From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 03 09:54:20 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NGFsh-0003WS-AJ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:54:20 -0800 Received: from mail-fx0-f217.google.com ([209.85.220.217]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NGFrX-00035N-VZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:53:14 -0800 Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1596341fxm.10 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:53:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Va2RWNpHPUAI+KmTbzbDMgIUzCw1r97AU2mKS5oTzFM=; b=Au97XJKx8TH/KzGn1z45+CxJt9RSnR3bpwKS83UsDSyCJiH8gI97G8kYO9YsyI7w+Q /OaNwf0fSgd3eS3NFyXhvSBtlKSEHygT2qVwkLlyICY+iJU6Jng0YHj7oFHVzbIAyDc7 QPVAhcmxqXcs39plchg++t+zdEgL8dVSunnO8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=UlvoH24tI3vI1ecIMewm/11ayxIOxKGxxCosTJBNCkgH8PVSQ0Si0yv/bTVFTK61Dy UK4RTlbVwVTd7bCMjuy/eWae1uhc5vq07iY7CTtFwOEbE31BtJLxfXsSGXEzAkI+ILhj POnpOY4/WC/1FWkWQKrdtl4QwMCRMimA04pmA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.80.36 with SMTP id h36mr667487mul.18.1259862781106; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:53:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniel Brockman Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:52:41 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 377f635c495953a5 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Re: what's a du'u? To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Thomas Jack wrote: > > Supposedly a du'u is a predication, a bridi. [...] > > I think I must have misunderstood something along the way, > because if {lu co'e li'u bridi} is true, and a du'u really is just > a bridi, I'd think we could just use lu/li'u in place of du'u. [...] Content analysis details: (0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 3.1 FRT_ROLEX BODY: ReplaceTags: Rolex -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-archive-position: 16552 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: daniel@brockman.se Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Thomas Jack wrote: > > Supposedly a du'u is a predication, a bridi. [...] > > I think I must have misunderstood something along the way, > because if {lu co'e li'u bridi} is true, and a du'u really is just > a bridi, I'd think we could just use lu/li'u in place of du'u. You have to be careful here, because the word "bridi" can refer to two separate things: either a string of text, or a predication. Now, a du'u1 is a predication, a du'u2 is a string of text, and a {lu} expression refers to a string of text. So while you definitely cannot use {lu broda} in place of {lo du'u broda}, you can pretty much use it in place of {lo se du'u broda} (although {lu broda} is more specific). A separate but related question is whether bridi1 corresponds to du'u1 or du'u2. The gimste pretty much explicitly says that bridi1 is a string of text, and so corresponds to du'u2, but I think we should redefine bridi1 to instead correspond to du'u2. We had a discussion about this on IRC as recently as yesterday. Here's a slightly edited transcript: I think we should make an effort to redefine bridi1 to be a du'u1 rather than a du'u2 I think all of those words are about text: {bridi}, {sumti}, etc. is {lo broda} a bridi? No, it's a sumti. It contains a bridi. A sumti is, by definition, only part of a bridi so {broda} in {lo broda} is a bridi? Yes The {broda} in {lo broda} is *not* a bridi. {broda} can, by itself, act as a bridi, but it isn't doing so there. Just as the word "flies" can be a verb (as in "Time flies like an arrow"), but the "flies" in "Fruit flies like a banana." is not. Twey: there are four distinct entities relevant to {lo broda}: two strings of text, one containing the other; one predication; and one predicate argument neither of the text strings are bridi, grammatically oh, there's also a fifth entity: the predicate Question-begging I'm just trying to be precise I know I haven't addressed your assertion that {broda} as part of {lo broda} is a bridi Ah, okay [Twey shuts up and waits.] the problem is that {bridi} is ill-defined that's why I reverted to English xalbo's position is that bridi1 refers to a syntactic element, i.e., a string of text in a certain grammatical context which can probably be characterized by being terminated by {vau} (hi donri!) I think {vau} is indeed relevant. {lo broda ku} is what we're talking about, if we use the full structure. No place for a {vau}. Twey's position appears to be that bridi1 refers to any string of text that when placed between, say {.i ... .i}, becomes a xalbo-bridi1 my position is that bridi1 is not a string of text at all, but rather a predication (but let's get back to that) one problem with your definition, xalbo, is that there is no place for the grammatical context which makes Twey's argument that {zo broda bridi} (regardless of context) kind of strong That does appear to be a good argument. but I don't like Twey's position My position is that ‘lo broda’ is in fact a predication it seems both bad and Lojbanically counter-intuitive ‘lo’ just ‘raises’ the first sumti of the predication so that the overall effect is ‘that which is…’ instead of ‘something is…’ Twey: let's distinguish between a predication and a string of text that refers to a predication I did so but `lo broda' is unarguably a string of text I've come to like the term {ka'erselbri} or {selbrika'e}. dbrock: I was, of course, referring to the predication represented by the string of text Twey: okay, but I object to the use of "of course" here :-) Well, *any* example given on IRC is going to be a string of text. after all, to me this is _exactly_ the cause of the confusion But a string of text, of course, cannot be a predication, so I can't possibly have been referring to the text directly but a string of text can be a bridi and a bridi is a predication ... or is it? etc. see my point? A string of text cannot *be* a bridi — it *represents* a bridi A string of text is nothing more than a bunch of characters in sequence the gimste disagrees (and you disagreed a minute ago) Where? hmm, maybe I just misunderstood 20:28 so {broda} in {lo broda} is a bridi? 