From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Jan 14 03:52:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 14 Jan 2002 11:52:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 31048 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 11:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jan 2002 11:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 11:52:24 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A65BC0100B2; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:51:55 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] po'u considered harmful Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:52:22 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20020114042502.GA3560@twcny.rr.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> The phrase 'mi po'u la kreig.' expands to 'mi poi du la kreig.', which >> further becomes 'mi poi ke'a du la kreig.', which in turn asserts that 'ke'a >> du la kreig.', and since ke'a = mi here, it asserts that 'mi du la kreig.'. >> It is, however, not expressing equality in a mathematical sense, as two >> people (mi and la kreig.) might be the same person, as they are here, but >> they have no numerical values and thus are not equal to one another. In >> fact, such a use of du as 'mi du la kreig' would surely be taken as being >> malglico by most lojban-speaking listeners, as one could easily say either >> 'mi'e kreig.' or 'mi me la kreig.' The former has no relevance to a >> discussion of po'u, obviously, but notice that 'poime' and 'po'u' have very >> similar grammars and the same number of syllables. >Why do you assume po'u means {poi du} and now {poi me}? I originally assume poi du, then I change not to assuming it means poi me but to assuming it is similar in meaning and grammar - which it is. >> However, the second of these examples runs into the second problem with >> po'u: ignorance of the place structure of du. Since po'u implies a stealth >> du, 'mi po'u la kreig le zarci cu klama' in fact means 'mi poi ke'a du la >> kreig le zarci cu klama' - and thus asserts that 'mi du la kreig le zarci', >> for du is multi-placed and asserts all places to be equal. mi na zarci, so >> when using po'u, ku or ku'o is more necessary than commonly interpreted; I >> am probably guilty of calling myself things that I am not for this reason. >This is just wrong. Only one sumti goes inside po'u. Replacing it with >{poi du} or {poi me} on the fly, for this reason, doesn't work. If you >don't believe me, look at how jbofi'e parses {mi po'u la kreig. le zarci >cu klama}. I had been interpreting the Book's statement (in chapter 8) that po'u means poi du as meaning that po'u means poi du. I do not see any mention of it ending after one sumti, though that may just be because I lack the print version. >So the reason {po'u} is useful is because it ends after one sumti, and >neither {poi me} or {poi du} do. I have seen no mention of this elsewhere. I am willing to accept that I may be wrong on this, but I would need to see some evidence that I am. Sorry, but jbofi'e carries less weight than does the Book, in my mind. Show me where the anything official says it stops at one sumti and I will only push the malglico bit. >> For these reasons, I will now begin to use 'poime' instead of 'po'u' >> whenever I remember, and encourage others to do the same. >Knock yourself out. >-- >la rab.spir >poi me le sarji be zo gumri