From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Tue Nov 05 19:29:12 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189GsK-0001vP-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:09 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA63YliR056089 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:34:47 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gA63YgGO056045 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:34:42 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:34:42 -0600 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap? Message-ID: <20021106033442.GA55657@allusion.net> References: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org> <20021106012321.GA54404@allusion.net> <20021106014101.GU22843@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021106014101.GU22843@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2442 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:41:01PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: [...] > > > ca ro djedi lo nanmu cu cinba la meris > > > lo nanmu ca ro djedi cu cinba la meris [...] > > > ca le nu broda kei lo nanmu cu cinba la meris > > > lo nanmu ca le nu broda kei cu cinba la meris > > [...] > > > And pretty much everyone on jboske seems to agree with it. I don't > > > normally read jboske, myself; xod pointed this out to me. > >=20 > > Believe it or not, I agree with the jboskeists on this. >=20 > For *both* of them, or just tho one with ca ro? When we say le broda, if we're only talking about only one broda this quantifier stuff can be ignored (if the inner quantifier is pa, the outer ro will mean 1). If talking about more however, the meaning will change when you move quantifiers across it. AndR said something to this effect in another branch of the thread. [...] > > So the examples robin gives are in fact different -- moving them > > changes the meaning because the quantifiers move. >=20 > Only the first two; your trick only works with lo, yes? And there's > only one lo in the second example, so there should be no special > interactions, I don't think. The quantifier scope part is the important part. In chapter 16 it says quantifiers scope left-to-right, except for when you use termsets in the prenex, which makes them equal scope. I specifically addressed the PA lo broda =3D? PA da poi broda because we were talking about it on irc, and it allows reducing the first one to be as simple as things which have explicit examples in the book (instead of just a general rule). For "le broda", the book never (to my knowledge) sets it equivalent to anything, so we can't do that 'trick'. I think it's clear that its (outer) quantifiers scope in the same manner though. There's probably some way to turn le broda into a simple quantified variable using voi though (which btw, is a much underused cmavo), it's just not something which is defined as part of the language. > > pe'i this is all book lojban, though perhaps slightly hard to grok > > from the pages. >=20 > "Slightly hard" is a massive understatement. >=20 > This means that FA and SE can both change the actual meaning of > sentences. >=20 > This is not explicitely stated anywhere, except maybe briefly in Chapter > 16, whereas it is apparently something that needs to be kept in mind at > all times. >=20 > I repeat my request for an errata. I agree-sorta; I think the introductory lessons for lojban should include an explaination of quantifier scope (perhaps I'll write some learning foo which explains quantifier scope and such) and that this stuff should've been clearer in the book. Specifically, as you mention, in the sections on FA and SE the book very clearly tries to make it sound like there is no change other than order. This is technically true, because order is the reason the quantifier scopes change, but it definitely can be misleading. mu'o --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9yI3SDrrilS51AZ8RAnZsAJ4wkdE7ob9y9gCc3/S9DIjZ7CeiYQCgsu5d QJCF/ap0WbryO74vwhbxC8g= =g5Ge -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--