Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e;
Message-ID: <54FE2B04.8070302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:21:40 +0100
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {detri}
References: <54FD915D.4060607@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2fwiV0-UGm41j43Tg8hmP38eai8hg5+bgceJdBiT0qb_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fwiV0-UGm41j43Tg8hmP38eai8hg5+bgceJdBiT0qb_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------020805020104010408070505"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020805020104010408070505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 09/03/2015 22:48, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com=20
> <mailto:ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     =E2=80=A2 { .i detri fa li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re mu }
>     =E2=80=A2 { li pa no pi'e vo no cu tcika fo mi }
>
>     However, does the {detri} sentence actually have the intended
>     meaning? Isn't {me'o} more appropriate than {li} for expressing dates=
?
>
>
> I think dates (and times) are coordinates in a one-dimensional time=20
> axis, so I think {li} is right. Coordinates are numbers, not=20
> expressions. So for example the expressions "2008-05-25" and "May 25,=20
> 2008" both refer to the same date, even though they are different=20
> expressions (different me'o, same li).

So, according to you, {detri} is a relation between a timestamp / time=20
address, and an event? This would be an useful predicate indeed, but=20
that seems to be very different from the relation described in the Gimste.
If {detri} has the meaning you're suggesting, then another predicate is=20
necessary for relating a date structure to an event using a specific=20
calendar system, or to convert a date structure into a timestamp / pure=20
number address.

>     In sentences such as { detri fa li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re mu
>     }, it seems that the date expression "2008:5:25" is first
>     evaluated into a pure number (using some unspecified base),
>
>     and then given to detri-x1, in which case detri-x4 seems to become
>     completely useless, as it cannot be applied to any numeric
>     expression (as all is given to it as input is a pure number). {
>     detri fa li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re mu fo ko'a } would then be
>     about as meaningful as { li ze no no no no no cu detri fo ko'a }.
>
>
> I take detri4 (or detri3 rather, since I take detri to have only three=20
> places) as the reference frame, not a place to indicate how to read=20
> the expression used to refer to the detri1. Basically it should tell=20
> you what the origin and the units are. How to read the li-expression=20
> is something that one must already know. Just as one knows that in "li=20
> pa no" the first digit is for tens and the second for units, one=20
> should know that in "li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re mu" the digits=20
> show year-month-day. If you are using some non-standard or not=20
> well-known notation to refer to a date, you would have to explain it,=20
> but basically in the same way you would have to explain any=20
> non-standard expression you use to refer to anything else. I think we=20
> need to keep the date separate from the words used to refer to it.=20
> detri1 is the date, not the words used to refer to it. You could use a=20
> different expression like "la'o gy May 25, 2008 gy" to refer to the=20
> same date that "li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re no" refers to.
You seem to invest {li} with a great power, greater than what I'd have=20
expected. It seems that all we know is that {li} is provided with a=20
numeric expression, that it must returns a pure number, but that the=20
function/algorithm for interpreting the numeric expression is entirely=20
left to the context (and there's no way to explicitly provide one using=20
{li}). So much more than merely the numeric base is left to the context,=20
it seems.

If so, it becomes difficult to explicitly express which calendar system=20
to use for evaluating the li-expression; it seems to me that the speaker=20
would need to use an appropriate predicate for precisely stating how to=20
interpret the expression, and avoid using {li}.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


--=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.

--------------020805020104010408070505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Type=
">
  </head>
  <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    <br>
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 09/03/2015 22:48, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite=3D"mid:CAO7tK2fwiV0-UGm41j43Tg8hmP38eai8hg5+bgceJdBiT0qb_g@mail.gmail.=
com"
      type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr"><br>
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">
          <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Ilmen
            <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
                href=3D"mailto:ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">i=
lmen.pokebip@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>
            wrote:
            <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-=
style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> <br>
                =E2=80=A2 { .i detri fa li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re mu }=
<br>
                =E2=80=A2 { li pa no pi'e vo no cu tcika fo mi }<br>
                <br>
                However, does the {detri} sentence actually have the
                intended meaning? Isn't {me'o} more appropriate than
                {li} for expressing dates?<br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>I think dates (and times) are coordinates in a
              one-dimensional time axis, so I think {li} is right.
              Coordinates are numbers, not expressions. So for example
              the expressions "2008-05-25" and "May 25, 2008" both refer
              to the same date, even though they are different
              expressions (different me'o, same li).</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    So, according to you, {detri} is a relation between a timestamp /
    time address, and an event? This would be an useful predicate
    indeed, but that seems to be very different from the relation
    described in the Gimste.<br>
    If {detri} has the meaning you're suggesting, then another predicate
    is necessary for relating a date structure to an event using a
    specific calendar system, or to convert a date structure into a
    timestamp / pure number address.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite=3D"mid:CAO7tK2fwiV0-UGm41j43Tg8hmP38eai8hg5+bgceJdBiT0qb_g@mail.gmail.=
com"
      type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">
          <div class=3D"gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-=
style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> In sentences such
                as { detri fa li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re mu }, it
                seems that the date expression "2008:5:25" is first
                evaluated into a pure number (using some unspecified
                base),=C2=A0</div>
            </blockquote>
            <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-=
style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">and then given to
                detri-x1, in which case detri-x4 seems to become
                completely useless, as it cannot be applied to any
                numeric expression (as all is given to it as input is a
                pure number). { detri fa li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re
                mu fo ko'a } would then be about as meaningful as { li
                ze no no no no no cu detri fo ko'a }.<br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>I take detri4 (or detri3 rather, since I take detri to
              have only three places) as the reference frame, not a
              place to indicate how to read the expression used to refer
              to the detri1. Basically it should tell you what the
              origin and the units are. How to read the li-expression is
              something that one must already know. Just as one knows
              that in "li pa no" the first digit is for tens and the
              second for units, one should know that in "li re no no bi
              pi'e mu pi'e re mu" the digits show year-month-day. If you
              are using some non-standard or not well-known notation to
              refer to a date, you would have to explain it, but
              basically in the same way you would have to explain any
              non-standard expression you use to refer to anything else.
              I think we need to keep the date separate from the words
              used to refer to it. detri1 is the date, not the words
              used to refer to it. You could use a different expression
              like "la'o gy May 25, 2008 gy" to refer to the same date
              that "li re no no bi pi'e mu pi'e re no" refers to.<br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    You seem to invest {li} with a great power, greater than what I'd
    have expected. It seems that all we know is that {li} is provided
    with a numeric expression, that it must returns a pure number, but
    that the function/algorithm for interpreting the numeric expression
    is entirely left to the context (and there's no way to explicitly
    provide one using {li}). So much more than merely the numeric base
    is left to the context, it seems.<br>
    <br>
    If so, it becomes difficult to explicitly express which calendar
    system to use for evaluating the li-expression; it seems to me that
    the speaker would need to use an appropriate predicate for precisely
    stating how to interpret the expression, and avoid using {li}.<br>
    <br>
    mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--------------020805020104010408070505--