BPFK Section: Subordinators Posted by pycyn on Thu 12 of Aug, 2004 13:13 GMT posts: 2388 Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Subordinators page.
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 01:41 GMT posts: 14214 This will probably come as no surprise, but in most cases I drew one example from the CLL, one from Alice, and one or more from IRC, because that's what was convenient for me at the time. Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice. I find this bizarre enough to be worth pointing out. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 02:17 GMT posts: 1912 > Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice. > I find this bizarre enough to be worth pointing out. > > -Robin It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e. Many of the examples given would seem better with {be} rather than {po} or {po'e}. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 02:18 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice. I find this bizarre enough > > to be worth pointing out. > > > > -Robin > > It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e. Ever*? Why? > Many of the examples given would seem better with {be} rather than > {po} or {po'e}. Probably. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 02:21 GMT posts: 1912 > (which means it sometimes must be terminated with ku'o, the > NOI selma'o terminator, or vau, the general bridi terminator, > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer bridi). I'm not sure {vau} has to be mentioned here, as it is not a safe relative clause terminator like {ku'o}. For example {noi ge broda gi brode} is not terminated with {vau}. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 1912 > On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e. > > *Ever*? Why? I don't really get the {po} distinction, and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}. mu'o mi'e xorxes ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:25:25PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:12:57PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > It's not so bizarre: I don't use po and po'e. > > > > *Ever*? Why? > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, poi se steci srana You don't get the distinction between what and what? > and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}. True, although interestingly not with pruxi. -Robin
Posted by JohnCowan on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 149 Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > I don't really get the {po} distinction, and {po'e} is almost always > better as {be}. What is pe ti may also be pe ta, but what is po ti cannot be po ta. That's why it's srana (many-to-many) vs. steci (many-to-one). -- "Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan could understand this report. Run out cowan@ccil.org and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it." http://www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 08:12 GMT On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, and {po'e} is almost always > > better as {be}. > > What is pe ti may also be pe ta, but what is po ti cannot be po ta. > That's why it's srana (many-to-many) vs. steci (many-to-one). I'm not sure I entirely buy that argument. It feels like there's a place missing, like a teki'i place, for the relationship. Otherwise the same object could be {le zdani po mi} because I, uniquely, own it, and also {le zdani po le patfu be mi}, because he, uniquely, built it. The other problem is whether there is any (common) place where {pe} would apply but {po} wouldn't. Surely not the cup in front of me, because no one else is in that same relationship to the cup (having it in front of them at this time and place). Actually, about the only case I can think of where {pe} would apply but {po} wouldn't, by that standard, would be shared legal ownership. The house can't be {po mi} and {po le speni be mi} (or {po le banxa pe mi}) at the same time. So then we'd have legal ownership being a place where {pe} applies and {po} doesn't, and the cup I'm drinking from right now being either. Somehow that seems really backwards from what's intended. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:21:41PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > > (which means it sometimes must be terminated with ku'o, the NOI > > selma'o terminator, or vau, the general bridi terminator, > > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer > > bridi). > > I'm not sure {vau} has to be mentioned here, as it is not a safe > relative clause terminator like {ku'o}. For example {noi ge broda gi > brode} is not terminated with {vau}. There are cases (nested cases) where ku'o won't quite work either. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912 > > > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, > > poi se steci srana > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? {pe} and {po} > > and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}. > > True, although interestingly not with pruxi. Interestingly, Google gives three hits for {pruxi be}. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT Adam D. Lopresto scripsit: > I'm not sure I entirely buy that argument. It feels like there's a place > missing, like a teki'i place, for the relationship. Otherwise the same object > could be {le zdani po mi} because I, uniquely, own it, and also {le zdani po > le patfu be mi}, because he, uniquely, built it. Quite right, and I should have specified that the relationship has to be a constant one, and furthermore must be glorked from context. > there is any (common) place where {pe} would apply but {po} wouldn't. Again, if you allow the relationship to be flexible enough, you're quite right. When pe and po are used contrastively, the speaker must figure out which relationships are being referred to. (ObTangential: "le mi broda" means "le broda pe mi", and all previous statements of mine that it meant "le broda po mi" are inoperative.) > The house can't be {po mi} and {po > le speni be mi} (or {po le banxa pe mi}) at the same time. In fact it can: this situation is called "joint tenancy", or in certain situations "tenancy by the entirety." Either joint tenant can exercise the full rights of legal ownership, and if they do conflicting things, the situation deadlocks. -- It was impossible to inveigle John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Into offering the slightest apology http://www.reutershealth.com For his Phenomenology. --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953)
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 07:10:20AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > > > I don't really get the {po} distinction, > > > > poi se steci srana > > > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? > > {pe} and {po} se steci srana versus srana. I suppose it's just a matter of emphasis. > > > and {po'e} is almost always better as {be}. > > > > True, although interestingly not with pruxi. > > Interestingly, Google gives three hits for {pruxi be}. Heh. Go usage. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by pycyn on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 2388 I think it llikely that anything that can be inalienably possessed is and so that predicates for such things should have a place for the possessor. And such possession would then be {be} (or {be fV}). the only problem with this is that what can be inalienably possessed is a cultural matter, so that some would add things to our list and other take some away. So, we do need a tag for inalienable possession of things we don't think can be so possessed — but it can be really big — of in CVV'VV or so. On the other hand, the difference between full ownership and occasional (even if frequent and for long periods of time) use is a crucial one in most cultures, and certainly in ours. Even if possession is nine points of the law, the other points carry considerable weight. I would suggesting reassinging the inalienable possession marker to legal ownership. The clear cases are now sorted out and the muddy ones left to {pe}. By the way, how does Lojban say a childs second word (after "No" — come to think of it, how exactly is that said in a refusal of an order or rejection of a claim), "mine" (also a seagull's only word).
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:46:02AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > By the way, how does Lojban say a childs second word (after "No" -- > come to think of it, how exactly is that said in a refusal of an order > or rejection of a claim), "mine" (also a seagull's only word). "No" in the two-year-old sense is ".ie nai" or ".ai nai". "Mine" is probably ".au" or "ponse". -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912 > > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? > > > > {pe} and {po} > > se steci srana versus srana. > > I suppose it's just a matter of emphasis. da pe ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and perhaps to other things as well) da po ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and to nothing else) Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is such a wide relationship. pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi lo ka ke'a srana ce'u cu steci ko'a po'e ko'a = poi lo ka ce'u srana ce'u cu jinzi ko'a mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912 > "No" in the two-year-old sense is ".ie nai" or ".ai nai". Or plain {nai}, I suppose. > "Mine" is > probably ".au" or "ponse". Or {me mi moi}. mu'o mi'e xorxes ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Posted by pycyn on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 2388 Well, it is hard to figurte out what a chikd (or a seagull) means exactly, but apparently the "mine!" is not just desire (in fact can exist without desire in any obvious sense) but really is possessiveness. So I suppose I prefer {me mi moi} for intent but with ongoing worries about this use of {moi}, nice as it is, and residual ones about {me}, and seriuos doubts whether the second word can be this complex, even if it is learned as a unit. Later in life, {memimoi} is nice for calling or "dibs" (or just {mimoi}). For the first word I like {nai} best, because it is a word and because I am not sure that the child is up to distinguishing between a claim and a command at this point. They are both impositions on his world view. Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote: > "No" in the two-year-old sense is ".ie nai" or ".ai nai". Or plain {nai}, I suppose. > "Mine" is > probably ".au" or "ponse". Or {me mi moi}. mu'o mi'e xorxes ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:06:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > You don't get the distinction between what and what? > > > > > > {pe} and {po} > > > > se steci srana versus srana. > > > > I suppose it's just a matter of emphasis. > > da pe ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and perhaps to other > things as well) > > da po ko'a = something that pertains to ko'a (and to nothing else) Ignoring the fuzziness of tanru, I suppose. > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > such a wide relationship. Ownership is the intended use. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 1912 > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:06:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > such a wide relationship. > > Ownership is the intended use. Then why not say so? pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi ko'a ponse ke'a mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:33 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:00:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:06:09AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > > such a wide relationship. > > > > Ownership is the intended use. > > Then why not say so? > > pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ponse ke'a Becaus there are other reasonable uses. In a monogamous context, le se prami po mi, but I wouldn't want to use ponse! -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:34 GMT > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > such a wide relationship. > > Ownership is the intended use. I guess I can see two different meanings, and neither quite works. {ko'a po ko'e} means either 1) that ko'a has a relationship with ko'e that nothing else has (but isn't that the case even in much weaker associations--no one else has that cup in front of them at the moment), or 2) that ko'a has a relationship with ko'e, and nothing else in the world has any relationship with ko'e. I challenge you to find any example where that is correct. As mentioned earlier, typical legal ownership isn't necessarily exclusive anyway, since property can be co-owned. It's possible that in that case it's not {po}, but then what is? It seems that in actual use, the distinguishing factor isn't exclusivity at all, but rather permanence. A {pe} relationship is transient--it's my cup because I happen to be closest to it, but by the next sentence things could be absolutely different. A {po} relationship, like ownership, is the sort of thing that doesn't change without notice, but instead lasts a bit longer, until some explicit action breaks the association. {le gerku po mi} is "my dog" in the sense that he will be mine until I do something like give him away (even if the rest of my family could make the claim that he's as much theirs as mine). When looked at from that angle, {po'e} follows naturally as the inalienable association, the one that can't ever be broken no matter what. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ "Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what they say if they had." -- Linus Torvalds
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:34 GMT Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > Ownership is the intended use. > > Then why not say so? > > pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a > po ko'a = poi ko'a ponse ke'a Ownership is an *intended use case*. That's not the same thing. -- At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs John Cowan abruptly vanished. The theory that a single jcowan@reutershealth.com catastrophic event may have been responsible www.reutershealth.com has been strengthened by the recent discovery of www.ccil.org/~cowan a worldwide layer of whipped cream marking the Creosote-Tutelary boundary. --Science Made Stupid
