Received: from mail-pa0-f64.google.com ([209.85.220.64]:41557) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XczfE-00059a-Pt for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:37:08 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f64.google.com with SMTP id hz1sf618082pad.9 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:36:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=subject:references:from:in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:mime-version :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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UvMUZK0uzMYzArXf9LSX9XB0EwrSDhOXRilI+XVRQTg=; b=jqe9kXlibDhpw2SvLGhNLuXH72TD8G8dGQGg3VJ4yp+VJFWpAYvTNfzQVHwtnefeHY MsZfjkxHxVeulwBWaZkmIktV3fTQkC9RES1vLkgjl451BbeQV5M+IPHh/89exXTaNPVN 2+lgcoREXimMu9x5t4wqAN4lAhxDXdQ3UKYPXJ5b9h5YgQpcu2gbWeB1PES+1e+fAuoG 1Sv9hhxl7HvjjaT3zHlOY8CXVvvksio0Ymk+wxIMydLCEIl4nA6geZVc+WcCfDKQCoE1 DhGwsqkwYMXsso1Vra4EgRS1LpJ9ktx8v9FJ4IS5avt2/S51vX3L5yRE5GL8Jb3aMd6H N8Wg== X-Received: by 10.140.90.20 with SMTP id w20mr490qgd.24.1413045418592; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.40.232 with SMTP id x95ls1242870qgx.76.gmail; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.25.211 with SMTP id a19mr3506611qac.0.1413045418283; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm26.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm26.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.90.89]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nt9si467241igb.1.2014.10.11.09.36.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.90.89; Received: from [98.138.100.114] by nm26.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Oct 2014 16:36:57 -0000 Received: from [98.138.104.115] by tm105.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Oct 2014 16:36:57 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp224.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Oct 2014 16:36:57 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 798055.44544.bm@smtp224.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 33AxaiUVM1l.d9tVdw3Y92Hxp8VetLmWf7LiD.izq7Xibav RenHlc2cPJVVct.vyM51bdEl6ccIqz5FI5Wm7dI3DmvLYmE1Sh5tmAfA76XW Xh7Vhk_h2.MjTt8zQoI1g8vfvj9cP5EzImyoHTXtYkElqkdJiUQqR3AYR0o3 aob5odB7VjcrRz4fbep65L0HbhWS1V8h6AwUVACCR2q4sx7kQK9Lfe0ZlJwu yeFvmWdFzaT.i61hNpN3Uz.tTqi5U4h5c4wFMauXAtpgiNs_cRb.sFuvs30U Wta46yfwrlWf8j.44l5zNpGtm983jJqjsUGH.u5aEz_WjGn0a8fP3PsB8uyy i8iYWGDCyqjxN3R5_E95m10PWr_JNEDLhKcjhahJH3cBinb0EshLUt021fBf PyRqPN_luro5LXLY2iCyGgklE7YsB23s0se6fxkkouzIXRDH03UHwsV1EOhW WSVNhsvclD7KyJSKz3FVwbeDF2RTUouAMZDmweRkTtnoZmmzhgU3EUs3o0oy tZfA0q7KcT.uoUU7cKSO8MtbUjwMGEBWxg1DeoGct.AiyLAerS.9v9V9mDyU PAlZwJTOxkVMYxKeGwsBQ_Q.GEu92ScrM61GB8BkFj34H0e.p.D1KrNL6v8P _ZLb71wgq7NyUw6xh3cN3gzZT2qgRS3KYIqPKi89IJ9PwKUTShrl4Avsg5UH RsL0ngLVF0qFrzybbdQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <1412802488.55250.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412861205.15295.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412871334.88429.YahooMailNeo@web181106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412904403.17231.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412944837.7070.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412988188.73626.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <8449E7EF-03E6-426D-8E50-CF40F2D867F4@yahoo.com> From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) In-Reply-To: <8449E7EF-03E6-426D-8E50-CF40F2D867F4@yahoo.com> Message-Id: <9B87F5DA-459A-4155-98ED-CD101E660420@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 11:37:02 -0500 To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.89 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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: , X-Original-From: "John E. Clifford" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4E5FD07F-2244-4474-B40B-4FEB177546DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.5 X-Spam_score_int: -4 X-Spam_bar: / --Apple-Mail-4E5FD07F-2244-4474-B40B-4FEB177546DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Okay, I'm starting to see a point (maybe not the point) to this. Since Loj= ban uses static grammars it cannot draw transformational generalizations fr= om cases, but rather has to make each case separately and claim and argue f= or equivalence some other way. Given the a reasonable case that {xxx poi [= ke'a] broda ko'a} is equivalent to {lo broda be ko'a} it needs a device to = make a similar claim for {xxx poi ko'a broda ke'a}, when {lo poi'i ko'a bro= da ke'a}, with a new, transparent, type of bridi based predicate. The direc= t analogy, {lo be ko'a broda ke'a}, which equally clear, is excluded by the= static grammar, although it has the appropriate logical form. Obviously, = given my druthers, I would allow this form as logically (and grammatically,= too) simpler, but I am not at all sure of the ramifications for the static= grammar. (It is interesting to see some further uses for those obnoxious {= be}s though.) But there is a danger in thinking that the English form is going to guide u= s aright. "What I want for Christmas" as "What I have in my hand" or even = "What I know" and so {xxx poi mi djica tu'a ke'a} and so {lo poi'i mi djica= tu'a ke'a} or {lo be mi djica tu'a ke'a}, however normally formed they mig= ht turn out to be, are probably not the right logical form (though I haven'= t a very good idea what is), it's the old problem of nonexistents again (t= here aren't any pink unicorns). But those are going to be problems all the= way up to the logic level. Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2014, at 10:22, "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" wrote: > We are back to the why of all this. Why keep proposing replacements for p= erfectly good forms if you acknowledge they are perfectly good? If you are = just seeking some way of dealing with cases that are more difficult, why n= ot start by building on the easy cases, rather than on some more complex fo= rms that may do the same work? Your difficult example involves so many log= ically (and Lojbanically) questionable moves that it can scarcely be used a= s an argument for a differ approach without a number of intervening steps j= ustifying each move past an obstacle. To good from a hypothetical version o= f a clear case to acclaim to have dealt with a difficult and questionable o= ne is not very convincing. >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:20, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrot= e: >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:39 AM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban wrote: >>=20 >> I got to wondering about "What I think John knows is possible", ignoring= the extra problems of cognitive predicates and using / for the descriptor,= since typefaces keep confusing LC ell with one and uc i. P /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)= ), which Is not going to convert easily, as you say. >>=20 >> Actually, the English is ambiguous, but my example was just a referring = term, not a complete formula: /x(Bi/y(^Kj/z(^Px^z)^y) if I understand the= notation correctly. I suppose you just read the English and not the Lojban= forms, which didn't share that ambiguity: >>=20 >> lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki >> xxx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki >> zo'e noi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki >>=20 >> =20 >> But that is no reason to disparage cases that do convert easily. =20 >>=20 >> We're not disparaging the more ergonomic forms, they are used all the t= ime.=20 >>=20 >> Indeed, it makes me inclined to doubt the legitimacy of the form itself = (quantifying in and all that). >>=20 >> What would it mean that it was illegitimate? It wouldn't mean anything, = or it would mean something else? >>=20 >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >>=20 >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n 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= 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. --Apple-Mail-4E5FD07F-2244-4474-B40B-4FEB177546DB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Okay, I'm starting to see= a point (maybe not the point) to this.  Since Lojban uses static gram= mars it cannot draw transformational generalizations from cases, but rather= has to make each case separately and claim and argue for equivalence some = other way.  Given the a reasonable case that {xxx poi [ke'a] broda ko'= a} is equivalent to {lo broda be ko'a} it needs a device to make a similar = claim for {xxx poi ko'a broda ke'a}, when {lo poi'i ko'a broda ke'a}, with = a new, transparent, type of bridi based predicate. The direct analogy, {lo = be ko'a broda ke'a}, which equally clear, is excluded by the static grammar= , although it has the appropriate logical form.  Obviously, given my d= ruthers, I would allow this form as logically (and grammatically, too) simp= ler, but I am not at all sure of the ramifications for the static grammar. = (It is interesting to see some further uses for those obnoxious {be}s thoug= h.)
But there is a danger in thinking that the English form is go= ing to guide us aright.  "What I want for Christmas" as "What I have i= n my hand" or even "What I know" and so {xxx poi mi djica tu'a ke'a} and so= {lo poi'i mi djica tu'a ke'a} or {lo be mi djica tu'a ke'a}, however norma= lly formed they might turn out to be, are probably not the right logical fo= rm (though I haven't a very good idea what is),  it's the old problem = of nonexistents again (there aren't any pink unicorns).  But those are= going to be problems all the way up to the logic level.

