History: The Definition of {vo'a}

Source of version: 1 (current)

{CODE(wrap="1")}[09:29] <vensa> selkik: (ta'a) what do you make of the following: {so'o gerku cu te skari fi lo xunre fe lo se skari be lo crino bei lonei}? [09:30] <selckiku> um well my first thought is "i'm gonna have to look up the places of skari" so uh, brb? [09:30] <vensa> hehe [09:30] <vensa> valsi skari [09:30] <valsi> skari = x1 is/appears to be of color/hue x2 as perceived/seen by x3 under conditions x4. [09:31] <selckiku> hmm [09:32] <selckiku> several dogs see a red thing as being the color of a green thing.. now "nei" is doing to my brain what "nei" does [09:32] <vensa> I was hoping it points to {so'o gerku}. no? [09:33] <selckiku> o so you can use "lo nei" like "lo go'i"? i don't know i'd ever thought of that [09:33] <selckiku> it makes sense [09:33] <vensa> cool [09:33] <vensa> I was going for: some dogs have red-green color blindness [09:33] <selckiku> in that case i think you can as well use "vo'a" tho [09:33] <vensa> i.e. some dogs see red things in the same way as they see green things [09:34] <selckiku> yup that made sense to me [09:34] <vensa> I think {vo'a} would have pointed to the x1 of {lo se skari be lo crino} [09:35] <vensa> aisa: thank you, I feel it is important and it's quite easy to do, so why not. but I appreciate knowing that it helps someone else too [09:35] <selckiku> i'm never sure about vo'a, honestly, but i don't think so, because that's not an embedded bridi just a complex sumti [09:35] <vensa> I think {vo'a} works with embedded sumti too [09:35] <selckiku> ok.. that does sound like a useful way for it to work [09:36] <selckiku> honestly there was this huge fight about it years ago & so i put {vo'a} into my mental "don't bother; too contentious" bin :D [09:36] <vensa> lo xruti be vo'a => the "returner" [09:36] <vensa> yeah I heard about the fight [09:37] <selckiku> but "nei" goes to the base bridi of the jufra? [09:37] <selckiku> you're trying to ask me, but you seem to know more about these cmavo than i do :D [09:37] <vensa> valsi nei [09:37] <valsi> nei = pro-bridi: repeats the current bridi. [09:37] <vensa> dunno [09:37] * vensa checking in CLL [09:38] <selckiku> it would make sense w/how it rhymes with "dei" [09:38] <vensa> I'm not THAT sure [09:38] <vensa> hehe [09:39] <Teapot> My understanding is "la .bainon. goi ko'a since" means "Bainon, also known as ko'a (as of now), is a snake" [09:40] <selckiku> Teapot, sounds right [09:40] <Teapot> Okay, awesome. Thanks! [09:40] <vensa> http://dag.github.com/cll/7/6/ [09:40] <vensa> going by ex6.14 it looks to always poin to the outermost bridi [09:41] <selckiku> Teapot, it assigns ko'a<-->bainon for the foreseeable future, until something else is assigned to ko'a basically... which you basically shouldn't do, you should just pull another pro-sumti out of the bag, there's ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u fo'a fo'e fo'i fo'o fo'u [09:41] <Teapot> Does that assignment hold for other people or just yourself? [09:41] <selckiku> and you could be like fo'i xi re ci (fo'i subscript 23) to make as many as you want, literally an infinite number :D [09:41] <Teapot> Like, if I assign something to ko'a, can someone else use it? [09:41] <selckiku> Teapot, yup [09:42] <Teapot> Okay, cool. [09:42] <selckiku> it just holds for the present conversation [09:42] <selckiku> "ko'a" has meant a lot of things in the past [09:42] <selckiku> right now in this conversation it's bainon [09:42] <selckiku> ko'a since [09:42] <Teapot> Yeah [09:42] <vensa> as for {vo'a} the CLL doesnt seem to discuss its use within {be} -> another point for the BPFK [09:42] <Teapot> Thanks again [09:42] <selckiku> who's ko'a, btw? is there