From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBDH_YbiBBoEkB2Exg@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 17 07:32:05 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oa8Qj-00052x-TM; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:32:04 -0700 Received: by gwaa20 with SMTP id a20sf5585598gwa.16 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:31:47 -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:received-spf:received:mime-version:received :sender:received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=weecBnvYiR5wV0w7bu+K78VsG4ySURfskngWl6K4wRI=; b=S4/UZ4TZ3S2kNjZS1GyXIql4+qzyMck9KqMTR3J82NvsTmKWgVSTtjP0/UJbgcEa7S ir1EWYBzlvmkc3lwyx+L7KXmj02hThFfFx5Da3kuqhtAx8Vc8nVVdv39MnKRNEawIQtx fu8R6g9ytWeC7d9r9ZaLwbp4L71NSw84crOx4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=F1OkpMHvh2NHT2e2ln8WD1LAyQcu0y6TshLAh7T+tNgtZhqi9kp8DqSL8lOFEl7r+U QGzpHvq3tMHMXXRJnRmXMiBQI6YlG0KjclFzQprMhhH6/hleu/kxXtAmIyGX7rfkm/Az 4kq7yegyN4ONCFI1UsNsxUaknoOB8eZCg5VEg= Received: by 10.90.119.3 with SMTP id r3mr516841agc.48.1279377095297; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:31:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.17.13 with SMTP id 13ls3260127ybq.3.p; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.123.3 with SMTP id a3mr1828697ybn.15.1279377094719; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.187.131 with SMTP id y3mr131497wem.8.1279365870001; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.187.131 with SMTP id y3mr131496wem.8.1279365869955; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f178.google.com (mail-wy0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id o41si653301weq.12.2010.07.17.04.24.28; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.178; Received: by wyb33 with SMTP id 33so2988225wyb.23 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:24:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.168.198 with SMTP id k48mr1703059wel.105.1279365868728; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.86.211 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:24:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:24:28 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Connective question From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367fbad424b811048b939465 --0016367fbad424b811048b939465 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 16 July 2010 22:56, Luke Bergen wrote: > Yeah, I don't really care all that much about predicate logic bit, I just > want them to be connected and applied to the same terbri slot. {joi} would > be just as good for my purposes. > It depends on how you put {joi}: lo pelnimre joi ci'ornimre nanba -- a lemon-and(mixed-with)-lime bar [a bar that has to do with a mixture of such a nature that it makes best sense if it is not conceptually distinguished into what could be seen as "lemon" and what could be seen as "lime", because, for example, the mixture is commonly presumed to be eaten as one] lo pelnimre nanba joi lo ci'ornimre nanba -- a mass of a lemon bar and (mixed with) a lime bar [a bar that has to do with lemon and a bar that has to do with lime, together forming a mixture of such a nature that it makes best sense if it is not conceptually distinguished into what could be seens as "a lemon bar" and what could be seen as "a lime bar", because, for example, the utterance is focused on the fact that the mixture is served as one] The second one is more approximate to what you want to express. But your question is how not to repeat the {nanba} part. So you are looking for the structure of the first one with but a wrong connector. Does {jo'u} work for this: lo pelnimre jo'u ci'ornimre nanba -- a lemon-and(along-with)-lime bar [a bar that has to do with an unmixed unit of such a nature that it makes best sense if it is conceptually distinguished into what can be seen as "lemon" and what can be seen as "lime", because, for example, the unit is commonly presumed to have two relatively distinct layers of "lemon" and "lime"] Because tanru is semantically ambiguous, this {lo pelnimre jo'u ci'ornimre nanba} can refer to several instances of {lo nanba} with respect to {pelnimre jo'u ci'ornimre}. It can be a cake bar that "contains the unit of layers made from lemon and lime separately", or that "one of its ends has been dipped into a lemon juice and the other into a lime juice", and so on. As for {fa'u}... When I see a unit with {fa'u}, I look for another unit with {fa'u} with which the first one is associated with; and if there is none, I guess one. The closest thing to {lo pelnimre nanba joi lo ci'ornimre nanba} you can get with {fa'u} is, I think: lo pelnimre fa'u ci'ornimre nanba fa'u nanba What if there is only one {nanba}? That would mean that the other associated unit of {fa'u} is somewhere else than the tertau space, inside the sentence, and I would then see little possibility of {pelnimre fa'u ci'ornimre} modifying two distinct {nanba}, i.e. the possibility of the pair of {lo pelnimre nanba} and {lo ci'ornimre nanba}. I might guess something like: mi fa'u do citka lo pelnimre fa'u ci'ornimre nanba (I eat a lemon bar, you eat eat a lime bar) mi citka lo pelnimre fa'u ci'ornimre nanba bu'u lo balku'a fa'u jupku'a (I eat a lemon bar in the hall and a lime bar in the kitchen) {lo pelnimre je ci'ornimre nanba} means that the cake bar has to do with both lemon and lime, which is not strikingly different from with {jo'u}. But it makes me think more of a bar that is of lemon from one perspective and of lime from another perspecitve. An easier example of such {je} may be {lo pluka je xrani sigja}, which gives me the impression more of "a cigar/cigars that is/are both pleasant and harmful (pleasant from the subjective sensory perspective, harmful from the objective scientific perspective)" and which therefore may well be different from {lo pluka jo'u xrani sigja}, which gives me the impression more of "a pleasant cigar/cigars and a harmful cigar/cigars". These impressions are however not strictly logical but only practical in nature, in my opinion. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --0016367fbad424b811048b939465 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 16 July 2010 22:56, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com= > wrote:
Yeah, I don't really care all that much about predicate logic bit, I ju= st want them to be connected and applied to the same terbri slot. =A0{joi} = would be just as good for my purposes.

