Received: from mail-wg0-f56.google.com ([74.125.82.56]:39568) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XcL66-0002a4-F0 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:18:11 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f56.google.com with SMTP id y10sf203076wgg.11 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:59 -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=QgZQYa0wAjSDkI8QoH7+GZWtAQxrYuzAWxTM8BtIslY=; b=YsXrGFZt1bQ6AAFBN6E7mYBFwWP/VauEXdAaBTi0ZiTr/z/jBOYczjBwfpyJ3WcTBi o/Llhdaw0sGhTrdZf7tNAsPxs3PIvK2GRJBe4M7PLI5aq8FoZsY8g+f9DC1Tsh0zNCrW PLPxKqGp0fgKAvBxOAEY8MiS/DrWzyu5v+6mgPErcXIY3GDfoiFD/OWSB9kdl2DhOnCS bQdya4GXd6oGab/kWU3byluyUZ4CJUQbQvLKhNmRq6UC+MYUGfb+/UM7kYxfIwshX1Aa PtcqQlULMiqRc74cCu6WXp1zwCO9yfaFw7vhzcD4nlZTcJbbGuVh0Jc6uK2baYrU00gI 6gpg== X-Received: by 10.152.43.4 with SMTP id s4mr854lal.42.1412889479283; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.21.193 with SMTP id x1ls224578lae.53.gmail; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.6.138 with SMTP id b10mr33307lba.18.1412889478388; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si18782lbc.1.2014.10.09.14.17.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::231; Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id w7so1932574lbi.8 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.142.104 with SMTP id rv8mr14369lbb.59.1412889478281; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.176 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141009010533.GF18854@gonzales> References: <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales> <20141006025048.GE1974@gonzales> <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales> <20141009010533.GF18854@gonzales> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:17:58 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 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 2a00:1450:4010:c04::231 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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3783e75c02b050503f7c8 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c3783e75c02b050503f7c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Wednesday, 2014-10-08 at 19:09 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > I do worry about JOI, though. I agree it would be bizarre to have > qualifiers opaque but non-logical connectives transparent. But opaque > readings of non-logical connectives seem to tend toward the bizarre. > Moreover, there isn't always an easy way to get at the transparent > meanings. > jo'u, fa'u, and perhaps ce'o, are the only ones I use. I agree they don't seem particularly useful with quantifier/connective arguments. > Arguably {fa'u} has no business being in JOI anyway, so perhaps that > isn't a good example. > Right, I don't know what broda would make "ko'a fa'u ko'e" equivalent to "lo broda be ko'a bei ko'e". "fa'u" doesn't seem to have the ordinary logic of JOIs. ro bebna joi ro prije cu bebna > (here both readings have meanings, very different) > The opaque reading is quite weird. I get: "zo'e noi ro da poi bebna zo'u ro de poi prije zo'u ke'a gunma da jo'u de cu bebna" ko kargau lo vorme ta'i lo nu batke me'o ci ce'o me'o pa ce'o me'o > xa .a me'o bi to mi na morji > (here I'm not sure what the opaque meaning would be - some superposition > of the two sequences?) > batke or catke? Both kind of make sense, but not quite. Also, you probably didn't mean ((me'o ci ce'o me'o pa) ce'o me'o xa) .a me'o bi, which is the default grouping, and which would be transparent either way. So you'd want a "ke" there. > Meanwhile, I had a quick look for usage. I found nothing relevant using > the corpus search (even for {tu'a}), but I found this example on the > BPFK "Indirect Referers" section: > > > lu'a A ku'a B du lu'a A e B > > A member of the intersection of A and B is a member of A and of B. > > That seems to require a transparent {lu'a}. > I'd say the opposite. The opaque reading is correct: lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du zo'e noi ge ke'a cmima A gi ke'a cmima B But the transparent reading: lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du lo cmima be A .ije lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du lo cmima be B is false or at least not clearly true. It fails in general with maximal "lo", and with non-maximal it doesn't work as a definition. > > Good. But then is it worth making "li cy" differ from "cy"? > > Well... I understand the main intention of mekso to be for reading off > mathematical formulae. If you're talking in maths about some constant > 'c', you don't want it to suddenly become a bird because you happened to > remark on the view from the window... In other words, it seems healthy > to keep the mekso world mostly separate from the main bridi world, with > specific mechanisms like {li} and {mo'e} needed to connect the two. > I think it would be healthier for mekso to be as integrated as possible into the normal language. That's what happens in natlangs, and we don't want it to happen in a language which is supposed to be so much more precise? Don't we trust ordinary Lojban to be able to handle mekso? mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --001a11c3783e75c02b050503f7c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
* Wednesday, 2014-10-08 at 19:09 -0300 - Jorge Lla= mb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com= >:

I do worry about JOI, though. I agree it would be bizarre to have
qualifiers opaque but non-logical connectives transparent. But opaque
readings of non-logical connectives seem to tend toward the bizarre.
Moreover, there isn't always an easy way to get at the transparent
meanings.

jo'u, fa'u, and perha= ps ce'o, are the only ones I use. I agree they don't seem particula= rly useful with quantifier/connective arguments.


Arguably {fa'u} has no business being in JOI anyway, so perhaps that isn't a good example.

Right, I don&= #39;t know what broda would make "ko'a fa'u ko'e" equ= ivalent to "lo broda be ko'a bei ko'e". "fa'u&qu= ot; doesn't seem to have the ordinary logic of JOIs.
=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ro bebna joi ro prije cu bebna
(here both readings have meanings, very different)
The opaque reading is quite weird. I get: "zo'e noi ro= da poi bebna zo'u ro de poi prije zo'u ke'a gunma da jo'u = de cu bebna"=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ko kargau lo vorme ta'i lo nu batke me'o ci ce'o = me'o pa ce'o me'o
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 xa .a me'o bi to mi na morji
(here I'm not sure what the opaque meaning would be - some superpositio= n
of the two sequences?)

batke or catke? = Both kind of make sense, but not quite.

Also, you = probably didn't mean ((me'o ci ce'o me'o pa) ce'o me= 9;o xa) .a me'o bi, which is the default grouping, and which would be t= ransparent either way. So you'd want a "ke" there.
=

Meanwhile, I had a quick look for usage. I found nothing relevant using
the corpus search (even for {tu'a}), but I found this example on the BPFK "Indirect Referers" section:

> lu'a A ku'a B du lu'a A e B
> A member of the intersection of A and B is a member of A and of B.

That seems to require a transparent {lu'a}.

I'd say the opposite. The opaque reading is correct:

=C2=A0 lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du zo'e noi ge ke= 9;a cmima A gi ke'a cmima B

But the transparen= t reading:

=C2=A0 lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du l= o cmima be A .ije lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du lo cmima be B
is false or at least not clearly true. It fails in general wit= h maximal "lo", and with non-maximal it doesn't work as a def= inition.

=C2=A0
> Good. But then is it worth making "li cy" differ from "= cy"?

Well... I understand the main intention of mekso to be for reading o= ff
mathematical formulae. If you're talking in maths about some constant 'c', you don't want it to suddenly become a bird because you ha= ppened to
remark on the view from the window... In other words, it seems healthy
to keep the mekso world mostly separate from the main bridi world, with
specific mechanisms like {li} and {mo'e} needed to connect the two.
=

I think it would be healthier for mekso to= be as integrated as possible into the normal language. That's what hap= pens in natlangs, and we don't want it to happen in a language which is= supposed to be so much more precise? Don't we trust ordinary Lojban to= be able to handle mekso?

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.
--001a11c3783e75c02b050503f7c8--