Received: from mail-lb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.217.189]:39600) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XnD9P-0000bA-6D for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:34 -0800 Received: by mail-lb0-f189.google.com with SMTP id f15sf449731lbj.16 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:20 -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=/Gsm9XSglWrUUQNQtOEIzvkw39c9N9VfFvFxRb2gswo=; b=RQM57grS1tU7uv/OEMtJtEkihak/MhnekK2wRy9EL10Wb5nG+JETyD4UZYfn2cwOs0 EHNojAMUsXVlZQ4f1e7BcxExYaS1ux5q5ZrjobQ+T4D3ktSleTulpiuSJvL3QY7oegXA NsItjWsRNzrmFZ2T/lt5tS8p6NdVCxzifVe3AiagKpekZTSkLTXC6DpBZn7bm9jniuTj P9E4dkdpZ6MkVp1P48UPCgPlGmlwyYrjEdHg4gOm0htBe0qyfVCkMG/rjNhxgK+Ms739 01mVQXLrRQHImEporgpe1KaOlMdFoODFUaDTUT45J1HdH5k4vWb+l9BMlC/7ku8wpT5E hz2Q== X-Received: by 10.180.198.36 with SMTP id iz4mr54111wic.4.1415480540022; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:20 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.95.165 with SMTP id dl5ls729000wib.6.gmail; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.182.164 with SMTP id ef4mr2098904wic.0.1415480539319; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l4si328389wif.2.2014.11.08.13.02.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b; Received: by mail-wi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id r20so7369913wiv.10 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.188.69 with SMTP id fy5mr17146211wic.57.1415480539200; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 13:02:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141108171036.GA10866@gonzales> References: <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales> <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales> <20141108030052.GC8542@gonzales> <20141108171036.GA10866@gonzales> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 18:02:18 -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::22b 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=001a11c381eeb9c33a05075f3e77 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c381eeb9c33a05075f3e77 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Saturday, 2014-11-08 at 11:28 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > > 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) > > I read CLL as explicitly claiming a relation between events > corresponding to the two sides, not leaving one of them up to context > like this. So I read it as having > (3') {[tag] le nu broda kei brode} (tense) > {[tag] le nu brode kei broda} (non-tense) > Agreed, but that means the role of the brode event for tenses and the broda event for non-tenses is left up to context, since the tag only guarantees the x1 role of its underlying relation. Of course for many tags the role for the other event will often also be quite obvious, but it's not a part of the general logic of tags. With (3) I wanted to indicate that, but (3') also works. > CLL analyzes the relatively easy cases (causals) where the tag-claim > > presupposes the subordinate claims in any case, > > Implies rather than presupposes, I'd say (the distinction matters in > embedded contexts). > OK. In any case, something that may apply to a particular tag but not to another. Because CLL only considers such cases, I think in the non-tense case we > can feasibly read it as only claiming (2) and (3'), with (1) being an > implication of (3') in the cases it considers. > I suppose we could, but it doesn't feel right. Reading its account of the distinction between 9:7.1 and 9:7.7, where > the former is of form (3') and the latter is a non-tense connection, it > seems quite clearly to be saying that all it adds to (3') is a claim > of form (2). > Yes, I agree CLL seems to be saying that, although the distinction it makes in that particular example seems rather tenuous. > 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). > > This doesn't work with (3'), and hence not with CLL as I'm reading it. > (3') gives: ba'i lo nu mi stali lo zdani kei mi na klama lo zarci With replacement my staying at home: it is not the case that: I go to the market. I don't think it's too unreasonable for ba'i to provide a relation such that basti1 relates to the negation of basti2 rather than to basti2 directly, since this relation has to be contextual anyway. So I wouldn't say it doesn't work with (3'), at worst it takes more work than just assuming that "lo nu mi na klama lo zarci" has to take the basti2 role. > 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. > > Meanwhile with (1)+(2)+(3'), this definition of {ba'i} gives an > immediate contradiction between (1) and (3'). > And here we have no escape because the role of lo nu mi na klama lo zarci has to be basti2. > 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. > > Yes. Another option, if we do want to keep (1), which given the surface > form would I agree be nice, would be to take it as part of the semantics > of non-tense tags that {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implies {broda}. That > would rule out this use of {ba'i} entirely. > Or we could still have {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implying {broda}, but then (3') not always equivalent to (3) and it would be plain (3), or possibly (3'') lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu brode (for tense tags) lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu broda (for non-tense tags) that expands the tag connective. There doesn't seem to be a strong reason to disallow (a). > 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 C= LL > > (I would prefer it rather made two.) > > > > How many independent claims does "broda .i [jek tag] bo brode" make, an= d > > 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". > > Evidence in CLL is very slim for non-je tensed logical connections. The > only example I know of is the rather strained {mi bevri le dakli .ebake > le gerku .acabo le mlatu} (10:17). I think what's there reads most > naturally as being a case of "TT-skimming" as described earlier, but > I don't think it's enough to force this interpretation. > I don't remember the details of TT-skimming. Was it something like that the tag only kicks in when both connectands are true, and is otherwise ignored? > > > > > 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 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 > > I don't see that this helps at all. Now I have to ask: if ko'e is > a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ko'i fasnu ba ko'e} mean? > Oh, I see I didn't expand it enough. OK: ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu ,i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu ;i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci .i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani 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. --001a11c381eeb9c33a05075f3e77 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
* Saturday, 2014-11-08 at 11:28 -0300 - Jorge Llam= b=C3=ADas <jjl= lambias@gmail.com>:

> 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]=C2=A0 (for tense tags)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag]=C2=A0 (for non-tense= tags)

I read CLL as explicitly claiming a relation between events
corresponding to the two sides, not leaving one of them up to context
like this. So I read it as having
(3') {[tag] le nu broda kei brode} (tense)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0{[tag] le nu brode kei broda} (non-tense)

Agreed, but that means the role of the brode event f= or tenses and the broda event for non-tenses is left up to context, since t= he tag only guarantees the x1 role of its underlying relation. Of course fo= r many tags the role for the other event will often also be quite obvious, = but it's not a part of the general logic of tags. With (3) I wanted to = indicate that, but (3') also works.

> CLL analyzes the relatively easy cases (causals) where the tag-claim > presupposes the subordinate claims in any case,

Implies rather than presupposes, I'd say (the distinction matter= s in
embedded contexts).

OK. In any case, so= mething that may apply to a particular tag but not to another. =C2=A0
=

Because CLL only considers such cases, I think in the non-tense case we
can feasibly read it as only claiming (2) and (3'), with (1) being an implication of (3') in the cases it considers.
I suppose we could, but it doesn't feel right.=C2=A0
<= div>
Reading its account of the distinction between 9:7.1 and 9:7.7, where
the former is of form (3') and the latter is a non-tense connection, it=
seems quite clearly to be saying that all it adds to (3') is a claim of form (2).

Yes, I agree CLL seems to = be saying that, although the distinction it makes in that particular exampl= e seems rather tenuous.=C2=A0

> but this may be problematic for other tags such as "se ba'i&q= uot; or "se
> cau", where the negation of one of the subordinate claims would h= ave
> to be presupposed. So for example:
>
>=C2=A0 (a)=C2=A0 =C2=A0mi na klama lo zarci .i ba'i bo mi stali lo = zdani
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I don't go to the market. Instead, I st= ay 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 z= arci)
>
> That works fine, because the change from "na" to "ja= 9;a" is not part of
> anything explicit in (3).

This doesn't work with (3'), and hence not with CLL as I'= ;m reading it.

(3') gives:

=C2=A0ba'i lo nu mi stali lo zdani kei mi na klama lo = zarci =C2=A0
=C2=A0With replacement my staying at home: it is not= the case that: I go to the market.

I don't th= ink it's too unreasonable for ba'i to provide a relation such that = basti1 relates to the negation of basti2 rather than to basti2 directly, si= nce this relation has to be contextual anyway. So I wouldn't say it doe= sn't work with (3'), at worst it takes more work than just assuming= that "lo nu mi na klama lo zarci" has to take the basti2 role.

> But what if we wanted to say "mi stali lo zdani" first. Do w= e say:
>
> (b)=C2=A0 =C2=A0mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi klama lo zarci<= br> >
> (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)=C2=A0 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)= =C2=A0 (?!)
>
> Neither (b) nor (c) seems to work well with (1), (2), (3), so we eithe= r
> have to discard (2), amend (3) somehow.

Meanwhile with (1)+(2)+(3'), this definition of {ba'i} gives= an
immediate contradiction between (1) and (3').

=
And here we have no escape because the role of lo nu mi na klama= lo zarci has to be basti2.=C2=A0

> or dictate that tags like "se ba'i" don't make sense= as bridi
> connectives. CLL says that tags like "bau" don't make mu= ch sense,
> which is reasonable because a bridi doesn't really describe
> a language, but if "se ba'i" were not to make sense it w= ould be for
> a very different reason.

Yes. Another option, if we do want to keep (1), which given the surf= ace
form would I agree be nice, would be to take it as part of the semantics of non-tense tags that {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implies {broda}. That
would rule out this use of {ba'i} entirely.

Or we could still have {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implying {broda}, b= ut then (3') not always equivalent to (3) and it would be plain (3), or= possibly

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

that expands the tag connective. There doesn't se= em to be a strong reason to disallow (a).

> 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 acc= ording to CLL
> (I would prefer it rather made two.)
>
> How many independent claims does "broda .i [jek tag] bo brode&quo= t; make, and
> what is it or what are they?
>
> I'd like it to make just one claim, the jek-logical connection bet= ween (1)
> and (3) above. CLL seems to say that it makes two independent claims:<= br> > "broda .i [jek] brode" and (3). But this doesn't work ve= ry well when "jek"
> is anything other than "je".

Evidence in CLL is very slim for non-je tensed logical connections. = The
only example I know of is the rather strained {mi bevri le dakli .ebake
le gerku .acabo le mlatu} (10:17). I think what's there reads most
naturally as being a case of "TT-skimming" as described earlier, = but
I don't think it's enough to force this interpretation.

I don't remember the details of TT-skimming. W= as it something like that the tag only kicks in when both connectands are t= rue, and is otherwise ignored?=C2=A0

= > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama = lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-> ca ro nu mi xagji ke= i da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ge da
> > > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fasnu gi ba = da mi klama lo zdani
> >
> 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

I don't see that this helps at all. Now I have to ask: if ko'= ;e is
a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ko'i fasnu ba ko'e} mean?=

Oh, I see I didn't expand it enoug= h. OK:

ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu
<= div>,i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu
;i ko'= i nu ko'o balvi ko'e
.i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
.i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani=C2=A0

mu&#= 39;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.
--001a11c381eeb9c33a05075f3e77--