From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Nov 05 10:15:45 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N66s5-00078D-88 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:15:45 -0800 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.150]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N66rt-00076N-TI for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:15:45 -0800 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so81202eyg.2 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:15:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=v3P2q5Cjlxt/c+TbfC9Xenu75lwrmdZeAhTLOIvetBY=; b=jqqFcry60fitgsgWxy5I4ezoUrKHsregZBSo9rpkTK2ZCGXOz2+vQRuRVmcoG2cVHB 7gP1VHqRrftkoc5dO7cICG9wCcfWdc3bwVqU9lChhv/4HEyn4bVGdnL25p0gKdLT++Ff +Dp6BSyZnnGCvGTCu7p6JsU7+mkt+HW3QTRBY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; b=vkqmKYnXWpU7QJLnYHudI+ysd59Lf1ZvOMKuwgKIsVebLDNUNAIV8iowugQ9kq/TiE 3XVlBq3JilyiW9XwCx/FU+jGVsW27BlCSdnRNAgMCVed+gjEXSHzfjktLnliv2PFvTnD eRuZ+aRhD9pFQo7t8SZPaexXqTCuqHx6+qGgc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.137 with SMTP id w9mr1218427wee.104.1257444932137; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:15:32 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Brockman Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:15:12 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 78e362e9cac40520 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Abstractors {ni} and {jei} (and {ka}) To: lojban-list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-archive-position: 16437 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: daniel@brockman.se Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list There was some discussion on IRC about how to use {jei}, and of course the more we talked about it the more nebulous it seemed. It started with some innocent usage. mi pensi lo jei lo nunkancu be fu lo lanme cu se stidi tezu'e lo nu pu tcica .i lo'u lo du'u xu kau le'u .e nai lo'u lo jei le'u jai se stidi mi doi .codrus. lo jei is looking for a number from 0 to 1 I'm still not sure about {jei}, but I find myself wanting to use it for {du'u xu kau}, because the other seems utterly worthless. I suspect that in intensional contexts they may collapse together Soon, the topic shifted to include {ni}. I'm far more worried about what {ni} actually means Honestly, I still don't completely have {ni} conceptualized. ISTR there were about three different meanings. I think the three competing meanings were "the number of ... such that ...", "the extent to which ", and the property version ("the extent to which " xalbo: how would the property version be used? .i va'i sa'e mi do zmadu lo ni ce'u certu I see I made the following ha-ha-only-serious suggestion. I think we should get an official ruling to declare {jei} and {ni} experimental cmavo Others didn't quite agree: I think calling them experimental isn't productive. Just figure out what they do mean, and how to get the other meanings. Still, everybody agreed that that nobody really knows what {ni} and {jei} mean. We talked about this some more, considering various alternatives. Here are some excerpts: well here's what xorxes said on the list: "My answer is: "jei" is a useless word better forgotten, but those who use it generally use it to mean "du'u xu kau" i don't think jei *is* du'uxukau, but as it is useless, maybe that more useful interpretation that many make would be useful I tend to use {ni} for the property version, but sometimes the non-property "the extent to which" (and the fact that I do both of those bugs me) I never use it for "the number of", that's {du'u xo kau} Thinking more about it, I should use {jei} for the non-property {ni}. That would be in line with most things, and just plain work. Although it takes out the 0-1 aspect, and replaces it with some scale. xalbo: that sounds sensible I had never heard of the property version of {ni}, but I think I like it in that case, {jei} : {ni} :: {du'u} : {ka} We absolutely need some property version of {ni}. It's zmadu3, mleca3, zenba/jdika2, and many others. well, why not just {ka}? I (possibly mistakenly) conceptualize {ka} as boolean. me too, but I think {ka} is backwards-compatible with boolean use xorxes said this