Message-ID: <34465284.168F@locke.ccil.org> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:44:36 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley References: <199710160009.TAA29705@locke.ccil.org> <34465104.449E@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Status: RO Content-Length: 25068 Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: > 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. True. But I suggest (see below) that the wording "proposition that you are red" is better English, and that using "du'u" rather than "ka" in that case is more perspicuous Lojban. JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > 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 think that a zero-adic intension ("ka" with no "ce'u" explicit or implicit) is a "du'u". The word "property" is too limited to capture the full meaning of "le ka ...", which means "proposition" when zero-adic, "property" when monadic, and "relation" when dy-or-more-adic. The main use of "du'u" is to make it clear that no "ce'u" is present, and also to add the convenience x2 place (le se du'u = lu'e le du'u). > Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot. Probably usually. It's not a rule. > > 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. The rules say that both "ka ckule" and "ka se ckule" are incomplete, because they have ellipsized places. These places must be filled in by extra-grammatical conventions. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 13:26:49 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:25:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710161825.NAA10661@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: quantifiable pro-bridi X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1139 Mark V: > > > 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.... I'm being cagey because I think I would be more likely to shed darkness than light. pc's explanation would be more kosher, though his postings often go over my head. I think of the intension of F as a set of criteria for establishing whether F(x). The "definition" of F, as it were. McCawley presents a far more sophisticated account, which I sort of follow until my CPU crashes. McCawley is a reliable source of info. I am not. --And. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 14:34:39 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:34:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710161934.OAA12453@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: tremau X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 935 Xorxe: > 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.) 1. Why {le ka broda la`u makau} (assuming no ce`u there) and not {le du`u broda la`u makau}? 2. If {ni} was "clarified" to Option 2, could {jei} be redefined as "whether"? At the moment {jei} is parallel to option 1, but Option 2 seems usefuller. 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? BTW, I have been finding it helpful when Jorge & Kris give pithy summaries of the conclusions-so-far, since I have been keeping only half an eye on this thread. --And. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 14:23:10 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:23:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710161923.OAA12223@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1133 John: > Lee Daniel Crocker (none) wrote: [Why (none)? Is that something your software 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. > > 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. Is it really that simple? Suppose you fill an omitted place with a variable bound by a quantifier. Can that quantifier than have any scope at all over the rest of the sentence? For example, can {mi na citka} mean "Not everything is eaten by me", or "Everything is uneaten by me"? It seems to me that in practise we restrict ourselves to a much narrower range of interpretations. Also, is an omitted sumti understood as an unexpressed logical argument, or as an "unspoken word"? The latter wd be analogous to the way "ma" asks for a replacing word. --And From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 14:34:48 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:34:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710161934.OAA12460@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Even X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 517 > cu'u la .and. > >Be warned: do not start a thread on the meaning of "even". > >Or, if you do, first read 'Even' by Paul Kay in _Linguistics and > >Philosophy_ from c. 1991. > > At first glance "even" doesn't seem to be much different from "only" and "non-". > What is the problem with it? > > ni'oco'omi'e dn. I hope you will excuse me heeding my own warning... [If you won't then I could send you a photocopy of the article.] Still, others such as Jorge are less trepid souls than me... --And From drv.cbc.com!a.rosta@cbgate.cbc.com Thu Oct 16 16:06:00 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:05:57 -0500 (EST) Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: cowan@scotty.sys.drv.cbc.com Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:36:32 GMT+0 Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-Id: <303F53244E@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2341 This answered some of my questions in a post I sent before I received it. So don't bother replying (on the redundancy of ka). > Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:44:36 -0400 > Reply-to: John Cowan > From: John Cowan > Organization: Lojban Peripheral > Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley > X-To: Lojban List > To: And Rosta > Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: > > > 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. > > True. But I suggest (see below) that the wording "proposition that > you are red" is better English, and that using "du'u" rather than > "ka" in that case is more perspicuous Lojban. > > JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > > > 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 think that a zero-adic intension ("ka" with no "ce'u" explicit > or implicit) is a "du'u". The word "property" is too limited > to capture the full meaning of "le ka ...", which means > "proposition" when zero-adic, "property" when monadic, and > "relation" when dy-or-more-adic. > > The main use of "du'u" is > to make it clear that no "ce'u" is present, and also to add > the convenience x2 place (le se du'u = lu'e le du'u). > > > Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot. > > Probably usually. It's not a rule. > > > > 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. > > The rules say that both "ka ckule" and "ka se ckule" are incomplete, > because they have ellipsized places. These places must be filled in > by extra-grammatical conventions. > > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org > e'osai ko sarji la lojban > From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 16:58:40 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:58:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710162158.QAA18552@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: <199710160115.SAA06465@red.colossus.net> from "JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS" at Oct 15, 97 10:12:50 pm X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2210 > [much about the use of {kanli} and {merli}, which makes > sense, elided for brevity] > >> 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. > >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. If all brivla were designed as you say, where quantities always had separate places for number and scale, then {li rau} et al. would indeed be useful as pure numbers, and pure numbers would be useful as general quantifiers with the scale simply elided. > > 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. If quantities are as you say (and that's a good way for them to be), then {junta} is wrong. > >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. Not wanting to get into the philosophical argument of whether or not qualia are meaningful existents, I /can/ ask what are "pure" numbers if not qualia? If /these/ qualia are basic to the language, why can't I express others? And that brings to mind the obvious place one might want dimensioned quantities: in mekso. If one can say that 2+2=4 without implying that 4 of something are around somewhere, why can I not say that a newton is a kg*m/sec^2 without implying that any pushing is going on? -- 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 Thu Oct 16 18:40:52 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:40:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710162340.SAA22765@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: tremau X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1416 >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}. I must be obtuse, or simply befuddled by jai and kau which you use a lot a nd I am uncomfortable with. But I have no idea what these two mean either in theory or usage, given that you are calling them definitional. For one thing, the "definition" of la'u, which in turn invokes the x1 of klani which among other things would be a ni abstraction. So defining ni in terms of la'u is circular. Or perhaps you are merely saying this very thing when you say that the theoretical definition is "le jaila'u broda" - I'm just not sure that the operation of inserting a la'u place is an exact inverse. 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). lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me. From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 17:36:14 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:36:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710162236.RAA20129@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: Marriage, etc. X-To: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <01BCDA56.E6737460@pris.bfsec.bt.co.uk> (message from Don Wiggins on Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:14:01 +0100) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 198 Don Wiggins suggests; .i pe'u do mi speni Request you me be-spoused I agree! This feels more lojbanic. Should of remembered this myself :-( From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Oct 18 00:44:58 1997 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:44:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710180544.AAA21301@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Gregory Higley Sender: Lojban list From: Gregory Higley Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction X-To: Logical Language Group To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1675 Residents of Lojbanistan, I looked at the relevant chapter -- 11 -- in the refgram, and it cleared things up for me. But I think the mistake I made was in looking at an abstraction in isolation, without realizing that, in most usages, it would be embedded in some way in a bridi, e.g. la djan prami la djordj le ka la djein cu prami la djan John exceeds George in the property-of Jane loves John I realize that normally {la djan} would be omitted in the abstraction, but this serves to illustrate what all of you realized and I was too dense to catch. Of course, it's possible to invent all kinds of sentences which play