From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBCS3YXxBBoEqFcNYw@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 16 03:57:35 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qi2Yv-0008EQ-59; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:35 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf1189643vws.16 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZBvLPHRkfxfK3AEBF38oeREpsb2dSjZJfPmWx8Y1CsE=; b=OLKRRT9BQB0D+iRx19wWfUVVa/R1EeFoQPSnCvuIJKzL0PLFKm0O+G0sTDwj8rvnS/ Jlnc7B2B2OCn6TS705t751/ZS4hrtOdkIDjpYffZw5ivz/a6VypmRq+qIkasnRzR0QEW K4eBD3HvpirbNtcZSm2GH3QDOZdm8/lUWsoj8= Received: by 10.220.9.10 with SMTP id j10mr796866vcj.39.1310813842197; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.96.197 with SMTP id du5ls612058vdb.1.gmail; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.88.45 with SMTP id bd13mr964751vdb.15.1310813841449; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.88.45 with SMTP id bd13mr964750vdb.15.1310813841441; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com (mail-qw0-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a10si1805662vdt.0.2011.07.16.03.57.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.45; Received: by qwj8 with SMTP id 8so1251027qwj.32 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.16.200 with SMTP id p8mr1917062qca.22.1310813841123; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.48.5 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:57:21 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] girzu gi'i gunma gi'i se gunma 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 209.85.216.45 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2011/7/15 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:45 AM, tijlan wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree. And that loosening is what I assumed might have been the >> case with your not having chosen "ce" in your revised translation. But >> what about the older version, which presumably was more guided by the >> pre-xorlo sumti-type-splitting grammar? Was that too your choice? > > I abandoned sets years before xorlo, yes. I don't think sets do things > "mutually". just as they don't use things, and they don't rest their > elbows. So for me "simxu" means "x1 do x2 to one another", and not "x1 > has members that do x2 to one another". I don't think the two meanings > are really very compatible, although in general it is obvious which > one someone is using. I agree that sets don't do things mutually. But members can, right? According to the current definition, what do x2 are members of x1, not x1 itself. So, the definition itself seems to me compatible with your (and my) understanding of sets. It's a winding one, however: ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo nu broda =3D ge ko'a ko'e soi vo'a vo'e broda gi ko'a .e ko'e cmima da poi me ko'a ce ko'e (ko'a and ko'e mutually do broda, and they are members of the set "ko'a ce ko'e".) We don't need to state that each simxu1 entity belongs to the same set. That's somewhat like saying "pa lu'a lo'i gerku cu cadzu" (one member of the set "dog" walks) instead of "lo gerku cu cadzu" (a dog walks). "ce" or "lo'i", or the notion thereof, shouldn't be a mandatory part of simxu1, in my opinion. So, yes, "x1 do x2 to one another", stripped of the notion of set, sounds good to me. >> Should at all "joi" and "jo'u" be distinguished according to the mixed >> / unmixed dichotomy prescribed by the dictionary, one example that >> would illustrate the difference for me is this pair: >> >> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_egg >> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omelette >> >> Fried eggs are "whites jo'u yolks", while omelettes are "whites joi >> yolks", according to their relative easiness and difficulty of >> separating the two cooked components. > > If you are thinking of "ko'a jo'u ko'e" or "ko'a joi ko'e" counting as > one thing, rather than as two things (assuming ko'a is one thing and > ko'e is another one thing), then I don't agree. If you are thinking of > a possible distinction between "lo broda jo'u brode" and "lo broda joi > brode", then maybe. > > When you say "whites and yolks", I'm not sure if you are thinking > "ko'a jo'u/joi ko'e" or "lo broda jo'u/joi brode". > >> I opine: Just like we need a generic gadri, we need a generic >> non-logical connective. "ju'e", the vague connective, is an immediate >> candidate. But, from our experience with xorlo, we could as well think >> of expanding the role of "joi" that's one-syllable shorter than >> "ju'e". ("ce" might as well maintain its original role due to its >> logical & mathematical significances.) > > For me, the gadri equivalent of "lo" is "jo'u". It would be nice that > it were "joi", if we could extract from it its harmful association > with the word "mass", but that's a very hard battle. > >> I had "loi" in mind. If "da poi me mi joi do" meant "that which is a >> mass thing composed of mi and do", could that be represented as "loi >> me mi joi do"? > > I don't have a use for mass things, at least not ones created by "joi" > and "loi" rather than by proper new entity creators like "lo gunma > be". For me "loi" and "joi" only say that the many referents of the > resulting sumti (not the *one* referent of the resulting sumti) are > not to be taken distributively but they are to be taken together. > > But different people have different ideas about what "loi" and "joi" > do. Some people think they refer to things called masses, such that > you can count each mass separately and independently of its members. Do you think, in the ideal world, "ce, joi, jo'u, ju'e" except one that's to be made generic (and their gadri equivalents) could be discarded, i.e. having only one generic non-logical connective and one generic gadri? What is your prospect for the other JOI, such as "ce'o" and "fa'u"? How do they relate to sets? Would it be preferable to express the same thing by means other than connectives? mu'o mi'e tijlan --=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.