From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Oct 05 09:03:51 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Muq2R-0001WU-6Q for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:03:51 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f225.google.com ([209.85.219.225]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Muq2D-0001Sm-9v for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:03:50 -0700 Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so3248495ewy.45 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:03:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Fd4Wy3nLO3GwNRX8/azyPcXpQSrjoGhL+SEhnc2iUuY=; b=BHSqaomBtkJXuD2Gx3dR4YEsgjbyGuiuJVBdElQvXrh1ycHRUmAOh1LyaKr9Etn1EB CyMuTCzzgikpiAzjHSyOrsI1HaFzVnrXPPuDRBl365WqXkxu6u29+Zk1LEg7jvaGU0jb dLwGMw9uAnDt4VmxDQxnkZdme7i/zkG+LvqyU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=fRvmmdZv73VNXneifReebWOnt3YaOm7NGCGpm0TMCcpuUTJAJJLVBQ95zd241+zShB z81LeTfF5+2i90c2SwShwSwdSfTh4XQqmgUsBLio7Avqjr8L1HhiDB4JKSLh5xUluNNM xJsdOMjqqddjHVec1lwqwIDCj0OEbps3lKwss= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.132.3 with SMTP id j3mr3521384ebn.54.1254758610641; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:03:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AC4C84D.6040205@kli.org> References: <16d9defd0909301348o30bb27d4x55540b2192f1eb7d@mail.gmail.com> <4AC3C59A.7040102@kli.org> <200910010933.25417.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560910010646k374e5e3aq5d836d3c5269bdf6@mail.gmail.com> <4AC4C84D.6040205@kli.org> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:03:30 -0700 Message-ID: <16d9defd0910050903p63403fc5o13997feee1431f5a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: How to reduce the amount of something? From: chris kerr To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5b7c0442343047532411b X-archive-position: 16301 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: letsclimbhigher@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --001636c5b7c0442343047532411b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Still undecided about Mark's points? On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/01/2009 09:46 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > > > If "lo ni ..." refers to a number, it can decrease. If it refers to a > > property, "lo ka ... xo kau ..." then it can be the property in which > > something decreases. > > > > The reason I keep using "ni" instead of "ka ... xo kau ..." is that > > the placement of the "xo kau" is not always as obvious as is "du'u xu > > kau" for "jei". I some time suggested "ni" =3D "ka se la'u li xo kau", > > but it is definitely more awkward than the "xu kau" substitute for > > "jei". > > If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just stick with > {jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}? I thought the > problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean. That is, > it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in intension, but > meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually isn't what you > want to talk about. If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm trying > to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what you > need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not > subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can reduce "the > number of kilograms someone weighs"). You can say things like {lo ni mi > ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se > cenba}. If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become > useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing. > > So which is it? Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or something > like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the > latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that > four syllables is more elegant? Or is {jei} just a true/false value, > which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which > case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}? > You can't have it both ways. > > ~mark > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKxMhLAAoJENKD8527nYuaVPYIAOGKW3XNrzp+NVLsk9MPtzaf > 7RahJ7a8RoPTWajAIPYiA/hs/L6b42g1upbeoKzK/wtZeaFZhunslnq/cwgJwvTo > 5VQoIIqaB4pztIyr2PdjR36mg/Y/3heQ/rie8dAf4Tjtfx6QN96Bx/afgYDH9qBb > G9Q23TOOr2WhpwrF6XHVZPo90GGBKaS/FfMvP4OTfeaOG6SykjqUpkaOyXWJUv6f > 5+Fj7iz93noY5L0PW9XDrcMWhLcol0KT2ZHwWaBZUb8EPZF03L50uvrLb1uDiwnV > DAWVQGjzRrshweCVmK1lAcnvZeazbNN11EiYB2jMI6uyCwtNskMRFEDG/csJIoo=3D > =3Ds+uF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.or= g > 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. > > --001636c5b7c0442343047532411b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Still undecided about Mark's points?

= On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/01/2009 09:46 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
>
> If "lo ni ..." refers to a number, it can decrease. If it re= fers to a
> property, "lo ka ... xo kau ..." then it can be the property= in which
> something decreases.
>
> The reason I keep using "ni" instead of "ka ... xo kau = ..." is that
> the placement of the "xo kau" is not always as obvious as is= "du'u xu
> kau" for "jei". I some time suggested "ni" = =3D "ka se la'u li xo kau",
> but it is definitely more awkward than the "xu kau" substitu= te for
> "jei".

If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just st= ick with
{jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}? =A0I thought = the
problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean. =A0That = is,
it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in inten= sion, but
meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually= isn't what you
want to talk about. =A0If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm= trying
to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what yo= u
need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can redu= ce "the
number of kilograms someone weighs"). =A0You can say things like {lo n= i mi
ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se
cenba}. =A0If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become
useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing.

So which is it? =A0Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or someth= ing
like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that
four syllables is more elegant? =A0Or is {jei} just a true/false value,
which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which=
case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}= ?
=A0You can't have it both ways.

~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKxMhLAAoJENKD8527nYuaVPYIAOGKW3XNrzp+NVLsk9MPtzaf
7RahJ7a8RoPTWajAIPYiA/hs/L6b42g1upbeoKzK/wtZeaFZhunslnq/cwgJwvTo
5VQoIIqaB4pztIyr2PdjR36mg/Y/3heQ/rie8dAf4Tjtfx6QN96Bx/afgYDH9qBb
G9Q23TOOr2WhpwrF6XHVZPo90GGBKaS/FfMvP4OTfeaOG6SykjqUpkaOyXWJUv6f
5+Fj7iz93noY5L0PW9XDrcMWhLcol0KT2ZHwWaBZUb8EPZF03L50uvrLb1uDiwnV
DAWVQGjzRrshweCVmK1lAcnvZeazbNN11EiYB2jMI6uyCwtNskMRFEDG/csJIoo=3D
=3Ds+uF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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.


--001636c5b7c0442343047532411b-- 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.