Re: [lojban] Re: xorlo podcast

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/28/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > You are quite right: exactly those words in
> that
> > order will not work, because prelo requires
> > {tu'a} with {terpa}, but this is always the
> > difference, so I didn't feel the need to
> mention
> > it.
> 
> Ah, OK.
> 
> > Boring automatic changes give:
> > mi terpa ci da no'u tu'a lo jukni .e tu'a lo
> > gerku .e  lo nu le tsani cu farlu le stedu be
> mi
> 
> Actually, you need:
> 
> mi terpa ci da no'u tu'a lo jukni lu'u .e tu'a
> lo gerku lu'u
> .e [tu'a?] lo nu le tsani cu farlu le stedu be
> mi
> 
> You can't elide the {lu'u}'s or the meaning
> changes.

You know, I don't think I've ever seen this
particular construction before, so I forgot the
{lu'u}. In fact, I don't think I've ever used
{lu'u} though I should have seen the ambiguity
(well, not in Lojban, of course) as I wrote it. 
So maybe it is not quite automatic after all.


> And of course, {mi terpa tu'a lo jukni} need
> not mean
> that I fear spiders, it could mean that I fear
> spiders
> becoming extinct or all sorts of other things
> about
> spiders, in the proper context. But something
> similar
> to "I fear spiders" is probably the most likely
> candidate
> without context.

Well, of course, your {mi terpa lo jukni} doesn't
exactly mean "I fear spiders" either, since, if
it were true as written, you would spend your
entire life in terror because there are spiders. 
Yours uses (though I expect you to deny it) the
same convention as prelo does, when sumti are
used in intensional places (to speak with the
vulgar) they are assumed to have a {tu'a}, the
difference being that they can be fronted out of
it.  Actually, describing what happens with xorlo
in these cases is considerably more complex, but
this captures the relevant feature.  But, yes,
strictly they mean "I fear something involving
spiders" and then we work out from context what
is mean or ask for the abstraction to be made
more precise. 

> > (I assume {tu'a} is not needed with {lo nu}
> > although I can imagine a case ...).
> 
> Yes, that was another issue of the old lo, one
> never
> knew exactly how it interacted with
> abstractions.

In fact both are correct, they just mean
different things.  In the one case (without
{tu'a}) I fear the sky falling on my head; with
{tu'a} I fear some event involving that event. 
Now the most likely such event is probably that
the overt event take place and so the difference
collapses, but it might be, for example, that I
fear someone will discover that I fear the sky
will fall on my head.

> > The identification of prelo {lo} with {su'o
> lo}
> > is not quite accurate. {ro lo} would work
> better,
> > though there exceptions even to that, I
> think.
> 
> I took "prelo" to be CLL-lo, that's the one
> xorlo replaced.

Wrong-o+, as you well know.  No one really used
CLL-lo in this century.  The problems with
practical applications and the differences from
{le}, that worked about right, led to the
discussions which reached some agreement about
how to proceed (getting that official was one
spring to BPFK, in fact).  On the technicality
you are correct; xorlo is the new *official*
Lojban {lo} but as the operant system it replaces
the intermediate prelo -- which you also largely
created.

> Is {mi terpa tu'a lo jukni} = {mi terpa tu'a ro
> lo jukni}
> in prelo?
> 
> What would the understood predicate be like?

I would suppose so, though I haven't thought
through the consequences.  Well, it isn't
technically an understood predicate just an
unspecified one.  To make it true, I would
suppose that generally, in both cases (since they
are pretty much equivalent), it would be
something like "I see x" or "x touches me" or "x
bites me" or whatever your fear really is of.