From lojban-beginners+bncCK7Yk5CUCxDM1f3qBBoEpjBMLQ@googlegroups.com Fri Feb 18 23:01:53 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PqgpB-0003j9-Cl; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:53 -0800 Received: by vxc34 with SMTP id 34sf348713vxc.16 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=eECQRorWTjUH7KBNVj1DT4sEwQe+s4n9fKOnJWfa+7g=; b=oR8cWAqCm7tqSTahMAUir7xrddWHUgH5GTSu49aVYRHjiqk/ofCcfDQQyclTTbTmyV rHnAqDBi0mL18adGU6N2iacvxxJzCOO9a9bebL2gqSMuZMHfAMidd7Oo01c9S6nJRXsv VgKwl7VwflPds3JQWz9HpjK4bF7pglyJEzEGo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=fiREh+GvX/kl+fr3096kWmUpnkB0bAPPhQorv/TH8SudGxLlfx9oLYEHYFgkzSyNbY cYaogIEBMKYSjtFyklXNzS5O3Q3zV/oDmgS6e0R5WMzvlJb7/k1gIc4we6EMR80JQRoq YW7CcjRFNEucSnGPSyugQU+Z1rGUmcr/UBZMY= Received: by 10.220.67.219 with SMTP id s27mr39892vci.29.1298098892383; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:32 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.53.138 with SMTP id m10ls752206vcg.2.p; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.87.20 with SMTP id u20mr165022vcl.16.1298098891477; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.87.20 with SMTP id u20mr165021vcl.16.1298098891443; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f177.google.com (mail-qy0-f177.google.com [209.85.216.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l22si474777vbn.4.2011.02.18.23.01.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.177; Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27so3872251qyk.8 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.189.4 with SMTP id dc4mr1213900qcb.173.1298098890132; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.191.21 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:01:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201102171403.40004.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201102171622.02738.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:01:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda} From: Remo Dentato To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rdentato@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdentato@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361e815c3ace4a049c9d3388 --0016361e815c3ace4a049c9d3388 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree that {da} should be interpreted according to the context if it's not specifically bound. To me {roda plise} is {roda poi co'e cu plise} that could be {roda poi do viska cu plise} or {roda poi mi citka cu plise} depending on what we are talking about. It *might* be {roda poi zasti cu plise} in the sense that "everything that exists in the universe is an apple" but I don't see the usefulness of requiring that this is the only possible interpretation. And also consider that having not specified x2 and x3 for {zasti} the sentence is *still* ambiguous , It seems to me that semantic ambiguity has bee introduced in lojban for a very good reason: making it usable for human communication. IMHO, reducing Lojban to a mere form of logic makes it less useful for this purpose. If I wanted to be more formal I would have bound {da}. If I haven't done it I might have a reason to do so. I use to say that Lojban is a language where I can be as precise and as vague as I *want*, please do not take this liberty away from me! remod On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > I'm siding with the context side on this one. Considering how often and how > much we Lojbanists typically leave up to context, I don't see any reason why > {roda} can't either. And no, {la.lojban. logji} isn't. {la.lojban. na logji > .iku'i lo gerna po'e la.lojban. ba'e logji} > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --0016361e815c3ace4a049c9d3388 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that {da} should be interpreted according to the context if it'= s not specifically bound.

To me {roda plise}=A0 is {roda poi co'= e cu plise} that could be {roda poi do viska cu plise} or {roda poi mi citk= a cu plise} depending on what we are talking about.=A0=A0 It *might* be=A0 = {roda poi zasti cu plise} in the sense that "everything that exists in= the universe is an apple" but I don't see the usefulness of requi= ring that this is the only possible interpretation. And also consider that = having not specified x2 and x3 for {zasti} the sentence is *still*=A0 ambig= uous ,

It seems to me that semantic ambiguity has bee introduced in lojban for= a very good reason: making it usable for human communication. IMHO, reduci= ng Lojban to a mere form of logic makes it less useful for this purpose.
If I wanted to be more formal I would have bound {da}. If I haven't= done it I might have a reason to do so.

I use to say that Lojban is= a language where I can be as precise and as vague as I *want*, please do n= ot take this liberty away from me!

remod

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:48 AM= , Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm siding with the context side on this one. Considering how often and= how much we Lojbanists typically leave up to context, I don't see any = reason why {roda} can't either. And no, {la.lojban. logji} isn't. {= la.lojban. na logji .iku'i lo gerna po'e la.lojban. ba'e logji}=


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--0016361e815c3ace4a049c9d3388--