Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 26 May 2007 05:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hrv6N-0001MZ-28 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 05:10:37 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.229]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hrv5x-0001MH-Ep for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 26 May 2007 05:10:11 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t11so760413wxc for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 05:10:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=r6yVwyox1/EBDvY8io8f1iMS/mzmic/VcZjJtyoTyec+mW4EtO93RTlmrsi02zpUzZG1t03uUP+xOgN4tul+aT4cUCXWrTh0CbHS2gcNMVVOVK+6BWvcn/Xv6CavUoIatAdWq/3AhIeoJV+qMQveupLmEo6MSgV0haU06mX4trU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=M0I/VzuF8ID9nFjlZit9URIpoCqSCY6a6ZP4/xNRz4wSry1ApY7rWdt6Zu+ENSy3dPeGowGPLOUKdzSWEvDFUKEuJQzozVNv1MooCQ1DbiPTQDBBV0MuJJX2k05wvYB470zYiQxON6Lns0fPxIhLLrCDzQ7uB28vSYfq+ExaHKA= Received: by 10.70.123.14 with SMTP id v14mr5518646wxc.1180181403636; Sat, 26 May 2007 05:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Sat, 26 May 2007 05:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705260510t65405b5eu11f7b652c4398d41@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 13:10:03 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: fanva In-Reply-To: <925d17560705251310g713b1304s352b04b54ee16412@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_93578_2417867.1180181403560" References: <2f91285f0705250608j580ad99bp7b89dccfb45022f2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560705250904t4416df97ya887583325d71ab8@mail.gmail.com> <2f91285f0705251152j313b20a7hcf13ddf577503a83@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560705251310g713b1304s352b04b54ee16412@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4685 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 9884 ------=_Part_93578_2417867.1180181403560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 5/25/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > You would have to convert the sumti {la'o gy ... gy} into a tanru unit, > with {me}. > True! I think I read the English as "the interlinked (web pages and other > documents) of the world wide web". You're right. I was wrong, overlooking the internal "and". That part is als= o slightly confusing because there are two "web". If it weren't preceded by a= n external "and", it would break into two noun phrases since there exist "interlinked (two-way linked) web pages" AND "non-interlinked (one-way linked) web documents", in which case I might use two sumti to translate them. Isn't it literally millions? {so'i} by itself doesn't give any idea of the > magnitude. "Tens of smaller networks" could also be many networks. I wanted to say "millions of" was rather figurative for not literally defining whether it's "million x2" or "million x5". It's hinting that "the number of the sub-networks may reach over one million", and whether it's tw= o million or five million we don't know. It's figuratively expressing the writer's image of "a collection of what seems to be as many as a million". And anyway I think the number could vary depending on how you call it "a smaller network". "millions of" could have therefore been a subjective expression. So I correspondingly used {so'i}, which, as you pointed out, ca= n refer to anything one can subjectively conceive to be "many". You are right about {pe'a} not being forethought. I was actually thinking > of {za'e}, which is in selma'o BAhE, not {pe'a} which is in UI. I see. Yes, the "network of networks" sounds like a nonce word. The marks "..." in English don't distinguish between quotation and nonce and emphasis (the last one can be expressed in italic, though). Which leads me to the following consideration. So you are reading the English as saying something like > "It is a 'network of networks' because it consists of ...", rather than > "that consists of ..."? The point is that, when translating a natlang expression into Lojban we may re-communicate a possible implicit idea of the text (rooted within the author's epistemology) which has been obscured by the sentence's (language-specific) prescriptive aspect. Consider the following sentences: 1) It is a class that consists of 20 children. 2) It is a "class" that consists of 20 children. 3) It is a class of classes that consists of 3 smaller classes. 4) It is a "class of classes" that consists of 3 smaller classes. 1 & 3 are simply reporting a fact. But 2 & 4 happens to imply, with the quotation marks, something different in nature. The existence of the double quotes here indicates that there is something more intentional or interpretative in the phrase, or, more precisely, in the way by which the phrase has been conceived. 2 & 4 are respectively proposing an intentional conception, while 1 & 3 are more like to be reporting a fact. 'that consist= s of ...' in 1 & 3 is simply a grammatical part of the statement, while in 2 = & 4 it appears to have stronger explicative adhesion to the previous conceptional phrase, adding the logical evidence by which the phrase can be proposed. In short, while 1 & 3 simply say that '... is ... that (which) ...', 2 & 4 imply, in addition to its grammatical statement, that '... can be viewed/conceptualized as what I quote as "..." because ...' or 'It should b= e noted that ... looks like "..." because ...'. So, 'that consists ...' in 2 & 4 is more like a reasoning for the introduce= d conception, the epistemological causality of which can easily be obscured b= y the sentence's prescriptive appearance itself. ------=_Part_93578_2417867.1180181403560 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 5/25/07, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
You would = have to convert the sumti {la'o gy ... gy} into a tanru unit, with {me}= .

