WikiDiscuss

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:07 GMT posts: 1912

> Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the same Lambda
> variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar and scatter the bound

I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e

> ce'u in the current bridi. You can also use ri and so on, or cy. In
> the case of nested relative clauses, ce'u or ce'u xi pa is a normal,

That would be "nested abstractions"

> new ce'u variable, but ce'u xi re refers to the first ce'u in the
> next outer-most relative clause, and so on for higher numbers. If there is
> more than one, use another xi, so that ce'u xi re xi ci is the third
> ce'u in the next outer-most relative clause.

"next outer-most abstraction"

> sruri le botpi cnebo fa lo pelji tcita noi lei valsi li'o prina ke'a
> ''All around the bottle necks where paper labels, which the words ... were
> printed on them.''

That needs a {cu} before {prina}.

> a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination. To reject the
> basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value that could make
> that bridi true), use na'i or no da.

Rejecting the basis of a question is different from
indicating that no value can make the bridi true. {no da} is
an ordinary answer, {na'i} negates the presuppositions or
implicatures involved in the question.

> !! Examples of zi'o Usage
>
> loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci
> Living things are made of cells.
> The existence of a maker that makes living things from cells is explicitely
> denied.

The existence of a maker is neither denied nor asserted.
It's just a relationship between something and its material.

> lo pinsi be zi'o na se sarcu lo vimcu
> Pencils which mark on nothing do not require a remover.
> Loosely: Broken pencils don't need erasers.

That's not what zi'o does. The {pinsi be zi'o} relationship is
a relationship between a pencil and its structure, it says nothing
about having or lacking marking power.

> lo nu morsi cu zi'o zasti
> Death is non-existence.
> Loosely translated. lo nu morsi goes in the second place of zasti.

This one is ungrammatical. If {lo nu morsi cu zasti zi'o} was meant,
then it just says that death is real (under some metaphysics). {zi'o}
just removes the place for the observer of reality. (It does not claim
that no observer exists though, the claim simply does not involve
observation.)

> !! Proposed Definition of zo'e
>
> ;zo'e (KOhA7): Unspecif it. zo'e is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the
> place of a fully-specified sumti).
....
> In particular, zo'e can represent sumti of any
> complexity, including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and
> combinations thereof.

I think the idea that {zo'e} represents another sumti is wrong.
{zo'e} refers to some obvious or irrelevant value(s).

When I use "ta" to refer to a cat, "ta" does not represent "le mlatu",
"ta" simply refers to the cat. "le mlatu" is another way to refer to
the cat, and "zo'e" is yet another way to refer to the cat, if the
conditions are such that the cat (the animal, not the words "le mlatu")
is the obvious value. "zo'e" represents neither "ta" nor "le mlatu" nor
any other of the innumerable sumti which we could use to refer to the
cat in question. The reason "zo'e" won't work when "no da" or "zi'o"
are meant is that these words don't point to any values, whereas
"zo'e" does.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

As usual, corrections to which I agree removed.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:16:26AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the
> > same Lambda variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar and
> > scatter the bound
>
> I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e

No! Absolutely not! It's meant to bind two variables to the *same*
ce'u; your example doesn't solve the problem.

> > a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination. To
> > reject the basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no
> > value that could make that bridi true), use na'i or no da.
>
> Rejecting the basis of a question is different from indicating that no
> value can make the bridi true. {no da} is an ordinary answer, {na'i}
> negates the presuppositions or implicatures involved in the question.

True. Pulled na'i out, added:

A more extreme rejection of the presuppositions or implicatures involved
in a question is to reply with na'i.

> > !! Examples of zi'o Usage
> >
> > loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci ''Living things are made of
> > cells.''
> > The existence of a maker that makes living things from cells is
> > explicitely denied.
>
> The existence of a maker is neither denied nor asserted. It's just a
> relationship between something and its material.

Point. I seem to have had some problems with zi'o.

> > lo pinsi be zi'o na se sarcu lo vimcu
> > Pencils which mark on nothing do not require a remover.
> > Loosely: Broken pencils don't need erasers.
>
> That's not what zi'o does. The {pinsi be zi'o} relationship is a
> relationship between a pencil and its structure, it says nothing about
> having or lacking marking power.

True. It includes the frame substance, though.

> > lo nu morsi cu zi'o zasti
> > Death is non-existence.
> > Loosely translated. lo nu morsi goes in the second place of
> > zasti.
>
> This one is ungrammatical.

Gah. You're right.

Looking for a replacement example, I found:

mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima
nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u

• BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?

Replaced with lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do

> > !! Proposed Definition of zo'e
> >
> > ;zo'e (KOhA7): Unspecif it. zo'e is a pro-sumti (meaning it
> > takes the place of a fully-specified sumti).
> ...
> > In particular, zo'e can represent sumti of any complexity,
> > including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and
> > combinations thereof.
>
> I think the idea that {zo'e} represents another sumti is wrong.
> {zo'e} refers to some obvious or irrelevant value(s).

Point.

zo'e can represent a referant of any complexity. To fully specify
the thing represented by zo'e may require very complex Lojban,
including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and
combinations thereof.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

> > > Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the
> > > same Lambda variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar and
> > > scatter the bound
> >
> > I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e
>
> No! Absolutely not! It's meant to bind two variables to the *same*
> ce'u; your example doesn't solve the problem.

Then I have no idea what you mean by it. Why would you ever need to
bind two variables to the same ce'u? Could you give an example?

> mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima
> nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u
>
> *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?

Probably {zi'e} was intended.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:43:13AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > Each new ce'u is a new variable. To bind multiple places to the
> > > > same Lambda variable, use ce'u goi ko'a goi ko'e or similar
> > > > and scatter the bound
> > >
> > > I suppose that's meant to be ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e
> >
> > No! Absolutely not! It's meant to bind two variables to the *same*
> > ce'u; your example doesn't solve the problem.
>
> Then I have no idea what you mean by it. Why would you ever need to
> bind two variables to the same ce'u? Could you give an example?

It's the only way to say "lamda(x) x loves x".

Each ce'u gives a new variable, you see.

lo ka ce'u prami ce'u — The property of something loving something,
which may be a different thing.

lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property of
something loving itself; only one variable.

> > mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima
> > nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u
> >
> > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?
>
> Probably {zi'e} was intended.

Oh, duh.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

> lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property of
> something loving itself; only one variable.

Whyever not just:

lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a

> > > mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino cmima
> > > nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u
> > >
> > > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?
> >
> > Probably {zi'e} was intended.
>
> Oh, duh.

Or even the old meaning of {zi'o}. Now that I remember, there used
to be a whole series zi'a, zi'e, zi'i, zi'o, zi'u, one for each
logical connector type.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:09:08PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property
> > of something loving itself; only one variable.
>
> Whyever not just:
>
> lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a

That would be fine, sure. I honestly couldn't think of a use for three
of the same variable, though, so I cheated.

> > > > mi tugni le se cusku po la bab. zi'o po'u lu zgana le cnino
> > > > cmima nuncansu gi'ebabo stidi le cnino javni li'u
> > > >
> > > > *BOGGLE*. WTF does "zi'o po'u" mean?
> > >
> > > Probably {zi'e} was intended.
> >
> > Oh, duh.
>
> Or even the old meaning of {zi'o}. Now that I remember, there used to
> be a whole series zi'a, zi'e, zi'i, zi'o, zi'u, one for each logical
> connector type.

It's not old enough.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 1912

> > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The property
> > > of something loving itself; only one variable.
> >
> > Whyever not just:
> >
> > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a
>
> That would be fine, sure. I honestly couldn't think of a use for three
> of the same variable, though, so I cheated.

lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a broda ko'a ko'a ko'a ko'a

What does it matter how many times the variable appears?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:15 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:16:42PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a go'i ko'e zo'u ko'a prami ko'e — The
> > > > property of something loving itself; only one variable.
> > >
> > > Whyever not just:
> > >
> > > lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a prami ko'a
> >
> > That would be fine, sure. I honestly couldn't think of a use for
> > three of the same variable, though, so I cheated.
>
> lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ko'a broda ko'a ko'a ko'a ko'a
>
> What does it matter how many times the variable appears?

/me blinks.

Duh.

Sorry; you're right, there's no reason to do what I did. Fixing.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:18 GMT posts: 2388

Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'" at least and better to "the property of being a broda," which is surely more direct and probably more accurate (any sumti can fit into the first place of a predicate in the grammatical sense — and we have not spelled out how to interpret "fit" in any other cases, though some are clear enough). Since it is not clear what that "broda" is, it is unclear what is being claimed by saying that it has a first place into which something can fit: the predicate does but what fits there is not a broda but only a sumti, it is arguable whether the property does or not, though it can be predicated of something with the desired result (although just what that is is controversial too), and the propositional function (better set out with {du'u} for obvious reasons) can take an argument very like a
first place.

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:18 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something
> that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property
> of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'"

What, just adding the quotes? I can do that.

> at least and better to "the property of being a broda,"

I can't do that, because not all the keywords fit. "sazri", for
example, would mean "the property of being an operate".

-Robin

Posted by pycyn on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:19 GMT posts: 2388

Well, adding quotes helps a bit but still doesn't get to what is going on here: properties are generally not linguistic artefacts, but real world ones. As for cleaning up the more accurate version, "the property of being/doing broda" or "the property of being one that broda."

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something
> that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property
> of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'"

What, just adding the quotes? I can do that.

> at least and better to "the property of being a broda,"

I can't do that, because not all the keywords fit. "sazri", for
example, would mean "the property of being an operate".

-Robin

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:19 GMT posts: 14214

Done.

-Robin

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:19:58AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Well, adding quotes helps a bit but still doesn't get to what is going
> on here: properties are generally not linguistic artefacts, but real
> world ones. As for cleaning up the more accurate version, "the
> property of being/doing broda" or "the property of being one that
> broda."
>
> Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:47:58PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> > Can we get rid of the solecism in "the property of being something
> > that can fit in the first place of broda"? Change it to "the property
> > of being something that can fit in the first place of 'broda'"
>
> What, just adding the quotes? I can do that.
>
> > at least and better to "the property of being a broda,"
>
> I can't do that, because not all the keywords fit. "sazri", for
> example, would mean "the property of being an operate".
>
> -Robin

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 1912

I have already voted yes, but here are some more comments anyway.

> !! Proposed Definition of ma
>
> ;ma (KOhA7): Sumti question. ma is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the
....
> requests that the listener provide a sumti as an answer. The sumti
> response should fill the place where ma was in the original bridi in such
> a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination.

That's assuming the listener can and wants to answer with the truth,
which need not be the case. All we can really say is: "The sumti
response fills the place where ma was in the original bridi
and the resulting bridi is the answer offered to the question."

To reject the
> basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value that could make
> that bridi true), use no da.

I would eliminate "To reject the basis of a question (i.e.," from here.
Answering {noda} doesn't seem to reject the basis of a question, it
just says that no value applies.

> na'i. A bridi with more than one ma should be responded to with an
> unconnected string of sumti.

I'd say "can be responded". You can always respond with a full bridi as well.

> ;zi'o (KOhA7): Nonexistent it.

I think "nonexistent it" is very misleading. "Nonexistent argument place"
would be better.

> lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do
> ''A name (regardless of whether some thing is actually being named or not) is
> attending and attentive to you.''

What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less attentive?

> zo'e can represent, or be replaced with, just about anything.

I think that can be misleading. Replacing it with something will
usually change the sentence in some way, at least in the pragmatics.
Replacing {zo'e} with anything else will normally make a sentece
less vague.

> into a question. zo'e can represent a referant of any complexity. To
> fully specify the thing represented by zo'e may require very complex
> Lojban, including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and
> combinations thereof.

The complexity of a referent has nothing to do with the complexity
of the sumti used to refer to it. You can use a very simple sumti
to refer to a very complex thing (for example {lo mutce pluja}, or
you can use a very complex sumti, with lots of relative clauses and
whatever else you want, to refer to a very simple thing. {zo'e}
refers to things, and their complexity is not relevant. The
complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to refer
to those same things is also not relevant. {zo'e} is not
particularly linked to any other sumti, so saying that the
same referents could be pointed at by more complex means doesn't
say much. That is true for any sumti, not just for {zo'e}.

> ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the
> place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i represents some value that is
> typical for the bridi place it fills.

