From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:51:03 2010 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Mar 10 10:03:01 1997 From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: lei xau-dja-sei X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 5073 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 10 10:03:01 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: Replying to suggestions from Jorge (who's already replied to Mark V) and Chris > > 1a The people each read **a different** book. kb> le prenu pa'a tcidu le cukta kb> (The cmaste happens to use this very example; look under pa'aku. kb> It means "respectively") I don't have an up to date ma'oste with this in. And I'm rather irked to find that my time away from Lojban has led me to forget how to construe BAI before selbri [O hurry up codical refgrammar!]. But even so, I find your report pretty mystifying: I can't see how it would work. Could you explain a bit more? xj> le prenu cu tcidu lo frica cukta xj> No problem here, because the scope of "lo" is within that xj> of "le". You cannot however rephrase as: xj> lo frica cukta cu se tcidu le prenu xj> which does not mean: A different book is read by each xj> of the people. It rather means that there is at least xj> one "different book" read by all. Your version means "book having something to do with differers". I want "each person read a book not read by the others". > > 1b the couple who are respectively french and german kb> le remei be fi le dotco jo'u le fraso kb> (BTW the cmaste is in error -- it's definition of remei is not kb> consistent with it's definition of mei, or the definition in the kb> mex paper) Not fa'u? How does your version yield the required meaning? kb> I would think it would be OK to say "le dotco je fraso remei" to kb> be short but imprecise. I'm looking for something precise, and ideally short. xj> le remei poi ge pa ke'a fraso gi pa ke'a dotco xj> The slight difference is that the Lojban here allows for one xj> member being franco-german and nothing is said of the other, xj> but I think pragmatics should take care of that. Is "pa ke'a" legit? What does it mean? Something like "one member of which"? Anyway, I'm seeking something corresponding to exactly what I was after. > > 2a the mothers of Xorxe and And kb> le mamta be la xorxes .e la .and kb> (If you had the same mother, you'd have to say kb> le mamta be la xorxes jo'u la .and, I think.) I;m pretty sure that's not right. Your version makes me & Xorxe brothers. xj to kb: > I think that has to be a mother of both. It does not expand to > le mamta be la xorxes ku e le mamta be la and. Didn't we > talk about this some time ago? I'm feeling all dejavuish. We did. But I can't remember the upshot, and whatever the upshot was, I doubt it is what I'm now looking for, because I've only just started thinking about examples like these. xj> le mamta be la xorxes a la and xj> i.e. Each of those that are either mother of Xorxe or mother of And xj> (or both). Notice that this does _not_ expand to: xj> le mamta be la xorxes ku a le mamta be la and But it does expand to le ga mamta be la xorxes gi mamta be la and - this would work for "ro mamta be la xorxes a la and" but not for "lo mamta be la xorxes a la and", which could refer to just your mum. > > 2b the mothers of the men kb> le pa'a mamta be le nanmu Can you explain this too to me, please? xj> lei mamta be lei nanmu xj> If you don't want to use lei you can say: xj> le mamta be su'o le nanmu xj> Each of those that are a mother of at least one of the men. xj> I think that the proper scope here is as in: xj> ro da poi su'o de poi nanmu zo'u ke'a mamta de Okay, "le mamta be su'o le nanmu" is good. Let's change the example to: 3a the sisters of the men [each of the men have sisters who are being referred to] (same as 2c) 3b the mothers of some men > 2c the children of the women xj> lei panzi be lei ninmu xj> or: xj> le panzi be su'o le ninmu xj> Each of those that are a child of at least one of the women. The latter is better, but how to get the meaning where each of the women has children? (Same goes for "children of xorxes and and".) > > 2d The french and germans [not only people with dual nationality] kb> loi fraso joi loi dotco xj> le fraso e le dotco xj> lei fraso ku joi lei dotco OK, but not enough of a solution for me. Change example to: 3c we are french and german [but not necessarily dual nationality] xj> > I can only manage them with long circumlocutions. Are there some xj> > tricks I'm missing? > Tricks indeed they are. I don't think there is a standard easy way > to respectivize. The examples in 1 are respectives. The examples in 2 are different. 3a, for example, is "each member of set s1 such that for each x that is member of s1, there is a y that is member of set s2, and for each z that is member of s2, there is a w that is member of s1, and x is sister of y and w is sister of z". You can say that in Lojban, (anything expressible in simple predicate logic is expressible in lojban) but it's a bit of a mouthful, and I thought someone, whose name would probably be something like "John Cowan", might have cooked up a shorthand method - it is, after all, a fairly frequent kind of reading. ki'e markl, xorxes, kris i'o sono vostro pendo and