Lojban In General

Posted by PierreAbbat on Mon 07 of Dec, 2009 08:56 GMT posts: 324

On Wednesday 02 December 2009 21:21:34 Thomas Jack wrote:
> Suppose {la .tom. du la .tomas.} is true.
>
> What if any is the difference in meaning, then, between {mi djuno lo
> du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} and {mi djuno lo du'u la .tom. du la
> .tom.}?
>
> Supposedly a du'u is a predication, a bridi. The following both seem true
> to me: {lu la .tom. du la .tomas. li'u bridi fi la .tom. ce'o la .tomas.}
> {la .tom. ce'o la .tomas. du la .tom. ce'o la .tom.}

I'd say rather {lu la tom. du la tomas. li'u bridi fi lu la tom. li'u ce'o lu
la tomas. li'u}. i la tom. du la tomas .iku'i lu la tom. li'u na du lu la
tomas. li'u

Now there are various du'obri which are more or less obvious, depending on
what one knows:
.i la tom. du la tom. (which could be false, if there are two Toms)
.i la tom. du la tomas.
.i la kot.diVUAR. du la xantyde'i xaskoi
.i la kikeron. du la tulius.
.i lo rikteropu cu du lo tu'urselde'i
.i lo .arxokuna cu du lo prokiono lo lumge'u
.i lo finti be lo lidyjesni cu du le pamoi ke merko mrijatna

mu'omi'e .pier.
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.

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 Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suppose {la .tom. du la .tomas.} is true.
>
> What if any is the difference in meaning, then, between {mi djuno lo
> du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} and {mi djuno lo du'u la .tom. du la
> .tom.}?

You don't really need to bring in "djuno". "la .tom. du la .tomas."
and "la .tom. du la .tom." already have different meanings, even in
cases where they are both true. An "la .tom. du ri" has a third
meaning, because repetition of a name is not always anaphoric. Whereas
"la .tom. du ri" will always be true, "la .tom. du la .tom." might be
false if there are two different Toms involved.

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 dbrock on Mon 07 of Dec, 2009 08:57 GMT posts: 47

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Supposedly a du'u is a predication, a bridi. ...
>
> I think I must have misunderstood something along the way,
> because if {lu co'e li'u bridi} is true, and a du'u really is just
> a bridi, I'd think we could just use lu/li'u in place of du'u.

You have to be careful here, because the word "bridi" can refer to two
separate things: either a string of text, or a predication.

Now, a du'u1 is a predication, a du'u2 is a string of text, and a {lu}
expression refers to a string of text. So while you definitely cannot
use {lu broda} in place of {lo du'u broda}, you can pretty much use it
in place of {lo se du'u broda} (although {lu broda} is more specific).

A separate but related question is whether bridi1 corresponds to du'u1
or du'u2. The gimste pretty much explicitly says that bridi1 is a
string of text, and so corresponds to du'u2, but I think we should
redefine bridi1 to instead correspond to du'u2. We had a discussion
about this on IRC as recently as yesterday.

Here's a slightly edited transcript:

<dbrock> I think we should make an effort to redefine bridi1
to be a du'u1 rather than a du'u2
<xalbo> I think all of those words are about text:
{bridi}, {sumti}, etc.
<dbrock> is {lo broda} a bridi?
<Twey> No, it's a sumti.
<Twey> It contains a bridi.
<Twey> A sumti is, by definition, only part of a bridi
<dbrock> so {broda} in {lo broda} is a bridi?
<Twey> Yes
<xalbo> The {broda} in {lo broda} is *not* a bridi. {broda}
can, by itself, act as a bridi, but it isn't doing
so there.
<xalbo> Just as the word "flies" can be a verb (as in "Time
flies like an arrow"), but the "flies" in "Fruit flies
like a banana." is not.
<dbrock> Twey: there are four distinct entities relevant to {lo
broda}: two strings of text, one containing the other;
one predication; and one predicate argument
<dbrock> neither of the text strings are bridi, grammatically
<dbrock> oh, there's also a fifth entity: the predicate
<Twey> Question-begging
<dbrock> I'm just trying to be precise
<dbrock> I know I haven't addressed your assertion that {broda}
as part of {lo broda} is a bridi
<Twey> Ah, okay
Twey shuts up and waits.
<dbrock> the problem is that {bridi} is ill-defined
<dbrock> that's why I reverted to English
<dbrock> xalbo's position is that bridi1 refers to a syntactic
element, i.e., a string of text in a certain
grammatical context
<dbrock> which can probably be characterized by being terminated
by {vau}
<dbrock> (hi donri!)
<xalbo> I think {vau} is indeed relevant.
<xalbo> {lo broda ku} is what we're talking about, if we use the
full structure. No place for a {vau}.
<dbrock> Twey's position appears to be that bridi1 refers to any
string of text that when placed between, say {.i
... .i}, becomes a xalbo-bridi1
<dbrock> my position is that bridi1 is not a string of text at
all, but rather a predication
<dbrock> (but let's get back to that)
<dbrock> one problem with your definition, xalbo, is that there
is no place for the grammatical context
<dbrock> which makes Twey's argument that {zo broda bridi}
(regardless of context) kind of strong
<xalbo> That does appear to be a good argument.
<dbrock> but I don't like Twey's position
<Twey> My position is that ‘lo broda’ is in fact a predication
<dbrock> it seems both bad and Lojbanically counter-intuitive
<Twey> ‘lo’ just ‘raises’ the first sumti of the predication so
that the overall effect is ‘that which is…’ instead of
‘something is…’
<dbrock> Twey: let's distinguish between a predication and a
string of text that refers to a predication
<Twey> I did so
<dbrock> but `lo broda' is unarguably a string of text
<kribacr> I've come to like the term {ka'erselbri} or
{selbrika'e}.
<Twey> dbrock: I was, of course, referring to the predication
represented by the string of text
<dbrock> Twey: okay, but I object to the use of "of course" here

