Received: from mail-ea0-f191.google.com ([209.85.215.191]:45913) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uo96S-0007c8-Mr for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:44 -0700 Received: by mail-ea0-f191.google.com with SMTP id l15sf354698eak.8 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:21 -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=ZamwbjEolrykVZ+k9y6oILLd/5LfTtMO9Bun7zz+jV8=; b=Tdkf06x9UX+hVQI8wuCq7L0O+SI9rqzCi1+SV2gzD04WNStjTw8nV6eY7jQNRYQ+cD tpYOyB8nYDS6cNNGd1xJL9YQAWeY3bVJ1Qu3+pCIoY4iQyCxZuX8ReFrbn7mDePxPE/o 2ja0IHZAwoiR5pAIp+ky3MzqQ3oV1vRfN8XOtGa1rkzdmNiysTNY/T44cu9JR1jFwPaZ 8Fmz5eD9X6zA4Dfs7agpNwYCSXIk4MA00TARpKOGm5jbveFha9qi8Tcji0T0zA0DWWkT jmp+deBPL1C2m0HFhRIW3RKpYXEMOq9B/G/RTetehD6Z2uHbB7g3psTfl9Oe91Ku3hSr YAzA== 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=ZamwbjEolrykVZ+k9y6oILLd/5LfTtMO9Bun7zz+jV8=; b=apRKv2UhTqSuQe2+RVuY0Ml0+sHuEi7xM7KDumOQzUoIEQkZVUrxaQBtjgNZsCw7eo I3VQwlblTn6BYRwDRL7cJts8dZRrDQ1G+cAnjnmNgUHZSiVQ9LmPeu55xHmpX7itH8JK PKKhYnno0mSa37sMZCz/nCxLjXr3YqLmXASWeQJcWqk+HXpJkOzDsxoMWfGYmlo9mGeW XeMTDRCwegxYG6Ioh2RZSDjDU8uYeO/tfvCBnRXHZu1CeWAFxlh/gAdl1XFLJFVbZ8MJ Ev6oeezKxcpMbbZWjLs3mAyvjj40jYRysxpE0JByM6end0ETb6daGeRpPfVTCGAzI8eJ hsSQ== X-Received: by 10.180.198.100 with SMTP id jb4mr123356wic.14.1371374301397; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.39.197 with SMTP id r5ls190825wik.5.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.228.80 with SMTP id jd16mr11524bkb.6.1371374300914; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rl1si526522bkb.3.2013.06.16.02.18.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.182; Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r11so1681598lbv.13 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.140.231 with SMTP id rj7mr4338410lbb.16.1371374300507; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.21.38 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:18:20 -0700 (PDT) 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> <40804b75-426b-4566-b49a-82aca6d98afb@googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:18:20 -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 209.85.217.182 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=001a11c26a300933c404df41f6d6 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --001a11c26a300933c404df41f6d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna = 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 wro= te: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>>> > 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 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 oth= ers" >>>>>>>> sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense o= f 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 >>>>>>>> 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'. 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 o= f 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 p= retty >>>>>>>> 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 equati= on. >>> >> >> .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 addi= ng >> 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 use= d >>> 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 id= ea. >>> >> >> Why is it referential here? I can't see. >> > > Referential ambiguity, as I used the phrase above, is ambiguity as to wha= t > is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing could refer to > literally /anyone/. > (Including beings living on other worlds, fictional characters, and even, for those who consider them "people", pets or other animals.) > And while obviously context is probably usually sufficient to inform the > listener to whom is being referred, the /same/ context is /also/ sufficie= nt > 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 mass= es >> 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 "= we" in >>>>>>>> the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish hav= e 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 same as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered joi= ntly." >>>>>>>> This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano" vs. "W= e >>>>>>>> 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 part= s 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 j= o'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 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. --001a11c26a300933c404df41f6d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Jones = <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2= :47 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> 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 <gleki.is...@gmail.com&= gt; 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
, 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 failin= g to retain ambiguity 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.

Referential ambiguity, as I used the phrase above, is ambigui= ty as to what is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing cou= ld refer to literally /anyone/.

(Including beings living on other worlds, ficti= onal characters, and even, for those who consider them "people", = pets or other animals.)
=A0
And while obviously context is probably usu= ally 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.
=A0
W= hat's wrong with {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e d= a broda} ? It's just lengthy. This is my only complaint (although the t= opic 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 cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&= #39;o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )



--
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.
 
 
--001a11c26a300933c404df41f6d6--