From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCliNLxBBoED6BCzQ@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 30 15:22:42 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QnHvb-0001cE-NF; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:42 -0700 Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31sf5223078qyk.16 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:33 -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=YSmFN67nQbYePDLJ7BR9Kqev9ex7yQmhoLRcfkYiPbQ=; b=RfRpT/ELV4E5UqgM/GINqXPYGtZuum/ya6fVrtvDEj8hXHj0PPhuhHwwYjUBRnbHFp 4rtSpJjl+GNs0b999/sFN0GO3Rpm9ETj9lEItEbA+ObsysOtMbt4TYLrx1EcVdJFrMTZ ExZT31SCtkfYH+cx9SHJGjkpcPiecRxdIKNYY= Received: by 10.224.215.68 with SMTP id hd4mr385454qab.47.1312064549406; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.212.70 with SMTP id gr6ls9695215qab.7.gmail; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.194.136 with SMTP id dy8mr2337136qab.25.1312064548873; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.194.136 with SMTP id dy8mr2337135qab.25.1312064548852; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z32si4572153qcd.1.2011.07.30.15.22.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.181; Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so2950513qyk.12 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.69.138 with SMTP id z10mr2058364qci.168.1312064548732; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.27.10 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.27.10 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201107191408.50207.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1311780839.58357.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1312034760.68779.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 23:22:28 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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=0016e64b8e68597fbb04a950d52a --0016e64b8e68597fbb04a950d52a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with that summary. It is interesting how debates from 15 years ago have started recurring, but without any of the opprobrium that used to rain down on the discussants. To repeat another point from 15 years ago, the le/lo distinction is pertinent to events, so it makes sense for nu-kei to be a selbri, but propositions are like numbers in that they are unique, so it might have mad= e more sense to have a function that would convert a bridi direct ly into a sumti. These what-if discussions are pretty futile now, tho, I recognize. ,, And. On 30 Jul 2011 16:53, "Jorge Llamb=EDas" wrote: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, I'm not quit... 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 "lojban" group. To post to... --=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. --0016e64b8e68597fbb04a950d52a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with that summary. It is interesting how debates from 15 years a= go have started recurring, but without any of the opprobrium that used to r= ain down on the discussants.

To repeat another point from 15 years ago, the le/lo distinction is pert= inent to events, so it makes sense for nu-kei to be a selbri, but propositi= ons are like numbers in that they are unique, so it might have made more se= nse to have a function that would convert a bridi direct ly into a sumti. <= /p>

These what-if discussions are pretty futile now, tho, I recognize.

,, And.

On 30 Jul 2011 16:53, "Jorge Llamb=EDas&q= uot; <jjllambias@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:06 A= M, John E Clifford <kali9putra@y= ahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm not quit...

It seems to me that whenever a sub= ordinate 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<= br> 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

--

You received this message because you are subs= cribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to...

--
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.
--0016e64b8e68597fbb04a950d52a--