Message-ID: <20060605144014.48478.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <925d17560606031350m4d5efdd9ve0b9a2bd74343376@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
Content-Length: 2977
Lines: 101


--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > As you may recall, my suggestion mirrors the
> > English for "individually" and "collectively"
> (or
> > "together"), attaching as convenient to sumti
> or
> > predicate place (so, I suppose that UI is
> about
> > the only selmaho that will work -- unless we
> > invent a new one).
> 
> In English those adverbs normally indicate how
> the predicate
> applies to the subject. For example:
> 
>     The men carried the pianos together.
> 
> would normally mean that each piano was carried
> by all the men,
> not that each man carried all the pianos at
> once. Is that what you
> have in mind, that when the predicate is
> tagged, it indicates how
> it applies to the x1?

Yeah, though not restricted to x1, of course.
 
> > The point of using {lu'o} and
> > the like is that they would have no use in
> the
> > mildly revised system and so could be used
> for
> > something else -- in this case something
> related,
> > even.
> 
> There has been resistance to changing utterly
> useless words, so
> I don't expect a proposal to change something
> not totally useless
> like {lu'o} to succeed. I wouldn't especially
> oppose it, but I know
> others would.

Yes, the accumulated detritus in Lojban is
considerable.  I don't really expect that my
suggestion would be accepted (either the one for
{lu'o} or the general idea), but I do have to
offer the opportunity to straighten things up s
bit.  And there is always LoCCan.

> > I think this would have a minimal effect
> > on old text, since 1) {lu'o} and the like
> have
> > scarcely ever been used and 2) the old forms
> are
> > legitmate under the new dispensation and have
> the
> > same meaning (or what now corresponds to the
> old
> > meaning).  These last two claims are
> > impressionistic, so correct them if they are
> > wrong.
> 
> {lu'o} has seen some use, I don't know about
> "scarcely", it is hard
> to quantify. Some cmavo I would be pretty sure
> have seen no use,
> but I don't think {lu'o} is one of them. If
> it's moved to UI, then the
> old forms would change rather drastically
> because UIs attach to
> the preceding word and {lu'o} applies to the
> sumti that follows. That
> could be partly solved by putting it in BAhE
> instead of in UI, but the
> scope would still be wrong, because {lu'o} can
> take any number of
> connected sumti, whereas BAhE only takes the
> immediately
> following word.

Nice point; thanks.  So, some usage might go by
the way (none in the corpus I keep in searchable
form, but it is now a rather small portion of
what is available). I always rather expected that
the predication mode markers would have to be sui generis.


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.