Lojban In General

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> How would you say "Red and green are both on X; blue is on 7"? Here's my
> attempt: "lo xunre .e lo crino cu selstu lo xy.moi .i lo blanu cu selstu lo
> zemoi". .iku'i lo blanu jgina na blanu, so I'm not sure that makes sense.
> Any
> other elliptical sentence s you can think of?
>
> Pierre

Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
--gejyspa

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
> --gejyspa

The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on the
X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene
for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. Do
I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
> > --gejyspa
>
> The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on
> the
> X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene
> for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right.
> Do
> I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?
>

Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in
your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what the
English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract
things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le"
rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's
actually colored that way.

--gy

Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now

From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM
Subject: lojban Re: elliptical sentences

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
>>> Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
>>> --gejyspa
>
>The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on the
>>X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene
>>for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. Do
>>I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?
>

Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's actually colored that way.

--gy

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having
> something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it
> is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance
> of whatever it is that you're talking about.

As far as I understand, "lo" has always been and remains veridical,
not just "something to do with". It doesn't have to be specific, it
can be generic, but it is veridical, and it has no direct relation to
existence. "lo xanri" for example is something imaginary, not
something imaginary that also exists. It has to be imaginary, not
"having something to do with imaginary".

> Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't
> believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_.  So
> "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog'
> " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer
> to as 'dog' ".

Sounds right to me. "le" has always meant that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having
something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it
is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance
of whatever it is that you're talking about.

Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't
believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So
"le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog'
" while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer
to as 'dog' ".

Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of
lo/le.

- Luke Bergen

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now
>
> ----------
> *From:* Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM
> *Subject:* lojban Re: elliptical sentences
>
>
>

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
>> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
>> > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
>> > --gejyspa
>>
>> The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on
>> the
>> X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene
>> for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right.
>> Do
>> I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?
>>
>
>
> Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina"
> in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what
> the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract
> things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le"
> rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's
> actually colored that way.
>
> --gy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh my, it is hat bad. What now serves the purpose of veridical 'le', 'something(s) that actually are ...'?

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:03:48 AM
Subject: lojban Re: elliptical sentences

if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance of whatever it is that you're talking about.

Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog' " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer to as 'dog' ".

Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of lo/le.

- Luke Bergen

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now
>
>
>

From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
>To: lojban-list@lojban.org
>Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM
>Subject: lojban Re: elliptical sentences
>
>
>
>
>

>On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
>On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
>>>>> Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
>>>>> --gejyspa
>>
>>The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are on the
>>>>X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The gene
>>>>for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right. Do
>>>>I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?
>>
>
>
> Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina" in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le" rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's actually colored that way.
>
> --gy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~shrugs~ {lo gerku poi gerku}?

- Luke Bergen

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Oh my, it is hat bad. What now serves the purpose of veridical 'le',
> 'something(s) that actually are ...'?
>
> ----------
> *From:* Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:03:48 AM
> *Subject:* lojban Re: elliptical sentences
>
> if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like "having
> something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether it
> is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific instance
> of whatever it is that you're talking about.
>
> Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I don't
> believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_. So
> "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling 'dog'
> " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to refer
> to as 'dog' ".
>
> Did I get that right? It's taken me forever to really get the hang of
> lo/le.
>
> - Luke Bergen
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Oh dar God, what has 'lo' become now
>>
>> ----------
>> *From:* Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
>> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:09:29 AM
>> *Subject:* lojban Re: elliptical sentences
>>
>>
>>

>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>>
>>> On Tuesday 28 July 2009 08:33:56 Michael Turniansky wrote:
>>> > Huh? Am I missing something here? What's elliptical about it?
>>> > --gejyspa
>>>
>>> The complete statement would be "The genes for seeing red and green are
>>> on the
>>> X chromosome; the gene for seeing blue is on the 7th chromosome". The
>>> gene
>>> for seeing red isn't red, so calling it "lo xunre" isn't literally right.
>>> Do
>>> I have to say at least "lo xunre co'e"?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, now I understand, and further understand why you mentioned "jgina"
>> in your first message. Taken completely out of context, I had no idea what
>> the English sentence meant. I thought you were just talking about abstract
>> things... well, let's see.. you could certainly get away with saying "le"
>> rather than "lo" since even in xorlo there's no implication that it's
>> actually colored that way.
>>
>> --gy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

mmm, I think I have been misunderstanding "lo" in that case. From the "How
to use xorlo" page on lojban.org I read:

"
Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a consensus
decision that we *do* *not* make rulings on ontological or metaphysical
issues; that is, we will not tell you whether phrase X has meaning or
validity. That is discussion and speaker specific, and not our job. In some
discussions, saying "mi kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally means
"there exists one thing that is a unicorn that I am hunting"; this implies
that at least one unicorn exists) is perfectly reasonable, in others it's a
reason to put someone in a mental hospital. In a similar vein, "lo" is now *
completely* generic
"

I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I am
not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am saying
"I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'". Am I misunderstanding
that?

