Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:49 EST

In a message dated 2/12/2002 6:09:04 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> What Pierre and pycyn said is what I believe too. I want to see how
> thanatos, and perhaps others, justify their position that "I hunt fish
> and deer" is "mi kalte lo finpe je mirli", given those questions.
> 

Yes, this is the ultimate malglico, since it is not only suspiciously like 
English, but is actually demonstrably wrong: that is it gets the wrong things 
in as the object.

thanatos:
<Hey, I din't say that. I said that {mi finpe je mirli kalte} could mean
"I hunt fish and deer", along with it possibly meaning other things,
straight from {ta melbi je nixli ckule} meaning "That is a beautiful
school and also for girls" or "That is a school for girls and beautiful
things".>

Now this is a horse of a different collar. Given the ambiguity of tanru, it 
is hard to say what this is meant to mean. Could the PLGS sample mean also 
"school for things that are both beautiful and girls" (note that this is 
different for "beautiful girls", at least potentially)? Yes! And, given the 
usual source for things like the hunting case, this does seem to point to 
talk about {lo finpe je mirli}. But it does not have to, for the tanru can 
have a different source: conjoining {finpe kalte} and {mirli kalte}, for 
example, and, hence ultimately to the acceptable {kalte lo finpe e lo mirli}. 

<> 1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}?

Nope. {lo finpe finpe je mirli} is false because a {lo finpe cu mirli}
is false unless we have strangely broad definitions of fish-ness and
deer-ness. 

{lo mirli cu finpe je mirli} is similarly weird because while {lo mirli
cu mirli} is true, one would wonder why "finpe" was mentioned at all if
we weren't using the "je" to claim {lo mirli .a lo se mirli ga finpe gi
se finpe}. Either it's false or we've inserted "finpe" with contrary
clues to what its sumti are.>

Well, the conclusion is right here, but I am not so sure about the reasoning. 
What do the species or breed or whatevver of deer and fish have to do with 
the case? And what does the selbri have to do with the sumti? I guess that 
the point is that if we look at the two parts of the sumti-based conjunction 
separately, we wonder why the other selbri is in the tanru, and that makes it 
seem conflicting. But notice that it is the nature of the other selbri that 
does this; the same problem would not arise with {melbi je mirli} (unless you 
have very strong prejudices against deer).

<>> > 2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to?

Something that's definitely a {lo mirli} and strongly suggested to be
{lo finpe}, which doesn't make much sense, and if that's not the case
why was "finpe" mentioned at all in a context where we're singling out
the x1 place of selbri?>

No, the two are on a par: it is equally stated to be a deer and to be a fish, 
not suggested at all.

<I guess my argument is basically that "finpe je mirli" isn't a single
selbri with a defined meaning any more than "mi .e do" refers to a
single sumti. {ta finpe je mirli} is less ambiguous than {ta finpe
mirli} but more ambiguous than {ta finpe gi'e mirli}. The "je" removes
the unspecified relation from the tanru that allows such things as
"selzgike junla" to mean "metronome". Jeks make simultaneous claims
with the two selbri, but without the defined sumti-assignment of giheks.
Which sumti are assigned to "brode" in "brode je broda" should still be
strongly suggested from context, as with tanru, and the most common use
will be identical to a gihek, but I don't think it should be defined to
be only that. 

And I'm outvoted so unless someone requests clarification I won't argue
it any more. :) It's really just based on logical operators being used
to makes claims about the truth of two statements, and wanting to use
jeks closer to that bridi-level of truth than in creating a selbri that
make simultaneous claims about their sumti. Not as selbri-combining but
as bridi-multiplying, if that makes any sense.>

It doesn't quite, though I think I see what you are driving at. What I am 
most unclear about is what the choice of levels of juncture have to do with 
choice of sumti. 
Some minor points: {finpe je mirli} is a single selbri, as far as the grammar 
is concerned, and {mi e do} is a single sumti. Again, two parts of {broda je 
brode} are on exactly the same level, so, if there is any sense in which 
sumti are implied, required or suggested for one, they are equally so for the 
other. {je} never means the same as {gi'e}, since one is tanru internal -- 
and so open to the vagaries that that allows -- and the other is externa, and 
so under more rigid control. Admittedly, we took the {finpe je mirli} as 
literally as if it were {gi'e}, but that was mostly because we have seen {je} 
for English "and" before and because we could not think of another 
interpretation at the moment (still can't).