[lojban] Re: Loglish

["Ben Goertzel" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

> Minor comments:
> You introduce {fi'o} as being like "qui" but have
> not said anything about "qui." I assume you mean
> {zei}, although {fi'o} does not - in your usage
> -- look much like {zei}.

Based on the issue with terminators (zei doesn't have one),
I have now reverted to qui instead of zei in the latest edit

> You use "la ben proceed lo to fi?o store" and the
> like, where Lojban with English vocab would have
> "la ben (cu) proceed fi'o to lo store' I suspect
> the {cu} is needed, since the limits of cmene is
> not defined in Loglish and the same would apply
> (at least in speech) to "la mei_li think vo'a"
> and subsequent examples. The point here however
> is about the relative order of "prepositions" and
> "articles."

You are right, the cu is needed

You are also right that my word-ordering with fi'o was not
consistent with Lojban syntax, and I have also now
corrected that.

> Example 2: la rena go le suburb be la Melbourne
> probably should be "la rena cu eng go lo suburb
> be la Melbourne;" {cu} as noted above, {lo} for
> indefinite reference, "eng go" per your earlier
> discussion.

Correct

> mi djuno ledu?u zo?e kau cilre la loglish
> Well, {loglic} to begin with (or {loglec}, if the
> short vowel seems more natural).  I can't figure
> out {zo'e kau} in Lojban: {kau} attaches to
> interrogative words to signal indirect questions,
> so maybe {ma kau} is meant: "I know who is
> learning Loglish." This misses the first half of
> the English (except by implication -- if I know
> who it is there must be someone).  On the other
> hand, without the {kau} in the original, we get
> the not very illuminating "I know that (you know
> who/someone it doesn't matter who) is learning
> Loglish," which misses the second part.  the
> problems carry over to the Loglish (I think
> {zo'e} is a bad choice here in any case, but that
> seems to be idiosyncratic).

Well,

"
mi djuno ledu'u zo'e kau cilre la lojban.

I know someone is learning Lojban, and I know who it is.
"

is straight from the Lojban introductory text

http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less15.html

so if there are problems with it, I'm not to blame in this particular
instance ;-)

> la Ben cu murder lo chicken lo weapon fi?o pliers
> Realtive order of {lo} and {fi'o} again (and
> maybe of {fi'o} and "weapon," but I have to see
> how this plays out.
> You later claim that this cannot be a chicken
> with pliers, but the resolution appears to be
> semantic, not grammatical.  Lojban would insist
> on a grammatical disambiguation.

Lojbanizing the use of fi'o yields

"
la Ben cu murder lo chicken fi?o weapon lo pliers
"

Regarding your point about whose argument the fi'o specifies -- I believe
this is unproblematic,
becaues the fi'o clearly tells whose argument "lo pliers" fits into, and "lo
pliers" is clearly
fitting into *some* argument of "murder."  To have "lo pliers" fit into some
argument of "chicken"
one would have to use "be" or some other similar mechanism, I believe.

Thanks again,

-- Ben






To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.