[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cmavo hit-list
la djan cusku di'e
> In addition to formal mathematics, there is also "intuitive" (not
intuitionist)
> or "household" mathematics, which we do occasionally need: "Now, let's see:
> 500 ml of milk is half a liter, so I need to use all of this carton and
> part of the next". How's that in Lojban?
ka'u lo'e milylitce be li 500 du pimu lo'e litce iseki'ubo mi nitcu le du'u
pilno piro le vi [se] vasru joi pisu'o le drata
How do you propose saying it using mekso?
> But "la'i" is +specific, so it's more useful than you think.
>
> le mi patfu pu traji lo ka to'ercitno fo la'i kau,n.
> My father was superlative in property old-age among the-set-of Cowans.
>
> Here I mean the Cowans in my family, not all the things which share the
> name.
I know there are uses for it, but it seems to me that they are contrived.
If you really need the set you can always say {lu'i ro la kau,n}. I know
{la'i} won't go away, so mine is just a comment to say I don't find it
useful.
> > fi'a (question FA)
> >
> > This job is already done better by cu'e, I think.
>
> "cu'e" asks which modal place an argument belongs to, whereas "fi'a" asks
> which regular place an argument belongs to.
Yes, but regular places and modal places don't differ significantly.
If you ask me a question with {cu'e}, I think I should be able to answer
with a FA. If you ask with {fa'i}, I should be able to answer with a BAI.
The question being asked is what is the place of the sumti in that
relationship, and why should the answer be restricted to regular or modal
places?
> They don't overlap; they could
> be made to, but I think that loses too much meaning: "cu'e" is already
> extremely vague, and specific questions are better asked with "BAI ma".
That's a completely different question (and much more useful).
The cu'e/fa'i question is the least useful and has two different versions,
I suppose depending on what the expected answer is.
> > bu'a bu'e bu'i (logically quantified predicate variables)
> >
> > I don't know how to use them.
>
> The paper is unwritten, but we have at least one example so far:
>
> ro bu'a zo'u la .aniis. cu djica le nu bu'a .inaja bu'a
> For all X predicates, Anyi desires the event-of X-happens
> only-if X-happens.
> Anything Anyi wanted to happen, happened.
>
> Here the "ro bu'a" in the prenex acts as a quantification of "bu'a", although
> the parser thinks it is a gadri-less description.
Yuck. I'm with the parser on this one.
I would rather say something like:
ro da zo'u la aniis cu djica le du'u da fasnu inaja da fasnu
> > da'e da'u de'e de'u do'i
> >
> > They also seem too many. It would be nice if they could refer to
> > only part of a bridi, like the inside of an abstraction.
>
> They do not refer to bridi at all, but to utterances.
Right, but why couldn't they refer to utterances within a bridi as well,
or can they?
> > na'o (typically)
> >
> > I don't understand how it differs from ta'e.
>
> The term "subjective tense/modal" and "tense/modal" seem to be used
{unsinnlich}
> in the cmavo list. I believe that "ta'e" only refers to the behavior of
> animates who have habits. "na'o" is the general term.
But animate/inanimate is a property of the sumti (of its referents), while
ta'e acts on a bridi. Can you use ta'e with a bridi that accepts an animate
sumti, but not filling that place?
What is the difference, for instance, between:
mi ta'e dunda lo xruli ko'a
I habitually (during the interval in question) give a flower to Koha
mi na'o dunda lo xruli ko'a
I typically (during the interval in question) give a flower to Koha
I suppose the "habit" is as much Koha's as mine, but what is the difference
between the claims?
> > vu'i sei se'o fu'e fu'o
>
> "se'o" is for claims made on the basis of uninspectable internal mental
> processes.
Yes, I meant to write se'u. Thanks for the explanations, I had forgotten
what sei-se'u and fu'e-fu'o were for. The cmavo list definitions are not very
helpful for that.
Jorge