[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

On 6/7/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:


What does {lo tadni} mean to you?


The best translation into English for me is usually "students".
For example:

   lo tadni cu na'o na nelci la poi ctuca kampos
   "Students usually don't like Professor Campos."

   xu lo tadni cu zifre lo nu zvati ti
   "Are students allowed to be here?"


>      ko'a broda i je ko'a brode
>
> now we can mark each slot correspondingly.

How would you mark those two slots?


With {ro} for distributivity and {lu'o} for non-distributivity.


> Another way is to use {ckaji}:
>
>     ko'a ckaji ge lo ka ce'u broda gi lo ka ce'u brode
>
> and again we can mark each slot correspondingly.

brodaness? Why use this method when the above is available?


Why not use this one when it is also available?


> To separate two sumti at the same time we can use {ckini}:
>
>   lo tadni lo stizu cu ckini lo ka lu'o ce'u [xi pa] bevri lu'o ce'u [xi re]

The students to chairs are related by [together-those-students carry
together-those-chairs]ness?

Ok, sure. I don't really see what this says though - you can say this
of just about any sentence. It's just a way of rearranging things.
Like saying "the students" refers to the students.


It doesn't say anything different than {loi tadni cu bevri loi stizu}. The only
point here was to show one way to separate the sumti from the slot it fills.
This allows you to predicate something distributive and something
non-distributive of the same referent:

 lo tadni lo stizu cu ckini ge lo ka lu'o ce'u bevri lu'o ce'u gi lo ka ro ce'u
 zutse pa ce'u
 "The students are related to the chairs by the 'x1 together carry
  x2 together' relationship and also by the 'each of x1 sits on one of x2'
 relationship".

Nobody will actually speak like that (hopefully), but it is a valid way of
expanding other more compact but less precise sentences.


Before I understand how you're using {lu'o}, I'll have to understand
how Alice relates to the surroundment of the building. Right now, to
me {lu'o} expands to something that includes the word {gunma}.


I don't think you will find any difference between my usage of {lu'o}
and yours. The only difference seems to be that for me {lu'o} is
optional, and for you it cannot be omitted.


> I am not at all against using {gunma}, or {girzu}, or {bende}, or {selcmi},
> or {kanmi}, or any other gismu that refer to groups of things as single
> things. I don't have any problems with them, and I think they can be very
> convenient words.

Against using them in this situation. You seem against having

 lei tadni cu sruri lo dinju

expand to

 [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]

as a full, precise, and lossless (and gainless) form.


No, I'm not opposed to that. I would call it rephrasing rather than
expanding, but they effectively describe the same situation.



So "the students wore hats" and "the students surrounded the building"
are the same?


Obviously not, one is about wearing hats and the other about surrounding
a building. But the referring term "the students" is the same in both cases.
It refers exactly to the same entities both times. One thing is the referring
term "the students", common to both sentences, and a different thing is
what you predicate of the referents of that term. The predicate is different
for each sentence, and the mode of predication is also different, distributive
in one case and non-distributive in the other.


The students each wore hats in the same way that the
students surrounded the building?

No, they're different. In one, each of the students wears a hat - it
is true for each student that they wear a hat. Alice wears a hat.

In my interpretation, the other one would say that each student is
part of a mass-of-students that surrounds the building - it is true
for each student that they are part of a mass that surrounds the
building. Alice is part of a mass that surrounds the building.


And in mine it says that each student is one of those that surround
the building together. It is true of each student that they are one of
those that surround the building together. Alice is one of those students
that surround the building together.

Notice that I'm saying essentially the same thing you are saying,
exept that, because I use plural reference, I don't mention any mass.


> >  lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju
> >  lei tadni cu sruri lo dinju
> > expands to
> >  [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]

There's the very strong implication that this method of expressing it
in "first order predicate logic" is lacking something (whatever
benefit plurality gives). Are they exactly synonymous? If they're
synonymous, then you should have no problem with me translating
anything that you say plurally using that gunma expansion.


I have no problem with you doing that.


> Suppose you just don't know the details. Someone told you, in English,
> that the boys took the chairs to the garden, but they didn't say whether
> each boy carried one chair, or whether some boy carried more than one,
> or whether some boys carried a chair together. How do you report that
> in Lojban? If you use {loi}, then it would appear that your {loi} matches
> my {lo}: it indicates nothing about the distribution of chairs among the
> boys.

No, it does indicate something. It indicates that I'm looking at the
boys as a generic mass of kids.


How do you report that the boys carried the chairs if you don't know
whether each boy carried a single chair or not?

mu'o mi'e xorxes