Received: from mail-la0-f55.google.com ([209.85.215.55]:55406) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWcG-0006I8-N1 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:36 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f55.google.com with SMTP id hz20sf196384lab.20 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:21 -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=YjGZUaIHmzerFSRcCTxxQ9IEb1iCeqxnASpvZwofUvY=; b=p+KQHQdy2qYyJtxgG/kUGtNa0kkiIiPMoDI4th3NMKMJnTWFySQo0d7n0IJ4cWmlBp YsnLUJb0JuCVhodFOLOHed+TA4aGsnjrPAPmH4PRH+Xv4oSlg5BNDE8Kq9P5IGU01C8L ZKs611reoctFvLr1sCg5LUZ9fx9bVRuL3x/X/NVgw6QhXfevlRWqh95+FDa9jXq+DixH 4dVEfZS1j9rQ+HfuLT7ArR1+rOebecHQZNhxtgKUbp03tE1aOmUX6AR0y06rKN28+cFe ByiXi/K2BT4N+cQDKwXLSYWZTmGF9h9ZI62rzAVEI27OL0sAEe6SqhAo5DMfy34nmr49 57SQ== X-Received: by 10.180.90.51 with SMTP id bt19mr25967wib.19.1413648741243; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.83.38 with SMTP id n6ls101917wiy.52.gmail; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.75.133 with SMTP id c5mr877243wiw.3.1413648740677; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ca20si127088wib.3.2014.10.18.09.12.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235; Received: by mail-wi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id hi2so3327987wib.8 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.84.194 with SMTP id b2mr7005583wiz.57.1413648740555; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales> References: <20141011143749.GD23876@gonzales> <20141012012427.GF23876@gonzales> <20141012173533.GG23876@gonzales> <20141014010742.GF19061@gonzales> <20141015005542.GC3713@gonzales> <20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:12:20 -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 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 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=f46d04426b9804a35b0505b4bfd5 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d04426b9804a35b0505b4bfd5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > I don't see it that way at all. It's the same rule. It's just that the > rule is applying to the implicit sub-bridi of the description clause; in > general it applies to the immediately enclosing bridi (just like any > other bridi operator, e.g. tenses). > > (I'm not particularly happy with this "bridi" and "sub-bridi" > terminology, btw, though I hope you can see what I mean by it; feel free > to suggest alternatives) > Well, we know for sure how the operator "ko'a .e ko'e" operates when it occupies the place of an argument of an atomic predicate: It outputs the conjuntion of the two atomic formulas created by using "ko'a" and "ko'e" respectively as the argument of the atomic predicate. When "ko'a .e ko'e" occupies some other place (e.g. the argument of a function LAhE) we cannot apply the above rule directly. We need to either say how "ko'a .e ko'e" operates when it occupies the argument of an atomic function (which to me implies a new rule, even if the rule is very similar to the rule for when it occupies the place of an atomic predicate) or we can say that there are no atomic functions, all functions are in fact built out of predicates. In this case, we just need to express the function in terms of a predicate, and then apply the rule we already have for "ko'a .e ko'e" as a pseudo-argument of an atomic predicate. > LE [quantifier] [sumti] is interesting. I think I never actually gave > > much thought to "lo re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku" having such a very > > unintuitive parse. > > So it does... I guess to get the "lo (re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku)", you > have to use > lo tu'o boi re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku > ? > I suppose. I guess with ".a" it would make more sense: "lo po'i ga re mei gi'e me lo mlatu gi ci mei gi'e me lo gerku". Perhaps "lo tu'o lo ractu .e lo datka" could describe this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion > I have no idea what the rules for mekso are in detail, so I don't know > > whether for example "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" is supposed to be > > equivalent to "lo sinso be ko'a .e ko'e" or to "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a > > lo'o .e li na'u sinso mo'e ko'e". I would like to say (not too adamantly) > > that it's the first, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e", > but > > you are probably interpreting as the second. > > I am, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e" ;) > > But actually, I don't understand that example. What is the operand > {mo'e ko'a .e ko'e} such that sine of it is something which is sine of > both ko'a and ko'e? > Is "mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" an operand, or just a pseudo-operand (morphologically an operand, but logically not an operand, like "ko'a .e ko'e" is morphologically a sumti, but logically not a sumti)? We cannot claim that the rule for operand-3 always returns true logical operands, in the way that we could claim that sumti-6 (almost) always returns true logical sumti. "gek operand gik operand-3" is an operand-3, for example. So, I would not want to insist that "mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" is a logical operand, and indeed in my example I was not taking it as one. Since sumti and operands are logically the same thing, I was just ignoring "mo'e" and "li", and the question was whether "ko'a .e ko'e" operates on the predicate "sinso" or on the predicate containing the li-clause as its argument. > > > > Do we even know what "na ku zo'u broda .i bo brode" means? > > > I believe it's the same as "na ku ge broda gi brode". > > > > I suppose that's one choice, although it's not a necessity that > > juxtaposition be equated with conjunction, or that the negation of two > > separate propositions has to be the negation of their conjunction. > > Is there a plausible alternative? > Well, I'm not advocating this but we know that "na ku zo'u broda" expresses the negation of the proposition expressed by "broda", so it would not be out of the question to say that "na ku zo'u tu'e broda .i brode tu'u" expresses the negations of both propositions, rather than just the negation of their conjunction. The operator "na ku zo'u" is only well defined when applied to a single proposition. When applied to multiple propositions at once, who knows how we want it to act. Maybe it should be distributive. 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. --f46d04426b9804a35b0505b4bfd5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>= wrote:

