From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Feb 14 11:49:32 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:49:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from f241.law8.hotmail.com ([216.33.241.241] helo=hotmail.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18jlq0-0007ZH-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:49:32 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:49:01 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:49:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] From: "Jorge Llambias" To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: tanru/lujvo for [name] type of thing? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:49:01 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2003 19:49:01.0578 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F3D26A0:01C2D462] X-archive-position: 122 X-Approved-By: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners la ian cusku di'e >Ah ok, I see the problem. You ask about the brode as it is defined and I >talk about the most basic operation of drawing a distinction and naming one >side. Yes, I think I understand the operation you describe, but I still don't quite get your definition of "brode". >With the brivla you can say: >.i brode la'o gy apple gy la'o gy orange gy Some process draws a distinction between apples and oranges, and names the apples. (We don't say here what name is given to the apples in the process, just that they are named. The name "apple" is used, not mentioned, in the lojban sentence. >But that actually implies: >.i brode la'o gy apple gy le brode be la'o gy orange gy How does it imply that??? We were drawing a distinction between apples and oranges, and that implies a distinction between apples and a process that distinguishes oranges? Why would we compare apples with processes? >(btw, it also implies "brode le brode le brode le brode ... le brode be >la'o gy apple gy", but that's hardly ever causing any problems, to the >contrary: this helps to keep the system from noticing problems) I suppose you meant {brode le brode be le brode be le brode ...}. But again, I don't understand why distinguishing apples implies distinguishing the process that distinguishes apples. I may draw a distinction between apples and oranges without having much of a clue that there is a process of distinction going on. >The most basic observation just names one side of the difference. Naming >two sides is already 2 of those observations (and 2 differences) linked >together. And I need X3 to be able to link them. That's what I don't understand. The arguments of a selbri are all part of one relationship. The selbri "brode" links one observation, one thing named in the observation, one thing not named in the observation and the system of observation. It provides no link to a second observation. >You can just say "brode da de", but you may need to be careful not to jump >to conclusions that "de" is the onnly possible description for the unmarked >state.. With your new definition, we no longer have descriptions in x2 and x3. We have the thing being distinguished. (Not {zo plise} but {lo plise}.) >>But is x3 the unmarked state or a tag for the unmarked state? >>If a tag, is the tag unique (for a given observation)? If it is >>unique, can it ever be anything but "not-x2"? > >Since we can't really communicate states, X3 contains some kind of tag >(even though we may say that the tag represents the state). Of course you need to _use_ some kind of tag to refer to the state. But in your previous definition you _referred_ to the tag. That was problematic, because that state was supposedly untagged during the brode process. There was no tag to enter into relationship with the used tag, the process and the system. >"le terbo'e be la'o gy Apple gy" is just such a tag. But we take it to >represent the unmarked state. We use it, we don't mention it. But that tag is used by us in the description of the process. It is not used within the process that we are describing. >>I might explain {pajni} as something like: >> >>zo pajni zo'u ko'a lanli da zu'i pe ko'a gi'e jdice ko'e da > >Then you need to explain "lanli" (and especially "zu'i pe zo'e te lanli") >and "jdice". Yes, ideally someday we will have a Lojban dictionary with definitions written in Lojban. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus