Received: from mail-we0-f190.google.com ([74.125.82.190]:56551) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uo8Vt-0007Ol-10 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:49 -0700 Received: by mail-we0-f190.google.com with SMTP id p59sf383783wes.17 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from: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=QnzgPFAtTj9jHDNGUaI2T/PG2pLex327Qyp8iYZ/yQ8=; b=uM07S0Gn8yBGgzF0GO9tILSFxz//lLPN9mUOJZf8UsYzNVtzB+pm+jGBLdPi3DpFCq qjNBetf4vu75W6f/oqP/GDMmSqUi/FzkdivBqj95tmWTKR4XmRiHdsGpKsC84q+F3IQP BHJkvJkcPmkpYLYxXBlY3Bl47uAhf3F7HtcQFj6Ig3zBO+VpxtBiiYtQZDlGJYv5zn6O L+iY0I7XFYkUFYV3l4gkc0S/xYD1YZCSL7BEniDmWYPDQ5HUJF4JKTOO36qhH1R1utYA 39TUfcSv23nqw64CqFmjJAaoyv1gvebCclTkx+K+VRf5F+nnuz5SebXLMaL5S/Onj8Mn QOtA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from: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=QnzgPFAtTj9jHDNGUaI2T/PG2pLex327Qyp8iYZ/yQ8=; b=YboWc2tNIvnd71ZuypBqy0d5ZR2PyRMqUrvEENHT0GMPSXZE/jBbIKciy6ABA8YGwK AVcebJEyX0jlzBZ+kvnDHVMYzJuUCjjKTDnTrqrZnT3ZEiMYT9azK36K3w0oGiZJFhur iFRGNmvaQkIifJDyJE21jdRFeGOaKfpuNUyhOHq5TbVt8G5IAe3snuMbmNdSwXGYPYFQ 2mjep05uKHDhD7JRbze8KQVv/dSxqdfTT/0qy+DsxkOdnndvGAV3ug9lTZALfRGAoip7 iHFMzJAY7hgFN5L/V5d7EhtNZokU5SJbHniAXE69KMD0hUjwsc7K0MMPrXKCe7hZP+H9 aw8Q== X-Received: by 10.180.78.105 with SMTP id a9mr121211wix.2.1371372033594; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.13.205 with SMTP id j13ls184972wic.5.canary; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.224.8 with SMTP id im8mr726502bkb.5.1371372032993; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id in9si521103bkb.2.2013.06.16.01.40.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.170; Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id t13so1689864lbd.15 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.21.99 with SMTP id u3mr4527953lae.18.1371372032683; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.21.38 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:40:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <219f1b89-1c6d-4336-b40e-0adaa041c85d@googlegroups.com> References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <973cb611-f8d2-4aa0-85b0-e78d355e1664@googlegroups.com> <219f1b89-1c6d-4336-b40e-0adaa041c85d@googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:40:32 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL? From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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=089e0149397adcf4aa04df416e7b X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e0149397adcf4aa04df416e7b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna wr= ote: > On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:31:09 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, la arxokuna wro= te: >> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:38:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:11 PM, la arxokuna w= rote: >>>> >>>>> 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. m= u/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 >>>>> 2nd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for the "yo= u and >>>>> I/me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" se= nse 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 >>>>> 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for = the >>>>> "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and oth= ers" >>>>> sense of we/us. >>>>> mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense, th= e >>>>> 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu fo= r the >>>>> "you and I/me jointly" 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. >>>>> >>>>> What one might notice first is that there is no equivalent to >>>>> "mio/miu" which corresponds to English "we". >>>>> >>>>> "we" is defined in Wiktionary as "The speakers/writers, or the >>>>> speaker/writer and at least one other person." so the meaning is pret= ty >>>>> clear. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah. That's {mi}. >>>> >>> >>> No {mi =3D le cusku be dei} >>> >>> "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= . > No, it doesn't parse because it doesn't parse, {na'e} or no. > The meaning of English "we" is one of {mi}, {mi'a}, {mi'o}, or {ma'a} >> depending on context. The fact that English speakers have trouble >> distinguishing between the sharper lines on Lojban's "pronouns" doesn't >> matter, and attempting to change Lojban because of that is malgli. >> > > It's not malgli. > It is magli to change Lojban to because of difficulties an English speaker may have with Lojban as-is. > This word is present in all major source languages. > That's about as valid an argument as "I'm going to jump off this bridge because everyone else is doing it". The "source languages" were only used to determine the forms of gismu. The grammar and meanings of words- and especially cmavo, of which the "source languages" were never consulted, does not enter into the equation. > It has 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 > semantically precise. > In fact if the speaker wants to be vague Lojban must allow for that. > I don't think it "must" do anything. It does, and there's no need to change it, regardless of how other languages work. It is not difficult to get used to distinguishing what group of people you're talking about. And why do you want such ambiguity anyway? Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic ambiguity, is fine- even common, but referential ambiguity seems kind of pointless and arguably a BAD idea. I wonder what other will say. > > >> There are many cases in which Lojban is more exact than English. This is >> just one of them. This topic is a non-issue. >> >> However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they >>>>> cannot 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, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have i= t >>>>> (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 >>>>> 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 a= s >>>>> 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 b= y any >>>>> logical operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a >>>>> privileged partition >>>>> >>>>> However, jvs has two >>>>> definitions, the second one (by selpahi) defining {mi'o} as "mi jo'u= do" >>>>> entered in December 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this is= sue 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, sen= d >>>>> 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/**grou**ps/opt_out<= https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 "lojban" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> 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 >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > "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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > --=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. --089e0149397adcf4aa04df416e7b Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:31:09 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
=
On Sun, = Jun 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@= gmail.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&q= uot; 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 2nd 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" se= nse, the 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze 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.
mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" = sense, the 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu= 9;. Cf. mu for the "you and I/me jointly" 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.