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:34 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > > Perhaps the difficulty then is in finding occasions when something > > > pertains to something and to nothing else, given that "pertain" is > > > such a wide relationship. > > > > Ownership is the intended use. > > I guess I can see two different meanings, and neither quite works. > > {ko'a po ko'e} means either How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > It seems that in actual use, the distinguishing factor isn't exclusivity at > all, but rather permanence. That's a good point, and one I would have no problem enshrining. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 20:34 GMT posts: 1912 > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > {ko'a po ko'e} means either > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship to > ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's relationship to > ko'a along that axis"? It might be better to use {da po ko'e} here. {ko'a po ko'e} does not say ko'a is in a relationship with ko'e. It rather selects, from the referents of ko'a, that one or those that are in a relationship with ko'e. So something like: pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a semau na'ebo ko'a > > It seems that in actual use, the distinguishing factor isn't exclusivity at > > all, but rather permanence. > > That's a good point, and one I would have no problem enshrining. That would give something like: pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a po ko'a = poi ke'a ze'u srana ko'a po'e ko'a = poi ke'a ze'e srana ko'a mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 21:01 GMT posts: 14214 Holy christ on a crutch. The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two examples in all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that apparently no-one but xorxes noticed that: {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} means something completely different from {ko'a po da .e ko'e} Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", but the second is "da's ko'a and ko'e". -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:01:04PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > means something completely different from > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much and, much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In fact, I can't think of a situation off the top of me head when "ku" wouldn't act as a terminator for these things. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 1912 > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > means something completely different from > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", Yes. > but the second is "da's > ko'a and ko'e". I would have said it was (da and ko'e)'s ko'a. Your reading had not occured to me. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 1912 > > means something completely different from > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much and, > much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In fact, I > can't think of a situation off the top of me head when "ku" wouldn't act > as a terminator for these things. In that example, {ku} can't be used. There's no gadri to terminate. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:08:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > > > means something completely different from > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > > > Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", > > Yes. > > > but the second is "da's ko'a and ko'e". > > I would have said it was (da and ko'e)'s ko'a. Your reading had not > occured to me. For {ko'a po da .e ko'e}? Oh, you're right, I'm very sorry. ko'a specifically associated with both da and ko'e. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:10:43PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > means something completely different from > > > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much > > and, much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In > > fact, I can't think of a situation off the top of me head when "ku" > > wouldn't act as a terminator for these things. > > In that example, {ku} can't be used. There's no gadri to terminate. Wow. {ku} apparently doesn't do what I thought it did. You are correct. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:35 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:04:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:01:04PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > wrote: > > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > > > means something completely different from > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much and, > much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. In some cases. Finally found a case where ge'u (or ku) was wanted and not used: va'o le tcadu pe la stenxnas .e le tcadu pe mi This was almost without question intended to be "The city of stenxnas, and the city of me" but instead means something that makes very little sense and is almost impossible to translate into English: "The city that is associated with both stenxnas and also with my city". -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:21:01PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:04:20PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:01:04PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org > > wrote: > > > {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} > > > > > > means something completely different from > > > > > > {ko'a po da .e ko'e} > > > > To be fair, this situation doesn't seem to have come up too much > > and, much more importantly, "ku" does the same damned thing. > > In some cases. > > Finally found a case where ge'u (or ku) was wanted and not used: > > va'o le tcadu pe la stenxnas .e le tcadu pe mi Another one, this left as an exercise to the reader: pilno le vlaturge'a pe la guaspis .e le lojbo gerna .ui Those seem to be the only two in the corpus I'm using. This means that there are as many cases in that corpus where ge'u was used as where it was not used and needed. Heh. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > > {ko'a po ko'e} means either > > > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship > > to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's > > relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > > It might be better to use {da po ko'e} here. > > {ko'a po ko'e} does not say ko'a is in a relationship with ko'e. It > rather selects, from the referents of ko'a, that one or those that are > in a relationship with ko'e. > > So something like: > > pe ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a That does seem quite a bit better, except for the lack of a "pertains to in aspect X" place, which seems wanted. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:37 GMT posts: 14214 Two things: 1. I'm done, as far as I know. 2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:58 GMT posts: 1912 > > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship > > > to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's > > > relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > > > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > That does seem quite a bit better, except for the lack of a "pertains to > in aspect X" place, which seems wanted. po ko'a = poi ke'a xi pa srana ko'a noi ke'a xi re zmadu ro na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a xi pa srana ce'u kei zo'e which is quite incomprehensible. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:58 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:37:48PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > 1. I'm done, as far as I know. Except that I forgot that I hadn't yet read PC's treatment (which, by the way, is orphaned: It's not linked from anywhere. Perhaps, PC, you'd like to link it from your user page or the jboske page). Reading it has led to a noi clarification, and may lead to others. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 16 of Aug, 2004 22:59 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:38:44PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > How about "Along a given axis of relationship, ko'e's relationship > > > > to ko'a is more important / specific than anything else's > > > > relationship to ko'a along that axis"? > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > > > That does seem quite a bit better, except for the lack of a "pertains to > > in aspect X" place, which seems wanted. > > po ko'a = poi ke'a xi pa srana ko'a noi ke'a xi re zmadu ro na'e bo ko'a > lo ka ke'a xi pa srana ce'u kei zo'e > > which is quite incomprehensible. What about: po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a gi'e zmadu na'e bo ko'a or po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a te mau zo'e ? I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place itself. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 14214 Given: voi, one way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi pe'a broda cu brodi voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi skicu lo ka ke'a broda cu brodi And the note: The pe'a in the voi formula can better be replaced with ''je'u cu'i in some cases and da'i in others, but I think pe'a'' is the most common. I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912 > 2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd. I tend to prefer lerfu-gadri to the assignable series. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:55:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > 2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd. > > I tend to prefer lerfu-gadri to the assignable series. Me too, except when I want something to hold its value for a long time without having to notice that the sumti I just used conflicts. Not such a problem with {.a bu}, though. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912 > What about: > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a gi'e zmadu na'e bo ko'a > Except it's ko'a, not ke'a, which zmadu na'e bo ko'a, so: po ko'a = poi ko'a se srana ke'a gi'e zmadu na'e bo ko'a or: po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > or > > po ko'a = poi ke'a srana ko'a se mau na'e bo ko'a te mau zo'e > > ? That's not really right though, because the {se mau} does not really attach to ko'a. > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > itself. Probably to make it different from {ckini}. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny amount > of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? -- But that, he realized, was a foolish John Cowan thought; as no one knew better than he jcowan@reutershealth.com that the Wall had no other side. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388 Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? Hopefully it was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, and that it forms a separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it is embedded (and {poi} is part of the term it ends and is unaffected by logical operations at all). Do I still have a user's page? I don't use it and have no idea where it is or where my {noi} comments are at this point. BTW {voi} is hard — the speaker knows who the referent is and so is telling us in a btw way what he is calling it, but the hearer may need the information to find the right thing, which is usually an accessible broda or something very like a broda (the {pe'a} is basically wrong here, since it is usually literal or so close as to make no nevermind: the Juno case {le ninmu cu nanmu} is getting toward the outer bounds of what is allowed and surely is not figurative in the context. For parallelism with {poi} and {lo}, I'd call it restrictive, a part of the NP. Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:37:48PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > 1. I'm done, as far as I know. Except that I forgot that I hadn't yet read PC's treatment (which, by the way, is orphaned: It's not linked from anywhere. Perhaps, PC, you'd like to link it from your user page or the jboske page). Reading it has led to a noi clarification, and may lead to others. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912 > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny amount > of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. I would prefer: {voi broda} = {noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda} that way my definiton of {le} could be much simpler But that would be the only reason. I don't think I have ever actually used {voi}, so I don't really have a strong preference. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:11:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? > Hopefully it was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, > and that it forms a separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it > is embedded (and {poi} is part of the term it ends and is unaffected > by logical operations at all). Do I still have a user's page? I don't > use it and have no idea where it is or where my {noi} comments are at > this point. http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=Relative+Clauses+and+Phrases If you don't use your user page, link from the jboske page. There's a variety of search options, you know. Your user page is: http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=John+Clifford -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388 It seems to me that both the "greater importance" criterion and the "more enduring one" distinguish nicely legal ownership from use (and from the incidental mine of partners at a dinner party or the cup next to me and so on). {ponse} seems to come down on the legal side, but has been used, I think, for merely used (apartments — not condominia — for example, usually from reading "have").
