.i lo xance lo jamfu cu simsa lo ka cilre da'i lo du'u ta'i makau cadzu sepi'o ce'u
the hands the feet - are-similar-in the property learning hypothetically the fact by-method what?-indirect walk using it
Here the idea is exactly the observation you made too: to abstract what is common between the hands and feet, namely that there is a method by which you can walk using them, and that you can learn this method. The abstraction {lo ka cilre da'i lo du'u ta'i makau cadzu sepi'o ce'u} represents exactly that common property.
(If you're familiar with functional programming or lambda calculus, it's kind of like writing \X -> learn hypothetically the fact by-method what?-indirect walk using X. The "what?-indirect" essentially acts to say what the output of the function is, and in this case to identify the thing that is similar between the hands and the feet.)
I'm not sure if trying to express it using .inaja is right. In principle, if someone knew how to walk on their hands and not on their feet, then the same analogy would also apply to them trying to learn to walk on their feet! So really, I think the main claim here is that hands and feet are similar, but in a very specific way.
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o On 2020-12-17 22:04, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
As imprecise human beings saddled with the inheritance of natural
language, much of what we say involves reasoning by analogy. For
example:
"You can learn to walk on your hands just like you learn to walk on
your feet."
How would you express such a notion in Lojban? The English suggests
that the method of learning (perhaps {ta'i} or {xelcli}) is the same in
both instances, but there is also an implication: IF you can learn to
walk on your feet, THEN you can also learn to walk on your hands. In
Lojban, I might render this:
do cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lei do jamfu kei ku fu da
.inaja do cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lei do xance kei ku fu da
or even
ta'i da do cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lei do jamfu
.inaja ta'i da do cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lei do xance
But that only works if there happens to be a FA place or BAI cmavo that
expresses the common property of the analogy (in this case, the method
of learning). And it requires that I express that property explicitly.
In some instances, there might not be a BAI cmavo, or a {FIhO SE BRODA}
tag, suitable to express it. Or, I might just want to elide the
relationship, and leave the relationship implicit. I could use {do'e}:
do'e da do cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lei do jamfu
.inaja do'e da do cilre fi lonu do cadzu fi lei do xance
But this still strikes me as kind of clumsy. Is there a neater way to
express reasoning by analogy, like this, in Lojban?
-- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/dd954228-c706-98f2-5709-eaed3cb94703%40mail.jerrington.me.