Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:40:10 -0800
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org designates 2607:f2f8:a1d8::b19:0:f0b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f2f8:a1d8::b19:0:f0b;
From: scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: Reasoning by analogy
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>
	<103d554a-d7f5-918e-bb82-6e025e41131b@mail.jerrington.me>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:13:47 +0000
In-Reply-To: <103d554a-d7f5-918e-bb82-6e025e41131b@mail.jerrington.me> (Jacob
	Thomas Errington's message of "Sat, 02 Jan 2021 16:14:16 GMT")
Message-ID: <86im89g450.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: --

Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me> writes:

> 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
> cadzu cilre kakne

Hm.  I hadn't thought of using a {fi'o} tag on a sumti of selma'o KOhA.

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

I don't think that's grammatical.  jufra can only be connected by simple
tags, not full-fledged sumti tcita.  Otherwise, I could simply say:

  do ka'e cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lo jamfu
  .i fi'o simsa la'edi'u fe'u je semu'i bo
  do ka'e cilre fu lo xego'i fi lonu do cadzu fi lo xance

That would be nice and clean (and could further be simplified by use of
{go'i}, et al.), but the grammar doesn't allow it. .uu

> The usual strategy to interpret a {fi'o} clause is to rearrange to
> make its selbri the top-level selbri. For example, I would interpret
> {mi fi'o 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}

No, I don't think that's how modal tags are interpreted.  At least
according to CLL, a modal tag adds an additional place to the underlying
selbri, expressing something that fills the x1 place of the {BAI} or
{FIhO} construct.  Your interpretation of that sentence would properly
be expressed: {lo me mi be fi'o simsa do me'u cu se bangu lo lojbo}.
Adding a modal tag to a sumti is not equivalent to using that tag in a
non-logical connection between sentences.

> What strikes me about that is that it's saying that the similarity
> between the possibility of learning to walk on your hands and on your
> feet is implied by the possibility of learning to walk on your
> feet.

Ah, yes, you have a point, there.  Implication of similarity wasn't the
meaning I'd intended.  My mistake.  This could be fixed using prophor:

    fi'o simsa la'edi'e fe'u do ka'e cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lo jamfu
    .iseni'ibo do ka'e cilre fu lo xego'i fi lonu do cadzu fi lo xance

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

Exactly!  That's the whole idea of reasoning by analogy: A and B both
have property X, and A has property Y, therefore (by analogy), B has
property Y.  As an example: Ducks and geese both have webbed feet.
Ducks have feathers.  Therefore, geese have feathers.  It's not logical.
It's reasoning by analogy.  It's illogical.  Yet it's quintessentially
human, and very common in natural language usage.

> .i lo xance lo jamfu cu simsa lo ka kakne co cadzu fi ce'u kei .e ja'e
> 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
> similar in what way one can learn to walk on them.

I think you're using {co} incorrectly.  The place structure of {broda co
brode} is that of {broda}, not that of {brode}.  Using {ni'i} instead of
{ja'e}, I might express your example as:

  .i lo xance lo jamfu cu simsa lo ka kakne cadzu fi ce'u kei
  .e ni'i bo lo ka cilre be fu makau cadzu fi ce'u

Or, using {co}:

  .i lo xance lo jamfu cu simsa lo ka cadzu co kakne fi ce'u kei
  .e ni'i bo lo ka cadzu co cilre be fu makau fi ce'u

> =C2=A0 lo najnimre lo plise cu simsa lo ka farvi bu'u lo tricu kei .e ja'=
e
> bo lo ka makau tadji co kurji

I think you mean {be}, not {bu'u}:

  lo najnimre lo plise cu simsa lo ka farvi be lo tricu kei .e
  ja'e ja seni'i bo lo ka makau kurji tadji

> =C2=A0 Oranges and apples are similar in that they grow in trees, and
> therefore similar in what way one cares for them.

--=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/86im89g450.fsf%40cmarib.ramside.