From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCZ4NDxBBoEu8f1Yg@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 30 09:24:09 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QnCKa-0000M2-5H; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:24:08 -0700 Received: by yxj20 with SMTP id 20sf5889132yxj.16 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3aGZEukIYmvGQD3srpVWMEOjHDDuODwZ6yCTIRktzW0=; b=6h1aIUoraXtu9fBpJInWpdcQbsleHq7MqXOLr0CTZkt/VdPh0xBzWAZD/0QRcqNmfN GE1qnwJhMN3JTsxN4gLV7qHeE8uDUyQTa8JAWhzKAhqkvtD3INmGGsY+kYycilLHrByv 62yy05NQwPSsa+BTq/cG+mrLLzAdrYOp22ndA= Received: by 10.91.73.21 with SMTP id a21mr404527agl.8.1312043033589; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.250.3 with SMTP id x3ls2894145agh.2.gmail; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.176.2 with SMTP id a2mr668777yhm.58.1312043032516; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.176.2 with SMTP id a2mr668776yhm.58.1312043032506; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm16-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm16-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id u3si185417ybd.1.2011.07.30.09.23.51; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.19; Received: from [66.94.237.126] by nm16.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jul 2011 16:23:51 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.109] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jul 2011 16:23:51 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1014.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jul 2011 16:23:51 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 176550.29809.bm@omp1014.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 56521 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Jul 2011 16:23:51 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 4x8_AlcVM1m_EJszh38Lf6MtucifzVkRQLieJEu5VYvVspF 2CZX4T4TEJmvZTuqf58LDpMDTlQxJzuM12xHurReUP0NLG1RgnvR2Ej5A3Om inN.sbI4gkUwEU6FNpDKqmk9C0U2AsEqR4RGitiv7ctT7D4iAoNl56SCyStd zgWFzfW1ISeU8jpPZUABpCmoqKHQ4ZWrgxM7HU8.jRtK4vZhk4qSZSPLmHk3 m5toUQpu5LzJbCjxVK_boWlVnIpCLgn4xeyu4S8M0iEXHyMwpesGmSN8lMoq oQHmgZ2wAhly0I4R_Y68WuHnQQb0rKlylNtY75DQLoetMjRhFZIrbMB5bAdM DeDNbuGDpzmIOc0KC__C5D2CfFzx_sZX9CKh61ueKMXJ8M1qrkID4EBJK9p7 RQd49SjAC6hhs89j2OV4qbhLx6pgqdeBJB5UaIfx7cKZD7Jb7joZWTAWLXxU Dzsore0t4JY3hT2W7TWBSu7sK Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:50 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.310352 References: <201107191408.50207.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1311780839.58357.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1312034760.68779.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1312043030.89892.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now that is tempting, slashing three (or more) abstractors to one. I seem = to=20 recall, however, that there were a number of gismu that suggested more tha= n one=20 type. If this is an ambiguity in the definition it should be repaired (or = is=20 the different type meant to do the disambiguization?). 'ni' and 'jei', as = far=20 as I understand them, aren't really abstractors in the sense that they crea= te=20 references to intensional entities. But the types of 'nu' remain a problem= ,=20 since so many words have (in English at least and apparently in Lojban) sev= eral=20 readings, one at least, in each of two or more of the subtypes. Maybe we n= eed=20 either to disambiguate these words or provide some other clues when the nat= ure=20 is unclear (there are obvious relations between these types and aspects, fo= r=20 example). If we were to get down to one type, I would vote for 'ka' on=20 metaphysical grounds: evert abstraction can be reduced to a property (if yo= u=20 allow "properties" with no gaps -- see earlier). (Of course, it works the o= ther=20 way too, if you allow propositions or events with gaps.) 'li'i' was designe= d for=20 a paraplegic. who is, I think, no longer with us, but it might have value f= or=20 phenomenologists, to give the residue of bracketing. And it may be part of= The=20 Quest discussed elsewhere. The main problem that I see is in formal semantics, where we have all thee= =20 critters to deal with and I am not sure just what some of them might turn o= ut to=20 be. For a simple predicate, we have the extension (the set of all the thin= gs=20 that have the property), the intension (the property itself -- maybe some= =20 function on possible worlds) the meaning (its place in a matrix of related= =20 terms -- a Platonic definition, if you will, except rarely binary), and it= s=20 truth function (maybe the same as the characteristic function of the set --= =20 another item -- or, in non-binary logics, maybe not). Moving to sentences= =20 merely increases this plethora. How are 'ji' and 'nei' used for indirect questions. What could be the trut= h=20 value of a question or the amount? Or are they just used in place of 'xu k= au'=20 and 'ma kau' (with appropriate restrictions)? back to questions about UI, = I=20 suppose. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, July 30, 2011 9:53:42 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > Well, I'm not quite sure what a generic abstractor or generic bridi > subordinator would do. It seems that each case where subordination of th= e=20 sort > involved here is concerned, only a limited number of types (by the way h= ow do > we fill in x2 of 'su'u'?) are possible and each gives a slightly differen= t > meaning. What is left for the generic case? I suppose, following xorlo = by > analogy, that it would, in each case, be the indeterminate middle of all = the > possible inserts, assuming that makes any sense at all (what is the middl= e of > propositions, events, and properties?). It seems to add obfuscation just= =20 where > clarity us sought. It seems to me that whenever a subordinate clause is needed, only one type (of the three main ones) makes sense and the others don't just give a slightly different meaning, the others give nonsense. For example, the subordinate bridi that goes in x1 of frili must be a nu. It makes no sense to say of a proposition or of a property that it is frili. The subordinate bridi that goes in x2 of jinvi must be a du'u, it makes no sense to jinvi an event or a property. The subordinate bridi that goes in the x2 of mutce must be a ka, it makes no sense to say that something is mutce in an event or a proposition. As far as I can tell there are hardly any cases where we have a choice, and then what's the point of duplicating the information that is already there in the meaning of the predicate? And in the cases where we hesitate which one is "right" (usually between nu and du'u), it's only because the predicate is not well defined, not because there are two separate meanings that the same predicate would distinguish. That's as far as the "big three" are concerned: du'u, nu and ka. In the case of the four types of nu (pu'u, za'i, zu'o and mu'e) the determination comes from the inner bridi rather than from the slot where the bridi is inserted, but again there is little or no choice, the event described by the bridi practically determines the subtype of nu, so there is no point in duplicating that information with different NUs. ni and jei are special cases because they do encode additional information, although they have the problem that they are badly defined, so that each of them has two separate usages. Their main usage is in encoding an indirect question. jei can be just avoided and replaced by "du'u xu kau". ni (in the indirect question sense) is usually something like "ka se la'u ma kau". I can't say much about li'i and su'u because I don't really understand them, but they are hardly used anyway. In summary, I tend to agree that a single subordinator would have made things simpler without really losing anything important. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?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.