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny > > amount of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:14:54PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu is > > closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the tiny > > amount of usage substantially better, and is more complicated. > > I would prefer: {voi broda} = {noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka ce'u broda} > that way my definiton of {le} could be much simpler Can't give you noi, sorry. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu > > > is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the > > > tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more > > > complicated. > > > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? > > Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid > that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option. I take it back; I forgot that voi was poi, not noi. Or something. I'm going with this one, unless someone has a good reason why not. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > itself. > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. Why not use ckini then? po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 05:20 GMT posts: 1912 pc > Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? Hopefully it > was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, and that it forms a > separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it is embedded To what level of embedding? Does the noi-clause escape a du'u in which it is embedded? With {la djan djuno lo du'u ta noi bruna mi cu klama}, am I claiming that John knows that ta is my brother? If I say: lo nu ta noi bruna mi cu broda cu rinka ko'a I think we don't want the {ta bruna} clause to be conjugate with {ta broda}. >(and {poi} is > part of the term it ends and is unaffected by logical operations at all). Well, it affects logical operations in way, since it restricts the set of values over which the quantifier runs. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388 Well, it's sorta circular — {le} is a sort of {voi} and {voi} one of {le}. Somewhere it should be said what one or the other is independently. How about (the reasonably accurate) {poi sa'enai broda}? Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu > > > is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the > > > tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more > > > complicated. > > > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? > > Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid > that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option. I take it back; I forgot that voi was poi, not noi. Or something. I'm going with this one, unless someone has a good reason why not. -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388 Why must ko'a be the most thoroughly related? Both my wife and I have joint accounts and hers is mine as much as mine is — both are legally mine and one is mine also for use. Which is {po}? Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > itself. > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. Why not use ckini then? po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 15:53 GMT posts: 2388 A> Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that requires the explicit parentheses. On the other hand, it does seem it should pop out of {nu} (Way by the wayside: why are abstractions predicates rather than terms, as they are in most familiar languages — and in most logical systems I have been messing with?). All things considered, I think that popping out of all abstractions is probably the better way. B> Well yes, but then, so does the {poi} clause. Perhaps I should have said (as I think I did) that logical operations don't affect it. Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote: pc > Wow! I'd forgotten I said anything about {noi}. What was it? Hopefully it > was that {noi} is not used for selection, like {poi} is, and that it forms a > separate sentence conjugate to the one in which it is embedded A>To what level of embedding? Does the noi-clause escape a du'u in which it is embedded? With {la djan djuno lo du'u ta noi bruna mi cu klama}, am I claiming that John knows that ta is my brother? If I say: lo nu ta noi bruna mi cu broda cu rinka ko'a I think we don't want the {ta bruna} clause to be conjugate with {ta broda}. >(and {poi} is > part of the term it ends and is unaffected by logical operations at all). B>Well, it affects logical operations in way, since it restricts the set of values over which the quantifier runs. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 16:03 GMT John E Clifford scripsit: > Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that > requires the explicit parentheses. No, I don't think I believe that. le du'u le ro kanba noi blabi cu citka lo tinci lante cu jitfa The claim that all goats (which are white) eat tin cans is false. still claims incidentally that all goats are white. > (Way by the wayside: why are abstractions > predicates rather than terms, as they are in most familiar languages -- > and in most logical systems I have been messing with?). When the abstraction predicate is one-place, the difference is notational, and the ability to add a second place is very useful. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law! — one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 17:03 GMT posts: 2388 How so (on both points)? John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:John E Clifford scripsit: > Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that > requires the explicit parentheses. No, I don't think I believe that. le du'u le ro kanba noi blabi cu citka lo tinci lante cu jitfa The claim that all goats (which are white) eat tin cans is false. still claims incidentally that all goats are white. > (Way by the wayside: why are abstractions > predicates rather than terms, as they are in most familiar languages -- > and in most logical systems I have been messing with?). When the abstraction predicate is one-place, the difference is notational, and the ability to add a second place is very useful. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears! America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law! -- one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 18:44 GMT posts: 14214 I don't understand your objection. Sounds like le janta po mi .e le mi speni -Robin On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:06:36AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Why must ko'a be the most thoroughly related? Both my wife and I have > joint accounts and hers is mine as much as mine is — both are legally > mine and one is mine also for use. Which is {po}? > > Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > > itself. > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > Why not use ckini then? > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > -Robin > > > -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 20:27 GMT posts: 2388 The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: I don't understand your objection. Sounds like le janta po mi .e le mi speni -Robin On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:06:36AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Why must ko'a be the most thoroughly related? Both my wife and I have > joint accounts and hers is mine as much as mine is — both are legally > mine and one is mine also for use. Which is {po}? > > Robin Lee Powell wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > > itself. > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > Why not use ckini then? > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > -Robin > > > -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 Ooh, that's lovely. Thanks. -Robin On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:02:42AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, it's sorta circular — {le} is a sort of {voi} and {voi} one of > {le}. Somewhere it should be said what one or the other is > independently. How about (the reasonably accurate) {poi sa'enai > broda}? > > Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:39:56PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > > I'd like to know which version people prefer. The one with skicu > > > > is closer to the CLL definition, but doesn't seem to match the > > > > tiny amount of usage substantially better, and is more > > > > complicated. > > > > > > How about the very simple "voi broda" = "poi me le broda"? > > > > Given the complexity of the formal breakdown for le, I'd like to avoid > > that. Besides, it's tantamount to picking the noi skicu option. > > I take it back; I forgot that voi was poi, not noi. Or something. > > I'm going with this one, unless someone has a good reason why not. > > -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 11:57:28AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > John E Clifford scripsit: > > > Hmmm. The {noi} pretty clearly does not pop out of {du'u}, that > > requires the explicit parentheses. > > No, I don't think I believe that. > > le du'u le ro kanba noi blabi cu citka lo tinci lante cu jitfa > > The claim that all goats (which are white) eat tin cans is > false. > > still claims incidentally that all goats are white. That's my current ruling, yes. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 23:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? {pe}. Or poi ponse. -Robin -
Posted by pycyn on Tue 17 of Aug, 2004 23:58 GMT posts: 2388 But {pe} is a looser bond to me that {po} whereas legal ownership is a tighter bond than than use. {poi ponse}, i.e., {poi mi ponse ke'a}? As noted, this has been used frequently (I think) for "have" with whatever range of possibilities that might cover, surely not restricted to legal (in spite of the oblique places) or even use. Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? {pe}. Or poi ponse. -Robin -
Posted by rlpowell on Sat 21 of Aug, 2004 21:51 GMT posts: 14214 Just so everybody knows, all the wrinkles have, so far as I know, been ironed out. I picked a skicu-based form of "noi". Please vote now, or explain any further issues you see. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Thu 26 of Aug, 2004 20:27 GMT posts: 1912 Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible places: PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Then the without loss of generality, we can just consider: PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 PA1: outer quantifier PA2: inner quantifier rel1: outer relative clause rel2: inner relative clause Now, there are just two rules to follow. Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi poi acts before PA because poi restricts the domain over which the quantifier will act. noi acts after PA because it gives additional info about just those referents counted by the quantifier. Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following the above rules. When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA at the same level, again there is no problem, as the noi simply acts on all referents before the poi restriction. However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now we have conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA has to act before noi, and (because of their order) noi has to act before poi. Unless we want to say that order does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and poi always acts before noi. If so, some things will sound counter-intuitive. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by xorxes on Thu 26 of Aug, 2004 20:58 GMT posts: 1912 True conversion formulas for goi: goi ko'a | noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a ko'a goi sumti | sumti vu'o noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a Those work for normal uses of goi, where one and just one of the sumti involved is an unassigned assignable variable. (Although co'a is not strictly what is wanted. Something like "from this point in the text" would be more accurate.) With that, every relative clause can be reduced to noi or poi: ne, no'u, goi -> noi pe, po, po'e, po'u, voi -> poi mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 27 of Aug, 2004 21:01 GMT posts: 14214 OK, dealing with *just* the conversion formula, taken as a whole. We'll hash them out here before I modify them on the page again. noi sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode sumti cu brode to da poi nei cu broda toi poi + ro quantified sumti sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ga nai broda gi brode poi, all other cases sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ge broda gi brode voi voi clause poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause ne ne sumti noi ke'a srana sumti pe pe sumti poi ke'a srana sumti no'u no'u sumti noi ke'a du sumti po'u po'u sumti poi ke'a du sumti po po sumti poi sumti cu traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a po'e po'e sumti poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana sumti vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn geks that encode cn s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o relative gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative zi'e + noi sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + poi sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 goi, ko'a unassigned ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned ko'a goi ko'e ko'a du ko'e goi, both assigned ko'a goi ko'e zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first, but so what? Combos with zi'e are not well defined, as before. Much props to John for noi and vu'o help. xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned goi; what did you mean exactly? -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Fri 03 of Sep, 2004 16:01 GMT posts: 1912 ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 14214 Oh FFS. poi mi ponse ke'a lo flalu Better still, le janta po mi .e le mi speni is the usage sense, and le janta po mi is the legal sense. Glork from context. -Robin On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:25:23PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > But {pe} is a looser bond to me that {po} whereas legal ownership is a > tighter bond than than use. {poi ponse}, i.e., {poi mi ponse ke'a}? > As noted, this has been used frequently (I think) for "have" with > whatever range of possibilities that might cover, surely not > restricted to legal (in spite of the oblique places) or even use. > > Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? > > {pe}. Or poi ponse. > > -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:06 GMT posts: 2388 Other way round Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:Oh FFS. poi mi ponse ke'a lo flalu Better still, le janta po mi .e le mi speni is the usage sense, and le janta po mi is the legal sense. Glork from context. -Robin On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:25:23PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > But {pe} is a looser bond to me that {po} whereas legal ownership is a > tighter bond than than use. {poi ponse}, i.e., {poi mi ponse ke'a}? > As noted, this has been used frequently (I think) for "have" with > whatever range of possibilities that might cover, surely not > restricted to legal (in spite of the oblique places) or even use. > > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:25:50PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > > The point is just that one account is not related to me more thant it > > is to my wife in the legal relation, but it is in the use relation. > > So, if {po} means it is more related to me than to anyone else, it > > must be the use relation. In which case, how do I say the legal bit, > > where presumably the {mau na'ebo mi} does not apply? > > {pe}. Or poi ponse. > > -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a place > > > itself. > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > Why not use ckini then? > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual usage and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the CLL, except in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). Any objections to this change? -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:38:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a > > > > place itself. > > > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > > > Why not use ckini then? > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual usage > and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the CLL, except > in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). > > Any objections to this change? xorxes and I discussed it a bit more, and this is better: ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:07 GMT On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:38:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a > > > > > place itself. > > > > > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > > > > > Why not use ckini then? > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > > > I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual usage > > and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the CLL, except > > in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). > > > > Any objections to this change? > > xorxes and I discussed it a bit more, and this is better: > > ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a Is that substantially different from { ko'a traji lo ka ce'u ke'a ckini }? I guess the main difference is the x4 of traji. I'm not sure how to get the scale or set of na'e, so maybe the zmadu idea is better. If you're not using the x3 of ckini, is there a difference between using it here and srana? -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ "Words fascinate me. They always have. For me, browsing in a dictionary is like being turned loose in a bank." --Eddie Cantor
