[lojban] Re: How to reduce the amount of something?

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still undecided about Mark's points?

I responded last week, maybe the post was lost somewhere:

2009/10/1 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
>>
>> If it's all about awkwardnessfullness, why didn't you just stick with
>> {jei}, which is certainly less awkward than {du'u xukau}?
>
> I wasn't thinking of the awkwardness in pronunciation but the
> awkwardness in meaning. "se la'u li xo kau" is just somewhat
> convoluted meaningwise (how exactly is the quantity related to the
> rest of the bridi?) while "xu kau" is straightforward. But I also
> don't find "lo du'u xu kau" too unwieldly to say, perhaps I just got
> used to it.
>
>> I thought the
>> problem was that {jei} didn't mean what you needed it to mean.
>
> Yes, or rather it had two different meanings, one useless and the
> other better expressed by "xu kau". I prefer "xu kau" to fall in the
> same pattern with "ma kau", "mo kau", "ji kau", "xo kau" etc. rather
> than having its own shortcut. In the case of "ni", I still run into
> cases where doing away with it is awkward.
>
>> That is,
>> it didn't mean "the truth-value of some proposition" in intension, but
>> meant simply one of {"true", "false"}, and that usually isn't what you
>> want to talk about.
>
> "du'u xukau" doesn't really mean "the truth-value of (some
> proposition)" but "whether (some proposition)". It is itself a
> proposition, not a truth value.
>
>> If that is so (and I'm not saying it is; I'm trying
>> to get a handle on this too), then presumably {ni} doesn't mean what you
>> need either, but rather means some number, in extension, and is thus not
>> subject to reduction (you can't reduce "35", but you can reduce "the
>> number of kilograms someone weighs").  You can say things like {lo ni mi
>> ca tilju cu mleca lo ni mi pu tilju} but not {lo ni mi tilju cu se
>> cenba}.  If we *can* say that, then suddenly {ni} and {jei} become
>> useful again, and kau is not needed for every little thing.
>
> How does "jei" (in the sense of "truth value") become useful? The x2
> of djuno, jdice, cilre, etc, has to be a proposition, not a truth
> value. How often do we talk about truth values, and in those cases is
> it not more clear to use a brivla meaning "x1 is the truth value of
> x2" rather than a cmavo?
>
>> So which is it?  Is {ni} the same as {ka se la'u li xo kau} or something
>> like that, in which case {jei} is the same as {du'u xu kau}, and the
>> latter is used only because xorxes for some bizarre reason thinks that
>> four syllables is more elegant?  Or is {jei} just a true/false value,
>> which must be substituted by {du'u xu kau} in many situations, in which
>> case we need to use {ka se la'u li xo kau} or whatever in place of {ni}?
>>  You can't have it both ways.
>
> My answer is: "jei" is a useless word better forgotten, but those who
> use it generally use it to mean "du'u xu kau". "ni" is not fully
> understood but it means something like "ka se la'u li xo kau", but in
> this case having a shortcut appears somewhat more justified.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>


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.