havoc with {ka}, but of course, none of these are very useful for communication ... AS AN ASIDE ... la djan prami la djordj le ka la djein cu prami la djosef I decline to translate this, and I don't regard it as a defect of the language. It is possible in any language to create grammatical nonsense, although the heights to which you can go with this are exceptional in Lojban. This is great. Looking at the reference grammar has rekindled my interest in Lojban. I am still a bit critical of the language -- although next time I'll be sure to look at the refgram before shooting my mouth off -- not in terms of its structure as such, but in terms of how usable that structure is by humans. I think the vast majority of Lojban sentences can be expressed without having to resort to the hideous, horrible, and anti-human FA, but I still think that place-structures are largely unusable. Oh, well, that debate is as old as Loglan ... At this point I'm rambling, so I'd best sign off for now ... Gregory From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 19:08:59 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:08:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170008.TAA23799@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: 1396 cu'u la djan >I think that a zero-adic intension ("ka" with no "ce'u" explicit >or implicit) is a "du'u". The word "property" is too limited >to capture the full meaning of "le ka ...", which means >"proposition" when zero-adic, "property" when monadic, and >"relation" when dy-or-more-adic. Sounds _Right_. I gave some examples in another message where you need dyadics (but I didn't fill in the {ce'u}s to avoid adding yet another issue). Consider: lei va plise cu klani li mu le ka kancu Those apples amount to 5 by the relation X1 is counted to be X2. Here {le ka kancu} means {le ka zo'e kancu ce'upipa ce'upire} = "The relation X1 is counted to be X2". Here we need two {ce'u}s because {le ka kancu} is not a property of only {lei plise} nor of only {li mu}. It is a relationship between them. The same happens in: mi merli le cilta li pano le ka ce'upipa mitre ce'upire I measure the rope to be 10 by the relation X1 is in meters X2. Of course you wouldn't normally make the {ce'u}s explicit. We just say: mi merli le cilta li pano le ka mitre I measure the rope to be 10 in meters. >> The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot. >Probably usually. It's not a rule. I agree. (Look at my {le ka kancu} example above.) co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 19:32:19 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:32:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170032.TAA24670@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: 1406 And: >> 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}. > >1. Why {le ka broda la`u makau} (assuming no ce`u there) and not > {le du`u broda la`u makau}? By John's recent dictum the second would be a special case of the first. But you're right, when there's no ce'u it would be {le du'u}. Since I was mostly considering places where the gi'uste suggests ka/ni, the right expansion would be with {ka}. My definitions should be corrected though, changing {la'u} to {sela'u}. I was using an old printed gi'uste where the x1 and x2 of klani were reversed from their current order. >2. If {ni} was "clarified" to Option 2, could {jei} be redefined > as "whether"? At the moment {jei} is parallel to option 1, > but Option 2 seems usefuller. I suppose I agree. But I've been complaining about this dichotomy for years without much success. Both modalities of jei and ni made it to the refgram examples. Personally I never use {jei}, and I think I will abandon {ni} as well, which I haven't used much anyway. >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. co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 20:17:55 1997 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 20:17:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170117.UAA26398@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: 1340 Lee: >> > 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. >If quantities are as you say (and that's a good way for them >to be), then {junta} is wrong. Upon further thinking, I think this is how to use junta: - ma junta ti -le ka ce'u bunda li ci cu junta ti The property of being 3 in pounds is the weight of this. i.e, the x1 of junta has to be a property. But it is a very atypical gismu in any case. >And that brings to mind the obvious place one might want dimensioned >quantities: in mekso. If one can say that 2+2=4 without implying >that 4 of something are around somewhere, why can I not say that a >newton is a kg*m/sec^2 without implying that any pushing is going on? Let's see if this works: le ka ce'upira klanrniutoni ce'upire cu du le ka ce'upire pliji le se ki'ogra be ce'upira le pliji be le se mitre be ce'upira be'o bei le tenfa be le se snidu be ce'upira be'o bei li ni'ure The relationship X1 is X2 in newtons is equal to the relationship X2 is the product of the kilograms of X1 times the product of the meters of X1 times the seconds of X1 to the power -2. I'm not sure that works, and in any case it's ugly. co'o mi'e xorxes From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Oct 17 10:36:23 1997 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:36:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710171536.KAA24123@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 610 Chris Bogart wrote: > I think even with {lo} the same thing happens: I don't think this is the "same thing". > 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. Agreed. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban