Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:14:22 -0800
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jake@mail.jerrington.me designates 2001:41d0:2:267:: as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:41d0:2:267::;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Reasoning by analogy
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <86o8iru85f.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <dd954228-c706-98f2-5709-eaed3cb94703@mail.jerrington.me>
 <86blep9yni.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <8ff75cde-1243-5188-489e-e11276a75a07@mail.jerrington.me>
 <86zh1s9mw5.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
From: Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me>
Message-ID: <103d554a-d7f5-918e-bb82-6e025e41131b@mail.jerrington.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86zh1s9mw5.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 16:14:16 GMT
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_bar: --

On 2021-01-01 19:56, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:

> What about something like this:
>
>    la lojban. bangu mi'o  <-->
>
>    la lojban. ce'o mi'o ckaji loka ce'u bangu ce'u

The problem there is using a binary relation {lo ka ce'u ce'u bangu}=20
where ckaji2 should be a unary relation. If we allow this, then we can't=20
unambiguously interpret {ko'a ce'o ko'e ckaji lo ka broda}. Is it=20
unpacking the tuple or not?

> I was thinking about the possibility of using a {fi'o} modal tag, so I
> checked the grammar for places where {fi'o} can be used.  As it turns
> out, there aren't very many, and there are even fewer where {fi'o} could
> be used for this purpose.  I found only two possibilities:

You can put fi'o tags in more places than that. Try these in a parser.

.i do jamfu cadzu cilre kakne .iseni'ibo fi'o simsa la'e di'u do xance=20
cadzu cilre kakne

.i do jamfu co'e .i fi'o simsa bo do xance co'e

.i ko'a jai fi'o broda fe'u brode

More generally, {fi'o broda} is pretty much equivalent to a BAI cmavo,=20
so you can use it to form a connective with {bo}, you can use it with=20
{jai}, you can use it before a selbri, you can connect it with other=20
tags, and you can use it as a term if you follow it with a sumti or the=20
terminator {ku}.

>    Using a {fi'o} tag in front of {tu'e}:
>
>      do ka'e cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lo jamfu
>      .iseni'ibo fi'o simsa la'edi'u tu'e
>      do ka'e cilre fu lo xego'i fi lonu do cadzu fi lo xance
>
>    Using a {fi'o} tag in front of the selbri:
>
>      do ka'e cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lo jamfu
>      .iseni'ibo do fi'o simsa la'edi'u je ka'e
>      cilre fu lo xego'i fi lonu do cadzu fi lo xance
>
> These would seem to be fairly general solutions, too: connecting the two
> claims using either {.iseni'ibo fi'o simsa la'edi'u tu'e} or {.iseni'ibo
> <leading sumti> fi'o simsa la'edi'u fe'u} should work for whatever bridi
> are being held in analogy, right?

This seems okay to me, but I don't think it's as precise as it would be=20
to directly go for using {simsa}.

The usual strategy to interpret a {fi'o} clause is to rearrange to make=20
its selbri the top-level selbri. For example, I would interpret {mi fi'o=20
simsa do se bangu lo lojbo} as

 =C2=A0 mi do simsa lo ka lo lojbo cu bangu
 =C2=A0 + a claim that {mi se bangu lo lojbo}

The same idea applies to BAI, so {.i broda .i seni'i bo brode} is=20
interpreted as

 =C2=A0 lo du'u broda cu nibli lo du'u brode
 =C2=A0 + the fact that both {broda} and {brode} are claimed

When there are multiple BAI, tenses, fi'o-clauses, quantifiers, etc.=20
(generally called bridi operators) at the same level in a sentence,=20
they're interpreted from left to right.

Anyway, using the usual interpretation strategy, we don't get the right=20
meaning from your examples. They mean "it is possible that you learn to=20
walk on your feet =3D=3D> similar to that, it is possible that you learn by=
=20
the method of learning to walk on your hands to walk on your feet."

What strikes me about that is that it's saying that the similarity=20
between the possibility of learning to walk on your hands and on your=20
feet is implied by the possibility of learning to walk on your feet. But=20
I don't think there's a logical implication there at all, is there?

An analogy is not an implication. It's an observed similarly that is=20
used to make inferences. So the order of the bridi operators seems a bit=20
backwards in the fi'o examples.

Taking a step back and working from this idea of what an analogy is, we=20
want to say "walking on your hands is similar to walking on your feet,=20
which implies that _learning_ to walk on your hands is similar to=20
_learning_ to walk on your feet." Here's my take on that in Lojban:

.i lo xance lo jamfu cu simsa lo ka kakne co cadzu fi ce'u kei .e ja'e=20
bo lo ka makau xe cilre co cadzu fi ce'u
Hands and feet are similar in that one can walk on them, and therefore=20
similar in what way one can learn to walk on them.

This approach also generalizes: {ko'a ko'e simsa lo ka broda [kei] .e=20
ja'e bo lo ka brode}. For example,

 =C2=A0 lo najnimre lo plise cu simsa lo ka farvi bu'u lo tricu kei .e ja'e=
=20
bo lo ka makau tadji co kurji
 =C2=A0 Oranges and apples are similar in that they grow in trees, and=20
therefore similar in what way one cares for them.

.i mi'e la tsani 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/103d554a-d7f5-918e-bb82-6e025e41131b%40mail.jerrington.me.