Possessives
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Annie
Nov 24, 2012, 4:04:13 PM11/24/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
How do you make a word possessive in Lojban? Also, what are the pronouns in Lojban?
Sent from my iPod
*** This Email was sent by a student at School for the Blind.
Sent from my iPod
*** This Email was sent by a student at School for the Blind.
Remo Dentato
Nov 24, 2012, 4:36:03 PM11/24/12
to lojban-beginners
For possessive you have many option.
1. using {pe} to indicate an association: "my room (where I sleep)" -> { lo kumfa pe mi }
2. using {po} to indicate possession: "my room (that I own)" -> { lo kumfa po mi }
3. using one of the personal pro-sumti: "my room (in an unspecified sense" -> { lo mi kunfa }
4. using the dedicated su,ti place like in "my father" -> { lo patfu be mi }
The role of pronouns is played, in Lojban, by the pro-sumti. Note that they are not exactly the same! It's better not to try to translate English concepts directly into Lojban. It's much better to understand how things work in Lojban and then try to use them to express what you want to say.
If you're just asking for personal pronouns the first and second person is covered by:
{mi} -> me (the speaker)
{do} -> you (the listener)
{ko} -> you (imperative)
{do'o} -> you and others but not me
{mi'o} -> you and me but not others
{ma'a} -> me, you and others
{mi'a} -> me and others but not you
For third person one uses the assignable pro-sumti {ko'V} and {fo'V} or a the first letter of the sumti you want to refer to.
I saw a dog. it was running -> {mi viska lo gerku goi ko'a .i ko'a bajra}
I saw a dog. it was running -> {mi viska lo gerku .i gy. bajra}
co'o mu'o mi'e la remod
1. using {pe} to indicate an association: "my room (where I sleep)" -> { lo kumfa pe mi }
2. using {po} to indicate possession: "my room (that I own)" -> { lo kumfa po mi }
3. using one of the personal pro-sumti: "my room (in an unspecified sense" -> { lo mi kunfa }
4. using the dedicated su,ti place like in "my father" -> { lo patfu be mi }
The role of pronouns is played, in Lojban, by the pro-sumti. Note that they are not exactly the same! It's better not to try to translate English concepts directly into Lojban. It's much better to understand how things work in Lojban and then try to use them to express what you want to say.
If you're just asking for personal pronouns the first and second person is covered by:
{mi} -> me (the speaker)
{do} -> you (the listener)
{ko} -> you (imperative)
{do'o} -> you and others but not me
{mi'o} -> you and me but not others
{ma'a} -> me, you and others
{mi'a} -> me and others but not you
For third person one uses the assignable pro-sumti {ko'V} and {fo'V} or a the first letter of the sumti you want to refer to.
I saw a dog. it was running -> {mi viska lo gerku goi ko'a .i ko'a bajra}
I saw a dog. it was running -> {mi viska lo gerku .i gy. bajra}
co'o mu'o mi'e la remod
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
ianek
Nov 24, 2012, 5:08:33 PM11/24/12
to Lojban Beginners
Unless I'm wrong, {lo mi kumfa} and {lo kumfa pe mi} have exactly the
same meaning.
There are also other ways, but those listed by remod are the most
important.
And, you misspelled "sumti" as "su,ti". No need to confuse Annie more
than necessary (zo'o)
Capital V in {ko'V} and {fo'V} means any vowel of a, e, i, o, u
(there's a total of ten third person pro-sumti, not counting
letterals).
mu'o mi'e ianek
same meaning.
There are also other ways, but those listed by remod are the most
important.
And, you misspelled "sumti" as "su,ti". No need to confuse Annie more
than necessary (zo'o)
Capital V in {ko'V} and {fo'V} means any vowel of a, e, i, o, u
(there's a total of ten third person pro-sumti, not counting
letterals).
mu'o mi'e ianek
Jonathan Jones
Nov 24, 2012, 5:34:16 PM11/24/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Unless I'm wrong, {lo mi kumfa} and {lo kumfa pe mi} have exactly the
same meaning.
They do. {lo mi kumfa} is literally just shorthand for {lo kumfa pe mi}.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
Annie
Nov 24, 2012, 5:45:18 PM11/24/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
How can there possibly be ten thirdcomperson prosumti? Do they all mean he, she, it, or they, or is there some hidden meanings I didn't know about? What are the actual words?a
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
Jonathan Jones
Nov 24, 2012, 6:39:33 PM11/24/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
How can there possibly be ten thirdcomperson prosumti?
There's actually more than 10, if you count the first-letter kind.
Do they all mean he, she, it, or they, or is there some hidden meanings I didn't know about?
Yes and yes. Unlike in English, where "he" for example can be a different person each time (, "Bob and Jerry went to the store. He bought apples while he went to the bathroom."), in Lojban each of the prosumti always refer to the same thing. With the go'V and fo'V series, what they are referring to is usually explicitly mentioned with {goi}. For instance, if I said
{la.djan. goi ko'a barda}, it means
"John, who will henceforth be referred to by 'ko'a', is big.",
and from then on, whenever I say {ko'a}, it means that particular John.
What are the actual words?
ko'a, ko'e, ko'i, ko'o, ko'u, fo'a, fo'e, fo'i, fo'o, and fo'u are the prosumti variables (, meaning they don't refer to anything until they've been assigned, either explicitly with {goi} or implicitly via context). The consonants (cy., dy., fy., gy., etc.) can also be prosumti, and when used as such, refer to the most recent sumti beginning with that letter:
{la.djan. nelci lo plise .i dy. barda .i py. kukte}
"John likes apples. John is big. Apples are tasty."
Remo Dentato
Nov 24, 2012, 6:43:01 PM11/24/12
to lojban-beginners
There are even more than ten. The point is that our pronouns we use are highly ambigous.
If I say: "Sam met Mark. He was sad" who is the sad one? You can't tell.
In Lojban you can assign a pro-sumti to make this explicit:
if Sam was the sad one: { la .sem. goi ko'a penmi la .mark. .i ko'a badri }
if Mark was the sad one: { la .sem. penmi la .mark. goi ko'a .i ko'a badri }
Once assigned, {ko'a} will always have the same referent unless it is reassigned.
But you can also simply use the first letter of the sumti as a pro-sumti:
{ la .sam. penmi la .mark. i sy. badri }
{ la .sam. penmi la .mark. i my. badri }
The rule here is that a letter refers with the last sumti that started with that letter.
You can also assign letters, in which case they retain their referent throughout the text. If you say:
{ la .sam. goi sy. penmi la .mark. }
the letter {sy} will always refer to Sam in the following text.
It is subject to discussion whether using an unassigned pro-sumti is to be considered "good Lojban" or not.
If you structure your Lojban sentences carefully, you'll see that you won't need the third person much.
For example:
{ la .sam. poi badri cu penmi la .mark. }
If I say: "Sam met Mark. He was sad" who is the sad one? You can't tell.
In Lojban you can assign a pro-sumti to make this explicit:
if Sam was the sad one: { la .sem. goi ko'a penmi la .mark. .i ko'a badri }
if Mark was the sad one: { la .sem. penmi la .mark. goi ko'a .i ko'a badri }
Once assigned, {ko'a} will always have the same referent unless it is reassigned.
But you can also simply use the first letter of the sumti as a pro-sumti:
{ la .sam. penmi la .mark. i sy. badri }
{ la .sam. penmi la .mark. i my. badri }
The rule here is that a letter refers with the last sumti that started with that letter.
You can also assign letters, in which case they retain their referent throughout the text. If you say:
{ la .sam. goi sy. penmi la .mark. }
the letter {sy} will always refer to Sam in the following text.
It is subject to discussion whether using an unassigned pro-sumti is to be considered "good Lojban" or not.
If you structure your Lojban sentences carefully, you'll see that you won't need the third person much.
For example:
{ la .sam. poi badri cu penmi la .mark. }
Michael Turniansky
Nov 26, 2012, 2:18:04 PM11/26/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
And there are even more, that haven't been mentioned in this discussion, like ri, ra and ru, (basically the most recently mentioned thing, something mentioned further back, and something even further back) vo'a, vo'e, vo'i, vo'o, and vo'u (the first through fifth sumti associated with the main bridi in this utterance), ti, ta, tu, ("pointing" indicators to things in the real world -- this, that, that over yonder), ways to refer to the sentences you are actually saying, etc. Refer to chapter 7 of the grammar for the complete list and details. The equivalent of pronouns in lojban are complicated enough to warrant an entire chapter.
--gejyspa
--gejyspa
Annie
Nov 26, 2012, 11:07:40 PM11/26/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
How can pronouns be so complicated that you have to have a whole chapter on them?
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
Jonathan Jones
Nov 26, 2012, 11:14:54 PM11/26/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
How can pronouns be so complicated that you have to have a whole chapter on them?
