From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDXg67eBBoEasykmQ@googlegroups.com Sun Apr 18 15:04:43 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f162.google.com ([209.85.221.162]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3cbN-000551-KY; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:41 -0700 Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34sf7694352qyk.21 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:23 -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=n9WxemkN5HhZU2DTxVS2qmsYWO5gJGcA8u7IXzXSJxw=; b=I/vJoXWDUZIDtTXfAXh0qFGaSPzF5r88G9OAxo4zqJz68kmDTfZYrqqzZm+Fya5uSm E63bfkEXyCBkkZ/BwdMcMMP1txxSGrdakVWGLwELmNsMFX/aNC5rphHSxp+dSE5N6A7X yp1MdL71vmtKNylctpEFEQvc9La/kuzjEDQZI= 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=wj7A/la5BasZvAW9VBSsrn0rgaLFUUKOyt5akEH2LQG8iZ4laCCTIxDq0XT193Vi+w RhyK+CGanO8frX4QZHjCMSkaBBPiPXRuyp4DYGWMKAkumuwZ3MF8SpTjpGVq2Mc351Pf AsX4YQVM7vXK1WrcqSYS9IV5e3q6VTz5ONbgc= Received: by 10.229.2.72 with SMTP id 8mr246796qci.3.1271628247618; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.10.160 with SMTP id p32ls7791272qcp.2.p; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.192.68 with SMTP id dp4mr451869qcb.13.1271628246394; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.192.68 with SMTP id dp4mr451868qcb.13.1271628246339; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.145]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 19si905389qyk.9.2010.04.18.15.04.05; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.145 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.92.145; Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so1201310qwc.32 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <851523.82178.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <381899.30620.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <851523.82178.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:04:04 -0300 Received: by 10.229.250.206 with SMTP id mp14mr3668274qcb.62.1271628245055; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:04:05 -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 74.125.92.145 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 Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > ------ > I'm glad to hear it can be reduced to five (though that still seems a lot= ); I had memories of an array of jeks, guheks, and (seemingly) countless ot= her ---eks. =A0The thought of getting down to just two looks about right, t= hough. =A0I do see that this is somewhat illusory, however, in that these t= wo cannot just be used as they stand but must be supplemented in various wa= ys (with gi- and i- and gu- and whatever else). So still not optimal. > > Actually, when logical notation allows a term before a predicate, it work= s better: (AxF), exactly matching the ideal -- but impermissible -- Lojban = form. =A0I agree that 'poi' is the best Lojban solution, but you seem to ha= ve preempted it. > > You have it right except that the noi/poi distinction is not now needed (= and, indeed, the semantically irrelevant -- though pragmatically important = -- broda can be dropped altogether for 'lo'). I am not sure what is wrong w= ith the internal 'su'o' for 'lo' -- pragmatic considerations or are you say= ing that there is no 'su'o' in the background of 'lo'? > > That's OK, if you promise, I'd just forget it anyhow. > > Yeah, there's bee so much discussion lately about how to display Lojban t= hat little has been said about what it all means. > > I'm not clear about why we need two quantifiers with plural reference (I = think plural quantification just follows -- or reference follows from quant= ification). =A0Plural whatever replaces singulary seamlessly -- singulary j= ust being a (not so) special case and one that need not ever be explicitly = called upon. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jorge Llamb=EDas > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 8:20:08 PM > Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, John E Clifford w= rote: >> Familiar Feces > > ua je'e > >> 21 (iirc) versions of 'e' all amounting to logical "and". Arose because = the 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 we= ll, 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 lin= e '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 th= at there are no restricted quantifiers in Lojban, which is at least histori= cally 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 tha= t '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: > > =A0 lo broda cu brode =3D (illocutionary:) su'o da poi broda zo'u da brod= e > > =A0 le broda cu broda =3D su'o da noi broda zo'u (illocutionary:) da brod= e > > 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 bl= abi' 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 suppos= e you mean directly. =A0Again, I thought that was that xorlo was finally ab= out. =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 situati= on with plural reference / L-sets. =A0I thought it was stare decisis and, i= n fact, it is either not settled or still actively resisted. =A0I wonder wh= y? (not enough people have had enough logic to have my engrained habits, an= d 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 > > -- > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. > > > > > -- > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. > > --=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.