<Twey> Well, *any* example given on IRC is going to be a string
of text.
<dbrock> after all, to me this is _exactly_ the cause of the
confusion
<Twey> But a string of text, of course, cannot be a predication,
so I can't possibly have been referring to the text
directly
<dbrock> but a string of text can be a bridi
<dbrock> and a bridi is a predication
<dbrock> ... or is it?
<dbrock> etc.
<dbrock> see my point?
<Twey> A string of text cannot *be* a bridi — it *represents* a
bridi
<Twey> A string of text is nothing more than a bunch of
characters in sequence
<dbrock> the gimste disagrees
<dbrock> (and you disagreed a minute ago)
<Twey> Where?
<dbrock> hmm, maybe I just misunderstood
<dbrock> 20:28 <dbrock> so {broda} in {lo broda} is a bridi?
20:28 <Twey> Yes
<Twey> I think the gimste means to say that the text
*represents* a predicate relationship. Of course, nobody
actually says that normally, since it's obvious that text
itself cannot be anything other than a series
of squiggles.
<xalbo> A bridi is, by the definition in the gimste, a string
of text.
<dbrock> Twey: don't misunderestimate series of squiggles
<Twey> dbrock: Yes, I was referring to the sumti itself, not the
text representing it.
<dbrock> (to me, YOU are a series of squiggles)
<Twey> I am represented by a series of squiggles
<dbrock> Twey: the bridi itself, you mean?
<Twey> I am not the squiggles themselves
<dbrock> Twey: agreed (I was joking)
<xalbo> I am misunderrepresented by a series of squiggles.
<dbrock> haha
<Twey> Aye, but there was a serious point there too
<xalbo> The question is whether bridi1 is du'u1 or du'u2
<dbrock> xalbo: yes, I think you should speak up more
<Twey> dbrock: There were both a sumti and a bridi (or possibly
two sets of squiggles representing them) in the question
you asked
<Twey> At no time during this conversation was I talking about
the squiggles.
<xalbo> I can't read the definition of {bridi} as anything but
du'u2, but I could probably be convinced that du'u1
would be "better" (.i ku'i zmadu fi lo ka xamgu ma)
<Twey> They are irrelevant to logic, which is one of the reasons
nobody usually makes the distinction between ‘is a piece
of text’ and ‘is represented by a piece of text’
<dbrock> Twey: {broda} in {lo broda} is definitely not a sumti,
nor a set of squiggles representing one
<xalbo> .i xamgu fi ma
<xalbo> I had a logic teacher who drove the entire class *crazy*
by insisting on that distinction.
<dbrock> the gimste says very explicitly that bridi1 is a string
of text
<Twey> dbrock: ‘lo broda’ ‘is’ a sumti. ‘broda’ ‘is’ a selbri,
and thus a bridi.
<dbrock> Twey: can we please keep the distinction?
<dbrock> `lo broda' is a string of text, as is `broda'
<dbrock> please, let's not use the "shortcut" that a string "is"
what it represents
<Twey> dbrock: It also says that that string of text is a
predicate relationship, which is ridiculous interpreted
in the exceedingly and unnecessarily literal fashion you
are advocating, and therefore must mean that it
represents a predicate relationship.
<dbrock> not in this discussion
<Twey> A series of squiggles cannot *be* a
predicate relationship.
<dbrock> Twey: agreed
<Twey> A predicate relationship is an abstract thing of logic
and/or grammar.
<dbrock> but "x1 (text)" is explicit
<Twey> Yes, it is
<xalbo> unfortunately, "is a predicate relationship" is
also explicit.
<dbrock> how do you know they're not using your "shortcut"
<dbrock> you've said yourself several times that a string of
text "is" a predication
<dbrock> why shouldn't the gimste?
<Twey> That is what I'm saying it's doing.
<Twey> It's the only way to reconcile the two facts
presented above.
<dbrock> exactly, so the gimste means that bridi1 is a string of
text
<dbrock> xalbo: very much less explicit
<Twey> Hm, interesting.
