Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o)

From: Logical Language Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:03:29 -0400

At 12:29 AM 8/25/01 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la pycyn cusku di'e
> >Aside from being ill-formed, how does this work?
>
>It is not ill-formed. It is perfectly grammatical.
>{me <sumti> moi} is a separate construction from {<number> <moi>}.
>I can't think of any better use for it than the original meaning
>of {me} as you present it. If there are competing interpretations,
>let's have them, but don't lambast mine just for the sake of it.

Nick later added:
>My beef isn't that you're using sumti as ordinals --- though I think it a
>barbarism. My beef is that, if you advocate {memimoi} as a generic
>expression for "mine", you must dispense with any notion of ordering,
>because "yours" vs. "mine" in general doesn't have a sense of ordering (as
>in fact you have.) I mean, when the Duchess takes Alice's hand, and she
>takes {le me la alis. moi}, {me la alis moi befi ma poi se porsi?}

John explained this, but let me supply the historical reference.
Note the following which was the original purpose of ME SUMTI MOI (which 
doesn't mean that it can't have other uses), and was indeed a sumti as an 
ordinal, but for what looks like a valid reason. Nick asked why we did not 
simply use "vei mex moi", and John answers that in his explanation: conflicts.

(Nora suggests "le mi co'e" along with the zu'i pe mi that Nick suggested 
(though Nora wondered why not "zo'e pe mi". She also notes that since some 
of the anaphora have rafsi, mibyco'e is a lujvo "mine")

>>Change 27:
>>
>>CURRENT LANGUAGE:
>>
>>The current use of full mathematical expressions is limited to two areas:
>>after LI to form sumti, and as quantifiers. In the latter use, parentheses
>>must be used around any mekso other than a simple number.
>>
>>Simple numbers and letteral-strings can also be used in some other places:
>>with -MOI to form selbri, with -MAI to form utterance ordinals, and with
>>-ROI to form quantified tenses, and after XI to make subscripts.
>>
>>PROPOSED CHANGE:
>>
>>Allow richer expressions after XI and before MOI. The grammar of XI
>>is extended to allow XI VEI mex /VEhO/ as a subscript, allowing any
>>mekso within parentheses (same rule as for quantifiers).
>>
>>With -MOI, the rule has to be more complex, since simply allowing
>>any quantifier + MOI produces conflicts. Instead, we extend the
>>syntax of ME-conversion so that ME sumti /MEhU/ MOI is a legal kind
>>of selbri. Typically the sumti will be either a LI construct, a
>>"le ni" construct, or some kind of anaphora.
>>
>>RATIONALE:
>>
>>We need to be able to say "x sub (n + 1)" for mathematical and scientific
>>text, as well as being able to talk about the "(n + 1)th occurrence"
>>of an event.

Jorge responding to Nick again:
> >My beef isn't that you're using sumti as ordinals --- though I think it a
> >barbarism.
>
>I think it's the most rational extension possible of {<number> moi}.
>It also provides us with a very useful meaning, and it does not
>contradict anything in previous usage or anything that the Book says.
>I'm really surprised that you and pc are so vehemently opposed. If it
>really is such a bad idea it won't catch on. If there were a competing
>meaning I could understand, but there isn't.

Note that "barbarisms" being used in ordinals is a JCBan Loglandic 
tradition (and I never heard pc complain about this one before). You may 
recall that JCB coined and was quite proud of "enoughth in line" 
(raumoi). While "enoughth" implies some kind of ordering, it really 
requires a multi-place predicate to communicate its meaning, which rau does 
not provide. So from the standpoint of allowing more formally correct 
expression of an ancient Loglan tradition, the me sumti moi construction 
should offer a little comfort to a hardliner %^)

lojbab

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org