Return-path: Envelope-to: jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org Delivery-date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:52:16 -0700 Received: from [192.168.123.254] (port=60316 helo=jiten.lojban.org) by b39ccf38b4ec with smtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qnwg2-003odt-0k for jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2023 00:52:16 -0700 Received: by jiten.lojban.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 04 Oct 2023 07:52:14 +0000 From: "Apache" To: curtis289@att.net Reply-To: webmaster@lojban.org Subject: [jvsw] Definition Added At Word xoi'ei'a -- By krtisfranks Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 07:52:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "50bab00d4276", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has added a definition of "xoi'ei'a" in the language "English". New Data: Definition: Toggles grammar so that every mention of a number $n$ is interpreted as "at least $n$". Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] 1.0 CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH Header says 7bits but body disagrees In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has added a definition of "xoi'ei'a" in the language "English". New Data: Definition: Toggles grammar so that every mention of a number $n$ is interpreted as "at least $n$". Notes: If one owns five cats, then in normal Lojban grammar, if they were to say "I have two cats", then they would be incorrect/lying; numbers are exact. But often, allowing for such statements is desirable, at least because one can be less mindful of the exactitude requirement. For example, some criminal statutes say things like "if the defendant has four criminal history points, then...", but they actually mean "if the defendant has four or more criminal history points, then...". Likewise, it is almost always a lie in Lojban to say "I am $t$ years old", because one is almost never exactly $t$ years old (this expression is usually the result of rounding down to the nearest integer or half-integer); one should actually say "I am between $t$ years old and $t+1$ years old" – but toggling the grammar with this word would more closely approximate the natlang phrase (although an eighty-year-old could still correctly say, perhaps with some philosophical correctness too, that they are six years old). An even number of uses of this word return the grammar back to numeric exactitude. The "at least" interpretation applies to rafsi as well: a car is a bicycle after this word has been used an odd number of times because "bicycle" would actually mean "at-least-two-wheeler". Again, this could have some applicability in law, such as when banning the usage of vehicles, for example. "{su'e} will operate normally under this word (so, "su'e {re}" would mean "at most 2" and not "at most at-least-2"; meaning that 3 is definitely excluded from the realm of possible numbers), but "su'o" is converted so as to mean "exactly" (given that it is otherwise useless; in other words, the exactitudes of unmarked numhers and "su'o"-marked ones swap with one another). This word does not affect brivla or modals, unless the former involve numeric rafsi; in particular, "{zmadu}", "{satci}", "{mau}", and the like are not affected. This word affects non-integer numbers as well, as demonstrated by the time example; after this toggle, one could accurately say that Cleopatra died five hundred years ago (because she died ealier than that). Explocit approximation via "{ji'i}" is unaffected by this word, in a manner similar to "su'e". Technically, "1+1 =2" is still true under this toggle effect because the sum of at least 1 with at least 1 is indeed at least 2. Both exactitude and this modification to it have their respective problem cases, so use each carefully. Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: numeric excess toggle, In Sense: Word: numeric exactitude toggle, In Sense: Place Keywords: You can go to to see it.