Message-ID: <3444C6DD.6F3C@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:36:29 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni References: <199710142150.QAA04523@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Status: RO Content-Length: 43927 Chris Bogart wrote: > By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple > sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim > anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify > the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri. I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't be a broda. "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard. > But on to {ni}: I knew damn well when I wrote that that I was skating on thin ice, probably the thinnest ice in the whole refgram except for the second-order logic stuff (which is also being discussed now). It's damn near impossible to explain what you yourself do not understand. :-) I read JCB's various remarks on the subject, and lojbab's, and I still don't really know what "ni" is doing in the language, or how it should be construed. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 10:21:50 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:21:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710151521.KAA09699@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: na'enai X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 714 > cu'u la dn > > How does one say "A and B only"? For example, "Only John and > > Jim are drinking coffee", it seems to me that the only of one > > exculdes the other. > > If na'enai is accepted that would be: > > na'enai bo ge la djan gi la djim cu pinxe le ckafi > Only both John and Jim drink coffee. > > co'o mi'e xorxes Failing that you could say X ge la djan gi la djim Y po`o cu pinxe le ckafi where X and Y are the markers for attitudinal scope - I forget what they are. Alternatively, ge la djan gi po`o la djim cu pinxe le ckafi might do the job, because I can't think what else it might mean. (But it only works for forethought connectives.) --And From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 10:42:37 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:42:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710151542.KAA10646@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: quantifiable pro-bridi (fwd) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 395 > > Geoff: > > > What do you mean by "intension"? > > > > Do you know the word but want to know the sense in which I am > > using it? > > I know "intension" as it is distinguished from "extension", where the > former is the meaning of a word and the latter is its referent. Is that > how you are using the word, or what? That'll do. Yes. That's what I mean. As opposed to extension. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 11:35:21 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:35:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710151635.LAA12293@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 646 Kris: > But on to {ni}: I think the reference grammar is inconsistent, and > confuses the two types of reference to numbers. If you want to refer to a > number as a simple mathematical object, you should use a BAI modal, > probably {sela'u}. If you want to talk about the fact that a particular > number applies, you should use {ni} This makes sense, but is it correct? At least at one time we were agreed that {jei} refers to a truth value and not the fact that a given tv is tv of the proposition in the jei clause. (We therefore used {xukau} instead, and I many months later showed how it is doable in ordinary logic.) --And From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 13:59:08 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:59:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710151859.NAA17320@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: rk@prefer.net Sender: Lojban list From: Ron Kuris Organization: Centura Software Subject: Help with Lojban, please X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1135 Hi! I'm trying to create/convert some original text, and want some review comments. Lojbab has been kind enough to already give this a cursory look, but any other comments about this would be greatly appreciated. I think the part about "work or school" (ckule .a jibri) seems wrong; is there a right way to do this? Also, how would one propose marriage in Lojban? I couldn't find the concept properly expressed in the gismu list. I thought perhaps something like "lanzu finti" (family type of inventing) but that sounds really bad. Here is the original text: Hi, Mary! I'm not very surprised that Scott is lazy about school. I think most people are lazy about work or school. They have no motive about anything. In fact, they refuse to think because they don't have any self-esteem. I have to leave town soon. Goodbye! ------ And my translation attempt: coi Meris! .uecu'i le scat lazni le ckule ku .i mi pensi le'e le nanmu goi ko'a ku latna so'i ckule .a jibri .i na ko'a mukti da .i .ainai da'inai ko'a pensi de seja'e na ko'a sinma ko'a .i mi zi cliva le tcadu co'o! From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 15:07:29 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:07:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152007.PAA19711@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: forward from Greg Higley X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2992 >From ghigley@en.com Wed Oct 15 10:53:32 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3444D840.F06028F0@en.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:50:40 -0400 From: Gregory Higley Reply-To: ghigley@en.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Logical Language Group Subject: Problems with Abstraction Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Bob, I've been lurking on this list for quite some time now, and I have to confess I don't know how to send e-mail to the whole group. In any case, please forward my little essay to the group as a whole. Feel free to snip everything before the word 'ABSTRACTION.' ABSTRACTION I have been out of the Lojban loop for some time, but something that has bothered me for years is the use of abstraction in Lojban, particularly the particles {ka} and {ni}. My problem deals with interpretation of {ka} and {ni} abstractions, but not in the sense in which they have been debated recently in this list. As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE does not change the meaning of a bridi. Each sumti place is 'equal'. Thus {le prenu cu klama le zdani} the person goes to the house is Lojbanically the same as {le zdani cu se klama le prenu} the house is-the-destination-of the person I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point. The sentences have the same _essential_ meaning. If this is true, what can we make of the following two abstractions? {ka le prenu cu klama le zdani} {ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu} I have not offered translations because I don't know how to translate them. You see, {ka} is supposed to abstract _the bridi as a whole_ (regardless of SE), and not the relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri. According to this rule, the above two sentences must be equivalent in meaning. If they aren't, then the rule that sumti places are 'equal' must be tossed out the window. I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way. It is being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri. Most lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different ways. But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others. Gregory Higley ghigley@en.com From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 15:35:35 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:35:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152035.PAA20897@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Problems with Abstraction X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 368 The short answer on your abstraction comments is to look up the discussion of ce'u (lambda) in chap 16 of the refgrammar. In general, ka and ni are indeed supposed to be working on the whole bridi. If talking about the relationship between one place and the rest of the places, then you use ce'u in that one place. At least this is what I THINK ce'u does %^). From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 15:35:41 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:35:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152035.PAA20902@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: how to post and/or unsubscribe X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 377 We used to post these regularly. To post to Lojban List, send to LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU You will NOT get a copy of your own post from the list. If you hit reply to a post, you will usually just send to the poster and not to the whole list (this may depend on your mailer). To unsubscribe from Lojban List send unsub lojban to listserv@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:21:05 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:20:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152220.RAA25333@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Marriage, etc. X-To: Lojban Group To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710151829.LAA00966@red.colossus.net> from "Ron Kuris" at Oct 15, 97 11:01:03 am X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1183 > Also, how would one propose marriage in Lojban? I couldn't find the > concept properly expressed in the gismu list. I thought perhaps > something like "lanzu finti" (family type of inventing) but that sounds > really bad. I can't find the concept of agreement/pact/contract of any kind in the gismu list. "le te bilga" is close, and has places for the agreement and its obligations, but not for the parties. Otherwise, "family type-of contract" would be natural. On top of that, even if there were an appropriate brivla, I can't find one for the act of "consent" either, so I can't ask her to. If there were a brivla for agree/consent, it could be used to form lujvo for contract/pact and marriage As an aside, I shudder to think what kind of society might evolve from a language where granting permission is a root concept but mutual consent is not :) -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:21:06 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:21:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152221.RAA25342@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction X-To: Lojban Group To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710151939.MAA16238@red.colossus.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Oct 15, 97 03:09:16 pm X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 876 > The short answer on your abstraction comments is to look up the discussion > of ce'u (lambda) in chap 16 of the refgrammar. In general, ka and ni are > indeed supposed to be working on the whole bridi. If talking about the > relationship between one place and the rest of the places, then you use > ce'u in that one place. At least this is what I THINK ce'u does %^). The refgram makes sense and is reasonably clear on this point, but I do see {ka} and {ni} used (by myself, too) as if there were a semi- implied {ce'u} or {makau} in the first omitted place. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:46:04 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152246.RAA26448@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: ka/ni kama X-To: Lojban Group To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710150110.SAA14367@red.colossus.net> from "JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS" at Oct 14, 97 10:07:41 pm X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2562 >>{le ni broda} is not a dimensionless quantity like {li pa} >>(though it might be in certain contexts), it is a measurement >>in units of broda-ness. > > If you're right about this, then where would you use it? I can't find > any gismu that has a place for a dimensioned quantity. Several have places marked [quanitity] that seem like they would only work with dimensioned ones--in fact {le klani} itself is either t (with {se klani] being a number) or else (as seems more natural) it is a particular instance of a quantity, in which case {se klani} must be a dimensioned quantity. Are not "the 5 kilos of rice I have in mind" and "the 10 meters of rope I have in mind" both {klani}? What about {te merli}? > And then you must disagree with things like: > le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i > The extent to which John is rich is a lot. I wouldn't use {du} as they are not the same identity, but {dunli} seems OK. If {li piso'i} or {li rau} cannot be dimensioned, then they are not very useful as quantifiers. Perhaps it is "raising" in a sense to treat numbers as both "pure" and as quantities with elided dimensions, but I don't see how a useful language can do it any other way, especially since lojban makes no other effort to clarify dimensioned quantities. > Your definition would be a third possibility for {ni}, but I don't see > where you would use it. (Liking 1.4 womanlyness units seems > strange to me. You'd not be saying that you like women who > measure that, but rather that you like the units themselves.) I may /not/ like all women with that quantity. It may be that {le ni la meris. ninmu cu dunli le ni la djein. ninmu}, which I like, but otherwise Jane might be a jerk. I like the extent to which she is a woman, but I may dislike that {ka} she is a lesbian. > First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for? It is a concept I can hold in my mind; if I cannot express it, then why am I wasting my time with this language? How do you answer {ma junta}? The abstract properties like "weight" and "luminosity" and "length" must be expressible without reference to specific heavy, bright, or long things, because the mind can think of them that way. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:37:37 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:37:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710152237.RAA26136@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: quantifiable pro-bridi X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 699 la .and. cusku di'e > Geoff: > > What do you mean by "intension"? > > Do you know the word but want to know the sense in which > I am using it? > > Or don't you know it at all? If so, then you're much > better of going to a book, such as the second Bible of > Lojban, Jim McCawley's "Everything linguists always wanted > to know about logic". mi spuda la .and. di'e I have read & reread that section of McCawley until (& I mean this literally) the book fell to pieces, & I have made a strange discovery: I understand what logicians mean by "intension" only late at night - & not at all on most nights. If you or pc or anyone else can shed some light.... co'omi'e markl. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:09:44 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:09:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160009.TAA29705@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2399 >As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE >does not change the meaning of a bridi. Each sumti place is 'equal'. A better way to say it is that using SE does not change the meaning of a selbri. The bridi often does change, because the order of the sumti is relevant when there are quantifiers. For example: ro prenu cu prami lo prenu Everybody loves somebody. means something quite different from: lo prenu cu se prami ro prenu There is someone who is loved by everyone. The selbri means exactly the same in both cases, but the two bridi mean different things. >Thus > >{le prenu cu klama le zdani} >the person goes to the house > >is Lojbanically the same as > >{le zdani cu se klama le prenu} >the house is-the-destination-of the person In your example there is no problem because the two sumti are of singular referent type, and for those any order works. >I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis >between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point. The >sentences have the same _essential_ meaning. If this is true, what can >we make of the following two abstractions? > >{ka le prenu cu klama le zdani} > >{ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu} They both would mean to me: The property of being gone from, by the person to the home. More explicitly: {ka le prenu le zdani ce'u klama} You can't have a {ka} without an explicit or implicit {ce'u}. What would it mean, other than {nu}? If you don't agree that a property must always be a property _of_ something, how do you say "property" in Lojban? >I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way. If you mean without an at least implicit ce'u, I agree. {ka} doesn't make sense without it. >It is >being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would >argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the >relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri. Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot. >Most >lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different >ways. But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we >are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others. Yes, in a sense we are. co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:10:06 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160009.TAA29734@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: tremau X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1165 Lojbab: >You seem to be straining to keep it a ka, perhaps out of unwillingness to >accept that (At least in intent) ni is supposed to be the quantity and >not the indirect question (assuming I know what you mean by this - hmmm >can we solve this my making the indirect question le nikau ???) No, I'm not straining to keep anything. There are two different definitions of {le ni broda}: one is {le jaila'u broda} and the other is {le ka broda la'u makau}. We just have to choose which one is correct. Usage favours the second one, the theoretical definitions favour the first. (All those ni/ka places in the gismu list require the second, the raised modality.) >>Some broda already have a quantity place, so they may not need >>the la'u, as in {zmadu fi le ka mitre makau}. In these cases you wouldn't >>use {ni} either, I think. > >probably I would use fi le se mitre {be ce'u??? I hardly understand lambda >enough to know if this would work - and don't expect to be able to explain it >to me either %^)} No, it wouldn't work, {ce'u} always goes inside a {ka}. What you have would be a clear case of sumti raising. co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:10:20 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:10:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160010.TAA29742@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: ka/ni kama X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3083 Lojbab: >>>2a does seem to be sumti raising, in that if you replaced "le ni ... >>>by its numerical value, you would be saying that you are fond of a number. >>Yes, if {ni} has the number meaning. >I think it should. So you say. But then you say: >>{lo se cenba} has to be a property, not a number. > >Not according to my gismu list - it is a ka or ni abstraction just as the x3 >of zmadu/mleca is. But the x3 of zmadu or the x2 of cenba can't take a number!!! When the gismu list asks for ka/ni it is asking for the raised meaning of ni. In most cases ni is used in its raised meaning. Very rarely, as in the refgram's 1-B example, is it used as a number. Unraised ni: le ni broda = le jaila'u broda Raised ni: le ni broda = le ka broda la'u makau The theoretical definition is given as if it were unraised, but the gismu list asks for it where you would need its raised meaning. The same thing happens with jei. >I don't know about "usage", but the refgrammar discussion of jei states >that in practice it ranges from 0 to 1 for fuzzy logic. It does not define >what value one would use for "true" or "false", but the x1 of a jei >abstraction must be a number in order to suipport the fuzzy logic convention. >jei was specifically invented to support fuzzy truth more than binary truth. Right, that's the theory. In practice, and even in the example of the refgram, jei is used in raised modality. This is the example: mi ba jdice le jei la djordj. cu zekri gasnu I [future] decide the truth-value of (George being-a-(crime doer)). I will decide whether George is a criminal. If {jei} is a truth value, that is sumti raising from: mi ba jdice le du'u makau du le jei la djordj cu zekri gasnu I will decide what is the truth value of ... Or, better yet: mi ba jdice le du'u xukau la djordj cu zekri gasnu >>>> If it has the indirect >>>>question meaning then yes, sometimes it acts just like a ka. In >>>>those cases {le ni } is very similar to {le ka la'u >>>>makau}. >>> >>>I don't know why the ka is necessary. Why not "makau poi bridi la'u ke'a"? >> >>That would be sumti raising. > >sumti raising from what? Where is the hidden abstraction in my phrasing? Well, you didn't give a full sentence. Let's go to an example: ti ta zmadu le ni ce'u ricfu I claim that that is using the raised modality of ni: ti ta zmadu le ka ce'u ricfu la'u makau This one is more than that one in to what extent they're rich. You ask, why not this: ti ta zmadu makau poi ricfu la'u ke'a That would be the first time I see kau used outside an abstractor. If you said that, my immediate question would be: ti ta zmadu makau poi ma ricfu la'u ke'a This one is more than that one in the X which who is rich to that extent???? What would you put in the x1 of ricfu? co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:44:53 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:44:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160044.TAA01605@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley X-To: Lojban Group To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710152313.QAA20778@red.colossus.net> from "JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS" at Oct 15, 97 08:01:17 pm X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1454 > >I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way. > > If you mean without an at least implicit ce'u, I agree. > {ka} doesn't make sense without it. > > >It is > >being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would > >argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the > >relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri. > > Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot. I wouldn't say "default"; the refgram neither states nor implies that. Perhaps "is likely to be interpreted/emphasized that way". And while I agree that naked {ka broda} doesn't mean much without a {ce'u} or other sumti around, we can't imply the existence of a ce'u because other sumti might be meaningful. From the examples, {le ka do xunre} is the property of your being red, but not necessarily any particular instance {nu} of it at any particular time or place, so there's no {ce'u} there anywhere. Similarly with {ni}; if sumti are filled in, one cannot assume a {ce'u} anywhere. But with them empty, one will probably be implied at first position, but not by any rule. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 20:31:40 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:31:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160131.UAA05649@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: Marriage, etc. X-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-cc: Lojban Group To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710152220.PAA11195@red.colossus.net> from "bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM" at Oct 15, 97 06:11:59 pm X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1010 > I can't find the concept of agreement/pact/contract of any > kind in the gismu list. ... > How about a `law type-of agreement': flalysarxe The law doesn't really have much to do with it, but I suppose that {sarxe} is the right starting place. Maybe {bigsarxe} is what I'm looking for, and {simxu} can be used to get the other parties in on the deal. And I forgot that we did have {speni}; that makes the proposal easy: {mi cpedu/djica le nu do binxo mi speni} "I request/desire that you become my spouse". And perhaps that makes marriage {spesarxe}, making the proposal {ko spesarxe mi} "Be in a spouse type-of agreement with me". And {simspesarxe} might be needed in Utah... -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 21:11:33 1997 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:11:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160211.VAA07831@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: ka/ni kama X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 4031 >> I can't find >> any gismu that has a place for a dimensioned quantity. > >Several have places marked [quanitity] that seem like they would >only work with dimensioned ones--in fact {le klani} itself is either >t (with {se klani] being a number) or else (as seems more natural) >it is a particular instance of a quantity, in which case {se klani} >must be a dimensioned quantity. Are not "the 5 kilos of rice I >have in mind" and "the 10 meters of rope I have in mind" both {klani}? This is what the gi'uste says: klani [ lai ] quantity x1 is a quantity quantified/measured/enumerated by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o) (It seems that it was changed! My printed gi'uste gives "x1 (quantifier) is a quantity/amount of x2 on scale x3". Now x1 and x2 are reversed! So all my comments about ni should be understood with {sela'u} rather than {la'u}.) This is how I would use klani: lei plise cu klani li ci le ka kancu The apples amount to 3 as counted. le rismi cu klani li mu le ka ki'ogra The rice amounts to 5 in kilograms. le cilta cu klani li pano le ka mitre The rope amounts to 10 in meters. So, yes, the 5 kilograms of rice and the 10 meter rope are both klani, but the dimensioned numbers 5kg and 10m are not! They're not se klani either. The se klani are pure numbers. I have no idea why scale places are marked as (si'o). Are there any examples of how to use that? >What about {te merli}? Same thing mi merli le rismi li mu le ka ki'ogra I measure the rice as 5 in kilograms. The point is that the number and the scale are always in different terbri, so there is no use for dimensioned numbers. >> And then you must disagree with things like: >> le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i >> The extent to which John is rich is a lot. > >I wouldn't use {du} as they are not the same identity, but {dunli} >seems OK. I don't understand, in what sense can a pure number and a dimensioned one be equal? Is 5kg equal to 5 or to 5000? >If {li piso'i} or {li rau} cannot be dimensioned, then >they are not very useful as quantifiers. Why not? Since no terbri asks for a dimensioned number, where would you use them? As pure numbers they work well: ta mitre li rau That is long enough. >Perhaps it is "raising" in >a sense to treat numbers as both "pure" and as quantities with >elided dimensions, but I don't see how a useful language can do it >any other way, especially since lojban makes no other effort to >clarify dimensioned quantities. The scale is usually in a separate terbri. (BTW, that would not be sumti raising in the sense normally used by Lojbanists. That's when you use a sumti in a place where you should use a predication about the sumti.) >> First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for? > >It is a concept I can hold in my mind; if I cannot express it, then >why am I wasting my time with this language? I can't answer that for you. :) > How do you answer {ma junta}? That's a good question! I wonder why there is such a word for weight but not for things like length, size, age, etc. I don't know how I would answer, because I indeed would need a dimensioned number there, and Lojban doesn't have them! The place structure I would expect is something like "x1 weighs x2 on scale x3". ua, I know how I would answer: - i ma junta ti - i ti bunda li re (I thought of making a lujvo for newtons but I gave up, any ideas?) >The abstract properties like "weight" and "luminosity" and "length" >must be expressible without reference to specific heavy, bright, or long >things, because the mind can think of them that way. The mind sure can be kidded into thinking of them. But you haven't convinced me yet that there's something you can't say in Lojban because of the lack of dimensioned numbers. co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 22:28:10 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170327.WAA01136@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710151405.IAA00492@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 917 On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, John Cowan wrote: > > By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple > > sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim > > anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify > > the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri. > > I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't > be a broda. "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only > veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard. I think even with {lo} the same thing happens: mi nelci lo gerku be la sankt. bernard I like the really-are dogs which are st. bernards The {la sankt bernard}, with {lo}, veridicially identifies the dogs as saint bernards, but that's all it does; what it says I "like" is only the dogs, not the *fact* that they are saint bernards. For that I'd still need an abstractor. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 22:29:56 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:29:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170329.WAA01184@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: ka/ni kama X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710160115.TAA06061@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 763 On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >> First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for? > > > >It is a concept I can hold in my mind; if I cannot express it, then > >why am I wasting my time with this language? > > I can't answer that for you. :) I'm studying Spanish right now and am finding that there are a few Spanish words that I can *explain* in English but I can't really translate well. That doesn't mean English is a waste of time to learn. Pe'i "3 meters" could be explained in Lojban, if only you could first figure out what we really mean by it. Maybe {le'e mitre be li ci} or {le si'o makau mitre li 3} or {le ka ce'u mitre li ci} or even {le sidbrplatono be loi ro mitre be li ci}. co'o mi'e kris From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 22:30:14 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:30:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170330.WAA01205@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: tremau X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710162335.RAA28678@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 371 On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >3. Are ni and ka redundant, strictly speaking? Given du`u and nu > > and ce`u, is there anything that they can't do but ni and ka > > can? > > Well, du'u would be redundant to ka, since ce'u is supposed > to be used with ka. And yes, ni is definitely redundant. Could {nu} be defined as {ka fau makau}? From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Oct 18 01:39:18 1997 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 01:39:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710180639.BAA22232@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: example of ni ambiguity X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710172335.RAA23721@indra.com> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1085 Lojbab asks: > >So what is the difference, and can you come up with an example where > >the value of ni broda is different for these two definitions (or maybe > >you have and I don't understand). An example is hard to come up with that's not strained, because typically one or the other would just be incorrect in some situation. So a strained example: suppose your hair is seven inches long, (and we'll assume that speaker & listener agree on inches) and I say: mi nelci le ni le do kerfa cu clani A: By the "numerical" definition, this would mean, loosely: "I just estimated your hair length, and it happens to be a favorite number of mine!" B: The "indirect question" definition would mean: "I like the length of your hair!" By doing math with the result of leni in the refgram, it is implied that "A" is correct, but by using it as the x3 of ckaji, it is implied that "B" is correct. To restate my opinion: "B" ought to be correct. "A" ought to be translated as mi nelci le jai sela'u clani be fai le do kerfa co'o mi'e kris From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 17:20:16 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:20:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710162220.RAA19550@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: Marriage, etc. X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 301 > Also, how would one propose marriage in Lojban? I couldn't find the > concept properly expressed in the gismu list. I'm not sure that predication of the proposal is necessary. It is simpler with a cmavo. .i pe'u do mi speni Request you me be-spoused ni'oco'omi'e dn. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 17:10:19 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:10:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710162210.RAA19144@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: Not just. X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 477 cu'u la xorxes. > One way is {ji'a}: > la djan ji'a cu pinxe le ckafi > Also John drinks coffee. > That implies that someone else does. Having re-read about discursives, it seems to me that the intention was not to give discursives strict logical definitions. The discursives indicate how a predication fits in what has gone before, so semantically it does not make sense to use "ji'a" in an initial predication. ni'oco'omi'e dn. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 13:39:39 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:39:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710161839.NAA10955@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 613 Lee Daniel Crocker (none) wrote: > The refgram makes sense and is reasonably clear on this point, but I > do see {ka} and {ni} used (by myself, too) as if there were a semi- > implied {ce'u} or {makau} in the first omitted place. Perfectly OK. An omitted place means whatever the speaker intends it to mean, and if the intent is to mean "ce'u", then that's what it means. "ce'u" was put into the language to allow the existing usage (omitted place) to be made explicit. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban