Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 02:11:48 -0500
From: Andrew Archibald <archibal@math.mcgill.ca>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Story time
Message-ID: <20040313021148.R8729@fresco.Math.McGill.CA>
References: <20040312001528.P8729@fresco.Math.McGill.CA> <20040313013932.GV11847@digitalkingdom.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20040313013932.GV11847@digitalkingdom.org>; from rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:39:32PM -0800
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 4351

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:39:32PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Very cool, thanks.

No problem.  I didn't anticipate triggering a debate, though...

> > la bardivuar. vi le mi zdani cu barja
> 
> Bardivuuar is a bar near my house.

Bar d'Ivoire is its French spelling; I thought this rather close.

> > .i pu za ki ku le vorme pe by. ze'u ba ganlo ki'u lo nu catra
> 
> A while ago, its door was closed because of a killing.

A stabbing, in fact, but I thought the lojban was complicated enough.

> > .i lo pulji cu klama by. .ije ku'i noda .ianai viska node .ianai
> 
> The police came, but nobody saw anything (bullshit!)[1].

Curses, I thought I had included a {pu zi} on the {viska}.  I suppose
it's clear enough.

> > .i kiku la montreal. snura tcadu 
> 
> Usually[2], Montreal is safe.

In fact, I was just unsticking the tenses.  Perhaps it would have been
clearer to do this before the {.i}?  What I wanted, but decided was
too complicated, was a "sort-of" or "fairly" on the "safe city". 

Really, this sort of thing isn't a problem unless you plan on selling
drugs without permission from the biker gangs.  (And make sure you
pick the right gang!)

> > .ije ku'i my. se nabmi lo relxilma'e zekri girzu
> 
> However, Montreal has a problem with a motorcycle[3] gange.

I definitely should have included a {be} here --- most bikers no longer
commit "motorcycle crimes"; in fact many do not even own a motorcycle.
But the proper English name for them is "Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs".

> [1]: I'm pretty sure xorxes is right on this, but I'm going for what I
> think you meant.

That is indeed what I meant; I read the CLL and didn't realize this
was such a subtle issue. 

Clearly {noda viska node} is equivalent to 
{noda node zo'u da viska de}.
But does this translate to
"There is no X, there is no Y, such that X saw Y"
or
"There is no X such that there is no Y such that X saw Y"?

The first is what I meant; the second is not.  The CLL  has an exactly
parallel case:

#3.3)  ro da ro de zo'u da prami de
#    For-every X, for-every Y : X loves Y.
#    Everything loves everything.

Of course, {ro} is not {no}; in this example it doesn't matter which
is chosen.  I think, upon more careful reading, that the correct
interpretation of <quantifier X> <quantifier Y> zo'u <predicate>  is
<quantifier X> such that <quantifier Y> such that <predicate>.  Is
this correct? 

Can I say "There is no (X,Y) such that X sees Y"?  I can't understand
what the CLL has to say about "grouping of quantifiers" to tell
whether this is what they do (although jbofi'e doesn't seem to think
so).  

But linguistic details aside, evidently this construction is wrong or
unclear to people who know the language, so I'll try to find a clearer
one that lets me use the attitudinals.

{.i lo pulji cu klama by. .ije ku'i naku .ianai da pu zi viska de}
... but it didn't happen (unlikely!) that somebody saw something.

{.i lo pulji cu klama by. .ije ku'i noda .ianai viska de}
... but nobody (unlikely!) saw anything.

{.i lo pulji cu klama by. .ije ku'i roda viska node .ianai}
... but everybody saw nothing (unlikely!).


Since there was practically nobody still in the bar by the time the
police got there, the first seems like the best.  I did rather like
being able to express incredulity on both "nobody" and "anything". 

Does
{.i lo pulji cu klama by. .ije ku'i noda .ianai viska su'o .ianai de}
... but nobody (unlikely!) saw any(unlikely!)thing.
or even
{.i lo pulji cu klama by. .ije ku'i noda .ianai viska su'o pa .ianai de}
... but nobody (unlikely!) saw even one (unlikely!) thing.
work?

It seems like in order to make things like this comprehensible, users
will have to pick a few common cases and memorize what they mean,
using those whenever possible (just as we have in English and French;
mathematicians use a few more).  Has this happened yet? 


> [3]: You probably want 'minji' or 'matra' in there; the default reading
> is 'bicycle gang'.  :-)

But that's so much cooler!  Picture leather-clad, long-greasy-haired
visigoths swinging pool cues and chains pedalling menacingly down a
deserted street...[1]  In fact, the dictionary says that
{relxilma'e} "is a bicycle/motorcycle".  Does common usage dictate
that motorcycles require more specification?  (Perhaps a further
lujvo?)

Andrew
[1] not quite up to saying that in lojban yet...