From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 18 09:22:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 18 Sep 2001 16:22:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 2360 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2001 16:22:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2001 16:22:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Sep 2001 16:22:05 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.6f.1adb11c9 (4423) for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6f.1adb11c9.28d8ce8b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:21:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6f.1adb11c9.28d8ce8b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10836 --part1_6f.1adb11c9.28d8ce8b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/17/2001 11:50:59 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > than {le ka ce'u barda makau} or {le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau} or > any other of the myriad kau-types we could put in there. I don't agree.> I am not saying that in general, though with {dunli} and {frica} it works= =20 out that way. I don't yet react properly to {ka} where {du'u} is what I=20 expect, but even after I get over that, the two are structurally very=20 different and would in many cases give different results. I don't see the= =20 first ast like either of the last two because the last two bring in factors= =20 that are not mentioned in the first and we are now working in the=20 environement where what is not mentioned is assumed non-controversial, whil= e=20 thre alst two make these unmentioneds matters of point. The {xukau} is=20 allowable because -- in this context -- it is relevantly connected to the=20 first. > The difference becomes more clear by considering what happens with > {dunli}: >=20 > ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda > This equals that in that they are big. >=20 > ti ta dunli le ka xukau ce'u barda > This equals that in whether or not they are big. >=20 > ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau > This equals that in how big they are. >=20 > Similarly, for {frica} we have: >=20 > ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda > This differs from that in that they are big. >=20 > ti ta frica le ka xukau ce'u barda > This differs from that in whether or not they are big. >=20 > ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau > This differs from that in how big they are. >=20 > Of course "this differs from that in that they are big" does not > make a lot of sense, if they are both big then that's not a difference, > . But I do not take the third place of {dunli} or {frica} as asserting=20 anything, as you do with {le ka ce'u barda} , but rather as describing the= =20 area where the sameness/difference lies, as you do with the other two. I=20 would say not "in that they are big" but "in bigness" or "in the property o= f=20 being big." Then there is a uniform interpretation of that place and no=20 semantic dissonance in the {frica} case (in the {dunli} case as well, since= =20 it would be true if neither was big).=20=20 <><>There is also the ever popular "in how big they are" > >{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}.=A0 I know you don't= =20 >like > >this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here= =20 >as > >does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}. > >Each would be acceptable to me, but not both. They correspond >to the two most common meanings {ni} has.> > >Since I think they are equivalent and both derived from {le ni la djumbos >barda na du le ni la tamtum barda}, I don't even understand what your "two >meanings" mean. ni1 broda =3D jai sela'u broda ni2 broda =3D ka broda sela'u makau They are as different as {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}, same difference.> Well, it is certainly NOT the same difference as between {le broda} and {le= =20 du'u makau broda}, since one of these is a thing and the other is a claim,= =20 while one of the {ni} a property of a quantity and the other a property of= =20 claims (or a set of claims). What And made me realize yesterday was that I= =20 have been skimming your point too quickly, focusing on the fiddling with th= e=20 bridi -- whether the quantity was just attached by a BAI or shifted to the= =20 first place in a complex compounding. I should have noticed the accompanyi= ng=20 shift of the abstractor, from {ka} to {jai} (and thought abit more about wh= at=20 the BAI -- {sela'u} -- modified). Part of the problem is an old one in th= e=20 fuzzy business, mixing truth-values with membership values (I used to do it= =20 until Belknap corrected me enough times). You claim that {ni} has had that= =20=20 confusion. I don't think I have ever used it in the truth-value way and=20 can't find any clear cases of anyone else doing so (but, by the nature of t= he=20 problem, clear cases are hard to find). You did not help clarify things by= =20 leaving the {sela'u} in the truth-value case, making it look like another=20 membership-value case -- to one who was only attending carefully to the=20 bridi. To be sure, the two factors can go together: that such-and-such is= =20 the membership value is a claim which also has a truth value, but the two a= re=20 separable (as the fact that they can be confused shows) and one step at a=20 time seems the best approach. Anyhow, I think I now see your point. I hav= e=20 (I think) been using {ni} consistently in your {n12} sense (the other is=20 {jai}) -- or almost.=20=20 I think that I have taken {ni ko'e broda} as a property of a quantity, not = as=20 an indirect question property. So, {le ni ko'e broda} evaluates to a numbe= r,=20 not a property. I have some difficulty figuring out what the proeprty=20 involved here is, since there is neither a {ce'u} nor a first term in the o= ne=20 give, but I assume this is meant to be a case of elided first term, so it i= s=20 the property of a thing which broda to whatever extent {makau} turns out to= =20 be. All of this looks like a good case for standardizing all this stuff, which= =20 seems to ahve gotten too diverse too quickly. With the result that what=20 looks to be the same claim is totally different in the two readings -- inde= ed=20 the cross readings make no sense. It turns out that I am not, but a third notion of {ni} ("plain old {ni}," I= =20 would say) that resembles each of your partially -- it is a quantity, like= =20 {ni1} and attaches to the connection between sumti and selbri, like {ni2}. = =20 No, in the second case (and always) {ce'u} belongs to {ni}, not {du'u} -- i= t=20 is minimal scope. So, saying {ka} in this case would confuse the issue. Back atcha. Do try to stick to plain old {ni} and avoid introducing two=20 totally new concepts into the picture, neither, as it turns out, justified = by=20 the data (outside your usage perhaps).=20 --part1_6f.1adb11c9.28d8ce8b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/17/2001 11:50:59 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambia= s@hotmail.com writes:


<You are saying that {= le ka ce'u barda} is more {le ka xukau ce'u barda}
than {le ka ce'u barda makau} or {le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau} or
any other of the myriad kau-types we could put in there. I don't agree.= >


 I am not saying that in general, though with {dunli} and = {frica} it works out that way.  I don't yet react properly to {ka} whe= re {du'u} is what I expect, but even after I get over that, the two are str= ucturally very different and would in many cases give different results. &n= bsp;I don't see the first ast like either of the last two because the last = two bring in factors that are not mentioned in the first and we are now wor= king in the environement where what is not mentioned is assumed non-controv= ersial, while thre alst two make these unmentioneds matters of point.  = ;The {xukau} is allowable because -- in this context -- it is relevantly co= nnected to the first.

