Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:52274) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T1KqE-00035N-R1; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:51 -0700 Received: by yenq11 with SMTP id q11sf608823yen.16 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version: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; bh=yrzLtEJJXEvWrZDxKNQQZcT8ElNwDKAhwXKtcTm8Poc=; b=ZEQ3DVUA20Yn3jwb2Ta4P2tdgHReNhZLwHXrPNmvCNkQ74fud4m/QG00XEufyIwETw U0b2moNv2psyRDptwaZc5GkHdIemlblu0cJzm9Ykz3BSIVJpbjwyV1qQRKKi+iSsR1yh 56tsrhA7Jn70wpAufhXgCWd7IpUTngT4FBpZs= Received: by 10.68.197.70 with SMTP id is6mr2178872pbc.14.1344965015876; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.211.228 with SMTP id nf4ls1290746pbc.4.gmail; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.212.229 with SMTP id nn5mr712801pbc.19.1344965015384; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <502A81EB.2000005@gmail.com> References: <502A81EB.2000005@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds. MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2120_21910670.1344965014847" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2120_21910670.1344965014847 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:50:51 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote: > > I only found out in the last couple of years that {mu'ei} had ever > attracted any attention, and I was rather surprised by that, because in the > era in which they were proposed, nobody paid any attention to experimental > cmavo proposals, and the notion of seeking to make Lojban a logical > language was deeply marginalized. > > The rationale for {mu'ei} is this: > > It allows the lexicosyntactic form of conditionals to be homomorphous with > the semantic form of conditionals. In particular, the PA element makes > explicit the fractional quantification underlying the could/probably/would > (some/most/all) scale, and the sumti it governs expresses the restriction > on the set of states of affairs ("possible worlds") being quantified over, > which is the protasis. The contrast between different sorts of modality > (epistemic, deontic, counterfactual, noncounterfactual, futurate) could be > expressed within the protasis-expressing sumti or could be lexicalized (as > in the case of the ba'oi proposal). > > {mu'ei} makes {ka'e} et al redundant, with {ka'e} et al merely being very > slightly shorter alternatives to {mu'ei} with implicit sumti. > > If you find {romu'ei} absurd, then you must have misunderstood it somehow. > Tell that to Robin :) > > I didn't really understand your remarks, but it seems to me firstly that > you didn't apprehend the basic rationale for mu'ei (i.e. what its syntax > makes possible) and secondly that you're erroneously trying to see it as > involving not only possible worlds (your A-level) but also the actual world > (your M-level), when in fact it involves only possible worlds. Actually I didnt touch {mu'ei} here. It's clearly A-level. I was studying CAhA selmaho instead. {ca'a,pu'i,nu'o} have been of much more interest to me. I wish Robin started using {mu'ei} again but it's really when usage decides. May be human brain just doesn't want to deal with A-level at such level of precision. May be {ka'e/na ka'e/ka'ei/bia'i} or even {bi'ai} is enough. Lastly, there is absoultely no contrdiction between mu'ei and my schemes. The structure of mu'ei is "PA mu'ei (lo du'u p is the case kei), q is the > case", and mu'ei doesn't specify whether p or q are the case in the actual > world. That doesn't rule out having another 8 variants of mu'ei to specify > whether or not p and q are actual, tho; but maybe ca'a could be used for > that -- i.e. ca'a(nai) in the protasis and/or in the apodosis. > > The use of {da'i} is interesting. For a logical language it's completely > deplorable, because there's a complete mismatch between the lexicosyntactic > form and the logical form, and no explicit rule about how to get from one > to the other -- it works by mere stipulated magic. But it caught on among > those impatient to be actively using the language, and nicely illustrated > the fundamental incompatibility between a loglang and a language governed > by the principle of "let usage decide". > May be we can determine the most common usage of {da'i} and redefine it from the point of view of A/M/F-level scheme? May be we should perform analysis of Lojban corpus and tatoeba sentences? > > --And. > > Gleki Arxokuna, On 05/08/2012 18:16: > > Continuation of http://www.lojban.org/tiki/mu'ei > > Note:This topic should be analysed from the Trivalent logic point of > view as the latter also deals with Possible worlds. > > But let's get started with more simple stuff. > > mu'ei has always been a problem for me. Although the wiki was simple in > describing it I felt something incomplete or illogical there. > > > > Luckily, Lojbanistan has some authority and one can always ask how > others solve the same problem. > > Here is the log. > > > > / Do you use mu'ei in real life? Do you have any thoughts of > making a more generalised abstraction that will include both mu'ei and > ba'oi?/ > > /I did for a bit and then stopped; I just use {da'i} tricks > now./ > > /!!! just da'i or pada'i, su'oda'i, roda'i? how can you > distinguish between ba'oi and mu'ei then?/ > > /I don't find ba'oi useful at all. Just da'i./ > > /but how can we distinguish two meanings? i just wanna some > examples how we can use da'i for each case. //If i can't use conditionals > then i cant speak this language. //Conditionals are the basics. //What are > your solutions for su'omu'ei, romu'ei, mu'ei. //I can clearly see > differences in their meaning important when speaking. //Regardless the > theory of alternate realities behind MUhEI I need words with such > semantics. //ko sidju mi/ > > /So use mu'ei ? There's nothing wrong with them. su'o mu'ei > is clearly ka'e. I have no idea what use ro mu'ei has; it looks totally > pointless to me. Erm, as a bridi tag; as a sumti tag it's fine. Looking at > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/mu'ei , for "If the train breaks down I'll be > late" is {da'i mi lerci ri'a lo nu le trene cu spofu} //"If the train > breaks down I might be late" is not a structure I usually have to produce, > but if I did I would just use cumki ; {lo nu mi lerci cu cumki lo nu le > trene cu spofu}/ > > > > > > So having this absolution granted from lojbo nolraitru I started > revising mu'ei. > > Here is what I came up with. > > (if you can't see the image look here < > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.233361103451814.50762.100003337779349&type=1>). > > > > > > > < > https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-opUzSZGQJJM/UB6pRylT1AI/AAAAAAAAB94/F4vX6jWZkDo/s1600/ka%27e.png>We > have two layers. One describes alternate (possible worlds). And it's > {ka'e}. > > If you have balls of one color only there are no alternate worlds. i.e. > only bag in the middle has more than one output at M-level. > > Therefore I opine that mu'ei is not a good cmavo as it's trying to > express two levels and therefore two meaning at once. But cmavo should > express one meaning each (being more close to semantic prims). > > > > Strangely enough {pu'i} was out of consideration on mu'ei pages on > lojban.org wiki. That's why mu'ei scheme is not complete and > comprehensive. > > > > *Other issues including unsettled.* > > romu'ei is absurd. > > bi'ai is described as naka'ena which in my scheme is equal to {ca'a}. > But actually in the examples from the wiki bi'ai is used more like {pu'i}. > In any case it's meaning is covered by the existing cmavo. > > ba'oi has extra meaning of alternate world identical to This World up to > the present. This meaning is yet to be defined using new cmavo if my > criticism of mu'ei is accepted. > > da'i and va'o look like non-logical conditionals. Their meaning is out > of my understanding. But I'm gonna use da'i more like Robin in those cases > when I'm not sure what alternate-world-cmavo to use or in order to reach > ambiguity. > > ka'e is used more like an abbreviation of kakne. If the latter meaning > of ka'e is fixed we need to find another cmavo for that purpose (for > A-level). > > naka'e has no cmavo for the output at M-level. Luckily naka'e is short > enough to be used on it's own. > > > > *Conclusion.* > > mu'ei is not needed. If you wanna describe potential i.e. alternate > worlds at A-level use naka'e, ka'e or naka'ena=ca'a. > > If in possible worlds some balls are black and some are white then it's > ka'e that can result either in nu'o or in pu'i. > > You can use all those cmavo as sumtcita as well which staisfies the need > in most conditional sentences > > (conditionals are sentences like "If I hadn't swum I would have been > healthy" or similar). > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "lojban" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/1AfwMNf6FKgJ. > > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/nxOl9dnBBLYJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. ------=_Part_2120_21910670.1344965014847 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:50:51 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:I only found out in the last couple= of years that {mu'ei} had ever attracted any attention, and I was rather s= urprised by that, because in the era in which they were proposed, nobody pa= id any attention to experimental cmavo proposals, and the notion of seeking= to make Lojban a logical language was deeply marginalized.

The rationale for {mu'ei} is this:

It allows the lexicosyntactic form of conditionals to be homomorphous w= ith the semantic form of conditionals. In particular, the PA element makes = explicit the fractional quantification underlying the could/probably/would = (some/most/all) scale, and the sumti it governs expresses the restriction o= n the set of states of affairs ("possible worlds") being quantified over, w= hich is the protasis. The contrast between different sorts of modality (epi= stemic, deontic, counterfactual, noncounterfactual, futurate) could be expr= essed within the protasis-expressing sumti or could be lexicalized (as in t= he case of the ba'oi proposal).

{mu'ei} makes {ka'e} et al redundant, with {ka'e} et al merely being ve= ry slightly shorter alternatives to {mu'ei} with implicit sumti.

If you find {romu'ei} absurd, then you must have misunderstood it someh= ow.
Tell that to Robin :) 

I didn't really understand your remarks, but it seems to me firstly tha= t you didn't apprehend the basic rationale for mu'ei (i.e. what its syntax = makes possible) and secondly that you're erroneously trying to see it as in= volving not only possible worlds (your A-level) but also the actual world (= your M-level), when in fact it involves only possible worlds.
<= div>Actually I didnt touch {mu'ei} here. It's clearly A-level. I was studyi= ng CAhA selmaho instead. {ca'a,pu'i,nu'o} have been of much more interest t= o me.
I wish Robin started using {mu'ei} again but it's really wh= en usage decides. May be human brain just doesn't want to deal with A-level= at such level of precision. May be {ka'e/na ka'e/ka'ei/bia'i} or even {bi'= ai} is enough.

Lastly, there is absoultely no cont= rdiction between mu'ei and my schemes.

The structure of mu'ei is "PA mu'ei (lo du'u = p is the case kei), q is the case", and mu'ei doesn't specify whether p or = q are the case in the actual world. That doesn't rule out having another 8 = variants of mu'ei to specify whether or not p and q are actual, tho; but ma= ybe ca'a could be used for that -- i.e. ca'a(nai) in the protasis and/or in= the apodosis.

The use of {da'i} is interesting. For a logical language it's completel= y deplorable, because there's a complete mismatch between the lexicosyntact= ic form and the logical form, and no explicit rule about how to get from on= e to the other -- it works by mere stipulated magic. But it caught on among= those impatient to be actively using the language, and nicely illustrated = the fundamental incompatibility between a loglang and a language governed b= y the principle of "let usage decide".
May be we can determine the most common usage of {da'= i} and redefine it from the point of view of A/M/F-level scheme?
= May be we should perform analysis of Lojban corpus and tatoeba sentences?

--And.

Gleki Arxokuna, On 05/08/2012 18:16:
> Continuation of http://www.lojban.org/tiki/mu'ei
> Note:This topic should be analysed from the Trivalent logic point = of view as the latter also deals with Possible worlds.
> But let's get started with more simple stuff.
> mu'ei has always been a problem for me. Although the wiki was simp= le in describing it I felt something incomplete or illogical there.
>
> Luckily, Lojbanistan has some authority and one can always ask how= others solve the same problem.
> Here is the log.
>
>     /<gleki> Do you use mu'ei in real life? Do you= have any thoughts of making a more generalised abstraction that will inclu= de both mu'ei and ba'oi?/
>     /<robin>I did for a bit and then stopped; I ju= st use {da'i} tricks now./
>     /<gleki>!!! just da'i or pada'i, su'oda'i, rod= a'i? how can you distinguish between ba'oi and mu'ei then?/
>     /<robin>I don't find ba'oi useful at all. Just= da'i./
>     /<gleki>but how can we distinguish two meaning= s? i just wanna some examples how we can use da'i for each case. //If i can= 't use conditionals then i cant speak this language. //Conditionals are the= basics. //What are your solutions for su'omu'ei, romu'ei, mu'ei. //I can c= learly see differences in their meaning important when speaking. //Regardle= ss the theory of alternate realities behind MUhEI I need words with such se= mantics. //ko sidju mi/
>     /<robin>So use mu'ei ? There's nothing wrong w= ith them. su'o mu'ei is clearly ka'e. I have no idea what use ro mu'ei has;= it looks totally pointless to me. Erm, as a bridi tag; as a sumti tag it's= fine. Looking at http://www.lojban.org/tiki/mu'ei , for "If the train breaks = down I'll be late" is {da'i mi lerci ri'a lo nu le trene cu spofu} //"If th= e train breaks down I might be late" is not a structure I usually have to p= roduce, but if I did I would just use cumki ; {lo nu mi lerci cu cumki lo n= u le trene cu spofu}/
>
>
> So having this absolution granted from lojbo nolraitru I started r= evising mu'ei.
> Here is what I came up with.
> (if you can't see the image look here <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=3Da.= 233361103451814.50762.100003337779349&type=3D1>).
>
>
> <https:/= /lh5.googleusercontent.com/-opUzSZGQJJM/UB6pRylT1AI/AAAAAAAA= B94/F4vX6jWZkDo/s1600/ka%27e.png>We have two layers. One descri= bes alternate (possible worlds). And it's {ka'e}.
> If you have balls of one color only there are no alternate worlds.= i.e. only bag in the middle has more than one output at M-level.
> Therefore I opine that mu'ei is not a good cmavo as it's trying to= express two levels and therefore two meaning at once. But cmavo should exp= ress one meaning each (being more close to semantic prims).
>
> Strangely enough {pu'i} was out of consideration on mu'ei pages on= lojban.org wiki. That'= s why mu'ei scheme is not complete and comprehensive.
>
> *Other issues including unsettled.*
> romu'ei is absurd.
> bi'ai is described as naka'ena which in my scheme is equal to {ca'= a}. But actually in the examples from the wiki bi'ai is used more like {pu'= i}. In any case it's meaning is covered by the existing cmavo.
> ba'oi has extra meaning of alternate world identical to This World= up to the present. This meaning is yet to be defined using new cmavo if my= criticism of mu'ei is accepted.
> da'i and va'o look like non-logical conditionals. Their meaning is= out of my understanding. But I'm gonna use da'i more like Robin in those c= ases when I'm not sure what alternate-world-cmavo to use or in order to rea= ch ambiguity.
> ka'e is used more like an abbreviation of kakne. If the latter mea= ning of ka'e is fixed we need to find another cmavo for that purpose (for A= -level).
> naka'e has no cmavo for the output at M-level. Luckily naka'e is s= hort enough to be used on it's own.
>
> *Conclusion.*
> mu'ei is not needed. If you wanna describe potential i.e. alternat= e worlds at A-level use naka'e, ka'e or naka'ena=3Dca'a.
> If in possible worlds some balls are black and some are white then= it's ka'e that can result either in nu'o or in pu'i.
> You can use all those cmavo as sumtcita as well which staisfies th= e need in most conditional sentences
> (conditionals are sentences like "If I hadn't swum I would have be= en healthy" or similar).
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google= Groups "lojban" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.g= oogle.com/d/msg/lojban/-/1AfwMNf6FKgJ.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com= .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@<= wbr>googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/nx= Ol9dnBBLYJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_2120_21910670.1344965014847--