In a message dated 9/13/2002 7:14:58 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << If, as you have been wont to say, "mi nelci lo'e cakla" etc. can >> Cherlin's former tag from Alice, "Oh, a knot! Let me untie it," applies here: givena tanru, somone always want to unpack it and so {lo'e} and the like make a nice way-station on that trip (but far short of the last stage, I think). << If "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" is the way to refer to the Lion intension, I wonder if ways can be found to express all the meanings using "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" rather than "lo'e", just for the sake of clarity. Then "lo'e" could be defined as an abbreviation of certain more longwinded Lojban forms. >> Some place back in that chocolate pile are some arguments against {tu'o} here (or anywhere), but I can't drag them out just now. In any case, I think it is finally clear that xorxes' {lo'e ...} is different from {le/lo/tu'o/no'o du'u ce'u ...} -- and rather more complex. Is {ce'u da} two terms (as CLL appears to have it) or "lambda x" as good ogic would use it? I root for the latter but despair of achieving anything with {du'u/ka} anymore. << But I would rather abolish lo'e/le'e. Any cmavo about whose meaning there is virtually nil consensus, even after years upon years of discussion, should be binned >> I think we need more of them, since what can be said with them takes for ever without them. As for nil consensus, some parts of the language are just ahrder to master than others -- even for the people who invented them (encouraging sign of the language's autonomy). << A lot of your debate with pc could be avoided if you eschewed the form {lo'e} and used an unassigned cmavo for your purposes instead >> No, the word was only peripherally the issue (and turned out to be the one part that approximately made correct sense). Figuring out what xorxes meant would have had to be done in any case. And, I think, the results is now pretty close to considerable clarity on the matter (I'm still not sure exactly what xorxes means, but I know the category and how most of what the line of chat works).
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |
--- Begin Message ---
- To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
- Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate
- From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:13:43 +0100
- Delivered-to: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <F143fxdV9AGYcYhkT7c000193aa@hotmail.com>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
- Mailing-list: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com
XORXES: > I mean "I like chocolate", "that is like a sofa" and "that is a > picture of a boa". They don't mean "there ia some chocolate such > that I like it", "there is some sofa such that that is like it" > or "there is some boa such that that is a picture of it". To get > those latter meanings I would have to use {lo} instead of {lo'e}. > > I'm not sure why paradigm cases need to be in x1, but here are > some: {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} "Lions live in Africa", > which is different from "some lions live in africa" (lo), > "all lions live in Africa" (ro), "most lions live in Africa" (so'e). > {lo'e mlatu cu kavbu lo'e smacu", "Cats catch mice", which is > different from saying that "some cats catch some mice", etc. If, as you have been wont to say, "mi nelci lo'e cakla" etc. can be aptly glossed as "I am a chocolate-liker", "That is a sofa- resembler"/"That is sofa-like", "That is a boa-depicter", then "lo'e cinfo cu xabji le friko" would be "Africa is lion-inhabited", which seems to me not the same as "The [generic] lion lives in Africa", though each of the two different meanings is a challenge to express adequately in Lojban. If "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" is the way to refer to the Lion intension, I wonder if ways can be found to express all the meanings using "tu'o du'u ce'u da cinfo" rather than "lo'e", just for the sake of clarity. Then "lo'e" could be defined as an abbreviation of certain more longwinded Lojban forms. Excuse my having read this previous thread in only a desultory way -- I read your summary postings assiduously, but keeping track of the debates with pc I find very wearing. > Unfortunately we don't have the la-version of lo'e: > lo le la > lo'e le'e ?? > > But we can use {lo'e me la santas}. If you really wanted to fill the gap you could pick a spare cmavo -- {lai'e}, say. But I would rather abolish lo'e/le'e. Any cmavo about whose meaning there is virtually nil consensus, even after years upon years of discussion, should be binned. A lot of your debate with pc could be avoided if you eschewed the form {lo'e} and used an unassigned cmavo for your purposes instead. --And. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/--- End Message ---