Received: from mail-la0-f57.google.com ([209.85.215.57]:44884) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XYGu1-0002ua-5a for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:57 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f57.google.com with SMTP id s18sf120469lam.2 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:41 -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=dyrNmDeg9Rg2PBTAUUHHMgqDDxNQeA0+VeHhMI2d4pA=; b=fu19dMjs5mAQTrfJ2xCIuLY8hin1WZnUeMrmlFxeYFr8PizqUayla8EAL9L6cWQrxP U10txZhP4LIsLonnzmz0T6toa7g3A1ntA85EhVhpVPHG6YdBAg2cWOpQUnVcGjXmSXvv uAkyN9izmEoXTgDYTmCYumyyAvcYyQi99gK+ZXeZVqLbBctSA3bg2Mb0NmSVtnzVmoTk PrNqfX2fDwAAsYSs50vnjpw2gSwEK8ywqOCUyokTfa8BqwXr1GQ3bkfVzpB3Dfh5jAO0 UaFgguKdLjoKA53zOUfhNqF5sCSHCxROKLN+g1pwpJ+ZcRMpy9vCR4lyfUKt6aknjoFI fMLw== X-Received: by 10.152.7.226 with SMTP id m2mr624628laa.0.1411920041617; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.27.2 with SMTP id p2ls558360lag.10.gmail; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.131.33 with SMTP id oj1mr4982226lbb.7.1411920039974; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si495968lbc.1.2014.09.28.09.00.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c; Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id b6so1229101lbj.3 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.115.232 with SMTP id jr8mr34088381lab.69.1411920039841; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.4.163 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 20:00:39 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni} From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34e686d16bb05042240d6 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c34e686d16bb05042240d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > > On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta wrote: > >> > >> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wro= te: > >> > > >> > > >> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to d= o > with specificity? > >> > >> The specificity comes from the {co'e}. > > > > Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, > I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predica= te > could have non specific referents. > > I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific > referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one > one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic? > > > Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2"= . > > "x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss. > > >> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e > voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found a= n > existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searche= d > with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it > ever been used correctly and meaningfully? > > > > I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will > soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all thos= e > wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such. > > I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amaze= d > to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a > list of ideas? > I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend what {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different? I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possible worlds to real world: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situati= ons Other than that I m against repurposing any cmavo since this is not a conlang project but a live language. You can remove CV, CVi and CVu not supported by usage for now from CLL 2.0. >> The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory > function of the relative clause. > >> > >> In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause > (voi'i). > > > > I think I would rather have a predicate that meant "certain" instead of > a gadri for specificity. Or at least we could define "le" in terms of tha= t > predicate. > > {le} might or might not be a worthwhile abbreviation for {lo co'e voi'i}, > but that's what it does seem to be an abbreviation of, so is not mysterio= us > as to its meaning. > The only usage of {le} I can mostly see is something like an abbreviation of {lo bi'unai}. But this {lo co'e voi'i} seems strange. if voi'i is the non-veridical NOI, then what is veridical? At what point bear goo stops being a bear? I don't know about lei or le'i or le'e -- all those lV(')V gadri should, as > Nick Nicholas would say, die in the arse. > > --And. > > -- > 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. > --=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/d/optout. --001a11c34e686d16bb05042240d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:


On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote= :
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com= > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or so= mething else to do with specificity?
>>
>> The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
>
> Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speak= er has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have speci= fic referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents.

I don't know what having "nonspecific refere= nts" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the descript= ion, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, = e.g. a generic?

> Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the pr= edicate "x1 is/are certain x2".=C2=A0

"x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss= .

>> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le b= roda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonve= ridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that = in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} i= tself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningful= ly?
>
> I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci b= oys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing a= ll those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" an= d such.

I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u= , zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'= ;o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?=

I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend w= hat {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different?
I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possible worlds to real = world:=C2=A0http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=3DELG._Sub= junctives,_imaginary_situations

Other than that I m against repu= rposing any cmavo since this is not a conlang project but a live language.<= /div>
You can remove CV, CVi and CVu not supported by usage for now fro= m CLL 2.0.

>> The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the= identificatory function of the relative clause.
>>
>> In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory= clause (voi'i).
>
> I think I would rather have a predicate that meant "certain"= instead of a gadri for specificity. Or at least we could define "le&q= uot; in terms of that predicate.

{le} might or might not be a worthwhile abbreviation = for {lo co'e voi'i}, but that's what it does seem to be an abbr= eviation of, so is not mysterious as to its meaning.

T= he only usage of {le} I can mostly see is something like an abbreviation of= {lo bi'unai}.
But this {lo co'e voi'i} seems strange. if v= oi'i is the non-veridical NOI, then what is veridical? At what point be= ar goo stops being a bear?

I don't know about lei or le'i or le'e -- all those lV(= 9;)V gadri should, as Nick Nicholas would say, die in the arse.

--And.

--
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/d/optout.

--
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.
--001a11c34e686d16bb05042240d6--