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:14:29AM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:38:26PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:01:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ke'a srana ce'u > > > > > > > > > > > I'm actually a bit surprised that srana doesn't have such a > > > > > > place itself. > > > > > > > > > > Probably to make it different from {ckini}. > > > > > > > > Why not use ckini then? > > > > > > > > po ko'a = poi ko'a ckini ke'a se mau na'e bo ko'a > > > > > > I think this is the solution that most thoroughly matches actual > > > usage and still makes sense. I also don't think it violates the > > > CLL, except in detail (the CLL says it's se steci srana). > > > > > > Any objections to this change? > > > > xorxes and I discussed it a bit more, and this is better: > > > > ko'a zmadu na'e bo ko'a lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a > > Is that substantially different from { ko'a traji lo ka ce'u ke'a > ckini }? ..u'u I forgot about traji. > I guess the main difference is the x4 of traji. I'm not sure how to > get the scale or set of na'e, so maybe the zmadu idea is better. The scale is of "lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a", not "na'e" and friends. So all you'd have to do is rank everything in the universe in order of relationship importants to ko'a. > If you're not using the x3 of ckini, is there a difference between > using it here and srana? Yes: The fact that the place exists. The point is that there is *some* relationship for which ko'a is traji, but it can be a different relationship for each ko'a. Building fuzziness back in. This is largely in response to PC's joint account problem. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:16 GMT On Monday 16 August 2004 17:01, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > Holy christ on a crutch. > > The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two examples in > all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that apparently no-one > but xorxes noticed that: http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjoiropno_bangu has several {ge'u} in a paragraph with no selbri. I had to look it up, though; I tried terminating them with {ku'o} and got a syntax error. phma -- li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 12:15:18AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday 16 August 2004 17:01, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > Holy christ on a crutch. > > > > The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two > > examples in all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that > > apparently no-one but xorxes noticed that: > > http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjoiropno_bangu has several {ge'u} in > a paragraph with no selbri. I had to look it up, though; I tried > terminating them with {ku'o} and got a syntax error. Ah, OK. Thanks. Not a very good source for usage cases, unfortunately. That's a pretty intense page, dude. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:28 GMT posts: 14214 Perhaps now you understand why I said that this was outside the scope of the definitions? -Robin On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:27:03PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible > places: > > PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Then the without > loss of generality, we can just consider: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > PA1: outer quantifier > PA2: inner quantifier > rel1: outer relative clause > rel2: inner relative clause > > Now, there are just two rules to follow. > > Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. > Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi > > poi acts before PA because poi restricts the domain over > which the quantifier will act. > noi acts after PA because it gives additional info about > just those referents counted by the quantifier. > > Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about > the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 > of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. > > For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, > i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. > rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, > and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy > the bridi in which the sumti appears. > > When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that > order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following > the above rules. > > When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA > at the same level, again there is no problem, as the noi > simply acts on all referents before the poi restriction. > > However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there > is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now > we have conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA > has to act before noi, and (because of their order) noi > has to act before poi. Unless we want to say that order > does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and poi always > acts before noi. If so, some things will sound counter-intuitive. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:28 GMT posts: 1912 > Perhaps now you understand why I said that this was outside the > scope of the definitions? No, why? The concise definitions I gave you cover all this and they are shorter than the ones you have. It is not that complicated once you see how it all fits together rather nicely. 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
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 14214 Phew. OK, following along, CLL in hand. OK, on screen, but still. On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:27:03PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible > places: > > PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Agreed. > Then the without loss of generality, Why is it that that phrase always frightens me? Heh. How to say it in Lojban? > we can just consider: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 Not for definitional purposes, but for exploratory purposes, correct. > PA1: outer quantifier > > PA2: inner quantifier > > rel1: outer relative clause > > rel2: inner relative clause Acceptable. > Now, there are just two rules to follow. > > Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. > > Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi snip > For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, > i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. > rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, > and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy > the bridi in which the sumti appears. Running through all the CLL examples: re le mu prenu poi ninmu cu klama le zarci poi acts before mu, so inside we have "5 (people who are women)". So, "2 out of the 5 women go to the market". CLL agrees. re le mu prenu ku poi ninmu cu klama le zarci Inner gives us "5 persons". Outer, poi first, gives us "who are women, take two of them". "2 women out of the five persons go to the market". CLL agrees. > Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about > the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 > of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. CLL examples, quantifiers added back in: su'o lo ro prenu ku noi blabi cu klama le zarci Inner first means were talking about all humans. "At least one of all humanis, which is white, goes to the market." su'o lo ro prenu noi blabi ku cu klama le zarci Inner first, so all humans are white. Not so good. CLL agrees. > When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that order > (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following the > above rules. > > When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA at the > same level, again there is no problem, as the noi simply acts on > all referents before the poi restriction. > > However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is a > PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now we have > conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA has to act before > noi, and (because of their order) noi has to act before poi. > Unless we want to say that order does not matter in zi'e connected > clauses, and poi always acts before noi. If so, some things will > sound counter-intuitive. I'd rather just leave it ill-defined, but I'm not much attached to either solution. You should just about get a medal for this write up. You did, however, skip the part on "la". -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 14214 On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:58:55PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > True conversion formulas for goi: > > goi ko'a | noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > ko'a goi sumti | sumti vu'o noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > Those work for normal uses of goi, where one and just one of the > sumti involved is an unassigned assignable variable. (Although > co'a is not strictly what is wanted. Something like "from this > point in the text" would be more accurate.) Done, slightly differently. The vu'o has to be removed, or immediate and fatal recursion occurs. However, I've just thought of a very sneaky trick: tu'e sumti tu'u .i la'e di'u noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a And for vu'o: [connected sumti] vu'o [relative] [stuff] = tu'e [connected sumti] tu'u .i la'e di'u [relative] [stuff] Any problems here? Also, please take a look at the two oddball cases for goi. It may be best just to drop those from the formula section. -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:33 GMT posts: 2388 > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > Consider a description sumti with relative > clauses in all possible > places: > > PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. > Then the without > loss of generality, we can just consider: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > PA1: outer quantifier > PA2: inner quantifier > rel1: outer relative clause > rel2: inner relative clause > > Now, there are just two rules to follow. > > Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer > level. > Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - > PA - noi > > poi acts before PA because poi restricts the > domain over > which the quantifier will act. > noi acts after PA because it gives additional > info about > just those referents counted by the quantifier. > > > Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional > info about > the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 > about the PA1 > of those that satisfy the bridi in which the > sumti appears. > > For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain > which PA2 counts, > i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE > selbri rel2 ku}. > rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy > the clause, > and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set > satisfy > the bridi in which the sumti appears. > > When the relative clause includes a poi and a > noi, in that > order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no > problem in following > the above rules. > > When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and > there is no PA > at the same level, again there is no problem, > as the noi > simply acts on all referents before the poi > restriction. > > However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi > ...} and there > is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, > because now > we have conflicting rules: poi has to act > before PA, PA > has to act before noi, and (because of their > order) noi > has to act before poi. Unless we want to say > that order > does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and > poi always > acts before noi. If so, some things will sound > counter-intuitive. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > Just to see if I get it. PA da broda Qx: xF (nothing is said here about whether x is singular or plural or whether Qx has some internal structure.) PA da poi broda cu brode Qx: xF xG (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the complement of Q – insert table here) PA da noi broda cu brode Qx: xG & xF (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on). L broda cu brode Ex: xF xG (nothing is said here about the possibility that claims with {L broda} may be different from those about {da}, in particular that quantifiers may have different internal structures, if any.) (this is strictly for {lo/loi}; for {le/lei} and {la/lai}, “F” is replaced by a suitably modified expression that mentions “F” and the quantifier is outside the range of the sentence.) L broda poi brode cu brodi Ex: xF & xG xH L broda noi brode cu brodi Ex: xF xH & xG L PA broda cu brode Qx: xF xG (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA) L PA broda poi brode cu brodi Qx: xF & xG xH L PA broda noi brode cu brodi Qx: xF xH & xG L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi Qx: xFEy: yG & yAx Hy (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but it means that whatever y stands for is something that x also stands for) L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi Qx: xF xH & xG (this one looks suspect, since it is the same as one above, but it seems to follow from the rules) PA L broda cu brode Ex: xFQy: yAx yG PA L broda poi brode cu brodi Ex: xF & xGQy: yAx xH PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi Ex: xFQy: yAx & yG yH PA L broda noi brode cu brodi Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & xG PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & yG
