Received: from mail-qc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:55868) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TFhJK-0003r0-Ry; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:13:12 -0700 Received: by qcac11 with SMTP id c11sf4188978qca.16 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:13:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; 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=KpYeMiESq7LWrvoLag9tD9xgqG3qM3BpnmsHx+tzjgs=; b=GRjVseONLaumGwRlikXWSzDAM0uLwRTxbMfX2nky80u2giSCN0Lhcj48ZYVY1KXWsq QO57M8TaYPAgEPXer9AYb2haMB8BhPbFgQrdP/Sj3aj55Snz3R6grZvzG5UuJLf76OT2 5Z+l9ONcKhHVGFZiSVeg+aH8En9mRGqhfzMaZJq1KjzjCxZ0MAFNkHwBheDMf7X3lvqG GDxcSbj296y9wdZmzIUF2OduNt59XAj+LSoT82NF/1NiBMfU68bDngsCJ/2BMJ54rXLs 7GNWg9FvYV7HboPW+5qiVVG1OMKkQP0LkL8iAFmY3orJFqrxX65h/h+K0ZN/jZEuvTnI 4v0Q== Received: by 10.52.156.115 with SMTP id wd19mr1509206vdb.2.1348387980140; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.154.17 with SMTP id m17ls3621382vcw.1.gmail; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.175.5 with SMTP id bw5mr1508707vdc.16.1348387979496; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:12:58 -0700 (PDT) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <08369d01-d329-494e-95e9-7e6375e390fd@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4eae7ab1-572f-44cc-a260-a78b3bf93a9c@googlegroups.com> <4646abde-2d1e-4e97-a7e5-5e187d7ec59e@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising 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_939_23449103.1348387978745" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_939_23449103.1348387978745 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:53:23 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote: > > The thing about {cirko} is that it may or may not have to deal with > possession. It has a sort of possession focus, but if you're using it with > properties, then that just falls apart: {.i mi cirko lo ka pampe'o do} > Really, it's just co'u, but when used on a concrete sumti, it has the > implication of losing possession. I'm not too fond of this duality. > Are you fond of lo selpa'i duality being both an object and an abstraction? May be we should say {mi prami tu'a do} all the time? > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > On 22 September 2012 12:53, Ian Johnson > > wrote: > >> I consider {cirko} to have similar issues to {binxo}; if it's going to >> have anything to do with properties, it should always have to do with >> properties, but since properties are just predicates in my usage, {binxo} >> is essentially redundant to {co'a}. {cirko} as only having to do with {co'u >> ponse} would be fine, but if it has to do with a property then it is again >> redundant to just {co'u}. >> >> The rest are straightforwardly fine, to me; things like {melbi} fall into >> a general category of "pre-jai'd" gismu, which are a bit odd but useful and >> pe'i consistent. >> >> mu'o mi'e la latro'a >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, la gleki >> > wrote: >> >>> I should make my point more clear. >>> >>> Look at the following. >>> >>> prami x1 loves/feels strong affectionate devotion towards x2 (* >>> object/state*). >>> dirba x1 is dear/precious/darling to x2; x1 is emotionally valued by >>> x2; x1 may be a specific *object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a >>> property* >>> pluka x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under conditions x3. >>> melbi x1 is beautiful/pleasant to x2 in aspect x3 (ka) by aesthetic >>> standard x4. >>> >>> And last but not least >>> cirko -cri- x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3; x1 loses >>> property/feature x2 in conditions/situation x3; x2 may be a specific*object, a commodity (mass), an event >>> * (rare for cirko), or a *property*. >>> >>> This last example shows something *mutce lo ka cizra*. >>> >>> If we can easily interchange objects and abstractions in {lo se prami, >>> lo dirba, lo se cirko} omitting {tu'a} then it would be reasonable to ask: >>> >>> *"What the hell is {tu'a} for?" If lojban is not consistent in using it >>> at all, why not omit it all the time?* >>> * >>> * >>> *Then we'll get those {mi sisku lo penbi} (in la selpa'i 's dialect) >>> and even {mi djica lo plise}.* >>> >>> >>> On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:46:15 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote: >>>> >>>> Again Google Groups didn't let me resurrect this >>>> old >>>> discussion. So please follow the link to follow the whole discussion. >>>> >>>> And now it's my turn to ask the community once again after 18 years of >>>> disinterest. >>>> >>>> {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been >>>> dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still >>>> accepts >>>> objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place was >>>> directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible >>>> entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a >>>> property >>>> of said thing. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Why not treat them all the same?* >>>> >>>> The transparent case: >>>> >>>> {mi djica lo tanxe} = "There is a box wanted by me" >>>> {mi nitcu lo tanxe} = "There is a box needed by me" >>>> {mi sisku lo tanxe} = "There is a box sought by me" >>>> >>>> >>>> One more moment. Are there any other gismu that have the same >>>> "problem"? >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 22, 1994 4:03:33 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wrote: >>>>> >>>>> la lojbab cusku di'e >>>>> >>>>> > Of course there is nothing strange about a brivla relating two >>>>> objects - a >>>>> > seeker and the thing known-and-sought-after, and having a certain >>>>> predicate >>>>> > relating them. The problem that I see is that there is more than >>>>> one such >>>>> > predicate, and the choice is dependent on the specificity (or is >>>>> that >>>>> > definiteness %^) of x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the desire is >>>>> of the >>>>> > seeker for the final state after finding. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is transparency vs opacity. Transparent references can be >>>>> specific or nonspecific, and that can be marked with the appropriate >>>>> quantifiers, but we don't have any way to mark explicitly opaque >>>>> references. >>>>> >>>>> The other properties that you mention, like desires of the seeker for >>>>> what >>>>> to do after (or rather if) the sought after thing is found, are not >>>>> really >>>>> to the point. If you want a place for them I guess you do need a lujvo. >>>>> >>>>> Also, in English, the meaning of "seek an object" has been generalized >>>>> to "seek knowledge", where by "finding it", we mean that we get to >>>>> know the truth value of some utterance. (I suppose that's what you >>>>> call the >>>>> seeking of science.) I don't have a problem with letting this >>>>> metaphorical >>>>> extension into Lojban, but in any case this is not part of the opaque >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> An interesting property of sisku as it is defined now, is that the >>>>> lambda >>>>> variable of its property really never takes a value. Normally, the >>>>> lambda >>>>> variable of a property corresponds to one or more of the places of the >>>>> selbri (for example for {zmadu}, it's the x1 and x2) but for sisku, >>>>> there >>>>> is no place for the thing being sought, so there is no place that fits >>>>> the >>>>> lambda variable. >>>>> >>>>> > WE have other cases in Lojban where the Lojban word covers a >>>>> misleading >>>>> > subset of the English meanings of the keywords ("old" and "know" >>>>> being two >>>>> > cases that come to mind). >>>>> >>>>> BTW, because of my mail problems a month or so ago I never found out >>>>> whether >>>>> {citno} means "young", so that it only refers to living things, or >>>>> whether >>>>> it is more general. Would an "old car" in lojban be a {tolcitno karce} >>>>> or >>>>> a {tolcnino karce}? >>>>> >>>>> > In all such casesa we have learned to live with the >>>>> > fact that the English word is tto broad and have come up with lujvo >>>>> for the >>>>> > alternative meanings. Such lujvo can always exist, and if this whole >>>>> > issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away. the number of distinctions >>>>> we need >>>>> to >>>>> > make may be reduced. But I remain unconvinced of this - as pc said >>>>> a while >>>>> > back in this discussion - there are some predicates that embody a >>>>> hidden >>>>> > abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by "some predicates"? English verbs, like "want", >>>>> "need", >>>>> "look for", etc, or Lojban predicates like {djica}, {nitcu}, {sisku}, >>>>> etc.? >>>>> >>>>> I totally agree that the English verbs can accept opaque references as >>>>> direct >>>>> objects, without any marking. They also, in other contexts, can take >>>>> transparent >>>>> direct objects. >>>>> >>>>> Because of the logical aspect of Lojban, this can't work like that in >>>>> Lojban, >>>>> and so the arguments are always transparent. >>>>> >>>>> But, the fact is that the opaque meaning is often very useful for these >>>>> predicates, so what do we do? >>>>> >>>>> I propose to find one solution for all such predicates, rather than >>>>> patches >>>>> for each of them. {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all >>>>> been >>>>> dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still >>>>> accepts >>>>> objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place >>>>> was >>>>> directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible >>>>> entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a >>>>> property >>>>> of said thing. >>>>> >>>>> Why not treat them all the same? >>>>> >>>>> The transparent case: >>>>> >>>>> {mi djica lo tanxe} = "There is a box wanted by me" >>>>> {mi nitcu lo tanxe} = "There is a box needed by me" >>>>> {mi sisku lo tanxe} = "There is a box sought by me" >>>>> >>>>> and the opaque case: >>>>> >>>>> {mi djica xe'e lo tanxe} = "I want a box (I don't care which)" >>>>> {mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe} = "I need a box (I don't care which)" >>>>> {mi sisku xe'e lo tanxe} = "I seek a box (I don't care which)" >>>>> >>>>> (I don't mind using {lo'e} instead of {xe'e lo}, I think it makes sense >>>>> as well.) >>>>> >>>>> As things stand now, for the transparent case I have to say: >>>>> >>>>> {da poi tanxe zo'u mi djica tu'a da} >>>>> {mi nitcu lo tanxe} >>>>> {da poi tanxe zo'u mi sisku le ka du da} >>>>> >>>>> Why so complicated? >>>>> >>>>> > mi'e la lojbab noi sisku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u >>>>> nabmi >>>>> > cu mansa roda >>>>> >>>>> That doesn't make much sense to me. You probably mean {noi sisku lo ka >>>>> danfu >>>>> le me zo sisku me'u nabmi gi'e mansa roda}, otherwise you are saying >>>>> that >>>>> you are looking for something with property an answer satisfies >>>>> everyone, >>>>> but what is it that you look for? the answer, everyone? I think this >>>>> is an >>>>> unnecessarily complicated way to deal with {sisku}. >>>>> >>>>> Jorge >>>>> >>>> -- >>> 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/-/aTfTDbKnrqUJ. >>> >>> 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 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/-/t_ef3I0HOREJ. 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_939_23449103.1348387978745 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:53:23 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:The thing about {cirko} is that it = may or may not have to deal with possession. It has a sort of possession fo= cus, but if you're using it with properties, then that just falls apart: {.= i mi cirko lo ka pampe'o do}
Really, it's just co'u, but when used on a concrete sumti, it has the impli= cation of losing possession. I'm not too fond of this duality.

Are you fond of lo selpa'i duality being both an = object and an abstraction? May be we should say {mi prami tu'a do} all the = time?

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 22 September 2012 12:53, Ian Johnson <blindb.= ..@gmail.com> wrote:
I consider {cirko} to have similar issues to {binxo}; if it's going to have= anything to do with properties, it should always have to do with propertie= s, but since properties are just predicates in my usage, {binxo} is essenti= ally redundant to {co'a}. {cirko} as only having to do with {co'u ponse} wo= uld be fine, but if it has to do with a property then it is again redundant= to just {co'u}.

The rest are straightforwardly fine, to me; things like {melbi} fall in= to a general category of "pre-jai'd" gismu, which are a bit odd but useful = and pe'i consistent.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a


On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
I should make my point more clear.

Look at the following= .

prami x1 loves/feels strong affectionate de= votion towards x2 (object/state).
dirba x1 is dear/precious/= darling to x2; x1 is emotionally valued by x2; x1 may be a specific object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a property
pluka x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under c= onditions x3.
melbi x1 is beautiful/pleasant to x2 in = aspect x3 (ka) by aesthetic standard x4.

And last = but not least
cirko -cri- x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3; x1 loses pr= operty/feature x2 in conditions/situation x3; x2 may be a specific = object, a commodity (mass), an event (rare for cirko), or a property= .

This last example shows something mutce lo ka = cizra.

If we can easily interchange object= s and abstractions in {lo se prami, lo dirba, lo se cirko} omitting {tu'a} = then it would be reasonable to ask:

"What the hell is {tu'a} for?" If lojban is not cons= istent in using it at all, why not omit it all the time?
<= br>
Then we'll get those {mi sisku lo penbi} (in la sel= pa'i 's dialect) and even {mi djica lo plise}.


On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:46:15 PM UTC+4, = la gleki wrote:
Again Google Gr= oups didn't let me resurrect this old discussion. So= please follow the link to follow the whole discussion.

And now it's my turn to ask the community once again af= ter 18 years of disinterest.

{djica}, {nitcu} and {sisk= u}, for example, have all been
dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still acc= epts
objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the = x2 place was
directly eliminated and replaced by only a property = of some inaccesible
entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a prope= rty
of said thing.
 
=
Why not treat them all the same?

The transparent case:

{mi djica lo tanxe} =3D "Th= ere is a box wanted by me"
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box needed by me"
{mi si= sku lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box sought by me"

=
One more moment. Are there any other gismu that have the same "p= roblem"? 

