On 28 Sep 2014 17:00, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?
>> >>
>> >> The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
>> >
>> > Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents.
>>
>> I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?
>>
>> > Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2".
>>
>> "x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss.
>>
>> >> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
>> >
>> > I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.
>>
>> I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?
>
> I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend what {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different?
The sumti complement of mu'ei should be {lo du'u}, so {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} is gobbledygook, regardless of whether the PA are different. It is regrettable that there is no single cmavo that converts a bridi into a sumti; that's what's needed here.
{mu'ei} isn't perfect, because it lacks a way to extend it to different modalities (epistemic, deontic, etc.). (Another problem is that it suffers from Lojban's lack of a decent way to do donkey sentences, e.g. "mostly, every farmer who owns a donkey beats it".)
> I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possible worlds to real world: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situations
I haven't seen that page before, but I think it's largely garbage, I'm afraid. Does that page have support among logicolinguistically savvy lojbanists? If so, then maybe I'll try to find the time to denounce it.
--And.
--