[16:34] <udjalus> coi ro do ro do ro do ro do
[16:34] <vensa> xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at
[16:35] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has quit []
[16:36] == udjalus [8a64d0d8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.138.100.208.216] has quit [Client Quit]
[16:36] <vensa> short for {mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami} :)
[16:37] <@xalbo> je'e
[16:37] <vensa> you think {mi de'a jibni} would also be understandable?
[16:38] == Imami [~Ali.Sajid@119.152.165.47] has quit []
[16:39] <vensa> coi udjalus
[16:39] <@xalbo> probably, yeah
[16:39] <vensa> lo do jufra pu nalgenra
[16:40] == Sxem [~sky@pool-71-178-129-174.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #lojban
[16:40] <vensa> si nalgendra
[16:41] <vensa> .y .u'u li'a ja'a gendra
[16:41] <vensa> gerna coi ro do ro do ro do ro do
[16:41] <gerna> (0[{coi <(1ro BOI)1 do> DO'U} {<(1[{ro BOI} do] [{ro BOI} do])1 (1[ro BOI] do)1> VAU}])0
[16:41] <vensa> cizra
[16:42] <soto> gerna lo cizra le cizra la cizra
[16:42] <gerna> (0[{<(1lo cizra KU)1 (1le cizra KU)1> <la cizra KU>} VAU])0
[16:42] <vensa> hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance
[16:42] == kribacr [42c07e03@gateway/web/freenode/ip.66.192.126.3] has joined #lojban
[16:42] <kribacr> coi
[16:42] <vensa> probably in order to be able to answer questions like {ma zvati ma}
[16:42] <@xalbo> Exactly.
[16:42] <vensa> :)
[16:42] <Volatile> heh. nice.
[16:43] <kribacr> Sorry, my computer froze, so I missed anything you guys said.
[16:43] <kribacr> What about ma zvati ma?
[16:43] <vensa> we said: {coi ba'e la kribacr .i mi'a prami do}
[16:44] <vensa> nm ma zvati ma
[16:44] <Volatile> Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere?
[16:45] <Volatile> co'e
[16:45] <vensa> volatile:im not sure, but I can think of cases where it shouldnt be
[16:45] <vensa> e.g.: {ma djica lonu ma cliva}
[16:45] <vensa> the answer to that does not involve a single {co'e} relation between the two {ma}s
[16:46] <vensa> xalbo: am I right?
[16:46] == eternaleye [~alex@exherbo/developer/eternaleye] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[16:46] <Volatile> Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out?
[16:47] <@xalbo> I think there's some debate on whether one can omit {co'e} or not.
[16:47] <vensa> IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which {ma} each one is answering...
[16:47] <Volatile> Is { zo'e zo'e } a legit answer, or do you have to do { zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e } ? :)
[16:47] <vensa> yay! I love debate :)
[16:47] <@xalbo> {zo'e zo'e} is absolutely a legit answer.
[16:48] <@xalbo> And there's also a {bu'a} such that {mi ti bu'a} is the same as {mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva}, it's just a complicated one :)
[16:48] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has joined #lojban
[16:48] <kucli> coi ke'u ro do
[16:48] <vensa> xalbo: how do you define that bu'a?
[16:48] <vensa> (using cei)
[16:49] <vensa> coi la kucli
[16:50] <@xalbo> I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use ckaji, but there needs to be something for more variables.
[16:51] <Volatile> Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation wordsL
[16:51] <Volatile> s/L/?/
[16:51] <@xalbo> That is, {ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva} is *almost* it, but not quite.
[16:51] <vensa> xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including {co'e}. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be {co'e} even if its unclear what {co'e} actually is...?
[16:52] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[16:52] <vensa> wow! that was beautifuly complicated
[16:52] <vensa> I think I understood the "gist" of it
[16:52] <@xalbo> {djica co cliva} is pretty darn close, of course :)
[16:52] <vensa> yes
[16:53] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit]
[16:53] <vensa> but an *exact* selbri is possible? because {ckaji} isnt *exactly* the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those {xi}s
[16:54] <@xalbo> So, absent a question we're answering, {mi lo mensi be do} is a grammatical utterance, and {mi co'e lo mensi be do} is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter.
[16:54] <vensa> also: I misunderstand {ce'uxipa ce'uxire}. y not just {ce'uxire}
[16:54] <@xalbo> I wanted {mi ti cliva}, not {ti cliva}
[16:55] <vensa> oh "I leave here".. ok
[16:56] <@xalbo> And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means.
[16:56] <vensa> xalbo: but still: {mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva} puts {ti} in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire
[16:58] <vensa> I think that {mi co'e lo mensi be do} means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using {co'e} even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon )
[17:00] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has quit [Quit: Offline]
[17:01] <kribacr> .i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do
[17:01] <vensa> doi kribacr xa'a'a
[17:01] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi]
[17:02] <selpa`i> kribacr: Do you still teach like you did two years ago?