I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a better
proposal for {zu'i}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:22 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:39:07AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> I have already voted yes, but here are some more comments anyway.
>
> > !! Proposed Definition of ma
> >
> > ;ma (KOhA7): Sumti question. ma is a pro-sumti (meaning
> > it takes the
> ...
> > requests that the listener provide a sumti as an answer. The
> > sumti response should fill the place where ma was in the
> > original bridi in such a way as to have a true bridi result from
> > the combination.
>
> That's assuming the listener can and wants to answer with the
> truth, which need not be the case. All we can really say is: "The
> sumti response fills the place where ma was in the original
> bridi and the resulting bridi is the answer offered to the
> question."

Done.

> To reject the
> > basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value
> > that could make that bridi true), use no da.
>
> I would eliminate "To reject the basis of a question (i.e.," from
> here. Answering {noda} doesn't seem to reject the basis of a
> question, it just says that no value applies.

Done.

> > na'i. A bridi with more than one ma should be responded
> > to with an unconnected string of sumti.
>
> I'd say "can be responded". You can always respond with a full
> bridi as well.

Done.

> > ;zi'o (KOhA7): Nonexistent it.
>
> I think "nonexistent it" is very misleading. "Nonexistent argument
> place" would be better.

Done.

> > lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do ''A name (regardless of
> > whether some thing is actually being named or not) is attending
> > and attentive to you.''
>
> What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less
> attentive?

I have no idea; I was short on zi'o examples. Replaced.

> > zo'e can represent, or be replaced with, just about
> > anything.
>
> I think that can be misleading. Replacing it with something will
> usually change the sentence in some way, at least in the
> pragmatics. Replacing {zo'e} with anything else will normally make
> a sentece less vague.

Comma clause removed.

> > into a question. zo'e can represent a referant of any
> > complexity. To fully specify the thing represented by zo'e
> > may require very complex Lojban, including abstractions,
> > relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and combinations thereof.
>
> The complexity of a referent has nothing to do with the complexity
> of the sumti used to refer to it.

I thought I was clear on that point.

> {zo'e} refers to things, and their complexity is not relevant.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.

> The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to
> refer to those same things is also not relevant.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.

Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these statements?
They are intended for clarification.

> > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning
> > it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i
> > represents some value that is typical for the bridi place it
> > fills.
>
> I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a
> better proposal for {zu'i}.

Neither do I.

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:23 GMT posts: 1912

> > > lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do ''A name (regardless of
> > > whether some thing is actually being named or not) is attending
> > > and attentive to you.''
> >
> > What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less
> > attentive?
>
> I have no idea; I was short on zi'o examples. Replaced.

Later I thought it might mean that there's a name waiting for you,
say when you are being born, the name is already there (but it is
not yet {lo cmene be do} so zi'o is right), and it's paying attention
to your arrival so as to cmene you as soon as it can.

> > The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to
> > refer to those same things is also not relevant.
>
> Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.
>
> Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these statements?
> They are intended for clarification.

I don't understand what is it that they clarify. I think they
detract from the definition, but I'm noy changing my vote because
of them if that's what you mean by serious.

> > > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning
> > > it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i
> > > represents some value that is typical for the bridi place it
> > > fills.
> >
> > I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a
> > better proposal for {zu'i}.
>
> Neither do I.

I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as:

lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda
le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:00:50PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to
> > > refer to those same things is also not relevant.
> >
> > Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.
> >
> > Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these
> > statements? They are intended for clarification.
>
> I don't understand what is it that they clarify. I think they
> detract from the definition,

I don't ever again want to here anyone saying anything like "that's
too complicated to fill an empty place!". I may be hallucinating
that that's an issue, but that's the reason.

> but I'm not changing my vote because of them if that's what you
> mean by serious.

OK.

> > > > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti
> > > > (meaning it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti).
> > > > zu'i represents some value that is typical for the bridi
> > > > place it fills.
> > >
> > > I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a
> > > better proposal for {zu'i}.
> >
> > Neither do I.
>
> I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as:
>
> lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda
>
> le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda

I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi place
there, really.

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:24 GMT posts: 1912

> >
> > I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as:
> >
> > lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda
> >
> > le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda
>
> I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi place
> there, really.

In both cases it's filling the x1 of broda. What is a 'bridi' for you?
(Still, I'm not at all sure it works, because it is not clear how
zu'i is supposed to work in subordinate bridi. Is it the typical
thing that fills just the subordinate bridi, or the typical thing
for the whole bridi?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:29 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:12:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as:
> > >
> > > lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda
> > >
> > > le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u
> > > broda
> >
> > I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi
> > place there, really.
>
> In both cases it's filling the x1 of broda.

Err, sorry.

> What is a 'bridi' for you? (Still, I'm not at all sure it works,
> because it is not clear how zu'i is supposed to work in
> subordinate bridi. Is it the typical thing that fills just the
> subordinate bridi, or the typical thing for the whole bridi?

It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I think,
but I don't really know. I think the most important thing about
zu'i is that it's fuzzy.

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 1912

> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:12:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > Is it the typical thing that fills just the
> > subordinate bridi, or the typical thing for the whole bridi?
>
> It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I think,
> but I don't really know. I think the most important thing about
> zu'i is that it's fuzzy.

It's never used anyway. If someone does use it, I will probably
get it confused with one of those FAhA tangents that also start
with "z".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I think,
> but I don't really know. I think the most important thing about
> zu'i is that it's fuzzy.

The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says "zu'i ki'e"
you reply "Asshole."

--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: jcowan@reutershealth.com
That thou wast born with. http://www.reutershealth.com

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:30 GMT posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:11:12PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > It's the typical thing for only the place it appears in, I
> > think, but I don't really know. I think the most important
> > thing about zu'i is that it's fuzzy.
>
> The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says
> "zu'i ki'e" you reply "Asshole."

• Huh*?

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:31 GMT posts: 1912

> The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says "zu'i ki'e"
> you reply "Asshole."

That's not a very polite "you're welcome".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > The most important thing about "zu'i" is that if someone says
> > "zu'i ki'e" you reply "Asshole."
>
> *Huh*?

zo'e is the thing that the listener can figure out from context, so if
he can't, he says "zo'e ki'e" and you drop him a clue. But if you
use zu'i, you mean the typical, ordinary, normal thing that everyone
would expect. So if you say "la elvis. mo'u cliva le dinju zu'i", and
someone says "zu'i ki'e" you reply "le vorme doi malganxo"

--
What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
that they applaud me thus? http://www.reutershealth.com
--Phocion, Greek orator http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> That's not a very polite "you're welcome".

Oops, yes. For ki'e read ki'a in both yesterday's posting and today's.
(Cmavo space is overpacked.)

--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and
bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested with
blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall it
capture. And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating shall
it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity and
most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein. --Gospel of Tux

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388

{zo'e} otiose "it"
used to refer to something it is not necessary to
mention in context. The unnecessity may be due
to 1)the fact that what it is does not matter and
will not turn up in the conversation or 2) it is
obvious from the context what is intended.
Except in place counting and some conventi0ons
about abstracts, using {zo'e} is exactly the same
as leaving the place blank. {zo'e} is preferred
to {su'o da} because it is shorter and {su'o da}
suggest that there will be further references to
this thing, if it does not matter, but is
improper if the referent is obvious (and so known).

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:12:17PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
>
> {zo'e} otiose "it"

What?

> used to refer to something it is not necessary to mention in
> context. The unnecessity may be due to 1)the fact that what it is
> does not matter and will not turn up in the conversation or 2) it
> is obvious from the context what is intended. Except in place
> counting and some conventi0ons about abstracts, using {zo'e} is
> exactly the same as leaving the place blank. {zo'e} is preferred
> to {su'o da} because it is shorter and {su'o da} suggest that
> there will be further references to this thing, if it does not
> matter, but is improper if the referent is obvious (and so known).

zo'e is *NOT* su'o da as long as da is a singular variable.
Furthermore, da cannot be an abstraction.

Other than that, is there something in the above that you feel I
left out of my definition?

-Robin

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:39 GMT posts: 2388

<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:12:17PM -0700, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> >
> > {zo'e} otiose "it"
>
> What?
>
> > used to refer to something it is not
> necessary to mention in
> > context. The unnecessity may be due to 1)the
> fact that what it is
> > does not matter and will not turn up in the
> conversation or 2) it
> > is obvious from the context what is intended.
> Except in place
> > counting and some conventi0ons about
> abstracts, using {zo'e} is
> > exactly the same as leaving the place blank.
> {zo'e} is preferred
> > to {su'o da} because it is shorter and {su'o
> da} suggest that
> > there will be further references to this
> thing, if it does not
> > matter, but is improper if the referent is
> obvious (and so known).
>
> zo'e is *NOT* su'o da as long as da is a
> singular variable.
> Furthermore, da cannot be an abstraction.
>
> Other than that, is there something in the
> above that you feel I
> left out of my definition?

I was shooting for brevity and missed.
The reasons why {zo'e} is not {su'o da}are, as
noted, pragmatic, not semantic (semantically they
mean the same).
Why can't {da} be an sbstraction? It seems it
could take any first order term and all Lojban
terms are first order. And what does singular
have to do with it (or anything, come to that)?
What would be different about a plural variable
that would make it OK in an unused place but that
is not available to singular variables?

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:40 GMT posts: 14214

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> And what does singular have to do with it (or anything, come to
> that)? What would be different about a plural variable that would
> make it OK in an unused place but that is not available to
> singular variables?

If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.

-Robin

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.

To my mind that counts as a counterargument for the eliminative
definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is just as much an object
as pa broda, at least when properly quantified. Trying to minimize
the ontology, as is fashionable in modern logics, is Not The Lojban Way.

--
So that's the tune they play on John Cowan
their fascist banjos, is it? jcowan@reutershealth.com
--Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 11:58:52PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.
>
> To my mind that counts as a counterargument for the eliminative
> definition of loi broda.

Actually, this is about the definition of "da", not the definition
of "loi broda".

> To me loi broda is just as much an object as pa broda, at least
> when properly quantified.

Of course!

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 1912

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.
>
> To my mind that counts as a counterargument for the eliminative
> definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is just as much an object
> as pa broda, at least when properly quantified. Trying to minimize
> the ontology, as is fashionable in modern logics, is Not The Lojban Way.

I tend to agree. Unless anyone opposes, I will be redefining
{loi [PA] broda} as {lo gunma be lo [PA] broda}. The x2 of
gunma is non-distributive. This would mean that {loi} (and
correspondingly {lu'o} and {joi}) are for reified collectives,
whereas {lo} can still be used for non-reified non-distributive
plural.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:41 GMT posts: 2388

<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0700, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> > And what does singular have to do with it (or
> anything, come to
> > that)? What would be different about a plural
> variable that would
> > make it OK in an unused place but that is not
> available to
> > singular variables?
>
> If da is a singular variable then it can't be
> loi broda.
>
Actually, it can and always has been able to.
Technically this is because groups /masses
/whatever are single entities in Lojban as
previously understood — rather like sets.

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > If da is a singular variable then it can't be
> loi broda.
>
> To my mind that counts as a counterargument for
> the eliminative
> definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is
> just as much an object
> as pa broda, at least when properly quantified.
> Trying to minimize
> the ontology, as is fashionable in modern
> logics, is Not The Lojban Way.
>
Yes, Lojban's (following Loglan's) idea of
metaphysical neutrality is to bring all
possibilities (more or less) in on a par
(although their grammars cut off several major
possibilities — vortex and buddhist — from full
equal status). On the other hand, taking a group
as a unit does mean that predicates mean
something slightly different when applied to
groups (and sets), namely not "this is broda" but
"the members of this are broda" and so on. The
metaphysics of groups is also — 8unlike sets --
not well developed, while that for plurality is
rather better done (but even McKay allows for
some groups that do behave as units, so they may
be uneliminable in the end).

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

>
> --- John Cowan wrote:
> > Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> >
> > > If da is a singular variable then it can't
> be loi broda.
> >
> > To my mind that counts as a counterargument
> for the eliminative
> > definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is
> just as much an object
> > as pa broda, at least when properly
> quantified. Trying to minimize
> > the ontology, as is fashionable in modern
> logics, is Not The Lojban Way.
>
> I tend to agree. Unless anyone opposes, I will
> be redefining
> {loi [PA] broda} as {lo gunma be lo [PA]
> broda}. The x2 of
> gunma is non-distributive. This would mean that
> {loi} (and
> correspondingly {lu'o} and {joi}) are for
> reified collectives,
> whereas {lo} can still be used for non-reified
> non-distributive
> plural.
>
Oops! I have you down for maintaining that {lo}
was distributive; did I miss something? As noted
earlier, the only real objection to reified
groups is that their rules are not well worked
out relative to plurals — and the variation in
predicate meaning they seem to involve.
Interestingly, the kinds of reified groups that
McKay allows seem to be those semipermanent
groups with changing members that get names:
General Motors, that old gang of mine, the St.
Louis Cardinals and so on.

