Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.70]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17aj8W-0005y6-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:35:00 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14879-1028320468-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Aug 2002 20:34:29 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 2 Aug 2002 20:34:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 53203 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2002 20:34:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2002 20:34:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2002 20:34:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.7d.2b30bbd9 (2616) for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.2b30bbd9.2a7c46c7@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:34:15 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] LogFest Phone Game results Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.2b30bbd9.2a7c46c7_boundary" X-archive-position: 409 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Content-Length: 16386 Lines: 229 --part1_7d.2b30bbd9.2a7c46c7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/1/2002 12:54:31 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes: << > Creatures four-legged and two play along the river. > loi danlu noi remei najo vomei tuple ke'a ku'o cu kelci vu'u lo rirxe > Animals with 2 or 4 legs play near the river. > loi danlu poi se tuple re da .e vo da cu kelci vi le rirxe > The animals which are both two-legged and four-legged play near the river. > Le danlu ne li reboi .e li voboi tuple cu kelci jibni le rirxe >> 1) The first just needs {vu'u} changed to {vi'i}. The {ku'o} is unnecessary with {cu}. {najo} seems unecessarily strong; {a} is, as usual, enough. {se tuple} saves the {ke'a} as well. The {noi} should probably be {poi}. 2) is fine as it stands -- grammatically. The {e} should be {a}. I'm not sure whether the difference between {vi} and {vi'i} is significant. The second {da} should be {de}. 3) Where to start? The {boi} closes off the {re} but not the {li re}, so the parser stops at {e} which can only come between sumti, not quantifiers ( between {li re} and something, but not {re} alone). And then the number expression has to be stopped, so, for the {e} to work the first bit has to be {li re lo'o}. But then {e li vo} is enough for the second bit. That ends the scope of {ne}, which is the non-restrictive form of {pe}, so takes sumti, not bridi. The parser now stalls at {cu}, since it has just taken {tuple} as the "main verb:" "Animals, which are somehow related to the numbers 2 and 4, are legs." To get closer, the {ne} has to be {noi}. Now, at least the numbers are the legs, and the animals are playfully near the river (I would have said -- if I had all the time I have now and was as awake as I am now -- {kelci co jibni} but that is highly disputable.), though what these odd (actually, both even) legs have to do with the animals is not clear. << > You can't want what you don't see. > do na kakne djica le na kakne viska > You cannot want what you cannot see. > do na'e ka'e djica le nalselcatlu be do > You can't want yourself not to be looked at. (Ao-?!@%) > do na ka'e djica le nu do na se catlu > You can't want to not be seen. These all parse, but semantically fare less well: 1) You are not a possible wisher for the impossible seer (one who sees the impossible?, something that cannot possibly be a seer?, something that cannot see the possible?) Miraculously, the next person got it (something about Gricean theory come to hand here) 2) You other-than-can wish for what you do not observe. Not clear what is wrong with {na} here, but {catlu} may be better than {viska}, philosophically. And 3) is fine for its English and its English fine for it. << > There are two types of people: those who know how to end a sentence > lo re prenu girzu cu lei prenu poi ka'e jufra mulno > A couple is a pair of people who can finish one another's sentences. > loi speni remei cu remei loi prenu poi ro cmima be ke'a ka'e cusku le fanmo > be lo'e jufra pe le drata. > Married couples have nothing left to say to each other. > lo speni remai na djuno da poi simxu cnino te tavla > 1) needs a verb: {cu} can't be followed immediately by a sumti. I'm not sure just what the form of this English should be in Lojban: we are told that there are two types of people, presumably an exhaustive dichotomy. Sentence one doesn't say there are two types, but implies it by talking about one or the other or both of the two groups of people. One expects it to go on saying what this (or these) group(s) do(es), {kae jufra mulno}, for example -- though {ka'e} is suspect for "knows how to." Better would have been {re da prenu girzu}, which has only the disadvantage of being patently false, but at least introduces the concept overtly. Perhaps {lei prenu girzu cu remei} is safest -- "the grouping I have in mind is twofold." But then what? How do we say "namely"? Perhaps "precisely speaking", {sa'e}, combine with a sentence break, will work. Then there needs to be a way to back reference the pair, without sitting on the joke, as {pamai}, for example, would. Maybe a different approach: "Everybody belongs to one of two groups, either they know how to finish a sentence." (The White Knight pulls this on Alice and, when she asks -- inevitably -- "Or what?," answers -- equally inevitably -- "Or else they don't, donchaknow", or words to that effect.) {ro prenu cu cmima pa le re girzu isa'e roda ga certu lenu mulgau lo jufra} (Amazing what a week of thinking about things will do for improving a trat.) This does not parse completely, of course, but neither does the original -- and in essentially the same way. The English from 1) wanders way off (but it is not clear what sticking close would be), but the Lojban 2 follows it pretty well (-mei2 is strictly a set, not a mass, but why fuss?) except that the relative clause wants to modify {remei}, not {loi prenu} -- it is the members of the pairs, not of the mass of people, that can finish eachother's sentences. (probably, each one individually, {ro jufra} rather than the set all at once -- the ends of sets can't be said). But {remei} is not a sumti, so can't support {poi}. Thus a scary tanru is called for (not something for anyone to construct on the fly at 1 am -- or with a lot of time in the early afternoon after a good night's sleep). {remei be lo'i prenu be'o co se cmima lo cusku be le fanmo be ro jufra pe le drata} or some such. Lojban 3 is OK except for wanting {remei} instead of {remai}. << Politicians, like poor relatives, are only seen when they need help. loi turni ne pa'a loi to'enricfu ckini cu se viska ca loi nu vo'a sidju nitcu kei po'o Rulers like the poor's relatives are seen only when they need to help. .ei se sidju le turni simlu le pindi ckini One should be helped by the apparent rulers to achieve the poor relations. da se sidju .ei le krici raitru leka xlali ckini There is something that's helped by the believer king in the black related-thing >> This group comes off better at the beginning but does wander a bit (vocab?). {turni} doesn't catch the flavor of "politician" -- maybe there are none like that in Lojbandia (not that "rulers" sounds a lot better). Parallelism seems too close for what is intended -- this is perhaps the only property in which they are similar. Something from {simsa} seems more natural (but {si'a} is the wrong selma'o). Nor is this similarlity incidental; it is, on one reading, the point of the sentence: more like {loi politicians cu simsa loi to'enricfu ckini le du'u ce'u se viska...}. The English that follows gets off on a wrong reading of the two tanru (Hey, we always say tanru are very ambiguous), but is otherwise OK. How that moved to Lojban 2 (but the official word for "poor" turns up) is hard to say, but the English picks this new idea up right away. L3 trips on vocab and E4 doubles it back. We'd expect {nu} rather than {ka} in the last sumti. All that said, the whole is pretty impressive when compared even to a game played entirely in English. --part1_7d.2b30bbd9.2a7c46c7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/1/2002 12:54:31 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes:

<<
Creatures four-legged and two play along the river.
loi danlu noi remei najo vomei tuple ke'a ku'o cu kelci vu'u lo rirxe
Animals with 2 or 4 legs play near the river.
loi danlu poi se tuple re da .e vo da cu kelci vi le rirxe
The animals which are both two-legged and four-legged play near the river.
Le danlu ne li reboi .e li voboi tuple cu kelci jibni le rirxe


>>
1) The first just needs {vu'u} changed to {vi'i}. 
The {ku'o} is unnecessary with {cu}.  {najo} seems unecessarily strong; {a} is, as usual, enough. {se tuple} saves the {ke'a} as well.  The {noi} should probably be {poi}.

2) is fine as it stands -- grammatically.  The {e} should be {a}. I'm not sure whether the difference between {vi} and {vi'i} is significant. The second {da} should be {de}.

3) Where to start?  The {boi} closes off the {re} but not the {li re}, so the parser stops at {e} which can only come between sumti, not quantifiers ( between {li re} and something, but not {re} alone).  And then the number expression has to be stopped, so, for the {e} to work the first bit has to be {li re lo'o}.  But then {e li vo} is enough for the second bit. That ends the scope of  {ne}, which is the non-restrictive form of {pe}, so takes sumti, not bridi.  The parser now stalls at {cu}, since it has just taken {tuple} as the "main verb:" "Animals, which are somehow related to the numbers 2 and 4, are legs." To get closer, the {ne} has to be {noi}.  Now, at least the numbers are the legs, and the animals are playfully near the river (I would have said -- if I had all the time I have now and was as awake as I am now -- {kelci co jibni} but that is highly disputable.), though what these odd (actually, both even)  legs have to do with the animals is not clear. 

<<

You can't want what you don't see.
do na kakne djica le na kakne viska
You cannot want what you cannot see.
do na'e ka'e djica le nalselcatlu be do
You can't want yourself not to be looked at. (Ao-?!@%)
do na ka'e djica le nu do na se catlu
You can't want to not be seen.


