WikiDiscuss

pc:
> And
> most of these are peculiar cases (if really cases of {lo} at all):
> generalities, gnomic utterances, maxims and the like – things that are more
> or less universal; that is not {lo} home ground (and very likely not its
> ground at all).

But there is nothing peculiar about these sentences. They are
everyday things people say, and which a fluent Lojban speaker
should be able to produce without a second of hesitation. I found
most of the English sentences with simple Google searches, I did
not make any of them up myself. If such sentences cannot be produced
easily with current Lojban, then there is something wrong with
current Lojban.

Talking about generalities is basic, it happens all the time.
I take it you would use your proposed {xo'o} for many of the examples.
That's a possibility. The disadvantage is that most resulting texts,
which will certainly be full of {xo'o}s because general claims
are very common, will not look like the Lojban that has been produced
in the last twenty years or so. With {lo}, on the other hand, Lojban
will continue to look like so-far-Lojban.

> ei lo verba cu mutce fraxu lo makcu prenu
> Children should always show great forbearance
> toward grown-up people.

It is kind of a maxim, yes. I cannot tell from your words whether
you approve of this translation or whether you would translate it
differently. How would you translate maxims, which are relatively
frequent in any language?

> ku'i uinai mi na viska lo lanme pa'o lo tanxe
> i ju'ocu'i mi milxe simsa lo makcu prenu
> But I, alas, do not see sheep through the walls of
> boxes. Perhaps I am a little like the grown-ups.
>
> I am not sure whether {pa'o} works like this, but the {lo}s in the first
> sentence work out right. A good example (though perhaps for later), since it
> reminds us that universals in negative contexts are expressed existentially:
> “any sheep through any box” (is “the walls of” just a flourish? This eems to
> apply as well to looking through a tubular box lacking both ends.

The original doesn't mention walls: "Mais moi, malheureusement, je ne sais
pas voir les moutons à travers les caisses." I guess context helps make it
clear what is meant: The author has drawn a box, and the little prince
is very happy with the sheep he says is inside of the box. He had rejected
all the previous attempted drawings of sheep for one reason or another.
So at least for negative generic claims you approve of the use of lo.
(I would take {mi na viska su'o lamne pa'o su'o tanxe} to be a more
concrete claim, though.)

> The {lo}
> in the second sentence is probably about a species (etc.) since it is going
> on to some property. I would use {la'e} here, but that is only a reasonable
> start of working out how to talk about species.

But {la'e} still requires another gadri. Do you mean {la'e lo makcu prenu}?
Is that the same as {la'e su'o makcu prenu}?

The only use of {la'e} I know is with {la'e di'u}, to refer to what the
previous sentence says. So {la'e di'u cinri} is "that's interesting", not
the previous sentence itself but what it says. Is that the same {la'e}
that takes you from a grown-up to grown-ups in general?

> ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja
> At night lions hunt for food.

I can't tell from your words whether you approve or not of
this translation.

> lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi
> One picture is worth a thousand words.
>
> Ah, I forgot this aspect of your work with quantifiers. {lo ki'o valsi}
> looks OK and not noticeably different from {ki'o valsi}

But it is noticeably different. The picture is worth the same as the
thousand words together, it is not worth the same as a word 1000 times.
{ki'o valsi} would claim that there are 1000 x which are words, such that
the picture is worth x. So for example, the picture is worth "the", the
picture is worth "little", the picture is worth "house", etc, 1000
times. With {lo ki'o valsi} we are talking of a whole bunch of 1000
words put together.

>– presumably the
> words could be spelled out in each case, maybe several different ways,
> indeed. Presumably this is gnomic again so the first {lo} is either
> universal or about species or perhaps {la’e}.

So what is a Lojban speaker to say?

> de'i li 1960 lo pare sovda cu fepni li 42
> In 1960 a dozen eggs cost 42 cents.
>
> Same old, same old. It was not just one dozen but just about any dozen there
> was – implicit exception in force (crested floo-floo birds’ – now extinct –
> eggs, certified organic, …). Iam inclining more and more to {la’e} here.

Wouldn't that turn {la'e di'u} into generic "sentences like the previous
one", instead of "the referent of the previous sentence"? That's too much
of a change on existing usage, and besides we would need a new way of
doing {la'e di'u}. (In fact, I think it would be great to assign say
{tau} and {tei} to {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u}, but that's another
thread altogether.)

> lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni
> The teacher will divide the class
> into five groups of four students.
>
> Hey, some basic cases, though {le ctuca} makes better sense — this seems to
> be a particular occasion. So, come to that, {le selctu} or even {lei selctu}.
> But the {mu lo vo tadni} is nice.

The English sentence can be generic too, and in context it was:

"LESSON SUMMARY: 30 minutes

The teacher will ask the students to brainstorm ideas for each column.
For example; characters- Scooby Doo, Mr. Smith, Ryan, Uncle Tim…)

The teacher will record an answer on each piece of oak tag in the column.

The teacher will divide the class into five groups of four students.

The teacher will take all of the oak tag pieces and place them face down
in groups according to characters, setting, and problem. The teacher will
ask each group to choose one piece of oak tag from each group. ..."

It is not about some particular teacher or class that the speaker
has in mind. It is more general.

> lo bidjylinsi pe lo ze seldri cu se pagbu
> ze lo ze bidju e ji'a ci lo pa bidju e lo kucysni
> The Rosary of the Seven Sorrows consists of seven groups
> of seven beads, with three additional beads and a Crucifix.
>
> This looks like it is about a certain class of things, a particular kind of
> rosary (and, indeed, if it was about a unique thing {le} would be
> appropriate. Here there is none of the worry about exceptions that the more
> gnomic cases call for, so this could be done with {ro}. But I take it to be
> about the kind, laying out its particularities. In that case, the last three
> {lo}s are just any-olds; put them together in this way and you get a rosaary
> of the right sort. The first should be for species or kind and whether this
> form or some other covers these cases I leave for a while.

I'll take that as semi-approved then.

> lo sanli darxi bo dakli cu culno lo djacu onai lo canre to lo djacu
> cu pukmau ki'u lo nu slilu tolcando toi gi'e bunda li ji'i 270
> Standing punching bags are filled with water or sand - water
> being preferable because of the wave-motion created - and
> weigh about 270lbs.
>
> Species substance substance substance species (but maybe, in all this scope,
> {lo} would work)

Do you approve or disapprove of using {lo} for substance?

> lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu gi'e catlu lo ka ge ce'u xirma
> gi lo jirna cu cpana lo sedycra be ce'u
> Unicorns are mythical creatures that look like a horse
> with a horn coming out of their foreheads.
>
> Species conventional (could be {le} just as well) ok conventional (but I
> think {le} is a more sensible convention). This looks like a good safish way
> to talk about species (well, with the appropriate gadri, of course).

I can't tell whether you approve or not.

> bilga lenu jdice lenu roroi pilno lo mokla tirxe
> (to zoigy. velar gy. toi) jonai crane (to zoigy.
> alveolar gy. toi)
> tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi
>
> I’m not sure about the context here, but this looks ok: on each occasion one
> use some velar (or alveolar). But complex for the point. How is this a
> problem solved; it seems to be basic {lo}

He meant to say that we should pick either velar or alveolar for all
occasions.

> What is the role of the blue
> expressions?

They are links to the page where the sentence was taken from, so you
can check the context if you want.

> le cmana lo cidja ba claxu
> In the mountains there is no food.
> lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli
>
> Normal usage – well it is good to see that implicit negation works like
> ex-lciti (but does it? I hope so).

Why not analyse {nitcu} as an implicit negation too, then?

> le dargu pe lo xamgu bangu cu kargu
> The road of the good language is costly.
> lapoi pelxu ku'o trajynobli
>
> Specific or universal (probably the latter — it seems merely factual)

You agree with me that it is not equivalent to {le dargu pe su'o xamgu
bangu} then.

> la jyryr. tolkien. cu te cukta la djine turni (to la'o
> gy Lord of the Rings gy toi) .e le so'omoi be lo
> xanri munje lisri ca le lampru na'acto
> tenguar
>
> Species or set (probably the latter). “the severalth” is nice, though not a
> clear as it might be; I suppose it is to me “one of several” or just “pretty
> far along in the set ordered by … (date?)”

Maybe he meant {so'omei}.
Either way, {lo xanri munje lisri} seems to me generic. {su'o} would
not make sense there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/