From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 08:04:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 16:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 34020 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 16:04:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 16:04:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 16:04:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.123.bbbdb05 (3956) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <123.bbbdb05.299be8a1@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:49 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_123.bbbdb05.299be8a1_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: 13265 --part1_123.bbbdb05.299be8a1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/12/2002 6:09:04 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > What Pierre and pycyn said is what I believe too. I want to see how > thanatos, and perhaps others, justify their position that "I hunt fish > and deer" is "mi kalte lo finpe je mirli", given those questions. > Yes, this is the ultimate malglico, since it is not only suspiciously like English, but is actually demonstrably wrong: that is it gets the wrong things in as the object. thanatos: Now this is a horse of a different collar. Given the ambiguity of tanru, it is hard to say what this is meant to mean. Could the PLGS sample mean also "school for things that are both beautiful and girls" (note that this is different for "beautiful girls", at least potentially)? Yes! And, given the usual source for things like the hunting case, this does seem to point to talk about {lo finpe je mirli}. But it does not have to, for the tanru can have a different source: conjoining {finpe kalte} and {mirli kalte}, for example, and, hence ultimately to the acceptable {kalte lo finpe e lo mirli}. <> 1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}? Nope. {lo finpe finpe je mirli} is false because a {lo finpe cu mirli} is false unless we have strangely broad definitions of fish-ness and deer-ness. {lo mirli cu finpe je mirli} is similarly weird because while {lo mirli cu mirli} is true, one would wonder why "finpe" was mentioned at all if we weren't using the "je" to claim {lo mirli .a lo se mirli ga finpe gi se finpe}. Either it's false or we've inserted "finpe" with contrary clues to what its sumti are.> Well, the conclusion is right here, but I am not so sure about the reasoning. What do the species or breed or whatevver of deer and fish have to do with the case? And what does the selbri have to do with the sumti? I guess that the point is that if we look at the two parts of the sumti-based conjunction separately, we wonder why the other selbri is in the tanru, and that makes it seem conflicting. But notice that it is the nature of the other selbri that does this; the same problem would not arise with {melbi je mirli} (unless you have very strong prejudices against deer). <>> > 2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to? Something that's definitely a {lo mirli} and strongly suggested to be {lo finpe}, which doesn't make much sense, and if that's not the case why was "finpe" mentioned at all in a context where we're singling out the x1 place of selbri?> No, the two are on a par: it is equally stated to be a deer and to be a fish, not suggested at all. It doesn't quite, though I think I see what you are driving at. What I am most unclear about is what the choice of levels of juncture have to do with choice of sumti. Some minor points: {finpe je mirli} is a single selbri, as far as the grammar is concerned, and {mi e do} is a single sumti. Again, two parts of {broda je brode} are on exactly the same level, so, if there is any sense in which sumti are implied, required or suggested for one, they are equally so for the other. {je} never means the same as {gi'e}, since one is tanru internal -- and so open to the vagaries that that allows -- and the other is externa, and so under more rigid control. Admittedly, we took the {finpe je mirli} as literally as if it were {gi'e}, but that was mostly because we have seen {je} for English "and" before and because we could not think of another interpretation at the moment (still can't). --part1_123.bbbdb05.299be8a1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/12/2002 6:09:04 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


What Pierre and pycyn said is what I believe too. I want to see how
thanatos, and perhaps others, justify their position that "I hunt fish
and deer" is "mi kalte lo finpe je mirli", given those questions.


Yes, this is the ultimate malglico, since it is not only suspiciously like English, but is actually demonstrably wrong: that is it gets the wrong things in as the object.

thanatos:
<Hey, I din't say that.  I said that {mi finpe je mirli kalte} could mean
"I hunt fish and deer", along with it possibly meaning other things,
straight from {ta melbi je nixli ckule} meaning "That is a beautiful
school and also for girls" or "That is a school for girls and beautiful
things".>

Now this is a horse of a different collar.  Given the ambiguity of tanru, it is hard to say what this is meant to mean.  Could the PLGS sample mean also "school for things that are both beautiful and girls" (note that this is different for "beautiful girls", at least potentially)?  Yes!  And, given the usual source for things like the hunting case, this does seem to point to talk about {lo finpe je mirli}.  But it does not have to, for the tanru can  have a different source: conjoining {finpe kalte} and {mirli kalte}, for example, and, hence ultimately to the acceptable {kalte lo finpe e lo mirli}.

<> 1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}?

Nope.  {lo finpe finpe je mirli} is false because a {lo finpe cu mirli}
is false unless we have strangely broad definitions of fish-ness and
deer-ness.

{lo mirli cu finpe je mirli} is similarly weird because while {lo mirli
cu mirli} is true, one would wonder why "finpe" was mentioned at all if
we weren't using the "je" to claim {lo mirli .a lo se mirli ga finpe gi
se finpe}.  Either it's false or we've inserted "finpe" with contrary
clues to what its sumti are.>

Well, the conclusion is right here, but I am not so sure about the reasoning.  What do the species or breed or whatevver of deer and fish have to do with the case?  And what does the selbri have to do with the sumti?  I guess that the point is that if we look at the two parts of the sumti-based conjunction separately, we wonder why the other selbri is in the tanru, and that makes it seem conflicting.  But notice that it is the nature of the other selbri that does this; the same problem would not arise with {melbi je mirli} (unless you have very strong prejudices against deer).

<>> > 2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to?

Something that's definitely a {lo mirli} and strongly suggested to be
{lo finpe}, which doesn't make much sense, and if that's not the case
why was "finpe" mentioned at all in a context where we're singling out
the x1 place of selbri?>

No, the two are on a par: it is equally stated to be a deer and to be a fish, not suggested at all.

<I guess my argument is basically that "finpe je mirli" isn't a single
selbri with a defined meaning any more than "mi .e do" refers to a
single sumti.  {ta finpe je mirli} is less ambiguous than {ta finpe
mirli} but more ambiguous than {ta finpe gi'e mirli}.  The "je" removes
the unspecified relation from the tanru that allows such things as
"selzgike junla" to mean "metronome".  Jeks make simultaneous claims
with the two selbri, but without the defined sumti-assignment of giheks.
Which sumti are assigned to "brode" in "brode je broda" should still be
strongly suggested from context, as with tanru, and the most common use
will be identical to a gihek, but I don't think it should be defined to
be only that. 

And I'm outvoted so unless someone requests clarification I won't argue
it any more. :)  It's really just based on logical operators being used
to makes claims about the truth of two statements, and wanting to use
jeks closer to that bridi-level of truth than in creating a selbri that
make simultaneous claims about their sumti.  Not as selbri-combining but
as bridi-multiplying, if that makes any sense.>

It doesn't quite, though I think I see what you are driving at.  What I am most unclear about is what the choice of levels of juncture have to do with choice of sumti.
Some minor points: {finpe je mirli} is a single selbri, as far as the grammar is concerned, and {mi e do} is a single sumti.  Again, two parts of {broda je brode} are on exactly the same level, so, if there is any sense in which sumti are implied, required or suggested for one, they are equally so for the other.  {je} never means the same as {gi'e}, since one is tanru internal -- and so open to the vagaries that that allows -- and the other is externa, and so under more rigid control.  Admittedly, we took the {finpe je mirli} as literally as if it were {gi'e}, but that was mostly because we have seen {je} for English "and" before and because we could not think of another interpretation at the moment (still can't). --part1_123.bbbdb05.299be8a1_boundary--