Remo Dentato
Nov 27, 2012, 1:55:35 AM11/27/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, Annie wrote:
How can pronouns be so complicated that you have to have a whole chapter on them?
It only seems complicated because you are thinking about them in terms of pronouns.
In lojban there are no "nouns" and, hence, no "pronouns".
Once you get the basic concepts of sumti and selbri, it will be easier.Exactly as {lo plise ku} is a sumti the refers to "an apple", {mi} is a sumti that refers to the current speaker, {ko'a} is a sumti that refers to whatever I had assigned to it, {ti} refers to something that is close to me and I'm pointing at and so on.
This is what we intended when we said that it is better not to try to make direct comparisons between Lojban and English (or any other language). It may be useful at the beginning but should not be talen too far.
remod
Annie
Nov 27, 2012, 12:12:35 PM11/27/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
what do you d if a word has, for example, more than one x1 or whatever?
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
Remo Dentato
Nov 27, 2012, 2:50:29 PM11/27/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
By definition, any selbri has one, and only one, "x1".
"x1" is the conventional name we use to indicate the first sumti place, "x2" is the second sumti place and so on.
It's not a strict rule, you can use othe means to indicate the sumti places of a selbri. Still there can only be one first place, one second place etc.
"x1" is the conventional name we use to indicate the first sumti place, "x2" is the second sumti place and so on.
It's not a strict rule, you can use othe means to indicate the sumti places of a selbri. Still there can only be one first place, one second place etc.
remod
Pierre Abbat
Nov 27, 2012, 5:08:42 PM11/27/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:12:35 Annie wrote:
> what do you d if a word has, for example, more than one x1 or whatever?
You say "fa" twice:
> what do you d if a word has, for example, more than one x1 or whatever?
fa la .djan. klama le ckule fa le brata pe la .lizbet.
This gives you no clue whether John is Lizbeth's brother or what. It's like
sticking two feet in one shoe, and is very rarely done.
Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
Jonathan Jones
Nov 27, 2012, 6:22:26 PM11/27/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Annie <park....@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
what do you d if a word has, for example, more than one x1 or whatever?
If you mean more than one x1 place, then, as remo said, that's not possible. If you mean an x1 place with more than one thing in it, then you can do as Pierre explained- which is nearly never done, considering how awkward it is, or you can use connectives, which is much more common and useful.
For example:
{la.maris. .e mi nelci lo gerku}
"Mary and I like dogs."
Connectives also have their own chapter in the CLL, so I won't get into them here.
Michael Turniansky
Nov 27, 2012, 6:35:18 PM11/27/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
Which does bring in an interesting philosophic question (which maybe Annie was alluding to): If you used vo'a in that sentence, what would it refer to? la djan? le bruna be la lizbet (which is what I assume you meant to write, not "brata") or both? ("fa la djan. klama le ckule fa le bruna pe la lizbet. lo zdani be vo'a") But that's outside the scope of a beginner's list.
--gejyspa
Pierre Abbat
Nov 28, 2012, 12:16:07 AM11/28/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 18:35:18 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> Which does bring in an interesting philosophic question (which maybe
> Annie was alluding to): If you used vo'a in that sentence, what would it
> refer to? la djan? le bruna be la lizbet (which is what I assume you meant
> to write, not "brata") or both? ("fa la djan. klama le ckule fa le bruna pe
> la lizbet. lo zdani be vo'a") But that's outside the scope of a beginner's
> list.
Yes of course "bruna". "brata" is Tok Pisin. I consider the referent of "vo'a"
> Which does bring in an interesting philosophic question (which maybe
> Annie was alluding to): If you used vo'a in that sentence, what would it
> refer to? la djan? le bruna be la lizbet (which is what I assume you meant
> to write, not "brata") or both? ("fa la djan. klama le ckule fa le bruna pe
> la lizbet. lo zdani be vo'a") But that's outside the scope of a beginner's
> list.
in that sentence unclear.
Pierre
--
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji
Jonathan Jones
Nov 28, 2012, 12:20:49 AM11/28/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
Doesn't a double-FA evaluate to something like {la .djan. ju'e le brata pe la .lizbet. klama le ckule}? I'm not certain that's the right connective, btw.
Pierre
--
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
Michael Turniansky
Nov 28, 2012, 10:34:01 AM11/28/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org> wrote:On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 18:35:18 Michael Turniansky wrote:Yes of course "bruna". "brata" is Tok Pisin. I consider the referent of "vo'a"
> Which does bring in an interesting philosophic question (which maybe
> Annie was alluding to): If you used vo'a in that sentence, what would it
> refer to? la djan? le bruna be la lizbet (which is what I assume you meant
> to write, not "brata") or both? ("fa la djan. klama le ckule fa le bruna pe
> la lizbet. lo zdani be vo'a") But that's outside the scope of a beginner's
> list.
in that sentence unclear.
Doesn't a double-FA evaluate to something like {la .djan. ju'e le brata pe la .lizbet. klama le ckule}? I'm not certain that's the right connective, btw.
I would agree with that. I think it's kind of ironic to express uncertainty of a a word with vague meaning, though. Doesn't vagueness subsume uncertainty?
--gejyspa
Annie
Nov 29, 2012, 12:07:15 PM11/29/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
What does vo'a mean?
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
>
Michael Turniansky
Nov 29, 2012, 12:42:58 PM11/29/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
vo'a means "the thing that is the first sumti (argument), in the main bridi in this sentence (That is, "x1")" (vo'e means the second, and so forth). So for example, a sentence like "lo mlatu poi vo'e citkygau cu prami lo ponse be vo'a" means "A cat which is fed by its owner loves them" (but more literally, it means "a cat which the second thing in this sentence feeds loves the owner of the first thing in this sentence") There are many other ways to say this of course, but this is just for example.
--gejyspa
--gejyspa
Pierre Abbat
Nov 30, 2012, 12:15:41 PM11/30/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, November 30, 2012 09:00:23 huge...@hotmail.com wrote:
> How does {se / te / ve / xe} affect {vo'a}?
> For example, let's say in your sentence, we use {se prami}, and move some
> stuff around.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> "lo ponse be vo'e cu se prami lo mlatu poi vo'a citkygau"
> or
> "lo ponse be vo'a cu se prami lo mlatu poi vo'e citkygau"
> or
> something else?
The first. The second means that someone owns himself and the cat feeds
herself. The selbri is "se prami".
Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko
> How does {se / te / ve / xe} affect {vo'a}?
> For example, let's say in your sentence, we use {se prami}, and move some
> stuff around.
>
> Which is correct?
>
> "lo ponse be vo'e cu se prami lo mlatu poi vo'a citkygau"
> or
> "lo ponse be vo'a cu se prami lo mlatu poi vo'e citkygau"
> or
> something else?
The first. The second means that someone owns himself and the cat feeds
herself. The selbri is "se prami".
Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko
Annie
Nov 30, 2012, 12:20:16 PM11/30/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
How can two words be one selbri?
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
Michael Turniansky
Nov 30, 2012, 1:27:03 PM11/30/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
Well, a selbri is just the description of relationship between one or more things (sumti (arguments)). It often ROUGHLY corresponds to a verb in natural languages. Just like in English "Pierre is a good friend of Annie" or "I will go to the mall", "is a good friend of" or "will go to" describes the relationships between Pierre and Annie or me and the mall in more than one word, lojban does the same. "la pier. cu pendo la anis." is "Pierre is a friend of Annie" And "la pier cu
mutce pendo la anis" would be "Pierre is a good friend of Annie". The selbri in the first is "pendo", and in the second "mutce pendo" "I go to the mall" is "mi klama lo zarci" while "I will go to the mall" is "mi ba klama lo zarci" The selbri in the first is "klama", in the second "ba klama".
mutce pendo la anis" would be "Pierre is a good friend of Annie". The selbri in the first is "pendo", and in the second "mutce pendo" "I go to the mall" is "mi klama lo zarci" while "I will go to the mall" is "mi ba klama lo zarci" The selbri in the first is "klama", in the second "ba klama".
--gejyspa
Remo Dentato
Nov 30, 2012, 2:22:27 PM11/30/12
to lojban-beginners
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:00 PM, <huge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How does {se / te / ve / xe} affect {vo'a}?
[...[
I guess my question boils down to "Does {se/te/ve/xe} change that which is called x1?
Yes, it does. The x1 of the selbri { prami } is the lover, the x1 of the selbri {se prami} is the loved one and {vo'a} always refers to x1.
remod
Annie
Dec 1, 2012, 6:02:32 PM12/1/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
Why would you use fa twice?
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
Annie
Dec 1, 2012, 6:09:45 PM12/1/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
What if, for example, two people gave one thing !one or more people? Wouldn't that be more than one x1 and, mazbe more than one x3?
