.

OK, removed from no'u and po'u.

> > > For some sumti, you can apply three relative clauses without using
> > > zi'e.
> >
> > Example, please.
>
> lo noi broda ku'o brode noi brodi ku noi brodo cu brodu

'simple sumti' and 'beyond the scope' stuff added to zi'e.

-Robin

 



xod posts: 143

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:56:49PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I only know what it looks like to me, namely with quoted
>>material marked off with a solid line along the side.
>>
>>
>
>I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you'd like to start by telling
>me what mail program you're using to read these mails?
>
>

Enclosed is what it looks like on Thunderbird. A darn fine email client,
I say.

I think by "21st century" he means AOL.

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."

 


Show posts: