From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 28 15:53:30 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EKknf-0005h8-O0 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:53:19 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EKknc-0005h0-Rc for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:53:19 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so9543wri for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KwYIkjS3fur223j9kWcBFBcunvWXBbpXz6GTIGzcMzTWI65psKUvfrL7LOv7O+5dn+qnjN3Kj2fvT7qT0w34XVCR+CQGd2AqzmMr0adPBtofdMae16MQ9hujK8jQsBple64onCdp8XNmIZtHv/lwiyO389Nel4F0R6FFev7hFC0= Received: by 10.54.92.15 with SMTP id p15mr171091wrb; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.66.3 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d175605092815537cb9a629@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:53:15 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast In-Reply-To: <20050928210115.16499.qmail@web81301.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d1756050928100259acd18d@mail.gmail.com> <20050928210115.16499.qmail@web81301.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 10669 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 9/28/05, John E Clifford wrote: > You know, I don't think I've ever seen this > particular construction before, so I forgot the > {lu'u}. In fact, I don't think I've ever used > {lu'u} though I should have seen the ambiguity > (well, not in Lojban, of course) as I wrote it. > So maybe it is not quite automatic after all. {lu'u} is rare, yes, I don't think I've seen it much either. Probably because la'e/lu'e/tu'a/lu'a/lu'i/lu'o/vu'i are themselves rare. Except for {la'e} in {la'e di'u}, if they all disappeared I probably wouldn't miss them. > Well, of course, your {mi terpa lo jukni} doesn't > exactly mean "I fear spiders" either, since, if > it were true as written, you would spend your > entire life in terror because there are spiders. I don't think {terpa} means "x1 spends their life in terror because there is x2". Compare with {prami}: {mi do prami} doesn't mean that I'm in a permanent state of bliss because you exist, and similarly {mi do terpa} doesn't mean I spend my entire life in terror because you exist, and the same goes for spiders. At least that's how I understand {terpa}. > > I took "prelo" to be CLL-lo, that's the one > > xorlo replaced. > > Wrong-o+, as you well know. No one really used > CLL-lo in this century. Huh? CLL was published in 1997, so in a sense most of its use was in this century. {lo} = {su'o lo} predates CLL by a good bit, it was already in place at least in 1994 when I started with Lojban. And it was used, by me and others, this century and last. > The problems with > practical applications and the differences from > {le}, that worked about right, led to the > discussions which reached some agreement about > how to proceed (getting that official was one > spring to BPFK, in fact). On the technicality > you are correct; xorlo is the new *official* > Lojban {lo} (Not quite yet, but hopefully some time soon.) > but as the operant system it replaces > the intermediate prelo -- which you also largely > created. Since prelo is a new term you just came up with, I couldn't have known what you meant by it. And I still don't. There was a lot of discussion before xorlo jelled, but I don't recall any specific intermediate proposal that deserves a name. > > Is {mi terpa tu'a lo jukni} = {mi terpa tu'a ro > > lo jukni} > > in prelo? > > > > What would the understood predicate be like? > > I would suppose so, though I haven't thought > through the consequences. Well, it isn't > technically an understood predicate just an > unspecified one. To make it true, I would > suppose that generally, in both cases (since they > are pretty much equivalent), it would be > something like "I see x" or "x touches me" or "x > bites me" or whatever your fear really is of. But "I fear spiders" can't be "I fear that for all x which is a spider, x touches me". If anything it would be closer to "I fear that for at least one x which is a spider, x touches me". mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.