Received: from mail-la0-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:33073) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UoAi0-000845-VF for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:30 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f61.google.com with SMTP id ek20sf404114lab.16 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:13 -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=UBdlsiHQ5UBBBIU7P2pZKQoXFz14lfAtDsFPA9ajx2c=; b=i2PcgMqs+nHFLGe6WQJwIJU5q69SS9+lcxA92Y+2GCad+XgCzz4UPxg8p2L2Mc6nkH M+0pZ8/g7AZ2DSIjI+wvVmVlcUNeURNt6OGqVBfqCAOF2aQZwGniX8RVPRohIUVUO9uv KLRm+uvJKgBXvvfyQs8jDrf9/pc8/AgBW4OdeGOR6xbL9Sv7gcaPZHJiGlcsb6jJq1wE 9WjheNm3Ms8Motl862VDgPjVuOnpkkYb5HRW/tQdg8cK2WHFvSg06lmeiQJvBa3c7ftX b4tdnZ5ujwBP2/cZlblb6w1HyWqM/k57Kh4CRaozs/PMhCFID1FhUp1C6EX2HtzSYnTt 4RKQ== 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=UBdlsiHQ5UBBBIU7P2pZKQoXFz14lfAtDsFPA9ajx2c=; b=S9ohKEn7A2bHaBrxvozo26CBl10oEwBLjR8rp2USPmcfdEqgejptSK0t1n/7KZcQm6 sU9BT75MvVBw1MWQaarNhxRY49qL3UfBcgv3G/iG0xKbR3JbKfDhjy92CWJID6yMed9j 8QoYDJCtUOpP0qOIcZJyNciBv4tmlKKs6kd04k9c7jNEV2DYSiF5++k+Sr6z6OWygCKM NDe3obBJLRVP5ZRa3n9lkn5eFHJvTkHBAq6oq3t0l0KM0s3KZ9wMZQRa/Hhe2TFVW98t YU6WfXkHisLQsvrCLLxzWrXiclAjeBunpTv+tYL8qwbst+Yr0fUGMtBSMcWgUKzWvmox eeHA== X-Received: by 10.180.189.106 with SMTP id gh10mr130508wic.10.1371380473073; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.126.103 with SMTP id mx7ls195844wib.53.canary; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.224.8 with SMTP id im8mr733788bkb.5.1371380472405; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cm16si544406bkb.0.2013.06.16.04.01.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.176; Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z5so1709483lbh.35 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.5.134 with SMTP id s6mr4326363lbs.95.1371380471987; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.21.38 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:01:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <661d5df8-d210-4a47-ab82-10283567eb07@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> <661d5df8-d210-4a47-ab82-10283567eb07@googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 05:01:11 -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 209.85.217.176 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=14dae94ed641e2885c04df436536 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --14dae94ed641e2885c04df436536 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:37 AM, la arxokuna wr= ote: > On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:16:17 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna wrot= e: >> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:40:32 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >>> >>>> 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 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 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 ot= hers" >>>>>>>>> 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 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'. C= f. 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 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 = pretty >>>>>>>>> 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" does= n'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 bridg= e >>>> 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 equat= ion. >>>> >>> >>> .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 add= ing >>> 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 idea. >>>> >>> >>> 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 ref= er >> 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. >> > > That's not the point. Lojban implements facultative precision. And while > the context is obviously 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? > Well, of you want to take it to extremes, why not just use zo'e and brodV for every thing we say? > 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 mas= ses >>> is much more vajni). >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I wonder what other will say. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There are many cases in which Lojban is more exact than English. Thi= s >>>>>> 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 ha= ve 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 jo= intly." >>>>>>>>> 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 s= ays) a >>>>>>>>> mass should not be converted into the conjunction of its componen= t 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 thi= s 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 ) >> > -- > 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. --14dae94ed641e2885c04df436536 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:37 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:16:17 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On S= un, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.= ..@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...@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 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.

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 literall= y every utterance like English forces it's speakers to do. But what for= ? Why taking this burden?

Well, of you want to t= ake it to extremes, why not just use zo'e and brodV for every thing we = say?
=A0
What's wrong with = {da poi na'e du mi gi'e prenu zo'u mi .e da broda} ? It's j= ust lengthy. This is my only complaint (although the topic of masses is muc= h 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.
=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.
 
 
--14dae94ed641e2885c04df436536--