From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDMvKneBBoEzFUFcA@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 17 18:20:39 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f155.google.com ([209.85.221.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3JBb-000379-0t; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:39 -0700 Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27sf6739855qyk.22 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LHrPPKnJ+hyWTU4VypkYYcpYtqJVgU54qmufopRFSK8=; b=csA87JTcmtbfuhYCXb6p926d+U/evBJSq4J5S/KFjaIcHN8HxsZ7VdFUyVy1zGEMdH OhTbPjXXsLBw5C4rRLdA66AWO6tcWiWfG4CwLDHPUxOsW8AdpJ6EwZ6jVqcfFH+DAoLv R2/oKHgbQEU53d7NxLGtqMY5utMkwr7Hspyiw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bpCUZsGOkb3yXGKuK8ZCDgOQdusu0LcevbN+1Gtz5+m36ohT6Tx3Bep+8/peymzIg0 b4yAoWt9466hasmmlMSKZe3ig+IjJNBD3u0LhdwGN5INK4PbVVJWEZOatFSiWhancMTt rDTiN8L1vs2UtuO2E2GOchM+s8N5GJ1bG3LDM= Received: by 10.224.25.15 with SMTP id x15mr261383qab.46.1271553612404; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.38.138 with SMTP id b10ls3882937qae.4.p; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.69.230 with SMTP id a38mr455425qaj.4.1271553609686; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.69.230 with SMTP id a38mr455424qaj.4.1271553609665; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si780466qyk.0.2010.04.17.18.20.08; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.24 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.92.24; Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so202549qwe.5 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <381899.30620.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <381899.30620.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:20:08 -0300 Received: by 10.229.213.67 with SMTP id gv3mr971726qcb.87.1271553608512; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.24 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > Familiar Feces ua je'e > 21 (iirc) versions of 'e' all amounting to logical "and". Arose because t= he use of one such =A0('ga... gi') was incorrect and another ('gu'a ... gu'= i') was required to do the same work. =A0The others are a nice point as wel= l, of course, though with a different motivation. Yes, I realized after I had already posted that you must have meant ge/gu'e= . The situation is not as bad as 21 though, there's just the two forethought ge/gu'e and three afterthought .e/je/gi'e, so five in all. "gu'e" should just be deprecated, and for all intents and purposes de facto it is, since practically nobody ever uses it. "je" should be extended to cover the function of ".e", thus making ".e" redundant. JOI already does both functions, so there's no syntactic impediment there. "gi'e" can be replaced with "gije". That would leave just "ge" for forethought, and "je" for afterthought. > The best one this week is to incorporate the the whole into a single line= 'ro da broda' (roughly, since this is a sentence), much like the standard = system (AxFx). =A0It has been discussed to death, but your move assumes tha= t there are no restricted quantifiers in Lojban, which is at least historic= ally false. As you say, "ro da broda" won't work because it is a bridi. And "Fx" has to be a full bridi, not just a single selbri like "broda", so I can hardly see a more economical solution than the insertion of a simple "poi". The standard system can get away with (AxFx) only because it doesn't allow terms in front of the selbri. > Goodness, I thought we did have plural quantifiers and that was at least = part of what xorlo was ultimately about. =A0The point here however, is that= 'poi' goes with an internal quantifier in the construction of 'lo' qhilw '= noi' is an external quantifier in the construction of 'le'. If I interpret what you are saying correctly, you are saying that: lo broda cu brode =3D (illocutionary:) su'o da poi broda zo'u da brode le broda cu broda =3D su'o da noi broda zo'u (illocutionary:) da brode Thus you are adopting andle, but not xorlo, because you still want an illocutionary su'o to come for free with lo. (Or I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.) > Only if you promise never to use it again. I'll try, but I'm not promising. :) > As you say, a change in the official rules but not in practice -- except = for a bunch of folk arguing endlessly about whether 'lo pavyseljirna cu bla= bi' is true or false id there are no unicorns. Fortunately that has not been discussed for quite a while now. > Well, in one sense, "something" ('su'o') was always plural, but I suppose= you mean directly. =A0Again, I thought that was that xorlo was finally abo= ut. =A0To be sure, I prefer (from habit) "bunch" talk, but, since they are = the same thing, plural reference is fine too. =A0Sorry about the "a". > > Overall, then, I guess I was taking an optimistic reading on the situatio= n with plural reference / L-sets. =A0I thought it was stare decisis and, in= fact, it is either not settled or still actively resisted. =A0I wonder why= ? (not enough people have had enough logic to have my engrained habits, and= I took to it fairly directly -- barring some weird thing McKay said about = restrcted =A0quantifiers and about the whole thing being bright shiny new) I don't think plural reference is resisted. And plural quantification (which is something additional to plural reference) is not so much resisted as ignored. There just aren't enough people interested or informed on the issue to make any decision about it. And if we were to adopt it we would need two different universal quantifiers instead of just "ro". mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.