History: pensi2 and djuno3 issues

Source of version: 6 (current)

!!!Here is a lovely conversation on what is supposed to go in pensi2, djuno3, and why epistemology/subject places are (or are not) useless. ~pp~ zgana: new question: what kinds of things can be pensi2 [3:42pm] selpa`i: I asked that same question like 2 weeks ago. [3:42pm] zgana: aaand? [3:42pm] lindar: du'u [3:42pm] selpa`i: I still can't tell for sure. [3:42pm] selpa`i: du'u yes [3:42pm] selpa`i: But what else? [3:42pm] selpa`i: Some ppl said nu [3:43pm] lindar: Yeah, I saw that. [3:43pm] lindar: It's wrong. [3:43pm] zgana: it says subject/concept in the definition [3:43pm] lindar: ...or at least less correct. [3:43pm] zgana: not fact [3:43pm] tricus left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection) [3:43pm] lindar: ... [3:43pm] lindar: Well... that's what's been used. [3:43pm] lindar: Maybe si'o? [3:43pm] lindar: It's a weird word. [3:44pm] lindar: The common convention has du'u as pensi2. [3:44pm] selpa`i: is it malgli to use it for "I think I will go"? [3:44pm] zgana: probably [3:44pm] selpa`i: The definition is a bit unclear to me [3:44pm] lindar: It -is- unclear. [3:44pm] zgana: what do you mean by "i think i will" [3:44pm] lindar: If you have a problem, write a proposal. We can submit it as an official proposal to the BPFK. [3:44pm] zgana: are you unsure? are you deciding? [3:45pm] tricus joined the chat room. [3:45pm] selpa`i: both [3:45pm] selpa`i: kinda [3:45pm] tricus left the chat room. [3:45pm] selpa`i: it seems malgli [3:45pm] lindar: I'm not particularly sure. [3:45pm] selpa`i: but allowing only du'u seems about weird [3:45pm] lindar: I'm actually going to side against convention in this case and say anything could be put there, but an abstraction seems -more- correct. [3:45pm] lindar: rlpowell: Can we get your input? [3:46pm] zgana: valsi djuno [3:46pm] lindar: Broca: If you're here, I'd love your input as well. [3:46pm] zgana: .oi [3:46pm] lindar: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/ [3:46pm] zgana: i know but i wanted it here for the discussion [3:46pm] tricus joined the chat room. [3:46pm] lindar: Also there are goldendict dictionaries and other stuff.... [3:46pm] zgana: x2 is a fact, x3 is a subject [3:46pm] zgana: to mi ca'o pilno la vlasisku toi [3:47pm] lindar: Hmmm... [3:47pm] selpa`i: mi pensi do [3:47pm] lindar: Like I said, write up the proposal, use your evidence (that was a good one), and I'll submit it. [3:48pm] Moddington is now known as Modd|nazvati. [3:48pm] rlpowell: lindar: With what? [3:48pm] selpa`i: pensi2 [3:49pm] lindar: What goes in pensi2? [3:50pm] zgana: selpa`i: in your example, i'd maybe say {.i ju'o ru'e ba zi cliva} [3:51pm] selpa`i: .ie [3:51pm] selpa`i: Something like that [3:51pm] zgana: .i zo .au ka'e co'e .e'u ru'e [3:52pm] selpa`i: never = no roi? [3:53pm] latros: I think so? [3:53pm] selpa`i: k [3:54pm] lindar: Ehm... kinda? [3:54pm] lindar: "Zero times" [3:54pm] donri left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection) [3:55pm] zgana: {na pu} might work if you just mean {i've never ___} [3:55pm] lindar: You haven't in the past... [3:56pm] selpa`i: On that note, it'd be useful to have a template of how the maximum selbri would look, most importantly the order of the tenses, negations etc [3:56pm] selpa`i: NA PU SELBRI, but with all the selma'o that can be in a selbri [3:57pm] Xunie joined the chat room. [3:57pm] rlpowell: lindar: A du'u or a si'o, I should think. [3:57pm] selpa`i: what about simple ko'a? [3:57pm] selpa`i: KOhA [3:58pm] rlpowell: lindar: The issue of what goes in various places is a large one that needs some real sit-down discussion betwene a bunch of peolpe at some point; if there's something about pensi2 that's unusually weird in this respect, it should be noted on the gismu issues page. [3:58pm] selpa`i: "I think about you" mi pensi do [3:58pm] selpa`i: is that BS? [3:58pm] lindar: It sounds reasonable to me. [3:58pm] lindar: Like I said, somebody write up the proposal, I'll put it on the correct page. [3:58pm] rlpowell: selpa`i: Was your KOhA question about pensi2? [3:59pm] selpa`i: Yes [3:59pm] rlpowell: Because that sounds like sumti raising to me. [3:59pm] zgana: i've never seen any other proposals, so i wouldn't necessarily know how to start [3:59pm] zgana: rlpowell: consider djuno2 and djuno3 [3:59pm] zgana: or cilre [3:59pm] zgana: subjects can be things, in those words [3:59pm] selpa`i: djuno2? [3:59pm] lindar: Yeah, I really have to agree there. [4:00pm] latros: is there a way to raise without having to use SE [4:00pm] lindar: That's not what that means. [4:00pm] latros: er [4:00pm] rlpowell: zgana: the "subject" places there look pretty seriously redundant. [4:00pm] latros: wait [4:00pm] latros: nvm [4:00pm] latros: tu'a, right right [4:00pm] selpa`i: redundant? [4:00pm] selpa`i: they get used all the time [4:01pm] lindar: They are somewhat redundant as one or the other gets used, but never both at once. [4:01pm] zgana: they could be replaced by zo'ei constructs, probably [4:01pm] selpa`i: true [4:01pm] rlpowell: zgana: But yes, either djuno3 is redundand or pensi is missing a place; a note to that effect on gismu issues would be good. [4:01pm] rlpowell: selpa`i: What's the difference between {mi djuno tu'a le karce} and {mi djuno fi le karce}? [4:01pm] latros: I find jimpe's place structure is, in a practical sense, backwards [4:01pm] rlpowell: AFAICT, they are *exactly* the same thing. [4:01pm] latros: .ie [4:01pm] rlpowell: Which means one of those places adds no vaule. [4:01pm] lindar: Agreed. [4:01pm] zgana: .ie [4:02pm] latros: although [4:02pm] latros: I suppose [4:02pm] latros: {mi djuno fi le xumske} [4:02pm] latros: is somewhat of a different intended meaning from {mi djuno tu'a le xumske} [4:02pm] rlpowell: And which also means that pensi2 should be clearly stated to be like djuno2, out of which you can get the subject with tu'a [4:02pm] latros: when djuno3 is a "field", in other words [4:02pm] rlpowell: Right now it sounds like it's djuno2+djuno3, which is broken. [4:02pm] selpa`i: It is possible to see some difference between the two [4:03pm] zgana: does this mean we should expect {djuno} to change in the future, possibly? [4:03pm] rlpowell: latros: I still don't see a difference; "I know some chemistry" vs. "I know things about chemistry". Seems the same to me. [4:03pm] rlpowell: zgana: Unlikely. [4:03pm] latros: but it's not that you know a du'u that has xumske in it [4:03pm] latros: it's that you know things that are part of the field of chemistry [4:03pm] zgana: latros: what about zo'e pe [4:04pm] latros: that would fix it [4:04pm] selpa`i: "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car" [4:04pm] latros: that works for things like cars [4:04pm] zgana: mi pensi zo'e pe lo nu cliva [4:04pm] zgana: maybe [4:04pm] latros: I don't think it works for things like chemistry [4:04pm] latros: zo'e pe / zo'ei does fix it though [4:04pm] rlpowell: < selpa`i> "I know that something is going on with a car" vs "I know some fact about a car" -- I do not see an interesting difference; something that is going on with a car *is* a fact about a car, no? [4:05pm] zgana: actually di'u is wrong [4:05pm] selpa`i: rlpowell: I suppose the difference I see, is "action/event" vs "subject" [4:05pm] lindar: With zo'ei, I see no reason for djuno3. [4:05pm] selpa`i: rlpowell: the former seems more ... animate [4:06pm] lindar: OKAY SO PLEASE WRITE A PROPOSAL STATING YOUR OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE AND I'LL SUBMIT IT TO THE BPFK. -___- [4:06pm] rlpowell: Heh. [4:06pm] rlpowell: lindar: I don't think we have enough for a *proposal* here. [4:06pm] zgana: .u'i ru'e ko smacni [4:06pm] selpa`i: Why change djuno when it doesn't cause any problems? [4:07pm] rlpowell: The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice. [4:07pm] rlpowell: selpa`i: I have no particular intention of changing djuno. [4:07pm] selpa`i: Good. [4:07pm] rlpowell: Redundancy is not a crime. [4:07pm] selpa`i: Agreed. [4:07pm] latros: that I can agree with [4:07pm] latros: there's a fair amount of usage breaking there [4:07pm] enthymeme left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) [4:08pm] tjader: Has anyone translated the poem of the ring to lojban? [4:08pm] latros: I mean, is it really helpful to replace all the fi's with zo'ei's? [4:08pm] zgana: i find that later places are always harder to remember [4:08pm] selpa`i: I don't find that to be true. [4:08pm] lindar: -_____- I'm just going to copypaste this discussion if nobody wants to write anything formal. [4:09pm] rlpowell: tjader: The what? [4:09pm] zgana: so pulling the epistemology place down by one would help n00bs [4:09pm] rlpowell: lindar: < rlpowell> The point is more discussion needs to occur; a simple "look at pensi2 vs. djuno2/3 wtf?" on the gismu issues page would suffice. [4:09pm] zgana: at least ones who think like me [4:09pm] rlpowell: lindar: I've said that like 4 times now; which part confuses you? [4:09pm] tjader: rlpowell: ash nazg durbatuluk... [4:09pm] rlpowell: tjader: Oooh. [4:09pm] tjader: one ring to rule them all [4:09pm] rlpowell: *That* ring. [4:09pm] rlpowell: I was thinking like the nibelungen or something. [4:09pm] lindar: The part where "wtf?" pages don't do crap and then later we need documented discussion and proposals -anyway-. [4:10pm] rlpowell: lindar: Yes, but we don't *have* a proposal right now. [4:10pm] selpa`i: Bullshit, I'm sure people don't want to relearn a bunch of place structures just because it might be easier for noobs when there is one place less. [4:10pm] tjader: la pa degja'i [4:10pm] rlpowell: And Idon't have the focus/energy to produce one, and this isn't the right group anyway. [4:10pm] zgana: selpa`i: i wasn't clear [4:10pm] zgana: i wouldn't argue that it should be changed! definitely not [4:10pm] rlpowell: lindar: Part of my plan is to have a bunch of such discussions to generate such proposals. [4:10pm] tjader: anyway, is there a translation of that already floating around? [4:10pm] zgana: hindsight is 20/20 though. i just mean it -would have been- easier the other way [4:10pm] • rlpowell fucking hates epistemology places. [4:10pm] rlpowell: And standard places, and observer places. [4:11pm] rlpowell: tjader: Not to my knowledge. [4:11pm] selpa`i: I've never used any of those. [4:11pm] zgana: rlpowell: that's a good point. those things don't usually have names that you just use in a sentence [4:11pm] lindar: Yeahhhh.... [4:11pm] lindar: I think we should just have an epistemology and standard BAI. [4:11pm] rlpowell: I hate them because that's what BAI is for. The problem is that the gismu list predates BAI. :) [4:12pm] selpa`i: Though again, no one forces you to use them. [4:12pm] zgana: .ua [4:12pm] rlpowell: 'strue. [4:12pm] rlpowell: But I've been trying to memorize place structures lately. [4:13pm] zgana: can more BAI be made for those places? [4:13pm] selpa`i: Maybe with mekso gone. :P [4:13pm] rlpowell: Well, for things that really need it, like say *djuno*, an epistomolgy place is fine, and we have du'o [4:14pm] selpa`i: Which should suffice. [4:14pm] rlpowell: Similarily zgana/ga'a for observer. [4:14pm] rlpowell: And manri/ma'i fro standard. [4:15pm] zgana: .ua sai .a'u [4:15pm] rlpowell: I've considered simply dropping those places from my memorization schedule. ~/pp~