Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 25549 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 10:24:44 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 10 May 2000 10:24:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14166 invoked by uid 40001); 10 May 2000 10:25:54 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 14163 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 10:25:54 -0000 Received: from ho.egroups.com (208.50.144.85) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 10 May 2000 10:25:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2635-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2000 10:25:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 16868 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 10:25:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2000 10:25:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.camelot.de) (195.30.224.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2000 10:25:52 -0000 Received: from robin.camelot.de (uucp@robin.camelot.de [195.30.224.3]) by mail.camelot.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11513; Wed, 10 May 2000 12:25:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from oas.a2e.de (uucp@localhost) by robin.camelot.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id MAA11508; Wed, 10 May 2000 12:25:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost by wtao97 via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 10:22:39 +0000 (/etc/localtime) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) X-Sender: phm@wtao97.oas.a2e.de To: pycyn@aol.com Cc: lojban@egroups.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: PILCH Hartmut MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:22:39 +0000 (/etc/localtime) Subject: [lojban] centripetality: subset vs component Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3785 Lines: 115 > << Also, all addresses can be very well represented as tanrus, and this is > likely to occur in conversation > > day 4 . > which day 4 ? > month 5 day 4 . > which month 5 day 4 ? > year 1999 month 5 day 4 . > > In Lojban the default way of doing this is tanru expansion, with a special > particle 'be' available for transposition. >> > None of this looks like it is a natural tanru; it involves names > ordescriptions, not predicates. ... > I still need a good definition of centrifugal and centripetal, since every > time I think I understand them, you give an example that goes exactly against > what I just thought I understood (e.g. section-tome is centrifugal, but > modifer-modified is cetripetal -- I think -- yet I see these as being > essentially the same pattern). centrifugal / little endian means appending to the right when a delimitation is asked: day 20. which "day 20" ? day 20 of month 5. or: section 828. which "section 828" ? section 828 of the Civil Law (S 828 BGB) tanru expansion is the addition of specifying attributes that delimit the set of possibly meant things to a subset. a key. what key ? a box-key. a key for what kind of box ? a keybox-key. a key for a box of what kind of keys ? a boxkeybox-key ... In real-life, a certain day is a component of a month, just like a key is a component of a keybox. However when I say "the 20th" I don't refer to a certain day, but to a large set of possible days (keys) in an infinite number of possible containers (months). The box-key is thus a subset or the set called "key". We have here the notions of subset vs component, which are easy to confuse. It is good language design to expand tanru by prepending rather than by appending, because in address constructions (including places, names, dates etc) the subset-specifier is usually also a container, and it is a necessity of human thinking to proceed from the container to the contained. Computers can use little-endian, because they are independent of time. Human thinking cannot procede in a little-endian manner, because time has only one direction. One will always start at a certain container level and proced inwards to the center from there (centripetal). If the language offers only a centrifugal addressing pattern, that can only mean that the human mind has to make an extra effort at transposing. Such efforts are quite normal in natural languages, but the Logical Language experiment is designed to eliminate them as far as possible. renonono nanca [no]mu masti pano djedi renonono [no]mu pano nomu masti pano nomu pano etc I would assume that a direct juxtaposition in a tanru is permissible in Lojban, because the tanru structure does not imply any specific relations between the elements except that of delimitation (subset taking). Thus, although an ordinality specifier might be helpful, it is not required, and a Chinese-like date is not only possible but in the line of a consistent Logical Language design. In dates, brevity is required, and ordinality specifiers can only be optional. Apparently these considerations could create a conflict with the design freeze. They show an inconsistency in the design of "detri". The removal of which will probably have to wait until some official version upgrade of the "Lojban Standard". Or is this not the way how Lojban is supposed to evolve? -phm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry experiments. http://click.egroups.com/1/4051/3/_/17627/_/957954353/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com