Received: from mail-wi0-f183.google.com ([209.85.212.183]:49049) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xn70Y-0005yn-DJ for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:29:03 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f183.google.com with SMTP id hi2sf418585wib.0 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) 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=cDAnELjf0bJQeUIgi5LCII1EjGgcDE6NUjPjiT85//Y=; b=qDyu6nkXHv6AqC6djwH0tqOXhL7EZBYmK69Dd5+gztMrRv9SxNRQiBYdxeeiS64nA1 nhjEAULsPY6VFjOoVv8Grvn/5kqSA3OLPw17El4QsIRn57Rv3obH5fuBj2URjrkC2zKB kjL7ZUm/mf50NVxSpclAK4UbXYz7wBnrRenWfEodahrxgiE+43A1Unqg8oDR6q4kdjjF kxHQ61abutylXnG8kjgDMaA67lGZMO1HGSuyDEvBEQsD7t3OnpYkhjuHkedQQC2FJEKl 19iAnpBxwQU7XktJyz3bmrU3gnVd0r7Ncmr0/BI+4V8ItyII12GK2T5s23X1zt11vUVt 2S7w== X-Received: by 10.180.90.172 with SMTP id bx12mr49151wib.5.1415456927929; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.105.137 with SMTP id gm9ls1103190wib.50.canary; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.61.243 with SMTP id t19mr491969wjr.5.1415456927123; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ed6si273378wib.3.2014.11.08.06.28.47 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f; Received: by mail-wi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id ex7so6845234wid.2 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.169 with SMTP id k9mr14911389wix.34.1415456927013; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:28:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 06:28:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141108030052.GC8542@gonzales> References: <20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales> <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales> <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales> <20141108030052.GC8542@gonzales> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 11:28:46 -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::22f 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=f46d04428d1e545fc0050759bfae X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d04428d1e545fc0050759bfae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Friday, 2014-11-07 at 17:58 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas >: > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas : > > > > I was speculating on what the second proposition would be when a > logical > > > > connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense though. > > > Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with the > > > tense case? > > It's unintuitive for me, it doesn't really fit the surface form. > > I see what you mean. But CLL is clear that brode is claimed, so I'll go > with that. > So following CLL, without logical connectives "broda .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independent claims: (1) broda (2) brode (3) lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] (for tense tags) lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] (for non-tense tags) CLL analyzes the relatively easy cases (causals) where the tag-claim presupposes the subordinate claims in any case, but this may be problematic for other tags such as "se ba'i" or "se cau", where the negation of one of the subordinate claims would have to be presupposed. So for example: (a) mi na klama lo zarci .i ba'i bo mi stali lo zdani I don't go to the market. Instead, I stay home. (a1) mi na klama lo zarci (a2) mi stali lo zdani (a3) lo nu mi stali lo zdani cu basti (lo nu mi (ja'a!) klama lo zarci) That works fine, because the change from "na" to "ja'a" is not part of anything explicit in (3). But what if we wanted to say "mi stali lo zdani" first. Do we say: (b) mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi klama lo zarci (b1) mi stali lo zdani (b2) mi klama lo zarci (?!) (b3) lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani) or do we say: (c) mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi na klama lo zarci (c1) mi stali lo zdani (c2) mi na klama lo zarci (c3) lo nu mi na klama lo zarci cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani) (?!) Neither (b) nor (c) seems to work well with (1), (2), (3), so we either have to discard (2), amend (3) somehow. or dictate that tags like "se ba'i" don't make sense as bridi connectives. CLL says that tags like "bau" don't make much sense, which is reasonable because a bridi doesn't really describe a language, but if "se ba'i" were not to make sense it would be for a very different reason. In any case, all of that applies to ".i [tag] bo". ".i [jek tag] bo" is related, but has to be analyzed separately. "broda .i brode" makes two independent claims. "broda .i [jek] brode" makes one claim. "brode .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independent claims according to CLL (I would prefer it rather made two.) How many independent claims does "broda .i [jek tag] bo brode" make, and what is it or what are they? I'd like it to make just one claim, the jek-logical connection between (1) and (3) above. CLL seems to say that it makes two independent claims: "broda .i [jek] brode" and (3). But this doesn't work very well when "jek" is anything other than "je". > > > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani > > > > > -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ge = da > > > > > fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani > > > > > > > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu fasnu > gi ba > > > > ko'a mi klama lo zdani > > But if ko'a is a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ba ko'a mi > klama lo zdani} mean? > > I understand the original sentence as having multiple pairs of goings, > with a time relationship claimed for each pair. > ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu .i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu ba ko'e .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci .i ko'i nu mi klama lo zdani Every time I'm hungry, X happens. X is Y happening and Z happening after Y Y is my going to the market Z is my going home We could, instead of saying that X, Y and Z happen every time, talk about many different instances such that each happens once, but I think that introduces a lot of (sub)entities that are not obviously there in the original sentence. 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. --f46d04428d1e545fc0050759bfae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
* Friday, 2014-11-07 at 17:58 -0300 - Jorge Llamb= =C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:=C2=A0
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > I was speculating on what the second= proposition would be when a logical
> > > connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense thou= gh.
> > Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with t= he
> > tense case?
> It's unintuitive for me, it doesn't really fit the surface for= m.

I see what you mean. But CLL is clear that brode is claimed, so I= 9;ll go
with that.

So following CLL, without lo= gical connectives "broda .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independe= nt claims:

(1) broda
(2) brode
(3) lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] =C2=A0(for tense tags)
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] =C2=A0(for non-tense tags)
=

CLL analyzes the relatively easy cases (causals) where = the tag-claim presupposes the subordinate claims in any case, but this may = be problematic for other tags such as "se ba'i" or "se c= au", where the negation of one of the subordinate claims would have to= be presupposed. So for example:

=C2=A0(a) =C2=A0 = mi na klama lo zarci .i ba'i bo mi stali lo zdani
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I don't go to the market. Instead, I stay home.
<= div>
(a1) mi na klama lo zarci
(a2) mi stali lo zda= ni
(a3) lo nu mi stali lo zdani cu basti (lo nu mi (ja'a!) kl= ama lo zarci)

That works fine, because the change = from "na" to "ja'a" is not part of anything explici= t in (3). But what if we wanted to say "mi stali lo zdani" first.= Do we say:

(b) =C2=A0 mi stali lo zdani .i se ba&= #39;i bo mi klama lo zarci

(b1) mi stali lo zdani<= /div>
(b2) mi klama lo zarci (?!)
(b3) lo nu mi klama lo zarc= i cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani)
=C2=A0
or do we= say:

(c) =C2=A0mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i b= o mi na klama lo zarci

(c1) mi stali lo zdani
(c2) mi na klama lo zarci
(c3) lo nu mi na klama lo zarci c= u se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani) =C2=A0(?!)

Ne= ither (b) nor (c) seems to work well with (1), (2), (3), so we either have = to discard (2), amend (3) somehow. or dictate that tags like "se ba= 9;i" don't make sense as bridi connectives. CLL says that tags lik= e "bau" don't make much sense, which is reasonable because a = bridi doesn't really describe a language, but if "se ba'i"= ; were not to make sense it would be for a very different reason.

In any case, all of that applies to ".i [tag] bo"= . ".i [jek tag] bo" is related, but has to be analyzed separately= .=C2=A0

"broda .i brode" makes two indep= endent claims.
"broda .i [jek] brode" makes one claim.<= /div>
"brode .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independent claim= s according to CLL (I would prefer it rather made two.)

How many independent claims does "broda .i [jek tag] bo brode&qu= ot; make, and what is it or what are they?=C2=A0

I= 'd like it to make just one claim, the jek-logical connection between (= 1) and (3) above. CLL seems to say that it makes two independent claims: &q= uot;broda .i [jek] brode" and (3). But this doesn't work very well= when "jek" is anything other than "je".=C2=A0


> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo za= rci .e ba bo lo zdani
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi n= u mi klama lo zarci zo'u ge da
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fasnu gi ba da mi klam= a lo zdani
> > >
> > >=C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko= 9;a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu fasnu gi ba
> > > ko'a mi klama lo zdani

But if ko'a is a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ba ko&#= 39;a mi
klama lo zdani} mean?

I understand the original sentence as having multiple pairs of goings,
with a time relationship claimed for each pair.

ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu
.i ko'a nu ge k= o'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu ba ko'e
.i ko'e nu mi kla= ma lo zarci
.i ko'i nu mi klama lo zdani=C2=A0

=
Every time I'm hungry, X happens.
X is Y happening= and Z happening after Y
Y is my going to the market
Z = is my going home

We could, instead of saying that = X, Y and Z happen every time, talk about many different instances such that= each happens once, but I think that introduces a lot of (sub)entities that= are not obviously there in the original sentence.

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.
--f46d04428d1e545fc0050759bfae--