Received: from localhost ([::1]:50727 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TuDru-0003Vm-Tb; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:04:19 -0800 Received: from imta-35.everyone.net ([216.200.145.35]:56040 helo=imta-38.everyone.net) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TuDrn-0003Vf-3m for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:04:17 -0800 Received: from pps.filterd (omta001 [127.0.0.1]) by imta-38.everyone.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id r0D32sTD001487 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:04:10 -0800 X-Eon-Dm: dm0207 Received: by dm0207.mta.everyone.net (EON-AUTHRELAY2 - 43ceb7ed) id dm0207.50ef9171.2f79c0 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:04:06 -0800 X-Eon-Sig: AQNcFAlQ8iQmm8tL8gIAAAAB,b89879d81faf93762d552b38c79fc092 X-Originating-Ip: 67.206.183.237 Message-ID: <50F2241D.2000506@valint.net> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:03:57 -0800 From: Compu-Celebi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jbovlaste@lojban.org References: <50F120AF.8040809@valint.net> In-Reply-To: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-01-13_01:2013-01-11,2013-01-13,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1211240000 definitions=main-1301120335 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.3 X-Spam_score_int: 3 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 1/12/2013 10:10 AM, Eitan Postavsky wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Compu-Celebi > wrote: > > On 1/11/2013 4:55 PM, Eitan Postavsky wrote: >> 3) terserspaji: sp2 is surprised by step st3 while traversing >> stairs, surprised either that it exists or that it doesn't exist; >> sp2 unexpectedly hits floor when expecting to step on step st3; >> sp2 unexpectedly hits step st3 when expecting to step on floor. > Every /terserspaji/ must be an unexpected stepping, not a > surprised stepper, because every /terserspaji/ is a /spaji/ and > every /spaji/ is a surprising/startling/unexpected event/action, > and /terserti/ are neither events/actions nor /spaji/. Therefore, > regardless of whether the arguments are mentioned in the order in > which you intended their places to be (which I cannot ascertain > because "x1" and "x2" are excluded), your place structure is flawed. > > Ah, yes, must have had a bit of a brainfart. This lujvo is the one I > spent the least time thinking about :S Thanks for your patience. Conversely, composing my previous response took a few hours. > > Ipropose this alternative (which includes the /serti/, also, as an > argument): > > x1=sp1 is an event/action of x2=sp2 unexpectedly stepping off > stairs/stairway/steps x3=st2, instead of onto step x4=st3, or onto > step x3=st4, instead of off stairs/stairway/steps x3=st2 > > You are right to include st1 (I believe you meant st1, not st2). I did, because the argument was intended to refer to the /serti/, not the /selserti/. I edited the response so many times that, despite the quantity of time that was spent, I was careless about that detail. > That will probably be of more use than st3 when complaining to your > friends about how a stupidly designed staircase made you stub your > toe. I propose, then, that st3 be dropped, for, in the language of the > CLL chapter Dog House and White House, st1 and st3 are mutually > dependent places (it's almost always the topmost or bottommost step [...] Content analysis details: (0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.3 HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD BODY: HTML font face is not a word Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] Gride sound, tip of the tongue, and missing a step on a staircase X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4140556964152815209==" Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============4140556964152815209== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030508070407080904030008" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030508070407080904030008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by imta-38.everyone.net id r0D32sTD001487 On 1/12/2013 10:10 AM, Eitan Postavsky wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Compu-Celebi > wrote: > > On 1/11/2013 4:55 PM, Eitan Postavsky wrote: >> 3) terserspaji: sp2 is surprised by step st3 while traversing >> stairs, surprised either that it exists or that it doesn't exist; >> sp2 unexpectedly hits floor when expecting to step on step st3; >> sp2 unexpectedly hits step st3 when expecting to step on floor. > Every /terserspaji/ must be an unexpected stepping, not a > surprised stepper, because every /terserspaji/ is a /spaji/ and > every /spaji/ is a surprising/startling/unexpected event/action, > and /terserti/ are neither events/actions nor /spaji/. Therefore, > regardless of whether the arguments are mentioned in the order in > which you intended their places to be (which I cannot ascertain > because "x1" and "x2" are excluded), your place structure is flawed. > > Ah, yes, must have had a bit of a brainfart. This lujvo is the one I=20 > spent the least time thinking about :S Thanks for your