- Luke Bergen

2009/7/28 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > if I'm remembering correctly, under xorlo {lo} means something like
> "having
> > something to do with", with no implications of actual existence, whether
> it
> > is in the speakers mind only, or whether it _really is_ a specific
> instance
> > of whatever it is that you're talking about.
>
> As far as I understand, "lo" has always been and remains veridical,
> not just "something to do with". It doesn't have to be specific, it
> can be generic, but it is veridical, and it has no direct relation to
> existence. "lo xanri" for example is something imaginary, not
> something imaginary that also exists. It has to be imaginary, not
> "having something to do with imaginary".
>
> > Whereas {le} means that you have a specific thing in mind although I
> don't
> > believe it makes any truth claims about whether or not it _really is_.
> So
> > "le gerku" would mean "I have an actual thing in mind that I'm calling
> 'dog'
> > " while "lo gerku" would mean "there is something that I'm choosing to
> refer
> > to as 'dog' ".
>
> Sounds right to me. "le" has always meant that.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I am
> not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am saying
> "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'".  Am I misunderstanding
> that?

It means "I see a unicorn" or "I see unicorns". There is nothing said
about describing or existing. Of course, things that don't exist are
hard to see, but that has nothing to do with "lo". "mi pensi lo
pavyseljirna" means "I think about unicorns", which is easier than
seeing them, and again has nothing to do with existence.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

ok, so what do you mean by "lo is veridical"? I didn't know what the word
meant and went to
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averidicalwhich says
stuff about "coinciding with reality" which as you said, "lo
says nothing about describing or existing". So what do you mean when you
say "lo is and always has been veridical"?

- Luke Bergen

2009/7/28 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I understood that to mean that if I say "mi viska lo pavyseljirna" that I
> am
> > not saying "I see a unicorn which really exists" but rather that I am
> saying
> > "I see some thing which I describe as 'a unicorn'". Am I
> misunderstanding
> > that?
>
> It means "I see a unicorn" or "I see unicorns". There is nothing said
> about describing or existing. Of course, things that don't exist are
> hard to see, but that has nothing to do with "lo". "mi pensi lo
> pavyseljirna" means "I think about unicorns", which is easier than
> seeing them, and again has nothing to do with existence.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, so what do you mean by "lo is veridical"?

Basically, that "lo broda" can only refer to things that truly are broda.

> I didn't know what the word
> meant and went to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averidical
> which says stuff about "coinciding with reality" which as you said, "lo
> says nothing about describing or existing".  So what do you mean when you
> say "lo is and always has been veridical"?

A veridical description is a truthful description, yes. It doesn't
mean that what you describe has to exist, only that it has to be what
you are describing it as. If you say "lo pavyseljirna" then you are
talking about unicorns, not about apples or about the sea. You are not
claiming that unicorns exist, you are just saying something about
unicorns. For example you may say that unicorns are mythical
creatures: "lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu". That's fine and does not
claim that unicorns exist. It can't mean that warewolves are mythical
creatures, because "lo" is veridical, so "lo pavyseljirna" refers to
unicorns not to warewolves.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Whew! Things are about where I remembered them as being. The argument they embody has to do with the intersection of the 'exist' predicate, the range of quantifiers, and intensional contexts. xorxes has a simple solution which leads to greater complexity in the semantics of the language; I have a slightly more complex solution which makes the semantics like that of most natural languages. They agree however that what is referred to by 'lo broda' is a broda, whether it exists or not (well, actually, some things xorxes has said look like the expression always refers to brodahood or some such thing, but I take it that these remarks are not to be taken at face value).

--- Original Message --
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:12:31 PM
Subject: lojban Re: elliptical sentences

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Luke Bergen<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, so what do you mean by "lo is veridical"?

Basically, that "lo broda" can only refer to things that truly are broda.

> I didn't know what the word
> meant and went to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averidical
> which says stuff about "coinciding with reality" which as you said, "lo
> says nothing about describing or existing". So what do you mean when you
> say "lo is and always has been veridical"?

A veridical description is a truthful description, yes. It doesn't
mean that what you describe has to exist, only that it has to be what
you are describing it as. If you say "lo pavyseljirna" then you are
talking about unicorns, not about apples or about the sea. You are not
claiming that unicorns exist, you are just saying something about
unicorns. For example you may say that unicorns are mythical
creatures: "lo pavyseljirna cu ranmi danlu". That's fine and does not
claim that unicorns exist. It can't mean that warewolves are mythical
creatures, because "lo" is veridical, so "lo pavyseljirna" refers to
unicorns not to warewolves.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.