From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 03 16:39:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 23:39:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 82774 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 23:39:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 23:39:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 23:39:29 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.85]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010803233926.EVON6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:39:26 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:38:23 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9138 Xod: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > Xod: > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > Xod: > > > > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > tu'o ka ce'u djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa > > > > > > > > > > .oi ki'u ma cusku zo tu'o .i na mapti > > > > > > > > It was a recent excellent suggestion of Jorge's in > > > > response to my complaint about having to use a quantifier > > > > even to quantify over noncontingently singleton categories > > > > (i.e. categories that are singletons in all worlds). Jorge > > > > suggested using {tu'o} as a vacuous quantifier. > > > > > > Is this different from le pa broda? > > > > Yes. {le} is nonveridical. And {le/lo pa broda} still does > > not indicate the noncontingency of the singletonhood. > > I don't see why tu'o would be any stronger than le/lo pa. Because tu'o is uninformative, it serves to indicate that the quantification is a redundant irrelevance. Or so the idea goes. [on empty x1 filled with understood ce'u:] [...] > > Oh I see. I dislike the convention for several reasons: > > > > (1) I dislike conventions, which are weaker than rules, > > because one can't be sure when the convention is being > > followed and when it isn't. > > Since I have never seen it broken, I feel safe with it, whether or not it > is technically a rule. > > > (2) The convention conflicts with the principle that empty > > sumti places are interpreted using the most appropriate > > value for the context, so for example in a discussion > > about visibility, {ka viska kei} should be interpretable > > as {ka zo'e viska ce'u kei}. > > Well, if the convention states that "ka viska kei" = "ka ce'u viska kei", > then the speaker should have said "ka viska ce'u kei" or "ka selviska kei" > to avoid the confusion that he should have seen coming. So you're elevating the convention to the status of a rule, which is at least better than it being a mere convention. But as I said, I think the convention/rule should be aborted. > > (3) The convention encourages gardenpathing (i.e. when > > you parse & interpret the utterance incrementally left > > to right, and then hit a word that shows you that earlier > > in the utterance you took a wrong course). So {ka djuno > > le du'u do jinvi mi viska ce'u} is likely to be misparsed > > as {ka ce'u djuno le du'u do jinvi mi viska} until the > > {ce'u} is reached. > > Hey, I agree with this! However, while any proper Lojban speakers omit the > ce'u, the listener doesn't necessarily know whether you have done so, so > it doesn't really help. (It's too late, unless everybody adopts it!) > > > (4) Even when there is an explicit {ce'u} as in {ka prami > > ce'u}, there's a risk of this being interpreted as {ka > > ce'u prami ce'u} [which means something like "Love"]. The > > way this should be avoided is to not omit any ce'u, but > > if the convention is operative then one must also remember > > to use an explicit zo'e -- {ka zo'e prami ce'u} -- to > > avoid being misinterpreted. > > I agree with this too. These are good points. > > > Indeed, we could do with an > > experimental cmavo that guarantees that no ce'u has been > > omitted -- {kau'u} in NU, which when ce'u-less is equivalent > > to {du'u}. > > > > Objections (1-3) also apply to the similar convention pertaining > > to {ke'a}. > > As I think about it, I would add another: struggling to place the ce'u or > the ke'a place first, we are forced to juggle places with SE, which I > actually find distasteful. However, this is a practice already forced upon > us by le. There is no way I can sumti-ize the second place of viska > without swapping places. And since we are forced to do it there, we might > as well do likewise in other cases too. But at least with le you could choose to use a relative instead, {ko'a noi zo'e broda ke'a} or {le du noi zo'e broda ke'a}. > However, the problem may be worse than you state. Page 259, ex. 4.4: > > le ka do xunre cu cnino mi > the property-of your being-red is new to me. > > Where is your ce'u there? In a place that's already filled! I think that particular example (said to friend returning from holiday sunburnt) should be {le nu}, not {le ka}. I *think* I recall a weak consensus that du'u = ce'u-less ka, which implies that ka must contain an implicit or explicit ce'u. --And.