From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 29 08:21:40 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 15:21:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 71355 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 15:18:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 15:18:25 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.f7.eb9e893 (4353)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <f7.eb9e893.28be61bb@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:19 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f7.eb9e893.28be61bb_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_f7.eb9e893.28be61bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:24 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


<>=A0=A0 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e.>

> Thankfully this is something everybody agrees on, and it guarantees
> that however messy ka is, there's an unambiguous way to say what we
> want.
>=20
We've never lacked that, as far as I can see. What was lacking was a way t=
o=20
say it reasonably briefly. I don't see how agreeing about {du'u} helps;=20
trying to do {ka} things with {du'u} is invariably the least efficient way =
of=20
doing it (well, parallel to your {si'o})

<When we get to the stage of making ordinarily flexible word order rigig,
it just doesn't seem worth the candle. The conventions are just more
trouble than they're worth.>

Probably, but in this case, clarity required this move to head off another =
of=20
your remarks earlier that we might delay saying what was going on until the=
=20
end: set a tricky question, et a tricky answe, neither of which would=20
ordinarily be needed.

<disambiguation in such cases can be done by putting ce'u in the prenex
of the abstraction it belongs to, and then referring to it anaphorically.
Plus the usual default rule that says that things not in prenexes go
to the prenex of the localmost bridi.>

This looks reasonable, especially since it seems likely that we would=20
eventually get cases where the {ce'u} inside inner phrases were not relevan=
t=20
to the outer ones. Generally, I think the conventions for those innerphras=
es=20
have to be the ones appror\priate to their own types, not to the overarchin=
g=20
type.

<I meant "linearly precedes". "klama fi lo tcadu be vi ce'u fe lo tcadu be =
vi
ce'u", say.>
And I meant linear order, too; that was why I changed from place to space,=
=20
remember.

<Xorxes, not xod. Once John's elephant is up and running it will be easier
to keep track of this sort of thing.>

Thank you. The miles of indented quotes that people use tend to make=20
attribution a little hard to work out sometimes.

<Well, you can read the relevant discussion, but the essence is that we don=
't
need gadri for typical things, because we have the brivla fadni to do that
job. The other plausible interpretation is that it's the archetype, and
this seems to be the intension, which is then the same thing as a ce'u
abstraction.>

We have brivla for most types of gadri and other devices as well (as I thin=
k=20
you have been busily demonstrating on a variety of other threads), but it i=
s=20
still handy to have the gadri for practical purposes. I admit that I am no=
t=20
too clear on the differences among the typical, the stereotypical and the=20
archetypal, and I know the argument that the archetypal man is not a man at=
=20
all (thanx, Big A), but it seems that if it is a {ka} then use {ka} (and=20
maybe {si'o} for the stereotypical?).=20=20

<Andban =3D the Lojban of somebody who pays heed to the reasoned discussion
on the list, and is guided by reasoned conclusions arrived at in those
discussions, rather than by vague hunches about what things are supposed
to mean, based on their one-word English glosses in the mahoste.>

One possible (but slightly loaded) definition, I suppose. It does not=20
obviously apply in this case, though, so I withdraw the "Andban" and stick=
=20
with "Nalgol," a word with a nice long history in the community.







--part1_f7.eb9e893.28be61bb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:24 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
<BR>a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt;=A0=A0 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e.&gt=
;
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Thankfully this is someth=
ing everybody agrees on, and it guarantees
<BR>that however messy ka is, there's an unambiguous way to say what we
<BR>want.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>We've never lacked that, as far as I can see. &nbsp;What was lacking wa=
s a way to=20
<BR>say it reasonably briefly. &nbsp;I don't see how agreeing about {du'u} =
helps;=20
<BR>trying to do {ka} things with {du'u} is invariably the least efficient =
way of=20
<BR>doing it (well, parallel to your {si'o})
<BR>
<BR>&lt;When we get to the stage of making ordinarily flexible word order r=
igig,
<BR>it just doesn't seem worth the candle. The conventions are just more
<BR>trouble than they're worth.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Probably, but in this case, clarity required this move to head off anot=
her of=20
<BR>your remarks earlier that we might delay saying what was going on until=
the=20
<BR>end: set a tricky question, et a tricky answe, neither of which would=20
<BR>ordinarily be needed.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;disambiguation in such cases can be done by putting ce'u in the pre=
nex
<BR>of the abstraction it belongs to, and then referring to it anaphoricall=
y.
<BR>Plus the usual default rule that says that things not in prenexes go
<BR>to the prenex of the localmost bridi.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>This looks reasonable, especially since it seems likely that we would=20
<BR>eventually get cases where the {ce'u} inside inner phrases were not rel=
evant=20
<BR>to the outer ones. &nbsp;Generally, I think the conventions for those i=
nnerphrases=20
<BR>have to be the ones appror\priate to their own types, not to the overar=
ching=20
<BR>type.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I meant "linearly precedes". "klama fi lo tcadu be vi ce'u fe lo tc=
adu be vi
<BR>ce'u", say.&gt;
<BR>And I meant linear order, too; that was why I changed from place to spa=
ce,=20
<BR>remember.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Xorxes, not xod. Once John's elephant is up and running it will be =
easier
<BR>to keep track of this sort of thing.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Thank you. &nbsp;The miles of indented quotes that people use tend to m=
ake=20
<BR>attribution a little hard to work out sometimes.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Well, you can read the relevant discussion, but the essence is that=
we don't
<BR>need gadri for typical things, because we have the brivla fadni to do t=
hat
<BR>job. The other plausible interpretation is that it's the archetype, and
<BR>this seems to be the intension, which is then the same thing as a ce'u
<BR>abstraction.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>We have brivla for most types of gadri and other devices as well (as I =
think=20
<BR>you have been busily demonstrating on a variety of other threads), but =
it is=20
<BR>still handy to have the gadri for practical purposes. &nbsp;I admit tha=
t I am not=20
<BR>too clear on the differences among the typical, the stereotypical and t=
he=20
<BR>archetypal, and I know the argument that the archetypal man is not a ma=
n at=20
<BR>all (thanx, Big A), but it seems that if it is a {ka} then use {ka} (an=
d=20
<BR>maybe {si'o} for the stereotypical?). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Andban =3D the Lojban of somebody who pays heed to the reasoned dis=
cussion
<BR>on the list, and is guided by reasoned conclusions arrived at in those
<BR>discussions, rather than by vague hunches about what things are suppose=
d
<BR>to mean, based on their one-word English glosses in the mahoste.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>One possible (but slightly loaded) definition, I suppose. &nbsp;It does=
not=20
<BR>obviously apply in this case, though, so I withdraw the "Andban" and st=
ick=20
<BR>with "Nalgol," a word with a nice long history in the community.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_f7.eb9e893.28be61bb_boundary--