From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:45:18 2010 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 23:13:44 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Sat May 20 02:13:23 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: coi. goran. > It's not that silly. It *looks* silly because you're not used to it. > What I'm saying is that the story looks quite unambiguous and concise > even without the paragraph boundaries. Yes, empty lines don't count in > lojban, there was no confusion arising because of the lack of ni'o, so > no harm done. Sometime I'm going to try doing some serious mathematics in Lojban; then we'll see how well the principle holds up... > ... < more on exploding stomachs> ... > > Does {lo} imply singularity? I would think that either {le betfu} or {lo > > betfu} could refer to one or more than one stomach, the only difference > > being whether the things actually are stomachs or only described that > > way. > > No. lo means some, at least one, of the entire set, indiscriminately > taken. More or less. le means all of the some, at least one, I think about. > If more than one, in both cases, they are taken individually: each of..., > not as a group. That is what loi/lei are for. Well, there are two things going on. There's the default quantifiers: {su'i} (at least one) for {lo}, and {ro} (all) for {le}. But that's not the important semantic difference between the two, which is whether the description is supposed to be sufficient to understand the reference. (i.e., with {lo} theoretically anything matching the description fits, while with {le} there's something particular in mind.) So, for instance, Jorge's original sentence roroi ca le nu lo betfu cu spoja kei le lorxu cu sruri klama li'o says, literally Every time when {at least one belly, somewhere, exploded} the fox went around [the oven] and ... I would have worded it using ...{pale betfu}... (or {su'ile betfu} to match {lo betfu}), just in case there were other bellies exploding elsewhere in the world. (Apologies if you knew that.) > ... > > How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up? ^^ should be {be} > > The mass of stomacks of the fox cub(s) begins to explode. = All the > stomachs there are in one or more cubs I think about begin to explode, > together. I don't think that's quite right. Because of the {le lorpanzi}, each of the referents of {lei betfu be le lorpanzi} is a mass of stomachs, each belonging to just one fox cub. (Naturally, each mass of stomachs will have only one stomach.) So this means just the same thing as {co'a spoja fa le betfu be le lorpanzi}. I think. > ... > > Let me voice a premature opinion. Saying {lo crida} makes just as much > > sense as {le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu}; > > ... > > That is also my opinion. The main point here is universe of discourse. > If you talk about events in Midsummer's Night Dream, the fairies are > real. So, lo crida is OK. If you are saying, There are no fairies, you > CAN'T say lo crida na zasti, because that's logical contradiction. IMHO. > I don't know the current consensus on this. Ok, now let me give a slight less premature opinion. {lo crida na zasti} is the exact contradiction of {lo crida zasti}: "there is at least one thing that is a fairy." Since {lo crida zasti} is true, {lo crida na zasti} is false (and says there are no faries). An alternative phrasing is {no lo crida cu zasti}. > > > le ly. betfo ba'o binxo lo/le plana means The fox's stomack finished > > > becoming a/the bloated thing. The lo variant corresponds to the given > > > sentence pretty closely, though neither quite capture the whole sense of > > > the English sentence (i.e. the stomack is now a bloated thing, but not > > > necessarily a stomack any more. ... > > > The le variant is not what you want, because of its > > > definiteness ... > > Good! I think this answers my query about {lo} vs. {le} > > Jorge doesn't approve this explanation. I still hold it. Let's see: le > means in-mind referrent. You can't have an in-mind referrent if it's a > new one. Dunno. Maybe. You still have to explain your stand to me, > xorxes... Let me give a try: you can have an in-mind referent even if it's new, just as long as (the listener understands what you mean. (As would be the case here.) I think {le ly. betfo ba'o binxo le plana} is fine, just as long as you understand that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if there's more than one fox and/or stomach in mind: _each_ if the foxes becomes _each_ of the bloated things. > .oiro'ese'i Right. Agave is a something with needles on it's leaves. > Some AmerIndians used its needles as needles, and its fibers for making > cloth. OK, I think I do know what it is now. {ki'e} ... more helpful answers I have no arguments with ... > > e'u do cilre lei bangu .i zo'o zo'onai ro bangu te djuno be do cu > > banri'a .ai le ka do na ka'e seljmi > (...) > > Should the first {do} be {ko}? > > If you say ko, thenn it's a command. I say: I suggest that you study > languages. I am not telling you, but it would be better for you if you > did. Um. Well, Jorge is of the opinion that {e'u do} is exactly equivalent to {ko}. In any case, I'd still argue for {ko}: you really are giving a command, it's just a question of how strong it is: you're not really require obedience, but that's an attitude question. (I suppose {.oise'inai} would make it a true command.) Many natural languages (including English) have politeness rules that require you to avoid sounding like you're imperious when you're not. But that's not Lojbanic. > > And do you want the {do} in the x3 place of {bangu te djuno}? i.e., > > ...{ro bangu te djuno be fi do}... > > = All languages known by you. What's the matter? Right, that's what you _should_ have. What you _did_ have was {ro bangu te djuno be do}, which just doesn't make sense. > > The x2 of jimpe is a fact, not a person. Shouldn't it be {le ka ma do na > > ka'e seljmi}? ({ma do} standing for {le do selsku} or {le do te djuno}.) > > No, no, no. There is an error, and thanks for pointing it out to me... I > stopped seeing the sig. But the solution is much simpler than that (even > if yours worked, which it doesn't): le ka do terjmi. Um. Well, OK, a person can be a subject. > > co'o mi'e dilyn. TRS,ton. > > co'o mi'e goran. poi finti lo cnino famselsku mu'o mi'e. dilyn. noi denpa .a'a.a'u le cnino famselsku