WikiDiscuss

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:19:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> Robin:
> > One of these suggestions is a joke. See if you can spot it.
> >

Did you 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.

"The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group
that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker describes with the
selbri." "describes as fitting the first argument of the selbri",
please.

> > * "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.

OK, fair enough.

> Anyway, I removed it.

Thanks.

> > * 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.

Thanks. I'm still not sure I know what the Lojban means, but it's
certainly close enough.

> > * "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.)

The way I translated it (see my other post) is "Teachers (un-numbered,
could be one) divide those taught into five foursomes of students."

> > * "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.

"a crucifix" *does* mean "one crucifix", at least in my dialect.

> But I changed {ci lo pa bidju} to {ci bidju}, which is clearly enough.

Actually, that's not clear to me at all; see the other thread.

> > * 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!

Cool.

> > * Quantify jirna, please; it just sounds silly otherwise.
>
> Ok, but I'm not sure why it sound silly.

Because you have a pavyseljirna with some number of horns unspecified.

> > * 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.

Erk. "le ta ninmu cu mutce melbi .iku'i ca'a nanmu gi'e nelci lo nu
ninmu dasni" is the first one that comes to mind.

Gender-queer-positive people would have a field day with "le", I
suspect.

> > * "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.

I see that.

> > "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?

mumble, mumble It's up to you. I can't think of a *better* time,
though. If you do so, I will *immediately* call an extension to voting,
for obvious reasons.

> > * lei brazo/dotco prenu, please.
>
> Why?

Because otherwise we could be talking about Brazillian versus German
sausages, and who one for being placed in a very expensive bowl called
The Cup.

> > * "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.

"typically satisfy also the predicate": swap "satisfy" and "also". That
works.

> > * 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 don't see how that's possible. Before, "pa lo broda" meant *exactly*
one broda. Now it means one *group* of broda, of indeterminate size.
That is a massive change, unless I'm missing something.

None of your examples use an outer quantifier by itself, by the way.
Might want to fix that.

> > * 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.

Don't tell me; tell the notes.

> > * Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK
> > gets there.
>
> I changed "can" to "could".

OK.

-Robin