From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Oct 05 10:33:58 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MurRd-0002O2-OW for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:33:58 -0700 Received: from mail-yw0-f195.google.com ([209.85.211.195]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MurRY-0002N9-9I for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:33:57 -0700 Received: by ywh33 with SMTP id 33so2637163ywh.25 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:33:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UCigRfkjcC47JVbjWQT0/FzoOJYtfSAL6BOdkiUjrn8=; b=UxiLSiDvdGvIQdB6YehsgGMm4tqi3eRuJKJMXKKmqsD13zFNzHvs1cnd58fZOKfcac wPXXRvMl3PrK5ZMTkk/j2umjdrSKrlVHuo93tiJKIB5hJ0SUwFMAOXXxUhFj04air7d/ KxxTD1wknjdWzq0whFderhdk6uvSF0QKq65Jk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VxHXDuODB93aUc4JyXrug09F5tk5Bqy3/+Ig6VXvPuFKITW1aByzoxt5WtRF/5d6yz GnZzYjcKiXb9WjnVXmKXu+rS8t5f19S7Z56+PftZ2Nh97+CaafmpOoUMo7oStqpVxv9A WlFOUR7ocqEAi9h/d2a4eBtiE7BjEGQwmaMWU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.142.8 with SMTP id u8mr118788agn.102.1254764025814; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:33:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <16d9defd0910050903p63403fc5o13997feee1431f5a@mail.gmail.com> References: <16d9defd0909301348o30bb27d4x55540b2192f1eb7d@mail.gmail.com> <4AC3C59A.7040102@kli.org> <200910010933.25417.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560910010646k374e5e3aq5d836d3c5269bdf6@mail.gmail.com> <4AC4C84D.6040205@kli.org> <16d9defd0910050903p63403fc5o13997feee1431f5a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:33:45 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560910051033u41a4d34bv2c2350d71b19b2ba@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: How to reduce the amount of something? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 16302 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, chris kerr wrote: > Still undecided about Mark's points? I responded last week, maybe the post was lost somewhere: 2009/10/1 Jorge Llambías : > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: >> >> If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just stick with >> {jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}? > > I wasn't thinking of the awkwardness in pronunciation but the > awkwardness in meaning. "se la'u li xo kau" is just somewhat > convoluted meaningwise (how exactly is the quantity related to the > rest of the bridi?) while "xu kau" is straightforward. But I also > don't find "lo du'u xu kau" too unwieldly to say, perhaps I just got > used to it. > >> I thought the >> problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean. > > Yes, or rather it had two different meanings, one useless and the > other better expressed by "xu kau". I prefer "xu kau" to fall in the > same pattern with "ma kau", "mo kau", "ji kau", "xo kau" etc. rather > than having its own shortcut. In the case of "ni", I still run into > cases where doing away with it is awkward. > >> That is, >> it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in intension, but >> meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually isn't what you >> want to talk about. > > "du'u xukau" doesn't really mean "the truth-value of (some > proposition)" but "whether (some proposition)". It is itself a > proposition, not a truth value. > >> If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm trying >> to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what you >> need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not >> subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can reduce "the >> number of kilograms someone weighs"). You can say things like {lo ni mi >> ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se >> cenba}. If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become >> useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing. > > How does "jei" (in the sense of "truth value") become useful? The x2 > of djuno, jdice, cilre, etc, has to be a proposition, not a truth > value. How often do we talk about truth values, and in those cases is > it not more clear to use a brivla meaning "x1 is the truth value of > x2" rather than a cmavo? > >> So which is it? Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or something >> like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the >> latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that >> four syllables is more elegant? Or is {jei} just a true/false value, >> which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which >> case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}? >> You can't have it both ways. > > My answer is: "jei" is a useless word better forgotten, but those who > use it generally use it to mean "du'u xu kau". "ni" is not fully > understood but it means something like "ka se la'u li xo kau", but in > this case having a shortcut appears somewhat more justified. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.