From pycyn@aol.com Mon Dec 10 06:39:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 10 Dec 2001 14:39:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 88298 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2001 14:39:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2001 14:39:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2001 14:39:19 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.9a.1e3e0175 (4556) for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:39:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9a.1e3e0175.29462313@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:39:15 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9a.1e3e0175.29462313_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12571 --part1_9a.1e3e0175.29462313_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/9/2001 5:22:35 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >and {lojdra} just doesn't fit at all (pace English -- Lord, the > >problems that always causes in Logic classes!) > > I detected some irony in the way the problem was posed and thought > {lojdra} was the best way to reflect that. Maybe I read too much > into it. > I agree with the irony (what seemed "logical" turned out to be a disaster) but don't see the connection there with "logically correct." Of course, I also don't see how to convey the irony (an "irony" attitudinal is NOT the answer -- to forestall the usual suggestion). <> > gasnu is "to make someone else do something". > > > > I would ahve said "to bring it about that" which does not require >another >agent intermeidary (though it does suggest one); Yes, I also glossed it as "to make something happen". The point was just to distinguish it from English "to do", which is much better served by {zukte}.> In any case, {zukte} seems to be what is called for in this sentence, a direct agent, not merely the power behind what is happening. <> > >"Now the act seemed valid" I think the {ca} has got to be pinned down to >something, That will come fron the context. caku = ca zo'e = ca le nu co'e. {caku} in general is "then", not "now"! And even more so when the overall tense of the bridi is an explicit {pu}.> Agreed, but does this -- in context -- pick out the releveant time or is it just "at sometime"? In fact, in context, I suspect that using no marker at all works at least as well as using {caku} to tie to the event involved (again, it is hard to be sure, lacking the full context). {caku} suggests adding a new time to the one already mentioned -- but then does not suggest what that new time is. Well, at 10.1 (216), Refgram says that sumti pu selbri and puku sumti selbri differ only in emphasis. And nothing is said about omitting (or understanding) some description after a sumtitcita but leaving the {ku}. Still the present case seems to be either a contradictory or an illegitmate case, and I don't see why it should be either. --part1_9a.1e3e0175.29462313_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/9/2001 5:22:35 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>and {lojdra} just doesn't fit at all (pace English -- Lord, the
>problems that always causes in Logic classes!)

I detected some irony in the way the problem was posed and thought
{lojdra} was the best way to reflect that. Maybe I read too much
into it.


I agree with the irony (what seemed "logical" turned out to be a disaster) but don't see the connection there with "logically correct."  Of course, I also don't see how to convey the irony (an "irony" attitudinal is NOT the answer -- to forestall the usual suggestion).

<> > gasnu is "to make someone else do something".
> >
> > I would ahve said "to bring it about that" which does not require
>another
>agent intermeidary (though it does suggest one);

Yes, I also glossed it as "to make something happen". The point was
just to distinguish it from English "to do", which is much better
served by {zukte}.>

In any case, {zukte} seems to be what is called for in this sentence, a direct agent, not merely the power behind what is happening.

<>   <caku le se zukte pu simlu le ka lojdra>
>
>"Now the act seemed valid" I think the {ca} has got to be pinned down to
>something,

That will come fron the context. caku = ca zo'e = ca le nu co'e.
{caku} in general is "then", not "now"! And even more
so when the overall tense of the bridi is an explicit {pu}.>

Agreed, but does this -- in context -- pick out the releveant time or is it just "at sometime"?  In fact, in context, I suspect that using no marker at all works at least as well as using {caku} to tie to the event involved (again, it is hard to be sure, lacking the full context).  {caku} suggests adding a new time to the one already mentioned -- but then does not suggest what that new time is.

<I don't think so. I hope that the baseline doesn't say that
{caku} always means 'now'. It couldn't always work, as in
this example.>

Well, at 10.1 (216), Refgram says that sumti pu selbri and puku sumti selbri differ only in emphasis.  And nothing is said about omitting (or understanding) some description after a sumtitcita but leaving the {ku}.  Still the present case seems to be either a contradictory or an illegitmate case, and I don't see why it should be either.








 --part1_9a.1e3e0175.29462313_boundary--