From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 13 09:59:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 16:59:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 24080 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 16:59:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 16:59:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 16:59:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.89.1dc75ab3 (4320) for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:24 EDT Subject: Re:[lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15660 --part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_alt_boundary" --part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 7:14:58 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > If, as you have been wont to say, "mi nelci lo'e cakla" etc. can > be aptly glossed as "I am a chocolate-liker", "That is a sofa- > resembler"/"That is sofa-like", "That is a boa-depicter", then "lo'e > cinfo cu xabji le friko" would be "Africa is lion-inhabited", which > seems to me not the same as "The [generic] lion lives in Africa", > though each of the two different meanings is a challenge to > express adequately in Lojban. >> Cherlin's former tag from Alice, "Oh, a knot! Let me untie it," applies here: givena tanru, somone always want to unpack it and so {lo'e} and the like make a nice way-station on that trip (but far short of the last stage, I think). << If "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" is the way to refer to the Lion intension, I wonder if ways can be found to express all the meanings using "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" rather than "lo'e", just for the sake of clarity. Then "lo'e" could be defined as an abbreviation of certain more longwinded Lojban forms. >> Some place back in that chocolate pile are some arguments against {tu'o} here (or anywhere), but I can't drag them out just now. In any case, I think it is finally clear that xorxes' {lo'e ...} is different from {le/lo/tu'o/no'o du'u ce'u ...} -- and rather more complex. Is {ce'u da} two terms (as CLL appears to have it) or "lambda x" as good ogic would use it? I root for the latter but despair of achieving anything with {du'u/ka} anymore. << But I would rather abolish lo'e/le'e. Any cmavo about whose meaning there is virtually nil consensus, even after years upon years of discussion, should be binned >> I think we need more of them, since what can be said with them takes for ever without them. As for nil consensus, some parts of the language are just ahrder to master than others -- even for the people who invented them (encouraging sign of the language's autonomy). << A lot of your debate with pc could be avoided if you eschewed the form {lo'e} and used an unassigned cmavo for your purposes instead >> No, the word was only peripherally the issue (and turned out to be the one part that approximately made correct sense). Figuring out what xorxes meant would have had to be done in any case. And, I think, the results is now pretty close to considerable clarity on the matter (I'm still not sure exactly what xorxes means, but I know the category and how most of what the line of chat works). --part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 7:14:58 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<

If, as you have been wont to say, "mi nelci lo'e cakla" etc. can
be aptly glossed as "I am a chocolate-liker", "That is a sofa-
resembler"/"That is sofa-like", "That is a boa-depicter", then "lo'e
cinfo cu xabji le friko" would be "Africa is lion-inhabited", which
seems to me not the same as "The [generic] lion lives in Africa",
though each of the two different meanings is a challenge to
express adequately in Lojban.

>>
Cherlin's former tag from Alice, "Oh, a knot! Let me untie it," applies here: givena tanru, somone always want to unpack it and so {lo'e} and the like make a nice way-station on that trip (but far short of the last stage, I think).

<<
If "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" is the way to refer to the Lion
intension, I wonder if ways can be found to express all the
meanings using "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" rather than "lo'e",
just for the sake of clarity. Then "lo'e" could be defined
as an abbreviation of certain more longwinded Lojban forms.
>>
Some place back in that chocolate pile are some arguments against {tu'o} here (or anywhere), but I can't drag them out just now. In any case, I think it is finally clear that xorxes' {lo'e ...} is different from {le/lo/tu'o/no'o du'u ce'u ...} -- and rather more complex.
Is {ce'u da} two terms (as CLL appears to have it) or "lambda x" as good ogic would use it? I root for the latter but despair of achieving anything with {du'u/ka} anymore.

<<
But I would rather abolish lo'e/le'e. Any cmavo about whose
meaning there is virtually nil consensus, even after years
upon years of discussion, should be binned
>>
I think we need more of them, since what can be said with them takes for ever without them. As for nil consensus, some parts of the language are just ahrder to master than others -- even for the people who invented them (encouraging sign of the language's autonomy).

<<
A lot of your debate with pc could be avoided if you eschewed
the form {lo'e} and used an unassigned cmavo for your purposes
instead
>>
No, the word was only peripherally the issue (and turned out to be the one part that approximately made correct sense). Figuring out what xorxes meant would have had to be done in any case. And, I think, the results is now pretty close to considerable clarity on the matter (I'm still not sure exactly what xorxes means, but I know the category and how most of what the line of chat works). --part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_alt_boundary----part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc05.mx.aol.com (rly-xc05.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.138]) by air-xc04.mail.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILINXC41-0913081458; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:14:58 -0400 Received: from n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.64]) by rly-xc05.mx.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXC53-0913081442; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:14:42 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15668-1031919130-pycyn=aol.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:11 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 12:12:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 82375 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 12:12:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:10 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-189.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.189]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 74F4B272E7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:12:07 +0200 (DST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:13:43 +0100 Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit XORXES: > I mean "I like chocolate", "that is like a sofa" and "that is a > picture of a boa". They don't mean "there ia some chocolate such > that I like it", "there is some sofa such that that is like it" > or "there is some boa such that that is a picture of it". To get > those latter meanings I would have to use {lo} instead of {lo'e}. > > I'm not sure why paradigm cases need to be in x1, but here are > some: {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} "Lions live in Africa", > which is different from "some lions live in africa" (lo), > "all lions live in Africa" (ro), "most lions live in Africa" (so'e). > {lo'e mlatu cu kavbu lo'e smacu", "Cats catch mice", which is > different from saying that "some cats catch some mice", etc. If, as you have been wont to say, "mi nelci lo'e cakla" etc. can be aptly glossed as "I am a chocolate-liker", "That is a sofa- resembler"/"That is sofa-like", "That is a boa-depicter", then "lo'e cinfo cu xabji le friko" would be "Africa is lion-inhabited", which seems to me not the same as "The [generic] lion lives in Africa", though each of the two different meanings is a challenge to express adequately in Lojban. If "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" is the way to refer to the Lion intension, I wonder if ways can be found to express all the meanings using "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" rather than "lo'e", just for the sake of clarity. Then "lo'e" could be defined as an abbreviation of certain more longwinded Lojban forms. Excuse my having read this previous thread in only a desultory way -- I read your summary postings assiduously, but keeping track of the debates with pc I find very wearing. > Unfortunately we don't have the la-version of lo'e: > lo le la > lo'e le'e ?? > > But we can use {lo'e me la santas}. If you really wanted to fill the gap you could pick a spare cmavo -- {lai'e}, say. But I would rather abolish lo'e/le'e. Any cmavo about whose meaning there is virtually nil consensus, even after years upon years of discussion, should be binned. A lot of your debate with pc could be avoided if you eschewed the form {lo'e} and used an unassigned cmavo for your purposes instead. --And. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_89.1dc75ab3.2ab3736c_boundary--