Received: from mail-da0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:43521) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TKX7w-0003V1-L0; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:24 -0700 Received: by mail-da0-f61.google.com with SMTP id k18sf1420366dae.16 for ; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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; bh=ffhRmlCwWDzGPsLXCfPn5MgG1YkKJJQlnWUY8R/jfxI=; b=Ts5wzi+qdFzfKEsOhPeIov38JSrTy1YEFltL0Dc9LusAwDRTXTfY5f1Ywu0yo+oyuB WJQMgZTbMfUK+Twjwj35aH/A5WzONSozm//9bivV7MY+Oe3gU7qt8wjKFQ6Najgux9lp 8yuaC0tOHClNhdorPWam/9iOEOl89jwAhJg3Kq5ZiuZlX0/dYvq+ZocmcRfuc601dvLc 4YHFHBBjYxRarHn7RIDXPEq7qdRtfGv5fxBF6xEglrz7xmBX6ay3OtnZoZgaEgma1afK CSoGTmDqbbnP+kRtr8BaNVD0rV6g+GlDmxB2VKGBNEDK6J5yF5I6VPfzZb4Dv9Hjenl+ RB8w== Received: by 10.52.93.132 with SMTP id cu4mr2197609vdb.14.1349540473821; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.141.4 with SMTP id k4ls3828325vcu.8.gmail; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.33.234 with SMTP id u10mr3402724vei.28.1349540473209; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.33.234 with SMTP id u10mr3402723vei.28.1349540473188; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r14si772958vdu.1.2012.10.06.09.21.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169; Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id fl17so3593026vcb.0 for ; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.37.194 with SMTP id y2mr6904910vcd.44.1349540472909; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:21:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.92.48 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <66a49230-9801-41db-91bc-868b24124349@googlegroups.com> References: <20121001200454.GV1589@nvg.org> <5069F9D3.804@gmx.de> <58680262-ade6-45c0-bd7b-875fcc55a353@googlegroups.com> <6468a0a7-357d-4f07-9f02-1da61a75374c@googlegroups.com> <506C65FF.2040907@gmx.de> <506D82E4.3080604@gmx.de> <506DE7BF.7040609@gmx.de> <02211ac3-9a31-433e-ba19-8df4c623128e@googlegroups.com> <506EFE60.6060005@gmx.de> <66a49230-9801-41db-91bc-868b24124349@googlegroups.com> From: Jacob Errington Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 09:20:52 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] What place of nesting bridi {ce'u} refers to? To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nictytan@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=bcaec54eea8e7f6f2004cb6660ec X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --bcaec54eea8e7f6f2004cb6660ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why is having a {ce'u} in djica *so* important? We've gotten along *just fine* using {zo'e} there, even though it refers to djica1 in a lot of cases. There are some selbri, say kakne, where {zo'e} in the abstraction kakne2 breaks the meaning in some way, such as {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}. IMO selbri that get *weird* when there's no ce'u should have {ka}. Furthermore, nu+ce'u is strange to me, because {ce'u} marks an argument slot in a function, but {nu}, et al., abstractions are never function-abstractions. As I detail in my analysis of abstractors, there're two classes of abstractors, namely function-abstractors and non-function-abstractors. It gets a bit fuzzy eventually, because some abstractors are function when they contain {ce'u}, but can equally not contain {ce'u}. {ni} is an example of such an abstractor: {.i mi zmadu do lo ni xendo} vs {.i lo ni mi prami do cu zmadu lo ni do nelci lo mlatu kei du bu} (du bu is the identity function). The advantage of not allow {ce'u} inside {nu} is that {nu} are as a result completely self-contained entities. {lo nu mi do cinba} forms one single object that doesn't depend on the containing bridi. As for {su'u}, it turns out that it's simply a vague abstractor, and that's it. It's a stand-in for any regular abstractor, and its type is completely context-dependent. Although this has never really happened as far as I know, it would, however, be possible to create new types of abstractors by means of su'u2. .i mi'e la tsani mu'o On 5 October 2012 21:47, la gleki wrote: > > > On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:36:18 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote: >> >> Am 05.10.2012 16:41, schrieb la gleki: >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:47:16 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote: >> > >> > Am 04.10.2012 17:02, schrieb la gleki:> >> > > >> > >> 1."I want to eat an apple". >> > >> >> > >> The normal way uses an infinitive compound: >> > >> >> > >> ^:i \ji /daw crw \xo plyw >> > >> >> > >> But you can also use an explicit infinitive: >> > >> >> > >> ^:i \ji /daw \vo crw \xo plyw >> > >> >> > >> 2."I want you to eat an apple". >> > >> >> > >> ^:i \ji /gu pli \ju ^vo crw \xo plyw >> > >> >> > >> or >> > >> >> > >> ^:i \ji ^ju /gu pli \crw \xo plyw >> > >> >> > > >> > > But I have a clear feeling that in both sentences the same >> semantic >> > > prime can be used. And this prime describes "desire". >> > > Lojban can replace {ce'u} with anything. Natlangs can do the >> same. >> > > gua\spi can't. {to zoi gy. I don't want to criticize gua\spi >> > anymore. >> > > gy. toi} >> > >> > You cannot replace ce'u at all or else it's gone and it's not a >> > ka-abstraction anymore (or not a well-formed one). >> > >> > >> > True. Still the same brivla can be used. Unlike gua\spi. >> >> >> No, it can not. If you "ce'u-ize" the gimste, for instance by saying >> that djica2 ba a ka (which is a bad example, but it illustrates the >> point), then you will not be able to use it for "I want you to broda", >> because that's a different predicate that doesn't involve yourself in >> the abstraction. > > > Well, I'm not sure if we should ce'u-ize gismu with {nu} abstractions. > But if do this for {djica} then it would be > 1.{mi djica lo nu ce'u citka} > 2.{mi djica lo nu do citka} > > That's all I want. But gua\spi's /daw/ can't do that. > > We could also say {mi djica lo nu ce'u citka i do na go'i} =3D "I want to > eat but you don't" (if {go'i} is able to update the value of {ce'u} in th= e > previous sentence, of course) > > This is a *strenght* of gua\spi; its predicates are >> semantically much clearer. >> > > Well, well, I don't want someone to stop learning gua\spi because > "gua\spi is a crap. I know, la gleki told me". :) > > >> >> > >> > What natlangs can and >> > can't do has little relevance when discussing Lojbanic topics such >> as >> > ka-abstractions. >> > >> > >> > Then gua\spi has little relevance too. >> >> What? Gua\spi is not a natlang, and you brought up Gua\spi in the first >> place. Gua\spi's entire gimste is ce'u-ized, that's what it looks like. >> >> > >> > >> > >> > In Lojban, djica2 is a nu, not a ka. You could say that djica >> should be >> > polymorphic and allow both nu and ka, but I don't think that's wha= t >> > you're saying, is it? (I don't know *what* you are saying). >> > >> > >> > My only complaint that we have a nice shortcut of saying {du'u ce'u} >> > but we don't have one for {nu ce'u}. >> >> But ka is not a shortcut for du'u ce'u... ka is what you get if you have >> a du'u abstraction and add a ce'u to it. >> >> > >> > Why is it a nu? Because you can djica things that don't involve >> > yourself. (Gua\spi's _daw_ is restricted to desiring to do or be >> > something, hence it's always like a Lojban ka. And that's why the >> > second >> > example uses a different predicate.) >> > >> > Again, what is the difference between the Lojban and the gua\spi >> > sentence? >> > >> > >> > Hopefully no semantic difference. Looks like Lojban just gives more >> > freedom in recombining the same words without drawing in extra >> predicates. >> >> Okay, but that wasn't even your original point. And as I tried to >> explain above, you get seperate predicates if you ce'u-ize the gimste. >> One will be >> >> x1 wants to be/do x2 (ka) >> >> the other will be >> >> x1 wants/wishes/desires that x2 (nu) happen >> >> Is that what you want or not? >> >> > >> > >> > Let's stop arguing and let's ce'u-ize gimste :). >> > >> > How the new ce'u-ized definitions of gismu should look like in ur >> opinion? >> >> Just look at gua\spi's gimste. It did everything right in that regard, >> but you have to remember that gua\spi is not Lojban, and not everything >> can be copied 1:1. >> >> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i >> >> -- >> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo >> >> do=E1=BB=8B m=C3=A8lbi mlen=C3=AC'u >> .i do c=C3=A0tlu ki'u >> ma fe la x=C3=A0mpre =C5=ADu >> .i do t=C3=ACnsa c=C3=A0rmi >> gi'e s=C3=ACrji se t=C3=A0rmi >> .i ta=E1=BB=8B bo pu c=C3=ACtka lo gr=C3=A0na ku >> > -- > 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/-/WyFuvnW2QSEJ. > > 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=3Den. > --=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. --bcaec54eea8e7f6f2004cb6660ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why is having a {ce'u} in djica *so* important? We've gotten along = *just fine* using {zo'e} there, even though it refers to djica1 in a lo= t of cases.=C2=A0

