Received: from mail-yh0-f63.google.com ([209.85.213.63]:50137) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WqkGR-0002sl-CA for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:28:09 -0700 Received: by mail-yh0-f63.google.com with SMTP id z6sf821596yhz.28 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=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:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=cOqUPKdRzgZC4OX9L+bu1vXrVJYrseXhjjqPSfIV0eY=; b=ghp1gyNvTMHWmhlg8DFJVyLAz9JsDluevr/T92vdPBHOoJZv6QQPI7/JwESmL436vZ 9TxCle6OVM8sNkRIRYUzW12if1atlqdtUyZUMamIT9Ma1FsACjaXF/ITY+QBAnuayk5d JU1MbZqTyM0OOYvCfU5ICPzvgpWVOXjBfvivaR+in90UCxJwHvd8yhyaYer+POpYCZYA TWzkAtOIUOGWA85hYk1E3LI90uHiKTrzQxa+l+4c/8qP0YSsQ7Ka9oYd3WfGqSSlXda8 HqS8aSrwp4avCxZke6JQ/vlyDiH7Ut0fcIgGV8Rtb7lkIUINgjbElPMQOhrxIPAYTlzO y1WQ== X-Received: by 10.140.49.67 with SMTP id p61mr3109qga.21.1401546477211; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.89.203 with SMTP id v69ls1414605qgd.6.gmail; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.128.112 with SMTP id e76mr7940835yhi.38.1401546476826; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x22a.google.com (mail-ve0-x22a.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l7si463893vda.3.2014.05.31.07.27.56 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22a; Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id db11so3411994veb.15 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.167.2 with SMTP id o2mr20553518vcy.8.1401546476682; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.170.73 with HTTP; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:27:56 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Specifying sumti types: another revision of gimste is complete From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22a as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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=089e011618cee1046a04fab2f7df X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e011618cee1046a04fab2f7df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > I added my semantic categorization to the sheet. It was created long long > ago and wasn't meant to be used with tesumti interactions table. So in case > there are inconsistencies you are free to correct it. > > Also filters are now shown in column headers so you can quickly show only > rows with necessary values in a chosen column. > That's useful. You have 7 gismu that don't start the x2 column with "x2", 8 that don't start the x3 column with "x3", 2 for x4 and 1 for x5. I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni" has x2 >> (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree that the x2 has to >> be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and events must share >> the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events can be close to >> objects in position. >> > > Two options: > 1. Split the definition into: > "x1 (event,object) is near or close to x2 (event, object) in x3 > (property); x1 (number, abstraction) is near or close to x2 (same type as > x1) in x3 (property)" > > This will quickly make definitions bulky. On the other hand there are not > so many space gismu. > > 2. Make objects and events one type which will lead to {lo mlatu ka'e > fasnu}. > > Any other ideas? > I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu". We don't usually think of living things as "happening", especially since we have the more specific "jmive" for them, But in any case, I'm now not happy with "same type as" for comparatives. I realized that anything can be compared with anything else if you just choose the right property for comparison. For instance: li ci zmadu lo sfofa lo ka mi'o xo kau casnu ce'u "The number three exceeds sofas in how many times we discuss them". Since there are properties that can easily accomodate any type (such as "lo ka ce'u se casnu") then x1 and x2 are not really restricted to one of the types of the number/object-event/proposition/property/relation/... typology. It's really the property x3 that fixes the type of x1 and x2 so I'd say: "x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property of x1 and x2)". Notice that "(property of x1 and x2}" is not the same as "{relation between x1 and x2}", which is required by something like "ckini". Properties have a single open argument and relations have (at least) two, Is the x2 of porsi an assertion, or should it be a (transitive, >> antisymmetric, total) binary relation? I think "porsi" works something like >> "li pa ce'o li re ce'o li ci cu porsi lo ka ce'u mleca ce'u" >> > It doesn't contradict that porsi2 is an assertion since {ka} is a subclass > of {du'u} but I added your example to the sheet (very last columns) until a > better glossing of this place is found. > If "property" is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition") then they don't belong in the same level of the typology. Shouldn't the types be mutually exclusive? For mupli you have "x2 (property of x2)". mupli/fadni/traji/cnano/rirci >> should have the same for x3, and it should be the same type as x1 (a group >> of that type). If you have x3 as a set, then property x2 is not a property >> of x3, but a property of the members of x3. >> > > Fixed. I moved all of them to "General =>Set structure" class, however, > steci should probably also belong to them. > as well as some other gismu from "Groups & parts" class. > "selte'i" does belong to the same class. Unfortunately "steci" has x1 and x2 reversed. > For future considerations: "General comparisons" class might also > intersect with them and thus needs rearranging. > I think place order is relevant. (thing-with-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu", (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property), e.g. "mupli". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. "steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearly they can all be grouped in one superclass. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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/d/optout. --089e011618cee1046a04fab2f7df Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna &= lt;gleki.is= .my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
I added my sem= antic categorization to the sheet. It was created long long ago and wasn= 9;t meant to be used with tesumti interactions table. So in case there are = inconsistencies you are free to correct it.

