Received: from mail-gh0-f188.google.com ([209.85.160.188]:36624) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UoGS6-0002Kg-TF for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:09:31 -0700 Received: by mail-gh0-f188.google.com with SMTP id r11sf770859ghr.15 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:09:11 -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=3y4YMNtXBpxdhbFn31EVtl9gi6/uB6AYYr1AiPHRm1Y=; b=Jj+jBOFa66xzZtQFBn2QQUgBfIy5+qjVD5/Y6hkM50X4ik3HcevXuoSRVlIlHxEhV3 VL5KK5dtMQHAYqAnFShX7ArAdUyWVrq3MyxDRuiEadGEI1IzTqYsegDQVN6y3I3cNPlu JImrCm3Voabv1CRUSVPRAwlAIklMRUzHQy7fRQjRAvE4+ymlMk8UaynlaEKB5rd59sBk y1ITLnCFSauBtgDpvUX/xIQ3nAD00Ug6CZ9PEiVYINU4RxfFC9fUs57fd3zv2NiR3908 61XdExPUWcz3J+3nT/GyMGpOIjMDkBNT4xmBRbl0l02Z9cBO+4z74cWujZQ2qZRYOAOB bDqg== 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=3y4YMNtXBpxdhbFn31EVtl9gi6/uB6AYYr1AiPHRm1Y=; b=Q6O4xQXrRdsV5OoQw0yDxE2IDGrO4W040SEV5mH+VE3m4YMXMvoQgyfGvtl52Ne++a Vvpv8Bs9T3rRZWnsu2sVfsK/kf1aek8Iqj+NfciZeqdAIemKB+BYwqXX3gkUtaYP7Gk+ 3+kb262DY0e2TAghdEVmk7Ialwb0Mcre71buQWs37eAaO1MBkmYCZ6Yi4yBIMG7w/bNo fG4O6dee7za+aM+SD6eUD3U+odeMMteNNX1xRqEcgYV4ZvX9V1PzzNqCnhJX3VXn8V7W FIr9huiZttfQDVR3FXY61fTOrE/GlYByI2zHxjKQVMcQvYvosA8kM5Lr0TENeLF7Q7Rj SMvw== X-Received: by 10.49.101.78 with SMTP id fe14mr293514qeb.13.1371402551775; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:09:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.41.7 with SMTP id b7ls787948qel.12.gmail; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:09:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.28.66 with SMTP id z2mr276822qeg.5.1371402550742; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:09:10 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <73f21c56-b306-48b8-a430-db1b6074b847@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@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_2816_32555474.1371402550308" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2816_32555474.1371402550308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:52:28 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote: > > With respect to the ambiguous "we":=20 > The Tupi language, spoken by Brazilian Indians, is an example of a=20 > language that has three distinct "we"s:=20 > * "=EEand=E9", corresponding to {mi'o}=20 > * "ore", corresponding to {mi'a} or plural {mi}, and=20 > * "as=E9", corresponding to {ma'a}.=20 > And most polynesian languages have exclusive and inclusive "we". But I=20 don't say that we need to take English or Polynesian or Tupi part. > You will have trouble arguing that the mandatory disambiguation is a=20 > heavy burden on the speaker. The concept of {do} is very clear on=20 > one's mind, and so, the distinction of {mi'o} vs. {mi'a} vs. {ma'a},=20 > regardless of his mother tongue.=20 > > And what about "you", which is ambiguous between {do} and {do'a} (even=20 > when plural)?=20 > > With respect to {joi} vs. {jo'u}:=20 > I guess this is part of the post-xorlo phenomenon of avoiding masses=20 > where unnecessary. I am particularly pro {jo'u}, which is simple and=20 > general. Anyway, such a change would be for CLL 2.0...=20 > > mu'o=20 > mi'e .asiz.=20 > > On 16 June 2013 02:11, la arxokuna >= =20 > wrote:=20 > > First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary.=20 > >=20 > > mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense,= =20 > the=20 > > 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da'. Cf. mu/mo= =20 > 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.=20 > > mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the 1st 2n= d=20 > > person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for the "you and= =20 > I/me=20 > > independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense of= =20 > > we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.=20 > > miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others jointly" sense, the 1s= t=20 > 3rd=20 > > person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for the "you= =20 > and=20 > > I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense= =20 > of=20 > > we/us.=20 > > mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense, the= =20 > 1st=20 > > 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for the= =20 > "you=20 > > and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense= =20 > of=20 > > we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.=20 > >=20 > > What one might notice first is that there is no equivalent to "mio/miu"= =20 > > which corresponds to English "we".=20 > >=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.=20 > > However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they canno= t=20 > > easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94" which is indeed true. I = don't=20 > > understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" in the sense English, Chinese,= =20 > > Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it (although i suggested mi'ai = a=20 > few=20 > > days ago).=20 > >=20 > > Now to the main issue. Even if we look at the remaining "mu/mo" we'll= =20 > see=20 > > that Lojban has only one of them.=20 > >=20 > > The CLL says (regarding KOhA3)=20 > >=20 > > "All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example, =93mi'o=94 is th= e=20 > same as=20 > > =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered jointly."=20 > > This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano" vs. "We as = a=20 > > mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holmes says) a mass=20 > should=20 > > not be converted into the conjunction of its component parts by any=20 > logical=20 > > operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a privileged= =20 > > partition=20 > >=20 > > However, jvs has two definitions, the second one (by selpahi) defining= =20 > > {mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in December 2012. I don't remember any= =20 > > discussions of this issue at that time.=20 > >=20 > > I don't know if it should be {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri} o= r=20 > {ro=20 > > lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}.=20 > >=20 > > So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}?=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20 > Groups=20 > > "lojban" group.=20 > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send= =20 > an=20 > > email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com .=20 > > To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.=20 > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.=20 > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > --=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_2816_32555474.1371402550308 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:52:28 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote:With respect to the ambiguous "we":
The Tupi language, spoken by Brazilian Indians, is an example of a
language that has three distinct "we"s:
 * "=EEand=E9", corresponding to {mi'o}
 * "ore", corresponding to {mi'a} or plural {mi}, and
 * "as=E9", corresponding to {ma'a}.


And most polynesian lan= guages have exclusive and inclusive "we". But I don't say that we need to t= ake English or Polynesian or Tupi part.


You will have trouble arguing that the mandatory disambiguation is a
heavy burden on the speaker. The concept of {do} is very clear on
one's mind, and so, the distinction of {mi'o} vs. {mi'a} vs. {ma'a},
regardless of his mother tongue.

And what about "you", which is ambiguous between {do} and {do'a} (even
when plural)?

With respect to {joi} vs. {jo'u}:
I guess this is part of the post-xorlo phenomenon of avoiding masses
where unnecessary. I am particularly pro {jo'u}, which is simple and
general. Anyway, such a change would be for CLL 2.0...

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 16 June 2013 02:11, 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" se= nse, 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 1= st 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" sens= e 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, t= he 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" s= ense 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" s= ense 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 p= retty
> clear.
> However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they = cannot
> easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94" which is indeed tru= e. I don't
> understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" in the sense English, Chin= ese,
> Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it (although i suggested m= i'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 jointly."
> 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 mas= s should
> not be converted into the conjunction of its component parts by an= y logical
> operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a privil= eged
> partition
>
> However, jvs has two definitions, the second one (by selpahi) defi= ning
> {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}?
>
> --
> 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+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<= /a>.
>
>

--
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_2816_32555474.1371402550308--