From pycyn@aol.com Mon May 28 01:33:38 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 28 May 2001 08:33:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 26659 invoked from network); 28 May 2001 08:33:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 May 2001 08:33:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 May 2001 08:33:37 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.bd.ed1c836 (17085) for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 28 May 2001 04:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <bd.ed1c836.2843675a@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 04:33:30 EDT
Subject: RE: Grammar Clarifications
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bd.ed1c836.2843675a_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_bd.ed1c836.2843675a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

With apologies to Nick, who only wanted snap judgements, not thirty-day=20
debates.
lojbab:
[on {de'i}]<>
Thanks; that seems to best solution all around. And so, in the case of=20
letters, we usually go for the date written (the ambiguity here remains).

[on {me}]<>The alternative I suppose is {ta me la ford karce} instead
>of {ta me la ford}. Or maybe also {ta karcrforde}.

ta srana/steci la ford
also works.=A0 A question is whether one really needs a predicate that=20
totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a FordIt refers to a da=
te=20
associated with the letter.=A0 What exactly the date has=20
to do with the letter is ellipsized, associated with another place of detri=
=20
and/or a sumti-raising therefrom.As to why the reasons for the change - I w=
as=20
of the opinion that pc at the=20
time accepted the change, which was based on an argument from formal logic=
=20
by Randall Holmes, then serving as pc's "replacement" as TLI's resident=20
logician.>
Well, "accept" isn't "agrees with" or even "understands." Does anyone=20
remember what RH's reasoning was? The main point, as I recall, for startin=
g=20
the discussion back then was that JCB's original notion had gotten (quel=20
surprise!) pretty amorphous as he fit more and more things into his origina=
l=20
good idea. But the original idea was not so bad and I see that there is no=
t=20
a replacement for it yet (xorxes' makes no coherent sense and lojbab's is n=
ot=20
a replacement).

xorxes:
<Probably the main one to avoid is {du lo broda}, which is
logically sound but means about the same as plain {broda}.>

Actually, as one or the other Sir Wm. Hamilton showed, it means exactly the=
=20
same (with suitable modifications for langauge). It is bad style, but=20
pretty good logic (no too bad even logic, cf. Lesniewski). That aside=20
(incompetence, surely -- why will people take up a logical language and not=
=20
learn logic?), just why has identity, of all the logical primitives, fallen=
=20
into disfavor? (I suppose that it is, as in the case of {ganai}, some=20
massive confusion of the sort dealt with in week 1 and again just after=20
midterm.)

<It should be noted that they are different though in one important
respect: {me ko'a} means "x1 is at least one of ko'a", whereas
{du ko'a} means "x1 is equal to (each) ko'a". When ko'a is a
singleton they are about the same, when it isn't, they aren't.>

Is this certified? It seems that there are a variety of interpretations=20
available, depending on what {ko'a} goes back to. And taken literally, the=
=20
intended interpretation here would force {ko'a} to refer to a single object=
=20
each time

<IRight. {me} is the only way to incorporate the definiteness of {le}
into the selbri.>
mi du le morsi mlatu (but that was already mentioned) -- and, as only a=20
referent of the phrase, {me} is inspecific (or indefinite or whatever). =
=20

<>Perhaps a better example would be the Walt Kelly quote, "We have met the=
=20
>enemy,
>and he is us." Is there any better way to translate that than {mi'o puzi=20
>penmi
>le bradi .ije ri du mi'o}?

That's strictly equivalent to: {mi'o le bradi puzi penmi gi'e du}>

Logically correct and yet totally wrong (not all that rare a situation, ala=
s).





