RE: "what i have for dinner"
And Rosta
>
> �li'osa'a But more importantly, "I wonder who..." can't be "for all x, I
> wonder whether x..." since there are a lot of x's that I do not know or
> believe about, and many that I actively believe do not exist. li'osa'a�
>
> ienai na'igo'i (as close as I could get to �Au contraire!�)
>
> Pe'i, in order to �wonder who came�, you ba'e must wonder if Julius C�sar
> came, or the number 4 zo'o, if only on a subconscious level (this
> level may
> be so deeply buried that it is part of diciding about whom to wonder, but
> it's still there).
>
> Ja'o, I think a good paraphrase of �mi kucli ledu'u makau klama� is �roda
> zo'u mi kucli lejei da klama� (even though it doesn't capture every nuance
> of the inarguably useful �kau�). Note my use of �jei�, the
> considerably less controversial truth-value abstactor, to translate the
> English �whether�.
People used to use {jei} for "whether", until it was realized that if
le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da zo'u mi kucli
TRUE -- which is not what you want to claim at all. Simplifying somewhat,
I suggested a couple of years ago something loosely along the lines of
ro da ro de poi jei da klama zo'u mi djica le nu mi djuno le du'u
de jei da klama
I initiated the thread last month because this 'solution' didn't seem to
generalize to all cases where English subordinate interrogatives or
Lojban {kau} could be used. And I *still* haven't found the requisite
mental athleticism to get to grips with the solutions proposed by
others yet!
--And.
la kinin
wonder whether x..." since there are a lot of x's that I do not know or
believe about, and many that I actively believe do not exist. li'osa'a�
ienai na'igo'i (as close as I could get to �Au contraire!�)
Pe'i, in order to �wonder who came�, you ba'e must wonder if Julius C�sar
came, or the number 4 zo'o, if only on a subconscious level (this level may
be so deeply buried that it is part of diciding about whom to wonder, but
it's still there).
Ja'o, I think a good paraphrase of �mi kucli ledu'u makau klama� is �roda
zo'u mi kucli lejei da klama� (even though it doesn't capture every nuance
of the inarguably useful �kau�). Note my use of �jei�, the considerably less
controversial truth-value abstactor, to translate the English �whether�.
co'omi'e la kinin. noi pilno lei lojbo valsi ne'i lo'e glico jufra ku noda
.i sei ganai da'i e'o do te pinka di'u. a dei gi mi se pluka
trevor hill
> Kinin:
> > �People used to use {jei} for "whether", until it was
> > le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da
> zo'u mi kucli
I believe that we are not defining terms specifically enough here, in regard
to references to values and the values themselves... I think i've brought
this point up before, in a more general context, but ....
I think that a predicate inside jei should in its entirety evaluate to "the
truth value of <predicate>", which is a predicate itself that need not be
"evaluated" so to speak.
If we automatically evaluate everything we say, in this sense, we will be
speaking nonsense. The meaning is in the _unevaluated_ bridi and sumti...
not in the final truth value........... for instance:
If i say in english "I am a dog", this is false, but it's not the same thing
as saying "false"....
I've never studied linguistics formally, but i'm sure some of you can work
out from here how to solve this problem.... :)
co'o
mi'e trevyr.
la kinin
le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da zo'u mi kucli
TRUE -- which is not what you want to claim at all. li'osa'a�
It is!? Let's break it down:
le
one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-as
jei
being-a-truth-value-of
da klama
X goes
I hate to cite references, but the exact same construct (in the same
context) is used in example 11.7.6 of the Reference Grammar (ta'o, does this
book have a Lojban name?)
Says,
la xarnu kinin
Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)
> > Kinin:
> > > �People used to use {jei} for "whether", until it was
> > realized that if
> > > le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da
> > zo'u mi kucli
> > > TRUE -- which is not what you want to claim at all. li'osa'a�
>
>to references to values and the values themselves... I think i've brought
>this point up before, in a more general context, but ....
>
>I think that a predicate inside jei should in its entirety evaluate to "the
>truth value of <predicate>",
No, that is the x1 of "jei predicate", which is what is accessed by "le jei".
> which is a predicate itself that need not be "evaluated" so to speak.
Predicates do not need to be evaluated. But their places may have
values. the problem being posed here is for a case where there is a value
and it is known. The problem in "kucli le jei broda" is one of sumti
raising. We are really kucli le du'u broda, being curious about the
specific desired fact. I believe the reference grammar example uses
"jdice" which might or might not work with jei.
>If we automatically evaluate everything we say, in this sense, we will be
>speaking nonsense. The meaning is in the _unevaluated_ bridi and sumti...
>not in the final truth value........... for instance:
>
>If i say in english "I am a dog", this is false, but it's not the same thing
>as saying "false"....
But "the truth value of 'I am a dog'" equates to "false".
The main problem I see with these constructs is that of losing context.
If I say "I know the truth value of broda" and that truth value is "true",
then there is loss of information to say "I know 'true'"/
lojbab
----
lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.
And Rosta
> �People used to use {jei} for "whether", until it was realized that if
> le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da zo'u mi kucli
> TRUE -- which is not what you want to claim at all. li'osa'a�
>
>
> le
> one-or-more-specific-things-each-of-which-I-describe-as
>
> jei
> being-a-truth-value-of
>
> da klama
> X goes
Correct.
> I hate to cite references, but the exact same construct (in the same
> context) is used in example 11.7.6 of the Reference Grammar
This has come up on the list before, IIRC. I have a vague recollection that
it was acknowledged as an error, though not necessarily an error of the kind
that LLG is obliged to list as such. John?
> (ta'o, does this book have a Lojban name?)
{la codeksuoldemar}? {le lojbo zei cukta}?
--And.