I don't see it that way at all. It's the same rule. It's= just that the
rule is applying to the implicit sub-bridi of the description clause; in general it applies to the immediately enclosing bridi (just like any
other bridi operator, e.g. tenses).

(I'm not particularly happy with this "bridi" and "sub-b= ridi"
terminology, btw, though I hope you can see what I mean by it; feel free to suggest alternatives)

Well, we know = for sure how the operator "ko'a .e ko'e" operates when it= occupies the place of an argument of an atomic predicate: It outputs the c= onjuntion of the two atomic formulas created by using "ko'a" = and "ko'e" respectively as the argument of the atomic predica= te.

When "ko'a .e ko'e" occupies= some other place (e.g. the argument of a function LAhE) we cannot apply th= e above rule directly. We need to either say how "ko'a .e ko'e= " operates when it occupies the argument of an atomic function (which = to me implies a new rule, even if the rule is very similar to the rule for = when it occupies the place of an atomic predicate) or we can say that there= are no atomic functions, all functions are in fact built out of predicates= . In this case, we just need to express the function in terms of a predicat= e, and then apply the rule we already have for "ko'a .e ko'e&q= uot; as a pseudo-argument of an atomic predicate.

=
> LE [quantifier] [sumti] is= interesting. I think I never actually gave
> much thought to "lo re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku" having such = a very
> unintuitive parse.

So it does... I guess to get the "lo (re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerk= u)", you
have to use
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 lo tu'o boi re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku
?

I suppose. I = guess with ".a" it would make more sense: "lo po'i ga re= mei gi'e me lo mlatu gi ci mei gi'e me lo gerku".
<= br>
Perhaps "lo tu'o lo ractu .e lo datka" could de= scribe this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion
=

=C2=A0
> I have no idea what the rules for= mekso are in detail, so I don't know
> whether for example "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a .e ko= 9;e" is supposed to be
> equivalent to "lo sinso be ko'a .e ko'e" or to "= ;li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a
> lo'o .e li na'u sinso mo'e ko'e". I would like to= say (not too adamantly)
> that it's the first, which doesn't require an additional rule = for ".e", but
> you are probably interpreting as the second.

I am, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e"= ; ;)

But actually, I don't understand that example. What is the operand
{mo'e ko'a .e ko'e} such that sine of it is something which is = sine of
both ko'a and ko'e?

Is "mo= 'e ko'a .e ko'e" an operand, or just a pseudo-operand (mor= phologically an operand, but logically not an operand, like "ko'a = .e ko'e" is morphologically a sumti, but logically not a sumti)?

We cannot claim that the rule for operand-3 always = returns true logical operands, in the way that we could claim that sumti-6 = (almost) always returns true logical sumti. "gek operand gik operand-3" is an operand-= 3, for example. So, I would not want to insist that "mo'e ko'a .e ko&= #39;e" is a logical operand, and indeed in my example I was not taking= it as one. Since sumti and operands are logically the same thing, I was ju= st ignoring "mo'e" and "li", and the question was w= hether "ko'a .e ko'e" operates on the predicate "sin= so" or on the predicate containing the li-clause as its argument. =C2= =A0
=C2=A0
> > > Do we even know what "na ku zo'u broda .i bo brode&= quot; means?
> > I believe it's the same as "na ku ge broda gi brode"= ;.
>
> I suppose that's one choice, although it's not a necessity tha= t
> juxtaposition be equated with conjunction, or that the negation of two=
> separate propositions has to be the negation of their conjunction.

Is there a plausible alternative?

Well, I'm not a= dvocating this but we know that "na ku zo'u broda" expresses = the negation of the proposition expressed by "broda", so it would= not be out of the question to say that "na ku zo'u tu'e broda= .i brode tu'u" expresses the negations of both propositions, rath= er than just the negation of their conjunction. The operator "na ku zo= 'u" is only well defined when applied to a single proposition. Whe= n applied to multiple propositions at once, who knows how we want it to act= . Maybe it should be distributive.

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.
--f46d04426b9804a35b0505b4bfd5--