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:34 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > Just to see if I get it. > > PA da broda > Qx: xF > (nothing is said here about whether x is singular > or plural or whether Qx has some internal > structure.) The way I unerstand it, {da} is a singular variable, and outer quantifiers are always distributive. I'm not sure what you mean by internal structure. The referents of da are any thing that counts as a (single) thing in the given context. I am not completely opposed in principle to making da a plural variable, but I don't see that change at this point as an advantage. We often do want singular variables (we could of course say {da poi pamei} every time we wanted one, but that may be too wordy for such a frequent use). Since we can handle plurality by other means, I'm just not persuaded we need to follow McKay's program all the way. > PA da poi broda cu brode > Qx: xF xG > (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the > complement of Q – insert table here) That looks like the dual rather than the complement, but this might be a matter of terminology. For me, the complement of PA is da'aPA, so for example {ro} and {no} are complementary, as are {su'o} and {me'i}. {ro} is the dual of {su'o}, and {no} the dual of {me'i}. > PA da noi broda cu brode > Qx: xG & xF > (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on). I can't really say I understand the logic of the bracket operator. In this case it should expand to: Qx: xG & [Ax: xG] xF > L broda cu brode > Ex: xF xG That would be correct for {su'o broda cu brode}. If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant. > L broda poi brode cu brodi > Ex: xF & xG xH That would be {su'o broda poi brode cu brodi} > L broda noi brode cu brodi > Ex: xF xH & xG su'o broda noi brode cu brodi [Ex: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG > L PA broda cu brode > Qx: xF xG > (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA) That one would be: aG & aQ (where Q is the predicate PAmei) > L PA broda poi brode cu brodi > Qx: xF & xG xH That's {PA broda poi brode cu brodi}, without L. > L PA broda noi brode cu brodi > Qx: xF xH & xG PA broda noi brode cu brodi [Qx: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG > L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi > Qx: xFEy: yG & yAx Hy > (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but it > means that whatever y stands for is something > that x also stands for) > > L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi > Qx: xF xH & xG > (this one looks suspect, since it is the same as > one above, but it seems to follow from the rules) When there is no outer quantifier, inner/outer makes no difference for noi, that's right. This is because noi acts after the quantifier. Conversely, when there is no inner quantifier, inner/outer makes no difference for poi, which acts before the quantifier. > PA L broda cu brode > Ex: xFQy: yAx yG [Qx: xAa] xG > PA L broda poi brode cu brodi > Ex: xF & xGQy: yAx xH Also: [Qx: xAa] xG > PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi > Ex: xFQy: yAx & yG yH [Qx: xAa & xG] xH > PA L broda noi brode cu brodi > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & xG [Qx: xAa] xH & aG > PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & yG [Qx: xAa] xH & [Ax: xAa & xH] xG mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:35 GMT posts: 1912 > We'll hash them out here before I modify them on the page again. > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode to da poi nei > cu broda toi I won't complain about it. > poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ga > nai broda gi brode > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ge broda gi > brode "all other cases" is not right. {me'i} for example (which is {naku ro}) follows the ro pattern. {so'e} won't work either, saying that most things that broda are brode is not the same as saying that most things are broda&brode. {so'e} follows neither pattern. What we want is: [PA] sumti poi broda = [PA] lo ge me sumti gi broda which is not grammatical. We can either use {gu'e}/{je} and define {gu'e}/{je} the way one would expect, or use poi'i: [PA] sumti poi broda = [PA] lo poi'i ce'u ge me sumti gi broda > voi | voi clause| poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause Instead of clause: {voi ke'a broda}, {ka ce'u broda} > vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn geks that encode > cn | s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o relative | gek-cn ... > gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi s2 relative gi ... gi sn > relative That only works for distributive relative clauses. It won't work for example for {ko'a ku'a ko'e vu'o noi ko'i cmima ke'a}. > xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned goi; what did > you mean exactly? zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau (not a conversion formula.) mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:53:00PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | > > sumti ga nai broda gi brode > > > > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti > > ge broda gi brode > > "all other cases" is not right. {me'i} for example (which is {naku > ro}) follows the ro pattern. {so'e} won't work either, saying that > most things that broda are brode is not the same as saying that > most things are broda&brode. {so'e} follows neither pattern. Grrrrr. (not at you) > What we want is: > > [PA] sumti poi broda = [PA] lo ge me sumti gi broda > > which is not grammatical. nod Think we could pull any tricks with sei ... se'u? > We can either use {gu'e}/{je} and define {gu'e}/{je} the way one > would expect, How are they defined now? > > voi | voi clause| poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause > > Instead of clause: {voi ke'a broda}, {ka ce'u broda} OK. > > vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn > > geks that encode cn | s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o > > relative | gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi > > s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative > > That only works for distributive relative clauses. It won't work > for example for {ko'a ku'a ko'e vu'o noi ko'i cmima ke'a}. Other ideas? > > xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned > > goi; what did you mean exactly? > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau > (not a conversion formula.) What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes it a conversion formula, doesn't it? -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:36 GMT posts: 1912 > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode to da poi nei > cu broda toi Actually, I will complain about this one. {da} is a singular variable, so it won't always hold the required values in the right way. But if the to-toi business doesn't bother you, then I suggest: sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri broda toi > poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ga > nai broda gi brode > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti ge broda gi > brode After checking CLL, I see that it does say that {broda je brode} = {broda gi'e brode} when it is not modifying something else, so {poi} is actually easy: [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > zi'e + noi | sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 | > sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > zi'e + poi | sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 | > sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 > > Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first, but so what? > Combos with zi'e are not well defined, as before. Once we have working definitions for noi and poi, mixed zi'e combos are easy: [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to rixire brode toi (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, otherwise fix the subscript) sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode | lo me sumti to ri broda toi je brode PA sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode | undefined mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:36 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode > > to da poi nei cu broda toi > > Actually, I will complain about this one. I'm going to fucking kill you. > {da} is a singular variable, so it won't always hold the required > values in the right way. But if the to-toi business doesn't bother > you, then I suggest: > > sumti noi ke'a broda | sumti to ri broda toi Excellent. > > poi + ro quantified sumti | sumti poi broda gi brode | > > sumti ga nai broda gi brode > > poi, all other cases | sumti poi broda gi brode | sumti > > ge broda gi brode > > After checking CLL, I see that it does say that {broda je brode} = > {broda gi'e brode} when it is not modifying something else, so > {poi} is actually easy: > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda But recursive, I'm pretty sure. I don't have time to check now. Note that this doesn't work if sumti is ko'a. Assuming it is recursive, it'll get seperated out with a note that poi is really irreducible, but this is how it works. I'll go over your zi'e stuff later. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:37 GMT posts: 1912 > > > vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn > > > geks that encode cn | s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o > > > relative | gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi > > > s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative > > > > That only works for distributive relative clauses. It won't work > > for example for {ko'a ku'a ko'e vu'o noi ko'i cmima ke'a}. > > Other ideas? Maybe: sumti vu'o relative-clauses | lo me sumti me'u ku relative-clauses > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau > > (not a conversion formula.) > > What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes it a > conversion formula, doesn't it? That could work. In that case make sure the selbri is last: {sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa} mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:37 GMT posts: 1912 > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > But recursive, I'm pretty sure. I don't have time to check now. All right, but at least you can get everything in terms of {da poi}, which is easier than {sumti poi}. > Note that this doesn't work if sumti is ko'a. Why not? PA ko'a poi broda = PA lo me ko'a je broda what's the problem? > Assuming it is recursive, it'll get seperated out with a note that > poi is really irreducible, but this is how it works. You can say that the irreducible part is {PA da poi broda}, which is actually reducible but not with the same general formula for all PA. 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
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:37 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > pc: > > > PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 > > > > Just to see if I get it. Apparently I don't. > > PA da broda > > Qx: xF > > (nothing is said here about whether x is > singular > > or plural or whether Qx has some internal > > structure.) > > The way I unerstand it, {da} is a singular > variable, and outer > quantifiers are always distributive. I'm not > sure what you mean > by internal structure. The referents of da are > any thing that > counts as a (single) thing in the given > context. I did leave that open (though the plural case is the more general and does not always require {pamei} stuck in — in fact seem to rather rarely in the cases I have worked through.) > I am not completely opposed in principle to > making da > a plural variable, but I don't see that change > at this point > as an advantage. We often do want singular > variables (we could > of course say {da poi pamei} every time we > wanted one, but > that may be too wordy for such a frequent use). > Since we can > handle plurality by other means, I'm just not > persuaded we > need to follow McKay's program all the way. What other means do we have to handle plurality in a clear way? > > PA da poi broda cu brode > > Qx: xF xG > > (~Qx: xF xG is QÂ’x: xF ~xG, where QÂ’ is > the > > complement of Q – insert table here) > > That looks like the dual rather than the > complement, > but this might be a matter of terminology. For > me, the complement > of PA is da'aPA, so for example {ro} and {no} > are complementary, > as are {su'o} and {me'i}. {ro} is the dual of > {su'o}, and > {no} the dual of {me'i}. Yes this is just terminology, our lists are the same. > > PA da noi broda cu brode > > Qx: xG & xF > > (~(xF & xG) is ~xF & xG – and so on). > > I can't really say I understand the logic of > the bracket operator. In this case it should > expand to: > > Qx: xG & [Ax: xG] xF Huh? Whence the universal? The original seems to say that something brode and btw it broda. If you mean that {PA da broda} means "the broda are Q in number" (without prejudicing what that means), then I think you are right, but the universal is then part of the main main content: Ex: xG & Ay: yG xAx & xF > > L broda cu brode > > Ex: xF xG > > That would be correct for {su'o broda cu > brode}. > If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG > where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant. Whoa, Nelly! Whence this notion (other than still reading your peculiar definitions in xorlo). At least {lo/loi} is not that but rather a quantification over broda — maybe an odd quantification, but nothing has been done yet to deal with that possibility. We have not preselected lo broda, they are selected by meeting the criterion stated. This makes your comments on the rest of these not at all helpful, since they are off on the wrong foot. But they do seem to approve the patterns, if not the content, so maybe I have got it after all. > > L broda poi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xF & xG xH > > That would be {su'o broda poi brode cu brodi} > > > L broda noi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xF xH & xG > > su'o broda noi brode cu brodi > [Ex: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG This mess is arguing for plural quantification more elegantly than I ever could. > > > L PA broda cu brode > > Qx: xF xG > > (where Q is the quantifier that matches PA) > > That one would be: > aG & aQ > (where Q is the predicate PAmei) And so we have plural constants (and therefore variable smuggled in anyhow. Except of course that at least for {lo} there is no constant here. > > L PA broda poi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xF & xG xH > > That's {PA broda poi brode cu brodi}, without > L. Yes, it probably is, but it also seems to be what your rules require here. Note that {x PAmei} is one of the things that "the structure of "Qx"" might mean. > > L PA broda noi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xF xH & xG > > PA broda noi brode cu brodi > [Qx: xF] xH & [Ax: xF & xH] xG > > > L PA broda ku poi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xFEy: yG & yAx Hy > > (the structure of “yAx” is not dealt with but > it > > means that whatever y stands for is something > > that x also stands for) > > > > L PA broda ku noi brode cu brodi > > Qx: xF xH & xG > > (this one looks suspect, since it is the same > as > > one above, but it seems to follow from the > rules) > > When there is no outer quantifier, inner/outer > makes no > difference for noi, that's right. This is > because noi acts > after the quantifier. > > Conversely, when there is no inner quantifier, > inner/outer > makes no difference for poi, which acts before > the quantifier. > > > PA L broda cu brode > > Ex: xFQy: yAx yG > > [Qx: xAa] xG > > > PA L broda poi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xF & xGQy: yAx xH > This surely should have ended "yH" > Also: > [Qx: xAa] xG and this too, if I understand what it is meant to do > > PA L broda ku poi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xFQy: yAx & yG yH > > [Qx: xAa & xG] xH > > > PA L broda noi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & xG > > [Qx: xAa] xH & aG > > > PA L broda ku noi brode cu brodi > > Ex: xFQy: yAx yH & yG > > [Qx: xAa] xH & [Ax: xAa & xH] xG > > mu'o mi'e xorxes Of course, in {lo} and {la}, as noted, the quantifier is outside the scope and so the form with a constant — or an unbound variable — is somewhat more accurate, but that change is constant and so the formulae can be used and thus make {lo} fit the same pattern. For the others, you can replace "Qx:Fx" with "Fx &" if you like that format better.
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > What other means do we have to handle plurality > in a clear way? All constants can be plural, it's only {da} that is singular. > > > L broda cu brode > > > Ex: xF xG > > > > That would be correct for {su'o broda cu > > brode}. > > If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG > > where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant. > > Whoa, Nelly! Whence this notion (other than > still reading your peculiar definitions in > xorlo). I am following those definitions, of course. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > pc: > > What other means do we have to handle > plurality > > in a clear way? > > All constants can be plural, it's only {da} > that is singular. No can do: if the constants are plural, so must the variables be (and contrapositively). > > > > > L broda cu brode > > > > Ex: xF xG > > > > > > That would be correct for {su'o broda cu > > > brode}. > > > If L is a gadri, then it should just be: aG > > > where 'a' is a (possibly plural) constant. > > > > Whoa, Nelly! Whence this notion (other than > > still reading your peculiar definitions in > > xorlo). > > I am following those definitions, of course. > Why of course? I expect you to do things right.
