Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Wednesday, 2014-10-08 at 19:09 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

I do worry about JOI, though. I agree it would be bizarre to have
qualifiers opaque but non-logical connectives transparent. But opaque
readings of non-logical connectives seem to tend toward the bizarre.
Moreover, there isn't always an easy way to get at the transparent
meanings.

jo'u, fa'u, and perhaps ce'o, are the only ones I use. I agree they don't seem particularly useful with quantifier/connective arguments.

Arguably {fa'u} has no business being in JOI anyway, so perhaps that
isn't a good example.

Right, I don't know what broda would make "ko'a fa'u ko'e" equivalent to "lo broda be ko'a bei ko'e". "fa'u" doesn't seem to have the ordinary logic of JOIs.

 

    ro bebna joi ro prije cu bebna
(here both readings have meanings, very different)

The opaque reading is quite weird. I get: "zo'e noi ro da poi bebna zo'u ro de poi prije zo'u ke'a gunma da jo'u de cu bebna" 

    ko kargau lo vorme ta'i lo nu batke me'o ci ce'o me'o pa ce'o me'o
        xa .a me'o bi to mi na morji
(here I'm not sure what the opaque meaning would be - some superposition
of the two sequences?)

batke or catke? Both kind of make sense, but not quite.

Also, you probably didn't mean ((me'o ci ce'o me'o pa) ce'o me'o xa) .a me'o bi, which is the default grouping, and which would be transparent either way. So you'd want a "ke" there.

Meanwhile, I had a quick look for usage. I found nothing relevant using
the corpus search (even for {tu'a}), but I found this example on the
BPFK "Indirect Referers" section:

> lu'a A ku'a B du lu'a A e B
> A member of the intersection of A and B is a member of A and of B.

That seems to require a transparent {lu'a}.

I'd say the opposite. The opaque reading is correct:

  lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du zo'e noi ge ke'a cmima A gi ke'a cmima B

But the transparent reading:

  lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du lo cmima be A .ije lo cmima be A ku'a B cu du lo cmima be B

is false or at least not clearly true. It fails in general with maximal "lo", and with non-maximal it doesn't work as a definition.

 

> Good. But then is it worth making "li cy" differ from "cy"?

Well... I understand the main intention of mekso to be for reading off
mathematical formulae. If you're talking in maths about some constant
'c', you don't want it to suddenly become a bird because you happened to
remark on the view from the window... In other words, it seems healthy
to keep the mekso world mostly separate from the main bridi world, with
specific mechanisms like {li} and {mo'e} needed to connect the two.

I think it would be healthier for mekso to be as integrated as possible into the normal language. That's what happens in natlangs, and we don't want it to happen in a language which is supposed to be so much more precise? Don't we trust ordinary Lojban to be able to handle mekso?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.