Also filter= s are now shown in column headers so you can quickly show only rows with ne= cessary values in a chosen column.

That's useful. You have 7 gismu that don't start the x2 c= olumn with "x2", 8 that don't start the x3 column with "= x3", 2 for x4 and 1 for x5.

I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni"= ; has x2 (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree = that the x2 has to be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and = events must share the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events ca= n be close to objects in position.

Two options:
=
1. Split the definition into:
"x1 (event,object) is near or c= lose to x2 (event, object) in x3 (property);=C2=A0x1 (number, abstraction) = is near or close to x2 (same type as x1) in x3 (property)"

This will quickly make definitions bulky. On the other = hand there are not so many space gismu.

2. Make ob= jects and events one type which will lead to {lo mlatu ka'e fasnu}.

Any other ideas?

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fa= snu". We don't usually think of living things as "happening&q= uot;, especially since we have the more specific "jmive" for them= , But in any case, I'm now not happy with "same type as" for = comparatives. I realized that anything can be compared with anything else i= f you just choose the right property for comparison. For instance:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 li ci zmadu lo sfofa lo ka mi'o xo ka= u casnu ce'u
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "The number three exceeds sof= as in how many times we discuss them".

Since = there are properties that can easily accomodate any type (such as "lo = ka ce'u se casnu") then x1 and x2 are not really restricted to one= of the types of the number/object-event/proposition/property/relation/... = typology. It's really the property x3 that fixes the type of x1 and x2 = so I'd say: "x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property of x1 and x= 2)".

Notice that "(property of x1 and x2}" is not = the same as "{relation between x1 and x2}", which is required by = something like "ckini". Properties have a single open argument an= d relations have (at least) two,

Is the x2 of porsi an assertion, or should it be a (transitive, antisy= mmetric, total) binary relation? I think "porsi" works something = like "li pa ce'o li re ce'o li ci cu porsi lo ka ce'u mlec= a ce'u"=C2=A0
It doesn't contradict that po= rsi2 is an assertion since {ka} is a subclass of {du'u} but I added you= r example to the sheet (very last columns) until a better glossing of this = place is found.

If "property" = is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition&qu= ot;) then they don't belong in the same level of the typology. Shouldn&= #39;t the types be mutually exclusive? =C2=A0

For mupli you have "x2 (property of x= 2)". mupli/fadni/traji/cnano/rirci= should have the same for x3, and it should be the same type as x1 (a group= of that type). If you have x3 as a set, then property x2 is not a property= of x3, but a property of the members of x3.=C2=A0

Fixed. I moved all of them to= "General =3D>Set structure" class, however, steci should prob= ably also belong to them.
as well as some other gismu from "= Groups & parts" class.

"selte'i&= quot; does belong to the same class. Unfortunately "steci" has x1= and x2 reversed.
=C2=A0
For future considerations: "General comparisons" class might als= o intersect with them and thus needs rearranging.

I think place order is relevant. (thing-wi= th-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu", =C2=A0= (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property), =C2=A0e.g. "mupl= i". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. &qu= ot;steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearl= y they can all be grouped in one superclass. =C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--089e011618cee1046a04fab2f7df--