On Tuesday, November 22, 1994 4:03:33 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wro= te:
la lojbab cusku di'e

> Of course there is nothing strange about a briv= la relating two objects - a
> seeker and the thing known-and-sought-a= fter, and having a certain predicate
> relating them.  The probl= em that I see is that there is more than one such
> predicate, and the choice is dependent on the specificity  (or is= that
> definiteness %^) of x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the de= sire is of the
> seeker for the final state after finding.

The = problem is transparency vs opacity. Transparent references can be
specific or nonspecific, and that can be marked with the appropriate
qua= ntifiers, but we don't have any way to mark explicitly opaque references.

The other properties that you mention, like desires of the seeker for = what
to do after (or rather if) the sought after thing is found, are not really<= br>to the point. If you want a place for them I guess you do need a lujvo.<= /p>

Also, in English, the meaning of "seek an object" has been generalize= d
to "seek knowledge", where by "finding it", we mean that we get to
know = the truth value of some utterance. (I suppose that's what you call the
s= eeking of science.) I don't have a problem with letting this metaphorical extension into Lojban, but in any case this is not part of the opaque probl= em.

An interesting property of sisku as it is defined now, is that th= e lambda
variable of its property really never takes a value. Normally, = the lambda
variable of a property corresponds to one or more of the places of the
s= elbri (for example for {zmadu}, it's the x1 and x2) but for sisku, thereis no place for the thing being sought, so there is no place that fits the=
lambda variable.

> WE have other cases in Lojban where the Lojban = word covers a misleading
> subset of the English meanings of the keyw= ords ("old" and "know" being two
> cases that come to mind).

BTW, because of my mail problems a month or so ago I never found out whe= ther
{citno} means "young", so that it only refers to living things, or = whether
it is more general. Would an "old car" in lojban be a {tolcitno = karce} or
a {tolcnino karce}?

> In all such casesa we have learned to live w= ith the
> fact that the English word is tto broad and have come up wi= th lujvo for the
> alternative meanings.  Such lujvo can always = exist, and if this whole
> issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away. the number of distinctions w= e need
 to
> make may be reduced.  But I remain unconvin= ced of this - as pc said a while
> back in this discussion - there ar= e some predicates that embody a hidden
> abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this<= /p>

What do you mean by "some predicates"? English verbs, like "want", "n= eed",
"look for", etc, or Lojban predicates like {djica}, {nitcu}, {sisk= u}, etc.?

I totally agree that the English verbs can accept opaque references as d= irect
objects, without any marking. They also, in other contexts, can ta= ke transparent
direct objects.

Because of the logical aspect of Lo= jban, this can't work like that in Lojban,
and so the arguments are always transparent.

But, the fact is that th= e opaque meaning is often very useful for these
predicates, so what do w= e do?

I propose to find one solution for all such predicates, rather = than patches
for each of them. {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been<= br>dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still accep= ts
objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place = was
directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible
= entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a propertyof said thing.

Why not treat them all the same?

The transpare= nt case:

{mi djica lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box wanted by me"
{mi nitcu lo ta= nxe} =3D "There is a box needed by me"
{mi sisku lo tanxe} =3D "There is= a box sought by me"

and the opaque case:

{mi djica xe'e lo tanxe} =3D "I want a box (I don't care which)"
{mi = nitcu xe'e lo tanxe} =3D "I need a box (I don't care which)"
{mi sisku x= e'e lo tanxe} =3D "I seek a box (I don't care which)"

(I don't mind using {lo'e} instead of {xe'e lo}, I think it makes sense<= br>as well.)

As things stand now, for the transparent case I have to = say:

{da poi tanxe zo'u mi djica tu'a da}
{mi nitcu lo tanxe}
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi sisku le ka du da}

Why s= o complicated?

>        mi'e la lojbab noi sis= ku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u nabmi
>       =                     cu ma= nsa roda

That doesn't make much sense to me. You probably mean {noi sisku lo ka d= anfu
le me zo sisku me'u nabmi gi'e mansa roda}, otherwise you are sayin= g that
you are looking for something with property an answer satisfies e= veryone,
but what is it that you look for? the answer, everyone? I think this is an<= br>unnecessarily complicated way to deal with {sisku}.

Jorge

--
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/-/aTfTDbKnrqUJ.

=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googl= egroups.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 post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googl= egroups.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/-/t_= ef3I0HOREJ.
=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_939_23449103.1348387978745--