Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]:43974)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMTB0cHaCBCsj_T4BBoEB44wSQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RpE29-00042C-DQ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:09:42 -0800
Received: by qabg27 with SMTP id g27sf3959486qab.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:09:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent
         :x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=MOasX7WRXC8t4+O/eZb3CiQIui3Lh8814zuqjTE3Lbo=;
        b=w/34w7Xg+yKA2tJcL+VAK5/Gm2b11tM/JrSamObdoqtCx4bNpVi3I8FUP7GK055mCg
         LpKv+NXTwdm2R/+XBlExn/x9GavDtN8MOTLmzl5kvGhmLXckoVM2PnZaH2Jp99s8XCv/
         VfWrcyLKA/H1u7mYooNiojnCWfcbG0LL+UoUc=
Received: by 10.224.173.143 with SMTP id p15mr1079609qaz.2.1327302572318;
        Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:09:32 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.224.116.194 with SMTP id n2ls9219941qaq.3.gmail; Sun, 22 Jan
 2012 23:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.188.65 with SMTP id cz1mr16638003qab.2.1327302570985;
        Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.176.134 with SMTP id be6msqab;
        Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:44:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.28.4 with SMTP id x4mr389599vdg.20.1327293847040; Sun, 22
 Jan 2012 20:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by s18g2000vby.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:44:06
 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:44:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALm==BWauU-zpNCjmJYdZJ-6Mb+45qEPvm0--dqFdoWnxCB8Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB5WduDVkAtxfPCguCuuQkq_ZkkJNMR1dqTbxvqW5u9V3bfR9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALm==BWauU-zpNCjmJYdZJ-6Mb+45qEPvm0--dqFdoWnxCB8Ag@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20120105
 Firefox/9.0.1 PaleMoon/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <2fa43a2f-8a3d-4b19-ae52-1feb706cd28f@s18g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Bayesian evidential?
From: D <datapacrat@gmail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: datapacrat@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain
 of datapacrat@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=datapacrat@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Jan 22, 2:31=A0pm, ".arpis." <rpglover64+jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Evidentials do not take arguments.

True; but at least some vocatives do.


> {fi'o te kanpe xokau} (replace xokau with some number) uses an experiment=
al
> gismu, but conveys, in otherwise standard lojban, a linear certainty, and
> is intended to be used with indefinite numbers.
>
> {de'o} appears to be the mekso operator for log; I guess you could say
> {fi'o te kanpe li de'o ni'u xa}, or define an experimental cmavo in the B=
AI
> class to mean something similar.

Hm... As interesting as the construction you present is, it also seems
to lose the main advantage of indicators, which can be applied to
almost any individual part of a sentence, as well as the sentence as a
whole.

As far as I can tell, {bi'a} is not currently being used by Lojban,
and isn't even anywhere in lojban.org's list of currently or formerly
proposed/experimental cmavo. Would a definition such as the following
be incompatible with baseline Lojban? That is, would this way of
arranging such a cmavo allow for more than one reading, or conflict
with some other aspect of Lojbanic principles?

bi'a [number] [do'u]

This phrase as a whole is grammatically treated as a single evidential
indicator. The number is the decibels of Bayesian probability the
speaker assigns to the word or phrase the evidential refers to; zero,
or a lack of a number, indicates 0 decibels (meaning 50% probability).
{do'u} is mandatory if the next word is another number, in order to
prevent confusion; otherwise it is optional.


ki'esai,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka
vajni fo lo preti

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.