What one might notice first is that there is no e= quivalent to "mio/miu" which corresponds to English "we"= ;.=A0

"we" is defined in Wiktionary as &= quot;The speakers/writers, or the speaker/writer and at least one other per= son." so the meaning is pretty clear.

Yeah. That's {mi}.

No {mi =3D le cusku be dei}=A0

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

That doesn't parse.
<= div>
Doesn't parse because of {na'ei} . Try usi= ng {na'e} in the parser instead.

No, it does= n't parse because it doesn't parse, {na'e} or no.
=A0
The meaning of English "we" is on= e of {mi}, {mi'a}, {mi'o}, or {ma'a} depending on context. The = fact that English speakers have trouble distinguishing between the sharper = lines on Lojban's "pronouns" doesn't matter, and attempti= ng to change Lojban because of that is malgli.

It's not malgli.

It is magli to change Lojban to because of difficu= lties an English speaker may have with Lojban as-is.
=A0
This word is present in all major source languages.
=

That's about as valid an argument as "I'm going to ju= mp off this bridge because everyone else is doing it".

The &quo= t;source languages" were only used to determine the forms of gismu. Th= e grammar and meanings of words- and especially cmavo, of which the "s= ource languages" were never consulted, does not enter into the equatio= n.
=A0
It has clearly defined meaning= .
{mi} or {za'u mi} has certain implications that "we&qu= ot; doesn't have.
And it's wrong to think that Lojban must force the speaker to be s= emantically precise.
In fact if the speaker wants to be vague Loj= ban must allow for that.

I don't think it &q= uot;must" do anything. It does, and there's no need to change it, = regardless of how other languages work. It is not difficult to get used to = distinguishing what group of people you're talking about. And why do yo= u want such ambiguity anyway? Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic ambigu= ity, is fine- even common, but referential ambiguity seems kind of pointles= s and arguably a BAD idea.

I wonder what othe= r 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 the= y cannot easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94" wh= ich is indeed true. I don't understand why Lojban doesn't have &quo= t;we" in the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanis= h have it (although i suggested=A0mi'ai=A0a 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 same as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered jointly.&= quot;
This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries t= he piano" vs. "We as a mass carry the piano" as (at least wh= at Randall Holmes says) a mass should not be converted into the conjunction= of its component parts by any logical operator because strictly speaking i= t shouldn't come with a privileged partition

However, jvs=A0has two definitions, the second one (by s= elpahi) defining =A0{mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in Dec= ember 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time= .

I don't know if =A0it should be =A0{ro mi'o bev= ri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri} =A0or {ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {l= u'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 &= quot;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.l= uk. 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.
=A0
=A0



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

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. 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.
 
 
--089e0149397adcf4aa04df416e7b--