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > > All constants can be plural, it's only {da} > > that is singular. > > No can do: if the constants are plural, so must > the variables be (and contrapositively). Can you explain why it cannot be done? I haven't run into any problems so far. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > pc: > > > All constants can be plural, it's only {da} > > > that is singular. > > > > No can do: if the constants are plural, so > must > > the variables be (and contrapositively). > > Can you explain why it cannot be done? I > haven't run > into any problems so far. I suspect you haven't run into any problems so far because one of your claims is wrong:either your variables are plural or your constants singular. The basic reason it won't work is simply that every constant entails a particular generalization and every universal entail an instance to every constant. A plural constant would not entail an individual generalization (under what I take you to think is the difference) and even more so, a singular universal would not entail a plural instance. I suspect you are operating with some special sense of singular and plural quantification, but I can't quite formulate it. As McKay does it there is barely a noticeable difference in the object language, though quite a bit in the metalanguage — but we are dealing in the object language now.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > PA da poi broda cu brode > Qx: xF xG > (~Qx: xF xG is Q’x: xF ~xG, where Q’ is the > complement of Q – insert table here) Wrong, wrong, wrongdidy wrong-wrong! Ther are two choices "~Qx:xF xG" comes down directly to "Q'x: xF xG," where Q' is the contradictory of Q (see list). Then, if importing conditions are satisfied (which varies with Q, but is basically that there are Fs), to "Qdx: xF~xG," Qd is the dual of Q (typically the obverse of the contradictory, but see list). xorxes has provided this list a couple of times but I can't find it immediately. The most common ones are {ro}, {ro}'={me'iro} {ro}d={su'o} and {su'o}, {su'o}'={no}, {su'o}d={ro}
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:38 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > After checking CLL, I see that it does say that > {broda je brode} = {broda gi'e brode} when it is not modifying > something else, so {poi} is actually easy: > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda Why not just [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda ? Hmm. I notice you've got the reduction: PA broda == PA lo broda Boy, I sure liked the PA da poi broda version a *lot* better. Was there something wrong with it? -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912 > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > Why not just > > [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda > > ? That's what it amounts to when there is a PA. But when there is no PA, you do need {lo}. > Hmm. I notice you've got the reduction: > > PA broda == PA lo broda > > Boy, I sure liked the PA da poi broda version a *lot* better. Was > there something wrong with it? They are equivalent. This way of presenting it is more in tune with the definition: "when there is an outer quantifier and no inner quantifier, {lo} can be omitted". But coupled with PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti you get the other. 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
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > A plural constant > would not entail an individual generalization > (under what I take you to think is the > difference) Right. > and even more so, a singular > universal would not entail a plural instance. It does not entail every plural instance, right. It just entails every singular instance. So, for example: ro bidju cu grake li 100 Each bead weighs 100 grams. only entails single instaces of beads weighing 100 grams. > I suspect you are operating with some special > sense of singular and plural quantification, but > I can't quite formulate it. I operate with singular quantification only, the usual one. McKay's plural quantification is achieved by way of inner 'quantifiers': lo PA broda = lo broda je klani be li PA > As McKay does it > there is barely a noticeable difference in the > object language, though quite a bit in the > metalanguage — but we are dealing in the object > language now. McKay's quantifiers are rather different from Lojban's usual outer quantifiers though. For example, he doesn't define pa such that pa da broda = su'o da broda ije ro de go broda gi du da and so on for re, ci, vo, etc. In other words, his {pa} is compatible with {re}, Lojban's {pa} and {re} are not compatible. Then there is the issue of the two potential assignments to {ro} if we went with plural quantifiers. Since we can already do what is needed with inner quantifiers, and keeping outer quantifiers singular is often useful, I don't see a pressing need to convert to plural outer quantifiers. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:50:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > > > Why not just > > > > [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda > > > > ? > > That's what it amounts to when there is a PA. But when there is no > PA, you do need {lo}. Would you have any problem with: [PA] da poi gu'e me sumti gi broda ? Then we can define [PA] da poi broda == [PA] da zo'u da broda, or so. Or leave it irreducable. -Robin
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 2388 Well, I agree that there is no pressing need to change, but on the other hand, there is no easy way to tell which is which except possibly in the case of exact numeric quantifiers (and even there the differnce can be used to advantage by separating local from global quantification), which is a rather handy thing to do — and which internal v. external quantification does not quite do (although internal v. variable quantification pretty nearly does). As fpor the problems, about {ro}, we have one of them already in the issue of import, and the other one seems to be a pseudo problem, since there is a single formula that covers both situation at issue. But again, while there are practical advantages to using plural quantification, there is no real need and we have managed without any number of other practically advantageous reinterpretations of Lojban. I do think the distributive-nondistributive-noncumulative contrasts need some thoughtful application in Lojban, however, since much of that material is already present (as is plural quantification for that matter). wrote: > > pc: > > A plural constant > > would not entail an individual generalization > > (under what I take you to think is the > > difference) > > Right. > > > and even more so, a singular > > universal would not entail a plural instance. > > It does not entail every plural instance, > right. > It just entails every singular instance. > So, for example: > > ro bidju cu grake li 100 > Each bead weighs 100 grams. > > only entails single instaces of beads weighing > 100 grams. > > > I suspect you are operating with some special > > sense of singular and plural quantification, > but > > I can't quite formulate it. > > I operate with singular quantification only, > the usual one. > McKay's plural quantification is achieved by > way of > inner 'quantifiers': > > lo PA broda = lo broda je klani be li PA > > > As McKay does it > > there is barely a noticeable difference in > the > > object language, though quite a bit in the > > metalanguage — but we are dealing in the > object > > language now. > > McKay's quantifiers are rather different from > Lojban's usual > outer quantifiers though. For example, he > doesn't define pa > such that > > pa da broda = su'o da broda ije ro de go broda > gi du da > > and so on for re, ci, vo, etc. In other words, > his {pa} > is compatible with {re}, Lojban's {pa} and {re} > are not > compatible. > > Then there is the issue of the two potential > assignments > to {ro} if we went with plural quantifiers. > > Since we can already do what is needed with > inner quantifiers, > and keeping outer quantifiers singular is often > useful, I don't > see a pressing need to convert to plural outer > quantifiers. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB > messages! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > >
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 1912 > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:50:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo me sumti je broda > > > Why not just > > > [PA] gu'e me sumti gi broda > > > ? > > That's what it amounts to when there is a PA. But when there is no > > PA, you do need {lo}. > > Would you have any problem with: > > [PA] da poi gu'e me sumti gi broda > > ? In that case, you don't need to go with the tanru connectives. I don't have a problem with: PA sumti poi broda | PA da poi ge me sumti gi broda The version without the quantifier may not work. I don't know yet what an unquantified {da} is. But for sumti without an outer quantifier, we have: sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je broda which is not recursive. > Then we can define [PA] da poi broda == [PA] da zo'u da broda, or > so. No, that doen't work. {PA da poi broda} basically says that the things that satisfy (individually) the bridi that this expression is in are (exactly) PA of the brodas. {PA da zo'u da broda} says that (exactly) PA things are broda, which is not even part of what the other says. > Or leave it irreducable. We can reduce it for specific quantifiers: su'o da poi broda cu brode | su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode and many quantifiers (the non-proportional ones) will follow the su'o pattern, but in general each quantifier must be considered separately. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > We can reduce it for specific quantifiers: > > ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u ganai da > broda gi da brode > .. > Well,except, of course, if there are no broda, in which case this expansion is true and the original false. Another case where McKay's technique of getting those quantifiers out of dominant position makes life simpler.
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:56:42AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > The version without the quantifier may not work. I don't know yet > what an unquantified {da} is. But for sumti without an outer > quantifier, we have: > > sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je broda > > which is not recursive. For unquantified sumti, can't we just use ge sumti broda gi sumti brode or similar? > > Or leave it irreducable. > > We can reduce it for specific quantifiers: > > su'o da poi broda cu brode | su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode > > ro da poi broda cu brode | ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode > > and many quantifiers (the non-proportional ones) will follow the > su'o pattern, but in general each quantifier must be considered > separately. <nod> -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:17:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: vu'o > sumti vu'o relative-clauses > | lo me sumti me'u ku relative-clauses That works. Again, lo adds complexity I don't like, but I don't see an easier way. > > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau (not a > > > conversion formula.) > > > > What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes it > > a conversion formula, doesn't it? > > That could work. In that case make sure the selbri is last: > {sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa} Define snikansa, please. Preferrably in jbovlaste. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Once we have working definitions for noi and poi, mixed zi'e combos are easy: > > [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode > | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to rixire brode toi > > (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, otherwise fix the subscript) umm, which sumti do we want? The outer "lo me"? -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 1912 > > > > sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je broda > > For unquantified sumti, can't we just use > > ge sumti broda gi sumti brode > > or similar? No. {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda gi do brode}, It's "those of you who broda, brode". mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 1912 > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Once we have working definitions for noi and poi, mixed zi'e combos are > easy: > > > > [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode > > | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to rixire brode toi > > > > (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, otherwise fix the subscript) > > umm, which sumti do we want? The outer "lo me"? Yes, and including PA when it's there. Of course a general sumti can contain other sumti inside, so we don't really know which {ri xi} we will need in general. Better use {ri xi rau}. (In fact, the same applies to the simple noi formula.) mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > > > > > > sumti poi broda | lo me sumti je > broda > > > > For unquantified sumti, can't we just use > > > > ge sumti broda gi sumti brode > > > > or similar? > > No. {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda > gi do brode}, > It's "those of you who broda, brode". > ?{ro do ganai broda gi brode}?
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:36:28PM -0700, > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Once we have working definitions for noi > and poi, mixed zi'e combos are > > easy: > > > > > > [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi > ke'a brode > > > | [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to > rixire brode toi > > > > > > (assuming rixire gets to the sumti we want, > otherwise fix the subscript) > > > > umm, which sumti do we want? The outer "lo > me"? > > Yes, and including PA when it's there. Of > course a general sumti > can contain other sumti inside, so we don't > really know which {ri xi} > we will need in general. Better use {ri xi > rau}. > > (In fact, the same applies to the simple noi > formula.) > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to me to yield almost unintelligible results if sumti is anything with structure itself. Are there rules for modifying these definitions when used in conjunction? Or am I missing something about the way that {me} is to be used?
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > --- Jorge LlambÃas wrote: > > > {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda > > gi do brode}, > > It's "those of you who broda, brode". > > > ?{ro do ganai broda gi brode}? No, it need not be distributive. {do poi broda} = {lo me do je broda} mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to me to > yield almost unintelligible results if sumti > is anything with structure itself. Are there > rules for modifying these definitions when used > in conjunction? Or am I missing something about > the way that {me} is to be used? {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place structure "x1 is/are among sumti". mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388 I don't know about recursive, but these definitions are getting more and more nearly circular. I also do not quite see why the formula I suggested is distributive. If we have plural quantification and {broda} is collective, then onnly collections will satisfy it. To be sure, if {broda} is distributive and {brode} collective, the whole becomes false, as it does also if we are using singular quantifiers. But in that case, the original is suspect as well. As it stands, your proposal to define {do poi} in terms of {lo}and {me} seems equally subject to these problems (even if you had a sensible reading of {lo}): if {broda} is distributive and {brode} is not, then {lo} becomes distributive and so does not fit {brode} (all assuming, of course, that we have distributive and collective somehow worked out, which we clearly do not). wrote: > > pc: > > --- Jorge LlambÃas wrote: > > > > > {do poi broda cu brode} is not {ge do broda > > > gi do brode}, > > > It's "those of you who broda, brode". > > > > > ?{ro do ganai broda gi brode}? > > No, it need not be distributive. > > {do poi broda} = {lo me do je broda} > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. > We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > >
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 2388 Well, that is at least dubious, the more so since we are supposedly still working with only singular terms. "sumti" then does not refer to several things but to a single entity of whatever sort is required — set group or something more informal. And amongness does not apply — though there are related notions, all the jest' except identity: membership, and inclusion and part, I suppose. {me} is officially defined in terms of instances, another — and more unlikely --relation. A lot of this would be OK eventually, I think, but we don't yet have the agreed on underlying structures to make it work. And, as noted elsewhere, just assuming they are in place is at best a first step in getting them there. wrote: > > pc: > > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to > me to > > yield almost unintelligible results if > sumti > > is anything with structure itself. Are there > > rules for modifying these definitions when > used > > in conjunction? Or am I missing something > about > > the way that {me} is to be used? > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me > sumti} > has place structure "x1 is/are among > sumti". >
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 1912 (on 'me' as 'among') pc: > Well, that is at least dubious, the more so since > we are supposedly still working with only > singular terms. We are obviously on different pages here. As I see it: All terms without outer quantifiers are plural constants. (Some of them can refer to single individuals, including sets and now loi-groups, but in general they are plural terms.) All outer quantifiers are singular quantifiers (piPA quantifiers might be an exception to this, I still have to see how that will work out with reified loi's, but the standard outer quantifiers are singular). mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > (on 'me' as 'among') > pc: > > Well, that is at least dubious, the more so > since > > we are supposedly still working with only > > singular terms. > > We are obviously on different pages here. > As I see it: Well, there is not yet a page to be on, but we certainly seem to have different suggestions about what should be on that page. > > * All terms without outer quantifiers are > plural constants. > (Some of them can refer to single individuals, > including > sets and now loi-groups, but in general they > are plural terms.) As noted, plural constants require plural variables. Also, it is odd to call something like {lo broda} a constant — it changes under quantification and negation (I know you say it doesn't but that is just part of the craziness of your system) and what it refers to is entirely context dependent (that is, comes from an assignment not an interpretation in metalinguistic terms — it is even calculated from that assignment, not given by it). Why "and now plural groups" — these ({loi} descriptions) have always been around and officially singular. It is, indeed, to do away with these strange critters that plural quantification comes to be appealing. Of couse, it turns out not to do away with them completely, but the residue seem mainly to be handleable without {loi}. > > * All outer quantifiers are singular > quantifiers (piPA > quantifiers might be an exception to this, I > still have > to see how that will work out with reified > loi's, but the > standard outer quantifiers are singular). That is to say, "distributive" in your pickwickian sense. It is not clear to me why -- that special use aside — singularity is so much to be stressed (but then I have never understiood your point about needing singular variables, since I don't see what they can say that plural ones cannot with approximately equal efficiency) (My personal preference — as has turned up several times — is to make {piPA} just more proportional quantifiers, working with the actual size of sets (I mean external quantifiers here, of course; what {piPA} might mean internally is rougher to say, though presumably paroportions of the totality of broda).
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 08:10:11AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote: > I don't know about recursive, but these definitions are getting > more and more nearly circular. Same thing in this case. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:56:21AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > pc: > > Trying to apply this to real cases seems to me to yield almost > > unintelligible results if sumti is anything with structure > > itself. Are there rules for modifying these definitions when > > used in conjunction? Or am I missing something about the way > > that {me} is to be used? > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". Ummm, not yet it's not. I don't think that the way you're using {me} for your suggestions for the subordinator definitions *relies* on this behaviour, but if it does then I need to know. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 1912 > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > Ummm, not yet it's not. What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway. > I don't think that the way you're using > {me} for your suggestions for the subordinator definitions *relies* > on this behaviour, but if it does then I need to know. Well, if it means something else, then the definitions won't mean what they are intended to mean. What do you say {me} means? mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > > > Ummm, not yet it's not. > > What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway. The current definition is: me ME sumti to selbri convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2 Among other things, this has a place that your version doesn't -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:34:01AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > > > > > Ummm, not yet it's not. > > > > What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway. > > The current definition is: > > me ME sumti to selbri > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2 > > Among other things, this has a place that your version doesn't And it completely disagrees with what's in the CLL: x1 is one of the referents of the sumti /me puts his head in his hands and cries. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 1912 > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > {me} is McKay's "Among" relationship. {me sumti} has place > > > > structure "x1 is/are among sumti". > > > > > > Ummm, not yet it's not. > > > > What is it then? That's CLL's meaning anyway. > > The current definition is: > > me ME sumti to selbri > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2 > > Among other things, this has a place that your version doesn't That's the old definition, before CLL. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:44:28PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:17:39PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > zo ko'a zo ko'e kansa lo ka ce'u co'a sinxa makau (not a > > > > conversion formula.) > > > > > > What about putting that in a sei ... se'u clause? That makes > > > it a conversion formula, doesn't it? > > > > That could work. In that case make sure the selbri is last: {sei > > zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa} > > Define snikansa, please. Preferrably in jbovlaste. This is all that I'm waiting on. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > As noted, plural constants require plural > variables. If plural variables are essential, we can introduce a new series: {da'oi}, {de'oi}, {di'oi} or some such. I'm not sure I see the need at this point. > Why "and now plural groups" — these ({loi} > descriptions) have always been around and > officially singular. "Now" in the proposed definitions. Up until now I had {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not reified. > It is not clear to me why -- > that special use aside — singularity is so much > to be stressed (but then I have never understiood > your point about needing singular variables, > since I don't see what they can say that plural > ones cannot with approximately equal efficiency) It's not so much needing them as maintaining them, that's what we have always had. How do you interpret: ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu grake li panono with plural quantification, for example? Do they each weigh 100 grams, or all together? mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 1912 > > > > {sei > > > zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snikansa} > > > > Define snikansa, please. Preferrably in jbovlaste. > > This is all that I'm waiting on. I think {snidu'i} will work better: snidu'i: x1 dunli x2 lo ka ce'u sinxa makau I just added it to jbovlaste. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > The current definition is: > > me ME sumti to selbri > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti in aspect x2 This was a late change that made it into CLL but not the cmavo list for whatever reason. Randall Holmes convinced JCB to make the same change to Loglan _me_, and we changed to conform. Loglan later added _mea_ in the old sense, but I wasn't convinced that a separate element was needed. The classical example is "me la kraislr. karce", which is a tanru and thus subject to flexible interpretation: it could mean "a Chrysler" or simply "Walter Chrysler's car". -- 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
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:32:31PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > The current definition is: > > > > me ME sumti to selbri > > > > convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific to sumti > > in aspect x2 > > This was a late change that made it into CLL but not the cmavo > list for whatever reason. By "This" you mean the change to the current CLL form, which has only one place and agrees with xorxes' interpretation, correct? -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 14214 OK, this is my latest version. Speak now, or ze'e jgari le do spisa. noi sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode sumti cu brode to ri xi rau broda toi poi + PA sumti PA sumti poi broda PA da poi ge me sumti gi broda poi + sumti (no PA) sumti poi broda lo me sumti je broda poi + ro da ro da poi broda cu brode ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode poi + su'o da su'o da poi broda cu brode su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode voi voi ke'a broda poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u broda ne ne sumti noi ke'a srana sumti pe pe sumti poi ke'a srana sumti no'u no'u sumti noi ke'a du sumti po'u po'u sumti poi ke'a du sumti po po sumti poi sumti cu traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a po'e po'e sumti poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana sumti vu'o sumti vu'o relative-clauses lo me sumti me'u ku relative-clauses goi, ko'a unassigned ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned ko'a goi ko'e ko'a du ko'e goi, both assigned ko'a goi ko'e sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u zi'e + noi sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + poi sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + PA poi + noi [PA] sumti poi ke'a broda zi'e noi ke'a brode, [PA] lo me sumti je broda ku to ri xi rau brode toi zi'e + noi + poi sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode lo me sumti to ri broda toi je brode zi'e + PA noi + poi PA sumti noi ke'a broda zi'e poi ke'a brode undefined It is possible to build conversion formulas for "PA da poi", for each PA, but many of those formula will be different from each ot her. The two given here are representative, and are the two important ones. Others should be handled on a case-by-case basis, or j ust considered irreducable, as necessary. Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first. The zi'e expansions are not generalized to more than two links, b ut it shouldn't be hard to figure out. The "ri xi rau" in "zi'e + PA poi + noi" is intended to count back to the outer "lo me". The "ri xi rau" in "noi" is intended to count back to the preceding sumti. The definitions with "me" in them rely on CLL-style "me" being selected by the BPFK (in particular, over ma'oste-style "me"). Any other choice will require revisiting of those definitions. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 1912 > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode to ri xi rau > broda toi You don't really need to include {cu brode} here. It's more general without it. > goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | ko'a du ko'e > goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u This one was suppposed to replace ko'a du ko'e. 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
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:45 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > This was a late change that made it into CLL but not the cmavo > > list for whatever reason. > > By "This" you mean the change to the current CLL form, which has > only one place and agrees with xorxes' interpretation, correct? Yes. -- Babies are born as a result of the John Cowan mating between men and women, and most http://www.reutershealth.com men and women enjoy mating. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Isaac Asimov in Earth: Our Crowded Spaceship jcowan@reutershealth.com
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:22:14PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > || noi | sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode | sumti cu brode > > to ri xi rau broda toi > > You don't really need to include {cu brode} here. It's more > general without it. Agreed. > > goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | ko'a du ko'e > > goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u > > This one was suppposed to replace ko'a du ko'e. Oh. How's this: goi, ko'a unassigned | ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a se'u -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:45 GMT posts: 1912 > Oh. How's this: > > goi, ko'a unassigned | ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti > noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > goi, both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a snidu'i se'u > goi, both assigned | ko'a goi ko'e | sei zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a se'u Looks fine, though the last two really should be marked as weird and to be avoided. mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:58 GMT posts: 2388 <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 08:10:11AM -0700, John > E Clifford wrote: > > I don't know about recursive, but these > definitions are getting > > more and more nearly circular. > > Same thing in this case. Ah yes, the Lojban (ex Loglan) freedom with words: recursive means that each next step involves using the earlier ones, so an analysis keeps coming back to what looks like the same thing to same thing to analyze, circular means that it comes back to exactly the same thing. I suppose one slips into the other when it becomes clear that the downward analytical loop does not end.
