From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 15 11:56:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 18:56:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 55166 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 17:01:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.165.ed258b (4596) for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:01:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <165.ed258b.28d4e34e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:01:02 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_165.ed258b.28d4e34e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10751 --part1_165.ed258b.28d4e34e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:10:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > 1. What is the difference, if any, between >=20 > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} >=20 > and >=20 > {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka xu kau ce'u barda} >=20 > ? >=20 I don't think that ultimately there is any, though the steps to that common= =20 core are different. I take this, by the way, as a positive point for=20 set-of-answers analysis. <2. What is the rationale (apart from prior usage) for using ce'u rather than ma kau? Your sentence (under your interpretation of it) could be englished as "D and T differ in terms of which of them is big", which in turns suggests a lojbanization of: =A0 =A0 {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ma kau barda}> I don't think so, but I'll work on it. I think that (and I know this will= =20 get me into trouble with stuff I've said earlier) the English you give can = be=20 put as the Lojban you give for it, that it has to have {ce'u} rather than=20 {makau} because it has to guarantee that both Jumbo and Tom Thumb get in an= d=20 it is at least plausible that Tom Thumb might not make the cut as an=20 acceptable answer to "Who is big?" Of course, they would still differ -- o= ne=20 is an answer and the other is not -- but the different kinds of negations=20 mean that further steps I like might be cut off ("they differ in their size= ",=20 for example, or "Jumbo is large xor Tan Thumb is"). <3. I can follow your story about the essentially unbound nature of {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} but it seems to me that on your story, =A0 =A0 {la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami ma kau} means "there is some value of ma kau such that lo ka ce'u prami that value is true for la djan xor la bil". ... In which case, it might just as well be said as: =A0 =A0 {da zo'u la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami da}> =20 Yes, I think I did that somewhere along the line, but, if not, it certainly= =20 works just fine (as it should). "There is something such that John and Bill= =20 differ in their love for it." Good, glad to help you out. <.=A0 The LE > is in {la dubia frica la tclsys le mamta be ce'u}, which is claimed to wo= rk > like the {frica} example above, only giving different mothers rather than > different truth values ultimately. Who made that claim? I don't recall having seen it before.> I did, in some communications with xorxes and then in one summary or anothe= r=20 (I can't find it now -- comes the Elephant? -- oh here it is: Set of Answer= s=20 on 9/5 -- but I also see that araizen used it earlier, not quite to the sam= e=20 point, but relatedly). The point here is that if W and Chelsea differ in w= ho=20 their mothers are, they also differ in their mothers: {... le mamta be ce'u= } <.=A0 This > example also points to a possible (but largely unexplored) question of > whether {ce'u} in subordinate phrases in a structure may be taken as part= of > the overall structure or have to be evaluated separately before the overa= ll > structure is revealed.=A0 The intended reading here is clearly that they = may=20 be > taken into the overall structure; it is unclear whether the other order o= f > evaluations would give a different result. It would. =A0 {lo du'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ce'u mabla} (i) the function whereby X talks about Y being mabla (ii) the property of talking about mablahood Lojban's general rules of scope resolve this ambiguity: the ce'u is bound in the localmost bridi. Hence the Lojban means (ii), not (i). To say (i): =A0 {lo du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ko'a mabla}> Thanks. Another reason then to keep {makau} and {ce'u} separate, since I=20 think {makau} has a broader scope. --part1_165.ed258b.28d4e34e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:10:01 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dt= n.ntl.com writes:


1. What is the difference= , if any, between

   {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda}

and

   {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka xu kau ce'u barda}

?


I don't think that ultimately there is any, though the steps to that co= mmon core are different.  I take this, by the way, as a positive point= for set-of-answers analysis.

<2. What is the rationale (apart from prior usage) for using ce'u ra= ther
than ma kau? Your sentence (under your interpretation of it) could
be englished as "D and T differ in terms of which of them is big", whic= h
in turns suggests a lojbanization of:

=A0 =A0 {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ma kau barda}>

I don't think so, but I'll work on it.  I think that (and I know t= his will get me into trouble with stuff I've said earlier) the English you = give can be put as the Lojban you give for it, that it has to have {ce'u} r= ather than {makau} because it has to guarantee that both Jumbo and Tom Thum= b get in and it is at least plausible that Tom Thumb might not make the cut= as an acceptable answer to "Who is big?"  Of course, they would still= differ -- one is an answer and the other is not -- but the different kinds= of negations mean that further steps I like might be cut off ("they differ= in their size", for example, or  "Jumbo is large xor Tan  Thumb = is").

<3. I can follow your story about the essentially unbound nature of = {la
djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} but it seems to me that on
your story,

=A0 =A0 {la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami ma kau}

means "there is some value of ma kau such that lo ka ce'u prami that
value is true for la djan xor la bil".

... In which case, it might just as well be said as:

=A0 =A0 {da zo'u la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami da}>
=20
Yes, I think I did that somewhere along the line, but, if not, it certa= inly works just fine (as it should). "There is something such that John and= Bill differ in their love for it."

<This then eradicates the construction where qkau and ce'u necessari= ly
cooccur, and leaves the way open to my strategy of replacing core
qkau (in core interrogative contexts) with "da -extension-of tu'odu'u
ce'u".>

Good, glad to help you out.

<.=A0 The LE
> is in {la dubia frica la tclsys le mamta be ce'u}, which is claime= d to work
> like the {frica} example above, only giving different mothers rath= er than
> different truth values ultimately.

Who made that claim? I don't recall having seen it before.>

I did, in some communications with xorxes and then in one summary or an= other (I can't find it now -- comes the Elephant? -- oh here it is: Set of = Answers on 9/5 -- but I also see that araizen used it earlier, not quite to= the same point, but relatedly).  The point here is that if W and Chel= sea differ in who their mothers are, they also differ in their mothers: {..= . le mamta be ce'u}

<.=A0 This
> example also points to a possible (but largely unexplored) questio= n of
> whether {ce'u} in subordinate phrases in a structure may be taken = as part of
> the overall structure or have to be evaluated separately before th= e overall
> structure is revealed.=A0 The intended reading here is clearly tha= t they may be
> taken into the overall structure; it is unclear whether the other = order of
> evaluations would give a different result.

It would.

=A0 {lo du'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ce'u mabla}

(i) the function whereby X talks about Y being mabla
(ii) the property of talking about mablahood

Lojban's general rules of scope resolve this ambiguity: the ce'u is bou= nd
in the localmost bridi. Hence the Lojban means (ii), not (i). To say (i= ):

=A0 {lo du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ko'a mabla}>

Thanks.  Another reason then to keep {makau} and {ce'u} separate, = since I think {makau} has a broader scope.

--part1_165.ed258b.28d4e34e_boundary--