[17:02] <@xalbo> I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed *simply*.
[17:02] <kribacr> Wow... has it really been two years? O_O
[17:02] <selpa`i> Yes, almost exactly-
[17:02] <kribacr> Yes, I still teach. Well, in theory. I don't have as much t ime as I used to.
[17:02] <vensa> xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL?
[17:02] <kribacr> But yes, I can still teach.
[17:02] <@xalbo> (and I knew the {ckaji} was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time)
[17:02] <selpa`i> Uh, sucks to hear that you are so busy.
[17:02] <kribacr> Today seems like a slow day, so I may have time for a lesson in a few hours.
[17:03] <kribacr> xalbo is a wonderful teacher as well.
[17:03] <@xalbo> If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though.
[17:03] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has joined #lojban
[17:03] == mode/#lojban [+o kpreid] by ChanServ
[17:03] <selpa`i> Well, it was more of a general question, and I wouldnt be your pupil this time.
[17:03] == sanotehu_ [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[17:03] <kribacr> On the subject of implied co'e, if that's what you're talking about, I'm sort of a proponent for it.
[17:03] <selpa`i> I know, xalbo is a nice teacher as well
[17:03] <kribacr> Ah, gotcha.
[17:03] <kribacr> Who? And how new?
[17:03] <selpa`i> It was mostly a hypothetical question.
[17:04] <selpa`i> I know someone who I would like to learn lojban or atleast get into it.
[17:04] == sanotehu_ [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit]
[17:04] <kribacr> Ah, gotcha.
[17:04] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[17:04] <vensa> xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple {ma broda lonu brode ma} with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of {ma}s?
[17:04] <@xalbo> Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc"
[17:04] <selpa`i> But it's unclear whether that person will actually do it.
[17:05] <vensa> xalbo: that would probably solve it
[17:05] <vensa> but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken
[17:05] <vensa> IF you add the implied co'e
[17:05] <selpa`i> Does anyone happen to have the old chatlogs
[17:05] <selpa`i> ?
[17:05] <selpa`i> From 2 years ago?
[17:06] <vensa> I think Hugglesworth has a bunch of logs on his machine. maybe they go back 2 yrs
[17:06] <vensa> He once looked for something for me
[17:06] <soto> http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/ ?
[17:06] <@xalbo> vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go.
[17:07] <vensa> hmmmmm
[17:07] <vensa> but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing?
[17:07] <@xalbo> There's nothing *fundamentally* unexpressible about that.
[17:08] <vensa> yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e)
[17:08] <vensa> so, whats the main argument AGAINST?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17:08] <vensa> soto: that's stuff expressed IN LOJBAN only
[17:08] <vensa> it filters out the english
[17:09] <soto> oh right
[17:09] <@xalbo> I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it.
[17:09] <vensa> hehehe
[17:09] <vensa> this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for
[17:09] <@xalbo> I tend to include explicit {co'e}, but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.
[17:09] * vensa is archiving
[17:09] <kribacr> I think the problem with implied {co'e} is when people just speak vocatives.
[17:10] <vensa> kribacr: what does that mean?
[17:10] <vensa> example?
[17:11] <kribacr> Well...
[17:11] <kribacr> coi la vensa
[17:11] <vensa> coi .u'i
[17:11] <kribacr> Is there an implied {co'e} there?
[17:11] <vensa> ahhhh
[17:11] <vensa> dunno. and if there is. what harm does it do?
[17:11] <kribacr> If there is, is it harmless?
[17:11] <kribacr> Right.
[17:11] <vensa> I think its harmless
[17:11] <kribacr> I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
[17:12] <vensa> obviously, if I am addressing you, I am telling you something
[17:12] <vensa> perhasp {coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e} is {coi la kribacr mi rinsa do}
[17:13] <vensa> btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI
[17:13] <@xalbo> Answering questions is weird anyway. {.i ma fanta lo nu do mo}, for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all.
[17:13] <vensa> but there too I believe there is an implied {co'e}
[17:14] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[17:14] <vensa> xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments
[17:14] <@xalbo> Yeah.
[17:14] <vensa> I would reply {do fanta lonu mi surla} to be clear
[17:14] <vensa> but is {do surla} a valid answer???
[17:15] <vensa> that seems wrong
[17:15] <UukGoblin> I'd just reply {go'i} ;-]
[17:15] == LogicallyDashing [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[17:15] <vensa> because e.g. {broda pa} is ungramatical
[17:15] <vensa> but I could have asked: {do mo xo gerku}?
[17:16] <@xalbo> ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway.
[17:16] == Amie [~Amie@122.172.26.171] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
[17:16] <vensa> I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word
[17:17] <vensa> or perhaps: {.i}-seperated answers
[17:17] <UukGoblin> does {go'i} re-ask a {ma}/{mo} question?
