Lojban In General

Posted by lukebergen on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 11:35 GMT posts: 493

I have two questions. The first is: why MUST the x1 place (un-marked with
se/fa) always be to the left of the selbri? What was the design decision
that leads {nelci mi do} to mean "someone (unspecified) likes me having
something to do with you" instead of the seemingly obvious "like, I do you"
-> "I like you".

My second question came about when I was trying to think of how one might
word my first question in lojban. I quickly realized that I needed a gadri
that gets at the defining form of a word. So I wanted to say {ma lo krinu
lo nu selbri cu se smuni ...} where the "" is some gadri which means
"that x which defines what is a(n) x". So maybe another way to think about
it would be, how would you say "lions are animals". Am I saying "the
typical"? Not really, because all lions by definition are animals. It's
not quite {ro da} either because I'm not talking about "all lions" but about
"that quintessential lion (theoretical) which defines how lion-y a real
world thing is".

- pafcribe

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two questions.  The first is: why MUST the x1 place (un-marked with
> se/fa) always be to the left of the selbri?  What was the design decision
> that leads {nelci mi do} to mean "someone (unspecified) likes me having
> something to do with you" instead of the seemingly obvious "like, I do you"
> -> "I like you".

I wasn't there, but the received lore is that this was because when
you transform a selbri into a sumti, you want the slot following the
selbri to be the x2 slot: "lo nelci be do", "likers of you", because
the x1 slot is the one picked by "lo".

OTOH, when transforming a selbri into a tag, it is the x1 slot that
follows the selbri "fi'o nelci do", "with you as liker", so that
explanation is not completely satisfying.

> My second question came about when I was trying to think of how one might
> word my first question in lojban.  I quickly realized that I needed a gadri
> that gets at the defining form of a word.  So I wanted to say {ma lo krinu
> lo nu __ selbri cu se smuni ...}

(ma krinu lo nu ...)

> where the "__" is some gadri which means
> "that x which defines what is a(n) x".  So maybe another way to think about
> it would be, how would you say "lions are animals".

.i lo cinfo cu danlu

.i ma krinu lo nu lo na'e se tcita sumti be fi li pa cu .ei lidne lo se sumti

> Am I saying "the
> typical"?  Not really, because all lions by definition are animals.  It's
> not quite {ro da} either because I'm not talking about "all lions" but about
> "that quintessential lion (theoretical) which defines how lion-y a real
> world thing is".

"Lions" is the basic meaning of "lo cinfo". It can also be used to
refer to a particular lion or particular lions if they are especially
salient in some context (i.e. restricted to something like "lions in
this context") but without any context "lo cinfo" would just be lions
in general.

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, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I knew {lo} was flexible but I didn't know it was that flexible.

All "lo" does is convert a selbri into a sumti, selecting the x1 slot
of the selbri so that the referent(s) of the resulting sumti will be
things that fit that x1 slot. Any further specification,
determination, restriction, qualification, quantification, partition,
distribution, etc. of the referents, when and if needed, is better
done by means other than a choice of gadri. Unfortunately, the
existence of other cmavo in selma'o LE with additional information
created the notion that "lo" also had to convey some additional
information instead of remaining a neutral syntactic conversion, like
for instance "fi'o". Nobody worries about what meaning "fi'o" has
other han converting a selbri into a tag, but with "lo" it seems that
conversion of a selbri into a sumti was not enough.

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.

Posted by lukebergen on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 11:52 GMT posts: 493

.uacai. I think I finally understand {lo} under xorlo now. You're right, I
kept trying to make it say extra stuff but when I think of it as a converter
like a {fi'o} or {me} I get it.

Also

>yeah, I through that bridi together last second

• threw*

2009/10/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I knew {lo} was flexible but I didn't know it was that flexible.
>
> All "lo" does is convert a selbri into a sumti, selecting the x1 slot
> of the selbri so that the referent(s) of the resulting sumti will be
> things that fit that x1 slot. Any further specification,
> determination, restriction, qualification, quantification, partition,
> distribution, etc. of the referents, when and if needed, is better
> done by means other than a choice of gadri. Unfortunately, the
> existence of other cmavo in selma'o LE with additional information
> created the notion that "lo" also had to convey some additional
> information instead of remaining a neutral syntactic conversion, like
> for instance "fi'o". Nobody worries about what meaning "fi'o" has
> other han converting a selbri into a tag, but with "lo" it seems that
> conversion of a selbri into a sumti was not enough.
>
> 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.
>
>

Posted by lukebergen on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 11:53 GMT posts: 493

re your second answer: yeah, I through that bridi together last second,
thanks for the corrections. I knew {lo} was flexible but I didn't know it
was *that* flexible.

2009/10/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have two questions. The first is: why MUST the x1 place (un-marked
> with
> > se/fa) always be to the left of the selbri? What was the design decision
> > that leads {nelci mi do} to mean "someone (unspecified) likes me having
> > something to do with you" instead of the seemingly obvious "like, I do
> you"
> > -> "I like you".
>
> I wasn't there, but the received lore is that this was because when
> you transform a selbri into a sumti, you want the slot following the
> selbri to be the x2 slot: "lo nelci be do", "likers of you", because
> the x1 slot is the one picked by "lo".
>
> OTOH, when transforming a selbri into a tag, it is the x1 slot that
> follows the selbri "fi'o nelci do", "with you as liker", so that
> explanation is not completely satisfying.
>
> > My second question came about when I was trying to think of how one might
> > word my first question in lojban. I quickly realized that I needed a
> gadri
> > that gets at the defining form of a word. So I wanted to say {ma lo
> krinu
> > lo nu __ selbri cu se smuni ...}
>
> (ma krinu lo nu ...)
>
> > where the "__" is some gadri which means
> > "that x which defines what is a(n) x". So maybe another way to think
> about
> > it would be, how would you say "lions are animals".
>
> .i lo cinfo cu danlu
>
> .i ma krinu lo nu lo na'e se tcita sumti be fi li pa cu .ei lidne lo se
> sumti
>
> > Am I saying "the
> > typical"? Not really, because all lions by definition are animals. It's
> > not quite {ro da} either because I'm not talking about "all lions" but
> about
> > "that quintessential lion (theoretical) which defines how lion-y a real
> > world thing is".
>
> "Lions" is the basic meaning of "lo cinfo". It can also be used to
> refer to a particular lion or particular lions if they are especially
> salient in some context (i.e. restricted to something like "lions in
> this context") but without any context "lo cinfo" would just be lions
> in general.
>
> 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.
>
>