Lojban In General

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:48 PM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of:
>
> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce
> the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and
> restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.

Huh. Somebody's a touch out of date on their policy debate zo'o.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

---BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---
Hash: SHA1

On 09/30/2009 04:48 PM, chris kerr wrote:
> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of:
>
> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially
> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially
> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.
>
> I came up with: .i xusra lo du'u ma'a nitcu lo nu lo mergu'e ga jdika
> lo ni ri ratske xarci ku gi jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci
>
> But there is something not right with using {ni} to talk about reducing
> the number of nuclear weapons.

Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any
abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to
some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)? I seem to recall that {ni}
and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in
extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.

If that's so, we need to write this up clearly somewhere on the wiki,
because CLL spends a fair amount of time on {ni} and pals.

~mark
---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKw8WXAAoJENKD8527nYuaoh8H/jqdLrX5XOAzP2JEMsECyEy/
e84OOBjd+Q3B8/Jaua69RUdxavQ3ODUUTrd+Dk4ipa9rYjvl1cgKv2OiEvm4Du1N
SGpFwQsPCS5jZMlLFiaZK0zIomSAPfMlgDDv3H9zp2pLl/5dWzWDLB5XfFsam76l
fjY3nsMk84R+5k/aM+KBhkQtmIJDlW7FZxvRVLdWKMnrvZgr+faR89Oj7CoU0U7a
VtFicTR0watxvW70qOFlMnRTfS4J02+kstUCvt6Mtn8KkT4LFgX7IAXYvopj6vuG
4IatRBajLuFWvte8aPVzXDN3GQ8f5vIYLSHIWyETUdEuG2NW558hsasPsjZHtyU=
=J900
---END PGP SIGNATURE---

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 04:48 PM, chris kerr wrote:
>> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of:
>>
>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially
>> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially
>> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.
>>
>> I came up with:  .i xusra lo du'u ma'a nitcu lo nu lo mergu'e ga jdika
>> lo ni ri ratske xarci ku gi jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci

(I suggest "jdice" rather than "xusra" for "resolve". Also, if "ri" is
"lo mergu'e", you want "te xarci", the extent to which the US is
nuclear-weaponed, not the extent to which the US is a nuclear weapon.
Or maybe you wanted to say "lo ri ni".)

>> But there is something not right with using {ni} to talk about reducing
>> the number of nuclear weapons.
>
> Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any
> abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to
> some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)?  I seem to recall that {ni}
> and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in
> extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.

I don't think this was ever settled one way or the other. The
definition seems to say "ni" is a se klani, but mostly it is used as a
klani. I use it to mean "the extent to which (bridi) is true". For
"whether" I always use "lo du'u xu kau" rather than "lo jei".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

ki'e

I noticed few things missing. So along with those suggestions it would now
be:

.i ga'i djica lo nu ma'a nitcu lo za'i lo mergu'e ga mutce jdika lo ri ni
ratske xarci gi mutce zenba jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci

Is that a pretty good translation? Anyone else with input?

mu'o mi'e .codrus.

2009/9/30 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
> > On 09/30/2009 04:48 PM, chris kerr wrote:
> >> Someone on IRC asked for a lojban translation of:
> >>
> >> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially
> >> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially
> >> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons
> arsenal.
> >>
> >> I came up with: .i xusra lo du'u ma'a nitcu lo nu lo mergu'e ga jdika
> >> lo ni ri ratske xarci ku gi jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci
>
> (I suggest "jdice" rather than "xusra" for "resolve". Also, if "ri" is
> "lo mergu'e", you want "te xarci", the extent to which the US is
> nuclear-weaponed, not the extent to which the US is a nuclear weapon.
> Or maybe you wanted to say "lo ri ni".)
>
> >> But there is something not right with using {ni} to talk about reducing
> >> the number of nuclear weapons.
> >
> > Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any
> > abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to
> > some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)? I seem to recall that {ni}
> > and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in
> > extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.
>
> I don't think this was ever settled one way or the other. The
> definition seems to say "ni" is a se klani, but mostly it is used as a
> klani. I use it to mean "the extent to which (bridi) is true". For
> "whether" I always use "lo du'u xu kau" rather than "lo jei".
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:19 AM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially
>> >> reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially
>> >> reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons
>> >> arsenal.
>
> .i ga'i djica lo nu ma'a nitcu lo za'i lo mergu'e ga mutce jdika lo ri ni
> ratske xarci gi mutce zenba jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci
>
> Is  that a pretty good translation?  Anyone else with input?

jdice (decide), not djica (want).

"lo mergu'e" is the US, not the US government, so "lo mergu'e turni"
would be more accurate, although it's a bit strange that the
resolution seems to imply that the arsenal belongs to the government
rather than to the country. But that's a problem with the original,
not the translation.

I would use "ei" rather than "ma'a nitcu lo za'i". The resolution is
not about what we need but about what (the assembly thinks) the
government ought to do.

Also, the resolution speaks of reducing the role of the arsenal, not
increasing the control over it. If you meant to use "jitro" for
"restrict", I suggest "ri'urgau" instead. "jdikygau je ri'urgau lo te
pilno be lo ratske xarxi"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wednesday 30 September 2009 16:54:50 Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Someone remind me: is it not the case that you can't use {ni} (or any
> abstractor) for things like this, because {lo ni...} is equivalent to
> some *number* (and you can't reduce 41,291)? I seem to recall that {ni}
> and {jei} had lost most of their utility due to this instantiation in
> extension, and that was why we had to bring in {kau}.

I don't see anything wrong with "ni" for this. lo ni broda is a number or
amount, but it is not a fixed number, any more than lo se ki'ogra be mi,
which has been at various times 36, 84, 55, and 63.

On Thursday 01 October 2009 01:19:29 chris kerr wrote:
> ki'e
>
> I noticed few things missing. So along with those suggestions it would now
> be:
>
> .i ga'i djica lo nu ma'a nitcu lo za'i lo mergu'e ga mutce jdika lo ri ni
> ratske xarci gi mutce zenba jitro lo zu'o pilno lo ra ratske xarci
>
> Is that a pretty good translation? Anyone else with input?

I suggest "lo mergu'e ke jonsi'u turni" instead of just "lo mergu'e",
and "ratmidju xarci" instead of "ratske xarci". Do we have a word
for "arsenal"? Who does "ma'a" refer to? I think "ni ri" is better than "ri
ni": "lo ni ri te ke ratmidju xarci".

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
> I don't see anything wrong with "ni" for this. lo ni broda is a number or
> amount, but it is not a fixed number, any more than lo se ki'ogra be mi,
> which has been at various times 36, 84, 55, and 63.

In that case, you need to put it in the x1 of jdika, not the x2: "lo
se ki'ogra be do cu jdika", not: "do jdika lo se ki'ogra be do".

If "lo ni ..." refers to a number, it can decrease. If it refers to a
property, "lo ka ... xo kau ..." then it can be the property in which
something decreases.

The reason I keep using "ni" instead of "ka ... xo kau ..." is that
the placement of the "xo kau" is not always as obvious as is "du'u xu
kau" for "jei". I some time suggested "ni" = "ka se la'u li xo kau",
but it is definitely more awkward than the "xu kau" substitute for
"jei".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

---BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---
Hash: SHA1

On 10/01/2009 09:46 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> If "lo ni ..." refers to a number, it can decrease. If it refers to a
> property, "lo ka ... xo kau ..." then it can be the property in which
> something decreases.
>
> The reason I keep using "ni" instead of "ka ... xo kau ..." is that
> the placement of the "xo kau" is not always as obvious as is "du'u xu
> kau" for "jei". I some time suggested "ni" = "ka se la'u li xo kau",
> but it is definitely more awkward than the "xu kau" substitute for
> "jei".

If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just stick with
{jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}? I thought the
problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean. That is,
it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in intension, but
meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually isn't what you
want to talk about. If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm trying
to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what you
need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not
subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can reduce "the
number of kilograms someone weighs"). You can say things like {lo ni mi
ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se
cenba}. If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become
useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing.

So which is it? Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or something
like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the
latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that
four syllables is more elegant? Or is {jei} just a true/false value,
which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which
case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}?
You can't have it both ways.

~mark
---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKxMhLAAoJENKD8527nYuaVPYIAOGKW3XNrzp+NVLsk9MPtzaf
7RahJ7a8RoPTWajAIPYiA/hs/L6b42g1upbeoKzK/wtZeaFZhunslnq/cwgJwvTo
5VQoIIqaB4pztIyr2PdjR36mg/Y/3heQ/rie8dAf4Tjtfx6QN96Bx/afgYDH9qBb
G9Q23TOOr2WhpwrF6XHVZPo90GGBKaS/FfMvP4OTfeaOG6SykjqUpkaOyXWJUv6f
5+Fj7iz93noY5L0PW9XDrcMWhLcol0KT2ZHwWaBZUb8EPZF03L50uvrLb1uDiwnV
DAWVQGjzRrshweCVmK1lAcnvZeazbNN11EiYB2jMI6uyCwtNskMRFEDG/csJIoo=
=s+uF
---END PGP SIGNATURE---

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Still undecided about Mark's points?

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:

> ---BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/01/2009 09:46 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> >
> > If "lo ni ..." refers to a number, it can decrease. If it refers to a
> > property, "lo ka ... xo kau ..." then it can be the property in which
> > something decreases.
> >
> > The reason I keep using "ni" instead of "ka ... xo kau ..." is that
> > the placement of the "xo kau" is not always as obvious as is "du'u xu
> > kau" for "jei". I some time suggested "ni" = "ka se la'u li xo kau",
> > but it is definitely more awkward than the "xu kau" substitute for
> > "jei".
>
> If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just stick with
> {jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}? I thought the
> problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean. That is,
> it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in intension, but
> meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually isn't what you
> want to talk about. If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm trying
> to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what you
> need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not
> subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can reduce "the
> number of kilograms someone weighs"). You can say things like {lo ni mi
> ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se
> cenba}. If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become
> useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing.
>
> So which is it? Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or something
> like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the
> latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that
> four syllables is more elegant? Or is {jei} just a true/false value,
> which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which
> case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}?
> You can't have it both ways.
>
> ~mark
> ---BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKxMhLAAoJENKD8527nYuaVPYIAOGKW3XNrzp+NVLsk9MPtzaf
> 7RahJ7a8RoPTWajAIPYiA/hs/L6b42g1upbeoKzK/wtZeaFZhunslnq/cwgJwvTo
> 5VQoIIqaB4pztIyr2PdjR36mg/Y/3heQ/rie8dAf4Tjtfx6QN96Bx/afgYDH9qBb
> G9Q23TOOr2WhpwrF6XHVZPo90GGBKaS/FfMvP4OTfeaOG6SykjqUpkaOyXWJUv6f
> 5+Fj7iz93noY5L0PW9XDrcMWhLcol0KT2ZHwWaBZUb8EPZF03L50uvrLb1uDiwnV
> DAWVQGjzRrshweCVmK1lAcnvZeazbNN11EiYB2jMI6uyCwtNskMRFEDG/csJIoo=
> =s+uF
> ---END PGP SIGNATURE---
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still undecided about Mark's points?

I responded last week, maybe the post was lost somewhere:

2009/10/1 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
>>
>> If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just stick with
>> {jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}?
>
> I wasn't thinking of the awkwardness in pronunciation but the
> awkwardness in meaning. "se la'u li xo kau" is just somewhat
> convoluted meaningwise (how exactly is the quantity related to the
> rest of the bridi?) while "xu kau" is straightforward. But I also
> don't find "lo du'u xu kau" too unwieldly to say, perhaps I just got
> used to it.
>
>> I thought the
>> problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean.
>
> Yes, or rather it had two different meanings, one useless and the
> other better expressed by "xu kau". I prefer "xu kau" to fall in the
> same pattern with "ma kau", "mo kau", "ji kau", "xo kau" etc. rather
> than having its own shortcut. In the case of "ni", I still run into
> cases where doing away with it is awkward.
>
>> That is,
>> it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in intension, but
>> meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually isn't what you
>> want to talk about.
>
> "du'u xukau" doesn't really mean "the truth-value of (some
> proposition)" but "whether (some proposition)". It is itself a
> proposition, not a truth value.
>
>> If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm trying
>> to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what you
>> need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not
>> subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can reduce "the
>> number of kilograms someone weighs"). You can say things like {lo ni mi
>> ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se
>> cenba}. If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become
>> useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing.
>
> How does "jei" (in the sense of "truth value") become useful? The x2
> of djuno, jdice, cilre, etc, has to be a proposition, not a truth
> value. How often do we talk about truth values, and in those cases is
> it not more clear to use a brivla meaning "x1 is the truth value of
> x2" rather than a cmavo?
>
>> So which is it? Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or something
>> like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the
>> latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that
>> four syllables is more elegant? Or is {jei} just a true/false value,
>> which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which
>> case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}?
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
> My answer is: "jei" is a useless word better forgotten, but those who
> use it generally use it to mean "du'u xu kau". "ni" is not fully
> understood but it means something like "ka se la'u li xo kau", but in
> this case having a shortcut appears somewhat more justified.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

The topic of {jei}, {ni}, {ka} and {lo du'u xukau} came up on IRC again this
morning. A possible proposal was made and there was a desire to present it
here for further input(s).

The proposal was to declare that ni1 and jei1 are not properties but
numbers, and that {ka} is not necessarily boolean-valued and so can be used
with {zenba} and so on.

mu'o mi'e codrus