WikiDiscuss

Robin:
> One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.
>

> * "It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti.".
> "Selecting" is rather opaque to me. Maybe you could add something like
> "In other words, lo broda is anything that could fit the first argument
> of broda".

I added something like that, please check if it's clear.

....
> ** This point may very well abrogate the previous point; I don't know
> which you meant "the predicate" to mean, but please pick one and
> make it clear.

Yes, I was using "predicate" for two different things. I now use "selbri"
in all cases for the transformed selbri, and "predicate for which the sumti
is an argument" for the external one. Please check if it's clear.

> * "Children should always" . "always" does not occur in the Lojban; fix
> one or the other please.

This is what's going on: The Lojban is a translation from the French.
The English is also a translation from the French, by someone other
than me. In French, there is no explicit "always". Maybe the
translator thought that "always" made the intent of the original
more clear in English. Anyway, I removed it.

> * I do not know what "viska pa'o lo tanxe" means, but I am certain it
> does not mean " through the walls of boxes"; add bitmu or
> something please.

Same as before, no mention of walls in French. I wouldn't mention walls
in Spanish either, but I will add the walls to make it more
English-friendly. {pa'o lo bitmu be fo lo tanxe} then.

> * "lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni" . the first two lo are
> most definately "le" if you want it to match the English. You should
> probably quantify ctuca as well.

How would you translate the Lojban into normal English? (The context
is a set of instructions for conducting a Lesson.)

> * "lo kucysni" . given the numerical precision of the rest, you should
> quantify this.

Only if you think that I should also change to "one Crucifix" in English.
But I changed {ci lo pa bidju} to {ci bidju}, which is clearly enough.

> * The unicorn one:
> * "gi'e catlu lo ka" — did you mean "se catlu"? No, not even that
> works. You want "And can be seen to have"; "se catlu simsa" would
> work I think.

I meant {simlu}! Thanks for catching that one!

> * Quantify jirna, please; it just sounds silly otherwise.

Ok, but I'm not sure why it sound silly.

> * Forehead is "mebri"

Right.

> * Similarily, please include at least one blatantly non-veridical
> example for "le". Ideally, have one for each non-veridical gadri, but I
> won't bitch if you don't wont to bother with ones other than "le".

Any suggestions for something natural? I don't want to give the
impression that non-veridicality is used in more that .1% of cases.

> * "An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate
> the cardinality of the group." Explain to me why this doesn't work with
> cmevla?

Because the grammar is overrestrictive. CMENE should be in BRIVLA.

> "ci la pano hels.angels. pu darxi mi doi pulji". checks
> Wow, that's a grammar change! OK, that's reason enough. Kinda sad
> though. We do have the ability to make grammar changes; your call
> though, I'm not set on one or the other. However, I suddenly
> understand your dislike of the seperate LA selma'o.

Is this the appropriate place and time to propose moving CMENE
into BRIVLA?

> * "ca jbena" seems insufficient; "puzi jbena" or "cazi jbena" would be
> nicer I think.

Ok {cazi}.

(jbena is really wrong for this, because it has a time place,
so it doesn't make much sense to use a tense with it, but
I'm not going to use zi'o.)

> * The emphasis in "FACE-DOWN" is not mirrored in the Lojban.

That's how it was written where I found it. It didn't strike me
as emphatic though. I'm lower-casing it.

> * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.

Why?

> * "The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or
> group that satisfies the predicate.". Don't you mean a typical
> individual or group? If not, more explanation please. Same with
> lo'e.

I think it's "the" typical, it's a single abstraction. See if you like
the new version.

> * For completeness, we really need set and mass versions of lo'e and
> le'e.

And also name versions.

> * Umm, isn't it the outer quantifier of lo that is different?

The inner of lo becomes the cadinality of a generic group instead of
being the cardinality of the group of all existing brodas.

The outer is adjusted accordingly, but {PA lo broda} retains the
same meaning.

> * I would really like something more in there about constants. A
> link to a really good expository URL would be nice. Even something
> as simple as "A constant is something that has no quantity from a
> predicate logic perspective" or something would help.

A constant is something that always keeps the same referent. {lo broda}
always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is
a variable, because it takes values from the set of all things that
brodas. Anything with a quantifier in front takes values from the set
of things over which the quantifier runs.

> * Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK
> gets there.

I changed "can" to "could".

> * In the "tavla fi le tutra pe le terdi" example: "mokla tirxe"
> should be "moklu trixe".

I'm quoting.

> * "In the mountains there is no food." s/is/will be/

Helselm's words, not mine.

> * "so'omoi" — probably meant to be mei.

Probably, but I'm just quoting.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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