Received: from mail-qe0-f64.google.com ([209.85.128.64]:45305) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uo8cb-0007RM-W5 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:47:47 -0700 Received: by mail-qe0-f64.google.com with SMTP id 1sf679211qec.29 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:47:31 -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=vk9LR5cZhztnpniSK3Lys9USMIiGNa0S5GJ/vaJksS0=; b=Kc+UcgBtsV4QPBjKLhYqcbGIaUTnxmSq6LAwkKnCrUDpRGxHlPIplj2uHOLfmkkHFc R33drnv5myeyLz9uiEYOtoXGSvsoSlCQUWgQuwbVXkB7PtWr9QEME1C+2gNEYE8/UILK Sd4IMNjv6LoNso9HfTqg2OrvKJurGTKY4ovDF1Q+PKcxItS9p43zeTfo9p/lpTeC5R2A RbrNJCfB3pxspC+S0zenWXZnqesumWf/Q088HYzJ3z3qcLNUxUu+BdhzC6scXSpG8YFp uVA3MqTrzvKpS9ZWeyfrU3X7HH0dJ2bYZZjrCyQ7MHaESWDLyEJokr/KKuspzEdBkso1 Ixcw== 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=vk9LR5cZhztnpniSK3Lys9USMIiGNa0S5GJ/vaJksS0=; b=DAl30hL112wHurX63x+3ALXFDRVYPONR2cEAxAzHYKjedXQWNX1mAyUNxFVt1eKSf9 jF5DbI9+IOouOGMuPccfbC6IbpFHagnzLrfE0YgWhx7VvQKhsZXrHiOAKszf0gaN/moX atmExqx4fiFPC4dPC+ZFjXSWmc8ilATGA1aYSH9Pqu35eAkQAY4vjZYcwR9mhe5nqntF l6vr4y0c1t97FR1hiUPA4UbIK7UrtomT6/nlNPqOirfnZdKmGa1j1QWlbaw2oT6J9nL7 TY/U7SguBzfbM8rGwfj2/QOcjH5GLPfsPd2Ijqyw5Mz9zdk3lGaiy7JbnqdctYe1I6NZ jwGg== X-Received: by 10.49.58.242 with SMTP id u18mr73415qeq.23.1371372451689; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.38.227 with SMTP id j3ls755301qek.67.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.121.9 with SMTP id lg9mr244583qeb.39.1371372451168; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:47:30 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <40804b75-426b-4566-b49a-82aca6d98afb@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <973cb611-f8d2-4aa0-85b0-e78d355e1664@googlegroups.com> <219f1b89-1c6d-4336-b40e-0adaa041c85d@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_2575_13098914.1371372450802" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2575_13098914.1371372450802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:40:32 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna > > 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 wr= ote: >>> >>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:38:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:11 PM, la arxokuna = wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary. >>>>>> >>>>>> mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently"=20 >>>>>> sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da= '. Cf.=20 >>>>>> mu/mo for the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "yo= u and I=20 >>>>>> and 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 "y= ou and=20 >>>>>> I/me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" s= ense 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= the=20 >>>>>> "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and ot= hers"=20 >>>>>> sense of we/us. >>>>>> mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense,= =20 >>>>>> the 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. = mu for=20 >>>>>> the "you and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and ot= hers"=20 >>>>>> 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=20 >>>>>> "mio/miu" 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 pre= tty=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 instea= d. >> > > No, it doesn't parse because it doesn't parse, {na'e} or no. > If you mean that it doesn't parse after zo'u add broda at the end. "we broda" =3D {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} =20 > >> 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.=20 >> > > It is magli to change Lojban to because of difficulties an English speake= r=20 > may have with Lojban as-is. > ok =20 > =20 > >> 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= =20 > because everyone else is doing it". > > The "source languages" were only used to determine the forms of gismu. Th= e=20 > grammar and meanings of words- and especially cmavo, of which the "source= =20 > languages" were never consulted, does not enter into the equation. > .ie =20 > =20 > >> 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=20 >> 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=20 > change it > I don't suggest changing Lojban in this aspect? Where did you find such=20 opinion? I just point to a hole in the language. I can only suggest adding= =20 a new word. , regardless of how other languages work. It is not difficult to get used= =20 > to distinguishing what group of people you're talking about. And why do y= ou=20 > want such ambiguity anyway? > After failing to retain ambiguity in many tatoeba sentences. =20 > Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic ambiguity, is fine- even common,= =20 > but referential ambiguity seems kind of pointless and arguably a BAD idea= . > Why is it referential here? I can't see. What's wrong with {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ? It's= =20 just lengthy. This is my only complaint (although the topic of masses is=20 much more vajni). =20 > > I wonder what other will say. >> >> =20 >>> There are many cases in which Lojban is more exact than English. This i= s=20 >>> just one of them. This topic is a non-issue. >>> >>> However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they=20 >>>>>> cannot 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'l= l=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= the=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= =20 >>>>>> as 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 i= ssue 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,=20 >>>>>> 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/**grou**ps/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=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_2575_13098914.1371372450802 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:40:32 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1= 6, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gma= il.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" 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 parser instead.

No, it doesn't parse becaus= e it doesn't parse, {na'e} or no.

If you mean that it doesn't parse after zo'u add broda at the end.

"we broda" =3D {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu z= o'u mi .e da broda}

 
The meaning of English "we" is one of {mi},= {mi'a}, {mi'o}, or {ma'a} depending on context. The fact that English spea= kers have trouble distinguishing between the sharper lines on Lojban's "pro= nouns" doesn't matter, and attempting to change Lojban because of that is m= algli.

It's not malgli.
<= /blockquote>

It is magli to change Lojban to because of difficultie= s an English speaker may have with Lojban as-is.

ok
 
 
This word is present in all major source languages.
=

That's about as valid an argument as "I'm going to jump off this b= ridge because everyone else is doing it".

The "source languages" wer= e only used to determine the forms of gismu. The grammar and meanings of wo= rds- and especially cmavo, of which the "source languages" were never consu= lted, does not enter into the equation.
.ie
 
 
It has clearly defined mean= ing.
{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 seman= tically 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

I don't suggest changing Lojban in this aspect? Where = did you find such opinion? I just point to a hole in the language. I can on= ly suggest adding a new word.



<= /div>
, 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?

<= div>After failing to retain ambiguity in many tatoeba sentences.
=  
Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic ambiguity, is fine- e= ven common, but referential ambiguity seems kind of pointless and arguably = a BAD idea.

Why is it refer= ential here? I can't see.

What's wrong with {da po= i na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ? It's just lengthy. This is m= y only complaint (although the topic of masses is much more vajni).

 
=

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 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.<= br> 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 e= mail 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 e= mail 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 &= 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_2575_13098914.1371372450802--