Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jmive <mcdonohe@mail.gvsu.edu>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <6f660247-6db6-4854-88be-08a0a8674eb8n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABM8VqdzVM2w3mXgUcZG6uqkBy-Q+LY5dRre-edXHu3+n_Cc5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8947d7eb-5621-4b69-b047-ed3da665fcafo@googlegroups.com>
 <5ed45849-4b31-492b-9dd9-e7425ce33b5bo@googlegroups.com>
 <4f9e3d5a-702f-4201-9309-5eec71516747o@googlegroups.com>
 <d501c8f0-c860-48d2-931d-1c5b2476bf1ao@googlegroups.com>
 <CAMKwHj1Up6x+eqwWW1Sr0Y4PJRLB=PKFL=tCiU-FDwRE7QGztQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ab48c810-ccf1-45ab-8e6b-1e7fd0bf192fo@googlegroups.com>
 <09ceaddd-3561-422a-a4b4-958d6562260co@googlegroups.com>
 <CABM8VqdzVM2w3mXgUcZG6uqkBy-Q+LY5dRre-edXHu3+n_Cc5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Gismu in need of place structure extensions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_226_384807639.1593212208466"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.9
X-Spam_score_int: -28
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_226_384807639.1593212208466
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_227_764121705.1593212208466"

------=_Part_227_764121705.1593212208466
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:50:45 AM UTC-4 Adam Lopresto wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:12 PM <deusexma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>>>
>>> No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing 
>>> semantics
>>>
>> This doesn't follow. The presence of a {zo'e} in a bridi does not imply 
>> the existence of an entity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e} is 
>> substituted for that entity. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e} assumes 
>> the value of whatever sumti is contextually implied... and if context 
>> implies that nothing fits in that place, that sumti is {zi'o}. {zi'o} is a 
>> way of explicitly expressing that that particular place is inapplicable in 
>> the current context, but {zo'e} is *not* an explicit way of expressing 
>> that it is; it's a way of skipping a place and leaving its value implied.
>>
>
> That's wrong about {zo'e} and about {zi'o}. {zo'e} absolutely does imply 
> the existence of an entity that satisfies the bridi. The way in which it's 
> different from {da} is that it also makes a claim about what that entity is 
> (specifically, that its value can be inferred from context, or that its 
> particular value isn't important in this context). {mi patfu zo'e} implies 
> {mi patfu da} every bit as much as {mi patfu do} does.
>
> {zi'o}, on the other hand, doesn't say anything at all about what can or 
> can't fill that place. All it does is create a new predicate that doesn't 
> include that place. Now, as a practical matter, it's relatively rare to 
> assert a predicate that explicitly removes a place unless you want to imply 
> that the predicate with that place wouldn't also hold, but that's by no 
> means necessary. The empty set satisfies {zilcmi} ({se cmima be zi'o}, but 
> so do all other sets. The members place is removed, but there's no 
> implication that it's necessarily unfillable.
>
By the book, I suppose you're right: the book gives {loi jmive cu se zbasu 
fi loi selci} as incorrect because "We do not generally suppose ... that 
someone 'makes' living things from cells."

But I would contest that this a problem with {zo'e}: if we don't generally 
suppose that, then context would imply that {lo zbasu} here is equal to 
{zi'o} if not for the fact that {zi'o} is a special case among sumti in 
that it cannot be elliptically implied. Requiring an explicit {zi'o} in 
such a context violates the principle of least effort. It also means, as 
Gleki points out, that *any change at all* to the place structure of any 
bridi is liable to break older texts. Yet as the book points out, that very 
sort of change is inevitable. Allowing the elliptical implication of {zi'o} 
would fix this problem: the fact that those texts are older is the context 
that implies the existence of a {zi'o}.

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:59:00 AM UTC-4 gleki.is...@gmail.com wrote:

> You are changing the definition of gismu. This means old texts will break. 
> You told it yourself, I'm just commenting on that. The current official 
> definition of kelci has the concept of game inapplicable. That's why you 
> have to use zi'o to fix old texts. If Alice uses non-standard meaning of 
> kelci then the text has to be fixed.
> E.g. pleci = x1 plays game x2 (property of x1)
>
Take that up with xorxes if you want: he does translate the English words 
"the game began" as {lo nu kelci cu cfari} and "the players" as {lo kelci}. 
Both of those English phrases indicate that a game is being played. I take 
this as evidence that the word *as used* has semantic content related to 
games or gaming, regardless of how it is officially defined. {samselkei} 
and {dracyselkei} (which, again, by official definitions, literally mean 
"computer toy" and "roleplaying toy") also indicate that this is how people 
are trying to use the word. Taking this into account, an additional {kelci} 
place to accommodate the game being played would be a strict improvement of 
the word itself, and I think, would alter the semantics of most existing 
texts far less than you seem to fear: no text where {kelci} is used in a 
sense expressing the playing of games would be at all harmed.

Alternatively, we could define {lo te kelci} as "a game or playful 
activity". A bridi to express that a kid is playing with a basketball by 
dribbling it might then be {lo verba cu kelci lo lankyboi lo nu mirjalgau}, 
even though in English we would not usually call dribbling a game. This 
way, even if the value of a {zo'e} can never, ever, ever be {zi'o}, no 
existing usage of {kelci} would be semantically altered in any meaningful 
way, because {ko'a kelci} already implies that some playful activity is 
taking place.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/6f660247-6db6-4854-88be-08a0a8674eb8n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_227_764121705.1593212208466
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:50:45 AM UTC-4 Adam Lopresto wrote:<br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0 0=
 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:12 PM &lt;<a href=3D"" data-e=
mail-masked=3D"" rel=3D"nofollow">deusexma...@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><=
/div></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2=
04,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>On Thursday, June 25, 20=
20 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex">No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be =
different changing semantics<br></blockquote><div>This doesn't follow. The =
presence of a {zo'e} <i></i>in a bridi does not imply the existence of an e=
ntity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e} is substituted for that entit=
y. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e} assumes the value of whatever sumt=
i is contextually implied... and if context implies that nothing fits in th=
at place, that sumti is {zi'o}. {zi'o} is a way of explicitly expressing th=
at that particular place is inapplicable in the current context, but {zo'e}=
 is <i>not</i> an explicit way of expressing that it is; it's a way of skip=
ping a place and leaving its value implied.<br></div></div></blockquote><di=
v><br></div></div></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Th=
at's wrong about {zo'e} and about {zi'o}. {zo'e} absolutely does imply the =
existence of an entity that satisfies&nbsp;the bridi. The way in which it's=
 different from {da} is that it also makes a claim about what that entity i=
s (specifically, that its value can be inferred from context, or that its p=
articular value isn't important in this context). {mi patfu zo'e} implies {=
mi patfu da} every bit as much as {mi patfu do} does.<br><br><div dir=3D"au=
to"><span><span><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>{zi'o},
 on the other hand, doesn't say anything at all about what can or can't=20
fill that place. All it does is create a new predicate that doesn't=20
include that place. Now, as a practical matter, it's relatively rare to=20
assert a predicate that explicitly removes a place unless you want to=20
imply that the predicate with that place wouldn't also hold, but that's=20
by no means necessary. The empty set satisfies {zilcmi} ({se cmima be=20
zi'o}, but so do all other sets. The members place is removed, but=20
there's no implication that it's necessarily unfillable.</div></div></div><=
/span></span></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>By
 the book, I suppose you're right: the book gives {loi jmive cu se zbasu
 fi loi selci} as incorrect because "We do not generally suppose ...=20
that someone <span>'<span>makes</span>'</span>
      living things from cells."<br><br>But I would contest that this a=20
problem with {zo'e}: if we don't generally suppose that, then context=20
would imply that {lo zbasu} here is equal to {zi'o} if not for the fact=20
that {zi'o} is a special case among sumti in that it cannot be elliptically
 implied. Requiring an explicit {zi'o} in such a context=20
violates the principle of least effort. It also means, as Gleki points=20
out, that <i>any change at all</i> to the place structure of any bridi=20
is liable to break older texts. Yet as the book points out, that very=20
sort of change is inevitable. Allowing the elliptical implication of=20
{zi'o} would fix this problem: the fact that those texts are older is=20
the context that implies the existence of a {zi'o}.<br><br><div><div dir=3D=
"auto">On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:59:00 AM UTC-4 gleki.is...@gmail.com w=
rote:</div></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0=
 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">=
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div dir=3D"auto"><span><s=
pan><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div></div></div></div></span></span></div><span>=
You
 are changing the definition of gismu. This means old texts will break.=20
You told it yourself, I'm just commenting on that. The current official=20
definition of kelci has the concept of game inapplicable. That's why you
 have to use zi'o to fix old texts. If Alice uses non-standard meaning=20
of kelci then the text has to be fixed.<br>E.g. pleci =3D x1 plays game x2 =
(property of x1)</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Take that up wit=
h xorxes if you want: he does translate the English words "the game began" =
as {lo nu kelci cu cfari} and "the players" as {lo kelci}. Both of those En=
glish phrases indicate that a game is being played. I take this as evidence=
 that the word <i>as used</i> has semantic content related to games or gami=
ng, regardless of how it is officially defined. {samselkei} and {dracyselke=
i} (which, again, by official definitions, literally mean "computer toy" an=
d "roleplaying toy") also indicate that this is how people are trying to us=
e the word. Taking this into account, an additional {kelci} place to accomm=
odate the game being played would be a strict improvement of the word itsel=
f, and I think, would alter the semantics of most existing texts far less t=
han you seem to fear: no text where {kelci} is used in a sense expressing t=
he playing of games would be at all harmed.<br><br>Alternatively, we could =
define {lo te kelci} as "a game or playful activity". A bridi to express th=
at a kid is playing with a basketball by dribbling it might then be {lo ver=
ba cu kelci lo lankyboi lo nu mirjalgau}, even though in English we would n=
ot usually call dribbling a game. This way, even if the value of a {zo'e} c=
an never, ever, ever be {zi'o}, no existing usage of {kelci} would be seman=
tically altered in any meaningful way, because {ko'a kelci} already implies=
 that some playful activity is taking place.<br></div><div><div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><span></span></div></div></div></div>

<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 view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/6f660247-6db6-4854-88be-08a0a8674eb8n%40googlegroups.com?=
utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/l=
ojban/6f660247-6db6-4854-88be-08a0a8674eb8n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />

------=_Part_227_764121705.1593212208466--

------=_Part_226_384807639.1593212208466--