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

Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Familiar Feces

ua je'e

> 21 (iirc) versions of 'e' all amounting to logical "and". Arose because the use of one such  ('ga... gi') was incorrect and another ('gu'a ... gu'i') was required to do the same work.  The others are a nice point as well, of course, though with a different motivation.

Yes, I realized after I had already posted that you must have meant ge/gu'e.

The situation is not as bad as 21 though, there's just the two
forethought ge/gu'e and three afterthought .e/je/gi'e, so five in all.

"gu'e" should just be deprecated, and for all intents and purposes de
facto it is, since practically nobody ever uses it.

"je" should be extended to cover the function of ".e", thus making
".e" redundant. JOI already does both functions, so there's no
syntactic impediment there.

"gi'e" can be replaced with "gije".

That would leave just "ge" for forethought, and "je" for afterthought.

> The best one this week is to incorporate the the whole into a single line 'ro da broda' (roughly, since this is a sentence), much like the standard system (AxFx).  It has been discussed to death, but your move assumes that there are no restricted quantifiers in Lojban, which is at least historically false.

As you say, "ro da broda" won't work because it is a bridi. And "Fx"
has to be a full bridi, not just a single selbri like "broda", so I
can hardly see a more economical solution than the insertion of a
simple "poi". The standard system can get away with (AxFx) only
because it doesn't allow terms in front of the selbri.

> Goodness, I thought we did have plural quantifiers and that was at least part of what xorlo was ultimately about.  The point here however, is that 'poi' goes with an internal quantifier in the construction of 'lo' qhilw 'noi' is an external quantifier in the construction of 'le'.

If I interpret what you are saying correctly, you are saying that:

   lo broda cu brode = (illocutionary:) su'o da poi broda zo'u da brode

   le broda cu broda = su'o da noi broda zo'u (illocutionary:) da brode

Thus you are adopting andle, but not xorlo, because you still want an
illocutionary su'o to come for free with lo.

(Or I may be misunderstanding what you are saying.)

> Only if you promise never to use it again.

I'll try, but I'm not promising. :)

> As you say, a change in the official rules but not in practice -- except for a bunch of folk arguing endlessly about whether 'lo pavyseljirna cu blabi' is true or false id there are no unicorns.

Fortunately that has not been discussed for quite a while now.

> Well, in one sense, "something" ('su'o') was always plural, but I suppose you mean directly.  Again, I thought that was that xorlo was finally about.  To be sure, I prefer (from habit) "bunch" talk, but, since they are the same thing, plural reference is fine too.  Sorry about the "a".
>
> Overall, then, I guess I was taking an optimistic reading on the situation with plural reference / L-sets.  I thought it was stare decisis and, in fact, it is either not settled or still actively resisted.  I wonder why? (not enough people have had enough logic to have my engrained habits, and I took to it fairly directly -- barring some weird thing McKay said about restrcted  quantifiers and about the whole thing being bright shiny new)

I don't think plural reference is resisted. And plural quantification
(which is something additional to plural reference) is not so much
resisted as ignored. There just aren't enough people interested or
informed on the issue to make any decision about it. And if we were to
adopt it we would need two different universal quantifiers instead of
just "ro".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.