Received: from mail-vb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:38226) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UoALA-0007wo-7u for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:38:13 -0700 Received: by mail-vb0-f61.google.com with SMTP id w16sf698112vbb.26 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:37:37 -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=aeV3qC8fvL/aX0njHrNKqhSWKKj6ioCpNKGioqxye1Y=; b=cRTjdlZZ6E3TKnZbP/t1lpMG6QH/4RmBzmTRgEBHzD9BZiMk+8IT3OasYwo0mI768N mPSujcYutsOkS8MtTvGcmyOWwxY+j8jdd3cb9IOqbPEJKeTYBmvKI1xaKXCCTgq6rZZ8 yTDMz48KApIYtiblgvFTHbmpVUQ4ihxOUq2m/JQgE2UX2Mo1RBteZWGQGmz3rE0wQxkU le6+NgMPIK/3u+HIwJrd1ouRGz/gFM8nkiivmRLira+rA2qnlacImsP9wc9cKxqjW1gr UJ0wj9QL0eWM0tIZhVfeGEgSfNru255fM5kTQrOpxYt54OFsLdvGjyIfRq5Tg7N5LztM jGhw== 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=aeV3qC8fvL/aX0njHrNKqhSWKKj6ioCpNKGioqxye1Y=; b=qJu5t6wCy7RLQsIpUisQdOmVVG8ng+GIvs5IM+/MiFJVguVt2MrJvUWtRG+ob5HWGG F0Vd3OKwgC1JkA1CzqdhvTZ/Fn76AISE4tcdG2I0uGAzY/rJ+qpvR3LaD1+yoKUT/ZEk 5ddEBY6SYCYQllZuk+kHvuROuUuD8E9tRkY9X5mjCFQc6c0Ik5/0AeWiZzrSLj/UziDz R4Jj05Y+dc8j3lBi7V8I6nfz94wnynwvFdWMq4WiQ1RJBHF72jaqaMRWis80iXbyucJ2 BirJiohQwy8c/LG9qEmfdY6dqTkmfP5NsFdW5VPR0JW0FYGQNHnsWrp9lhnZ2Wp1ImDA qIzA== X-Received: by 10.49.116.115 with SMTP id jv19mr262868qeb.22.1371379057385; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:37:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.49.135 with SMTP id u7ls821123qen.3.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:37:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.58.242 with SMTP id u18mr78081qeq.23.1371379056862; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:37:36 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <661d5df8-d210-4a47-ab82-10283567eb07@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> <40804b75-426b-4566-b49a-82aca6d98afb@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_86_13505668.1371379056540" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_86_13505668.1371379056540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:16:17 PM UTC+4, aionys 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"=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 "= you and I=20 >>>>>>>> and others" sense of we/us. >>>>>>>> mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the= =20 >>>>>>>> 1st 2nd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for = the "you=20 >>>>>>>> and I/me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and oth= ers"=20 >>>>>>>> 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,= =20 >>>>>>>> the 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/= mo for=20 >>>>>>>> the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I = and=20 >>>>>>>> others" 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 = others"=20 >>>>>>>> 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=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 p= retty=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=20 >>>> 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} >> >> =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=20 >>> speaker 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.= =20 >>> The grammar and meanings of words- and especially cmavo, of which the= =20 >>> "source languages" were never consulted, does not enter into the equati= on. >>> >> >> .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 addi= ng=20 >> a new word. >> > > "So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}?" > =20 > >> , regardless of how other languages work. It is not difficult to get use= d=20 >>> to distinguishing what group of people you're talking about. And why do= you=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 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=20 > is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing could refer to= =20 > literally /anyone/. And while obviously context is probably usually=20 > sufficient to inform the listener to whom is being referred, the /same/= =20 > context is /also/ sufficient to inform the speaker which of=20 > {mi/mi'o/mi'a/ma'a} is appropriate. > That's not the point. Lojban implements facultative precision. And while=20 the context is obviously sufficient to notice what is the current weather,= =20 wind and time at the moment few will do that. Otherwise Lojban could turn= =20 into Ithkuil. Let's always use tense, event contours for literally every utterance like= =20 English forces it's speakers to do. But what for? Why taking this burden? =20 > =20 > >> What's wrong with {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ?= =20 >> It's just lengthy. This is my only complaint (although the topic of mass= es=20 >> is much more vajni). >> >> =20 >> >>> >>> I wonder what other will say. >>>> >>>> =20 >>>>> There are many cases in which Lojban is more exact than English. This= =20 >>>>> is 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 hav= e 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"=20 >>>>>>>> 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=20 >>>>>>>> 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=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 part= s 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 j= o'u do"=20 >>>>>>>> entered in December 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this= issue at=20 >>>>>>>> that time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know if it should be {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o=20 >>>>>>>> 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}? >>>>>>>> =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_86_13505668.1371379056540 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:16:17 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16= , 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmai= l.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...@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" 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 does= n't parse after zo'u add broda at the end.

"w= e 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 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 Lojba= n in this aspect? Where did you find such opinion? I just point to a hole i= n the language. I can only suggest adding 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 y= ou want such ambiguity anyway?

After failing to retain ambigu= ity in many tatoeba sentences.
 
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 ambiguity as to w= hat is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing could refer t= o literally /anyone/. And while obviously context is probably usually suffi= cient 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.

That's not the= point. Lojban implements facultative precision. And while the context is o= bviously sufficient to notice what is the current weather, wind and time at= the moment few will do that. Otherwise Lojban could turn into Ithkuil.

Let's always use tense, event contours for literally = every utterance like English forces it's speakers to do. But what for? Why = taking this burden?

 
 
What's wrong wit= h {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ? It's just lengthy. T= his is my 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}?

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

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno b= e 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_86_13505668.1371379056540--