--part1_bd.ed1c836.2843675a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=3D=
2>With apologies to Nick, who only wanted snap judgements, not thirty-day=20
<BR>debates.
<BR>lojbab:
<BR>[on {de'i}]&lt;&gt;
<BR>Thanks; that seems to best solution all around. &nbsp;And so, in the ca=
se of=20
<BR>letters, we usually go for the date written (the ambiguity here remains=
).
<BR>
<BR>[on {me}]&lt;&gt;The alternative I suppose is {ta me la ford karce} ins=
tead
<BR>&gt;of {ta me la ford}. Or maybe also {ta karcrforde}.
<BR>
<BR>ta srana/steci la ford
<BR>also works.=A0 A question is whether one really needs a predicate that=
=20
<BR>totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a FordIt refers to =
a date=20
<BR>associated with the letter.=A0 What exactly the date has=20
<BR>to do with the letter is ellipsized, associated with another place of d=
etri=20
<BR>and/or a sumti-raising therefrom.As to why the reasons for the change -=
I was=20
<BR>of the opinion that pc at the=20
<BR>time accepted the change, which was based on an argument from formal lo=
gic=20
<BR>by Randall Holmes, then serving as pc's "replacement" as TLI's resident=
=20
<BR>logician.&gt;
<BR>Well, "accept" isn't "agrees with" or even "understands." &nbsp;Does an=
yone=20
<BR>remember what RH's reasoning was? &nbsp;The main point, as I recall, fo=
r starting=20
<BR>the discussion back then was that JCB's original notion had gotten (que=
l=20
<BR>surprise!) pretty amorphous as he fit more and more things into his ori=
ginal=20
<BR>good idea. &nbsp;But the original idea was not so bad and I see that th=
ere is not=20
<BR>a replacement for it yet (xorxes' makes no coherent sense and lojbab's =
is not=20
<BR>a replacement).
<BR>
<BR>xorxes:
<BR>&lt;Probably the main one to avoid is {du lo broda}, which is
<BR>logically sound but means about the same as plain {broda}.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Actually, as one or the other Sir Wm. Hamilton showed, it means exactly=
the=20
<BR>same &nbsp;(with suitable modifications for langauge). &nbsp;It is bad =
style, but=20
<BR>pretty good logic (no too bad even logic, cf. Lesniewski). &nbsp;That a=
side=20
<BR>(incompetence, surely -- why will people take up a logical language and=
not=20
<BR>learn logic?), just why has identity, of all the logical primitives, fa=
llen=20
<BR>into disfavor? &nbsp;(I suppose that it is, as in the case of {ganai}, =
some=20
<BR>massive confusion of the sort dealt with in week 1 and again just after=
=20
<BR>midterm.)
<BR>
<BR>&lt;It should be noted that they are different though in one important
<BR>respect: {me ko'a} means "x1 is at least one of ko'a", whereas
<BR>{du ko'a} means "x1 is equal to (each) ko'a". When ko'a is a
<BR>singleton they are about the same, when it isn't, they aren't.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Is this certified? &nbsp;It seems that there are a variety of interpret=
ations=20
<BR>available, depending on what {ko'a} goes back to. &nbsp;And taken liter=
ally, the=20
<BR>intended interpretation here would force {ko'a} to refer to a single ob=
ject=20
<BR>each time
<BR>
<BR>&lt;IRight. {me} is the only way to incorporate the definiteness of {le=
}
<BR>into the selbri.&gt;
<BR>mi du le morsi mlatu (but that was already mentioned) -- and, as only a=
=20
<BR>referent of the phrase, {me} is inspecific (or indefinite or whatever).=
&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt;Perhaps a better example would be the Walt Kelly quote, "We hav=
e met the=20
<BR>&gt;enemy,
<BR>&gt;and he is us." Is there any better way to translate that than {mi'o=
puzi=20
<BR>&gt;penmi
<BR>&gt;le bradi .ije ri du mi'o}?
<BR>
<BR>That's strictly equivalent to: {mi'o le bradi puzi penmi gi'e du}&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Logically correct and yet totally wrong (not all that rare a situation,=
alas).
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_bd.ed1c836.2843675a_boundary--