patience. Conversely, composing my previous response took a few hours. > > Ipropose this alternative (which includes the /serti/, also, as an > argument): > > x1=3Dsp1 is an event/action of x2=3Dsp2 unexpectedly stepping off > stairs/stairway/steps x3=3Dst2, instead of onto step x4=3Dst3, or o= nto > step x3=3Dst4, instead of off stairs/stairway/steps x3=3Dst2 > > You are right to include st1 (I believe you meant st1, not st2). I did, because the argument was intended to refer to the /serti/, not=20 the /selserti/. I edited the response so many times that, despite the=20 quantity of time that was spent, I was careless about that detail. > That will probably be of more use than st3 when complaining to your=20 > friends about how a stupidly designed staircase made you stub your=20 > toe. I propose, then, that st3 be dropped, for, in the language of the=20 > CLL chapter Dog House and White House, st1 and st3 are mutually=20 > dependent places (it's almost always the topmost or bottommost step=20 > that gets you). I was always ambivalent about including the /serti/ argument but=20 proposed it in case of acceptance and to ascertain others' opinions. > However, I question the separation of sp1 from the rest of the bridi.=20 > What's the use of x1 in your proposed place structure? It just gets in=20 > the way. Whether it is useful does not affect whether it is mandatory, and any=20 predicate whose selbri is {terserspaji} can exclude the first argument. > My idea was to have it be some sort of implicit-abstraction lujvo. But=20 > then you object that having an implicit-abstraction lujvo with the x1=20 > of the tertau being the abstraction is confusing, rightly so, so=20 > perhaps this: > > serselspaji: sp2, traversing stairs/stairway/steps st1, gets startled=20 > by taking a step/stride and the ground not being at the expected level=20 > for the landing foot/terdzu, e.g. by expecting one more step to go=20 > when it has already finished the staircase. > > (I feel comfortable using "it" for agents when talking about place=20 > structures.) > That /is/ the intended order of places, x1=3Dsp2 and x2=3Dst1. > Interesting, a bit of {cadzu} is creeping in there... Yes, this is a=20 > torturedly-implicit abstraction indeed. But, since I've sent this word=20 > out there already, I'll just go right ahead and hit Send. I was not even thinking about implicit abstractions, nor do I recollect=20 having previously encountered the term "implicit abstraction." However,=20 I do object to such implicit abstractions, not only because they are=20 confusing but because every lujvo's first argument must be its tertau's.=20 Permitting exceptions would be contrary to Lojban's principles. I actually considered that alternative lujvo, but not significantly. =20 Now that I have thoroughly done so, I accept it but would include the=20 /selserti/, as the third argument. I do not know why you decided to=20 exclude it for /this/ lujvo. That you used "landing," rather than "hitting," is an interesting=20 coincidence, because your original place structure used "hits" and I=20 would have replaced that with "lands on," because the verb "hit" also=20 means "strike." Ironically, my alternative used "stepping." I prefer "he/it/she" and habitually use virgules to refer to /stasu/=20 when I do not know whether it is soup or stew. > >> 4) And finally, an experiment. Here's yet another of these lujvo: >> {selsnemojmo'i}. What meaning do you think I have in mind for it? > I conjecture that it is "/d=E9j=E0 vu/," although {selsneselmojmo'i= } > is better, because what is recollected is the memory, not the > entity that does the recollecting, and eliding one "sel" but not > the other would be inconsistent. > > Hmm, good guess, that is another common memory defect. Not what I was=20 > thinking of, though. It's quite possible that what I'm thinking of is=20 > simply unguessable, but I have a hint in mind. What is the hint? --------------030508070407080904030008 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 1/12/2013 10:10 AM, Eitan Postavsky wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Compu-Celebi <compu-celebi@valint.net> wrote:
On 1/11/2013 4:55 PM, Eitan Postavsky wrote:
3) terserspaji: sp2 is surprised by step st3 while traversing stairs, surprised either that it exists or that it doesn't exist; sp2 unexpectedly hits floor when expecting to step on step st3; sp2 unexpectedly hits step st3 when expecting to step on floor.
Every terserspaji must be an unexpected stepping, not a surprised stepper, because every terserspaji is a spaji and every spaji is a surprising/startling/unexpected event/action, and terserti are neither events/actions nor spaji.  Therefore, regardless of whether the arguments are mentioned in the order in which you intended their places to be (which I cannot ascertain because "x1" and "x2" are excluded), your place structure is flawed.
Ah, yes, must have had a bit of a brainfart. This lujvo is the one I spent the least time thinking about :S Thanks for your patience.
Conversely, composing my previous response took a few hours.
I propose this alternative (which includes the serti, also, as an argument):