<dbrock> so we all agree that the gimste claims that bridi1 is a
string of text
<xalbo> .ie
<dbrock> and we seem to agree that {broda} is probably a bridi
even in {lo broda}, since {bridi} has no place for the
grammatical context
<dbrock> .i lo'u broda le'u bridi lo ka broda kei zo'e
<dbrock> (in other words, {broda} is a bridi, period)
<xalbo> I can almost agree, although in that case, "even in {lo
broda}" is meaningless; "even thought it is a substring
of {lo broda}" I could accept.
<dbrock> agreed
<xalbo> I don't have a good theory of text, though, so I suspect
I'm confused.
<dbrock> no, I think that is a very good formulation
<Twey> I agree with this line of reasoning, though it seems
counter-intuitive to me.
<dbrock> me too, very much
<xalbo> I feel like it is meaningful to talk about "the word
{me}" as a distinct thing from "the word 'me'", or "the
first two letters of 'meat'". This leads me to suspect
that I don't have as good a formulation of all of this
as I thought.
<dbrock> hmm, good point
<dbrock> we have that in Lojban too
<dbrock> {zo broda} feels different from {lo'u broda le'u}
<dbrock> even though it's "supposed" to be the exact same thing
<Twey> .ie-ru'e
<xalbo> and {lu broda li'u} feels even differenter.
<Twey> .ie
<dbrock> yeah
<dbrock> but I think this is a finer distinction
<dbrock> the distinction between du'u1 and du'u2 is a very much
more important one
<dbrock> {zo broda} and {lu broda li'u} seem about as distinct
as {ni broda} and {jei broda}, by the way, zo'o zo'o
nai
<xalbo> as if we knew what *those* meant
<dbrock> so anyway I'm going to go out on a limb here and
suggest that we all pretty much agree that not only
would it be better and more lojbanic for bridi1 to be
the actual predication, but that the sort of abstract
intent of the jbocevni was probably for {bridi} to be
more about predications than squiggles
<dbrock> xalbo: as to why it would be better, for one, you
wouldn't need {ka'e fatci} any more
<dbrock> for another, it suddenly becomes very natural to talk
about "the bridi" in {lo broda}
<xalbo> I assume that a similar transformation would occur with
{sumti}, but I don't know what would actually be able to
fill the new place.
<xalbo> for that matter, what fills bridi3?
<xalbo> (well, it's a sequence, of a sequence of what?)
<dbrock> anything can fill sumti1 if sumti1 is just a predicate
argument
<dbrock> probably of sumti1's (i.e., not text)
<dbrock> .i lu ko'a broda zo'u ko'a sumti .i je lo du'u ko'a
broda cu bridi lo ka ce'u broda kei vu'i ko'a
<dbrock> .i lu ko'a broda cu jufra je nai bridi
<dbrock> .i bridi .ie jufra .i ku'i na bridi
<dbrock> now, to talk about grammatical elements, we need a
completely separate set of selbri
<dbrock> maybe based on one with the place structure "x1 is a
grammatical element of type x2 in expression x3"
<xalbo> Not sure.
<dbrock> let's say {gerna zei pagbu}: x1=p1 is a syntactic
element of expression x2=p2=g3, playing grammatical
role x3 according to grammar x4=g1
<dbrock> or {genpau} for short
<dbrock> then we can have {bridi genpau}, {selbri genpau},
{sumti genpau}, etc.
<dbrock> or {bripau}, {selbripau}, {sumpau} for short
<dbrock> maybe {taurpau} instead of {selbrika'e}
<dbrock> and {jufra} doesn't need -pau
<dbrock> .i lo'u {.i lo broda cu brode} le'u jufra .i lo'u {lo
broda cu brode} le'u bripau lo go'i .i lo'u {brode}
le'u selbripau lo go'i .i lo'u {lo broda} le'u cu
sumpau ra
<dbrock> .i lo'u {lo} le'u gadpau lo'u {lo broda} le'u .i lo'u
{broda} le'u selgadpau lo'u {lo broda} le'u .i ji'a
lo'u {broda} le'u taurpau lo'u {lo broda} le'u
<dbrock> .i .ia so'a selgadpau cu taurpau
<dbrock> .i xu drani
<xalbo> drani la'a
<xalbo> I'm still not sure, though.
<xalbo> (and *{gadpau} has a VU-pair; {gadypau} would be right)
<dbrock> (ah, right)