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> Oops! I have you down for maintaining that {lo}
> was distributive; did I miss something?

The way we're defining it, {lo} is not marked either way for
distributivity. Outer quantifiers are always distributive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:42 GMT posts: 2388

Umm, what does "outer quantifiers are always
distributive" mean? Distribution is a feature of
predicate argument places. Do you mean that the
sortal predicate place in which an outer
quantifer variable goes is always distributive?
That is clearly not right ("All those surrounding
the building wore green hats"). That it is
individual rather than plural quantification?
That the variablke range over individuals rather
than something else? This last is something we
all agree on (I think), regardless of whether we
think in terms of singular or of plural
quantification. The previous point is the status
quo though I think some cracks are appearing in
that position.

That {lo} is not marked either way for
disttributivity is a sort of taultoology right
now, since, without conventions, no sumti is
marked for distributivity (indeed, right now,
nothing is marked for distributivity — or rather
for the lack of it — since all Lojban apreicates
are distributive until some changes are made,
none of which have been broached that I have seen
and all of which require some modification in
semantics, if not in grammar). To be sure, I
have suggested that {loi} be marked as treating
the place it fills as collective unless
explicitly rejected; then {lo} could be neutral
but then would default — when there was a choice
-- to distributive (by elimination). None of
this is in place however, so you can't quite say
that it is that way, only that you envision it as
developing that way — and maybe as a first step
in that development.

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > Oops! I have you down for maintaining that
> {lo}
> > was distributive; did I miss something?
>
> The way we're defining it, {lo} is not marked
> either way for
> distributivity. Outer quantifiers are always
> distributive.
>

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> Umm, what does "outer quantifiers are always
> distributive" mean?

That they count the individuals that satisfy a given predication
each by themself. So, for example:

ci lo bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li panono
Exactly three of the beads on the table weigh 100 grams.

That says that for exactly three beads on the table, it can be said,
of each individually, that it weighs 100 grams. It does not say that
three beads together weigh 100 grams. That would be:

lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li panono
Three beads on the table weigh 100 grams.

> Distribution is a feature of
> predicate argument places.

Many predicate argument places allow both distributive and
non-distributive readings.

> Do you mean that the
> sortal predicate place in which an outer
> quantifer variable goes is always distributive?
> That is clearly not right ("All those surrounding
> the building wore green hats").

ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino mapku
Each of those surrounding the building wore a green hat.

> That it is
> individual rather than plural quantification?

Yes, that's what I mean.

PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti

where {da} is an individual variable.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > Umm, what does "outer quantifiers are always
> > distributive" mean?
>
> That they count the individuals that satisfy a
> given predication
> each by themself. So, for example:
>
> ci lo bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li
> panono
> Exactly three of the beads on the table weigh
> 100 grams.
>
> That says that for exactly three beads on the
> table, it can be said,
> of each individually, that it weighs 100 grams.
> It does not say that
> three beads together weigh 100 grams. That
> would be:
>
> lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li
> panono
> Three beads on the table weigh 100 grams.
I would read this last as saying first that there
are exactly three beads on the table and then
that each of them (because I take "distributive"
as the default) weighs 100 grams. That is, I
take the internal quantifier as being the
cardinal of the things described in the
surrounding description (I think this is
traditional Lojban)not as a more indefinite
expression. For the collective weight, I would
say {loi ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li
panono} — or {ci loi} depending upon whether it
was three out of (perhaps) larger number or the
three was all the beads on the table. This is not
official, but neither is your (rather strange)
suggestion. As I say, let's get this worked out.

> > Distribution is a feature of
> > predicate argument places.
>
> Many predicate argument places allow both
> distributive and
> non-distributive readings.

Yes, and that is why we need a way of marking
which is intended. I would do it first with the
difference between {lo} and {loi} etc., which is
built into Lojban, and then with some sort of
marker for cases where a differnt approach is
required. And also lexically for the predicates
with a unique distriibutivity (probably rather
few). This nicely allows me to talk about some
members of a larger totality in the way that
Lojban has always done — without thereby
committing myself to distributivity — I think
ten of the people surrounding the building can
wear green hats as well as all can.
>
> > Do you mean that the
> > sortal predicate place in which an outer
> > quantifer variable goes is always
> distributive?
> > That is clearly not right ("All those
> surrounding
> > the building wore green hats").
>
> ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino
> mapku
> Each of those surrounding the building wore a
> green hat.

But then there is nothing satisfying the sortal,
since no individual surrounds the building — or
are you covertly shifting to "is involved in
surrpounding the building"? I don't see what is
wrong with the usual Lojban {lo sruri be le dinju
cu dasni lo crino mapku}. But then, as noted,
conventions are needed now, so this may turn out
to be decided to be wrong.
>
> > That it is
> > individual rather than plural quantification?
>
>
> Yes, that's what I mean.
>
> PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti
>
> where {da} is an individual variable.
>
So, {lo broda} is a set or a group or some such
thing and we have to unpack all the predicates in
separate ways to interpret them. I'm not sure I
like that now that I see there is an alternative
well worked out. {me}, of course, as Lesniewski's
jest', deals indifferently with all of these
cases and the intensional ones as well, and
probably identity, too, when sumti has a
unique referent. Whether it works in conjunction
with the other definitions is not perfectly
clear, but I'll assume it does (not that that
helps any, given the deplorable state of the
other definitions).

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:43 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:15:23AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> > > And what does singular have to do with it (or anything, come
> > > to that)? What would be different about a plural variable that
> > > would make it OK in an unused place but that is not available
> > > to singular variables?
> >
> > If da is a singular variable then it can't be loi broda.
>
> Actually, it can and always has been able to. Technically this is
> because groups /masses /whatever are single entities in Lojban as
> previously understood — rather like sets.

