From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jul 04 08:56:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 15:56:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16434 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 15:56:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 15:56:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 15:56:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17Q8y7-0006tl-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:56:31 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Q8y5-0006tU-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:56:29 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:56:27 z (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Q8y1-0006tL-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:56:26 -0700 Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g64G1Eo78012; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:01:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:01:14 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Message-ID: <20020704110114.B77512@allusion.net> References: <17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2@aol.com>; from pycyn@aol.com on Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:29:06PM -0400 X-archive-position: 111 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:29:06PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/3/2002 4:10:29 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: >=20 >=20 > > I'm fine with context resolving those particular issues. I don't > > think _all_ the pro-sumti approaches can be realistically unambiguous > > (long live ra and ru). "le remei" seems like the best solution > > mentioned. The unbounded ko'a approach seems semi-dangerous to me, > > as it could damage the intended unambiguity of selma'o ko'a things. > > I'd rather munge "ru" than ko'a stuff (and that seems unneccesary > > with just "le remei"). >=20 > Hell, they can't even be theoretically unambiguous except for a few speci= al=20 > cases. The issue here is whether they can reasonably be expected to get = the=20 > hearer to the right thing(s in this case). In this case we do not have a= ny=20 > dyads mentioned so far (in the little context we have) nor do we have two= =20 > individuals explicitly mentioned -- merely some number of dogs and some=20 > number of cats. Can the hearer -- will the hearer likely -- put all of t= his=20 > together to work out that the number is 1 in each case and that we are no= w=20 Umm; I don't think it's important how many dogs or mlatu there was. Using the remei to describe instead of reusing a previous description should be enough to show that we're talking about a pair of sumti (not a pair of dogs or a pair of cats or a pair of dog+cat). The explicit version would be le sumti smuni se remei the pair of sumti referents but there's no need to be that accurate as the listener could likely get that anyway. So the pair of sumti referents could be {two dogs} + {five cats} it's not important. All it really is is "le gerku" + "le mlatu". More context could get things more specific if neccesary. > speaking of the two referents together? How can we help him? Of course,= =20 > later context may do it-- "the dog more than the cat," say, added on to t= he=20 > problem sentence:{ le gerku cu zmadu le mlatu le du'u ce'u tatpi}. But c= an=20 > we do something at the pronoun itself? I am not clear what was the matte= r=20 > with {ri e ra}, which is almost unambiguous -- as close as we are likely = to=20 > get, anyhow -- and as short as most suggestions. The problem with ri .e ra is not size, it's two things. First is scalability; letsay the problem was le gerku cu jersi le mlatu poi jersi le smacu now it needs to be ri .e ra .e ru. The problem gets worse if you want more (yes these are contrived examples, but you should get the point): le gerku cu jersi le mlatu poi jersi le smacu poi jersi le manti ri .e ra .e ru .e ruxipa .oi.oi Just numbering is much more scalable; the first one is "le cimei", the next is "le vomei", etc. The other problem with it is more minor: it's just using the normal prosumti guys. So it's a little bit like english: The man chased the woman. (changed for gender pronouns) He and her got tired. Which doesn't invalidate it as a solution (like the scaliability does), but it less than elegant. --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj0kcUoACgkQDrrilS51AZ/YvgCgqJ7mK23Ym8cKS8Ydk1C4Gv4p 2mUAn3RO1BsZbcOIEKA0CuiJ+PaXPHFN =hstk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB--