Received: from mail-vc0-f190.google.com ([209.85.220.190]:64460) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uo8Iu-0007LX-Gc for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:27:26 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f190.google.com with SMTP id ib11sf672874vcb.17 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:27:10 -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: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=9DF9LUHHaJcJNIrA419kAnt1ea8kBcT1b+AH0XRv1qM=; b=sdJqoRisStj29OoIkjqnccBG6ddhTpaJ25J8ZS/Hvyx1153TV+AOXCl0u7fY5GZrGo kLkRyeE9EMM06S061pfiIHaziiF95Ly19ElO2tARIQl5mEryWyQSfeVRBimGKf1gPDVY 5LLXryO4LtsxfYvK3vxKDOrJugdGGSgkd2JygzZQa37ebiBtvZ/aQmrJVMUZd6Iq9o+b 9/YBNkB9/3j//M31t/GJbI//45/QN6FY0YymwrFNJltS0JpTookBtZKb74d19hfm4Au+ eop8j9VExkK9U2Mu9Mb2r3i9NtSnhB/z4CWsQtFvGEWrPxC7CkJ2fsBgMOehEoM785Ij Xd1A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender: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=9DF9LUHHaJcJNIrA419kAnt1ea8kBcT1b+AH0XRv1qM=; b=hOzLHvqw0nS8ViPDjJd/2+ywzF8z9lIS/jwSJ43J0eKw6szG9BT0dPP/2rImiNTGKB i6i6CXw3CdQKiEU80mDjXcVFJPUHq/ImZtpmVVIbOciRfv9jOorK+iyTRtqwmIrOXopd XwdZZbF+9fUiQu+ZKY6FiynE8nm6wgQpkgvFI3H0gKkIou8yLuDtiZawPq+Hmttos+Ua dQKO4LW7z1Rx5N2t8LfMQApG8CzMYtsT0OBRArf34/DbSesrC7IFDjSZx6yVzdA9hvZk emWo1zHsIxYFTCAHZO4ZaFg48D94PpVgSevWF4iGlFFpGgxJw1ME9qMPAgkbDyl0fQYL LUVg== X-Received: by 10.49.6.201 with SMTP id d9mr257784qea.12.1371371229988; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.132.38 with SMTP id or6ls674831qeb.7.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.39.9 with SMTP id l9mr67429qek.3.1371371229459; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:27:09 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <219f1b89-1c6d-4336-b40e-0adaa041c85d@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <973cb611-f8d2-4aa0-85b0-e78d355e1664@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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_25_16834014.1371371229021" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_25_16834014.1371371229021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:31:09 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, la arxokuna > > wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:38:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:11 PM, la arxokuna wr= ote: >>> >>>> First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary. >>>> >>>> mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense,= =20 >>>> the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da'. Cf. mu= /mo=20 >>>> for the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I = and=20 >>>> others" sense of we/us. >>>> mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the 1st= =20 >>>> 2nd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for the "you= and=20 >>>> I/me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sen= se of=20 >>>> we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us. >>>> miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others jointly" sense, the= =20 >>>> 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for t= he=20 >>>> "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and othe= rs"=20 >>>> sense of we/us. >>>> mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense, the= =20 >>>> 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for= the=20 >>>> "you and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" = sense=20 >>>> of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us. >>>> >>>> What one might notice first is that there is no equivalent to "mio/miu= "=20 >>>> which corresponds to English "we".=20 >>>> >>>> "we" is defined in Wiktionary as "The speakers/writers, or the=20 >>>> speaker/writer and at least one other person." so the meaning is prett= y=20 >>>> clear. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah. That's {mi}. >>> >> >> No {mi =3D le cusku be dei}=20 >> >> "we" =3D {da poi na'ei du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da} >> > > That doesn't parse. > Doesn't parse because of {na'ei} . Try using {na'e} in the parser instead. > The meaning of English "we" is one of {mi}, {mi'a}, {mi'o}, or {ma'a}=20 > depending on context. The fact that English speakers have trouble=20 > distinguishing between the sharper lines on Lojban's "pronouns" doesn't= =20 > matter, and attempting to change Lojban because of that is malgli. > It's not malgli. This word is present in all major source languages. It has= =20 clearly defined meaning. {mi} or {za'u mi} has certain implications that "we" doesn't have. And it's wrong to think that Lojban must force the speaker to be=20 semantically precise. In fact if the speaker wants to be vague Lojban must allow for that. I wonder what other will say. > There are many cases in which Lojban is more exact than English. This is= =20 > just one of them. This topic is a non-issue. > > However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they cannot= =20 >>>> easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94 "=20 >>>> which is indeed true. I don't understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" = in=20 >>>> the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it= =20 >>>> (although i suggested mi'ai a= =20 >>>> few days ago). >>>> >>>> Now to the main issue. Even if we look at the remaining "mu/mo" we'll= =20 >>>> see that Lojban has only one of them. >>>> >>>> The CLL says (regarding KOhA3) >>>> >>>> "All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example, =93mi'o=94 is t= he=20 >>>> same as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered jointly." >>>> This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano" vs. "We as= =20 >>>> a mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holmes says) a mass= =20 >>>> should not be converted into the conjunction of its component parts by= any=20 >>>> logical operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a=20 >>>> privileged partition >>>> >>>> However, jvs has two=20 >>>> definitions, the second one (by selpahi) defining {mi'o} as "mi jo'u = do"=20 >>>> entered in December 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this iss= ue at=20 >>>> that time. >>>> >>>> I don't know if it should be {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}= =20 >>>> or {ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}. >>>> >>>> So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}? >>>> =20 >>>> --=20 >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20 >>>> Groups "lojban" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send= =20 >>>> an email to lojban+un...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/lojban >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out >>>> . >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --=20 >>> mu'o mi'e .aionys. >>> >>> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o >>> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) >>> >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s=20 >> "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n=20 >> email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> =20 >> =20 >> > > > > --=20 > mu'o mi'e .aionys. > > .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o > (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) > --=20 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 e= mail 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_25_16834014.1371371229021 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:31:09 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1= 6, 2013 at 12:58 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gm= ail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:38:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 = at 11:11 PM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com= > wrote:
First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary.

mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense= , the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da'. Cf. mu/mo= for the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and = others" sense of we/us.
mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the 1st 2= nd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for the "you and I= /me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense of = we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.
miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others jointly" sense, the 1= st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for the "yo= u and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sens= e of we/us.
mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense, the= 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for the= "you and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sens= e of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.

What one might notice first is that there is no e= quivalent to "mio/miu" which corresponds to English "we". 
<= br>
"we" is defined in Wiktionary as "The speakers/writers, or th= e speaker/writer and at least one other person." so the meaning is pretty c= lear.

Yeah. That's {mi}.
=

No {mi =3D le cusku be dei} 

<= /div>
"we" =3D {da poi na'ei du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da}

That doesn't parse.
=
Doesn't parse because of {na'ei} . Try using {na'e} in the p= arser instead.



The meaning of Engl= ish "we" is one of {mi}, {mi'a}, {mi'o}, or {ma'a} depending on context. Th= e fact that English speakers have trouble distinguishing between the sharpe= r lines on Lojban's "pronouns" doesn't matter, and attempting to change Loj= ban because of that is malgli.

<= div>It's not malgli. This word is present in all major source languages. It= has clearly defined meaning.
{mi} or {za'u mi} has certain impli= cations that "we" doesn't have.
And it's wrong to think that Lojb= an must force the speaker to be semantically precise.
In fact if = the speaker wants to be vague Lojban must allow for that.

I wonder what other will say.


There are many cases in which Lojban is more exact than English. This i= s just one of them. This topic is a non-issue.

However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they can= not easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94" which is indeed true= . I don't understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" in the sense English, Chi= nese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it (although i suggested = ;mi'ai=  a few days ago).

Now to the main issue. Even if we look at the remaining= "mu/mo" we'll see that Lojban has only one of them.

The CLL says (regarding KOhA3)

"All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example, =93mi'o=94 is the sa= me as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered jointly."
This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano" vs. "We as a = mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holmes says) a mass should = not be converted into the conjunction of its component parts by any logical= operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a privileged par= tition

However, jvs has two definitions, the second one (b= y selpahi) defining  {mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in December 2012. = I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time.

I don't know if  it should be  {ro mi'o bevri= } vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}  or {ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}= .

So should we change the CLL to say it means= {jo'u}, not {joi}?

--
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 e= mail to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.



--
mu'o mi'e .= aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu= do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_25_16834014.1371371229021--