Comments and opinions welcome.

--
Daniel Brockman
daniel@brockman.se

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 Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> A separate but related question is whether bridi1 corresponds to du'u1
> or du'u2.  The gimste pretty much explicitly says that bridi1 is a
> string of text, and so corresponds to du'u2, but I think we should
> redefine bridi1 to instead correspond to du'u2.  We had a discussion
> about this on IRC as recently as yesterday.

See also:
http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9511/msg00557.html

Why 14 years (almost to the day) later questions like this one are
still up in the air is one of the mysteries of Lojban.

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.

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote:
>>
>> A separate but related question is whether bridi1 corresponds to du'u1
>> or du'u2.  The gimste pretty much explicitly says that bridi1 is a
>> string of text, and so corresponds to du'u2, but I think we should
>> redefine bridi1 to instead correspond to du'u2.  We had a discussion
>> about this on IRC as recently as yesterday.
>
> See also:
> http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9511/msg00557.html

That is very interesting. Do you support the bridi1 = su'u1 position?

> Why 14 years (almost to the day) later questions like this one are
> still up in the air is one of the mysteries of Lojban.

Indeed...

--
Daniel Brockman
daniel@brockman.se

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 Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> See also:
>> http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9511/msg00557.html
>
> That is very interesting.  Do you support the bridi1 = su'u1 position?

Yes. Either that, or accept that "bridi" has two meanings, the second
one being the purely syntactical one "x1 (text) is a bridi consisting
of a selbri x2 (text) inserted among sequence of sumti x3 (each of
which is a text)". Something like this is what "bridi" is used for in
English when discussing Lojban syntax.

The mixed version, where x1 is a text but has arguments x3 that are
not text doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Many of the other Lojban grammar words have similar problems too.

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.

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> See also:
>>> http://www.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9511/msg00557.html
>>
>> That is very interesting.  Do you support the bridi1 = su'u1 position?
>
> Yes. Either that, or accept that "bridi" has two meanings, the second
> one being the purely syntactical one "x1 (text) is a bridi consisting
> of a selbri x2 (text) inserted among sequence of sumti x3 (each of
> which is a text)". Something like this is what "bridi" is used for in
> English when discussing Lojban syntax.

Interesting alternative. I hadn't even thought of that possibility.

Assuming that we do want separate terms, though, and that we want
{bridi} to be about the predication rather than the text, --- do you
have any thoughts or opinions about how we could, would, or should
refer to the parts of speech? I sketched up a kind of ad-hoc system
based on -pau --- any comments on that?

> The mixed version, where x1 is a text but has arguments x3 that are
> not text doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Agreed.

> Many of the other Lojban grammar words have similar problems too.

Hmm, {sumti} has a very analoguous problem. The gimste says (even
more explicitly than in the case of {bridi}) that sumti1 and sumti2
are both text. Would you prefer sumti1 to be lo cmima be bridi3 and
sumti2 to be bridi2? I would, I think (for symmetry with {bridi}, if
nothing else).

On the other hand, the word words --- like {gismu}, {cmavo}, {lujvo},
etc. --- don't really have this problem. At least not to this severe
degree.

What other grammar words do we have?

--
Daniel Brockman
daniel@brockman.se

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 Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming that we do want separate terms, though, and that we want
> {bridi} to be about the predication rather than the text, --- do you
> have any thoughts or opinions about how we could, would, or should
> refer to the parts of speech?  I sketched up a kind of ad-hoc system
> based on -pau --- any comments on that?

"Parts of speech" are single words, right? Those are all the selma'o
plus the honorary selma'o BRIVLA and CMEVLA.

