Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:46876)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMTB0cHaCBDnmfb4BBoEuB6nLw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RpMuG-0008DR-Bf; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:38:12 -0800
Received: by qcsr14 with SMTP id r14sf971870qcs.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:38:01 -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=kdxLeFmTHLe0vbIzi8Lop6QrD9qDAdy7Zrux14RjqPk=;
        b=IdoCEDFcjbOysONL2RhlXDzgWZxQXzmQmvH7T+fB9MlndvMPLqc9mXX+09AvogqrP/
         0eW5hQdMwSzknXfLbld+RJz9HdFP1SWk5bjAsVgVFpXNz4+0KvF5DfXDD7i2hjlYKEKD
         Y1iSZcyzs9tGtk9zFayEsmeR2RsWxS8VmJZls=
Received: by 10.224.31.135 with SMTP id y7mr423392qac.9.1327336679228;
        Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:37:59 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.224.116.194 with SMTP id n2ls10626864qaq.3.gmail; Mon, 23 Jan
 2012 08:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.198.9 with SMTP id em9mr19392473qab.3.1327336677858;
        Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.176.134 with SMTP id be6msqab;
        Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:27:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.190.37 with SMTP id d25mr614624yhn.20.1327336062667; Mon,
 23 Jan 2012 08:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by b20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:27:42
 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:27:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALm==BUT409_VHzz8B0ZqFZ4qUA-e8NC+hy7NEpHyJA0pVwKbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB5WduDVkAtxfPCguCuuQkq_ZkkJNMR1dqTbxvqW5u9V3bfR9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALm==BWauU-zpNCjmJYdZJ-6Mb+45qEPvm0--dqFdoWnxCB8Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <2fa43a2f-8a3d-4b19-ae52-1feb706cd28f@s18g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <CALm==BUT409_VHzz8B0ZqFZ4qUA-e8NC+hy7NEpHyJA0pVwKbw@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: <6a9b6378-7845-4291-9c27-9536498f6bf6@b20g2000yqb.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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Jan 23, 8:59=A0am, ".arpis." <rpglover64+jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM, D <datapac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2:31 pm, ".arpis." <rpglover64+jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Evidentials do not take arguments.
> >
> > True; but at least some vocatives do.
>
> Vocatives take only the person to whom you're speaking as an argument.

True (save for mi'e, but it's still close enough). I was hoping I
could gloss over that detail, but I suppose I should have known
better.


> > > {fi'o te kanpe xokau} (replace xokau with some number) uses an
> > > experimental
> > > 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 sa=
y
> > > {fi'o te kanpe li de'o ni'u xa}, or define an experimental cmavo in t=
he
> > > BAI 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.
>
> BAI appear (almost) anywhere in a sentence, although less than so than
> indicators; I don't think it's too much of a stretch to have emphasis
> appear depending on position: e.g.
> {bai do mi klama} vs
> {mi bai do klama} vs
> {mi klama bai do}
>
> Alternatively, if you wish to explicitly tag sumti with probabilities,

I believe that I do.

> you can use modal relative phrases (http://dag.github.com/cll/9/10/).
> e.g.: {mi pe bai do klama}

This seems an approach worth examining; though it may take me a bit of
time for me to be able to fully wrap my head around this grammatical
construction enough to use it well. For example, the whole idea is to
associate a numerical value with the sumti being tagged, so I'd want
something closer to {mi pe bai xa do klama}, with whatever closer is
necessary to separate the {xa} and the {do}.


> > 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?
>
> I think it's convention to have non-standard cmavo avoid CVV word shape;

And that's exactly the sort of detail I expected that I was unaware
of.

> perhaps try {bi'ai}, although you should have some more motivation behind
> its morphology than that no-one is using it.

Hm... {bei'e} comes reasonably close to containing most of the sounds
of "Bayes", and doesn't seem to be in use by any other experimental
cmavo.


> Again, if {bi'a} is a vocative, then it inherits all of the vocative
> grammar and some of their semantics. In particular, {bi'a doi .djan.}
> becomes grammatical, with the {doi} attaching to {bi'a}.

At least for purposes of the fiction, I'm willing to entertain the
notion of a new word-category which simply has a grammar somewhat
parallel to vocatives, without explicitly being a member of that
class. Of course, the closer I can come to fitting this new
construction into true Lojban grammar, the better.

(Still, I can see how such a construction could occasionally be
useful, eg "Hi, probably-John", though I can also see how it could
also potentially end up playing merry hob with how such name-
assignments are carried through further speech.)


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.