From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 02 18:55:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 01:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 29132 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 01:55:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 01:55:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 01:55:11 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.16]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010803015509.LHJX20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:55:09 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] vliju'a Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:54:03 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xod: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > Xod: > > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > tu'o ka ce'u djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa > > > > > > .oi ki'u ma cusku zo tu'o .i na mapti > > > > It was a recent excellent suggestion of Jorge's in > > response to my complaint about having to use a quantifier > > even to quantify over noncontingently singleton categories > > (i.e. categories that are singletons in all worlds). Jorge > > suggested using {tu'o} as a vacuous quantifier. > > Is this different from le pa broda? Yes. {le} is nonveridical. And {le/lo pa broda} still does not indicate the noncontingency of the singletonhood. > > This had been bugging me for years, so I seized on Jorge's > > suggestion avidly. > > > > Anyway, you could happily rephrase my version as > > {ro ka ce'u djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa}, or {lo'e ka ce'u > > djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa} [that is not a llambian lo'e]. > > > > > .i ji'a ka'u zo ce'u na sarcu fi le > > > du'u le 1mei tergismu cu stuzi zo ce'u > > > > Probably, but neither djuno nor vlipa is monadic (1mei > > tergismu). Or do I misunderstand your point? > > Doh! I meant 1moi, not 1mei! Oh I see. I dislike the convention for several reasons: (1) I dislike conventions, which are weaker than rules, because one can't be sure when the convention is being followed and when it isn't. (2) The convention conflicts with the principle that empty sumti places are interpreted using the most appropriate value for the context, so for example in a discussion about visibility, {ka viska kei} should be interpretable as {ka zo'e viska ce'u kei}. (3) The convention encourages gardenpathing (i.e. when you parse & interpret the utterance incrementally left to right, and then hit a word that shows you that earlier in the utterance you took a wrong course). So {ka djuno le du'u do jinvi mi viska ce'u} is likely to be misparsed as {ka ce'u djuno le du'u do jinvi mi viska} until the {ce'u} is reached. (4) Even when there is an explicit {ce'u} as in {ka prami ce'u}, there's a risk of this being interpreted as {ka ce'u prami ce'u} [which means something like "Love"]. The way this should be avoided is to not omit any ce'u, but if the convention is operative then one must also remember to use an explicit zo'e -- {ka zo'e prami ce'u} -- to avoid being misinterpreted. Indeed, we could do with an experimental cmavo that guarantees that no ce'u has been omitted -- {kau'u} in NU, which when ce'u-less is equivalent to {du'u}. Objections (1-3) also apply to the similar convention pertaining to {ke'a}. --And.