On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 20:07:00 UTC+10, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:59:41 edl...@me.com wrote:
> Hello Everyone!
>
> I'm new around here. So far I'm finding lojban to be a thing of beauty, the
> more I read, the more I am impressed by it's beauty and elegance. I just
> had a question about logical connections within tanru, as the there seems
> to be some contradictory statements in the CLL published on lojban.org.
>
> Specifically, the following would appear to be at odds:
>
> In chapter 5 section 6, the example "blanu je zdani" is used and it is
> stated that the "blueness is independent of the houseness". However, in
> chapter 14 section 12, the example "la .alis. cu blanu je zdani prenu" is
> used and it is stated that "the blueness is associated with the houseness".
> I can't see how both these statements can be true and maintain
> logical consistency. This inconsistency is used to explain why the rule of
> expansion to separate bride does not apply on tanru connections.
Let's take some different pairs of gismu: "barda cinki" and "cmalu xanto". lo
cakcinki be la .goliat. cu barda cinki gi'enai barda je cinki .iki'ubo ro
xanto poi na'e tarbi cu bramau ro cinki (A Goliath beetle is a big insect, but
it is not a "big and insect", because all elephants (except embryos) are
bigger than all insects.) So if Alice studies Goliath beetles, "la .alis.
barda cinki prenu" is true, but "la .alis. barda je cinki prenu" can't be true
no matter who Alice is, as there is no barda je cinki.
Pierre
--
I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.
Ok, tangents first.
1. Surly barda and cmalu must always be relative to context. if you can't have something that is both an insect and big, then you also can't have something that is both an elephant and big either, because elephants are much smaller than planets. Inversely you couldn't have small insects because insects are much bigger than atoms. In fact, relative size is built in to both barda and cmalu in their x3, which is unspecified and therefore assumed to be zo'e (unimportant or obvious from context). So while barda may not be relative to the size of insects, it is relative to whatever would fill the x1, which is also an insect.
2. The truth value of "barda je cinki" vs "barda cinki" is quite separate from rules of grammar and logic that describe what they mean.
3. Just because there is no such things as giant insects does not mean we cannot speak of them in truthful contexts, for example if one was telling a fictional story about giant insects. Or if I was describing a picture of giant insects. Or if I was delusional and genuinely thought they did exist. Or I could simply be telling an intentional lie. Truth is always relative to context.
4. At least one possible translation of "la .alis. barda je cinki prenu" would be "alice is a big type of person and an insect type of person". If we were to swap out la .alis. for Jeff Goldblums character from the move "the fly", then that bridi becomes all kinds of true.
End tangent.
Anyway, I think of have answered my own question, at least partially. I was overlooking the implicit x1 place of the compound selbri, that is to say that blanu and zdani don't operate directly on prenu, but on their own x1 place that is then implied to act upon prenu. So while they are independent of each other at the logical connection the are associated as soon as they reach the x1.
Though I'm still unsure why the book makes the point that logical connectives within tanru can't undergo logical manipulations though.
From the book
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.8) ta melbi je mixli ckule (That is-a-(beautiful and girl) type-of school.)
Can be understood as:
6.9 - That is a girls' school and a beautiful school.
or
6.10 - That is a school for things which are both girls and beautiful.
or
6.11 - That is-a-( beautiful type-of school ) and ( girl type-of school )
The interpretation specified by Example 6.9 treats the tanru as a sort of abbreviation for 6.11, whereas the interpretation specified by Example 6.10 does not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with that last line in its implication that 6.10 and 6.11 are not equivalent. "melbi ckule" could certainly mean a school for beautiful students, or a school that is in itself beautiful, or even a school where beauty is taught.
I would suggest that the ambiguous nature of the various translations is entirely dependent on the ways you can have a beautiful type of school or a girl type of school and nothing to do their logical arrangements as above.
I guess it just seems strange to me that if you are going to say that two things are joined logically, then you have a hard time justifying why they then don't necessarily follow the rules of logic.