Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!rpi.edu!ash>
Message-Id: <9104230805.AA01434@its.rpi.edu>
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: Re: Nick tries valiantly to save face (His first sentence) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Apr 91 18:12:03 +0900."
             <9104220812.12294@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> 
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 04:04:56 -0400
From: Arthur Hyun <cbmvax!uunet!rpi.edu!ash>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 23 06:24:12 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!rpi.edu!ash

> [ deletions ]
>(why oh why do I keep sticking my head out), but what you're saying is
>that the semantics of a place can define the LE word of its sumti, which
>I find very iffy.

Actually, I feel the opposite; but, for argument's sake, let's go on 8).
What I wonder is this:  if the a sumti has a meaning attached to it by
the virtue of its placement, then why does it require any further tags
to make its meaning more explicit?  As I see it, "le" and "le'i" are
quite different in meaning, however, to say:
  "first in the set of those things I call the alphabet"
as compared to:
  "that which I describe as the alphabet"
are not very different, and not very ambiguous, because of the phrase
"which I describe as". This, in effect, says I might be talking about
something you don't think I am.  In other words, it could be *defined*
to be a set or not based on what precisely I am talking about.  If it
*seems* to be a set or not is irrelevant--it is "what I describe as".
Thus, in the case of pamoi, we have the constructions:
  "first in the set of the set of the thing I describe as foo"
which uses "le'i", as compared to:
  "first in the set of the thing that I describe as foo"
which uses "le".
Or, without the place structure's implicit "in the set of":
  "first in the set of the thing I describe as foo"
which uses "le'i", versus:
  "first in the thing I describe as foo".
Since the listener does not *really* know what foo is, I see no real
difference Since one can assume based on the place that what is being
refered to is, actually, a set.  In fact, one must.
"lo" and "lo'i" are a completely different matter, of course 8)

English example interpreting "I was first in the race":
  "I was first in the set of those who finished the race"
  "I was first of those who finished the race"
would use "le'i", as "those" implies a set.
  "I was first in the set of finishers"
  "I was first of the finishers"
"finishers" does not imply a set, other than by context, and the plural
ending.  Of course, in lojban, there are no plural endings.

> Furthermore, pamoi is surely not limited to 'sets'

It's not?  What does it mean to be first in anything that is not an
ordered set?  And, if it is a naturally unordered set, there is the
x4 place (ordered by rule x4) to provide one for us.

>>Can we not say, then, that:
>>  "This utterance is first among the set of my sentences such that they 
>>   regard lojban", or
>>  "dei pamoi le mi jufra ku la lojban" or
>
>Yes, though very vague.

No more vague than "lojbo jufra" as they say, in effect, say the same thing

Thanks for the corrections, also!

							cheers,
							arthur