These all parse, but  semantically fare less well:
1) You are not a possible wisher for the impossible seer  (one who sees the impossible?, something that cannot possibly be a seer?, something that cannot see the possible?)  Miraculously, the next person got it (something about Gricean theory come to hand here)
2) You other-than-can wish for what you do not observe. Not clear what is wrong with {na} here, but {catlu} may be better than {viska}, philosophically.
And 3) is fine for its English and its English fine for it.

<<

There are two types of people: those who know how to end a sentence
lo re prenu girzu cu lei prenu poi ka'e jufra mulno
A couple is a pair of people who can finish one another's sentences.
loi speni remei cu remei loi prenu poi ro cmima be ke'a ka'e cusku le fanmo be lo'e jufra pe le drata.
Married couples have nothing left to say to each other.
lo speni remai na djuno da poi simxu cnino te tavla


1) needs a verb: {cu} can't be followed immediately by a sumti.  I'm not sure just what the form of this English should be in Lojban: we are told that there are two types of people, presumably an exhaustive dichotomy. Sentence one doesn't say there are two types, but implies it by talking about one or the other or both of the two groups of people.  One expects it to go on saying what this (or these) group(s) do(es), {kae jufra mulno}, for example -- though {ka'e} is suspect for "knows how to."  Better would have been {re da prenu girzu}, which has only the disadvantage of being patently false, but at least introduces the concept overtly.  Perhaps {lei prenu girzu cu remei} is safest -- "the grouping I have in mind is twofold."  But then what?  How do we say "namely"?  Perhaps "precisely speaking", {sa'e}, combine with a sentence break, will work.  Then there needs to be a way to back reference the pair, without sitting on the joke, as {pamai}, for example, would.  Maybe a different approach: "Everybody belongs to one of two groups, either they know how to finish a sentence." (The White Knight pulls this on Alice and, when she asks -- inevitably -- "Or what?," answers -- equally inevitably -- "Or else they don't, donchaknow", or words to that effect.)  {ro prenu cu cmima pa le re girzu isa'e roda ga certu lenu mulgau lo jufra} (Amazing what a week of thinking about things will do for improving a trat.)  This does not parse completely, of course, but neither does the original -- and in essentially the same way.

The English from 1) wanders way off (but it is not clear what sticking close would be), but the Lojban 2 follows it pretty well  (-mei2 is strictly a set, not a mass, but why fuss?) except that the relative clause wants to modify {remei}, not {loi prenu} -- it is the members of the pairs, not of the mass of people, that can finish eachother's sentences.  (probably, each one individually, {ro jufra} rather than the set all at once -- the ends of sets can't be said).  But {remei} is not a sumti, so can't support {poi}.  Thus a scary tanru is called for (not something for anyone to construct on the fly at 1 am -- or with a lot of time in the early afternoon after a good night's sleep).  {remei be lo'i prenu be'o co se cmima lo cusku be le fanmo be ro jufra pe le drata} or some such.
Lojban 3 is OK except for wanting {remei} instead of {remai}.

<<
Politicians, like poor relatives, are only seen when they need help.
loi turni ne pa'a loi to'enricfu ckini cu se viska ca loi nu vo'a sidju nitcu kei po'o
Rulers like the poor's relatives are seen only when they need to help.
.ei se sidju le turni simlu le pindi ckini
One should be helped by the apparent rulers to achieve the poor relations.
da se sidju .ei le krici raitru leka xlali ckini
There is something that's helped by the believer king in the black related-thing
>>
This group comes off better at the beginning but does wander a bit (vocab?).  {turni} doesn't catch the flavor of "politician" -- maybe there are none like that in Lojbandia (not that "rulers" sounds a lot better).  Parallelism seems too close for what is intended -- this is perhaps the only property in which they are similar.  Something from {simsa} seems more natural (but {si'a} is the wrong selma'o).  Nor is this similarlity incidental; it is, on one reading,  the point of the sentence: more like {loi politicians cu simsa loi to'enricfu ckini le du'u ce'u se viska...}.  The English that follows gets off on a wrong reading of the two tanru (Hey, we always say tanru are very ambiguous), but is otherwise OK.  How that moved to Lojban 2 (but the official word for "poor" turns up) is hard to say, but the English picks this new idea up right away. L3 trips on vocab and E4 doubles it back.  We'd expect {nu} rather than {ka} in the last sumti.

All that said, the whole is pretty impressive when compared even to a game played entirely in  English.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_7d.2b30bbd9.2a7c46c7_boundary--