[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jorge's right re: ni
Chris Bogart wrote:
> By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple
> sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim
> anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify
> the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri.
I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't
be a broda. "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only
veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard.
> But on to {ni}:
I knew damn well when I wrote that that I was skating on thin ice,
probably the thinnest ice in the whole refgram except for the
second-order logic stuff (which is also being discussed now).
It's damn near impossible to explain what you yourself do not
understand. :-) I read JCB's various remarks on the subject,
and lojbab's, and I still don't really know what "ni" is doing
in the language, or how it should be construed.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 10:21:50 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:21:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710151521.KAA09699@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject: Re: na'enai
X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 714
> cu'u la dn
> > How does one say "A and B only"? For example, "Only John and
> > Jim are drinking coffee", it seems to me that the only of one
> > exculdes the other.
>
> If na'enai is accepted that would be:
>
> na'enai bo ge la djan gi la djim cu pinxe le ckafi
> Only both John and Jim drink coffee.
>
> co'o mi'e xorxes
Failing that you could say
X ge la djan gi la djim Y po`o cu pinxe le ckafi
where X and Y are the markers for attitudinal scope - I forget
what they are.
Alternatively,
ge la djan gi po`o la djim cu pinxe le ckafi
might do the job, because I can't think what else it might mean.
(But it only works for forethought connectives.)
--And
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 10:42:37 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:42:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710151542.KAA10646@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject: Re: quantifiable pro-bridi (fwd)
X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 395
> > Geoff:
> > > What do you mean by "intension"?
> >
> > Do you know the word but want to know the sense in which I am
> > using it?
>
> I know "intension" as it is distinguished from "extension", where the
> former is the meaning of a word and the latter is its referent. Is that
> how you are using the word, or what?
That'll do. Yes. That's what I mean. As opposed to extension.
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 11:35:21 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:35:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710151635.LAA12293@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni
X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 646
Kris:
> But on to {ni}: I think the reference grammar is inconsistent, and
> confuses the two types of reference to numbers. If you want to refer to a
> number as a simple mathematical object, you should use a BAI modal,
> probably {sela'u}. If you want to talk about the fact that a particular
> number applies, you should use {ni}
This makes sense, but is it correct? At least at one time we
were agreed that {jei} refers to a truth value and not the
fact that a given tv is tv of the proposition in the jei
clause. (We therefore used {xukau} instead, and I many
months later showed how it is doable in ordinary logic.)
--And
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 13:59:08 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:59:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710151859.NAA17320@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: rk@prefer.net
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ron Kuris <Ron.Kuris@CENTURASOFT.COM>
Organization: Centura Software
Subject: Help with Lojban, please
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1135
Hi!
I'm trying to create/convert some original text, and want some review
comments. Lojbab has been kind enough to already give this a cursory
look, but any other comments about this would be greatly appreciated.
I think the part about "work or school" (ckule .a jibri) seems wrong; is
there a right way to do this?
Also, how would one propose marriage in Lojban? I couldn't find the
concept properly expressed in the gismu list. I thought perhaps
something like "lanzu finti" (family type of inventing) but that sounds
really bad.
Here is the original text:
Hi, Mary!
I'm not very surprised that Scott is lazy about school. I think most
people are lazy about work or school. They have no motive about
anything.
In fact, they refuse to think because they don't have any self-esteem.
I have to leave town soon.
Goodbye!
------
And my translation attempt:
coi Meris!
.uecu'i le scat lazni le ckule ku .i mi pensi le'e le nanmu goi ko'a ku
latna
so'i ckule .a jibri .i na ko'a mukti da
.i .ainai da'inai ko'a pensi de seja'e na ko'a sinma ko'a
.i mi zi cliva le tcadu
co'o!
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 15:07:29 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:07:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152007.PAA19711@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: forward from Greg Higley
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2992
>From ghigley@en.com Wed Oct 15 10:53:32 1997
for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
<lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-ID: <3444D840.F06028F0@en.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:50:40 -0400
From: Gregory Higley <ghigley@en.com>
Reply-To: ghigley@en.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Problems with Abstraction
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Bob,
I've been lurking on this list for quite some time now, and I have to
confess I don't know how to send e-mail to the whole group. In any
case, please forward my little essay to the group as a whole. Feel free
to snip everything before the word 'ABSTRACTION.'
ABSTRACTION
I have been out of the Lojban loop for some time, but something that has
bothered me for years is the use of abstraction in Lojban, particularly
the particles {ka} and {ni}. My problem deals with interpretation of
{ka} and {ni} abstractions, but not in the sense in which they have been
debated recently in this list.
As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE
does not change the meaning of a bridi. Each sumti place is 'equal'.
Thus
{le prenu cu klama le zdani}
the person goes to the house
is Lojbanically the same as
{le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
the house is-the-destination-of the person
I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis
between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point. The
sentences have the same _essential_ meaning. If this is true, what can
we make of the following two abstractions?
{ka le prenu cu klama le zdani}
{ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
I have not offered translations because I don't know how to translate
them. You see, {ka} is supposed to abstract _the bridi as a whole_
(regardless of SE), and not the relationship between the 'physically'
first sumti and the selbri. According to this rule, the above two
sentences must be equivalent in meaning. If they aren't, then the rule
that sumti places are 'equal' must be tossed out the window.
I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way. It is
being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would
argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the
relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri. Most
lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different
ways. But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we
are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others.
Gregory Higley
ghigley@en.com
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 15:35:35 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:35:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152035.PAA20897@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Problems with Abstraction
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 368
The short answer on your abstraction comments is to look up the discussion
of ce'u (lambda) in chap 16 of the refgrammar. In general, ka and ni are
indeed supposed to be working on the whole bridi. If talking about the
relationship between one place and the rest of the places, then you use
ce'u in that one place. At least this is what I THINK ce'u does %^).
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 15:35:41 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:35:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152035.PAA20902@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: how to post and/or unsubscribe
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 377
We used to post these regularly.
To post to Lojban List, send to
LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
You will NOT get a copy of your own post from the list.
If you hit reply to a post, you will usually just send to the poster and
not to the whole list (this may depend on your mailer).
To unsubscribe from Lojban List send
unsub lojban
to
listserv@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:21:05 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:20:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152220.RAA25333@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>
Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/)
Subject: Marriage, etc.
X-To: Lojban Group <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710151829.LAA00966@red.colossus.net> from "Ron Kuris" at Oct
15, 97 11:01:03 am
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1183
> Also, how would one propose marriage in Lojban? I couldn't find the
> concept properly expressed in the gismu list. I thought perhaps
> something like "lanzu finti" (family type of inventing) but that sounds
> really bad.
I can't find the concept of agreement/pact/contract of any kind in
the gismu list. "le te bilga" is close, and has places for the
agreement and its obligations, but not for the parties. Otherwise,
"family type-of contract" would be natural. On top of that, even
if there were an appropriate brivla, I can't find one for the act of
"consent" either, so I can't ask her to. If there were a brivla
for agree/consent, it could be used to form lujvo for contract/pact
and marriage
As an aside, I shudder to think what kind of society might evolve
from a language where granting permission is a root concept but
mutual consent is not :)
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:21:06 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:21:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152221.RAA25342@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>
Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/)
Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction
X-To: Lojban Group <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710151939.MAA16238@red.colossus.net> from "Logical Language
Group" at Oct 15, 97 03:09:16 pm
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 876
> The short answer on your abstraction comments is to look up the discussion
> of ce'u (lambda) in chap 16 of the refgrammar. In general, ka and ni are
> indeed supposed to be working on the whole bridi. If talking about the
> relationship between one place and the rest of the places, then you use
> ce'u in that one place. At least this is what I THINK ce'u does %^).
The refgram makes sense and is reasonably clear on this point, but I
do see {ka} and {ni} used (by myself, too) as if there were a semi-
implied {ce'u} or {makau} in the first omitted place.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:46:04 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152246.RAA26448@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>
Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/)
Subject: Re: ka/ni kama
X-To: Lojban Group <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710150110.SAA14367@red.colossus.net> from "JORGE JOAQUIN
LLAMBIAS" at Oct 14, 97 10:07:41 pm
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2562
>>{le ni broda} is not a dimensionless quantity like {li pa}
>>(though it might be in certain contexts), it is a measurement
>>in units of broda-ness.
>
> If you're right about this, then where would you use it? I can't find
> any gismu that has a place for a dimensioned quantity.
Several have places marked [quanitity] that seem like they would
only work with dimensioned ones--in fact {le klani} itself is either
t (with {se klani] being a number) or else (as seems more natural)
it is a particular instance of a quantity, in which case {se klani}
must be a dimensioned quantity. Are not "the 5 kilos of rice I
have in mind" and "the 10 meters of rope I have in mind" both {klani}?
What about {te merli}?
> And then you must disagree with things like:
> le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i
> The extent to which John is rich is a lot.
I wouldn't use {du} as they are not the same identity, but {dunli}
seems OK. If {li piso'i} or {li rau} cannot be dimensioned, then
they are not very useful as quantifiers. Perhaps it is "raising" in
a sense to treat numbers as both "pure" and as quantities with
elided dimensions, but I don't see how a useful language can do it
any other way, especially since lojban makes no other effort to
clarify dimensioned quantities.
> Your definition would be a third possibility for {ni}, but I don't see
> where you would use it. (Liking 1.4 womanlyness units seems
> strange to me. You'd not be saying that you like women who
> measure that, but rather that you like the units themselves.)
I may /not/ like all women with that quantity. It may be that {le ni
la meris. ninmu cu dunli le ni la djein. ninmu}, which I like, but
otherwise Jane might be a jerk. I like the extent to which she is a
woman, but I may dislike that {ka} she is a lesbian.
> First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for?
It is a concept I can hold in my mind; if I cannot express it, then
why am I wasting my time with this language? How do you answer {ma junta}?
The abstract properties like "weight" and "luminosity" and "length"
must be expressible without reference to specific heavy, bright, or long
things, because the mind can think of them that way.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 17:37:37 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:37:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152237.RAA26136@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>
Subject: Re: quantifiable pro-bridi
X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 699
la .and. cusku di'e
> Geoff:
> > What do you mean by "intension"?
>
> Do you know the word but want to know the sense in which
> I am using it?
>
> Or don't you know it at all? If so, then you're much
> better of going to a book, such as the second Bible of
> Lojban, Jim McCawley's "Everything linguists always wanted
> to know about logic".
mi spuda la .and. di'e
I have read & reread that section of McCawley until (& I mean
this literally) the book fell to pieces, & I have made a
strange discovery: I understand what logicians mean by
"intension" only late at night - & not at all on most nights.
If you or pc or anyone else can shed some light....
co'omi'e markl.
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:09:44 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:09:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710160009.TAA29705@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley
X-To: lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2399
>As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE
>does not change the meaning of a bridi. Each sumti place is 'equal'.
A better way to say it is that using SE does not change the
meaning of a selbri. The bridi often does change, because the
order of the sumti is relevant when there are quantifiers. For example:
ro prenu cu prami lo prenu
Everybody loves somebody.
means something quite different from:
lo prenu cu se prami ro prenu
There is someone who is loved by everyone.
The selbri means exactly the same in both cases, but the two
bridi mean different things.
>Thus
>
>{le prenu cu klama le zdani}
>the person goes to the house
>
>is Lojbanically the same as
>
>{le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
>the house is-the-destination-of the person
In your example there is no problem because the two sumti
are of singular referent type, and for those any order works.
>I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis
>between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point. The
>sentences have the same _essential_ meaning. If this is true, what can
>we make of the following two abstractions?
>
>{ka le prenu cu klama le zdani}
>
>{ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
They both would mean to me: The property of being gone from,
by the person to the home.
More explicitly: {ka le prenu le zdani ce'u klama}
You can't have a {ka} without an explicit or implicit {ce'u}.
What would it mean, other than {nu}? If you don't agree that
a property must always be a property _of_ something, how
do you say "property" in Lojban?
>I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way.
If you mean without an at least implicit ce'u, I agree.
{ka} doesn't make sense without it.
>It is
>being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would
>argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the
>relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri.
Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot.
>Most
>lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different
>ways. But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we
>are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others.
Yes, in a sense we are.
co'o mi'e xorxes
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:10:06 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:09:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710160009.TAA29734@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject: Re: tremau
X-To: lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1165
Lojbab:
>You seem to be straining to keep it a ka, perhaps out of unwillingness to
>accept that (At least in intent) ni is supposed to be the quantity and
>not the indirect question (assuming I know what you mean by this - hmmm
>can we solve this my making the indirect question le nikau ???)
No, I'm not straining to keep anything. There are two different
definitions of {le ni broda}: one is {le jaila'u broda} and the other
is {le ka broda la'u makau}. We just have to choose which one
is correct. Usage favours the second one, the theoretical definitions
favour the first. (All those ni/ka places in the gismu list require the
second, the raised modality.)
>>Some broda already have a quantity place, so they may not need
>>the la'u, as in {zmadu fi le ka mitre makau}. In these cases you wouldn't
>>use {ni} either, I think.
