From pycyn@aol.com Sun May 27 07:20:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 27 May 2001 14:20:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 66357 invoked from network); 27 May 2001 14:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 May 2001 14:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 May 2001 14:20:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.c4.14e9b40b (3704) for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 10:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 10:20:22 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Request for grammar clarifications To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c4.14e9b40b.28426726_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_c4.14e9b40b.28426726_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/27/2001 3:12:41 AM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu writes: > 1) de'i > > Is it legal to say {ti xatra de'i li pano}, and by consequence {le xatra be > de'i li pano}? Does the date cmavo introduce a date *conventionally* > associated with the predicate (as I remember it), so that you can say this > is a letter on the tenth? Or is {de'i} tantamount to {ca}, deriving its > semantics *only* from {detri}, in which case such an utterance would be > misleading? (It's a letter on the tenth, but it's still a letter today.) In > other words, does {de'i} correspond to "dated", or to "on"? I will yield to more expert opinion on this, but reasonableness and The Book both suggest that {de'i} marks the date on the letter, not present date or the date the letter was received or... 2) du > Is {lo ninmu du la djiotis.} an erroneous statement? Not stylistically > undesirable, but demonstrably illogical or false? Is the fact that du is > intended to render as equal *names* of a thing, rather than just > descriptions, sufficient to do so? In a related sense, can you legitimately > say {la ranjit. no'u lo pendo be la djiotis.}? This, after all, is the same > as {la ranjit. noi du lo pendo be la djiotis.} Just odd, I think. It's a combination of inspecific {lo} and specific name and so says less than it means. It approaches the use of "is" in English with noun predicates and, as such, is very bad Lojban, stylistically. But it is not illogical, "there is a woman identical with Jyoti" or "Jyoti is a woman." the same sort of objections apply to the relative clauses. > 3) me > > Can you say {le vi karce cu me la ford.}? Do brand names become names for > the wares themselves? Is it OK for {la ford.} to name both manufacturer and > product? Should the latter be referred to only as {lai ford.}, to avoid > confusion? Since the meaning of {me} shifted, this one has wandered areound a bit. But since that meaning has stablized as "is an instance of things called" it seems that the car is OK. The company is actually more of a problem, though it seems to get in too. > > > 4) ke'a > > I'm only doing it for paedagogical reasons, but is there any reason {le mi > mensi poi ri nelci la rikis.martin.} can't mean exactly the same as {le mi > mensi poi ke'a nelci la rikis.martin.}? I'm thinking the {ke'a} *has* to be > coindexed with {ri}, and thus would be inserted into the relative clause as > {le mi mensi poi ke'a nelci la rikis.martin. fa ke'a}. > Well, why use either? On the other hand, {ri} is presumably for a completed description, which {lemi mensi poi...} presumably is not yet, while {ke'a} is specifically for internal use {lemi mensi poi la rikis martin se nelci ke'a} As I said, these are by the book as I understand it and I yield to deeper insights -- not necessarily to xorxes occasionally aberrant grousing (htough those are all too often ultimately right). --part1_c4.14e9b40b.28426726_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/27/2001 3:12:41 AM Central Daylight Time,
nicholas@uci.edu writes:

1) de'i

Is it legal to say {ti xatra de'i li pano}, and by consequence {le xatra be
de'i li pano}? Does the date cmavo introduce a date *conventionally*
associated with the predicate (as I remember it), so that you can say this
is a letter on the tenth? Or is {de'i} tantamount to {ca}, deriving its
semantics *only* from {detri}, in which case such an utterance would be
misleading? (It's a letter on the tenth, but it's still a letter today.) In
other words, does {de'i} correspond to "dated", or to "on"?


I will yield to more expert opinion on this, but reasonableness and The Book
both suggest that {de'i} marks the date on the letter, not present date or
the date the letter was received or...

2) du
Is {lo ninmu du la djiotis.} an erroneous statement? Not stylistically
undesirable, but demonstrably illogical or false? Is the fact that du is
intended to render as equal *names* of a thing, rather than just
descriptions, sufficient to do so? In a related sense, can you legitimately
say {la ranjit. no'u lo pendo be la djiotis.}? This, after all, is the same
as {la ranjit. noi du lo pendo be la djiotis.}

Just odd, I think.  It's a combination of inspecific {lo} and specific name
and so says less than it means.  It approaches the use of "is" in English
with noun predicates and, as such, is very bad Lojban, stylistically.  But it
is not illogical, "there is a woman identical with Jyoti" or "Jyoti is a
woman."  the same sort of objections apply to the relative clauses.


3) me

Can you say {le vi karce cu me la ford.}? Do brand names become names for
the wares themselves? Is it OK for {la ford.} to name both manufacturer and
product? Should the latter be referred to only as {lai ford.}, to avoid
confusion?


Since the meaning of {me} shifted, this one has wandered  areound a bit.  But
since that meaning has stablized as "is an instance of things called" it
seems that the car is OK.  The company is actually more of a problem, though
it seems to get in too.



4) ke'a

I'm only doing it for paedagogical reasons, but is there any reason {le mi
mensi poi ri nelci la rikis.martin.} can't mean exactly the same as {le mi
mensi poi ke'a nelci la rikis.martin.}? I'm thinking the {ke'a} *has* to be
coindexed with {ri}, and thus would be inserted into the relative clause as
{le mi mensi poi ke'a nelci la rikis.martin. fa ke'a}.

Well, why use either?  On the other hand, {ri} is presumably for a completed
description, which {lemi mensi poi...} presumably is not yet, while {ke'a} is
specifically for internal use {lemi mensi poi la rikis martin se nelci ke'a}

As I said, these are by the book as I understand it and I yield to deeper
insights -- not necessarily to xorxes occasionally aberrant grousing (htough
those are all too often ultimately right). --part1_c4.14e9b40b.28426726_boundary--