The differen= ce becomes more clear by considering what happens with
{dunli}:

    ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda
    This equals that in that they are big.

    ti ta dunli le ka xukau ce'u barda
    This equals that in whether or not they are bi= g.

    ti ta dunli le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau
    This equals that in how big they are.

Similarly, for {frica} we have:

    ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda
    This differs from that in that they are big.

    ti ta frica le ka xukau ce'u barda
    This differs from that in whether or not they = are big.

    ti ta frica le ka ce'u barda sela'u makau
    This differs from that in how big they are.

Of course "this differs from that in that they are big" does not
make a lot of sense, if they are both big then that's not a difference,
but that nonsense is what the sentence means to me
.

But I do not take the third place of {dunli} or {frica} as asserting an= ything, as you do with {le ka ce'u barda} , but rather as describing the ar= ea where the sameness/difference lies, as you do with the other two.  = I would say not "in that they are big" but "in bigness" or "in the property= of being big."  Then there is a uniform interpretation of that place = and no semantic dissonance in the {frica} case (in the {dunli} case as well= , since it would be true if neither was big).  

<><>There is also the ever popular "in how big they are"
> >{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}.=A0 I know= you don't=20
>like
> >this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits n= icely here=20
>as
> >does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}.
>
>Each would be acceptable to me, but not both. They correspond
>to the two most common meanings {ni} has.>
>
>Since I think they are equivalent and both derived from {le ni la d= jumbos
>barda na du le ni la tamtum barda}, I don't even understand what yo= ur "two
>meanings" mean.

ni1 broda =3D jai sela'u broda
ni2 broda =3D ka broda sela'u makau

They are as different as {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda},
same difference.>
Well, it is certainly NOT the same difference as between {le broda} and= {le du'u makau broda},  since one of these is a thing and the other i= s a claim, while one of the {ni} a property of a quantity and the other a p= roperty of claims (or a set of claims).  What And made me realize yest= erday was that I have been skimming your point too quickly, focusing on the= fiddling with the bridi  -- whether the quantity was just attached by= a BAI or shifted to the first place in a complex compounding.  I shou= ld have noticed the accompanying shift of the abstractor, from {ka} to {jai= } (and thought abit more about what the BAI -- {sela'u}  -- modified).=  Part of the problem is an old one in the fuzzy business, mixing trut= h-values with membership values (I used to do it until Belknap corrected me= enough times).  You claim that {ni} has had that  confusion. &nb= sp;I don't think I have ever used it in the truth-value way and can't find = any clear cases of anyone else doing so (but, by the nature of the problem,= clear cases are hard to find).  You did not help clarify things by le= aving the {sela'u} in the truth-value case, making it look like another mem= bership-value case -- to one who was only attending carefully to the bridi.=  To be sure, the two factors can go together: that such-and-such is t= he membership value is a claim which also has a truth value, but the two ar= e separable (as the fact that they can be confused shows) and one step at a= time seems the best approach.  Anyhow, I think I now see your point. =  I have (I think) been using {ni} consistently in your {n12} sense (th= e other is {jai}) -- or almost.  
I think that I have taken {ni ko'e broda} as a property of a quantity, = not as an indirect question property.  So, {le ni ko'e broda} evaluate= s to a number, not a property. I have some difficulty figuring out what the= proeprty involved here is, since there is neither a {ce'u} nor a first ter= m in the one give, but I assume this is meant to be a case of elided first = term, so it is the property of a thing which broda to whatever extent {maka= u} turns out to be.
All of this looks like a good case for standardizing all this stuff, wh= ich seems to ahve gotten too diverse too quickly.  With the result tha= t what looks to be the same claim is totally different in the two readings = -- indeed the cross readings make no sense.

<You can go from one to the other systematically, but you can't use
one where the other makes sense. One is a proposition-type object,
the other is not.>

It turns out that I am not, but a third notion of {ni} ("plain old {ni}= ," I would say) that resembles each of your partially -- it is a quantity, = like {ni1} and attaches to the connection between sumti and selbri, like {n= i2}.  

<I don't object to {le ni2 ce'u broda}, nor to
{le du'u makau ni1 ce'u broda}. In the latter case, ce'u belongs
to {du'u}, not to {ni1}. It would be more clear perhaps to say
{le ka makau ni1 ce'u broda}.>

No, in the second case (and always) {ce'u} belongs to {ni}, not {du'u} = -- it is minimal scope.  So, saying {ka} in this case would confuse th= e issue.

<Using both meanings of {ni} is of course extremely confusing, so
I try to avoid it.>
Back atcha.  Do try to stick to plain old {ni} and avoid introduci= ng two totally new concepts into the picture, neither, as it turns out, jus= tified by the data (outside your usage perhaps).=20
--part1_6f.1adb11c9.28d8ce8b_boundary--