[lojban-beginners] Re: What can you do with Lojban that you can't do with English?

[ianek <janek37@gmail.com>]

On 17 Maj, 10:31, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So if I'm referring to them as a group, then {mi'a ponse lo xunre
> > jipci je bakni} is true, right? And the sentence is not wrong, only
> > one interpretation is wrong?
>
> Yes. In order to ensure that only the intended interpretation is derived by
> the audience, you must either be explicit about whether you are referring
> to the object(s) individually (with "PA lo broda") or as a group/set (with
> "loi broda"/"lo'i broda"), or allow context to make the distinction for
> you, which is in itself usually enough.

So after all, when Pierre says "mi'a ponse lo xunre jipci je bakni",
you'd say that it doesn't imply that some chickens are cows, because
it's an absurd interpretation, am I not right?

> > Oh, how I love Lojban, the unambiguous
> > language.
>
> Syntactically unambiguous, which means that there are no instances where a
> word or phrase can be confused with a different word or phrase, (such with
> English to, too, and two, or the famous "pretty little girls' school"
> example).
>
> Semantically, Lojban is no less ambiguous than any other language, and is
> often more so, because of the rather vague- bu intention- meanings of the
> words.

I know all that. But I prefer to see Lojban as vague, not ambiguous.
That way I don't have a situation when some sentence is false because
it may imply that chickens are cows, but may be true, if the speaker
didn't intend to make that implication. Vague sentences shouldn't be
false because some interpretation is false. Of course it has some
drawbacks, too.
Like, "mi na cadzu", as a logical negation of "mi cadzu", which
doesn't state that I'm currently walking or even that I ever walked
(maybe I'm only innately capable of walking), should mean that I've
never walked walked and I can't walk. I fell better when I don't think
about it.

On 17 Maj, 14:01, Jorge Llambías <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  The reason {mi'a me lo nakspe je fetspe} is true is because I
> > am (implicitly) referring to them as a group. "lo" is not specific as to
> > whether a multitude of something is being addressed as a group or
> > individually, although typically the individual interpretation is implied,
> > as I said.
>
> I don't think "lo" helps much here. The question is really about "mi'a
> nakspe je fetspe". (Or "mi'a me zo'e noi ke'a nakspe je fetspe").
> There are no clear official rules about how tanru logical connectives
> work, but the obvious interpretation is that "ko'a nakspe je fetspe"
> expands to "ko'a nakspe .i je ko'a fetspe". I would prefer "mi'a
> nakspe jo'u fetspe" (or the more wordy "mi'a me lo nakspe jo'u
> fetspe").
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

ki'e xorxes
Are there many other simple Lojban constructs which meanings are
unspecified? I'd say that tanru logical connectives are pretty base
thing, unlike some obscure mekso issues, or "what if a sentence has
multiple prenexes".
Also, I don't really understand how jo'u works in general, in CLL I've
seen only one example. Does {mi jo'u do bevri lo pipno} mean that each
of us carries a piano individually, but we both carry the same piano?
The less I understand jo'u as a tanru connective...

mu'o mi'e ianek

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.