From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jul 04 11:22:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 18:22:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 56493 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 18:22:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 18:22:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 18:22:36 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.fb.28a502ac (17381) for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:22:32 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fb.28a502ac.2a55ec68_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_fb.28a502ac.2a55ec68_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 10:44:43 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > And, note the "le remei" is _not_ a mass. It's a description of > something that could go in x1 of remei, treated individually. The > place structure of remei is > x1 is a set with the pair of members x2 > so we're strictly more interested in x2. But because it's a description > and because the set contains those members, "le remei" gets ya the > same result. > Lord, I thought this got settled years ago: mei MOI cardinal selbri convert number to cardinality selbri; x1 is the mass formed from set x2 whose n member(s) are x3 Sets are generally useless, masses often very useful. We go with the useful. And, of course, if {le remei} did refer to a set, the sentence would be nonsense, since sets can't be tired -- or much else, for that matter (why they are useless). You can go from the fact that someone says something literally meaningless to a claim that they intended something meaningful somehow related to the meaningless claim, but that seems a very roundabout way of doing things when a straightforward way is available (and insignificantly longer). Well, we're talking about **the referents** of a pair of sumti, not about the sumti themselves: sumti don't get tired either. If there are two dogs and five cats and they all get tired, then we need to use (on this approach) {le zemei}. If you want the pair, the presumably you leave out the {se}, otherwise -- to show that there are two, say {le re sumti smuni}. But (aside from whether smuni are referents rather than senses -- as the contrast with {selsni} and {snismu} appear to counter), if there are two dogs and five cats, then there are either seven referents or two, both of which are masses -- and so we are back tothe problem that one tired dog tires the whole and the original claim needs {piro}. You opt for the second possible reading. But what then is the nature of the "+" in your equation? I suppose it is {.e}. Then one tired dog and one tired cat tire the lot. If it is {joi}, then just the tired dog is needed. If it is {jo'e}, the whole is meaningless again, for we are back to sets. And, btw, it is not ""le gerku" + "le mlatu"" (which would be "le gerku le mlatu" (a string of letters or words) but "le gerku + le mlatu" (at best -- even this is suspect). Yes, things get awkward as the numbers grow, and the {ri e ra} solution obviously only works so far. But the {le n-mei} does not work at all, without a lot of extra frills that don't seem reasonable to assume. I was not claiming that {ri e ro} was a general solution, only that it worked in the instant case as well or better than existing alternatives cited (there may be an existing alternative that no one has noted yetso I am not yet to the experimental cmavo stage). "He and she got tired" (case counts, too). I'm not sure what elegance amounts to, nor whether it has a place in a logical language that overrides accuracy and initial plausibility. I find the kind of mental acrobatics involved getting to what {le remei} means in this context very inelegant -- kludgy indeed. --part1_fb.28a502ac.2a55ec68_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 10:44:43 AM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:


And, note the "le remei" is _not_ a mass.  It's a description of
something that could go in x1 of remei, treated individually.  The
place structure of remei is
    x1 is a set with the pair of members x2
so we're strictly more interested in x2.  But because it's a description
and because the set contains those members, "le remei" gets ya the
same result.


Lord, I thought this got settled years ago:
mei MOI cardinal selbri convert number to cardinality selbri; x1 is the mass formed from set x2 whose n member(s) are x3
Sets  are generally useless, masses often very useful.  We go with the useful.

And, of course, if {le remei} did refer to a set, the sentence would be nonsense, since sets can't be tired -- or much else, for that matter (why they are useless).  You can go from the fact that someone says something literally meaningless to a claim that they intended something meaningful somehow related to the meaningless claim, but that seems a very roundabout way of doing things when a straightforward way is available (and insignificantly longer).

<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).>

Well, we're talking about **the referents** of a pair of sumti, not about the sumti themselves: sumti don't get tired either.  If there are two dogs and five cats and they all get tired, then we need to use (on this approach) {le zemei}.

<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.>

If you want the pair, the presumably you leave out the {se}, otherwise -- to show that there are two, say {le re sumti smuni}.  But (aside from whether smuni are referents rather than senses -- as the contrast with {selsni} and {snismu} appear to counter), if there are two dogs and five cats, then there are either seven referents or two, both of which are masses -- and so we are back tothe problem that one tired dog tires the whole and the original claim needs {piro}.

<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.>

You opt for the second possible reading.  But what then is the nature of the "+" in your equation?  I suppose it is {.e}.  Then one tired dog and one tired cat tire the lot.  If it is {joi}, then just the tired dog is needed.  If it is {jo'e}, the whole is meaningless again, for we are back to sets.   And, btw, it is not ""le gerku" + "le mlatu"" (which would be "le gerku le mlatu" (a string of letters or words) but "le gerku + le mlatu" (at best -- even this is suspect).

<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>

Yes, things get awkward as the numbers grow, and the {ri e ra} solution obviously only works so far. But the {le n-mei} does not work at all, without a lot of extra frills that don't seem reasonable to assume.  I was not claiming that {ri e ro} was a general solution, only that it worked in the instant case as well or better than existing alternatives cited (there may be an existing alternative that no one has noted yetso I am not yet to the experimental cmavo stage). 

<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.>

"He and she got tired" (case counts, too).  I'm not sure what elegance amounts to, nor whether it has a place in a logical language that overrides accuracy and initial plausibility.  I find the kind of mental acrobatics involved getting to what {le remei} means in this context very inelegant -- kludgy indeed.












 --part1_fb.28a502ac.2a55ec68_boundary--