[lojban] Re: Re[2]: tanru

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> Alexsej,
> 
> > BG> So according to my limited knowledge, a
> nice, clear phrasing would be
> > BG> ti [cu] ckule fi le cmalu nanla
> > BG> But your phrasing in terms of a tanru is
> also correct, though
> > more ambiguous
> >
> > It is actually from "la lojban. mo", and
> though it is mentioned to be
> > a little ambiguous, such structure seems to
> be used very often.
> >
> > BG> as the tanru "cmalu nanla ckule" has a
> lot of possible interpretations
> >
> > There is said it does not.
> 
> What is says there is that the default implied
> grouping is
> 
> (cmalu nanla) ckule
> 
> This is fine, and it says that what we have is
> a school, modified by "small
> boy(s)".
> 
> The parenthetical grouping structure is not
> ambiguous
> 
> However, the tanru still doesn't specify
> whether the boys attend the school,
> operate the school, or their anatomy is the
> subject of instruction at the
> school...  This part of the tanru's
> interpretation is left open for "common
> sense" interpretation, unlike in the rephrasing
> I gave.
> 
> My own taste is to use argument-structure
> rather than tanru wherever
> possible, so as to minimize ambiguity.
> 
> > BG> On the other hand, to say
> > BG> This-thing is-small in-dimension-"boy"
> as-compared-with-standard
> > BG> "school"
> > BG> you could say
> > BG> ti cmalu le nanla le ckule
> > BG> Here, the English-article-like cmavo "le"
> marks nanla and
> > ckule as sumti
> > BG> rather than components of a tanru
> >
> > But what if there are some dimensions "boy"
> and some standards
> > "school", and I don't know at all which of
> them are the ones I mean?
> > If I use "le", won't people ask me about
> them?
> 
> Well, "le" is a bit like "the" in English.  The
> referent is left open for
> the listener to interpret based on context. 
> Lojban doesn't eliminate the
> need for pragmatics in language interpretation.
> 
> If you want to specify things more then you use
> "poi" and associated cmavo.
> 
> To use a less nonsensical example, here is how
> I would (perhaps incorrectly,
> but hey ;-) try to say
> 
> "this is small in dimension weight as compared
> to an elephant that eats a
> lot":
> 
> ti cmalu le junta le xanto poi mutce le ka
> citka
> 
> i.e. in predicatized form
> 
> small( this, weight, elephant : much(elephant,
> eating) )
> 
> cmalu=small
> weight= junta
> xanto = elephant
> eat = citka
> ka = process_of
> : = such that, as in mathematics...
> 
> (syntax/semantics of "such that" operator poi
> obtained from p.97 of
> Beginners...)
> 
> I.e., I'm saying
> 
> "This is small in weight, compared to an
> elephant that displays muchness
> relative to the property of eating"
> 
> I'm not sure about the "mutce le ka citka"
> part, actually ... but this is my
> best guess based on my beginners' knowledge &
> understanding...

Well, two things.  First, {mutce} is "x1 is
extreme in property x2 in direction x3" so it is
unclear whether the elephant is extrme in eating
too much or in eating too little.  context
suggests the former, of course, but the latter
would also work and give a slightly weird flavor
to the whole.  Second, I am not clear just what
the *property* of eating is or how it can be
extreme.  One expects to see an event description
here in most cases.  But I supposes "x eats" is
strictly a property and the amount of that
property for a given x is somehow directly
related to how often and how much x eats (perhaps
against the norms for x's kind -- I think there
might be negative values for lo ni citka). 
Still, I would feel safer with {poi dukse le nu
citka}, "who eats too much."

> > Hmm, I wonder why they chose the example at
> all.
> > I've started to read "Beginner's Guide ...",
> and made it to somewhere
> > after numbers, but was confused about long
> structures with "le??" etc.
> >
> > What is the most easy?
> 
> I found the Beginner's Guide extremely simple
> and well-written overall, but
> I thought the section on quantifiers (lei, loi,
> etc.) was indeed the most
> difficult to follow.  I suggest you pass over
> that section and read the rest
> of the book.  Then when you read that section
> again, it will make a lot more
> sense to you than it did the first time around.
>  At least, that was my own
> experience last week when I read the book ;-)
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> 
> What would our lives be like without music,
> dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at
> Network for Good!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send mail to
> lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>