From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Dec 2 21:11:06 1994 Message-Id: <199412030210.AA00328@nfs2.digex.net> Date: Fri Dec 2 21:11:06 1994 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds Status: RO la lojbab cusku di'e > (Heck, I am still > waiting for someone to propose a new definition line for "kau" for the > cmavo list - the existing definition is worse than inadequate. Why? kau marks indirect questions, and that is what the cmavo list says, why is it inadequate? > Actually, I think you HAVE used a few of them, at least in examples, > over the last few months. I wouldn't doubt that you puca'a memorized a > few of them (I am thinking of la'i/le'i/lo'i as I write this). True, but my views on the language are still evolving. I probably would disagree now with the word choices I made back then. > >Since letterals are really pro-sumti and not letters, these shifts > >only augment the number of available pro-sumti, > > alpha particles, gamma rays, "I am the alpha and the omega" - these > things tend to crop up in non-mathematical language on occasion. And can you show how you would use shifts for these, rather than names? > >If written down in symbols, it can't be directly read out in grammatical > >Lojban anyway, so what's the point of having such an elaborate mekso > >system? > > It is the intent that it CAN be directly read out in grammatical Lojban. That may be the intent, but I don't think it works for anything more complicated than a sum or a product, especially because of all the extra brackets needed. > puca'a. Try to do "four score and seven years ago" without MEX words. zapu lei vo nanca renomei ku joi le zemei How would it be using MEX? > (Not too easy WITH MEX words). Most MEX-in-everyday-Lojban WILL be > short phrases that use only a few words/symbols. I think the language without MEX has enough resources for everyday uses. It was a big simplification for me when I realized I could just ignore everything to do with MEX, which wasn't evident when I started learning it. > > jei li'i si'o mu'e pu'u za'i zu'o (abstractions) > > > >{jei} I don't know what it could be used for, since all the examples > >are as a substitute for {du'u xukau}, but this is not the same as the > >truth value of a bridi. > > Even if that is all it means, it is a heck of a lot shorter. But I > think "jei" will become more useful iff people start trying to talk > fuzzy logics and fuzzy sets. My point is that it can't mean both "the truth value of " and "what is the truth value of ". If it's a shorthand for {du'u xukau}, fine, but then it should be glossed as "whether ", not as "the truth value of ". If it is this, then I can't find any selbri where to use it. I've heard about this supposed fuzzy logic use, but I haven't seen examples. > >{li'i} and {si'o} I'm still not sure how to use. And has been using si'o > >lately for the opacity examples, but I would use du'u for all of those, > >and I don't see what si'o adds to it. > > The classic example of li'i, from the paraplegic who proposed it, is > "le li'i tuple" in such paraplegics. I suppose that is the experience of having legs, not of being legs. Here the lambda variable would also be useful. But how do you use it? Doesn't a claim about an event involving someone already contain that that someone experiences that relationship? > If ledu'u is redundant to lesi'o, it is only because we made du'u a two > placer - it originally talked only about expressions. I think that du'u > tends to emphasize the bridi-ness (truth claim ness) of a relationship > whereas si'o more strongly emphasizes the conceptual nature. I would > feel uncomfortable using du'u for ideas that have no obvious > manifestation in the real world. So {si'o} is something like {du'uda'i}? I don't believe that using {du'u} claims that its bridi is true. > >The four subdivisions of {nu} I think I understand, but I never feel > >the need to use them instead of the simple {nu}. Maybe I will come to > >need them when I become more fluent, but for the moment I don't. > > puca'a pilno quite a lot - I like them and the implied contours that > they generate. I don't notice you complaining about the ZAhOs that > correspond to these. Because the ZAhOs I do find useful (in spite of some confusion in how they were named :) I have no problem with {le nu co'i broda}, what I don't really have a need for is the seemingly synonimous {le mu'e broda}. For the other three, I don't see any direct relation with the ZAhOs > If you find them useful and meaningful you will > find these. A point event is a point event, whether it is co'i or co'a > or co'u. co'a and co'u can be thought of as extended events in some circumstances, but that is a whole nother topic... > > go'a go'e go'u nei (pro-bridis) > > I have used go'a and go'e in conversation, and maybe even go'u once. > go'e is useful in dichotomies. I agree that one of the three would be useful, just for that purpose. I doubt that the detailed distinction between the three is really needed. I think I've used them all in writing, but I don't think it would have been a problem to use always the same one. > go'a and go'u are going to be used in > relative proportion to go'i, about with the same ratio as ra and ru are > to ri - and for the same reason. You don't really know this is true, although it may well be. I agree that if they are there they will be used. I also think that if they weren't all there they wouldn't be missed. > > na'o (typically) > > > I habitually celebrate my birthday, but celebrating my birthday is not a > state I will typically be found in. My computer (and I) is/are > habitually logged into this email address, but not typically so. So typically means more frequent than habitually? I still feel that this distinction, if it exists, doesn't belong at the interval modifier level. Jorge