I prefer to think of things like sumti, selbri, bridi, relative
clause, prenex, etc as structures in themselves rather than as parts
of something else, so maybe "stura" rather than "pagbu". I guess the
technical term is "phrase".

> Hmm, {sumti} has a very analoguous problem.  The gimste says (even
> more explicitly than in the case of {bridi}) that sumti1 and sumti2
> are both text.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense. If "lo mlatu" is a sumti, what are
its selsumti and its tersumti?

> Would you prefer sumti1 to be lo cmima be bridi3 and
> sumti2 to be bridi2?  I would, I think (for symmetry with {bridi}, if
> nothing else).

Right.

> On the other hand, the word words --- like {gismu}, {cmavo}, {lujvo},
> etc. --- don't really have this problem.  At least not to this severe
> degree.

I don't really know what to make of the x3 of gismu and lujvo, or the
x4 of lujvo.

> What other grammar words do we have?

lerfu, slaka, rafsi, gadri, tanru, valsi, jufra

There may be some more I'm forgetting.

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 Mon 07 of Dec, 2009 08:57 GMT posts: 493

>> What other grammar words do we have?

> lerfu, slaka, rafsi, gadri, tanru, valsi, jufra

jufra in particular has always seemed kind of weird to me. Everywhere
through the red book we see things like {bridi}, but then all of a sudden
there's this concept of a "sentence" which as far as I know has no official
definition. Or am I wrong about that?

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Assuming that we do want separate terms, though, and that we want
> > {bridi} to be about the predication rather than the text, --- do you
> > have any thoughts or opinions about how we could, would, or should
> > refer to the parts of speech? I sketched up a kind of ad-hoc system
> > based on -pau --- any comments on that?
>
> "Parts of speech" are single words, right? Those are all the selma'o
> plus the honorary selma'o BRIVLA and CMEVLA.
>
> I prefer to think of things like sumti, selbri, bridi, relative
> clause, prenex, etc as structures in themselves rather than as parts
> of something else, so maybe "stura" rather than "pagbu". I guess the
> technical term is "phrase".
>
>
> > Hmm, {sumti} has a very analoguous problem. The gimste says (even
> > more explicitly than in the case of {bridi}) that sumti1 and sumti2
> > are both text.
>
> Which doesn't make a lot of sense. If "lo mlatu" is a sumti, what are
> its selsumti and its tersumti?
>
> > Would you prefer sumti1 to be lo cmima be bridi3 and
> > sumti2 to be bridi2? I would, I think (for symmetry with {bridi}, if
> > nothing else).
>
> Right.
>
> > On the other hand, the word words --- like {gismu}, {cmavo}, {lujvo},
> > etc. --- don't really have this problem. At least not to this severe
> > degree.
>
> I don't really know what to make of the x3 of gismu and lujvo, or the
> x4 of lujvo.
>
> > What other grammar words do we have?
>
> lerfu, slaka, rafsi, gadri, tanru, valsi, jufra
>
> There may be some more I'm forgetting.
>
> 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 Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> jufra in particular has always seemed kind of weird to me.  Everywhere
> through the red book we see things like {bridi}, but then all of a sudden
> there's this concept of a "sentence" which as far as I know has no official
> definition.  Or am I wrong about that?

I don't know about official, but I would say for example that "ge ti
cmalu gi ta barda" is one jufra that contains two bridi (in the
bridi=text sense). So jufra is more general than bridi. Also, a jufra
can have a prenex, whereas the bridi presumably is only the part that
comes after the prenex.

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 Mon 07 of Dec, 2009 08:58 GMT posts: 493

.ua

so that's how a valid answer to {.i xu do klama} can be {go'i}. I always
kind of wondered what happened to the {xu} when a person says {go'i}.
Although.... how is it that the {xu} doesn't get included when you have
A: {do klama ti xu ta}
B: {go'i}
?

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > jufra in particular has always seemed kind of weird to me. Everywhere
> > through the red book we see things like {bridi}, but then all of a sudden
> > there's this concept of a "sentence" which as far as I know has no
> official
> > definition. Or am I wrong about that?
>
> I don't know about official, but I would say for example that "ge ti
> cmalu gi ta barda" is one jufra that contains two bridi (in the
> bridi=text sense). So jufra is more general than bridi. Also, a jufra
> can have a prenex, whereas the bridi presumably is only the part that
> comes after the prenex.
>
> 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 Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> .ua
>
> so that's how a valid answer to {.i xu do klama} can be {go'i}.  I always
> kind of wondered what happened to the {xu} when a person says {go'i}.

