From colin@xxxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xxx Sun Apr 25 12:03:18 1999 X-Digest-Num: 124 Message-ID: <44114.124.713.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:03:18 +0100 From: Colin Fine la "=?iso- 8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" cu cusku di'e >From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" > >la kolin cusku di'e > >>I don't agree that 'do' is a mass: it seems to me much more reasonable >>to individuate it. > >I think it's a good thing that it be taken in general as a mass. Masses >are much safer than distributive individuation when it comes to issues >of scopes and such. For example: > > do dunda lo xrula la djan What has 'safe' to do with anything? You seem to mean 'people would find it easier', but that was not an argument that was given much weight in the discussion that led to "tu'a"; and my interest in Lojban is that we explore the intricacies that follow from parts of our design, rather than sweeping them under the carpet. > >Does that mean "you (all) gave a flower to John"? Or does it mean >"each of you gave a flower to John"? I think the first one. Or: I think the second one. > > ko na dunda lo titla la djan > >Is that "Don't give sweets to John!", or is it "Don't everyone of you >give sweets to John!", meaning that it's ok if only some of you do? I don't understand what you mean. I read it as an instruction to 'each of you' that you make it the case that (the same) you do not give sweets to John. > >>I suggest that almost all uses of your terkancu to unmassify will be >>followed by a 'lei' or 'loi', in which case the appropriate question is, >>why has the utterer chosen to use a massifier and then immediately >>counteracted it? Is there a difference between 're lei prenu' and 're le >>prenu'? > >I was mostly thinking of pronouns. The book says that personal >pronouns already work the way I suggest, so at least in that case >I have the canon on my side. And no, I think there would be no >difference between {re lei prenu} and {re le prenu}. > You're right, the book does. .ue.oi. I don't like this at all. I accept that there are going to be occasions when you want them massified (ko bevri le pipno), but I see individuals as more fundamental, and also believe that they will more often be useful. I would advocate "lu'oko bevri le pipno". Apparently I am advocating a change in the language. >Come to think of it, there should be no difference either between >{piro lei ci prenu} and {piro le ci prenu}. Not only are count numbers >de-massifiers, but mass numbers are themselves massifiers. I agree that if the implicit conversion is allowed, it should be allowed both ways. I don't like the implicit conversion. > >>I would like to encourage precision (in the use of masses/individuals) >>by requiring an explicit unmassifier (or fractional quantifier) > >Aren't quantifiers very explicit? What more explicit than that can >you get? > No, because the grammatical operation depends crucially on the VALUE of the quantifier - not its form or the words it is made of. Remember "vei ny" is a perfectly good quantifier. >>I see this as a similar kind of argument to the sumti raising question. >>We realised that we were fudging an issue (in my terms, the feature >>+/-kamsucta), and actually changed the language to allow precision, and >>starting teaching people to use that precision. > >Perhaps we should start another thread about this. Can you explain >what criterion was used to determine which places were passible >of sumti raising and which weren't? For example: No, I can't (at the moment). I've no doubt there is plenty of fudging and unexamined cases in the allocation of +kamsucta to terbridi. I am talking about the principle. > >(1) le vi ladru cu banzu le nu zmadu lo titnanba > This milk is enough to make a cake. > >(2) le nu pilno le vi ladru cu banzu le nu zmadu lo titnanba > Using this milk is enough to make a cake. > >(3) mi djica le vi ladru le nu zmadu lo titnanba > I want this milk to make a cake. > >(4) mi djica le nu pilno le vi ladru kei le nu zmadu lo titnanba > I want to use this milk to make a cake. > >If I understand the gi'uste, (3) is sumti raising and (4) is the correct >way of saying it, but (1) is acceptable and I suppose so is (2), so >there is no sumti raising there. Is that right? Is there any reason why >that is so? And there are at least tens of such dubious cases. > >>I claim to have found a similar imprecision in the use of another of >>Lojban's unique features, and have proposed (without changing the >>language) a way of being precise. Your solution introduces an *implicit* >>conversion which allows unwary speakers to fudge the issue again. It is >>implicit because (I think) it will in general be necessary to evaluate >>the quantifier in order to determine whether it is converting or not >>(and what if the quantifier evaluates to .99999?). > >I don't think there can be any doubt about it. Individuating quantifiers >are all the PAs that make sense as quantifiers except those that start >with {pi} and eventually those with {fi'u} or {ce'i}. The PAs that don't >make sense as quantifiers are those containing ka'o, pai, pi'e, te'o >and maybe tu'o, although probably {tu'o} could be given some >interesting use. But the two classes are very distinct. > No, for the reason I've given above. >.99999 is obviously a mass quantifier. > >>You say it is more useful to interpret it your way - I disagree. It >>would be more useful only in the sense that allowing 'mi gleki lemi >>bersa' would be more useful: finding a way to assign a meaning to an >>inherently imprecise construction simply to allow speakers the luxury of >>not having to think about how they are using the language. > >I don't think I'm advocating lack of precision here. Could you give >an example where there could be any doubt? The only things I can >think of are things such as Lojbab proposed like {mu lei re prenu} >meaning "five couples", but I think that is stretching even more >the logic of masses. You are advocating a lack of precision, in the same way as 'mi gleki le zdani' is imprecise. It is not that the meaning is unclear (to us natlang speakers - it might be to a Martian), but that the categories of the language are being used in a way that does not match without a hidden conversion. > >>But then I have never approved of omitting 'lo' in 'ci prenu' .u'i > >I didn't like it the first time I saw it either. I thought {ci prenu} should >have been a selbri meaning "x1 are the three people", the same >way numbers work as inner quantifiers. I don't like it because it allows people (mu'u mi) to translate 'three people' without realising that we mean 'three of all the people there are'. It's a gloss over a unique feature of Lojban. > >co'o mi'e xorxes > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Did you know that ONElist hosts some of the largest lists on the Internet? >http://www.ONElist.com >Our scaleable system is the most reliable free e-mail service on the Internet! >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | | Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: colin@kindness.demon.co.uk | | "Don't just do something! Stand there!" | | - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) | -----------------------------------------------------------------------