WikiDiscuss

> ba'a seems to be used in a mostly non-temporal sense.
> That is, it is rarely used to express "I expect that X will
> happen", but rather something like "I presume that X
> would be the case".

Often this can be interpreted as "I expect X will (would)
be the answer to my question."

> Temporal usages
> ba'a do bazu djuno fi ro djedi
> I expect that in the far future, you will know every day.

"Know (something) _about_ every day", right? Not know
(something) every day". What does it mean?

> Non-temporal usages
> .i y xu ro pipybanfi cu respa - ba'a na mabru
> Are frogs reptiles? I don't expect them to be mammals.

Something like "I expect (to be told that) they are not mammals".

(Not that I'm defending this usage, just trying to understand it.)

> .i lenu mi joi la tal. puzi casnu ti cu mukti lenu mi te preti fo
> do .i ba'a loi mlatu loi gerku cu zmadu leka kukte .i xu tugni
> Me and Tal's recent discussion prompted me to ask you.
> I expect cats to taste better than dogs. Do you agree?

"I expect (to be told that) cats taste better than dogs."

> ma se xabju do vi la astn - ba'a vi la ubuty. xabju
> Where near Austin do you live? Probably near UT.

Here I would disagree with the use of {vi} for {bu'u}.

> ba'a do xabju le jecrsautkarolaina
> You probably live in South Carolina.

"I expect (you will tell me that) you live in South Carolina."

> ca'e (UI2)
> Evidential. Used to mark a performative/speech act, that is,
> an utterance that is true because the speaker says so.
> See also mitcu'a, mitsmu, the preface.

I'd prefer something like "that is, an utterance that creates a
state of affairs by the fact of its being uttered under appropriate
or conventional circumstances".

What do {mitcu'a} and {mitsmu} have to do with it?

> ro bu'a zo'u le ka bu'a cu xamgu .inaja la cev goi da traji le ka bu'a
>.i le ka zasti cu xamgu .i ja'o la cev traji le ka zasti
> Of all good properties, God is the entity
> that has the most of it. Existence is a good property.
> Hence, God is the entity that is the most existent of all.

Remove the {goi da}?

> .i ka'u so'a nanmu cu xebni .iku'i mi certu le ka .o'o zei cinmo

No translation? (was {remna} meant?)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Aug, 2005 00:53 GMT posts: 953

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:

>> ba'a seems to be used in a mostly non-temporal sense.
>> That is, it is rarely used to express "I expect that X will
>> happen", but rather something like "I presume that X
>> would be the case".
>
> Often this can be interpreted as "I expect X will (would)
> be the answer to my question."

Insightful. I've added a note to that effect.

>> Temporal usages
>> ba'a do bazu djuno fi ro djedi
>> I expect that in the far future, you will know every day.
>
> "Know (something) _about_ every day", right? Not know
> (something) every day". What does it mean?

When in English we know objects, it is often "djuno fi" in Lojban. But I
see that it might be ambiguous in this case. Updated per your suggestion.

>> ma se xabju do vi la astn - ba'a vi la ubuty. xabju
>> Where near Austin do you live? Probably near UT.
>
> Here I would disagree with the use of {vi} for {bu'u}.

I do not have enough knowledge of the geographical to use if it is a
bona-fide usage of {vi} for "near", or a mis-use of {vi} for "in".

I think I'll assume that the speaker used Lojban correctly for now, and
let the literal translation stand.

>> ca'e (UI2)
>> Evidential. Used to mark a performative/speech act, that is,
>> an utterance that is true because the speaker says so.
>> See also mitcu'a, mitsmu, the preface.
>
> I'd prefer something like "that is, an utterance that creates a
> state of affairs by the fact of its being uttered under appropriate
> or conventional circumstances".
>
> What do {mitcu'a} and {mitsmu} have to do with it?

Holdovers from the cmavo list. Since apparently the rafsi "mit" doesn't
exist, I'm suspecting pre-1993 rafsi. I'll look into it.

>> ro bu'a zo'u le ka bu'a cu xamgu .inaja la cev goi da traji le ka bu'a
>> .i le ka zasti cu xamgu .i ja'o la cev traji le ka zasti
>> Of all good properties, God is the entity
>> that has the most of it. Existence is a good property.
>> Hence, God is the entity that is the most existent of all.
>
> Remove the {goi da}?

(I was the original author of this sentence.) Yes, I can't see what it's
doing there, since it's not referred to later.

>> .i ka'u so'a nanmu cu xebni .iku'i mi certu le ka .o'o zei cinmo
>
> No translation? (was {remna} meant?)

Oversight. Translation added. (And {nanmu} was meant.)

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove you're not a dog. --Bill de hra

Posted by arj on Tue 09 of Aug, 2005 00:55 GMT posts: 953

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jorge Llambas wrote:
>
>> What do {mitcu'a} and {mitsmu} have to do with it?
>
> Holdovers from the cmavo list. Since apparently the rafsi "mit" doesn't
> exist, I'm suspecting pre-1993 rafsi. I'll look into it.

Actually, this impression is due to my using jiten for rafsi lookup, which
apparently doesn't work (anymore). "mitsmi" and "mitcu'a" are "mintu
simsa" and "mintu cuxna", respectively. I don't know what they mean, you
don't know what they mean, they are not in Jbovlaste, they are not in
Noralujv. Out they go.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
A: Because it messes up the natural order that people read things.
Q: Why is top posting bad?

On 7/11/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> >> ba'a do bazu djuno fi ro djedi
> >> I expect that in the far future, you will know every day.
> >
> > "Know (something) _about_ every day", right? Not know
> > (something) every day". What does it mean?
>
> When in English we know objects, it is often "djuno fi" in Lojban. But I
> see that it might be ambiguous in this case. Updated per your suggestion.

Ok, but what does it mean? What does it mean to know about
every day?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Aug, 2005 00:58 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:09:29PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> >>What do {mitcu'a} and {mitsmu} have to do with it?
> >
> >Holdovers from the cmavo list. Since apparently the rafsi "mit"
> >doesn't exist, I'm suspecting pre-1993 rafsi. I'll look into it.
>
> Actually, this impression is due to my using jiten for rafsi
> lookup, which apparently doesn't work (anymore).

Fixed now.

-Robin

Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit:

> Actually, this impression is due to my using jiten for rafsi lookup, which
> apparently doesn't work (anymore). "mitsmi" and "mitcu'a" are "mintu
> simsa" and "mintu cuxna", respectively. I don't know what they mean, you
> don't know what they mean, they are not in Jbovlaste, they are not in
> Noralujv. Out they go.

"mitsmi" is rather transparently "isomorphic". However, the cmavo list
actually refers to "mitsmu", which is something like "synonymous".

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug

On 7/12/05, John.Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
>
> "mitsmi" is rather transparently "isomorphic".

Are you thinking of {mintu zei tarmi}? That would be {mitytai}.
{mitsmi} is the somewhat odd {mintu zei simsa}.

But I think the more correct way to translate any "iso-X-ic"
word into Lojban is with {dunli} as the main component, so
{tamdu'i} for "isomorphic": {x1 dunli x2 lo ka ma kau tarmi ce'u}

> However, the cmavo list
> actually refers to "mitsmu", which is something like "synonymous".

But {mundu'i} might be better: {x1 dunli x2 lo ka makau smuni ce'u x3}.

(In any case, it is hard to see how any of this relates to {ca'e}.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 05 of Jun, 2007 21:01 GMT posts: 14214

Also broken. Not good.

Is anyone else getting good copies of these?

xorxes: try resending, copying me specifically, please.

-Robin

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:55:00PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> the source of the information or idea that is a generalization of the
> former.
> su'a nai (UI*2) Evidential. Used to express other (stated or unstated)
> information as
> the source of the information or idea that is a particularization of
> the former.
> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
> Sender: wikidiscuss-bounce@lojban.org
> Errors-to: wikidiscuss-bounce@lojban.org
> X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-to: wikidiscuss-list@lojban.org
> X-list: wikidiscuss
>
> I find these definitions very hard to parse. What is "the former" in those
> sentences?
>
> I suggest something more direct, like:
>
> "Used to indicate that something is a generalization of some other
> (stated or unstated) information."
>
> "Used to indicate that something is a particularization of some other
> (stated or unstated) information."
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Resending, with copy to Robin

On 6/5/07, Jorge Llambas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> su'a (UI2)
> Evidential. Used to express other (stated or unstated) information as
> the source of the information or idea that is a generalization of the
> former.
>
> su'a nai (UI*2)
> Evidential. Used to express other (stated or unstated) information as
> the source of the information or idea that is a particularization of
> the former.
>
> I find these definitions very hard to parse. What is "the former" in those
> sentences?
>
> I suggest something more direct, like:
>
> "Used to indicate that something is a generalization of some other
> (stated or unstated) information."
>
> "Used to indicate that something is a particularization of some other
> (stated or unstated) information."
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

Resending, with copy to Robin

On 6/5/07, Jorge Llambas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> "ba'acu'i cumki fa le nu mi sutra bacru ta'i tu'a lo nu lo denpa cu
> jbini ro valsi"
> "In my experience, it is possible for me to speak quickly with pauses
> between every word."
>
> I suspect this usage of "ba'acu'i" is more incorrect than using "ba'a" for
> "I expect to find out that".
>
> "ba'a cu'i" indicates that the assertion is based on present experience,
> whereas the English "in my experience" indicates that the assertion is
> based on repeated past experience. So the translation to English of
> the above Lojban sentence would have to be something like "based on
> what I am experiencing now, it is possible for me to speak quickly with
> pauses between every word."
>
> If "ba'a" were restricted to direct experience, then the scale would
> have to be:
>
> ba'a - based on what I expect to experience in the future
> ba'a cu'i - based on what I am experiencing right now
> ba'a nai - based on what I remember experiencing in the past
>
> I think, however, that "ba'a" need not be restricted to direct experience,
> but to any source of information. Something like:
>
> ba'a - based on what I expect to find out in the future
> ba'a cu'i - based on what I am finding out right now
> ba'a nai - based on what I remember finding out in the past
>
> Of course, direct personal experience is one valid method of finding
> things out, but not the only one.
>
> This would justify most or all of the disapproved uses of "ba'a" for
> "I expect".
>
> In particular, notice that ba'a(cu'i/nai) says nothing about the tense of
> the event described in the assertion, that is the job of pu/ca/ba. The
> temporal dimension involved in "ba'a" is the time in which the speaker
> acquires the evidence for what they are asserting: expected in the future,
> at the current moment, or remembered from the past.
>
> For example, mixing the times of the asserted event and of the evidence
> for the claim:
>
> ba'a nai la djan ba xruti ca le bavlamdei
> As far as I remember, John will be back tomorrow.
>
> ba'a cu'i la alis pu zvati le tcadu ze'a lo masti
> I am finding out right now that Alice was in town for a month.
>
> ba'a mi ca srera
> I expect to find out that I'm wrong.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 05 of Jun, 2007 21:36 GMT posts: 14214

You've changed the messagy by replying to it: all the > bits. We
need, as much as is possible, a resend of the original mail, please.

However, I suspect the problem is as simple as the first line
starting with a blank space. If you can avoid that, it'll probably
fix the problem.

-Robin

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 06:35:22PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> Resending, with copy to Robin
>
> On 6/5/07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "ba'acu'i cumki fa le nu mi sutra bacru ta'i tu'a lo nu lo denpa cu
> >jbini ro valsi"
> > "In my experience, it is possible for me to speak quickly with pauses
> >between every word."
> >
> >I suspect this usage of "ba'acu'i" is more incorrect than using "ba'a" for
> >"I expect to find out that".
> >
> >"ba'a cu'i" indicates that the assertion is based on present experience,
> >whereas the English "in my experience" indicates that the assertion is
> >based on repeated past experience. So the translation to English of
> >the above Lojban sentence would have to be something like "based on
> >what I am experiencing now, it is possible for me to speak quickly with
> >pauses between every word."
> >
> >If "ba'a" were restricted to direct experience, then the scale would
> >have to be:
> >
> >ba'a - based on what I expect to experience in the future
> >ba'a cu'i - based on what I am experiencing right now
> >ba'a nai - based on what I remember experiencing in the past
> >
> >I think, however, that "ba'a" need not be restricted to direct experience,
> >but to any source of information. Something like:
> >
> >ba'a - based on what I expect to find out in the future
> >ba'a cu'i - based on what I am finding out right now
> >ba'a nai - based on what I remember finding out in the past
> >
> >Of course, direct personal experience is one valid method of finding
> >things out, but not the only one.
> >
> >This would justify most or all of the disapproved uses of "ba'a" for
> >"I expect".
> >
> >In particular, notice that ba'a(cu'i/nai) says nothing about the tense of
> >the event described in the assertion, that is the job of pu/ca/ba. The
> >temporal dimension involved in "ba'a" is the time in which the speaker
> >acquires the evidence for what they are asserting: expected in the future,
> >at the current moment, or remembered from the past.
> >
> >For example, mixing the times of the asserted event and of the evidence
> >for the claim:
> >
> > ba'a nai la djan ba xruti ca le bavlamdei
> > As far as I remember, John will be back tomorrow.
> >
> > ba'a cu'i la alis pu zvati le tcadu ze'a lo masti
> > I am finding out right now that Alice was in town for a month.
> >
> > ba'a mi ca srera
> > I expect to find out that I'm wrong.
> >
> > mu'o mi'e xorxes
> >

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/