Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 05:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <9aa2c0fd-e407-4a45-b70c-5021a5611378@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDVu-sqegyFt55ZQsd041Fec2Pj4LdjxHH8rM=JE9q7Ysg@mail.gmail.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>
 <CAOQ8VDVu-sqegyFt55ZQsd041Fec2Pj4LdjxHH8rM=JE9q7Ysg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] 5 classes of sumti in Lojban and about a new word for
 "grammatical abstraction"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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="----=_Part_55_7050052.1366461414796"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_55_7050052.1366461414796
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Saturday, April 20, 2013 4:07:56 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>
>
> On 19 April 2013 23:37, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com <javascript:>>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.
>
>
>
ki'anaisai i'a

I still think that apstrake is a usefull word for describing sumti places. 
If the definition of a gismu says "event" or "abstraction" or "fact" then 
it's apstrake. So it simply covers su'u. Although another word for that 
could just be {su'u zei sumti}.
Also i dont fully understand what klani1 means. Is it namcu1 ? then we have 
selsku, apstrake, namcu, dacti classes.

-- 
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.


------=_Part_55_7050052.1366461414796
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Saturday, April 20, 2013 4:07:56 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:<blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left:=
 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote">On 19 April 2013 23:37, la gleki <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"XNAdD5-BTtoJ">=
gleki.is...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:&nbsp;<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't =
fasnu1 and djuno2 have something in common? We call both of them abstractio=
ns but acc. to your scheme they are in separate classes.</div>

<div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>{ni} as it stand=
s in current usage, has a handful of uses. For one, it can be used as a fun=
ction (taking ce'u) for use in comparative selbri. {ka} (at least under str=
ict fancylojban) is binary, either true or false, and is inadequate for use=
ful 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.</div>

<div><br></div><div>That being said, as {ni} can be a function, both of the=
se are allowed:&nbsp;</div><div>{.i mi do zmadu lo ka ce'u se pampe'o}&nbsp=
;</div><div>{.i mi do zmadu lo ni ce'u se pampe'o}</div>

<div><br></div><div>The former simply states {.i mi se pampe'o .ijenai do s=
e pampe'o} due to the binary nature of {ka} abstractions. However, the stat=
ement with zmadu is a bit more connotative than the truth-functionally equi=
valent 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 fo=
r 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 forme=
r does.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Non-function {ni} (i.e. {ni}-abstractions containing no=
 {ce'u}) are a bit troubling, on the other hand. They have some kind of pse=
udo-numeric type that seems to act like a quantity. The problem with quanti=
ties is that Lojban doesn't really handle them in most selbri. Examples:</d=
iv>

<div>{.i lo ni do mamta cu zmadu lo ni mi djeca lo nu sipna} is nonsensical=
.</div><div>{.i lo ni mi djica lo nu sipna cu barda} is redundant to the fu=
nctional form {.i mi barda lo ni djica lo nu sipna}</div><div>

<br></div><div>I'm willing to say that most cases of non-functional ni appe=
aring are either nonsense or beta-reductions, i.e. produced by applying a f=
unctional {ni} to its arguments.</div><div><br></div><div>

{ni} then isn't a separate class on its own. It also isn't entirely redunda=
nt to a ka-kau function, -- that is -- a ka-function with an indirect quest=
ion. If we want to compare event frequencies, for instance, it is better do=
ne with ka-kau than {ni}:</div>

<div>.i do mi zmadu lo ka xokauroi pampe'o penmi</div><div>Assuming a const=
ant 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 on=
e meet their significant other." In that case, the ka is no longer simply b=
oolean; using indirect questions allows us to produce functions returning a=
ny type.</div>

<div><br></div><div>I wager that in other places in which non-functional {n=
i} abstractions might appear have a (complex) abstraction in some other pla=
ce of the selbri handling it.</div><div>{.i lo ni do tcidu cu cinri} is per=
haps sumti raising, with {.i lo ni do tcidu cu jai cinri fai lo ka ce'u zma=
du lo ni lo'e prenu cu tcidu}.</div>

<div><br></div><div>In sum, {ni} is not a class of its own, but is convenie=
nt to have because it allows us to make simplifications with {ka}-abstracti=
ons. In my original abstractions paper, I suggested that {ni} is {ka la'u m=
akau}, although this opinion has fallen out of favour with me, as I have be=
gun 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 con=
vent between the two.</div>

<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
><div>ki'anaisai i'a</div><div><br></div><div>I still think that apstrake i=
s a usefull word for describing sumti places. If the definition of a gismu =
says "event" or "abstraction" or "fact" then it's apstrake. So it simply co=
vers su'u. Although another word for that could just be {su'u zei sumti}.</=
div><div>Also i dont fully understand what klani1 means. Is it namcu1 ? the=
n we have selsku, apstrake, namcu, dacti classes.</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 />

------=_Part_55_7050052.1366461414796--