>
>probably I would use fi le se mitre {be ce'u??? I hardly understand lambda
>enough to know if this would work - and don't expect to be able to explain
it
>to me either %^)}
No, it wouldn't work, {ce'u} always goes inside a {ka}. What you have
would be a clear case of sumti raising.
co'o mi'e xorxes
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:10:20 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:10:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710160010.TAA29742@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject: Re: ka/ni kama
X-To: lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 3083
Lojbab:
>>>2a does seem to be sumti raising, in that if you replaced "le ni ...
>>>by its numerical value, you would be saying that you are fond of a
number.
>>Yes, if {ni} has the number meaning.
>I think it should.
So you say. But then you say:
>>{lo se cenba} has to be a property, not a number.
>
>Not according to my gismu list - it is a ka or ni abstraction just as the
x3
>of zmadu/mleca is.
But the x3 of zmadu or the x2 of cenba can't take a number!!!
When the gismu list asks for ka/ni it is asking for the raised meaning
of ni. In most cases ni is used in its raised meaning. Very rarely,
as in the refgram's 1-B example, is it used as a number.
Unraised ni: le ni broda = le jaila'u broda
Raised ni: le ni broda = le ka broda la'u makau
The theoretical definition is given as if it were unraised, but the
gismu list asks for it where you would need its raised meaning.
The same thing happens with jei.
>I don't know about "usage", but the refgrammar discussion of jei states
>that in practice it ranges from 0 to 1 for fuzzy logic. It does not define
>what value one would use for "true" or "false", but the x1 of a jei
>abstraction must be a number in order to suipport the fuzzy logic
convention.
>jei was specifically invented to support fuzzy truth more than binary
truth.
Right, that's the theory. In practice, and even in the example
of the refgram, jei is used in raised modality. This is the example:
mi ba jdice le jei la djordj. cu zekri gasnu
I [future] decide the truth-value of (George being-a-(crime
doer)).
I will decide whether George is a criminal.
If {jei} is a truth value, that is sumti raising from:
mi ba jdice le du'u makau du le jei la djordj cu zekri gasnu
I will decide what is the truth value of ...
Or, better yet:
mi ba jdice le du'u xukau la djordj cu zekri gasnu
>>>> If it has the indirect
>>>>question meaning then yes, sometimes it acts just like a ka. In
>>>>those cases {le ni <bridi>} is very similar to {le ka <bridi> la'u
>>>>makau}.
>>>
>>>I don't know why the ka is necessary. Why not "makau poi bridi la'u
ke'a"?
>>
>>That would be sumti raising.
>
>sumti raising from what? Where is the hidden abstraction in my phrasing?
Well, you didn't give a full sentence. Let's go to an example:
ti ta zmadu le ni ce'u ricfu
I claim that that is using the raised modality of ni:
ti ta zmadu le ka ce'u ricfu la'u makau
This one is more than that one in to what extent they're rich.
You ask, why not this:
ti ta zmadu makau poi ricfu la'u ke'a
That would be the first time I see kau used outside an abstractor.
If you said that, my immediate question would be:
ti ta zmadu makau poi ma ricfu la'u ke'a
This one is more than that one in the X which who is rich to
that extent????
What would you put in the x1 of ricfu?
co'o mi'e xorxes
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 19:44:53 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:44:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710160044.TAA01605@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>
Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/)
Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley
X-To: Lojban Group <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710152313.QAA20778@red.colossus.net> from "JORGE JOAQUIN
LLAMBIAS" at Oct 15, 97 08:01:17 pm
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1454
> >I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way.
>
> If you mean without an at least implicit ce'u, I agree.
> {ka} doesn't make sense without it.
>
> >It is
> >being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would
> >argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the
> >relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri.
>
> Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot.
I wouldn't say "default"; the refgram neither states nor implies that.
Perhaps "is likely to be interpreted/emphasized that way".
And while I agree that naked {ka broda} doesn't mean much without a
{ce'u} or other sumti around, we can't imply the existence of a ce'u
because other sumti might be meaningful. From the examples, {le ka
do xunre} is the property of your being red, but not necessarily any
particular instance {nu} of it at any particular time or place, so
there's no {ce'u} there anywhere. Similarly with {ni}; if sumti are
filled in, one cannot assume a {ce'u} anywhere. But with them empty,
one will probably be implied at first position, but not by any rule.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 20:31:40 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710160131.UAA05649@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>
Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/)
Subject: Re: Marriage, etc.
X-To: bob@rattlesnake.com
X-cc: Lojban Group <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710152220.PAA11195@red.colossus.net> from
"bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM" at Oct 15, 97 06:11:59 pm
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1010
> I can't find the concept of agreement/pact/contract of any
> kind in the gismu list. ...
> How about a `law type-of agreement': flalysarxe
The law doesn't really have much to do with it, but I suppose that
{sarxe} is the right starting place. Maybe {bigsarxe} is what I'm
looking for, and {simxu} can be used to get the other parties in on
the deal.
And I forgot that we did have {speni}; that makes the proposal
easy: {mi cpedu/djica le nu do binxo mi speni} "I request/desire that
you become my spouse". And perhaps that makes marriage {spesarxe},
making the proposal {ko spesarxe mi} "Be in a spouse type-of
agreement with me". And {simspesarxe} might be needed in Utah...
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Oct 15 21:11:33 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:11:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710160211.VAA07831@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject: Re: ka/ni kama
X-To: lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 4031
>> I can't find
>> any gismu that has a place for a dimensioned quantity.
>
>Several have places marked [quanitity] that seem like they would
>only work with dimensioned ones--in fact {le klani} itself is either
>t (with {se klani] being a number) or else (as seems more natural)
>it is a particular instance of a quantity, in which case {se klani}
>must be a dimensioned quantity. Are not "the 5 kilos of rice I
>have in mind" and "the 10 meters of rope I have in mind" both {klani}?
This is what the gi'uste says:
klani [ lai ] quantity
x1 is a quantity quantified/measured/enumerated
by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o)
(It seems that it was changed! My printed gi'uste gives "x1 (quantifier)
is a quantity/amount of x2 on scale x3". Now x1 and x2 are reversed!
So all my comments about ni should be understood with {sela'u} rather
than {la'u}.)
This is how I would use klani:
lei plise cu klani li ci le ka kancu
The apples amount to 3 as counted.
le rismi cu klani li mu le ka ki'ogra
The rice amounts to 5 in kilograms.
le cilta cu klani li pano le ka mitre
The rope amounts to 10 in meters.
So, yes, the 5 kilograms of rice and the 10 meter rope are
both klani, but the dimensioned numbers 5kg and 10m
are not! They're not se klani either. The se klani are pure
numbers.
I have no idea why scale places are marked as (si'o).
Are there any examples of how to use that?
>What about {te merli}?
Same thing
mi merli le rismi li mu le ka ki'ogra
I measure the rice as 5 in kilograms.
The point is that the number and the scale are always
in different terbri, so there is no use for dimensioned
numbers.
>> And then you must disagree with things like:
>> le ni la djan cu ricfu cu du li piso'i
>> The extent to which John is rich is a lot.
>
>I wouldn't use {du} as they are not the same identity, but {dunli}
>seems OK.
I don't understand, in what sense can a pure number and a
dimensioned one be equal? Is 5kg equal to 5 or to 5000?
>If {li piso'i} or {li rau} cannot be dimensioned, then
>they are not very useful as quantifiers.
Why not? Since no terbri asks for a dimensioned number,
where would you use them? As pure numbers they work
well:
ta mitre li rau
That is long enough.
>Perhaps it is "raising" in
>a sense to treat numbers as both "pure" and as quantities with
>elided dimensions, but I don't see how a useful language can do it
>any other way, especially since lojban makes no other effort to
>clarify dimensioned quantities.
The scale is usually in a separate terbri. (BTW, that would not
be sumti raising in the sense normally used by Lojbanists.
That's when you use a sumti in a place where you should
use a predication about the sumti.)
>> First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for?
>
>It is a concept I can hold in my mind; if I cannot express it, then
>why am I wasting my time with this language?
I can't answer that for you. :)
> How do you answer {ma junta}?
That's a good question! I wonder why there is such a word
for weight but not for things like length, size, age, etc.
I don't know how I would answer, because I indeed would
need a dimensioned number there, and Lojban doesn't
have them! The place structure I would expect is something
like "x1 weighs x2 on scale x3".
ua, I know how I would answer:
- i ma junta ti
- i ti bunda li re
(I thought of making a lujvo for newtons but I gave up, any ideas?)
>The abstract properties like "weight" and "luminosity" and "length"
>must be expressible without reference to specific heavy, bright, or long
>things, because the mind can think of them that way.
The mind sure can be kidded into thinking of them. But you haven't
convinced me yet that there's something you can't say in Lojban
because of the lack of dimensioned numbers.
co'o mi'e xorxes
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 22:28:10 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:27:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710170327.WAA01136@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni
X-To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710151405.IAA00492@indra.com>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 917
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, John Cowan wrote:
> > By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple
> > sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim
> > anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify
> > the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri.
>
> I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't
> be a broda. "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only
> veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard.
I think even with {lo} the same thing happens:
mi nelci lo gerku be la sankt. bernard
I like the really-are dogs which are st. bernards
The {la sankt bernard}, with {lo}, veridicially identifies the dogs as
saint bernards, but that's all it does; what it says I "like" is only the
dogs, not the *fact* that they are saint bernards. For that I'd still
need an abstractor.
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 22:29:56 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:29:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710170329.WAA01184@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject: Re: ka/ni kama
X-To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710160115.TAA06061@indra.com>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 763
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:
> >> First, what do you need to express "3 meters" as a sumti for?
> >
> >It is a concept I can hold in my mind; if I cannot express it, then
> >why am I wasting my time with this language?
>
> I can't answer that for you. :)
I'm studying Spanish right now and am finding that there are a few Spanish
words that I can *explain* in English but I can't really translate well.
That doesn't mean English is a waste of time to learn. Pe'i "3 meters"
could be explained in Lojban, if only you could first figure out what we
really mean by it. Maybe {le'e mitre be li ci} or {le si'o makau mitre li
3} or {le ka ce'u mitre li ci} or even {le sidbrplatono be loi ro mitre be
li ci}.
co'o mi'e kris
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 22:30:14 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710170330.WAA01205@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject: Re: tremau
X-To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710162335.RAA28678@indra.com>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 371
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:
> >3. Are ni and ka redundant, strictly speaking? Given du`u and nu
> > and ce`u, is there anything that they can't do but ni and ka
> > can?
>
> Well, du'u would be redundant to ka, since ce'u is supposed
> to be used with ka. And yes, ni is definitely redundant.
Could {nu} be defined as {ka fau makau}?
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Oct 18 01:39:18 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 01:39:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710180639.BAA22232@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject: example of ni ambiguity
X-To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <199710172335.RAA23721@indra.com>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1085
Lojbab asks:
> >So what is the difference, and can you come up with an example where
> >the value of ni broda is different for these two definitions (or maybe
> >you have and I don't understand).
An example is hard to come up with that's not strained, because typically
one or the other would just be incorrect in some situation. So a
strained example: suppose your hair is seven inches long, (and we'll
assume that speaker & listener agree on inches) and I say:
mi nelci le ni le do kerfa cu clani
A: By the "numerical" definition, this would mean, loosely:
"I just estimated your hair length, and it happens to be a favorite
number of mine!"
B: The "indirect question" definition would mean:
"I like the length of your hair!"
By doing math with the result of leni in the refgram, it is implied that "A"
is correct, but by using it as the x3 of ckaji, it is implied that "B" is
correct.
To restate my opinion: "B" ought to be correct. "A" ought to be
translated as
mi nelci le jai sela'u clani be fai le do kerfa
co'o mi'e kris
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 17:20:16 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:20:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710162220.RAA19550@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Marriage, etc.
X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 301
> Also, how would one propose marriage in Lojban? I couldn't find the
> concept properly expressed in the gismu list.
I'm not sure that predication of the proposal is necessary. It is simpler with
a cmavo.
.i pe'u do mi speni
Request you me be-spoused
ni'oco'omi'e dn.
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 17:10:19 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:10:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710162210.RAA19144@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Not just.
X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 477
cu'u la xorxes.
> One way is {ji'a}:
> la djan ji'a cu pinxe le ckafi
> Also John drinks coffee.
> That implies that someone else does.
Having re-read about discursives, it seems to me that the intention was not
to give discursives strict logical definitions. The discursives indicate
how a predication fits in what has gone before, so semantically it does not
make sense to use "ji'a" in an initial predication.
ni'oco'omi'e dn.
From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Oct 16 13:39:39 1997
for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:39:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710161839.NAA10955@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
Subject: Re: Problems with Abstraction
X-To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 613
Lee Daniel Crocker (none) wrote:
> The refgram makes sense and is reasonably clear on this point, but I
> do see {ka} and {ni} used (by myself, too) as if there were a semi-
> implied {ce'u} or {makau} in the first omitted place.
Perfectly OK. An omitted place means whatever the speaker intends
it to mean, and if the intent is to mean "ce'u", then that's what
it means. "ce'u" was put into the language to allow the existing
usage (omitted place) to be made explicit.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban