Lojban In General

There was some discussion on IRC about how to use {jei}, and of course
the more we talked about it the more nebulous it seemed.

It started with some innocent usage.

<codrus> mi pensi lo jei lo nunkancu be fu lo lanme cu se stidi
tezu'e lo nu pu tcica

<kribacr> .i lo'u lo du'u xu kau le'u .e nai lo'u lo jei le'u
jai se stidi mi doi .codrus.
<kribacr> lo jei is looking for a number from 0 to 1

<xalbo> I'm still not sure about {jei}, but I find myself
wanting to use it for {du'u xu kau}, because the other
seems utterly worthless.
<xalbo> I suspect that in intensional contexts they may
collapse together

Soon, the topic shifted to include {ni}.

<xalbo> I'm far more worried about what {ni} actually means
<xalbo> Honestly, I still don't completely have {ni} conceptualized.
<xalbo> ISTR there were about three different meanings.
<xalbo> I think the three competing meanings were "the number
of ... such that ...", "the extent to which <full bridi>", and the
property version ("the extent to which <bridi with a ce'u place>"

<daniel`> xalbo: how would the property version be used?
<xalbo> .i va'i sa'e mi do zmadu lo ni ce'u certu
<daniel`> I see

I made the following ha-ha-only-serious suggestion.

<daniel`> I think we should get an official ruling to
declare {jei} and {ni} experimental cmavo

Others didn't quite agree:

<xalbo> I think calling them experimental isn't productive.
Just figure out what they do mean, and how to get the
other meanings.

Still, everybody agreed that that nobody really knows what {ni} and
{jei} mean. We talked about this some more, considering various
alternatives. Here are some excerpts:

<codrus> well here's what xorxes said on the list: "My answer
is: "jei" is a useless word better forgotten, but those
who use it generally use it to mean "du'u xu kau"

<donri> i don't think jei *is* du'uxukau, but as it is useless,
maybe that more useful interpretation that many make
would be useful

<xalbo> I tend to use {ni} for the property version, but
sometimes the non-property "the extent to which" (and
the fact that I do both of those bugs me)
<xalbo> I never use it for "the number of", that's {du'u xo kau}
<xalbo> Thinking more about it, I should use {jei} for the
non-property {ni}. That would be in line with most
things, and just plain work.
<xalbo> Although it takes out the 0-1 aspect, and replaces it
with some scale.

<daniel`> xalbo: that sounds sensible
<daniel`> I had never heard of the property version of {ni}, but
I think I like it
<daniel`> in that case, {jei} : {ni} :: {du'u} : {ka}
<xalbo> We absolutely need some property version of {ni}. It's
zmadu3, mleca3, zenba/jdika2, and many others.
<daniel`> well, why not just {ka}?
<xalbo> I (possibly mistakenly) conceptualize {ka} as boolean.
<daniel`> me too, but I think {ka} is backwards-compatible with
boolean use

<codrus> xorxes said this about {ni}: ""ni" is not fully
understood but it means something like "ka se la'u li
xo kau"

<daniel`> and if {ni} is a property, its x2 seems useless
<donri> the x2 of ni then is the te la'u
<daniel`> sure, but how are you going to use it?
<daniel`> what is "the property of being large measured in
meters" as opposed to "the property of being large"?
<daniel`> {.i mi zenba lo ni clani kei be tu'a lo mitre}
= "I increase in the number of meters long"?

<donri> isn't it rather ka se la'u ba'e ce'u
<daniel`> donri: that seems weird
<daniel`> to say "I become longer", you'd have to say something
like {.i li ci'i zenba lo ni mi clani}
<daniel`> "Infinity is increasingly my height"

<donri> ma ni lo citmle cu pinji do doi djanatyn
<daniel`> {ma ni} is a very weird question if ni1 is a property

The discussion eventually died down. Later,

<daniel`> I think we should 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
<codrus> xalbo: what do you think about daniel's proposal?
<xalbo> I might accept the proposal.

<daniel`> in that case, {ni} and {jei} are to first
approximation equivalent
<daniel`> and their difference is sort of like the difference
between {zu'o} and {pu'u}

So, the point of this message is to ask about everybody's opinion on
the following proposal:

* {lo jei broda kei be ko'a} is broda's truth value according to ko'a.
* {lo ni broda kei be ko'a} is broda's value on the scale ko'a.
* Neither {jei} nor {ni} have any {ce'u} place.

Examples:

1. {.i lo du'u broda cu jetnu}
"broda is true."

2.1 {.i lo jei broda cu du li pa}
"broda is completely true."

2.2. {.i li pa jei broda}
"broda is completely true."

2.3. {.i li pi mu jei broda}
"broda is half true, half false."

3. {.i li pa re no la'e me'o .ibu ky.bu ni mi mencre}
"120 on the IQ scale is my intelligence."

4.1 {.i mi kucli lo du'u xu kau broda}
"I wonder whether broda is true."

4.2 {.i mi kucli lo du'u xo kau da broda}
"I wonder how many broda."

5.1 *{.i mi kucli lo jei broda} --- nonsense
5.2 *{.i mi kucli lo ni broda} --- nonsense

6.1 {.i mi kucli tu'a lo jei broda}
"I wonder about brodas trueness."

6.2 {.i mi kucli tu'a lo ni ko'a mencre}
"I wonder about ko'a's IQ."
(probably, "I wonder how smart ko'a is.")

Whether or not examples 6.1 and 6.2 are correct is dependent on
whether {tu'a} and/or {lo} can introduce intensional contexts, which
as I understand under xorlo they are supposed to. Note that this is a
separate discussion.

7.1. {.i mi kucli lo du'u ma kau broda}
"I wonder how true broda is."

7.2. {.i mi kucli lo du'u ma kau ni ko'a mencre}
"I wonder how smart ko'a is."

8.1 {.i ma ni do tatpi}
"How tired are you on a scale?"
"How tired are you?"

8.2 {.i ma jei do tatpi}
"How true is it that you are tired?"
"How tired are you?"

Note that examples 8.1 and 8.2 are extremely similar, which is simply
because {ni} and {jei} are very similar when the x2 is left out.

9.1 {.i ma jei la .djisys. jmive kei lo xriso}
"In Christianity, how true is it that Jesus is alive?"

9.2 {.i ma ni la .djisys. jmive kei tu'a lo si'o remna}
"How alive is Jesus as a human being?"

9.3 {.i ma ni la .djisys. jmive kei tu'a lo si'o cevni}
"How alive is Jesus as a god?"

10.1 {.i mi zenba lo ka ce'u mencre}
"I get smarter."

10.2 *{.i mi zenba lo ni mencre} --- nonsense
*"I increase in the property of the IQ of someone."

10.3 {.i mi do zmadu lo ka mencre}
"I'm smarter than you."

11 *?{.i lo ni mi mencre cu zenba} --- nonsense?
"My IQ increases."

Whether or not example 11 is correct depends on whether a number can
increase. I'm not sure how this relates to intensionality and so on,
so I explicitly leave example 11 open to debate.

But before we launch into that rabbit hole of a debate, let's please
talk about all the other examples, because it's more important to come
to some sort of consensus about the basics.

(Also note that example 11 can be easily turned into the unproblematic
{.i mi zenba lo ka mencre}, and more generally the potentially
problematic {.i lo ni ko'a broda cu zenba} can be turned into the
unproblematic {.i ko'a zenba lo ka ce'u broda}. So an easy answer to
{.i lo ni broda cu zenba} is just "please don't do that, as it
needlessly confuses people and starts flamewars".)

Well, I guess that's enough to get started.

--
Daniel Brockman
daniel@brockman.se

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.