[17:17] <vensa> {do .i. surla}
[17:17] <vensa> {broda .i pa}
[17:17] <vensa> uuk: yes IMO
[17:18] <vensa> you are repeating the question, leaving it in question form.
[17:18] <vensa> you could be asking yourself aloud
[17:18] <selpa`i> What?
[17:18] <vensa> or asking the listener to answer instead of you
[17:18] <@xalbo> There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement.
[17:18] <vensa> .iesai
[17:18] <UukGoblin> why 'unrelated'? ;-]
[17:18] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[17:19] * vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas
[17:19] <UukGoblin> definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said
[17:19] <@xalbo> Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question"
[17:19] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has joined #lojban
[17:19] <vensa> uuk: the statement {do surla} answers the question {ma fanta lonu do mo} but it makes an unrelated statement
[17:20] <@xalbo> "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
[17:20] <UukGoblin> oh, I see
[17:20] <vensa> xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :)
[17:21] <UukGoblin> I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement
[17:21] <vensa> no
[17:21] <@xalbo> Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with {mo}, I need a way to *not* answer it, and any bridi I saw *will* answer it.
[17:22] <UukGoblin> mhm
[17:22] <vensa> xalbo: example?
[17:22] <tcatipax> mi na djuno?
[17:22] <@xalbo> ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
[17:22] <UukGoblin> like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?"
[17:22] <vensa> xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version
[17:23] <vensa> xalbo: whats wrong with answering {do mo} with {lo tcima cu pluka}
[17:23] <vensa> ?
[17:23] <@xalbo> .i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi
[17:23] <vensa> yeah. so whats the problem?
[17:24] == donri [~dag@unaffiliated/dagodenhall] has joined #lojban
[17:24] <@xalbo> Well, it *probably* carries over the x2, at least.
[17:24] <vensa> wha?!
[17:24] <vensa> why does it carry stuff over?
[17:24] <@xalbo> Think about it. Is not {cinba} a valid answer there?
[17:24] <vensa> you said {melbi}. not {go'i}. not {co'e}
[17:25] <vensa> yes. cinba is valid
[17:25] <vensa> BUT
[17:25] <vensa> the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
[17:25] <@xalbo> The answer to {mo} is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the {mo} make it true.
[17:25] <vensa> but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
[17:26] <@xalbo> I don't see where you get that from.
[17:26] <vensa> common sense
[17:26] <vensa> x1 or any other x
[17:26] <kribacr> Tuesday's coming. Did you bring your coat?
[17:27] <vensa> kribacr: is "Tuesday's coming" the answer?
[17:27] <kribacr> I live in a giant bucket.
[17:27] <vensa> kribacr: that is a y/n question.
[17:27] <vensa> so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question
[17:28] <@xalbo> Well in {.i do mo / citka lo badna}, we're replacing in {lo badna} for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled?
[17:28] <vensa> hmmm
[17:28] <vensa> xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any
[17:28] <vensa> IMO when you OVERRIDE one of them, it becomes a "dodging" statement
[17:29] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi]
[17:30] <UukGoblin> well
[17:30] <vensa> xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about {i} seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you
[17:31] <UukGoblin> let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks {do mo}, and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say {carvi}, but that'll make /you/ rain
[17:31] <@xalbo> My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then {.i} would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering.
[17:32] <kribacr> .i but for answers?
[17:32] <kribacr> I like that.
[17:32] <selpa`i> Hm..
[17:32] <kribacr> .i ma gletu ma
[17:32] <vensa> xalbo: ohhhh
[17:32] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has joined #lojban
[17:32] == ksion [Xion@210-dzi-2.acn.waw.pl] has joined #lojban
[17:32] <kribacr> new-I la .kribacr. new-I lo mamta be do
[17:32] <kribacr> .i'e
[17:32] <vensa> .u'isai
[17:33] <kribacr> Hmm.
[17:33] <selpa`i> Seems unnecessary
[17:33] <vensa> and {new-I la kribacr .i lo tcima} would be a partial answer
[17:33] <kribacr> Are there any CVV or CV'V that could be derived from ... danfu is it?
[17:34] <vensa> you could change {paunai} to mean "answer follows" :P
[17:35] <kribacr> Eww... no.
[17:35] <@xalbo> {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}.
[17:36] <vensa> uuk: in the {carvi} case I would just say {ti carvi} thereby overriding hte x1 {do} and making it into a statement not a question
[17:36] <vensa> valsi nolraitru
[17:36] <valsi> nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2.
[17:36] <@xalbo> Just *try* and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override.
[17:36] == bortzmeyer [~bortzmeye@batilda.nic.fr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
[17:36] <vensa> xalbo: ooohhh
[17:36] <vensa> you got me
[17:37] <kribacr> D'oh, {dau} is taken.
[17:37] <kribacr> Stupid hex.
