Re: di'e preti zo nu

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@netcom.com>]

>
>From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
>
>la robin cusku di'e
>
>>If this is the case, then both the cmavo list and the reference grammar are
>>seriously misleading.  I took it as more like "There is a set of boxes
>containing
>>at least one member, and I need at least one member of that set."  I won't
>>comment on the symbolic representation or suggest alternatives, since my
>>predicate logic ain't what it used to be.
>
>You can't use the usual symbolic representation for that if by "need"
>you mean "x1 needs object x2". Allowing for events, you can put it
>into some form like:
>There is a set of boxes B and Need(I, (Ex x belongs to B & Have(I,x) )
>but this is definitely not {mi nitcu lo tanxe}, it is
>{mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe}.
>
>>> I meant the logical expression above, which is undoubtedly
>>> what the Lojban means.
>>
>>Undoubtedly?  If there were no doubt, the whole le/lo problem would never
>have
>>arisen in the first place.
>

Jorge said:

>Well, if there is any doubt that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex T(x) &
>N(mi,x),
>then I have no idea how {lo} works. This should be valid for any predicate,
>not just {nitcu} and {tanxe}. Besides, the reference from the Book that
>SwifRain posted confirms it.

Hi Jorge,

Seeing this example that we kicked around so many times years ago
surface again gave me so much nostalgia that I have to return to the
lojban list for a moment to comment on it.

>From the gismu list the x2 of nitcu is "necessity". "Necessity" is a
noun, it is defined by Webster as (1) quality or state of being
necessary; (2) Something necessary. "Quality" and "state" are also
nouns.

So if the definition is to be followed, only a noun or equivalent
phrase can be put in x2.  I agree as always that  "lo tanxe" means E(x)
T(x) where the x referred to is the same in each form, ie the scope of
x is the sentence.  So we have: mi nitcu E(x) T(x). We have put a full
predication, a compound sentence, in a slot calling for a noun. It's
not going to work.

Since I moved on from lojban I wrote a set of modals (need is a modal)
for NGL. I got around the problem by requiring that the modal take a
proposition in all cases as grammatical object, never a noun. I _think_
that to do that in lojban the object proposition in x2 would have to be
declared with bu'a, but I've forgotten a lot. In any case, to predicate
about a proposition is a second order claim.

Que le vaya bien,

djer
,

djer



>>  I said that however confident people may
>>be about Esperanto, Interlingua, Occidental or whatever, I for one would
>prefer
>>Lojban to grow comparitively slowly for a while, so that we have time to
>sort out
>>glitches, especially in the pragmatics of the language.  These questions
>about
>>articles were what I had in mind at the time.
>
>Yes, it would be interesting, for example, to get a list of all the usage
>that {lo'e}
>has seen so far. A good chunk of it would be my own usage, as I'm trying to
>describe it here, but seeing if and how other people use it can give us
>better
>ideas than trying to make up examples.
>
>>Oh well, look on the bright side - nobody has _ever_ managed to come up
>with a
>>satisfactory explanation of English articles!
>
>Not even in Esperanto, which has only one article, is the usage fully
>explained,
>but of course in that case it is based on the usage of other languages. We
>should
>at least try to sort it out in Lojban though.

>
>co'o mi'e xorxes