20:28 Yes I think the gimste means to say that the text *represents* a predicate relationship. Of course, nobody actually says that normally, since it's obvious that text itself cannot be anything other than a series of squiggles. A bridi is, by the definition in the gimste, a string of text. Twey: don't misunderestimate series of squiggles dbrock: Yes, I was referring to the sumti itself, not the text representing it. (to me, YOU are a series of squiggles) I am represented by a series of squiggles Twey: the bridi itself, you mean? I am not the squiggles themselves Twey: agreed (I was joking) I am misunderrepresented by a series of squiggles. haha Aye, but there was a serious point there too The question is whether bridi1 is du'u1 or du'u2 xalbo: yes, I think you should speak up more dbrock: There were both a sumti and a bridi (or possibly two sets of squiggles representing them) in the question you asked At no time during this conversation was I talking about the squiggles. I can't read the definition of {bridi} as anything but du'u2, but I could probably be convinced that du'u1 would be "better" (.i ku'i zmadu fi lo ka xamgu ma) They are irrelevant to logic, which is one of the reasons nobody usually makes the distinction between ‘is a piece of text’ and ‘is represented by a piece of text’ Twey: {broda} in {lo broda} is definitely not a sumti, nor a set of squiggles representing one .i xamgu fi ma I had a logic teacher who drove the entire class *crazy* by insisting on that distinction. the gimste says very explicitly that bridi1 is a string of text dbrock: ‘lo broda’ ‘is’ a sumti. ‘broda’ ‘is’ a selbri, and thus a bridi. Twey: can we please keep the distinction? `lo broda' is a string of text, as is `broda' please, let's not use the "shortcut" that a string "is" what it represents dbrock: It also says that that string of text is a predicate relationship, which is ridiculous interpreted in the exceedingly and unnecessarily literal fashion you are advocating, and therefore must mean that it represents a predicate relationship. not in this discussion A series of squiggles cannot *be* a predicate relationship. Twey: agreed A predicate relationship is an abstract thing of logic and/or grammar. but "x1 (text)" is explicit Yes, it is unfortunately, "is a predicate relationship" is also explicit. how do you know they're not using your "shortcut" you've said yourself several times that a string of text "is" a predication why shouldn't the gimste? That is what I'm saying it's doing. It's the only way to reconcile the two facts presented above. exactly, so the gimste means that bridi1 is a string of text xalbo: very much less explicit Hm, interesting. so we all agree that the gimste claims that bridi1 is a string of text .ie and we seem to agree that {broda} is probably a bridi even in {lo broda}, since {bridi} has no place for the grammatical context .i lo'u broda le'u bridi lo ka broda kei zo'e (in other words, {broda} is a bridi, period) I can almost agree, although in that case, "even in {lo broda}" is meaningless; "even thought it is a substring of {lo broda}" I could accept. agreed I don't have a good theory of text, though, so I suspect I'm confused. no, I think that is a very good formulation I agree with this line of reasoning, though it seems counter-intuitive to me. me too, very much I feel like it is meaningful to talk about "the word {me}" as a distinct thing from "the word 'me'", or "the first two letters of 'meat'". This leads me to suspect that I don't have as good a formulation of all of this as I thought. hmm, good point we have that in Lojban too {zo broda} feels different from {lo'u broda le'u} even though it's "supposed" to be the exact same thing .ie-ru'e and {lu broda li'u} feels even differenter. .ie yeah but I think this is a finer distinction the distinction between du'u1 and du'u2 is a very much more important one {zo broda} and {lu broda li'u} seem about as distinct as {ni broda} and {jei broda}, by the way, zo'o zo'o nai :-) as if we knew what *those* meant :) so anyway I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we all pretty much agree that not only would it be better and more lojbanic for bridi1 to be the actual predication, but that the sort of abstract intent of the jbocevni was probably for {bridi} to be more about predications than squiggles xalbo: as to why it would be better, for one, you wouldn't need {ka'e fatci} any more for another, it suddenly becomes very natural to talk about "the bridi" in {lo broda} I assume that a similar transformation would occur with {sumti}, but I don't know what would actually be able to fill the new place. for that matter, what fills bridi3? (well, it's a sequence, of a sequence of what?) anything can fill sumti1 if sumti1 is just a predicate argument probably of sumti1's (i.e., not text) .i lu ko'a broda zo'u ko'a sumti .i je lo du'u ko'a broda cu bridi lo ka ce'u broda kei vu'i ko'a .i lu ko'a broda cu jufra je nai bridi .i bridi .ie jufra .i ku'i na bridi now, to talk about grammatical elements, we need a completely separate set of selbri maybe based on one with the place structure "x1 is a grammatical element of type x2 in expression x3" Not sure. let's say {gerna zei pagbu}: x1=p1 is a syntactic element of expression x2=p2=g3, playing grammatical role x3 according to grammar x4=g1 or {genpau} for short then we can have {bridi genpau}, {selbri genpau}, {sumti genpau}, etc. or {bripau}, {selbripau}, {sumpau} for short maybe {taurpau} instead of {selbrika'e} and {jufra} doesn't need -pau .i lo'u {.i lo broda cu brode} le'u jufra .i lo'u {lo broda cu brode} le'u bripau lo go'i .i lo'u {brode} le'u selbripau lo go'i .i lo'u {lo broda} le'u cu sumpau ra .i lo'u {lo} le'u gadpau lo'u {lo broda} le'u .i lo'u {broda} le'u selgadpau lo'u {lo broda} le'u .i ji'a lo'u {broda} le'u taurpau lo'u {lo broda} le'u .i .ia so'a selgadpau cu taurpau .i xu drani drani la'a I'm still not sure, though. (and *{gadpau} has a VU-pair; {gadypau} would be right) (ah, right) Comments and opinions welcome. -- Daniel Brockman daniel@brockman.se 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.