From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Sep 28 14:02:53 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 72102 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2005 21:02:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2005 21:02:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2005 21:02:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EKj4k-00085Z-MC for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:02:50 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EKj3d-0007r4-JT; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:01:50 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EKj3J-0007qs-JL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:01:21 -0700 Received: from web81301.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.76]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EKj3E-0007qi-MS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:01:21 -0700 Received: (qmail 16501 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Sep 2005 21:01:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20050928210115.16499.qmail@web81301.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.34.50] by web81301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:01:14 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d1756050928100259acd18d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-archive-position: 10666 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=RRzJXw0TBQAODcz6S4w1OPt9iIq89GwymqnDWx4sVRzdHaJwfA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25051 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 9/28/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > You are quite right: exactly those words in > that > > order will not work, because prelo requires > > {tu'a} with {terpa}, but this is always the > > difference, so I didn't feel the need to > mention > > it. > > Ah, OK. > > > Boring automatic changes give: > > mi terpa ci da no'u tu'a lo jukni .e tu'a lo > > gerku .e lo nu le tsani cu farlu le stedu be > mi > > Actually, you need: > > mi terpa ci da no'u tu'a lo jukni lu'u .e tu'a > lo gerku lu'u > .e [tu'a?] lo nu le tsani cu farlu le stedu be > mi > > You can't elide the {lu'u}'s or the meaning > changes. 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. > And of course, {mi terpa tu'a lo jukni} need > not mean > that I fear spiders, it could mean that I fear > spiders > becoming extinct or all sorts of other things > about > spiders, in the proper context. But something > similar > to "I fear spiders" is probably the most likely > candidate > without context. 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. Yours uses (though I expect you to deny it) the same convention as prelo does, when sumti are used in intensional places (to speak with the vulgar) they are assumed to have a {tu'a}, the difference being that they can be fronted out of it. Actually, describing what happens with xorlo in these cases is considerably more complex, but this captures the relevant feature. But, yes, strictly they mean "I fear something involving spiders" and then we work out from context what is mean or ask for the abstraction to be made more precise. > > (I assume {tu'a} is not needed with {lo nu} > > although I can imagine a case ...). > > Yes, that was another issue of the old lo, one > never > knew exactly how it interacted with > abstractions. In fact both are correct, they just mean different things. In the one case (without {tu'a}) I fear the sky falling on my head; with {tu'a} I fear some event involving that event. Now the most likely such event is probably that the overt event take place and so the difference collapses, but it might be, for example, that I fear someone will discover that I fear the sky will fall on my head. > > The identification of prelo {lo} with {su'o > lo} > > is not quite accurate. {ro lo} would work > better, > > though there exceptions even to that, I > think. > > 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. 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} but as the operant system it replaces the intermediate prelo -- which you also largely created. > 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. 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.