From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 16:27:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 14 Feb 2002 00:27:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13486 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 00:27:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2002 00:27:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 00:27:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.18d.34bd4f4 (3981) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:27:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18d.34bd4f4.299c5e7d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:27:41 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18d.34bd4f4.299c5e7d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_18d.34bd4f4.299c5e7d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2002 5:07:36 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes: > I finally thought of an example that might clarify things a bit more. > If {mi ti poi xunre cu klama}, am I a possible referent of {lo xunre je > klama}? I'm easily {lo xunre klama}, but is {ti xunre gi'e se klama mi} > enough to claim {mi ti xunre je klama}? Of at least one of the given > sumti {xunre} is true at the same time {klama} is true for all of them, > so two true claims are made of the given sumti with the two given > selbri, if the choice of sumti for {xunre} is ambiguous As I said, keeping straight about quotes is the fundamental tool here. I assume you mean (since what you said is nonsense as written) "If {mi ti poi xunre cu klama} is true," . In that case, I don't see you as a possible referent of {lo xunre je klama}, because, even if you are a goer, you (presumably) not red. You are not {lo xunre klama}, since you certainly are not a Lojban expression, but you are a possible referent of that expression, on one reading of the l-selbri -- as from {klama lo xunre}. {je} indicates a different relation from simple concatenation -- a more precise one, for one thing, pretty much class intersection (though I can imagine an argument on this) in primary position. And your still aren't red. The last sentence is a bit muddled, but the Lojban referred to makes only one truth claim, not two ({je} doesn't split here, and if it did it would still only make one truth claim) and {mi} is unequivocally the first place of {xunre} as of {klama}. As noted, I am not sure that there is an ambiguity in the earlier sentence, though the possible floating {ti} is a problem afor easy interpetation. In so far as doing a {gi'e} transformation of {je} is legit (not much I think) your sentence says that I am north of yonder thing from your frame of reference and going to it from you. This is admittedly clearer than the intersection reading and probably not practically different. It does not have either of your suggested interpretations, nor do I see how this case is like the one in the previous paragraph. --part1_18d.34bd4f4.299c5e7d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/13/2002 5:07:36 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes:


I finally thought of an example that might clarify things a bit more.
If {mi ti poi xunre cu klama}, am I a possible referent of {lo xunre je
klama}?  I'm easily {lo xunre klama}, but is {ti xunre gi'e se klama mi}
enough to claim {mi ti xunre je klama}?  Of at least one of the given
sumti {xunre} is true at the same time {klama} is true for all of them,
so two true claims are made of the given sumti with the two given
selbri, if the choice of sumti for {xunre} is ambiguous


As I said, keeping straight about quotes is the fundamental tool here.  I assume you mean (since what you said is nonsense as written) "If {mi ti poi xunre cu klama} is true," .  In that case, I don't see you as a possible referent of {lo xunre je klama}, because, even if you are a goer, you (presumably) not red.  You are not {lo xunre klama}, since you certainly are not a Lojban expression, but you are a possible referent of that expression, on one reading of the l-selbri -- as from {klama lo xunre}.
{je} indicates a different relation from simple concatenation -- a more precise one, for one thing, pretty much class intersection (though I can imagine an argument on this) in primary position.  And your still aren't red.
The last sentence is a bit muddled, but the Lojban referred to makes only one truth claim, not two ({je} doesn't split here, and if it did it would still only make one truth claim) and {mi} is unequivocally the first place of {xunre} as of {klama}.

<That ambiguity could lead to things like {mi tu berti je klama do}
having as a possible interpretation, "I am going to that yonder from
you, that yonder being north", and that may be a little too ambiguous,
but it makes jeks more useful than forcing that to mean "I am going to
that yonder from you and I am north of something.">

As noted, I am not sure that there is an ambiguity in the earlier sentence, though the possible floating {ti} is a problem afor easy interpetation.  In so far as doing a {gi'e} transformation of {je} is legit (not much I think) your sentence says that I am north of yonder thing from your frame of reference and going to it from you.  This is admittedly clearer than the intersection reading and probably not practically different.  It does not have either of your suggested interpretations, nor do I see how this case is like the one in the previous paragraph.

 --part1_18d.34bd4f4.299c5e7d_boundary--