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > pc: > > As noted, plural constants require plural > > variables. > > If plural variables are essential, we can > introduce > a new series: {da'oi}, {de'oi}, {di'oi} or some > such. > I'm not sure I see the need at this point. So you can have plural constants. And once plural variables are introduced they take over, since they behave just like singular ones but have a wider range of applications. > > Why "and now plural groups" — these ({loi} > > descriptions) have always been around and > > officially singular. > > "Now" in the proposed definitions. Up until now > I had > {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not > reified. And now you have them reified? Not the best choice I think. If you haave plurals at all, then the need for reified plurals fades to miniscule, while the need to distinguish distributive from collective predicate places arises — and {loi} is already doing the work of sumti in collective places. > > It is not clear to me why -- > > that special use aside — singularity is so > much > > to be stressed (but then I have never > understiood > > your point about needing singular variables, > > since I don't see what they can say that > plural > > ones cannot with approximately equal > efficiency) > > It's not so much needing them as maintaining > them, > that's what we have always had. > > How do you interpret: > > ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu grake > li panono Well I take distributive as default, so I take it that each weighs 100 gr; collective would need a mark for me, since {grake} is inspecific > with plural quantification, for example? Do > they each weigh > 100 grams, or all together? I don't see what plural quantification has to do with this; it forces neither distributive nor collective reading. It just gets more items in place for the same amount of grammatical work. The distributive reading is, as I say, conventional but could be treated explicitly (as soon as we had explicit flags). The beads are the same beads (and "is a bead" is almost certainly always distributive) either way — and the same as they would be with singular quantification (though with singular quantification getting the collective reading for {grake} would be a bit harder).
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 1912 pc: > --- Jorge LlambÃas wrote: > > Up until now > > I had > > {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not > > reified. > > And now you have them reified? Yes. John likes it better that way and I don't mind. I'm willing to go with John's view on loi/lei/lo'i/le'i/lai/la'i/lo'e/le'e. I think they're all superfluous anyway. lo/le/la is all I need. > > How do you interpret: > > > > ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu grake > > li panono > > Well I take distributive as default, so I take it > that each weighs 100 gr; collective would need a > mark for me, since {grake} is inspecific A new cmavo? In which selma'o? What grammar would it have? mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 2388 wrote: > > pc: > > --- Jorge LlambÃas wrote: > > > Up until now > > > I had > > > {loi} as non-distributive plural, but not > > > reified. > > > > And now you have them reified? > > Yes. John likes it better that way and I don't > mind. I'm willing > to go with John's view on > loi/lei/lo'i/le'i/lai/la'i/lo'e/le'e. I > think they're all superfluous anyway. lo/le/la > is all I need. Well, as I say, somewhere we have to do distributive-collective and, since {lei} is already close to that, this seems a natural place to go. But OK leave them reified (weren't they always?) but give us some sense of the logic of these reified collectives (Lesniewski is a natural place to start). > > > How do you interpret: > > > > > > ro da poi bidju gi'e cpana le jubme cu > grake > > > li panono > > > > Well I take distributive as default, so I > take it > > that each weighs 100 gr; collective would > need a > > mark for me, since {grake} is inspecific > > A new cmavo? In which selma'o? What grammar > would it have? I confess I only see the need, I have not figured out how to implement it — which is why I try to do as much as possible by conventions or with the {lo}--{loi} contrast. Since they have to go (at least potentially) in almost every predicate place I see them as being something closely related to quantifiers (which makes your use of quantifiers themselves rather appealing except that I like the original quantifer use better)or to end-of-sumti markers (but in front is better because it eliminates so many scope problems), something that goes on every sumti.
Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 152 On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 07:50:45PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Boy, I sure liked the PA da poi broda version a *lot* better. Was > > there something wrong with it? > > They are equivalent. This way of presenting it is more in tune > with the definition: "when there is an outer quantifier and no > inner quantifier, {lo} can be omitted". But coupled with > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti you get the other. Thanks - I happen to like this a lot better than the version where the equivalence was not obvious. -- Rob Speer
Posted by rlpowell on Wed 10 of Nov, 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:01:42AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a > | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: > > | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what > happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it > happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative. Agreed. Added to the other two cases as well. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Wed 10 of Nov, 2004 05:17 GMT posts: 1912 > > It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: > > > > | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > > > {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what > > happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it > > happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative. > > Agreed. Added to the other two cases as well. Perhaps even better is: | sumti noi ca'e ko'a du ke'a which is I believe very close to what you had originally. This is almost the same as {no'u}, the difference being that whereas {no'u} is a _claim_ of identity, {goi} is a definition. In other words, {goi} = {no'u ca'e} mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 12 of Nov, 2004 10:41 GMT posts: 14214 On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:34:50PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: > > > > > > | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a > > > > > > {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what > > > happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it happen. > > > {goi} really corresponds to a performative. > > > > Agreed. Added to the other two cases as well. > > Perhaps even better is: > > | sumti noi ca'e ko'a du ke'a > > which is I believe very close to what you had originally. The irony is palpable. > This is almost the same as {no'u}, the difference being that > whereas {no'u} is a _claim_ of identity, {goi} is a definition. > > In other words, {goi} = {no'u ca'e} Fair enough. Changed. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:40 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators This will probably come as no surprise, but in most cases I drew one example from the CLL, one from Alice, and one or more from IRC, because that's what was convenient for me at the time. Except po. po occurs *nowhere* in Alice. I find this bizarre enough to be worth pointing out. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:47 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > (which means it sometimes must be terminated with ku'o, the > NOI selma'o terminator, or vau, the general bridi terminator, > particularily if one wishes to add another sumti to the outer bridi). I'm not sure {vau} has to be mentioned here, as it is not a safe relative clause terminator like {ku'o}. For example {noi ge broda gi brode} is not terminated with {vau}. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:47 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Holy christ on a crutch. The reason that ge'u is so amazingly under-utilized (only two examples in all of IRC, the CLL and Alice, both from Alice) is that apparently no-one but xorxes noticed that: {ko'a po da ge'u .e ko'e} means something completely different from {ko'a po da .e ko'e} Specifically, the former is "da's ko'a, and ko'e", but the second is "da's ko'a and ko'e". -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:48 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Two things: 1. I'm done, as far as I know. 2. goi does not appear in Alice, which I find odd. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:50 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Just so everybody knows, all the wrinkles have, so far as I know, been ironed out. I picked a skicu-based form of "noi". Please vote now, or explain any further issues you see. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:50 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators Consider a description sumti with relative clauses in all possible places: PA1 LE rel3 PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 rel3 can be merged with rel1, by definition. Then the without loss of generality, we can just consider: PA1 LE PA2 selbri rel2 ku rel1 PA1: outer quantifier PA2: inner quantifier rel1: outer relative clause rel2: inner relative clause Now, there are just two rules to follow. Rule 1: The inner level acts before the outer level. Rule 2: At the same level, the order is poi - PA - noi poi acts before PA because poi restricts the domain over which the quantifier will act. noi acts after PA because it gives additional info about just those referents counted by the quantifier. Then, for noi clauses, rel2 gives additional info about the referents of {LE PA2 selbri}, and rel1 about the PA1 of those that satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. For poi clauses, rel2 restricts the domain which PA2 counts, i.e. PA2 is the number of referents of {LE selbri rel2 ku}. rel1 selects from those the ones that satisfy the clause, and PA1 counts how many from the restricted set satisfy the bridi in which the sumti appears. When the relative clause includes a poi and a noi, in that order (i.e. poi ... zi'e noi ...) there is no problem in following the above rules. When the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is no PA at the same level, again there is no problem, as the noi simply acts on all referents before the poi restriction. However, when the order is {noi ... zi'e poi ...} and there is a PA at the same level, we are in trouble, because now we have conflicting rules: poi has to act before PA, PA has to act before noi, and (because of their order) noi has to act before poi. Unless we want to say that order does not matter in zi'e connected clauses, and poi always acts before noi. If so, some things will sound counter-intuitive. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:52 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators True conversion formulas for goi: goi ko'a | noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a ko'a goi sumti | sumti vu'o noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a Those work for normal uses of goi, where one and just one of the sumti involved is an unassigned assignable variable. (Although co'a is not strictly what is wanted. Something like "from this point in the text" would be more accurate.) With that, every relative clause can be reduced to noi or poi: ne, no'u, goi -> noi pe, po, po'e, po'u, voi -> poi mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:52 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators OK, dealing with *just* the conversion formula, taken as a whole. We'll hash them out here before I modify them on the page again. noi sumti noi ke'a broda cu brode sumti cu brode to da poi nei cu broda toi poi + ro quantified sumti sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ga nai broda gi brode poi, all other cases sumti poi broda gi brode sumti ge broda gi brode voi voi clause poi skicu ke'a fo lo ka ce'u clause ne ne sumti noi ke'a srana sumti pe pe sumti poi ke'a srana sumti no'u no'u sumti noi ke'a du sumti po'u po'u sumti poi ke'a du sumti po po sumti poi sumti cu traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a po'e po'e sumti poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana sumti vu'o, given sumti sn, connectives cn, and gek-cn geks that encode cn s1 c1 s2 c2 ... cn sn vu'o relative gek-cn ... gek-c2 gek-c1 s1 relative gi s2 relative gi ... gi sn relative zi'e + noi sumti noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 sumti noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 zi'e + poi sumti poi subsentence1 zi'e poi subsentence2 sumti poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2 goi, ko'a unassigned ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a goi, both unassigned ko'a goi ko'e ko'a du ko'e goi, both assigned ko'a goi ko'e zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a Making the zi'e work requires doing the other expansions first, but so what? Combos with zi'e are not well defined, as before. Much props to John for noi and vu'o help. xorxes, you said something about kansa for the both unassigned goi; what did you mean exactly? -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 23:59 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators ko'a goi sumti / sumti goi ko'a | sumti noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a It occurs to me that a better definition for goi would be: | sumti noi ca'e zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a {noi zo ko'a co'a sinxa ke'a} is a description of what happens, but the speaker, by using goi, is making it happen. {goi} really corresponds to a performative. mu'o mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Wed 31 of Dec, 2008 22:11 GMT posts: 14214 On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 09:46:37PM +0000, arj wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: Subordinators > > Author: arj > > This section needs to be re-opened. I'm sure it does, but I'm hijacking this to test the new server. -Robin
