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

Re: [lojban] How to specify dates with “detri”?



And breaking this thread to somewhat parallel. I think this might be a good place to post my conversation with la lojbab. that happened not long ago. Sorry for formatting.

Gleki:
> L4B uses an approach of specifying timestamps and dates using either {pi'e} or cmene.
> However, the official definition mentions some {joi} method:
> detri = x1 is the date [day,week,month,year] of event / state x2, at location x3, by calendar x4. (time units in x1 are specified as numbers separated by pi'e or are unit values massified with joi); See also cmavo list de'i, djedi, jeftu, masti, nanca, tcika.
> What is this "unit values massified with joi" method? I can't find its usage anywhere. How it was supposed to work?

Robert LeChevalier:
06/11/15
> I think that is referring to something like "5 djedi joi 11 masti joi 2015 nanca, which of course could be given in any order, whereas the pi'e method requires a standard order in order to know what units the numbers refer to.
> Actually that isn't completely true since someone could used mixed numbers and lerfu separated by pi'e:  5d.11m.2015n and you would probably know the meaning even if the terms were in a different order; but back when we first made the gismu, we had not yet virtually eliminated any difference in grammar between lerfu and namcu.
> There were a lot of people arguing for different orderings for the date components, and we wanted to have a method that could easily specify the ordering for those who wished to use a non-standard order, whatever the standard might have ended up.

Gleki:
>> 5 djedi joi 11 masti joi 2015 nanca
> not sure what you mean. {li 5 djedi joi 11 masti joi 2015 nanca cu detri} obviously doesn't parse.

Robert LeChevalier:
> How about if you just leave off the li?  Then you have three quantified sumti joined into one by joi

Gleki:
>You mean {lo djedi be li 5 ku joi lo masti be li 11 ku ...}? But then they can't fill detri1 because detri1 is a number.
>As for {5 djedi} it simply means "5 fullday intervals" that not necessarily go one after another, they can intersect.


Robert LeChevalier:
> We have cmavo that convert *anything* into a number. a sumti, a bridi, whatever.  So that would work too, using the Mex conversion cmavo.  mo'e can convert a sumti into a number; ni'e can convert a selbri into a number.
> (I have to admit that in our usage, we never said that "detri1 is a number", requiring conversion to a particular kind of construct. Rather, the place structure specifies what NORMALLY goes there, and if something abnormal goes there, one would pragmatically assume the proper type-conversion.  Thus pragmatically one would not need the conversion operator, but they are provided in case they are needed for formalism.)

>>As for {5 djedi} it simply means "5 fullday intervals" that not
necessarily go one after another, they can intersect.
>"not necessarily", indeed.  But implicit in joi is that they are in some (non-logical) way additively connected.  Which way is determined pragmatically, and when we came up with it, this was more or less a conventional pragmatics that made sense.
>An employee who is paid by the hour and works 5 cacra is not going to work 5 overlapping hours, and is unlikely to work 5 completely unrelated hours; the most common pragmatic interpretation is that they are consecutive hours.  Similarly with dates - there is no plausible meaning of 5 djedi in a date context that is other-than contiguous and consecutive, because that is what dates measure.
>(We did not put a lot of thought into this question, but largely presumed that all such matters would be resolved by pragmatic convention, which is also what pi'e requires/denotes.)

Gleki:
> May I repost your answers to the mailing list?

Robert LeChevalier:
10/11/15
>May I repost your answers to the mailing list?
Go ahead.


2016-05-04 9:12 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:


Le mardi 3 mai 2016 16:07:34 UTC, Wuzzy a écrit :


Why isn't this (or something similar) in the official
definition (or in the notes)? :-(

I now had 3 different answers, each of them (more or less)
contradicting each other. :-(((

For insance, you say, the order is year, month, day, another one say its
day, month, year because of ISO. Official definition also uses the day,
month, year ordering.

It's nice you all try to explain how detri is used “in actual usage”,
but it seems that “actual usage” varies to a great extent, so it is not
really useful. :-/

IMO we need a clear and well-defined OFFICIAL definition for detri, not
several contradicting ad-hoc definitions.


Those different answers gave you some different examples of convention, which are not suggestion for official definition.
The official definition of {detri} does not restrict the form of x1 to one convention: x1 of {detri} is any sumti that can be a symbol for a time point; the applicable symbol is defined with x4.
The form of x1 depends on context, and you can specify the form with x4 or any additional items like {fi'o}, {noi}, {ti'o}* and so on if necessary.

(*Use of {ti'o} for that purpose is not officially suggested but I think it is enough applicable for specifying mapping of numbers to time points.) 

According to your answers so far, I can't even safely make sense out of
something like “li pa pi'e re pi'e ci detri”, because you don't seem
to even agree on the ordering. :-(


The official definition for {detri} should not specify the ordering because {detri} has x4 by nature to specify the calendar that defines the system of mapping of symbols to time points. If you think the current definition is confusing, we need to add explanation of usage of x4, not restriction to the form of x1.



Le mardi 3 mai 2016 16:18:52 UTC, la gleki a écrit :


Well, Lojban for Beginners and "lerfu detri" don't contradict each other. Otherwise, yes.


No, as explained above, those are different conventions and not definitions of x1 of {detri}. They all can be used in different contexts. Because the context should be different between them, the universe of discourse is different between them, and therefore they cannot contradict each other.

 
There is also one more solution: not to use {detri} at all. You may use {jednpa} etc., {de'i'u}...


 As explained above, you can stay with {detri} by declaring x4 of {detri}.  {jednpa} series and {de'i'u} series are all defined with {detri} and they can be expanded to {detri} form of the same meaning.


mi'e la guskant

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.