From pycyn@aol.com Mon Mar 04 06:23:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 4 Mar 2002 14:23:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 70631 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 14:23:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 14:23:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 14:23:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.142.a78318a (3959) for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:22:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <142.a78318a.29b4dd3d@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:22:53 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Letteral, letter words and symbols. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_142.a78318a.29b4dd3d_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: 13507 --part1_142.a78318a.29b4dd3d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 8:55:20 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > The name of that character is, so it seems, a > >letteral word, in this case {abu}. > > That's where we disagree. {abu} is not the name of the character, > it is a pronoun. At least in any grammatical Lojban text. > Read the whole piece and note the "as it seems." But also note the cases cited various places where {abu} is used clearly as a name -- as historically it was. <>When this character is written in some >formulaic context is is read as {abu}. Not within the grammar of Lojban, which in general does not permit to easily read out any formulas. You have to MEXify them if you want to read them using a grammatical utterance.> Read the whole piece. In context it needs {me'o} to set that context, but the reqding is still {abu}. The Lojban tradition is not to use abbreviations at all -- and not to use capital letters except for emphasis -- so this particular practice is very unLojbanic, not to mention mileading. {abu} will be either "a" or "A" depending on whether the shift is on or not, so it is always either one or the other. <>{la'e lu abu li'u cu lerfu} The referent of >{abu} is a letteral (17.10.6, said to be correct, but whether true or just >grammatical is unclear). In some context, the pronoun {abu} can refer to the letteral. But {abu} as a pronoun, not as a name. The distinction can be blurred in Lojban thanks to the abundance of pronouns that allows each letteral to have a different pronoun for itself.> While it is possible to twist a case to make this look plausible, I doubt it is worth the effort. In none of the cases cited (and certainly not in spelling) is there an antecedent occurrence of some obvious reference to a character "a" that enables the pronoun reference to work. <>So, {abu blabi} might be about a particular >occurrence of the letteral (on a neon sign, say) or it might be about >Alice, >or someone else recently referred to with an a-description. Yes. In English it would be "it's white", but Lojban gives more clues as to what "it" might refer to than English, a particular occurrence of the letteral being a strong candidate in some context. (The particular occurrence might be "a", "A", or other variants of the letteral.)> Read the whole paper; this passage is taken from a hypothesis contrary-to-fact, though I think that your response is wrongheaded and as irresponsible as your use of the out of context quotation. --part1_142.a78318a.29b4dd3d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 8:55:20 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


The name of that character is, so it seems, a
>letteral word, in this case {abu}.

That's where we disagree. {abu} is not the name of the character,
it is a pronoun. At least in any grammatical Lojban text.

Read the whole piece and note the "as it seems."  But also note the cases cited various places where {abu} is used clearly as a name -- as historically it was.

<>When this character is written in some
>formulaic context is is read as {abu}.

Not within the grammar of Lojban, which in general does
not permit to easily read out any formulas. You have to
MEXify them if you want to read them using a grammatical
utterance.>

Read the whole piece.  In context it needs {me'o} to set that context, but the reqding is still {abu}.

<That's why the character "A" is a much more convenient abbreviation
for the word "abu" than the character "a".

(BTW, even in "character name mode", {abu} by itself is neither
"a" nor "A". It depends on whether or not the case shift has been
locked to uppercase (with ga'e) or not.)>

The Lojban tradition is not to use abbreviations at all  -- and not to use capital letters except for emphasis -- so this particular practice is very unLojbanic, not to mention mileading.  {abu} will be either "a" or "A" depending on whether the shift is on or not, so it is always either one or the other.

<>{la'e lu abu li'u cu lerfu}  The referent of
>{abu} is a letteral (17.10.6, said to be correct, but whether true or just
>grammatical is unclear).

In some context, the pronoun {abu} can refer to the letteral.
But {abu} as a pronoun, not as a name. The distinction can be
blurred in Lojban thanks to the abundance of pronouns that allows
each letteral to have a different pronoun for itself.>

While it is possible to twist a case to make this look plausible, I doubt it is worth the effort.  In none of the cases cited (and certainly not in spelling) is there an antecedent occurrence of some obvious reference to a character "a" that enables the pronoun reference to work.

<>So, {abu blabi} might be about a particular
>occurrence of the letteral (on a neon sign, say) or it might be about
>Alice,
>or someone else recently referred to with an a-description.

Yes. In English it would be "it's white", but Lojban gives more
clues as to what "it" might refer to than English, a particular
occurrence of the letteral being a strong candidate in some
context. (The particular occurrence might be "a", "A", or other
variants of the letteral.)>

Read the whole paper; this passage is taken from a hypothesis contrary-to-fact, though I think that your response is wrongheaded and as irresponsible as your use of the out of context quotation.








 --part1_142.a78318a.29b4dd3d_boundary--