[17:37] <vensa> how about {mi na catra .i do bebna} :P
[17:38] == Amie [~Amie@122.172.26.171] has joined #lojban
[17:38] == tama [~tama@adsl-68-88-67-67.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[17:38] <UukGoblin> there was this meta-negator
[17:38] <UukGoblin> metalinguistic negator
[17:38] <UukGoblin> na'i
[17:39] <vensa> yes! good point Uk
[17:39] <vensa> it seems very handy here
[17:39] <vensa> {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}. {na'i}
[17:39] <vensa> I wanted to say also that the "new i" should be for cases where you DONT intend to answer becuz those are the less frequent cases
[17:40] <vensa> so using {na'i} for that purpose exactly seems brilliant. (and the intended way)
[17:41] <vensa> so the answer to the {carvi} problem would be. {.i na'i carvi}
[17:41] <UukGoblin> hm.
[17:41] <selpa`i> How do you say "this" as in "this house" ?
[17:42] <UukGoblin> I kinda thought {na'i} would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it"
[17:42] <@xalbo> vensa: That says it's not raining.
[17:42] <UukGoblin> selpa`i, {ti}?
[17:42] <vensa> selpa'i {lo vi zdani}
[17:42] <@xalbo> selpa`i: {ti poi zdani}, roughly.
[17:42] * vensa is looking up na'i
[17:42] <@xalbo> (could also be {noi} instead of {poi})
[17:43] <selpa`i> Thx gusy.
[17:43] <kribacr> lo bu'u zdani
[17:43] <selpa`i> Guys.
[17:43] <dbrock-> I too would like to have a word that indicates that something is an answer
[17:43] <dbrock-> the opposite of {pau}
[17:44] <kribacr> Hmm. I wish there was more CVV and CV'V space available. ._.
[17:44] <vensa> xalbo: so, {na'i .i carvi}
[17:44] == Suprano [~Suprano@vpn-stud.rz-zw.fh-kl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
[17:44] <dbrock-> if I got to choose, {pau nai} would mean "answer follows", {pau cu'i} would mean "question does not follow", and {pau nai cu'i} would mean "answer does not follow"
[17:45] <vensa> I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time
[17:45] <@xalbo> dbrock-: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose.
[17:45] <dbrock-> :)
[17:45] <@xalbo> Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much.
[17:45] <kribacr> da'au
[17:46] <vensa> dbrock: does {pau} currently have a {cu'i}?
[17:46] <dbrock-> yeah, I think of {UI nai} as being a separate scale
[17:46] <dbrock-> but that's not how most people think of it
[17:46] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has quit [Quit: Offline]
[17:46] <@xalbo> I just don't like {.i} between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
[17:46] <vensa> xalbo: what was that an answer to?
[17:47] <dbrock-> to me, the {pau} scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the {pau nai} scale would be "how much of an answer is this"
[17:47] <dbrock-> so you could have {pau pau nai} for "answering with a question"
[17:47] <vensa> how about {pauna'i} for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P
[17:47] <dbrock-> well, {pau nai pau} would be a more natural order, I guess
[17:48] <@xalbo> vensa: What was what an answer to?
[17:48] == urandom_ [~user@p548A63A4.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lojban
[17:49] <@xalbo> ({ge'i}, for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence)
[17:49] <dbrock-> {fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o}?
[17:49] <vensa> xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked tha
[17:49] <vensa> *that
[17:49] <dbrock-> for a three-part-answer
[17:49] == tcatipax [d9ab814a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.217.171.129.74] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[17:50] <@xalbo> vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence.
[17:50] <vensa> valsi ge'i
[17:50] <valsi> ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi).
[17:50] <vensa> <@xalbo> I just don't like {.i} between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
[17:50] <vensa> gerna ge
[17:50] <gerna> not grammatical: ge ⚠
[17:50] <vensa> gerna e
[17:50] <gerna> (0e)0
[17:50] <vensa> hmmm.. geks alone seem to be ungramatical
[17:50] <dbrock-> gerna ge co'e gi co'e
[17:50] <gerna> (0[ge {co'e VAU} gi {co'e VAU} VAU])0
[17:51] <vensa> gerna ge gi
[17:51] <gerna> not grammatical: ge _gi_ ⚠
[17:51] <dbrock-> what's the problem with that?
[17:51] <vensa> yeah, xalbo?
[17:51] <@xalbo> Means that a question with {ge'i} is harder to answer.
[17:51] == urandom__ [~user@p548A498A.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
[17:51] <vensa> not if we add implied {gi} to the grammar parser
[17:51] <dbrock-> true
[17:51] <@xalbo> At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank.
[17:52] <dbrock-> I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective?
[17:52] <vensa> de'a
[17:52] <@xalbo> Um, *{ge gi} isn't legal either.
[17:53] <dbrock-> see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo?
[17:54] <@xalbo> Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question.
[17:58] == Suprano [~Suprano@p57B13280.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lojban
[17:59] == syllogism [~syllogism@173.216.64.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
[18:00] <vensa> dbrock: a question could contain both {ge'i} AND {ji} so that answering in a diff form would be confusing
[18:00] <vensa> xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get {ge co'e gi co'e}
[18:01] <@xalbo> If you try to answer out of order, though, you *really* screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem.
[18:01] <vensa> xalbo: why do you think {.i} between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply?
[18:03] <@xalbo> {.i} separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi.
[18:03] <vensa> why?
[18:03] == Suprano [~Suprano@p57B13280.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
[18:03] <vensa> ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do
[18:04] <vensa> means: {.i mi tavla .i do se tavla}
[18:04] <vensa> (remeber the implied co'e)
[18:04] <@xalbo> That seems very different from {mi tavla do}.
[18:05] <vensa> why? context welds them together IMO
[18:05] <vensa> how do you solve the {do surla} bug with something other than a seperating {i}?
[18:06] <dbrock-> xalbo has already proposed the addition of new I
[18:06] <vensa> oh.
[18:06] <vensa> so {newI mi newI do} is acceptable xalbo?
[18:06] <dbrock-> danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do
[18:06] <@xalbo> Seems much more so, yes.
[18:07] <vensa> i c
[18:07] <vensa> fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers)
[18:07] <@xalbo> (I'd still probably just answer {mi do}, but for more complicated ones, yes)
[18:07] <dbrock-> I don't really see why we need a new I
[18:08] <@xalbo> The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled {.i}) keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging.
[18:08] <dbrock-> well, it's not a matter of need, of course
[18:08] <vensa> in that case I am "for" dbrock's {paunai} def
[18:08] <dbrock-> but I mean other similar things are solved using UI
[18:08] <@xalbo> (and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem)
[18:09] <vensa> xalbo: isnt there an implied {oldI} at the start?
[18:09] <@xalbo> I strongly oppose changing {pau nai}. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one.
[18:09] <dbrock-> I don't propose changing {pau nai}
[18:09] <dbrock-> you can't do things like that
[18:10] <vensa> {paucu'i} is currently undefined
[18:10] <dbrock-> it's impossible, so debating it is a waste of time
[18:10] <vensa> dbrock: 1. anything is posible
[18:10] <vensa> 2. didt you suggest that earlier?
[18:10] <vensa> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Discursives
[18:10] <UukGoblin> hm.
[18:11] <dbrock-> I have long been an advocate of thinking of {UI ja'ai} and {UI nai} as completely separate scales
[18:12] <vensa> so you did suggest to change {paunai}
[18:12] <UukGoblin> with stuff like 'paunai', what is there to distinguish between definitions like 'answer follows', 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'?
[18:12] <dbrock-> that's why I said "if I got to choose, {pau nai} would mean "answer follows" "
[18:12] <UukGoblin> :-]
[18:12] <dbrock-> I didn't say "I propose we change the meaning of {pau nai}"
[18:12] <vensa> oh
[18:12] <vensa> I read that as that
[18:13] <vensa> who cares about the old meaning of {paunai} its probably rarely been used
[18:13] <dbrock-> yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal
[18:13] <@xalbo> (Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I"
[18:13] <dbrock-> {pau nai} has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO"
[18:13] <vensa> uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'
[18:13] <dbrock-> and the only effect of trying to change its meaning will be to cement the old meaning even further
[18:13] <vensa> xalbo :)
[18:14] <vensa> "cement"?
[18:14] <UukGoblin> vensa, "the following is not meant to be intepreted as a question" and "the following is meant to cancel the question in question"
[18:15] <vensa> I am very much an advocate of changing the old for the benefit of the future. as an answer to the nay-saying conservatives I have proposed the "version\scripting" system
[18:15] <UukGoblin> cementing is a popular technique of postponing trouble with blown up nuclear reactors for later
[18:15] <vensa> uuk: regular {i} is the first. and you cant obliterate a question once it was asked. you can just choose to not answer it with regular {i}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[18:17] <UukGoblin> vensa, nah, it's kinda not my question... my problem is {pau nai} is a cluster, but because {pau} can be negated in different ways, doesn't it make {pau nai} a bit ambiguous?
[17:18] <vensa> xalbo: how does {i'au} sound to you as the "newI"? (from {i} + {danfu})
[17:18] * Volatile citka
[17:18] <vensa> Volatile: {zo'oi} is for one word quote only
[17:19] <Volatile> vensa: well, that was one word quoted. Then, I kinda changed language.
[17:19] <vensa> Volatile: you can translate word by word using valsi. it still wont help you understand the grammar
[17:19] <vensa> Volatile: that doesnt parse
[17:19] <@xalbo> vensa: Feels like an attitudinal to me.
[17:19] <vensa> you need {zoi .gy. bla bla bla .gy}
[17:20] <vensa> xalbo: does {i} feel like an attitudinal?
[17:20] <vensa> are there experimental-cmavo attitudinals?
[17:20] <vensa> I guess ur right tho
[17:21] <@xalbo> I'm used to single vowels being connectives, and multiple vowels being UI1. It's not set in stone of course, but probably not good to mess with.
[17:21] <Volatile> vensa: I meant to just quote one word, but then I realize that I don't really know the correct grammar (modals, no?) to express what I wanted anyhow...
[17:21] <vensa> V: fine
[17:21] * Volatile cu citka.i co'o
[17:22] <vensa> xalbo: {da'au}?
[17:22] <@xalbo> Better.
[17:22] <vensa> or: {ni'au} (ni'o} + {danfu}
[17:24] <kribacr> .u'i sai coi jungo
[17:24] <vensa> yeah it does sound a bit chinese
[17:24] <vensa> kribacr: did you hear about our idea?
[17:24] <kribacr> Yes.
[17:24] <kribacr> I for responses.
[17:24] <kribacr> I was here yesterday.
[17:25] <vensa> those are different I's in ur 2 sentences...
[17:25] <vensa> english ambiguity :P
[17:25] <kribacr> I lamented the fact that {dau} was unavailable.
[17:25] <kribacr> Indeed.
[17:25] <@xalbo> Right now I have my head in the *huge* bpfk thread from the weekend, about where "texts" begin and end with multiple speakers
[17:26] <ksion> coi rodo .i ma lamji je fanza se stidi la vensa u'i
[17:26] <vensa> thats also a big one
[17:26] <vensa> .u'iru'e .oiro'a doi ksion
[17:26] <@xalbo> Unfortunately, we don't have a convention for quoting selma'o names in running English text (since for all but I there's not much problem), nor even for talking about them in Lojban.
[17:27] <vensa> doi ksion ni'au lo danfu valsi
[17:27] <ksion> ue
[17:27] <ksion> xu do stidi tu'a lo cmavo pe lo danfu pe fi'o simsa zo pau
[17:28] <ksion> s/lo danfu pe/lo danfu zi'epe
[17:28] <vensa> ksion: {ni'au} (sounds cooler) is the proposed cmavo which will act "like" an {i} but signal that the utterance is a "partial reply" to a question word, and not a full sentence
[17:28] <@xalbo> .i cmavo lo selma'o be zo .i
[17:28] <ksion> And the need for having this is ...?
[17:29] <vensa> imagine you are asked a multiple-question question, e.g.:
[17:29] <vensa> {ma djica lonu do mo}
[17:29] <ksion> xalbo: I usually say {zo'oi FAhA}.
[17:30] <vensa> if you want the full answer to be {do djica lonu mi surla} would you say {do surla}?
[17:30] <ksion> No, {do .i surla}.
[17:30] <vensa> becuz that seems to imply some other nonexistent bridi relationship
[17:31] <vensa> yes, that may be enough. but
[17:31] <vensa> then we got into decding how we are supposed to "avoid" a question
[17:31] <vensa> I ask you {do mo} but you dont want to answer. you want to point out that it's raininng so you say {carvi}
[17:31] <vensa> it "seems" as though you are claiming that {mi carvi}
[17:32] <ksion> {.i co'e .i carvi}
[17:32] <selpa`i> how bout ni'o
[17:32] <ksion> {ni'o} or {ta'o} is fine too.
[17:32] <vensa> xsion: what about if I ask {xo} and you dont want to answer?
[17:33] <ksion> ji'i
[17:33] <vensa> so basically the questioner forces the listener to respond to their question, even if its with a vague answer, get the question "out of the way" before he can say anything?
[17:33] <ksion> (if you want a question type where I don't have a 'neutral' reply, try {cu'e} :) )
[17:33] <vensa> IMO that is a little annoying
[17:34] <vensa> valsi cu'e
[17:34] <valsi> cu'e = tense/modal question.
[17:34] <selpa`i> I dont think its a problem
[17:34] <ksion> Then {.i .i <your stuff>} works.
[17:34] <vensa> do'e
[17:34] <selpa`i> When I answer by saying something unrelated, then context will show that I didnt care to answer.
[17:34] <vensa> {do'e} is vague of {cu'e}
[17:34] <vensa> but there is no vague for {fi'a}
[17:34] <vensa> valsi fi'a
[17:34] <selpa`i> That happens all the time in natural languages too
[17:35] <valsi> fi'a = sumti place tag: place structure number/tag question.
[17:35] <ksion> {faxiji'i}
[17:35] <vensa> selpa'i: but there can be unclear cases where it's not clear if you are answering or not
[17:35] <vensa> ksion: nice
[17:35] <selpa`i> In such a case, the question asker will ask for clarification like normal
[17:35] <vensa> still. y force the listener to "get the question out of the way".
[17:35] <ksion> vensa: Question is not enforced grammatically. You don't have to escape it by grammatical means, really.
[17:36] == Dessous [~DaMan@a88-115-70-173.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #lojban
[17:36] <vensa> if I ask you {ma mo mo xo ma mo xu}
[17:36] <selpa`i> That's a stupid question
[17:36] <vensa> selpa'i: it's just an example
[17:36] <ksion> Then the correct answer is {ko ko gletu} :P
[17:36] <selpa`i> yes
[17:36] <vensa> I can fill it with other "meaning" words and leave the same number of Q words
[17:36] <selpa`i> u'i
[17:36] <vensa> xa'a
[17:37] <selpa`i> If you ask me such a dumb question, you cant expect me to answer it
[17:37] <ksion> Or {ki'a}, if you still want to be polite (I'd not be).
[17:37] <vensa> ksion: you say I dont have to escape the question. so why do you propose the {co'e .i broda} approach?
[17:38] <selpa`i> co'e is a polite evasion move
[17:38] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
[17:38] <ksion> vensa: Because it is customary to expect an answer after a question. It's not by-grammar though, but only by-semantics.
[17:38] <vensa> IMO if you ask me a question I should be able to say whatever I want. but only if I want to ONLY "fill in the slots" of the question words, I need something like {ni'au}
[17:38] <selpa`i> I agree.
[17:39] <timonator> ni'au?
[17:39] <vensa> ksion: I think this should be decided by grammar. much like the {go'i} answer is a gramatical mechanism
[17:39] <ksion> ta'a ni'o ta'o a'anai -- Possible solutions.
[17:40] <ksion> {go'i} being answer is not grammatical mechanism. {go'i} being last bridi is.
[17:40] <vensa> I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity
[17:40] <timonator> right, go'i is by far not only for answers
[17:40] <vensa> not only
[17:40] <timonator> {i za'a ta muvdu} {i do go'i gasnu} {i mi na go'i}
[17:40] <vensa> nm go'i
[17:41] <kribacr> .i do ja'a go'i
[17:41] <kribacr> coi spitaki
[17:41] <ksion> [17:40:49] <vensa> I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity -- And?
[17:41] <kribacr> ko cikna binxo
[17:41] <vensa> And? do you like ambiguity?
[17:41] <selpa`i> lojban is hella ambiguous anyway
[17:41] <vensa> says you
[17:41] <vensa> it's not supposed to be
[17:41] <ksion> Semantically, I'm from neutral to positive.
[17:42] <selpa`i> Semantically it is.
[17:42] <ksion> Of course it is supposed to be.
[17:42] <selpa`i> Grammatically, not so much.
[17:42] <ksion> .i mi za'e firxance lo se cusku be la vensa
[17:42] <vensa> valsi firxance
[17:42] <valsi> no results. http://vlasisku.lojban.org/firxance
[17:42] <vensa> oh
[17:42] <vensa> is that an example of semantic ambiguity
[17:42] <vensa> ?
[17:43] <ksion> Nope ;)
[17:43] <vensa> but it is
[17:43] <ksion> Well, nonce words are an example of it.
[17:43] <vensa> xalbo: help me out here
[17:43] <ksion> ({firxance}, as it's not-so-hard to figure out, is meant to mean "facepalm" :) )
[17:43] <vensa> why did we think it was a good idea yesterday?
[17:45] <vensa> ksion: you want to go over the discussion and see if you agree with any of it?
[17:45] <vensa> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Implied+%7Bco%27e%7D+and+Multiple-Question+Questions
[17:45] <ksion> Sure.
[17:45] <vensa> gr8
[17:45] * vensa is glad there is a use for his archiving
[17:47] <@xalbo> .oi
[17:48] <ksion> vensa: You can extract a place from any number of nested abstractions be using an appropriate number of {jai} and SE.
[17:48] <@xalbo> It seems wrong that we use the same cmavo ({.i}) for starting a new complete bridi, and for filling in sequential fragments of someone else's bridi.
[17:49] <Volatile> "facepalm" sounds like some kind of tree to me. Guess it's some malglico...
[17:49] <vensa> I think we should decide between 3 options: 1. you need to say {co'e} and {ji'i} for every question to get it out of the way first (i dont like this option) 2. you say {ta'a} or {ni'o} or something to imply that you are NOT answering the question 3. you use {ni'au} for cases when you want to indicate that you ARE answering
[17:49] <vensa> xalbo: "seems wrong" is a bit short of an argument IMO
[17:50] <selpa`i> #3 seems terrible
[17:50] <ksion> 4. You say what you want since question aren't grammatically binding.
[17:50] <vensa> ksion: ki'e
[17:50] <selpa`i> I like 4 the best.
[17:50] <vensa> ksion: if 4, then who knows whether I'm answering you or not?
[17:51] <selpa`i> Context.
[17:51] <vensa> I can imagine cases where it's unclear from context
[17:51] * Volatile does not like "
[17:51] <Volatile> argh
[17:51] <Volatile> 4
[17:51] <vensa> so what if "natlangs get away with it"
[17:51] <selpa`i> Sure, but in those cases, you can clarify.