"go'i" represents the selbri of the preceding bridi, in this case
"klama". So responding "go'i" is like responding "klama". (The omitted
sumti are normally assumed to be the same as those of the preceding
bridi, but they need not be.

> Although.... how is it that the {xu} doesn't get included when you have
> A:  {do klama ti xu ta}
> B:  {go'i}
> ?

Same thing, it's like responding "klama".

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 Mon 07 of Dec, 2009 08:58 GMT posts: 493

really? I thought {go'i} repeated the whole bridi. I remember at one point
this coming up on IRC and us coming to the conclusion that:
A: do klama lo zarci
B: go'i fa la djeims
essentially becomes {do jo'u la djeims klama lo zarci} where we weren't
really sure whether {jo'u} would be that or {joi}/{je}/what

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > .ua
> >
> > so that's how a valid answer to {.i xu do klama} can be {go'i}. I always
> > kind of wondered what happened to the {xu} when a person says {go'i}.
>
> "go'i" represents the selbri of the preceding bridi, in this case
> "klama". So responding "go'i" is like responding "klama". (The omitted
> sumti are normally assumed to be the same as those of the preceding
> bridi, but they need not be.
>
> > Although.... how is it that the {xu} doesn't get included when you have
> > A: {do klama ti xu ta}
> > B: {go'i}
> > ?
>
> Same thing, it's like responding "klama".
>
> 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 Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> really?  I thought {go'i} repeated the whole bridi.  I remember at one point
> this coming up on IRC and us coming to the conclusion that:
> A:   do klama lo zarci
> B:   go'i fa la djeims
> essentially becomes {do jo'u la djeims klama lo zarci} where we weren't
> really sure whether {jo'u} would be that or {joi}/{je}/what

That's:

A: You go to the market.
B: James does.

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 Mon 07 of Dec, 2009 08:58 GMT posts: 493

really? That still doesn't sit right with me. After looking around I found
this in the CLL:
http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter7.html#s6

"The cmavo ``go'i, ``go'a, and ``go'u'' follow exactly the same rules as
``ri, ``ra, and ``ru'', except that they are pro-bridi, and therefore
repeat bridi, not sumti --- specifically, main sentence bridi."

If in fact {go'i} only repeats the last selbri and not the entire bridi then
I think an errata (singular?) is needed to make this clearer.

It does seem like it could be useful to have a ri/go'i like cmavo for
repeating exclusively the previous selbri, but it seems like people use go'i
for that a lot of the time anyway.

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > really? I thought {go'i} repeated the whole bridi. I remember at one
> point
> > this coming up on IRC and us coming to the conclusion that:
> > A: do klama lo zarci
> > B: go'i fa la djeims
> > essentially becomes {do jo'u la djeims klama lo zarci} where we weren't
> > really sure whether {jo'u} would be that or {joi}/{je}/what
>
> That's:
>
> A: You go to the market.
> B: James does.
>
> 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.
>
>

My real concern is about {du'u}, though. As I understand it, it's a
predication (where the arguments are things referred to), so that {lo
du'u la .tom. du la .tom. cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} is
true given that all the names refer to the same person.

Maybe a {du'u} somehow wraps up not only the things referred to, but
the way in which they are referred to?

I wonder to what extent Lojban settles this question for itself rather
than (like English) leaving it open for theorists to come up with all
kinds of different theories about reference, propositions, etc.

I also wonder whether there is evidence to be found in the logs about
whether people typically would assent to {lo du'u la .tom. du la .tom.
cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.}

2009/12/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Suppose {la .tom. du la .tomas.} is true.
>>
>> What if any is the difference in meaning, then, between {mi djuno lo
>> du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} and {mi djuno lo du'u la .tom. du la
>> .tom.}?
>
> You don't really need to bring in "djuno". "la .tom. du la .tomas."
> and "la .tom. du la .tom." already have different meanings, even in
> cases where they are both true. An "la .tom. du ri" has a third
> meaning, because repetition of a name is not always anaphoric. Whereas
> "la .tom. du ri" will always be true, "la .tom. du la .tom." might be
> false if there are two different Toms involved.
>
> 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.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> My real concern is about {du'u}, though. As I understand it, it's a
> predication (where the arguments are things referred to), so that {lo
> du'u la .tom. du la .tom. cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} is
> true given that all the names refer to the same person.

I don't think it's true in general. It's true only if the sumti "la
tom" and "la tomas" have been assigned the same value outside of the
du'u context.

