WikiDiscuss

1. Quite true and Lojban needs to have ways to say them,. The question is whether thye are proper for the historical continuity of {lo} and whether one concept can cover them all. I think that the answer is at least doubtful on the first and even more so one the second. They are peculiar only against standard {lo} and thus as generalization away from that. As for there being something wrong with current Lojban, we have known that for as many years as there has been current Lojban and have tried to fix it countlless times. There have been many good ideas about how to do it, but no set of them (no one suggestion has solved all — or even most — of the problems) has been accepted and what seems to gain ocasional favor is a good partial solution pushed to absurdity. Until it collapses and we go back to nearly square one with all the intervening suggestions (and even what was good in the popular suggestion) lost.

2. Well, not basic basic but very common indeed and the more so as we get more remote from nature and live in conceptual realms. If this is what Lojban so far has been doing with {lo} (as I take is your point) then to that extent it is bad Lojban and ought not to be preserved as exemplary. It sounds as though the fact that people were not called out on those uses of {lo} in the past kept them from looking for legitimate ways to speak in generalities. Admittedly, much of what the generalities brought up here say is pretty compatible with {lo}, covering the gap between none and all, although in a rather different way. As noted, one case is usually too few, all is closer but with a variety of ad hoc exceptions, and — though I have not mentioned it before — often with some cases counting more than others (absolute monarch are better for figuring out what kings do than constitutional monarchs, for example). So in factthese notions do not belong in the same area with those where
counting is to the point. But {lo} just does belong in that area and so ought not be brought into this discussion. It may turn out that, on zipfy gounds for example, we want to start to use {lo} in this way and a longer expression for old {lo} (arguably, {su'o} already works), but that is a major decision, not to be made casually and without comment to speak of on a wiki page (and so looking remarkably like a done deal). I don't, by the way, think you consistently use {lo} in this way, but that is another matter at this point.
3: Depending on context, I mght do either of two things or maybe something else. If this is just being laid down sententiously, I would probably take all the {lo}s as {ro}s and leave it to casuistry to deal with the exceptions (there always are some; only a person with no life — like Kant — believes in absolute moral generalizations and no one that I can find has ever seriously tried to list all the exceptions beforehand for any rule). On the other hand, if this is admonitory — codger to irksome kids, I might go for brass tacks and deal with "you whippersnappers" and "me, your older, wiser and better" {do noi malverba} and {mi noi makcu}. If I was being cagey I might flavor the universal form with an "as a rule" modal/tense/something (which we lack but need for other things).

4: Negations are a nice source for confusions: if no x is y, than it is not the case that at least one is nor is it the case that some unspecified/ble number are. Ditto if we really mean "all" (which we rarely do, of course).

5: Sorry; misprint. {lo'e}

6: I suspect that I meant that this was basically untranslatable into current Lojban. It looks like a general claim but can't be universal, since there are exceptions and no ground for casuistry. On the other hand, clearly more than one lion and one night is meant. I think that the reference to food should probably be to substance not to particulars or generals so, even if {lo} turns out to be OK for the first two, it is not for the last.

7: Thanx. I doing get this usage completely yet, though I think it is a good one. It is a shift, however, and so needs more discussion (and a large warning) on the wiki page.

8: I am inclined to use {lo'e pixra} and {lo or su'o ki'o valsi}. This is relatively particular, one picture, one set of 1000 words, so full generic does not seem to apply as would "Pictures are worth thousands of words each," say. Here the inspecificity of the generic usage is further complicated. On a bet, not only are some {unspecified number of) pictures worth a thousand words, but 1000 is merely a round number of unspecified import: some are worth only 950, some 1200, quite a few less than 100, a rare few upwards toward millions. A nice "roughly speaking" modal might help here. (I know it is improper to take this stuff literally — what, as the poet asked, are words worth after all. But the serious cases of this sort are also very common — something about eggs coming up.)

9: I see that the {la'e} for {lo'e} runs through this whole thing. Sorry again (especially since I never seem to have backed it up with a "the typical"). In this case, since there are statistics (on a bet) The average — in some sense (though they probably all three coincide).

10: Ahah! Context makes a difference; it looked like a report but it was a direction ({e'u} or {e'o} or {ei} or maybe something more complex). Still, as read by each particular teacher and applied in a particular classroom, it is quite particular, so {le ctuca} and {le or {lei} selctu}.

11: Nicely put. This is sort of a definition (lacking something about stringing them together in a loop with the last set dangling from the join and about how the groups are demarcated), I am not sure how to do this — even if we have what I have been calling a generic gadri — but I am sure that it does not require more new stuff. Of course, it could be literally a definition, defining the expression, but that — thouggh it has a long history as an out — does not seem quite fair.

12. Even if {lo} is generic in the sense set out here. To be sure, for the uncountables (in English), {lo djacu} comes pretty close to being about the substance in extension at least. But that doesn't work for countables lo bakni are cattle, not beef.

13. Me either. We've been around about how to say that non-existents don't exist, so I'll leave that part out. I never feel comfortable with whichever gadri I use with {ka} and the like, but one seems a good as the other. {lo jirna} is surely correct, even with old {lo} and I would say {le sedycra} since it is the particular one of the particular unicorn we have got to in applying this property.

14. Yes, though {bilga} that way looks odd. The point is that {lo} is in the scope of {roroi} In that sense I am not sure that this says what it is supposed to. It seems to limit the choices one has to velars and alveolars but not to require the same one all the time. One has decided, apparently, never to use dentals or labials or gutterals or palatals. I haven't a clue at the moment how to clean it up. But the {lo}s are OK.

15: Where is the implicit negation in {nitcu}? To be sure, needing implies lacking; but it does not assert it.

16: Yes indeed. I now would incline to generic (though I wonder about the {le} in that context.)

17: {so'omei} makes not sense in the context. {lo'i} would be nice and safe or maybe even {ro}, but {su'o} clearly does not work here. The generic doesn't very well either, since I think it means we are to run through all of them (with conditions — e.g., unpublished ones, privately printed runs of thirty and the like).

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).

1.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.

2.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.

3.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.
4: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.

5: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.

6: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}

7: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}.

8: 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.

9: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:

10:"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.

11: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)

12: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).

13.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}

14.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).

15: 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)

16: 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?)”

17. 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/