Received: from mail-lb0-f188.google.com ([209.85.217.188]:63064) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uo94U-0007aB-J5 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:38 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f188.google.com with SMTP id x10sf359724lbi.15 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:19 -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=MkS40LIUr5xiyzUbaxcib0Q3Km75RIkTs6Ieq6hNKzg=; b=EL66uH5ZYK0EpQVDLgQmt8LREYKm7Q6imi3f2K5ArfZbbQzonUNNr2408DaaeGAZCm 41F6Y9US5Z5T1dCN52mq/9X3nVa0+WTBknYNUUkBJ4w3xaCUADkAMvPplycaZoYnt1BY 9LKfNniyEh6tI0d2pPtAFwTTHJB4wXDeoxX4q5SYjhustqOAeVEd5GrGq8GMKq+A1TZq WE2jGMlw/WUBHjIxj4vo/0XLnos9uqtJBLAXMX0tdgLx8d1uBwppmJ2+XLamuv5eRWNc wAJQeMAmYXur/H6iGXOyADWQD9YHYS0/aAJEq/MjNto9+eewmDJXJLHO1JCO7nax8UN0 PdtQ== 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=MkS40LIUr5xiyzUbaxcib0Q3Km75RIkTs6Ieq6hNKzg=; b=NP6m8vVjwFz+3zf9O9d7JuOcv6WmP8Sfo7A25JU13ny8HLYEFjaFWISX35b7w2sL44 4K24DZFH31asnpyX8TQzRuJjberM43C6sTHWkJndvbqRFuOzbaZ+XovNQ7i1ekF3WGO3 C3BJgZ2Cf7gKUwKfJS4WIgVSvSww+X4knHWiIKSp1aIg7yQpXTNK1XhYtVHrSl0QEvjE 3v9Bafi1l5Ox5LYzQYOF2D/rTFJdc+iCBEd4D3pOBTzlvaR7B7FvAufQcg5lmipy17Z0 BhyCPUqLBsLl2stiUKGkB3hDeg1xYwHgHxKW8f3fCABXP0hfUBtxWAnNyhc6u//dEQ/0 ljKA== X-Received: by 10.180.185.236 with SMTP id ff12mr123569wic.11.1371374178751; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.210.197 with SMTP id mw5ls177598wic.40.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.228.80 with SMTP id jd16mr11424bkb.6.1371374178148; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rl1si526293bkb.3.2013.06.16.02.16.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::231; Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id ea20so1595730lab.36 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.6.36 with SMTP id x4mr4439323lax.40.1371374177731; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.21.38 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:16:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <40804b75-426b-4566-b49a-82aca6d98afb@googlegroups.com> References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <973cb611-f8d2-4aa0-85b0-e78d355e1664@googlegroups.com> <219f1b89-1c6d-4336-b40e-0adaa041c85d@googlegroups.com> <40804b75-426b-4566-b49a-82aca6d98afb@googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:16:17 -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 2a00:1450:4010:c03::231 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=089e013d1920b7cc2a04df41ee32 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e013d1920b7cc2a04df41ee32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna wr= ote: > On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:40:32 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna wrot= e: >> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:31:09 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, la arxokuna w= rote: >>>> >>>>> 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" >>>>>>> sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e d= a'. Cf. >>>>>>> mu/mo for the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "y= ou and I >>>>>>> and others" sense of we/us. >>>>>>> mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the 1s= t >>>>>>> 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" sense, th= e >>>>>>> 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo fo= r the >>>>>>> "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and o= thers" >>>>>>> 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'. Cf.= mu for >>>>>>> the "you and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and o= thers" >>>>>>> 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 pr= etty >>>>>>> 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. >> > > 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} > > >> >>> 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. >> > > 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 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 equatio= n. >> > > .ie > > >> >> >>> 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 >> > > 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 only suggest addin= g > a new word. > "So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}?" > , 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? >> > > After failing to retain ambiguity in many tatoeba sentences. > > >> Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic ambiguity, is fine- even common, >> but referential ambiguity seems kind of pointless and arguably a BAD ide= a. >> > > Why is it referential here? I can't see. > Referential ambiguity, as I used the phrase above, is ambiguity as to what is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing could refer to literally /anyone/. And while obviously context is probably usually sufficient to inform the listener to whom is being referred, the /same/ context is /also/ sufficient to inform the speaker which of {mi/mi'o/mi'a/ma'a} is appropriate. > What's wrong with {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ? > It's just lengthy. This is my only complaint (although the topic of masse= s > is much more vajni). > > > >> >> 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 "w= e" in >>>>>>> the sense English, Chinese, 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 i= s 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 >>>>>>> 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 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 = 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}? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- 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. --089e013d1920b7cc2a04df41ee32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:40:32 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
=
On Sun, = Jun 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@g= mail.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.

If you mean that it does= n'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}

=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.

ok
=A0
=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.

.ie
=A0
=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

I don't suggest changing L= ojban in this aspect? Where did you find such opinion? I just point to a ho= le in the language. I can only suggest adding a new word.

"So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not = {joi}?"
=A0
<= div>
, regardless of how other languages work. It is not difficult to get use= d to distinguishing what group of people you're talking about. And why = do you want such ambiguity anyway?

After failing to retain ambigu= ity in many tatoeba sentences.
=A0
Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic amb= iguity, is fine- even common, but referential ambiguity seems kind of point= less and arguably a BAD idea.

Why is it referential here? I can't see.
<= div>
Referential ambiguity, as I used the phrase above, is ambiguity as = to what is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing could ref= er to literally /anyone/. And while obviously context is probably usually s= ufficient to inform the listener to whom is being referred, the /same/ cont= ext is /also/ sufficient to inform the speaker which of {mi/mi'o/mi'= ;a/ma'a} is appropriate.
=A0
What's wrong wi= th {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ? It'= s just lengthy. This is my only complaint (although the topic of masses is = much more vajni).

=A0

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}?

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

.i.e'ucai ko cmim= a 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.
 
 
--089e013d1920b7cc2a04df41ee32--