Ah. This would be me misunderstanding what xorxes meant by
"singular variable", then. Nothing to see here, move along.

-Robin

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:44 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> > lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme cu grake li
> > panono
> > Three beads on the table weigh 100 grams.
> I would read this last as saying first that there
> are exactly three beads on the table and then
> that each of them (because I take "distributive"
> as the default) weighs 100 grams.

That's how I would read {ro lo ci bidju ...}.

> I think
> ten of the people surrounding the building can
> wear green hats as well as all can.

Yes:

pano lo prenu poi sruri le dinju cu dasni lo crino mapku

> > ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino
> > mapku
> > Each of those surrounding the building wore a
> > green hat.
>
> But then there is nothing satisfying the sortal,
> since no individual surrounds the building — or
> are you covertly shifting to "is involved in
> surrpounding the building"?

No, no shifting. {lo sruri} is a plural constant, and
{ro} is a singular quantifier over the referents:
{ro da poi ke'a me lo sruri ...}

> I don't see what is
> wrong with the usual Lojban {lo sruri be le dinju
> cu dasni lo crino mapku}.

I don't see a thing wrong with that either. The {ro} can
be added to guarantee a distributive reading, but {lo sruri}
by itself is neither distributive nor non-distributive.
Perhaps calling it "usual Lojban" is exaggerated though,
because CLL would have it mean {su'o lo sruri ...}.

> > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti
> >
> > where {da} is an individual variable.
> >
> So, {lo broda} is a set or a group or some such
> thing and we have to unpack all the predicates in
> separate ways to interpret them.

{lo broda} is any number of things that broda, usually
not a set nor a reified group.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 00:59 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:
pc xorxes
> > > ro lo sruri be le dinju cu dasni lo crino
> > > mapku
> > > Each of those surrounding the building
> wore a
> > > green hat.
> >
> > But then there is nothing satisfying the
> sortal,
> > since no individual surrounds the building --
> or
> > are you covertly shifting to "is involved in
> > surrpounding the building"?
>
> No, no shifting. {lo sruri} is a plural
> constant, and
> {ro} is a singular quantifier over the
> referents:
> {ro da poi ke'a me lo sruri ...}

Well, {lo sruri} is not a constant if it means
anything at all like lojban {lo sruri} (I do feel
we are back to xorban again), since Lojban likes
to be able to deal with cses where the members of
a groups (or whatever) do not act in perfect
concert.
If {lo sruri} is a plural anything then, since it
can play term roles with {da}, {da} must be a
plural variable. But I suppose that you mean
plural in the sense McKay wants to avoid, namely
getting a bunch together in some single item
(this still doesn't quite work right because of
the Lojban rules about how these singulars enter
preication). The role of {ro} also shifts here,
parallelling that of predicates generally — that
is it goes for members (not, as in Lojban, for
subgroups). And, of course, there is the problem
of distributivity, which is either unmarked or is
in {ro}, neither a veryfruitful way of doing it
(though each can be made to work with a little
fiddling — none of which I have seen yet).
>
> > I don't see what is
> > wrong with the usual Lojban {lo sruri be le
> dinju
> > cu dasni lo crino mapku}.
>
> I don't see a thing wrong with that either. The
> {ro} can
> be added to guarantee a distributive reading,
> but {lo sruri}
> by itself is neither distributive nor
> non-distributive.
> Perhaps calling it "usual Lojban" is
> exaggerated though,
> because CLL would have it mean {su'o lo sruri
> ...}.

Well, here we have adopted something from you --
or someone — to the effect that the usual
quantifier on {lo} is {ro}, now that the internal
default is not {ro}.

> > > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti
> > >
> > > where {da} is an individual variable.
> > >
> > So, {lo broda} is a set or a group or some
> such
> > thing and we have to unpack all the
> predicates in
> > separate ways to interpret them.
>
> {lo broda} is any number of things that broda,
> usually
> not a set nor a reified group.

You really do have to decide whether there are
plural (and primarily plural incidentally)
variables or not. You can't even claim that
something is a plural constant without those
variables. And once you have them they are
either everywhere or most things have to be done
twice because the singular variables behave
almsot exactly like the plural — grammatically.

Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 152

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:56:04PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> It's never used anyway. If someone does use it, I will probably
> get it confused with one of those FAhA tangents that also start
> with "z".

Here's how I think of zu'i:

mi broda zo'e = mi broda lo se broda
mi broda zu'i = mi broda le se broda
--
Rob Speer

Posted by rab.spir on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 152

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:47:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I would read this last as saying first that there
> > are exactly three beads on the table and then
> > that each of them (because I take "distributive"
> > as the default) weighs 100 grams.
>
> That's how I would read {ro lo ci bidju ...}.

Wait, you would? "ro lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme" necessitates for you that
there are exactly three beads on the table?

I thought that was a relic of CLL lo that we were getting away from, and that
the way to say that would be "lo roci bidju ..."
--
Rob Speer

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 1912

> Here's how I think of zu'i:
>
> mi broda zo'e = mi broda lo se broda
> mi broda zu'i = mi broda le se broda

That's an interesting idea. It doesn't seem to have anything
to do with typicality, but that's a good thing. So how would
it work?

do punji le tanxe ma
Where did you put the box?

mi dunda zu'i la djan
I gave *it* to John.

as opposed to:

mi dunda zo'e la djan
mi dunda fi la djan
I gave to John.

In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the box, but {zu'i}
emphasizes that what I gave to John is something that I have
in mind. Is that right?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 1912

> Wait, you would? "ro lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme" necessitates for you
> that
> there are exactly three beads on the table?
>
> I thought that was a relic of CLL lo that we were getting away from, and that
> the way to say that would be "lo roci bidju ..."

You are absolutely right, my mistake. {ro lo ci bidju poi cpana le jubme}
is "each of three beads on the table", and {ro lo roci bidju poi cpana
le jubme} is "each of all three beads on the table".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:00 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

>
> --- Rob Speer wrote:
> > Here's how I think of zu'i:
> >
> > mi broda zo'e = mi broda lo se broda
> > mi broda zu'i = mi broda le se broda
>
> That's an interesting idea. It doesn't seem to
> have anything
> to do with typicality, but that's a good thing.
> So how would
> it work?
>
> do punji le tanxe ma
> Where did you put the box?
>
> mi dunda zu'i la djan
> I gave *it* to John.
>
> as opposed to:
>
> mi dunda zo'e la djan
> mi dunda fi la djan
> I gave to John.
>
> In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the
> box,

Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to anything
(does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan}
refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no need
to specify what fills this place, but saying that
cleatly does not say what is filling this place.