a story about ko'a? [09:43] <selckiku> vensa, yeah, i'd really like some clarity on {vo'a}! it seems like maybe other people are more sure about it than i am, maybe i missed the bus on it [09:43] <Teapot> Bainon is Bino, my pet snake. [09:43] <selckiku> .ua [09:43] <selckiku> do kurji ko'a [09:43] <vensa> The way I understand it, it's always the "shortest"-scope link [09:44] <vensa> if you want longer scopes you have {nei} {no'a} and {go'i} [09:44] <Teapot> go'i [09:44] <Teapot> .ui [09:44] <selckiku> i don't even know {no'a} [09:45] <vensa> valsi no'a [09:45] <valsi> no'a = pro-bridi: repeats the bridi in which this one is embedded. [09:45] <@Broca> The last chapter of L4B is the best treatment of it so far. [09:45] <vensa> mi ba klama ca lonu do no'a [09:45] <vensa> broca: ie [09:45] <@Broca> The thing is that people disagree about vo'a and what would be the most useful interpretation. [09:45] <vensa> that chapter seems to suggest that the argument revolves around the ones who didnt want to change the def [09:45] <vensa> and the new and right def being "short scope" [09:46] <@Broca> In fact, vo'a is the subject of the only serious academic linguistics paper written about Lojban. [09:47] <vensa> I dont understand what would be wrong with defining it short-scope? [09:47] <selckiku> certainly if "lo nei" "lo se nei" etc are long-scope that seems to serve that role [09:47] <vensa> .ie [09:47] <vensa> broca: link to the paper? [09:48] <@Broca> vensa: because long-scope is useful too. And matrix clauses are special in natural languages (and sometimes in Lojban too) [09:48] <vensa> broca: but cant you use {lo nei, lo se nei, etc} for those cases? [09:48] <@Broca> vensa: http://www.unish.org/unish/DOWN/PDF/Nick_Nicholas(133~167).pdf [09:48] <vensa> what are "matrix clauses" [09:49] <@Broca> Top-level bridi, roughly. [09:50] <vensa> sh*t thats a long articla :) [09:50] <vensa> broca: ok, so again, why not settle with {lo nei} for "top-level-bridi" references? [09:51] <@Broca> If so, it would have to be {le nei} for bound terms. [09:51] <vensa> you mean LE vs LO? [09:52] <vensa> sure I can live with that :) [09:52] <vensa> what do you refer to as "bound terms"? [09:53] <@Broca> Sumti that we already know what entities they refer to. [09:53] <vensa> oh ok [09:53] <vensa> so yeah .ie [09:54] <vensa> so we're all for {vo'a} being short-scope then? [09:54] <@Broca> Think of the difference between “He killed himself” and “He killed some person(s) that killed some person(s) that killed some person(s) that ...” [09:54] <vensa> how would those two look in lojban? [09:54] <@Broca> I don't know. Isn't usage more in favour of long-scope? [09:54] <vensa> fuck usage [09:54] <vensa> .u'u [09:55] <vensa> since when does usage decide [09:55] <@Broca> {le prenu cu catra le nei} vs. {le prenu cu catra lo nei} [09:55] <vensa> hmmmm [09:55] <vensa> cool [09:55] <vensa> so the latter is a recursion [09:55] <selckiku> woooooow pierre just said on the list "sumyma'o" [09:55] <vensa> cuz it always introduces new information? [09:55] <@Broca> In my understanding, yes. I might be wrong. [09:55] <selckiku> i feel like i've been waiting for that lujyjvo forever [09:56] <@Broca> Usage decides, except when usage is wrong. :-) [09:56] <vensa> valsi sumyma'o [09:56] <valsi> no results. http://vlasisku.lojban.org/sumyma%27o [09:56] <vensa> selkik: whats it mean? [09:56] <selckiku> pro-sumti [09:56] <selckiku> sumti+cmavo [09:56] <vensa> broca: I think the decision was that usage shouldnt decidce [09:56] <selckiku> pro-sumti is such a weird chimerical word [09:57] <vensa> yeah [09:57] <vensa> cool [09:57] <@Broca> I must not have been in on that decision, then. [09:57] <vensa> well thats another issue {CODE}