[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PLI: "except"
And:
>Goran to Xorx:
>> > That is important not only to the Irish.
>> > (Important to the Irish and to others as well, the unexpected part
>> > being that it is important to the others.)
>> .i la'edi'u vajni lo po'onai .ue se gugdrneire
>
>i lae diu vajni loi ge jea gi nae ue se guerxibernia
Several problems:
It is not grammatical. NAhEs can't be logically connected like that.
Even if it was grammatical, it wouldn't say what you want, because
{loi} would have scope over the scope of {ge}, so you would be
talking about people each of whom are both Irish and non-Irish.
Even if the scope of {ge} was over that of {loi}, you would then
be talking about some Irish and some non-Irish, not about all the
Irish.
Even writing it as:
la'e di'u vajni ge ro loi se gugdrxeire gi loi ue na'e se gugdrxeire
it still doesn't translate the English well, because the speaker need
not be surprised about it. The "against-expectations" component is not
against the expectations of the speaker (nor of the audience). It is
more a matter of relative unexpectedness, it is more unexpected that
it is important to others than to the Irish, but it need not be
unexpected at all in the absolute. It is perfectly reasonable to say
something like: "As everyone expected, that was important not only
to the Irish".
>i ge suo gi na ku ue ro da vuo poi lae diu vajni kea se guerxibernia
This one is also not grammatical. I don't really know how to do
the quantifier "some but not all". In any case, I don't think it
has to do with the speaker being surprised.
>> > That is important even to the Irish.
>> > (Important to the Irish and to others as well, the unexpected part
>> > being that it is important to the Irish.)
>> .i la'edi'u vajni lo .ue se gugdrneire ji'a
>
>i lae diu vajni loi ge nae gi jea ue se guerxibernia
>i ge na ku ue ro gi suo da vuo poi lae diu vajni kea se guerxibernia
I suppose here you meant to put the "ue" after "su'o", but the same
objections apply.
Jorge
rom LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Tue Feb 6 22:38:21 1996
Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA11224 for <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:38:20 +0200
Message-Id: <199602062038.WAA11224@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E5D1E6B2 ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:38:20 +0100
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:17:13 -0300
Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject: Re: tech: logic matters
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
>pc:
>Well, some folks like obversion. If they do, they can always shift
>over to the other forms, which are actually often simpler in Lojban,
>and fiddle there.
When are they simpler?
> (0xSx)xPx is provably exactly equivalent to
>Ax:Sx => ~Px, _no da poi broda cu brode_ means _ro da cu ganai
>broda gi naku brode_.
Yes, but that one is the same whichever of the two sets of imports
we choose. With my choices for imports, these are the conversions:
ro broda cu brode = ro da ganai broda gi brode
no broda cu brode = ro da ganai broda ginai brode
su'o broda cu brode = su'o da ge broda gi brode
da'a broda cu brode = su'o da ge broda ginai brode
(where {da'a} stands for the negative particular, in my case with
existential import).
With your choices of import, the conversions become:
ro broda cu brode = ge su'o da broda gi ro de ganai broda gi brode
no broda cu brode = ro da ganai broda ginai brode
su'o broda cu brode = su'o da ge broda gi brode
da'a broda cu brode = ganai su'o da broda gi su'o de ge broda ginai brode
I find the first set much simpler and more elegant. I find it especially
useful being able to convert from {naku ro broda cu brode} to
{su'o broda naku cu brode}, and similar things, which are not valid
in your system.
> Not obviously a lot more complicated than
>the move from _noda cu ge broda gi brode_ or _naku su'o da cu ge
>broda gi brode_ for example.
Because you chose the negative universal as the example, which we agree
is importless in both sets of choices. Had you done the positive
universal (ro) or the negative particular (da'a), which are the two
where we disagree, then it would be obviously more complicated.
>x:
>But I agree that in the end it is a matter of taste. There is no
>pre-defined right answer. You may think that one choice is preferable
>on technical grounds, but there is no logical requirement for that
>choice. Before, I had understood you to say that we didn't really have
>the choice.
>pc:
>Well, I tend to think functional completeness is a a logical reason, but
>that may be just me. In any case, we don't have to make a choice, because
>Lojban (indeed modern logic) has both systems.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that we don't have to
make a choice because you, or someone else, have already decided that
{ro broda cu brode} has import in Lojban, and it is no longer open to
discussion, or because it is simply illogical to make another choice? If
the former, you may be right, although I certainly don't like it, if the
latter, I disagree. There is nothing in logic that requires that {ro broda
cu brode} --or {ro da poi broda cu brode}, I consider them equivalent--
have existential import. If I understood you correctly, any of the sixteen
choices for the import sets are internally self-consistent.
> Use whichever you like or
>mix and match, just notice what you are doing.
By that do you mean that I can choose the set of imports to use, or are
you saying that I can always use the unrestricted quantifier versions,
over which we seem to have no disagreement?
If you mean the former, then I like that spirit of laissez faire. It is
an arbitrary choice after all, so I don't see a reason to impose one
over the other, given that there are obviously strong preferences on
both sides. Of course, one should be aware of what one is doing. Before
this discussion I would not even have thought possible that anyone
would prefer to use your set of choices, but then any of the sixteen
possible choices can be used. Some choices put more limits on the kind
of transformations that are allowed, that's all.
> And don't say that
>something isn't true in one when you mean the other or are getting them
>totally mixed together.
Hear, hear!
Jorge