Received: from mail-ye0-f187.google.com ([209.85.213.187]:38401) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UoBOU-0008LA-Ju for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:45:28 -0700 Received: by mail-ye0-f187.google.com with SMTP id m9sf724840yen.14 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:45:08 -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=GeRRoiq6wDacjRmI28WQbz3DNlG0hskJSyo8v/yjxo8=; b=cHVWFXPZZkHDWsejtgAWtUzpWoshf4QxbHH8chfunJWrWFE8xoYdsq9Jn9U3KhntzK 7hSWZrYzkSvfz1gl1ZTTmYTrsXlTv1YuadRcAs3MJN2w0HUCGdtzYjzLghwkYBD9I9hn mL3FMb3lU7rhdGr1e302Swja6vDOcDIM/csYJJnBQ6s9/cyjzEUrcy9S8Tk8v/ujpKMx Hzsper0T41VzN0Ltoepk74fqo8cqUBRgNLDhqOBQzr1gGMJUyMEfbtCgtMJsn4v03+k9 FwsUIzGyI33t3hxfvo7AXQBep6sQMi5hAlrBKssRumACeRxbzDirahzGcshJhrslTFfx UVOQ== 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=GeRRoiq6wDacjRmI28WQbz3DNlG0hskJSyo8v/yjxo8=; b=ByFa5tLGEjRbtTyw8otDekG2bM5yQje3V6LBo9ZkzKluGEVVIyg6Fpk+ozX+nS/5+X ogrinwnJYom2JQO73dCnhgnvSpdnBSP6X3LXWJq7GPAnoKYyfKp/+dCBkqfJcvy8xMEW x9y1x+uwI0SsX2R4gpPmZD6lt8WsbI/hhJYQQtEnBcLTE47JK2B0EDRXKIUkM28vxKX1 bIgCMuF/tTDxPzWkEACxSz9uPsBNfEy/wdjxK859r2Z36gInENLeW5Us6ZW6A+fwiR9q N2iF13tFdEtikxqWPhBK4WAK2prC+jUPWlXV3KVeVD8Dc8/tfdxeq3vgCurpkY5qoU+u WMQQ== X-Received: by 10.49.36.199 with SMTP id s7mr261878qej.17.1371383108339; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:45:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.121.5 with SMTP id lg5ls728373qeb.21.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.24.208 with SMTP id w16mr279251qef.37.1371383107152; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <6fd21758-5c69-45e8-98a7-46282fdbe607@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> <661d5df8-d210-4a47-ab82-10283567eb07@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_2678_16263569.1371383106786" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2678_16263569.1371383106786 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:01:11 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:37 AM, la arxokuna > > wrote: > >> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:16:17 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna wro= te: >>> >>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:40:32 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:27 AM, la arxokuna w= rote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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"= =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 fo= r the "you=20 >>>>>>>>>> and I/me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and o= thers"=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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,= =20 >>>>>>>>>> the 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. m= u/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"=20 >>>>>>>>>> sense, the 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, = e tu'. Cf.=20 >>>>>>>>>> mu for the "you and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for th= e "I and=20 >>>>>>>>>> others" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and other= s" sense of=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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= pretty=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" doe= sn'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=20 >>>>> bridge 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 equa= tion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> .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 suc= h=20 >>>> opinion? I just point to a hole in the language. I can only suggest ad= ding=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= =20 >>>>> used to distinguishing what group of people you're talking about. And= why=20 >>>>> do you want such ambiguity anyway? >>>>> >>>> >>>> After failing to retain ambiguity in many tatoeba sentences. >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>> Vagueness, otherwise known as semantic ambiguity, is fine- even=20 >>>>> common, but referential ambiguity seems kind of pointless and arguabl= y a=20 >>>>> BAD idea. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why is it referential here? I can't see. >>>> >>> >>> Referential ambiguity, as I used the phrase above, is ambiguity as to= =20 >>> what is being referred to here. The meaning you are describing could re= fer=20 >>> to 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 weathe= r,=20 >> wind and time at the moment few will do that. Otherwise Lojban could tur= n=20 >> into Ithkuil. >> >> Let's always use tense, event contours for literally every utterance lik= e=20 >> 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= =20 > for every thing we say? > Indeed. zo'onai This is actually what people wish the language worked like. http://web.mit.edu/piantado/www/papers/piantadosi2012communicative.pdf In Zipf=E2=80=99s view, ambiguity =EF=AC=81ts within the framework of his u= nifying=20 principle of least effort, and could be understood by considering the=20 competing desires of the speaker and the listener. Speakers can minimize=20 their effort if all meanings are expressed by one simple, maximally=20 ambiguous word, say, ba. To express a meaning such as =E2=80=98=E2=80=98The= accordion box=20 is too small,=E2=80=99=E2=80=99 the speaker would simply say ba. To say =E2= =80=98=E2=80=98It will rain next=20 Wednesday,=E2=80=99=E2=80=99 the speaker would say ba. Such a system is very easy for speakers since they do not=20 need to expend any effort thinking about or searching memory to retrieve=20 the correct linguistic form to produce. Conversely, from the comprehender= =E2=80=99s=20 perspective, effort is minimized if each meaning maps to a distinct linguistic form, assuming that handling many distinct word forms is not=20 overly dif=EF=AC=81cult for comprehenders. In that type of system, the list= ener=20 does not need to expend effort inferring what the speaker intended, since= =20 the linguistic signal would leave only one possibility. Zipf suggested that= =20 natural language would strike a balance between these two opposing forces= =20 of uni=EF=AC=81cation and diversi=EF=AC=81cation, arriving at a middle grou= nd with some but=20 not total, ambiguity This is the same rephrased principle of necessity and sufficiency aka=20 facultative precision. I know of only two languages that fully implement this principle. It's=20 Lojban and gua\spi (not even TLI Loglan). Probably not for the case of "we" but that's surmountable by developing the= =20 lexicon. =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 ma= sses=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.=20 >>>>>>> This 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 =E2=80=9Cmi'o=E2=80=9D from =E2=80=9Cm= i'a=E2=80=9D"=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 h= ave 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, =E2=80=9C= mi'o=E2=80=9D is=20 >>>>>>>>>> the same as =E2=80=9Cmi joi do=E2=80=9D, the mass of me and you = considered jointly." >>>>>>>>>> This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano" vs.= =20 >>>>>>>>>> "We as a mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holmes = says) a=20 >>>>>>>>>> mass should not be converted into the conjunction of its compone= nt parts by=20 >>>>>>>>>> any 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 th= is 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 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_2678_16263569.1371383106786 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:01:11 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16= , 2013 at 4:37 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmai= l.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:16:17 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2= 013 at 2:47 AM, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com<= /a>> 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 poi= nt. Lojban implements facultative precision. And while the context is obvio= usly 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 ev= ery utterance like English forces it's speakers to do. But what for? Why ta= king this burden?

Well, of you want to take it t= o extremes, why not just use zo'e and brodV for every thing we say?

Indeed. zo'onai This is actually w= hat people wish the language worked like.

<= div><quote>
In Zipf=E2=80=99s view, ambiguity =EF=AC=81ts w= ithin the framework of his unifying principle of least effort, and could be= understood by considering the competing desires of the speaker and the lis= tener. Speakers can minimize their effort if all meanings are expressed by = one simple, maximally ambiguous word, say, ba. To express a meaning such as= =E2=80=98=E2=80=98The accordion box is too small,=E2=80=99=E2=80=99 the sp= eaker would simply say ba. To say =E2=80=98=E2=80=98It will rain next Wedne= sday,=E2=80=99=E2=80=99 the speaker
would say ba. Such a system i= s very easy for speakers since they do not need to expend any effort thinki= ng about or searching memory to retrieve the correct linguistic form to pro= duce. Conversely, from the comprehender=E2=80=99s perspective, effort is mi= nimized if each meaning maps to a distinct
linguistic form, assum= ing that handling many distinct word forms is not overly dif=EF=AC=81cult f= or comprehenders. In that type of system, the listener does not need to exp= end effort inferring what the speaker intended, since the linguistic signal= would leave only one possibility. Zipf suggested that natural language wou= ld strike a balance between these two opposing forces of uni=EF=AC=81cation= and diversi=EF=AC=81cation, arriving at a middle ground with some but not = total, ambiguity
</quote>

This is the same rephrased principle of necessity and sufficiency aka fac= ultative precision.
I know of only two languages that fully imple= ment this principle. It's Lojban and gua\spi (not even TLI Loglan).
Probably not for the case of "we" but that's surmountable by developing = the lexicon.

 
 
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 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.



"All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example, =E2=80=9Cmi'o=E2=80= =9D is the same as =E2=80=9Cmi joi do=E2=80=9D, the mass of me and you cons= idered 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 Ho= lmes says) a mass should not be converted into the conjunction of its compo= nent parts by any logical operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't c= ome with a privileged partition

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 "= 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_2678_16263569.1371383106786--