about {ni}: ""ni" is not fully understood but it means something like "ka se la'u li xo kau" and if {ni} is a property, its x2 seems useless the x2 of ni then is the te la'u sure, but how are you going to use it? what is "the property of being large measured in meters" as opposed to "the property of being large"? {.i mi zenba lo ni clani kei be tu'a lo mitre} = "I increase in the number of meters long"? isn't it rather ka se la'u ba'e ce'u donri: that seems weird to say "I become longer", you'd have to say something like {.i li ci'i zenba lo ni mi clani} "Infinity is increasingly my height" ma ni lo citmle cu pinji do doi djanatyn {ma ni} is a very weird question [if ni1 is a property] The discussion eventually died down. Later, I think we should declare that ni1 and jei1 are not properties but numbers, and that {ka} is not necessarily boolean-valued and so can be used with {zenba} and so on xalbo: what do you think about daniel's proposal? I might accept the proposal. in that case, {ni} and {jei} are to first approximation equivalent and their difference is sort of like the difference between {zu'o} and {pu'u} So, the point of this message is to ask about everybody's opinion on the following proposal: * {lo jei broda kei be ko'a} is broda's truth value according to ko'a. * {lo ni broda kei be ko'a} is broda's value on the scale ko'a. * Neither {jei} nor {ni} have any {ce'u} place. Examples: 1. {.i lo du'u broda cu jetnu} "broda is true." 2.1 {.i lo jei broda cu du li pa} "broda is completely true." 2.2. {.i li pa jei broda} "broda is completely true." 2.3. {.i li pi mu jei broda} "broda is half true, half false." 3. {.i li pa re no la'e me'o .ibu ky.bu ni mi mencre} "120 on the IQ scale is my intelligence." 4.1 {.i mi kucli lo du'u xu kau broda} "I wonder whether broda is true." 4.2 {.i mi kucli lo du'u xo kau da broda} "I wonder how many broda." 5.1 *{.i mi kucli lo jei broda} --- nonsense 5.2 *{.i mi kucli lo ni broda} --- nonsense 6.1 {.i mi kucli tu'a lo jei broda} "I wonder about brodas trueness." 6.2 {.i mi kucli tu'a lo ni ko'a mencre} "I wonder about ko'a's IQ." (probably, "I wonder how smart ko'a is.") Whether or not examples 6.1 and 6.2 are correct is dependent on whether {tu'a} and/or {lo} can introduce intensional contexts, which as I understand under xorlo they are supposed to. Note that this is a separate discussion. 7.1. {.i mi kucli lo du'u ma kau broda} "I wonder how true broda is." 7.2. {.i mi kucli lo du'u ma kau ni ko'a mencre} "I wonder how smart ko'a is." 8.1 {.i ma ni do tatpi} "How tired are you on a scale?" "How tired are you?" 8.2 {.i ma jei do tatpi} "How true is it that you are tired?" "How tired are you?" Note that examples 8.1 and 8.2 are extremely similar, which is simply because {ni} and {jei} are very similar when the x2 is left out. 9.1 {.i ma jei la .djisys. jmive kei lo xriso} "In Christianity, how true is it that Jesus is alive?" 9.2 {.i ma ni la .djisys. jmive kei tu'a lo si'o remna} "How alive is Jesus as a human being?" 9.3 {.i ma ni la .djisys. jmive kei tu'a lo si'o cevni} "How alive is Jesus as a god?" 10.1 {.i mi zenba lo ka ce'u mencre} "I get smarter." 10.2 *{.i mi zenba lo ni mencre} --- nonsense *"I increase in the property of the IQ of someone." 10.3 {.i mi do zmadu lo ka mencre} "I'm smarter than you." 11 *?{.i lo ni mi mencre cu zenba} --- nonsense? "My IQ increases." Whether or not example 11 is correct depends on whether a number can increase. I'm not sure how this relates to intensionality and so on, so I explicitly leave example 11 open to debate. But before we launch into that rabbit hole of a debate, let's please talk about all the other examples, because it's more important to come to some sort of consensus about the basics. (Also note that example 11 can be easily turned into the unproblematic {.i mi zenba lo ka mencre}, and more generally the potentially problematic {.i lo ni ko'a broda cu zenba} can be turned into the unproblematic {.i ko'a zenba lo ka ce'u broda}. So an easy answer to {.i lo ni broda cu zenba} is just "please don't do that, as it needlessly confuses people and starts flamewars".) Well, I guess that's enough to get started. -- Daniel Brockman daniel@brockman.se 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.