x1=sp1 is an event/action of x2=sp2 unexpectedly stepping off stairs/stairway/steps x3=st2, instead of onto step x4=st3, or onto step x3=st4, instead of off stairs/stairway/steps x3=st2
You are right to include st1 (I believe you meant st1, not st2).
I did, because the argument was intended to refer to the serti, not the selserti.  I edited the response so many times that, despite the quantity of time that was spent, I was careless about that detail.
That will probably be of more use than st3 when complaining to your friends about how a stupidly designed staircase made you stub your toe. I propose, then, that st3 be dropped, for, in the language of the CLL chapter Dog House and White House, st1 and st3 are mutually dependent places (it's almost always the topmost or bottommost step that gets you).
I was always ambivalent about including the serti argument but proposed it in case of acceptance and to ascertain others' opinions.
However, I question the separation of sp1 from the rest of the bridi. What's the use of x1 in your proposed place structure? It just gets in the way.
Whether it is useful does not affect whether it is mandatory, and any predicate whose selbri is {terserspaji} can exclude the first argument.
My idea was to have it be some sort of implicit-abstraction lujvo. But then you object that having an implicit-abstraction lujvo with the x1 of the tertau being the abstraction is confusing, rightly so, so perhaps this:

serselspaji: sp2, traversing stairs/stairway/steps st1, gets startled by taking a step/stride and the ground not being at the expected level for the landing foot/terdzu, e.g. by expecting one more step to go when it has already finished the staircase.

(I feel comfortable using "it" for agents when talking about place structures.)
That /is/ the intended order of places, x1=sp2 and x2=st1.
Interesting, a bit of {cadzu} is creeping in there... Yes, this is a torturedly-implicit abstraction indeed. But, since I've sent this word out there already, I'll just go right ahead and hit Send.
I was not even thinking about implicit abstractions, nor do I recollect having previously encountered the term "implicit abstraction."  However, I do object to such implicit abstractions, not only because they are confusing but because every lujvo's first argument must be its tertau's.  Permitting exceptions would be contrary to Lojban's principles.

I actually considered that alternative lujvo, but not significantly.  Now that I have thoroughly done so, I accept it but would include the selserti, as the third argument.  I do not know why you decided to exclude it for this lujvo.

That you used "landing," rather than "hitting," is an interesting coincidence, because your original place structure used "hits" and I would have replaced that with "lands on," because the verb "hit" also means "strike."  Ironically, my alternative used "stepping."

I prefer "he/it/she" and habitually use virgules to refer to stasu when I do not know whether it is soup or stew.
4) And finally, an experiment. Here's yet another of these lujvo: {selsnemojmo'i}. What meaning do you think I have in mind for it?
I conjecture that it is "déjà vu," although {selsneselmojmo'i} is better, because what is recollected is the memory, not the entity that does the recollecting, and eliding one "sel" but not the other would be inconsistent.
Hmm, good guess, that is another common memory defect. Not what I was thinking of, though. It's quite possible that what I'm thinking of is simply unguessable, but I have a hint in mind.
What is the hint?
 --------------030508070407080904030008-- --===============4140556964152815209== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste --===============4140556964152815209==--