From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Nov 01 04:03:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 12:03:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 75496 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 12:03:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 12:03:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 12:03:47 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:40:03 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:14:39 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:14:29 +0000 To: lojbab Cc: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 10/30/01 11:08pm >>> #At 02:41 PM 10/30/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote: #> >>> John Cowan 10/29/01 07:39pm >>> #>#And Rosta wrote: #>#> Eh? What am I missing? -- "pa djacu cu du lo djacu" seems wholly true. #># #>#Should have been "pa djacu cu du re djacu" #> #>Well, Jorge has shown why that's false. We need to change it in order for= it #>to make the point you want: #> #> lo djacu pa mei cu du lo djacu re mei #> #>and this I would say is TRUE. # #It is less than fully true; there are instances of djacu pamei,=20 #specifically molecules or whatever we wish to consider djacu selci, the=20 #smallest chunks of water that display the necessary properties to call it= =20 #"djacu", that are pamei and not remei.=20=20 IOW, "lo djacu pa mei cu du lo djacu re mei" is true, but=20 "ro djacu pa mei cu du lo djacu re mei" is false. #But that minimum size is rather=20 #fuzzily defined whereas the minimum size of lo remna selci is fairly clear= =20 #in that we don't call a single person a twosome, or an amputee a=20 #less-than-onesome, but it becomes less clear how we might count a human wh= o=20 #has had a heart transplant from another human (as compared to if it is a=20 #chimpanzee or an artificial heart?) Indeed. As I said to John, the existence of problematic borderline cases is evidence of a definition of the borderline. #>#Because tanru with du are useless, and it would have been more Zipfy #>#not to have to use "cu" in sentences like that. #> #>Indeed. But more generally, it would be interesting to get statistics on= =20 #>the frequency of cu compared to the frequency of tanru (or at least the=20 #>frequency of cu to avoid parsing as tanru). If I'd been designing the #>language my gut feeling would have been to do all tanru by means of co,=20 #>or, better, by a co-analogue of be/bei/be'o. # #Zipf rules. JCB liked tanru. So do I. Why make them harder to say, oh y= e=20 #who seeks abbreviated forms? Firstly because it could obviate the need for teminators in many cases. Secondly because it would make tanru-internal groupings clearer through to-me more straightforward and sometimes shorter structures (I still haven'= t learnt the rules for bo, ke, ke'e, whereas I learnt be, bei, be'o on day 1 = of studying Lojban). --And.