Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.173;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56d72310-6c53-49fd-94b5-51e8c0691b8a@googlegroups.com>
References: <6af67de9-ce70-4e20-af69-a1acc87a840f@googlegroups.com>
 <CA+gZtgKEZnSYuifM5TQsy5xpiiHGk6a85bZGBdx13CvSh0CAuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <E00AC37B-E501-4537-BCB8-5C33F0161A84@gmail.com> <f01f0fba-444c-441d-aee4-9d3cfc70d8c5@googlegroups.com>
 <CAOQ8VDUi=pN_BeHJbMqWEckTi7GcHhea1K-N5UrW4dZ-74CkmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b5db4afd-f5d3-46c5-bca0-1478e7e3c9ad@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDXvhtgUPh15SODWkJb2JE1_GosouQBNuwsJ9-5FOHLWHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <56d72310-6c53-49fd-94b5-51e8c0691b8a@googlegroups.com>
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:07:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDVu-sqegyFt55ZQsd041Fec2Pj4LdjxHH8rM=JE9q7Ysg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] 5 classes of sumti in Lojban and about a new word for
 "grammatical abstraction"
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184a60d4435c04dac9b0ea
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e01184a60d4435c04dac9b0ea
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 19 April 2013 23:37, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I wanted to ask why should we have a separate fundamental class of
> sumti if {ni} is derived and therefore probably can be rephrased from
> another NU type of sumti.
>
> Another question is isn't fasnu1 and djuno2 have something in common? We
> call both of them abstractions but acc. to your scheme they are in separate
> classes.
>
>
{ni} as it stands in current usage, has a handful of uses. For one, it can
be used as a function (taking ce'u) for use in comparative selbri. {ka} (at
least under strict fancylojban) is binary, either true or false, and is
inadequate for useful comparisons. Typically, it doesn't make sense for a
{ni}-abstraction to contain indirect questions, but if a decent example can
be thrown together, I'm prepared to go with it.

That being said, as {ni} can be a function, both of these are allowed:
{.i mi do zmadu lo ka ce'u se pampe'o}
{.i mi do zmadu lo ni ce'u se pampe'o}

The former simply states {.i mi se pampe'o .ijenai do se pampe'o} due to
the binary nature of {ka} abstractions. However, the statement with zmadu
is a bit more connotative than the truth-functionally equivalent statement
with connectives. On the other hand, the latter one states that the extent
to which the function holds for me is greater than that for you. (Perhaps
my girlfriend and I see each other more frequently, or some such.) It
doesn't deny that you have a girlfriend, which is what the former does.

Non-function {ni} (i.e. {ni}-abstractions containing no {ce'u}) are a bit
troubling, on the other hand. They have some kind of pseudo-numeric type
that seems to act like a quantity. The problem with quantities is that
Lojban doesn't really handle them in most selbri. Examples:
{.i lo ni do mamta cu zmadu lo ni mi djeca lo nu sipna} is nonsensical.
{.i lo ni mi djica lo nu sipna cu barda} is redundant to the functional
form {.i mi barda lo ni djica lo nu sipna}

I'm willing to say that most cases of non-functional ni appearing are
either nonsense or beta-reductions, i.e. produced by applying a functional
{ni} to its arguments.

{ni} then isn't a separate class on its own. It also isn't entirely
redundant to a ka-kau function, -- that is -- a ka-function with an
indirect question. If we want to compare event frequencies, for instance,
it is better done with ka-kau than {ni}:
.i do mi zmadu lo ka xokauroi pampe'o penmi
Assuming a constant interval is being tagged by xokauroi, then the
statement means "You are greater than me in the property of how many times
in some interval does one meet their significant other." In that case, the
ka is no longer simply boolean; using indirect questions allows us to
produce functions returning any type.

I wager that in other places in which non-functional {ni} abstractions
might appear have a (complex) abstraction in some other place of the selbri
handling it.
{.i lo ni do tcidu cu cinri} is perhaps sumti raising, with {.i lo ni do
tcidu cu jai cinri fai lo ka ce'u zmadu lo ni lo'e prenu cu tcidu}.

In sum, {ni} is not a class of its own, but is convenient to have because
it allows us to make simplifications with {ka}-abstractions. In my original
abstractions paper, I suggested that {ni} is {ka la'u makau}, although this
opinion has fallen out of favour with me, as I have begun to consider
{ni}-abstractions as both a subset of ka-abstractions, but separate enough
such that we don't have the tools necessary to properly convent between the
two.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--089e01184a60d4435c04dac9b0ea
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On 19 April 2013 23:37, la gleki <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gl=
eki.is.my.name@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:=A0<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div>Well, I wanted to ask why should we have a separate fundamental class =
of sumti if {ni} is derived and therefore probably can be rephrased from an=
other NU type of sumti.</div><div><br></div><div>Another question is isn=
9;t fasnu1 and djuno2 have something in common? We call both of them abstra=
ctions but acc. to your scheme they are in separate classes.</div>

<div class=3D"im HOEnZb"><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div style>{ni} as it stands in current usage, has a handful of uses. For on=
e, it can be used as a function (taking ce&#39;u) for use in comparative se=
lbri. {ka} (at least under strict fancylojban) is binary, either true or fa=
lse, and is inadequate for useful comparisons. Typically, it doesn&#39;t ma=
ke sense for a {ni}-abstraction to contain indirect questions, but if a dec=
ent example can be thrown together, I&#39;m prepared to go with it.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>That being said, as {ni} can be a function,=
 both of these are allowed:=A0</div><div style>{.i mi do zmadu lo ka ce&#39=
;u se pampe&#39;o}=A0</div><div style>{.i mi do zmadu lo ni ce&#39;u se pam=
pe&#39;o}</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>The former simply states {.i mi se pampe=
9;o .ijenai do se pampe&#39;o} due to the binary nature of {ka} abstraction=
s. However, the statement with zmadu is a bit more connotative than the tru=
th-functionally equivalent statement with connectives. On the other hand, t=
he latter one states that the extent to which the function holds for me is =
greater than that for you. (Perhaps my girlfriend and I see each other more=
 frequently, or some such.) It doesn&#39;t deny that you have a girlfriend,=
 which is what the former does.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>Non-function {ni} (i.e. {ni}-abstractions c=
ontaining no {ce&#39;u}) are a bit troubling, on the other hand. They have =
some kind of pseudo-numeric type that seems to act like a quantity. The pro=
blem with quantities is that Lojban doesn&#39;t really handle them in most =
selbri. Examples:</div>

<div style>{.i lo ni do mamta cu zmadu lo ni mi djeca lo nu sipna} is nonse=
nsical.</div><div style>{.i lo ni mi djica lo nu sipna cu barda} is redunda=
nt to the functional form {.i mi barda lo ni djica lo nu sipna}</div><div s=
tyle>

<br></div><div style>I&#39;m willing to say that most cases of non-function=
al ni appearing are either nonsense or beta-reductions, i.e. produced by ap=
plying a functional {ni} to its arguments.</div><div style><br></div><div s=
tyle>

{ni} then isn&#39;t a separate class on its own. It also isn&#39;t entirely=
 redundant to a ka-kau function, -- that is -- a ka-function with an indire=
ct question. If we want to compare event frequencies, for instance, it is b=
etter done with ka-kau than {ni}:</div>

<div style>.i do mi zmadu lo ka xokauroi pampe&#39;o penmi</div><div style>=
Assuming a constant interval is being tagged by xokauroi, then the statemen=
t means &quot;You are greater than me in the property of how many times in =
some interval does one meet their significant other.&quot; In that case, th=
e ka is no longer simply boolean; using indirect questions allows us to pro=
duce functions returning any type.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>I wager that in other places in which non-f=
unctional {ni} abstractions might appear have a (complex) abstraction in so=
me other place of the selbri handling it.</div><div style>{.i lo ni do tcid=
u cu cinri} is perhaps sumti raising, with {.i lo ni do tcidu cu jai cinri =
fai lo ka ce&#39;u zmadu lo ni lo&#39;e prenu cu tcidu}.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>In sum, {ni} is not a class of its own, but=
 is convenient to have because it allows us to make simplifications with {k=
a}-abstractions. In my original abstractions paper, I suggested that {ni} i=
s {ka la&#39;u makau}, although this opinion has fallen out of favour with =
me, as I have begun to consider {ni}-abstractions as both a subset of ka-ab=
stractions, but separate enough such that we don&#39;t have the tools neces=
sary to properly convent between the two.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>.i mi&#39;e la tsani mu&#39;o</div></div></=
div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--089e01184a60d4435c04dac9b0ea--