> Maybe a {du'u} somehow wraps up not only the things referred to, but
> the way in which they are referred to?

Yes, that's a good way of saying it. Referent assignments made inside
a du'u stay within that context. A different case would be something
like this:

la tom goi ko'a cu du la tomas goi ko'e .i se ni'i bo lo du'u ko'a du
ko'e cu du lo du'u ko'a du ko'a

> I wonder to what extent Lojban settles this question for itself rather
> than (like English) leaving it open for theorists to come up with all
> kinds of different theories about reference, propositions, etc.

Not to any great extent. That would mean there had to be some great
theorist when Lojban was designed that already had all the answers,
but that was not the case.

> I also wonder whether there is evidence to be found in the logs about
> whether people typically would assent to {lo du'u la .tom. du la .tom.
> cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.}

Someone might be willing to assent to that, but if you ask them
whether they really think knowing one amounts to the same thing as
knowing the other they would hopefully soon realize that that can't be
the case, so there has to be some problem with a theory that prredicts
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.

2009/12/4 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My real concern is about {du'u}, though. As I understand it, it's a
>> predication (where the arguments are things referred to), so that {lo
>> du'u la .tom. du la .tom. cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.} is
>> true given that all the names refer to the same person.
>
> I don't think it's true in general. It's true only if the sumti "la
> tom" and "la tomas" have been assigned the same value outside of the
> du'u context.

Yes, does my "given that all the names refer to the same person" not
take care of this? The problem is that, even if all the names refer to
the same person, common English usage (and perhaps common Lojban
usage?) suggests that {lo du'u la tom du la tom} and {lo du'u la tom
du la tomas} are different (compare to "that tom is tom" and "that tom
is thomas" in English).

>> I also wonder whether there is evidence to be found in the logs about
>> whether people typically would assent to {lo du'u la .tom. du la .tom.
>> cu du lo du'u la .tom. du la .tomas.}
>
> Someone might be willing to assent to that, but if you ask them
> whether they really think knowing one amounts to the same thing as
> knowing the other they would hopefully soon realize that that can't be
> the case, so there has to be some problem with a theory that prredicts
> that.

My problem is that I don't think there is a problem with such a
theory—one such theory is my current favorite. Someone who knows that
Tom is Tom, but says they don't believe the proposition that Tom is
Thomas, is simply mistaken. I started this thread because one theorist
arguing for such a theory suggested that maybe we should speak a
language which respects this theory, and I immediately wondered
whether Lojban does. Investigating the meanings of {du'u} and {bridi}
suggested that, in fact, it does, but I am not sure.

If a du'u is a predication, what is a predication? An assertion of a
relationship between some arguments? What, then, are the arguments? If
they are the things referred to in the sentence, it seems to me that
{lo du'u la tom du la tomas} must be the very same predication as {lo
du'u la tom du la tom}, since the things referred to in both are the
same.

Suppose you believe that Tom is rich. Then, you meet a beggar on the
street named Thomas, and (because he's begging) come to believe that
Thomas is poor. You don't realize that Tom and Thomas are the same
person. You then say {mi na krici lo du'u la tomas ricfu}. Are you
right or wrong? I want to ignore the weirdness that Lojban's
context-sensitivity can give rise to (I think {ko'a broda ko'e} and
{ko'a na broda ko'e} are not contradictory in suitable contexts). I
think that if a du'u is a predication, the arguments of which are
things referred to, you are wrong. You DO believe that Thomas is rich.
Your problem is that you don't realize that the proposition that
Thomas is rich and the proposition that Tom is rich are, in fact, the
very same proposition (predication?). If you are not wrong, I think
that a du'u must wrap up more than just the things referred to. And
it's not just the particular reference assignments inside the du'u
that matter—all names in all of my examples refer to the very same
person. Rather it's the manner in which they're referred to that
matters. If your utterance of {mi na krici lo du'u la tomas ricfu} is
true, the fact that {la tomas} was used to refer to Tom, rather than,
say {la tom}, must be wrapped up somehow in the du'u (and so the du'u
must be more than just a predication as I understand "predication").

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 Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/4 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I don't think it's true in general. It's true only if the sumti "la
>> tom" and "la tomas" have been assigned the same value outside of the
>> du'u context.
>
> Yes, does my "given that all the names refer to the same person" not
> take care of this?