[17:51] <ksion> "What are you doing?" "Raining"
[17:51] <@xalbo> Well, 4 is always going to be the most common, and with good reason. But it still seems important (there's that "seems" again) to be able to specify one way or another.
[17:53] <Volatile> I'd say that in this language more than others, specificity matters...
[17:54] <vensa> wouldnt it be prettier if lojban had an elegent way to deal with it?
[17:54] <ksion> [17:38] <UukGoblin> na'i -- uasai, how could I forget it!
[17:54] <ksion> There you go, your miraculous "escape-all-questions" cmavo.
[17:54] <vensa> selpa'i: calrifying with more sentences is exaclty the thing we want to avoid in lojban
[17:54] <@xalbo> The example I use before, I think, was {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}. Answering {co'e} there is a bad idea.
[17:55] <selpa`i> Is that so?
[17:55] <@xalbo> ksion: Problem is that {na'i} isn't avoiding an answer, it's specifically saying that there *isn't* one.
[17:55] <vensa> xalbo: yes! thank you! the {catra} example
[17:56] <vensa> .ie on the {na'i} not working
[17:56] <vensa> {na'i} is something else
[17:56] <selpa`i> Why did you kill the monarch?
[17:56] <@xalbo> If you ask the above catra question, I can't plead the fifth in Lojban. I can use {na'}, or I can give a reason, but I can't just say "I want a lawyer!" without that being my answer for why I killed him.
[17:57] <ksion> je'e
[17:58] <ksion> Then that's why we have {na'i}.
[17:59] <@xalbo> {na'i} doesn't do that, though. It says that the question itself is wrong (in this case, because I didn't kill him), not that I'm not going to answer it.
[17:59] <vensa> ksion {na'i catra .i mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer}?
[17:59] * Volatile klama .i co'o
[17:59] <ksion> vensa: {na'i} is UI. Thus {.i go'i na'i}
[18:00] <vensa> xalbo: so why not {i go'i na'i .i <what you want to say>}
[18:00] <@xalbo> That means {mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu no'a na'i}, which sure seems b0rken to me.
[18:00] <ksion> ...What?
[18:00] <vensa> huh?
[18:00] <selpa`i> ..?
[18:01] == Wolvenreign [~david@c-69-136-176-250.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #lojban
[18:01] <@xalbo> I asked for a {mo}. You gave me a bridi.
[18:01] <vensa> it says {na'i mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu ma}
[18:01] <vensa> ohhhh
[18:01] == Wolvenreign has changed nick to labnytru
[18:01] <ksion> No, I gave you a selbri. Which is incidentally the same.
[18:01] <vensa> wow - this raises another issue
[18:02] <ksion> ...
[18:02] <@xalbo> But even without that, the {na'i} doesn't not answer the question. it asserts that the question is wrong. That's different.
[18:03] <vensa> A says {do djica lonu mo} B wants to repeat the question to A. does {go'i ra'o} work?
[18:03] <ksion> xalbo: It doesn't answer it.
[18:03] <labnytru> coi rodo
[18:03] <vensa> xalbo: legal differences. "I didnt say I didnt do it" :P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[18:05] <@xalbo> For whatever legal reason, I don't want to say that I *didn't* kill him, but I sure as Hell don't want to say I did. All I *want* to say is "I want a lawyer".
[18:05] <@xalbo> {na'i} does the first of those three, {co'e} the second.
[18:06] <labnytru> So, folks.
[18:06] <ksion> Congratulations. You made me use the biggest cannon.
[18:06] <labnytru> How many of you know what SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is?
[18:06] <ksion> Behold, {sei}! ... {.i sei na pinka}
[18:08] <@xalbo> labnytru: I only know of SEO as "Evil people trying to hijack Google to show me what they want instead of what I want."
[18:08] <ksion> (Although I still think xalbo misunderstands {na'i} giving it less "power" than it really has)
[18:08] <labnytru> Good enough answer, although it doesn't have to be that way.
[18:09] <labnytru> Ultimately, you could have a website with valuable information related to the keyword and not have it show up on Google because of it's lack of optimization.
[18:09] <ksion> {na'i} is metalinguistic. It invalidates EVERYTHING linguistically associated with statement it marks. It does not only negate the "truth case", but also "false case".
[18:09] <@xalbo> Point.
[18:09] <vensa> xalbo: why not go with option2? {do pu catra lo nulraitru ki'u lonu mo} -> {ni'o mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer}
[18:10] <labnytru> Well, with that in mind...
[18:10] <vensa> xalbo: does "point" mean you agree about {na'i} with ksion?
[18:10] <@xalbo> It means that ksion made a good point about {na'i}, and I'm stepping back to reconsider in light of that.
[18:11] <labnytru> I've been working with an SEO forum to learn more...and I've been chosen to be the sole co-moderator of it.
[18:11] <vensa> ok. so we're going with option2 and {na'i}?