Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:29:26 -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>
 <103d554a-d7f5-918e-bb82-6e025e41131b@mail.jerrington.me>
 <86im89g450.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
From: Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me>
Message-ID: <562e4432-9329-49e3-42d8-cce39c4f27fe@mail.jerrington.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86im89g450.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 14:29:18 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 2021-01-06 16:13, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
> 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

What I wrote, {.i fi'o broda bo} is grammatical. Try it in a parser!

http://camxes.lojban.org/?text=3D.i%20fi%27o%20broda%20bo

You wrote something slightly different: {.i fi'o broda ko'a bo}. That's=20
indeed ungrammatical.

>> 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.
It turns out that in the decades since the CLL was published that the=20
language has continued to evolve and that interpretations have been=20
refined. The CLL interpretation for fi'o falls a bit flat because it=20
doesn't explain the connection between this new place and the old=20
selbri, whereas the 'new' interpretation is for the most part compatible=20
with the old one (gives essentially the same interpretations) while=20
being more precise.
>> 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

No, I'm using {co} correctly. It's just a tricky beast.

{.i ko'a ... broda co brode fo'a ...} has the sumti {ko'a ...} filling=20
places of {broda} starting at x1, and has the sumti {fo'a ...} filling=20
the places of {brode} starting at x2. The upshot is that one can use=20
{co} to elide abstractors using tanru.

.i mi djica co cliva ti

I forget the exact CLL reference, but this is indeed in the CLL.

>>  =C2=A0 lo najnimre lo plise cu simsa lo ka farvi bu'u lo tricu kei .e j=
a'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

Sure

.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/562e4432-9329-49e3-42d8-cce39c4f27fe%40mail.jerrington.me.