From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 16 09:19:08 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnJEJ-0000Te-SP for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:18:51 -0800 Received: from web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.122]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnJEH-0000TX-UP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:18:51 -0800 Received: (qmail 17327 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Dec 2005 17:18:47 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=qK3A/RRjlqCiOo6PqRyWUQgTsakFTJNcwBeLrbZy9UgpPKHkB4c7P4WSCjprUK828pnVtn+9FNvlW7x7A+zwMnZeRn3pXXgwamAGPa1/9DIkU3YU/3utxXpt0X7FN7hwwGmSNnfS65julsIe+5LH5JSqdOL3gmYWQcdQdcTIFko= ; Message-ID: <20051216171847.17325.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:18:47 PST Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:18:47 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560512160537t16367b82n387bf785628cc829@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-archive-position: 10911 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 12/15/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > After (probably immediately) first arguments, > > immediately before others but also in > compound > > predicates at the appropriate places around > the > > predicate (hard to state clearly which > probably > > means it still has bugs in it). > > Yes it does. You would basically have the same > situation > as now, except that you would put the mark at > the back > of the sumti instead of at the front. > > Consider a simple example: > > ko'a ko'e ko'i broda gi'e brode vau fo'a fo'e > fo'i > > Suppose you want to mark broda as distributive > for ko'e > and non-distributive for fo'e, and brode as > non-distributive > for ko'e and distributive for fo'e. Where do > the marks go? Yeah, this is pretty convincing that any complex case will be a mess. It does, however, point to another place where the gadri solution does not work -- and a much more common one than the previous peculiarities: when the sumti is not a description at all. As always, we can say that context solves it or that we can always find some sort of paraphrase, maybe even find a rule for constructing such, but none of these are very elegant -- or vewry Lojbanic -- suggestions. If the distributive-collective distinction is to really be functional in Lojban (and that is an open question with several presuppositions about what terms mean and the like) it should have a clear, universally applicable, representation (that is part of the design criteria for Loglan/Lojban from the get-go). It doesn't now. > One solution would be to have the marks on the > selbri, with > an indication of which place it applies to, > either a subindex > or a different word for each place. > Alternatively, you can > mark it on the sumti with an indication of > which selbri it > corresponds to. Either way is cumbersome. The immediate idea was using something like the {fV} series to show places (mark on the predicate as it were,)so {ko'a ko'e ko'i broda fe d fu c gi'e (I suspect it has to be a different connective at this point) brode fa c fu d vau (maybe this will have to change as well) fo'a fo'e fo'i} > > I suspect that any solution is going > > to have some problems but overall the UIish > one > > seems simplest and is more uniform (and has > fewer > > odd ontological suggestions). > > Ulish? > Able to occur in a wide variety of contexts, even if not literally after (or before) absolutely any word. Back to something you said earlier, namely that gunma1 stands for a single thing and gunma2 stands for the several things that comprise it. While you are objecting bunches (I think -- you may just be pointing out that the bunches theses so far are not quite right for plural quantification/reference), I wonder what one thing you have in mind for gunma1. Given that I also take you as saying that {lo broda} and {loi broda} are the same thing only with difference in declared distributivity, I suppose (given your views on what lo broda is) that loi broda -- and hence gunma1 generally -- is some sort of Urgoo, at least in many cases. In which case I suppose that gunma2 is a list of avatars/slices/exemplars/... . Do I have any of this close to right? 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.