From lojbab Sat Mar 6 22:55:40 2010 Subject: Re: Mad Proposals II: The watered down version. To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu From: lojbab Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 10:24:50 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199403120120.AA21023@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Mar 11, 94 07:27:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3054 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 14 10:24:50 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab Message-ID: <06l0PiUzJfD.A.DIB.s30kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> la xorxes. cusku di'e > I never claimed {gijoi} is more meaningful than {.ijoi}, but it's not less > meaningful either. When we discover what {.ijoi} means, we'll know what {gijoi} > means (it's not just an expansion, but their meanings are related). Related, yes, but not necessarily in an obvious way. In particular, all the JOIs are defined for sumti. > Or are we going to eliminate all constructions for which we don't know the > meaning yet? Actually, one of the reasons the papers have been going so slowly is that I don't know the meaning of every construct yet! But we have eliminated some (NAhE NUhI, NAhE KI, e.g.) because no discernible meaning existed. > > The only ijoik explained in my reference grammar is ".ice'o", which separates > > the elements of an ordered list of bridi. > > "gice'o" would have a very similar meaning (from the same example): > > {mi ba kanji lo ni cteki kei gice'o lumci le karce gice'o dzukansa le gerku} > > is just as meaningful as [example omitted] This looks like explanation-by-expansion, but we know that this does not work for non-logicals. Why should non-logical bridi-tail connection be explained by non-logical bridi connection? After all, non-logical sumti connection and non-logical tanru connection are known to be independent in meaning (though intuitively related). > They have the same natural semantics that non-logical bridi connectives have, > since bridi-tails are just a type of bridi. If they don't have a place in the > language, neither do non-logical bridi connectives. Actually, I'm dubious about even the ".ice'o" usage, but Bob suggested it, so in it went. I think that jek/joik interchangeability is probably a mistake, adopted for simplicity but not really semantically sound. > And here's a possible example with {gijo'u}: > > mi zgana le se tivni gijo'u citka le cidja > "I watch the TV program along-with eat the food" > > Any doubt what that means? I think {gijo'u} is what is meant in many cases > that {gi'e} is now used, because there's no other option. {gi'e} makes the > two claims without establishing any connection (other than the logical one) > between them, while {gijoi} and company make a single claim, composed of > subclaims that are not claimed separately. I don't see it. This seems as clear-cut a logical connection as any: you watch-and-eat just in case you watch and (.ije) you eat. > Here's another one: > > mi'a cinba vo'a gijoi dasgau vo'a noda > > I'll let you all figure out what that one means. Means bugger-all to me. Part-of-the-mass-of-us-(excluding-you) kisses part-of-the-mass-etc. [forming a mass claim with?] part-of-the-mass-etc. is-an-agent-in-the-wearing-by part-of-the-mass-etc. of-zero-things. Note that the morphology rules demand "dasygau". This gives a general impression of kissing while undressing, but I fail to see the precise significance of the "gijoi"/".ijoi" here. Looks more like ".ije" or ".ica". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.