From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 07 12:47:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 19:47:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 43465 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 19:47:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 19:47:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 19:47:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.14b.22427a5 (18710) for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14b.22427a5.28f20b44@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:47:16 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14b.22427a5.28f20b44_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_14b.22427a5.28f20b44_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/6/2001 10:12:44 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > Dammit, pc, this isn't a debate competition. It will not help the languag= e to >=20 Thank God, rab. If it were a debate competition it would be decided on=20 rhetorical grounds rather than facts and rigor. And, as too often happens,= =20 the guy who makes the wildest claim and says it loudest would win. And has= =20 made a claim, tried to shift the burden of proof on to me, revised the clai= m=20 when I didn't shoulder it, and will no doubt soon revise it again, since it= =20 still does not work. I understand him perfectly well, but think that what = he=20 means to say is either false or trivial, depending on which way he finally= =20 states it, and, as I noted, in any case, has no bearing on the issue at han= d. <* What are these problems that {le nei} created? You may be thinking of ot= her =A0 things involving {nei}. {le nei} was brought up to solve the {vo'a} pro= blem. > The basic problem with {nei} is that it is self-referential, so that it=20 cannot ever succeed in actually refrring to its referent because it referen= t=20 does not exist until it has succeeded in referring to it. Thus, it is the= =20 whole expression {le nei} that functions as a unit, with the {nei} part the= re=20 just as a dummy, not a real referrer at all (but enough of a reality that i= t=20 cannot be used for the first argument in the BRIDI). With counting {le}=20 phrases as bridi in the meaning of the definition, {nei}'s work could be do= ne=20 by {no'a} with a slightly less horrific result (though actually the same=20 problem can be recreated at every level, including {vo'a} -- this aprticula= r=20 anaphora technique is theoretically deeply flawed, for all that it works mo= re=20 or less in practice).=20=20 <* What follows le is a bridi by your definition, but it is not the specifi= c =A0 entry in the parser that we usually refer to when we say "bridi". For =A0 example, you can't put {mi klama le zarci} in {le}. {le} creates a brid= i out =A0 of the pseudo-bridi which follows it, and takes the x1 out of it. This = bridi =A0 is not part of the sentence> Yes, it is not a BRIDI because it contains {be} and the rest -- not because= =20 it doesn't have an x1. {le} doesn't make it a BRIDI out of the bridi tail= =20 that follows it nor does it take a BRIDI and make something else out of it = by=20 dropping x1 and replacing it with {le} (although that is closer). The resu= lt=20 of putting {le} in front of a bridi tail IS a part of thes entence -- where= =20 else would it be? I think I am missing your point here. Whose "bridi" are= =20 you talking about, not mine and not what I understood your to be. <* * {nei} is not a bridi. It refers to a bridi.> It is anaphora (if it works at all): it refers to a bridi in the way that a= =20 pronoun refers to a noun, by standing in for it and saving us writing it=20 again, not the way a word refers to a thing. That is, it is a bridi becaus= e=20 it refers to a bridi. Actually, the {ce'u} would probably still not get a subscript, since it wou= ld=20 still have smallest scope, but you could move it up if you wanted -- as yo= u=20 can in any case. Notice that what ahppens in And's rule -- one version=20 anyhow -- is that he makes the containing "sumti" disappear but exactly=20 replaces it with a new sumti which contains a BRIDI and the same internal= =20 sumti and such that the whole means the same (officially) -- and this someh= ow=20 is to prove that the internal sumti, which now is clearly at a different=20 level from the sumti it is contained in was previously at the same level as= =20 the sumti it was contained in. I just don't see how it follows, but in any= =20 case the transformation that is done is trivial and has no bearing on the=20 issue at hand. --part1_14b.22427a5.28f20b44_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/6/2001 10:12:44 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny= .rr.com writes:


Dammit, pc, this isn't a = debate competition. It will not help the language to
deliberately misunderstand people who disagree with you


Thank God, rab.  If it were a debate competition it would be decid= ed on rhetorical grounds rather than facts and rigor.  And, as too oft= en happens, the guy who makes the wildest claim and says it loudest would w= in.  And has made a claim, tried to shift the burden of proof on to me= , revised the claim when I didn't shoulder it, and will no doubt soon revis= e it again, since it still does not work.  I understand him perfectly = well, but think that what he means to say is either false or trivial, depen= ding on which way he finally states it, and, as I noted, in any case, has n= o bearing on the issue at hand.

<* What are these problems that {le nei} created? You may be thinkin= g of other
=A0 things involving {nei}. {le nei} was brought up to solve the {vo'a}= problem.>
The basic problem with {nei} is that it is self-referential, so that it= cannot ever succeed in actually refrring to its referent because it refere= nt does not exist until it has succeeded in referring to it.  Thus, it= is the whole expression {le nei} that functions as a unit, with the {nei} = part there just as a dummy, not a real referrer at all (but enough of a rea= lity that it cannot be used for the first argument in the BRIDI).  Wit= h counting {le} phrases as bridi in the meaning of the definition, {nei}'s = work could be done by {no'a} with a slightly less horrific result (though a= ctually the same problem can be recreated at every level, including {vo'a} = -- this aprticular anaphora technique is theoretically deeply flawed, for a= ll that it works more or less in practice).  

<* What follows le is a bridi by your definition, but it is not the = specific
=A0 entry in the parser that we usually refer to when we say "bridi". F= or
=A0 example, you can't put {mi klama le zarci} in {le}. {le} creates a = bridi out
=A0 of the pseudo-bridi which follows it, and takes the x1 out of it. T= his bridi
=A0 is not part of the sentence>

Yes, it is not a BRIDI because it contains {be} and the rest -- not bec= ause it doesn't have an x1.  {le} doesn't make it a BRIDI out of the b= ridi tail that follows it nor does it take a BRIDI and make something else = out of it by dropping x1 and replacing it with {le} (although that is close= r).  The result of putting {le} in front of a bridi tail IS a part of = thes entence -- where else would it be?  I think I am missing your poi= nt here.  Whose "bridi" are you talking about, not mine and not what I= understood your to be.

<* * {nei} is not a bridi. It refers to a bridi.>

It is anaphora (if it works at all): it refers to a bridi in the way th= at a pronoun refers to a noun, by standing in for it and saving us writing = it again, not the way a word refers to a thing.  That is, it is a brid= i because it refers to a bridi.

<poi contains a new level of the sentence. du'u contains a new level= of the
sentence. This is because both of these are followed by a BRIDI. {le} i= s not
followed by a BRIDI. In some situations, as you enjoy pointing out, the= thing
that follows {le} could be a BRIDI on its own (an observative one, usua= lly),
but that does not matter.

This does not prevent rewriting a {le} phrase with {voi}, for example -= but you
would have to put a subscript on {ce'u} if there was one in the {le} ph= rase.
Situations like that are the reason subscripts for ce'u were proposed, = after
all.>

Actually, the {ce'u} would probably still not get a subscript, since it= would still have smallest scope,  but you could move it up if you wan= ted -- as you can in any case.  Notice that what ahppens in And's rule= -- one version anyhow -- is that he makes the containing "sumti" disappear=  but exactly replaces it with a new sumti which contains  a BRID= I and the same internal sumti and such that the whole means the same (offic= ially) -- and this somehow is to prove that the internal sumti, which now i= s clearly at a different level from the sumti it is contained in was previo= usly at the same level as the sumti it was contained in.  I just don't= see how it follows, but in any case the transformation that is done is tri= vial and has no bearing on the issue at hand.

--part1_14b.22427a5.28f20b44_boundary--