Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA26890
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Mon, 1 Aug 1994 11:37:41 -0400
Message-Id: <199408011537.AA26890@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8697; Mon, 01 Aug 94 11:38:44 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9613; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 11:30:07 -0400
Date:         Mon, 1 Aug 1994 18:26:46 +0300
Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      TECH: Comparisons
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Aug  1 11:37:46 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

The comparison

   (1) I like this more than that.

makes a subset of the following 3 claims

   (a) mi nelci ti
   (b) mi nelci ta
   (c) le ni mi nelci ti cu zmadu le ni mi nelci ta

The following combinations are possible:

   (i)   a & b & c
   (ii)  a & c
   (iii) c

The common way to express (1) in Lojban is

   (2) mi nelci ti ne semau ta

which is interepreted roughly as

   (3) mi nelci ti noi ke'a zmadu ta le ni mi nelci

where {le ni mi nelci} must be inferred from the context.
The subset of claims made is (ii). Syntactically the main claim
is {mi nelci ti} and the comparison is just an incidental
relative phrase connected to {ti}. I have always felt slightly
uneasy with this, firstly because the expansion isn't very obvious,
and secondly because the subset of claims made isn't always the
most appropriate one.

The subsets (i) and (iii) can be expressed in Lojban just as
simply:

   (4) mi nelci ti .esemaubo ta
       mi nelci ti .eme'abo ta   (I like this, and less that)

   (5) mi nelci maugi ti gi ta

(4) uses mixed modal connection to make all the 3 claims at once
and (5) uses the forethought form of modal connection which doesn't
make claims (a) and (b) at all. Both of these are are IMHO clearer
than (2) and have all the involved claims made at the same syntactical
level.

Do we actually need (2) at all? For a speaker of a logical language
making claims (a) and (c) and not (b) (when there is actually no
Zipfian reason to use (2)) means either

   (6) mi nelci ti .enai ta

or

   (7) mi nelci ti .ije mi na birti le du'u mi nelci ta

Discursives and attitudinals can be used to build various short
but expressive forms:

       mi nelci ti .eju'onai ta    (certainly not)

       mi nelci ti .eju'ocu'i ta   (uncertainly)
       mi nelci ti .ela'a ta       (probably)
       mi nelci ti .ela'anai ta    (improbably)

These are often better than a mere comparison.

Claims (a) and (c) can also be expressed with

   (8) mi nelci ti .emaugi ti gi ta

which is more explicit than (2).

  co'o mi'e veion


---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------