Only if you assume that names are simply variables that get assigned a
value and then that's it, every new use of the name is just a
reference to that value. But in practice names don't work like that,
as a rule every new use of a name may have to be interpreted afresh.
Of course context plays an important role and you do expect a repeated
name to get assigned the same value again. But du'u very often sets a
context where this assumption is likely to break down.

>The problem is that, even if all the names refer to
> the same person, common English usage (and perhaps common Lojban
> usage?) suggests that {lo du'u la tom du la tom} and {lo du'u la tom
> du la tomas} are different (compare to "that tom is tom" and "that tom
> is thomas" in English).

Right. That's because the value assignment proceeds independently for
each use, even if the final value ends up being the same.

> My problem is that I don't think there is a problem with such a
> theory—one such theory is my current favorite. Someone who knows that
> Tom is Tom, but says they don't believe the proposition that Tom is
> Thomas, is simply mistaken.

Those are two different uses of names: either their values are fixed
once and forever, or they are calculated dynamically in context. I
believe the latter is more in accordance with what goes on in
practice.

> I started this thread because one theorist
> arguing for such a theory suggested that maybe we should speak a
> language which respects this theory, and I immediately wondered
> whether Lojban does. Investigating the meanings of {du'u} and {bridi}
> suggested that, in fact, it does, but I am not sure.

I suspect this is not something we can define by fiat, that it is in
the nature of language that meaning is something dynamic. This issue
isn't really restricted to names either, the same argument can be made
about two references to the same thing using different descriptions.

> If a du'u is a predication, what is a predication? An assertion of a
> relationship between some arguments?

Well, it is not an assertion. An assertion is just one of the many
possible uses of a proposition. The most obvious example where a du'u
is not an assertion is in "no da xusra lo du'u ..."

>What, then, are the arguments? If
> they are the things referred to in the sentence, it seems to me that
> {lo du'u la tom du la tomas} must be the very same predication as {lo
> du'u la tom du la tom}, since the things referred to in both are the
> same.

Then a du'u must involve something more than a relationship between
arguments, it must also involve the way the arguments are identified.
Or, alternatively, we might say that the way that the arguments are
identified is part of the relationship, so that the relationship
between the arguments is not fully expressed by the selbri alone.

> Suppose you believe that Tom is rich. Then, you meet a beggar on the
> street named Thomas, and (because he's begging) come to believe that
> Thomas is poor. You don't realize that Tom and Thomas are the same
> person. You then say {mi na krici lo du'u la tomas ricfu}. Are you
> right or wrong?

It will depend on what "lo du'u la tomas ricfu" refers to.

> I want to ignore the weirdness that Lojban's
> context-sensitivity can give rise to (I think {ko'a broda ko'e} and
> {ko'a na broda ko'e} are not contradictory in suitable contexts). I
> think that if a du'u is a predication, the arguments of which are
> things referred to, you are wrong. You DO believe that Thomas is rich.
> Your problem is that you don't realize that the proposition that
> Thomas is rich and the proposition that Tom is rich are, in fact, the
> very same proposition (predication?).

I don't see a problem with that. The string "lo du'u la tomas ricfu"
can be used to refer to different propositions, one of which is closer
to "the person that I met on the street is rich" and the other is
closer to "the person that I know as 'Tom' is rich". In the context
you described, it is more likely to refer to something closer to the
first, because the speaker has no reason to use it to refer to
something closer to the second. But someone else might use those same
words to refer to something closer to the second.

The problem arises if you insist that "lo du'u la tomas ricfu" can
refer to one and only one proposition, no matter what the
interpretation.

> If you are not wrong, I think
> that a du'u must wrap up more than just the things referred to. And
> it's not just the particular reference assignments inside the du'u
> that matter—all names in all of my examples refer to the very same
> person. Rather it's the manner in which they're referred to that
> matters.

Yes, I would say it is the assignment process that matters.

> If your utterance of {mi na krici lo du'u la tomas ricfu} is
> true, the fact that {la tomas} was used to refer to Tom, rather than,
> say {la tom}, must be wrapped up somehow in the du'u (and so the du'u
> must be more than just a predication as I understand "predication").

Yes, I would say that the choice of words can have an effect on the meaning.

There are different approaches to explain why that is the case. One
approach is to say that there are fixed entities out there (one of
which is Tom) and that the different ways to refer to those fixed
entities end up producing a different du'u. Another approach is to say
that there is no such thing as a fixed entity out there, and then the
du'u are different simply because each one is describing a different
'world', with different entities.

But whichever way you go, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim that
it's logically impossible for someone to not know whether Tom is
Thomas. That's just not the way names are used in language.

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.