Sent from m= y iPad

On Oct 11, 2014, at 10:22, "'John E. Clifford' via loj= ban" <lojban@googlegroups.com= > wrote:

We are back to the why of all this. Why keep proposing replacements for pe= rfectly good forms if you acknowledge they are perfectly good? If you are j= ust seeking some way of dealing with cases  that are more difficult, w= hy not start by building on the easy cases, rather than on some more comple= x forms that may do the same work?  Your difficult example involves so= many logically (and Lojbanically) questionable moves that it can scarcely = be used as an argument for a differ approach without a number of intervenin= g steps justifying each move past an obstacle. To good from a hypothetical = version of a clear case to acclaim to have dealt with a difficult and quest= ionable one is not very convincing.

Sent from my iPad

= On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:20, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

=


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:39 AM, 'John E= . Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote= :

I = got to wondering about "What I think John knows is possible", ignoring the = extra problems of cognitive predicates and using / for the descriptor, sinc= e typefaces keep confusing LC ell with one and uc i. P /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)), wh= ich Is not going to convert easily, as you say.

Actually, the English is ambiguous, but my example= was just a referring term, not a complete formula:  /x(Bi/y(^Kj/z(^Px= ^z)^y)  if I understand the notation correctly. I suppose you just rea= d the English and not the Lojban forms, which didn't share that ambiguity:<= /div>

  lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cum= ki
  x= xx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki
  zo'e noi mi jin= vi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki

 
 B= ut that is no reason to disparage cases that do convert easily.  

 We're not disparaging = the more ergonomic forms, they are used all the time. 

<= /div>
Indeed, it makes = me inclined to doubt the legitimacy of the form itself (quantifying in and = all that).

What would it= mean that it was illegitimate? It wouldn't mean anything, or it would mean= something else?

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 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.

--
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+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.

--
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.
--Apple-Mail-4E5FD07F-2244-4474-B40B-4FEB177546DB--