True!

I think I read the English as "the interli= nked (web pages and other
documents) of the world wide web".

You're right. I was wrong, overlooking the internal "and". Th= at part is also slightly confusing because there are two "web". I= f it weren't preceded by an external "and", it would break in= to two noun phrases since there exist "interlinked (two-way linked) we= b pages" AND "non-interlinked (one-way linked) web documents"= ;, in which case I might use two sumti to translate them.

Isn't= it literally millions? {so'i} by itself doesn't give any idea of t= he
magnitude. "Tens of smaller networks" could also be many netw= orks.

I wanted to say "millions of" was rath= er figurative for not literally defining whether it's "million x2&= quot; or "million x5". It's hinting that "the number of = the sub-networks may reach over one million", and whether it's two= million or five million we don't know. It's figuratively expressin= g the writer's image of "a collection of what seems to be as many = as a million". And anyway I think the number could vary depending on h= ow you call it "a smaller network". "millions of" could= have therefore been a subjective expression. So I correspondingly used {so= 'i}, which, as you pointed out, can refer to anything one can subjectiv= ely conceive to be "many".

You= are right about {pe'a} not being forethought. I was actually thinking
of {za'e}, which is in selma'o BAhE, not {pe'a} which is in= UI.

I see. Yes, the "network of networks" sound= s like a nonce word. The marks "..." in English don't disting= uish between quotation and nonce and emphasis (the last one can be expresse= d in italic, though). Which leads me to the following consideration.

So = you are reading the English as saying something like
"It is a '= network of networks' because it consists of ...", rather than
"that consists of ..."?

The point is tha= t, when translating a natlang expression into Lojban we may re-communicate = a possible implicit idea of the text (rooted within the author's episte= mology) which has been obscured by the sentence's (language-specific) p= rescriptive aspect. Consider the following sentences:

1) It is a class that con= sists of 20 children.

= 2) It is a "class" that consists of 20 children.

3) It is a class of c= lasses that consists of 3 smaller classes.

4) It is a "class of classes" that consists of 3 smaller c= lasses.

1 & 3 are simply reporting a fact. But 2 & 4 = happens to imply, with the quotation marks, something different in nature. = The existence of the double quotes here indicates that there is something m= ore intentional or=20 interpretative in the phrase, or= , more precisely, in the way by which the phrase has been conceived. 2 &= ; 4 are respectively proposing an intentional conception, while 1 &= ; 3 are more like to be reporting a fact. 'that consists of ...' in= 1 & 3 is simply a grammatical part of the statement, while in 2 & = 4 it appears to have stronger explicative adhesion to the previous concepti= onal phrase, adding the logical evidence by which the phrase can be propose= d.

In short,
while 1 & 3 simply say that '... is ... that (= which) ...',
2 & 4 imply, in addition to its grammatical stateme= nt, that '... can be viewed/conceptualized as what I quote as "...= " because ...' or 'It should be noted that ... looks like &quo= t;..." because ...'.

So, 'that consists ...' in 2 & 4 is more like a reasoning for the introduced conception= , the epistemological causality of which can easily be obscured by the sent= ence's prescriptive appearance itself.
------=_Part_93578_2417867.1180181403560--