There are some selbri, say kakne, wher= e {zo'e} in the abstraction kakne2 breaks the meaning in some way, such= as {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}. IMO selbri that get *weird* when th= ere's no ce'u should have {ka}.=C2=A0

Furthermore, nu+ce'u is strange to me, because {ce&= #39;u} marks an argument slot in a function, but {nu}, et al., abstractions= are never function-abstractions. As I detail in my analysis of abstractors= , there're two classes of abstractors, namely function-abstractors and = non-function-abstractors. It gets a bit fuzzy eventually, because some abst= ractors are function when they contain {ce'u}, but can equally not cont= ain {ce'u}. {ni} is an example of such an abstractor:

{.i mi zmadu do lo ni xendo} vs {.i lo ni mi prami do c= u zmadu lo ni do nelci lo mlatu kei du bu} (du bu is the identity function)= .

The advantage of not allow {ce'u} inside {nu= } is that {nu} are as a result completely self-contained entities. {lo nu m= i do cinba} forms one single object that doesn't depend on the containi= ng bridi.=C2=A0

As for {su'u}, it turns out that it's simply a = vague abstractor, and that's it. It's a stand-in for any regular ab= stractor, and its type is completely context-dependent. Although this has n= ever really happened as far as I know, it would, however, be possible to cr= eate new types of abstractors by means of su'u2.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 5 October 2012 21:47, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmai= l.com> wrote:

=
On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:36:18 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote: Am 05.10.2012 16:41, schrieb la gleki:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:47:16 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Am 04.10.2012 17:02, schrieb la gleki:>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 1."I want to eat = an apple".
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The normal way uses an= infinitive compound:
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ^:i \ji /daw crw \xo p= lyw
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 But you can also use a= n explicit infinitive:
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ^:i \ji /daw \vo crw \= xo plyw
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2."I want you to = eat an apple".
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ^:i \ji /gu pli \ju ^v= o crw \xo plyw
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 or
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ^:i \ji ^ju /gu pli \c= rw \xo plyw
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > But I have a clear feeling that in both = sentences the same semantic
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > prime can be used. And this prime descri= bes "desire".
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Lojban can replace {ce'u} with anyth= ing. Natlangs can do the same.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > gua\spi can't. {to zoi gy. I don'= ;t want to criticize gua\spi
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 anymore.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > gy. toi}
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 You cannot replace ce'u at all or else it's = gone and it's not a
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ka-abstraction anymore (or not a well-formed one).
>
>
> True. Still the same brivla can be used. Unlike gua\spi.


No, it can not. If you "ce'u-ize" the gimste, for instanc= e by saying=20
that djica2 ba a ka (which is a bad example, but it illustrates the=20
point), then you will not be able to use it for "I want you to bro= da",=20
because that's a different predicate that doesn't involve yours= elf in=20
the abstraction.

Well, I= 9;m not sure if we should ce'u-ize gismu with {nu} =C2=A0abstractions.<= /div>
But if do this for {djica} then it would be
1.{mi djica= lo nu ce'u citka}
2.{mi djica lo nu do citka}

That's all I = want. But gua\spi's /daw/ can't do that.

W= e could also say {mi djica lo nu ce'u citka i do na go'i} =3D "= ;I want to eat but you don't" (if {go'i} is able to update the= value of {ce'u} in the previous sentence, of course)

T= his is a *strenght* of gua\spi; its predicates are=20
semantically much clearer.

Well, well, I don't want som= eone to stop learning gua\spi =C2=A0because "gua\spi is a crap. I know= , la gleki told me". :)



>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 What natlangs can and
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 can't do has little relevance when discussing Lo= jbanic topics such as
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ka-abstractions.
>
>
> Then gua\spi has little relevance too.

What? Gua\spi is not a natlang, and you brought up Gua\spi in the first= =20
place. Gua\spi's entire gimste is ce'u-ized, that's what it= looks like.

>
>
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 In Lojban, djica2 is a nu, not a ka. You could say t= hat djica should be
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 polymorphic and allow both nu and ka, but I don'= t think that's what
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 you're saying, is it? (I don't know *what* y= ou are saying).
>
>
> My only complaint =C2=A0that we have a nice shortcut of saying {du= 'u ce'u}
> but we don't have one for {nu ce'u}.

But ka is not a shortcut for du'u ce'u... ka is what you get if= you have=20
a du'u abstraction and add a ce'u to it.

>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Why is it a nu? Because you can djica things that do= n't involve
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 yourself. (Gua\spi's _daw_ is restricted to desi= ring to do or be
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 something, hence it's always like a Lojban ka. A= nd that's why the
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 second
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 example uses a different predicate.)
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Again, what is the difference between the Lojban and= the gua\spi
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 sentence?
>
>
> Hopefully no semantic difference. Looks like Lojban just gives mor= e
> freedom in recombining the same words without drawing in extra pre= dicates.

Okay, but that wasn't even your original point. And as I tried to= =20
explain above, you get seperate predicates if you ce'u-ize the gims= te.=20
One will be

x1 wants to be/do x2 (ka)

the other will be

x1 wants/wishes/desires that x2 (nu) happen

Is that what you want or not?

>
>
> Let's stop arguing and let's ce'u-ize gimste :).
>
> How the new ce'u-ized definitions of gismu should look like in= ur opinion?

Just look at gua\spi's gimste. It did everything right in that rega= rd,=20
but you have to remember that gua\spi is not Lojban, and not everything= =20
can be copied 1:1.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--=20
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

do=E1=BB=8B m=C3=A8lbi mlen=C3=AC'u
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 .i do c=C3=A0tlu ki'u
ma fe la x=C3=A0mpre =C5=ADu
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 .i do t=C3=ACnsa c=C3=A0rmi
gi'e s=C3=ACrji se t=C3=A0rmi
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 .i ta=E1=BB=8B bo pu c=C3=ACtka lo gr=C3=A0na ku

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com= /d/msg/lojban/-/WyFuvnW2QSEJ.
=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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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.
--bcaec54eea8e7f6f2004cb6660ec--