From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhD2gurwBBoEA4v31w@googlegroups.com Sun Jul 10 22:05:13 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg8gB-0003ZE-C3; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:05:13 -0700 Received: by yxj20 with SMTP id 20sf3856260yxj.16 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:05:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=HSDjhm81GCzR5+AlXxISNS96Q6m7CpsXZhsMTjvkfOM=; b=jce0XaVH26MMiEWqw2fs3Bp+4djsrqZXHmYlr+y8WRHPX295BzTElq7wA1eZX6v/92 h3mCcd5HRpn+hEWpLvGef2QJ2q/AQ0BerLFy9NTDhhQ82FrMSRmtyTQsof3B7mlmm2Ww 8SzJLcDRoTR/ADiXPgp2LjrMYlD6KOlU4xDX0= Received: by 10.91.11.2 with SMTP id o2mr591274agi.38.1310359926112; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.185.5 with SMTP id cm5ls872338ibb.3.gmail; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.148.196 with SMTP id s4mr1116196icv.94.1310359924236; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.148.196 with SMTP id s4mr1116195icv.94.1310359924219; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com (mail-iy0-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g20si5032255icm.5.2011.07.10.21.52.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.174; Received: by mail-iy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 12so4702759iyb.33 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.5.165 with SMTP id 37mr4077619ibv.144.1310359922998; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.176.11 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:52:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E1A7244.2080107@kli.org> References: <201107090028.31171.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4E1A7244.2080107@kli.org> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:52:02 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015177415eebd009104a7c3f1d1 --0015177415eebd009104a7c3f1d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > On 07/09/2011 03:36 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > >> mi cadzu = "I walk" >> mi me lo cadzu = "I am a walker (pedestrian)" >> > > No, I'm totally not buying this. (Yes, I read the rest of the thread). > {mi cadzu} *does* mean "I am a walker". If there is a sense in which > "walk" is not "be a walker", you need to spell it out more specifically if > you're claiming that that is the distinction engendered by {me}. Apparently you didn't. The colloquial interpretation "I am a walker" may be able to be used for both bridi, however, the bridi do NOT mean the same thing. mi me lo cadzu = "I/we am/are amongst those that are something which walks in aspect unspecified" mi cadzu = "I/we walk/stride/pace on surface unspecified using limbs unspecified" That {mi cadzu} can also be taken to mean "I am a walker" has no bearing on this. The English translation does not affect the Lojban meaning. Also, regardless of what the CLL says, I very much doubt that anyone will ever mean it that way, but will instead say something like, oh, {mi dzupre} (I am a walking-type-of-person), or possibly {mi mapti lo cadzu} (I correspond to "something which walks"). The relationship expressed in cadzu is that of an object, the surface it is at some point in time walking on, and the limbs it uses to do the walking. The relationship expressed in {me lo cadzu} is that of an object, its identity as a member of a set, and the aspect by which it is included in that set. These are two completely different relationships. Stela Selkiku wrote: > > {.i ti'e so'o jbopre ba klama la .bastyn. .i xu do klama} >> "I hear some Lojbanists are going to Boston. Are you going?" >> >> {.i mi na me lo klama .i mi klama la .bastyn. mu'i lo drata ku'i} >> "I'm not one of the goers. I'm going to Boston for another reason, >> though." >> > > This works because of the specificity of {lo} (being completely general, > one of its uses is as a specific gadri; go figure). As you said, {lo klama} > now refers to the contextually appropriate goer(s) we were just speaking of. > But the clear way to say that you're not among them would probably be {mi > na cmima lo'i klama}, which of course relies on the same contextual > appropriateness, but I think is clearer in the sense of saying that of this > set of goers, you are not a member. > I would've used {le klama}, as we were speaking of a specific group. Then again, this example was contrived as an illustration, so I probably wouldn't have said the bit about not being one of those goers at all. > > I never really liked {me lo} for this reason, and I'm finding myself > thinking {me} should be left as vague as we can comfortably leave it. > ~mark > > The usefulness of me is in making it possible to use non-gardi sumti, (i.e., those that are not converted from selbri,) as selbri. Here's the example provided on the BPFK page ( http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Numeric+selbri): xu do djica lo nu do me mi'a"Do you want to be one of us?"Which is, non-colloquially: Is-it-true-that you desire the-event-of you are-amongst-those-that-are us ( us = the speaker and others, but not the audience)? I decided to do a little check on the actual use of {me}, by searching the Corpus (http://www.lojban.org/cgi-bin/corpus/), which is an automated program that will look search through the entirety of written Lojban: the collected works, and the frequently updated IRC logs, and while there is some pollution from the English "me", there were 4,328 results. Some of the shorter examples: .i ba bo lo me lo bemro moi - le cmalu noltru .i cusku .i finti .i me zoi gy sysadmin gy - IRC log mi pu nelci lo me la .apyl. skami - IRC log lo me la'o gy. Arizona Tea .gy. - IRC log I doubt it would be possible, or at the very least, easy, to say any of those without the use of {me}. Regardless, it doesn't matter what your opinion on {me} is. {me} means "x1 is amongst those that are in aspect x2". That's all there is to it. -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --0015177415eebd009104a7c3f1d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Mark E. Shoulso= n <mark@kli.org>= ; wrote:
On 07/09/2011 03:36 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
mi cadzu =3D "I walk"
mi me lo cadzu =3D "I am a walker (pedestrian)"

No, I'm totally not buying this. =A0(Yes, I read the rest of the thread= ). =A0{mi cadzu} *does* mean "I am a walker". =A0If there is a se= nse in which "walk" is not "be a walker", you need to s= pell it out more specifically if you're claiming that that is the disti= nction engendered by {me}.

Apparently you didn't. The colloquial interpretation "I a= m a walker" may be able to be used for both bridi, however, the bridi = do NOT mean the same thing.

mi me lo cadzu =3D "I/we am/are amo= ngst those that are something which walks in aspect unspecified"

mi cadzu =3D "I/we walk/stride/pace on surface unspecified using limbs unspecified"

That {mi cadzu} can also be taken = to mean "I am a walker" has no bearing on this. The English trans= lation does not affect the Lojban meaning. Also, regardless of what the CLL= says, I very much doubt that anyone will ever mean it that way, but will i= nstead say something like, oh, {mi dzupre} (I am a walking-type-of-person),= or possibly {mi mapti lo cadzu} (I correspond to "something which wal= ks").

The relationship expressed in cadzu is that of an object, the surface i= t is at some point in time walking on, and the limbs it uses to do the walk= ing.

The relationship expressed in {me lo cadzu} is that of an objec= t, its identity as a member of a set, and the aspect by which it is include= d in that set.

These are two completely different relationships.

Stela Selkiku wrote:

{.i ti'e so'o jbopre ba klama la .bastyn. .i xu do klama}
"I hear some Lojbanists are going to Boston. =A0Are you going?"
{.i mi na me lo klama .i mi klama la .bastyn. mu'i lo drata ku'i} "I'm not one of the goers. =A0I'm going to Boston for another = reason, though."

This works because of the specificity of {lo} (being completely general, on= e of its uses is as a specific gadri; go figure). =A0As you said, {lo klama= } now refers to the contextually appropriate goer(s) we were just speaking = of. =A0But the clear way to say that you're not among them would probab= ly be {mi na cmima lo'i klama}, which of course relies on the same cont= extual appropriateness, but I think is clearer in the sense of saying that = of this set of goers, you are not a member.

I would've used {le klama}, as we were speaking o= f a specific group. Then again, this example was contrived as an illustrati= on, so I probably wouldn't have said the bit about not being one of tho= se goers at all.

I never really liked {me lo} for this reason, and I'm finding myself th= inking {me} should be left as vague as we can comfortably leave it.

~mark


The usefulness of me is in making it possible to use non-gardi sumti,=20 (i.e., those that are not converted from selbri,) as selbri.

Here= 9;s the example provided on the BPFK page (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Secti= on%3A+Numeric+selbri):
xu do djica lo nu do me mi'a
"Do you want to be on= e of us?"
Which is, non-colloquially:

Is-it-true-that = you desire the-event-of you are-amongst-those-that-are us ( us =3D the spea= ker and others, but not the audience)?

I decided to do a little check on the actual use of {me}, by searching=20 the Corpus (http://www.lo= jban.org/cgi-bin/corpus/), which is an=20 automated program that will look search through the entirety of written=20 Lojban: the collected works, and the frequently updated IRC logs, and=20 while there is some pollution from the English "me", there were 4= ,328=20 results.

Some of the shorter examples:

.i ba bo lo me lo bemr= o moi - le cmalu noltru
<lazni> .i cusku .i finti .i me zoi gy sys= admin gy - IRC log
<alaricsp> mi pu nelci lo me la .apyl. skami=A0= - IRC log
<lindar> lo me la'o gy. Arizona Tea .gy. - IRC log

I doubt it would be possible, or at the very least, easy, to say any of tho= se without the use of {me}.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what your opinion on {me} is. {me} means= =20 "x1 is amongst those that are <sumti> in aspect x2". That&#= 39;s all=20 there is to it.


--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.<= br>
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do = zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
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.
--0015177415eebd009104a7c3f1d1--