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

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

On 6/7/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

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


some number of the students each, for a contextually sensible
interval, dislike Campos

Alice for typical frequencies of time (usually? mostly?) dislikes Campos.


    "Students usually don't like Professor Campos."



it's usual (so'eroi?) that students dislike Campos

the event/state of students disliking Campos is common/usual

(also consider "typical students dislike Campos" "most students dislike Campos")


These don't really seem to be what you're getting at, or are they?

What does "students" mean there? It's not the plural form, because
that just translates to "more than one". Students in general sounds
right. Is it? MW offers a good explanation - "used to form adverbs
denoting usual or repeated action or state <always at home Sundays>
<mornings he stops by the newsstand>". That seems to be much like my
description, which is really a different perspective on on "students
in general".

It seems that you may be getting at "students, nonspecifically". Ok,
sure. Some non-specific number of non-specific students do X. It still
seems to me that there are numbers involved. Not explicit quantities,
but the idea that it's something, some students (however indefinite),
and not something like "studentness typically dislikes 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.


{ro ko'a dasni i je lu'o ko'a sruri} ?

What does {lu'o ro ko'a sruri} mean?

Also, consider the expanded forms:

ro ko'a dasni

[da poi sruri] cu gunma ko'a
and
[da poi sruri] cu gunma ro ko'a



> > 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?


"characterized by property" seems a bit more vague than "is".



> > 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.



Since I use lu'o only by my method, and can't think of any other way
to properly expand it, I don't understand what lu'o could mean in
those, if not "as a group".


> 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 think that it's strange to say that

ko'a sruri   (...lo skori)

could expand into either one of

ro ko'a dasni
[da poi sruri] cu gunma ro ko'a

depending on context (in the same way we use context to determine
pu/ca/ba). The structure is completely different.



> > 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.


I say expanding and not rephrasing because the one I offer employs
strictly axiomic principles that we can both agree on: very basic
(first order, even) predicate relationships, the existence of a "X is
a component part of Y" relationship, and the ability to rearrange
things by certain methods. And of course, the lack of shortcuts for
these things means that it's going to be longer.




> 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.


Sure, I can agree with that. But the point is that this term is not
/used/ in the same way 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.


Well, to use your method of doing things, we have

1  ko'a sruri

expand to, individually (perhaps they're each climbing a rope):

2 ro ko'a sruri

from my perspective, 'together':

3 [da poi sruri] cu gunma ro ko'a

how about from your perspective? What is the "expanded form"? I can't
see it as being different from the gunma expansion. Keep in mind that,
yes, there are many ways to say (1), but I'd like specifically your
alternate method of saying the expanded form (3).





> 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.


My confusion is what you mean by "together", if not "as a group". In a
prior post I linked to some definitions of together that I understand:
http://www.answers.com/together
1a: in a single group (this seems to be the definition that I've supported)
1b: into a single group, "come together"
2: reciprocally into contact
3a: reciprocally
3b: X
4: an almost numeric addition of certain properties of each thing; the
weight of XYZ together was less than A
5: put the parts that have the potential to be X so that they form X;
put the graphite and wood together to make a pencil; make it so that
the group of parts that is {ba} a food-processor actually becomes
considered a food-processor.
6: simultaneously
7: with certain things of ours being similar, e.g. opinions
8: become so that you do not appear so disassembled

(3b) needs a bit more explanation. My understanding of it is that it's
much like (1a), except more emphasis on the seperate roles of each
person. It mentions that the *effort* is joint, but this distinction
loses some of its meaning in Lojban, with being and doing being
basically synonymous

So these are the definitions of together that I'm using. Perhaps you
can tell me where I've erred in my interpretation of these, or offer a
different definition of "together", the one that you use?



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.



Oh - so then you too would expand it, if it comes to expanding it, in
the same way? Your{ko'a sruri} to your{[da poi sruri] cu gunma ro
ko'a}? I'd be quite glad if this was the case.


> > >  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.


This is good, but wouldn't this be how you do it as well, if you are
forced to do it?

Also, perhaps we should state that in Lojban, "mass" doesn't have to
bring to mind the same sorts of things as "mass" in English does.



> > 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?



If you don't know, then you'd surely see them as this generic mass.
You do know that this mass carried another mass, though, since you
observed it, yes?


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.