Received: from mail-vc0-f184.google.com ([209.85.220.184]:48480) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UoyFL-0003i3-5t for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:55:14 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f184.google.com with SMTP id hv10sf1500301vcb.21 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:54:55 -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=3MTbk/mtlhuovYXZabecbshZz5vdikNVmJXpyJk14Mg=; b=DZIRpcoDAKqueP5Mg6g5g8svE58QGVzFA9gFydZTVLFvlVNQOqTVAREBTfboZktjUp Kx1tHZJX3wprOFDDooZD2oUxVcY1TkoSykQglZxkDvl/ykKyzR7b0lJ2DvjRkLc73Qg0 SYyqgKnMYDiY1vtP5b/pi3kHdUJe4MukmQkOb5EtjH9pAM0gANwKDhIOqjiqh+yvFbhe 3wwBY5F9CRdeioCTlxdROO/p5upvtIpVakZYIAqRYqv+NsNwYJwl0oAZKDRlo7pVRQDC j8Uc1zwmPxQN8bYasRFjpK+lfnGQrJbwtfE+0s1L0hhJ2naNqBsDs4qXlMd5xvWSoUBp VwgA== 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=3MTbk/mtlhuovYXZabecbshZz5vdikNVmJXpyJk14Mg=; b=vEn07Gn34QaKNrOQpVNhSJ7fHgDqFKQ5P65hZcvVo3Dw0Es5yMA29j2Hz1jupL8z9J ALVw61sOe9xfekZXrOYu2O8+z8i0fyVKlsULXITX0iRj6+aXYvMJ8eEfxW4QjPIVuHWa cUbhoBoQHtlnZeO8FbqRn6jEHjueobOejePLbgX6qCcfTiTw1VdupovxugO5VEwFXK0U D9jO9myCvof4vwu7tqgIoVVOxICD8+v/q8+NkkJAPxOQF7CNO/ZiE7vfvXaiF5/1Trm7 +53ZZ5UvcEaeIQUrXM4gro1ssGk7e7xUyTpAudOSs7tVtqw4AhmvszDzBxlSU9FI/G+z SaBQ== X-Received: by 10.49.133.201 with SMTP id pe9mr184319qeb.34.1371570895484; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:54:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.103.132 with SMTP id fw4ls1384476qeb.17.gmail; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.71.173 with SMTP id w13mr499919qeu.21.1371570894880; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <1371405876.998.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5a62e3e4-6bad-47c1-b6ad-86639420b7aa@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_5661_30645983.1371570894358" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_5661_30645983.1371570894358 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:31:36 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote: > > On 18 June 2013 06:15, la arxokuna >wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:04:36 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote: >>> >>> After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I find I have >>> lost what the point was. To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the >>> present situation as I understand it. >>> In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of >>> people speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch >>> (not necessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech >>> ({do}), and a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} >>> and just about everything else). >>> In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of >>> them) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations >>> derived from their speech-act roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} >>> and {mi + do + ko'a}, in various abbreviated forms. >>> On a standard Lojban assumption (at least since xorlo achieved its final >>> form), the simplest such forms refer to the united bunches. The question >>> of how those bunches satisfy the predicates involved is left to context or >>> a demand for clarification. >>> Toward clarification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch >>> satisfies the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and >>> when it satisfies it collectively (as a mass, ditto). >>> As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", >>> does not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly >>> plural (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others. >>> >> >> >> >> 1. first person. {mi=le cusku be dei} >> 2. second person {do=le te cusku be dei} >> 3. non-person, someone not in the dialog {da'au = da poi prenu gi'e na'e >> cusku be dei gi'e na'e te cusku be dei} (ad hoc experimental cmavo) >> >> Also we need >> {da'ai = da poi prenu gi'e na'e cusku be dei} >> >> > I don't think experimental cmavo are at all necessary for this purpose. > > >> So >> I = mi >> you exclusively = do >> you and others = do'o = do jo'u da'au >> we = mi jo'u da'ai >> we exclusively = mi jo'u da'au = mi'a >> you and I = mi jo'u do = mi'o >> we inclusively = mi jo'u do jo'u da'au = ma'a >> > > you and others = do'o = do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do > {lo drata be mi} doesn't state the thing is a person. Althouth yes, for most cases it's precise enough. others and I (could include the listener) = mi jo'u lo drata be mi (or if > you like lujvo, {lo mibdrata}) > exclusive we = mi'a = mi jo'u lo drata be mi .e do > you and I = mi'o = mi jo'u do > inclusive we = ma'a = mi jo'u do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do > > The only time we don't have a KOhA dedicated for the expansion is case > #2, but in my opinion, such a cmavo is unnecessary. > Well, my point was to expand this topic to anaphora. {da'au} is "he/she/'ey" in English. And English "we" includes this {da'au}. Probably John has other ideas of what anaphora might look like in a hypothetical loglang but that's probably a story for anther thread. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > -- 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. ------=_Part_5661_30645983.1371570894358 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:31:36 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
On 18 June 2013 06:15, l= a arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>= wrote:


On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:04:= 36 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:
After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I find I h= ave lost what the point was.  To help guiding my understanding, I summ= arize the present situation as I understand it.
In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of people= speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not ne= cessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), and= a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} and just abo= ut everything else). 
In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of the= m) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations derived = from their speech-act roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi + = do + ko'a},  in various abbreviated forms.
On a standard Lojban assumption (at least since xorlo achieved its final form), the simplest such forms refer to the= united bunches.  The question of how those bunches satisfy the predic= ates involved is left to context or a demand for clarification.
Toward c= larification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch satisfies = the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and when it satis= fies it collectively (as a mass, ditto). 
As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", does = not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly plur= al (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others.



= 1. first person. {mi=3Dle cusku be dei} 
2. second person {d= o=3Dle te cusku be dei}
3. non-person, someone not in the dialog = {da'au =3D da poi prenu gi'e na'e cusku be dei gi'e na'e te cusku be dei} (= ad hoc experimental cmavo)

Also we need 
{da'ai =3D da poi prenu gi= 'e na'e cusku be dei}


= I don't think experimental cmavo are at all necessary for this purpose.
 
So 
I =3D mi
you exclusively =3D do
you and others = =3D do'o =3D do jo'u da'au
we =3D mi jo'u da'ai
we exclusively  =3D mi jo'u da'au = =3D mi'a
you and I =3D mi jo'u do =3D mi'o
we inclusive= ly =3D mi jo'u do jo'u da'au =3D ma'a

you and others =3D do'o =3D do jo'u lo drata be mi .e d= o

{lo drata be mi} =  doesn't state the thing is a person. Althouth yes, for most cases it'= s precise enough.

others and I = (could include the listener) =3D mi jo'u lo drata be mi (or if you like luj= vo, {lo mibdrata})
exclusive we =3D mi'a =3D mi jo'u lo drata be mi .e do
you and I = =3D mi'o =3D mi jo'u do
inclusive we =3D ma'a =3D mi jo'u do jo'u= lo drata be mi .e do

The only time we don't have a KOhA dedicated for the expansion is case= #2, but in my opinion, such a cmavo is unnecessary. 


Well, my point was t= o expand this topic to anaphora.
{da'au} is "he/she/'ey" in Engli= sh. And English "we" includes this {da'au}. Probably John has other ideas o= f what anaphora might look like in a hypothetical loglang but that's probab= ly a story for anther thread.

 

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
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_5661_30645983.1371570894358--