[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ------
> I'm glad to hear it can be reduced to five (though that still seems a lot); I had memories of an array of jeks, guheks, and (seemingly) countless other ---eks. The thought of getting down to just two looks about right, though. I do see that this is somewhat illusory, however, in that these two cannot just be used as they stand but must be supplemented in various ways (with gi- and i- and gu- and whatever else). So still not optimal.
>
> Actually, when logical notation allows a term before a predicate, it works better: (AxF), exactly matching the ideal -- but impermissible -- Lojban form. I agree that 'poi' is the best Lojban solution, but you seem to have preempted it.
>
> You have it right except that the noi/poi distinction is not now needed (and, indeed, the semantically irrelevant -- though pragmatically important -- broda can be dropped altogether for 'lo'). I am not sure what is wrong with the internal 'su'o' for 'lo' -- pragmatic considerations or are you saying that there is no 'su'o' in the background of 'lo'?
>
> That's OK, if you promise, I'd just forget it anyhow.
>
> Yeah, there's bee so much discussion lately about how to display Lojban that little has been said about what it all means.
>
> I'm not clear about why we need two quantifiers with plural reference (I think plural quantification just follows -- or reference follows from quantification). Plural whatever replaces singulary seamlessly -- singulary just being a (not so) special case and one that need not ever be explicitly called upon.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 8:20:08 PM
> Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
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.