It depends = on how you put {joi}:

=A0lo pelnimre joi ci'ornimre nanba -- a lemon-and(mixed-with)-lime= bar [a bar that has to do with a mixture of such a nature that it makes be= st sense if it is not conceptually distinguished into what could be seen as= "lemon" and what could be seen as "lime", because, for= example, the mixture is commonly presumed to be eaten as one]

=A0lo pelnimre nanba joi lo ci'ornimre nanba -- a mass of a lemon b= ar and (mixed with) a lime bar [a bar that has to do with lemon and a bar t= hat has to do with lime, together forming a mixture of such a nature that i= t makes best sense if it is not conceptually distinguished into what could = be seens as "a lemon bar" and what could be seen as "a lime = bar", because, for example, the utterance is focused on the fact that = the mixture is served as one]

The second one is more approximate to what you want to express. But you= r question is how not to repeat the {nanba} part. So you are looking for th= e structure of the first one with but a wrong connector.

Does {jo= 9;u} work for this:

=A0lo pelnimre jo'u ci'ornimre nanba -- a lemon-and(along-with)= -lime bar [a bar that has to do with an unmixed unit of such a nature that = it makes best sense if it is conceptually distinguished into what can be se= en as "lemon" and what can be seen as "lime", because, = for example, the unit is commonly presumed to have two relatively distinct = layers of "lemon" and "lime"]

Because tanru is semantically ambiguous, this {lo pelnimre jo'u ci&= #39;ornimre nanba} can refer to several instances of {lo nanba} with respec= t to {pelnimre jo'u ci'ornimre}. It can be a cake bar that "co= ntains the unit of layers made from lemon and lime separately", or tha= t "one of its ends has been dipped into a lemon juice and the other in= to a lime juice", and so on.

As for {fa'u}... When I see a unit with {fa'u}, I l= ook for another unit with {fa'u} with which the first one is associated= with; and if there is none, I guess one. The closest thing to {lo pelnimre= nanba joi lo ci'ornimre nanba} you can get with {fa'u} is, I think= :

=A0lo pelnimre fa'u ci'ornimre nanba fa'u nanba

What= if there is only one {nanba}? That would mean that the other associated un= it of {fa'u} is somewhere else than the tertau space, inside the senten= ce, and I would then see little possibility of {pelnimre fa'u ci'or= nimre} modifying two distinct {nanba}, i.e. the possibility of the pair of = {lo pelnimre nanba} and {lo ci'ornimre nanba}. I might guess something = like:

=A0mi fa'u do citka lo pelnimre fa'u ci'ornimre nanba (I ea= t a lemon bar, you eat eat a lime bar)

=A0mi citka lo pelnimre fa= 9;u ci'ornimre nanba bu'u lo balku'a fa'u jupku'a (I ea= t a lemon bar in the hall and a lime bar in the kitchen)

{lo pelnimre je ci'ornimre nanba} means that the cake bar has to do= with both lemon and lime, which is not strikingly different from with {jo&= #39;u}. But it makes me think more of a bar that is of lemon from one persp= ective and of lime from another perspecitve. An easier example of such {je}= may be {lo pluka je xrani sigja}, which gives me the impression more of &q= uot;a cigar/cigars that is/are both pleasant and harmful (pleasant from the= subjective sensory perspective, harmful from the objective scientific pers= pective)" and which therefore may well be different from {lo pluka jo&= #39;u xrani sigja}, which gives me the impression more of "a pleasant = cigar/cigars and a harmful cigar/cigars". These impressions are howeve= r not strictly logical but only practical in nature, in my opinion.

--
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.
--0016367fbad424b811048b939465--