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:01 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> > do punji le tanxe ma
> > Where did you put the box?
> >
> > mi dunda zo'e la djan
> > mi dunda fi la djan
> > I gave to John.
> >
> > In this last one, zo'e can still refer to the
> > box,
>
> Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to anything
> (does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan}
> refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no need
> to specify what fills this place, but saying that
> cleatly does not say what is filling this place.

I'm not sure if you are opposing that {mi dunda zo'e la djan}
can mean that I gave it to John, or just the way of
explaining it.

If the former, then we simply understand zo'e differently,
because as I understand it Lojban does allow you to use zo'e
when the value meant is obvious from context (as in this case),
to make a claim about that and just that value.

If the latter, then I don't think it matters how we think
of it: either {zo'e} refers to the obvious value for the
context (in this case the box), or it indicates that the
claim being made is about the obvious value. In other words,
if I didn't give the box to John, {mi dunda fi la djan}
is as false in this context as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}
even if I did give John something else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:01 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > > do punji le tanxe ma
> > > Where did you put the box?
> > >
> > > mi dunda zo'e la djan
> > > mi dunda fi la djan
> > > I gave to John.
> > >
> > > In this last one, zo'e can still refer to
> the
> > > box,
> >
> > Actually, no; {zo'e} doesn't refer to
> anything
> > (does the place gap in {mi dunda fi la djan}
> > refer to the box?) {zo'e} says there is no
> need
> > to specify what fills this place, but saying
> that
> > cleatly does not say what is filling this
> place.
>
> I'm not sure if you are opposing that {mi dunda
> zo'e la djan}
> can mean that I gave it to John, or just the
> way of
> explaining it.
>
> If the former, then we simply understand zo'e
> differently,
> because as I understand it Lojban does allow
> you to use zo'e
> when the value meant is obvious from context
> (as in this case),
> to make a claim about that and just that value.
>
>
> If the latter, then I don't think it matters
> how we think
> of it: either {zo'e} refers to the obvious
> value for the
> context (in this case the box), or it indicates
> that the
> claim being made is about the obvious value. In
> other words,
> if I didn't give the box to John, {mi dunda fi
> la djan}
> is as false in this context as {mi dunda le
> tanxe la djan}
> even if I did give John something else.
>
The last remark is an interesting point, but I
am not sure it is right. I did not *say* that I
gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to
John." Based on a variety of pragmatic factors,
you *understood* that it the box I gave. If it
was something else (not otherwise dealt with in
the context), you can accuse me of a number of
pragmatic failures, of being misleading in
general, but not of saying something false.
{zo'e} belong to that strange set of place
pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not exist
now") that fill places explcitly for a variety of
purposes — getting the place count to work out,
guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that place,
scansion, and so on — but none of them is to
refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no need
to mention someone here" and so is semantically
equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't refer.
Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you
know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two
suggested expansions of {zo'e}.
The pragmatic understanding has here to be
separated from the semantic claim (cf. the fight
about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing --
ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of course.)

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:01 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> The last remark is an interesting point, but I
> am not sure it is right. I did not *say* that I
> gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to
> John."

We do understand {zo'e} differently, then.
In English, you can't drop the "it" to say
"I gave it to John". In Lojban, you can
say {mi pu dunda zo'e la djan} or
{mi pu dunda fi la djan} to mean the same
thing, i.e. that I gave *it* (i.e. the obvious
thing) to John.

> Based on a variety of pragmatic factors,
> you *understood* that it the box I gave. If it
> was something else (not otherwise dealt with in
> the context), you can accuse me of a number of
> pragmatic failures, of being misleading in
> general, but not of saying something false.

I'm not talking about accusations of saying something
false. You could also use {le tanxe} to refer to
something other than the box and then claim you were
not saying something false. All I'm saying is that
{mi dunda fi la djan}, in that context, and when there
are no misunderstandings, is true iff I gave the box
to John, not if I gave something else to John. Just
as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}.

If there are misunderstandings, such as the participants
disagreeing about what the referents of {zo'e}, {le tanxe},
{la djan}, (even {mi} maybe) are, then that's a different
matter.

Pragmatic failures aside, I find that {zo'e} has a referent
just like {le tanxe} does.

> {zo'e} belong to that strange set of place
> pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not exist
> now") that fill places explcitly for a variety of
> purposes — getting the place count to work out,
> guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that place,
> scansion, and so on — but none of them is to
> refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no need
> to mention someone here" and so is semantically
> equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't refer.
> Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you
> know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two
> suggested expansions of {zo'e}.

Well, if zo'e, like zi'o, reduces the number
of places of {dunda} by one, then that's another
valid way of seeing it. But in that case, what
the reduced relationship is will be context dependent.
{dunda be zo'e} in the given context means
"x1 gives-the-box-we're-talking-about to x2". Then the claim
is that that two-place relationship holds of (mi, la djan).
I don't have a problem with that view. The claim will
not be satisfied by my giving something else to John,
that would require a different relationship.

> The pragmatic understanding has here to be
> separated from the semantic claim (cf. the fight
> about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing --
> ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of course.)

I can see it either way, {zo'e} has a context dependent
referent, like {ta}, or {zo'e} changes the relationship
to a different one, like {zi'o}. The effect is the same
as far as I can tell.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > The last remark is an interesting point,
> but I
> > am not sure it is right. I did not *say*
> that I
> > gave the box to John, I only said "I gave to
> > John."
>
> We do understand {zo'e} differently, then.
> In English, you can't drop the "it" to say
> "I gave it to John". In Lojban, you can
> say {mi pu dunda zo'e la djan} or
> {mi pu dunda fi la djan} to mean the same
> thing, i.e. that I gave *it* (i.e. the obvious
> thing) to John.
>
> > Based on a variety of pragmatic factors,
> > you *understood* that it the box I gave. If
> it
> > was something else (not otherwise dealt with
> in
> > the context), you can accuse me of a number
> of
> > pragmatic failures, of being misleading in
> > general, but not of saying something false.
>
> I'm not talking about accusations of saying
> something
> false. You could also use {le tanxe} to refer
> to
> something other than the box and then claim you
> were
> not saying something false. All I'm saying is
> that
> {mi dunda fi la djan}, in that context, and
> when there
> are no misunderstandings, is true iff I gave
> the box
> to John, not if I gave something else to John.
> Just
> as {mi dunda le tanxe la djan}.
>
> If there are misunderstandings, such as the
> participants
> disagreeing about what the referents of {zo'e},
> {le tanxe},
> {la djan}, (even {mi} maybe) are, then that's a
> different
> matter.
>
> Pragmatic failures aside, I find that {zo'e}
> has a referent
> just like {le tanxe} does.
>
> > {zo'e} belong to that strange set of place
> > pluggers (like {zi'o} "this place does not
> exist
> > now") that fill places explcitly for a
> variety of
> > purposes — getting the place count to work
> out,
> > guaranteeing there is no {ce'u} in that
> place,
> > scansion, and so on — but none of them is to
> > refer to someone. {zo'e} says "there is no
> need
> > to mention someone here" and so is
> semantically
> > equivalent to a blank. And blanks don't
> refer.
> > Neither does "it doesn't matter who" nor "you
> > know who" (sentential, not nominal), the two
> > suggested expansions of {zo'e}.
>
> Well, if zo'e, like zi'o, reduces the number
> of places of {dunda} by one, then that's
> another
> valid way of seeing it. But in that case, what
> the reduced relationship is will be context
> dependent.
> {dunda be zo'e} in the given context means
> "x1 gives-the-box-we're-talking-about to x2".
> Then the claim
> is that that two-place relationship holds of
> (mi, la djan).
> I don't have a problem with that view. The
> claim will
> not be satisfied by my giving something else to
> John,
> that would require a different relationship.

I don't think that {zo'e} works like {zi'o},
that is change the relationship. But I also
don't think that {zo'e} refers to anything; it is
saying in effect "I won't bother saying what" --
though why I don't leave it blank at that point I
am not sure (well, it isn't a real case so there
isn't a real reason, but there are a variety of
possibilities). Did the person saying {mi dunda
fi la djan} when he gave something other than the
box to John in a context where the box is the
expected donation say something false. I would
say "No," provided he did give something; it
might not even be irrelevant or misleading. John
is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a
solicitor for an Islamic charity. The government
maintains that the charity is a front and also
knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So I
get quizzed and, because I know that giving to
the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on
with it I say that I gave to John, thinking that
they are on the usual charity dragnet, not
knowing about the box. There is a pragmatic
failure here, but it is not even the speaker's --
or not entirely — the two conversants are merely
on different pages and have not yet consolidated.
But I certainly did not say anything false --
nor did I refer to whatever it was I did give.

> > The pragmatic understanding has here to be
> > separated from the semantic claim (cf. the
> fight
> > about whether {zi'o} refers to nothing --
> > ignoring the error avbout "nothin" of
> course.)
>
> I can see it either way, {zo'e} has a context
> dependent
> referent, like {ta}, or {zo'e} changes the
> relationship
> to a different one, like {zi'o}. The effect is
> the same
> as far as I can tell.
>
Of course there is also the problem that {zo'e}
doesn't mean "the obvious thing," it also means
"it doesn't matter what" — which is not a
referring expression (either — but that is the
point of contention). "there's no need to
mention anything" seems to be the most natural
meaning for {zo'e} that covers both. It falls
short of {zi'o} which runs to "there is no need
to even consider this place" (or even "there is
a need not to consider this place"), but goes a
bit further than {su'o da} along that path
(pragmatic restrictions again: {su'o da} is
illegitmate if you know what it is, and, if not,
it expects that you will say something more about
it sometime, whereas the point of {zo'e} is
exactly that you won't).

Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 1912

pc:
> Did the person saying {mi dunda
> fi la djan} when he gave something other than the
> box to John in a context where the box is the
> expected donation say something false.

Yes. I remind you of the context: Person A asks
{do punji le tanxe ma} "where did you put the box?"
Person B responds {mi dunda fi la djan}, i.e.
"I gave (it) to John".

> I would
> say "No," provided he did give something; it
> might not even be irrelevant or misleading.

In this case, it would be.

> John
> is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a
> solicitor for an Islamic charity. The government
> maintains that the charity is a front and also
> knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So I
> get quizzed and, because I know that giving to
> the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on
> with it I say that I gave to John, thinking that
> they are on the usual charity dragnet, not
> knowing about the box.

Totally different context.

> "there's no need to
> mention anything" seems to be the most natural
> meaning for {zo'e} that covers both.

There is no need to mention it because we are both
perfectly clear on what we are discussing. The
relationship {dunda} is claimed to hold among three
things: myself, the box and John.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:02 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > Did the person saying {mi dunda
> > fi la djan} when he gave something other than
> the
> > box to John in a context where the box is the
> > expected donation say something false.
>
> Yes. I remind you of the context: Person A asks
> {do punji le tanxe ma} "where did you put the
> box?"
> Person B responds {mi dunda fi la djan}, i.e.
> "I gave (it) to John".
>
> > I would
> > say "No," provided he did give something; it
> > might not even be irrelevant or misleading.
>
> In this case, it would be.
>
> > John
> > is an Al Qaida agent doing business as a
> > solicitor for an Islamic charity. The
> government
> > maintains that the charity is a front and
> also
> > knows that someone gave John a box of C4. So
> I
> > get quizzed and, because I know that giving
> to
> > the "charity" is enough and wanting to get on
> > with it I say that I gave to John, thinking
> that
> > they are on the usual charity dragnet, not
> > knowing about the box.
>
> Totally different context.

Not obviously; just filling in more details.
>
> > "there's no need to
> > mention anything" seems to be the most
> natural
> > meaning for {zo'e} that covers both.
>
> There is no need to mention it because we are
> both
> perfectly clear on what we are discussing. The
> relationship {dunda} is claimed to hold among
> three
> things: myself, the box and John.

Yes, we are clear — well, you are anyway — but
that doesn't mean the speaker of {mi dunda fi la
djan} verbally made a reference to the box and so
asserted that the relation holds. Pragmatics
ain't s.emantics