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
Michael Turniansky
Dec 2, 2012, 10:07:47 AM12/2/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
Normally, you would use a connective, like "la djan .e la djim dunda lo djine la meris" (John and Jim gave a ring to Mary, which would mean they each gave her a ring) or "a djan jo'u la djim dunda lo djine la meris" (John along with Jim gave a ring to Mary). In these cases, the x1 is the whole connected give "John and Jim", "John along with Jim")
--gejyspa
Jacob Errington
Dec 2, 2012, 10:49:38 AM12/2/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
I'm joking far more than I'm serious in saying this, but considering that {lo djine} is a constant, wouldn't {la .djan. e la .djim. dunda lo djine la .meris.} mean that they each gave her *the same* ring :P ?
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
Michael Turniansky
Dec 3, 2012, 7:52:09 AM12/3/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
Yes, I believe it would, although I don't know if xorlo affects that. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't. The second sentence would be one instance of giving (e.g they presented it to her together). But the first sentence (to me) would still imply they both gave her a particular ring (since it's only specified once), but they might have given it to her at different times.
--gejyspa
Jonathan Jones
Dec 3, 2012, 7:57:07 AM12/3/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I believe it would, although I don't know if xorlo affects that. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't. The second sentence would be one instance of giving (e.g they presented it to her together). But the first sentence (to me) would still imply they both gave her a particular ring (since it's only specified once), but they might have given it to her at different times.--gejyspa
I don't think so, as that places specificity on the generic article. {le djine} would most certainly mean they both give her the same ring, but {lo djine} means "one or more things which actually are a ring or torus". If John gives her a donut, and Jim gives her an inner tube, then the statement {la .djan. e la .djim. dunda lo djine la .meris.} is still true.
--
Michael Turniansky
Dec 3, 2012, 8:53:51 AM12/3/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, I believe it would, although I don't know if xorlo affects that. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't. The second sentence would be one instance of giving (e.g they presented it to her together). But the first sentence (to me) would still imply they both gave her a particular ring (since it's only specified once), but they might have given it to her at different times.--gejyspa
I don't think so, as that places specificity on the generic article. {le djine} would most certainly mean they both give her the same ring, but {lo djine} means "one or more things which actually are a ring or torus". If John gives her a donut, and Jim gives her an inner tube, then the statement {la .djan. e la .djim. dunda lo djine la .meris.} is still true.
I don't know if either part of that is true. If we said "la djan dunda lo djine la meris .ije la djim dunda lo djine la meris" (which according to the CLL 14.6 is exactly equivalent to the original sentence) then we can be talking about different rings/sets of rings. The only uncertainity I expressed is whether xorlo changes that equivalence. But using "le" doesn't change that fact. But if you just meant something about how "lo" can refer to more than one thing, "le" also can. And, if we used "joi" as the connective, one or the other may not have given her anything. But all of this was outside the scope of the original quesiton
--gejyspa
la gleki
Dec 3, 2012, 9:00:18 AM12/3/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Monday, December 3, 2012 5:53:51 PM UTC+4, Michael Turniansky wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, I believe it would, although I don't know if xorlo affects that. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't. The second sentence would be one instance of giving (e.g they presented it to her together). But the first sentence (to me) would still imply they both gave her a particular ring (since it's only specified once), but they might have given it to her at different times.--gejyspa
I don't think so, as that places specificity on the generic article. {le djine} would most certainly mean they both give her the same ring, but {lo djine} means "one or more things which actually are a ring or torus". If John gives her a donut, and Jim gives her an inner tube, then the statement {la .djan. e la .djim. dunda lo djine la .meris.} is still true.I don't know if either part of that is true. If we said "la djan dunda lo djine la meris .ije la djim dunda lo djine la meris" (which according to the CLL 14.6 is exactly equivalent to the original sentence) then we can be talking about different rings/sets of rings. The only uncertainity I expressed is whether xorlo changes that equivalence. But using "le" doesn't change that fact. But if you just meant something about how "lo" can refer to more than one thing, "le" also can. And, if we used "joi" as the connective, one or the other may not have given her anything. But all of this was outside the scope of the original quesiton
I won't use {le} as it's definition and usage is definitely broken. But I think {lo bi'unai djine} can easily solve the problem (if there was only one ring mentioned before)
--gejyspa
--gejyspa
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
*** This Email was sent by a student at School for the Blind. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Annie
Dec 4, 2012, 11:57:40 AM12/4/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
There are two situNs that can occur. First, there can be where two people each gave a ring !the person. On the other hand, they both, together, could have given the person the ring. Therefore, I don't know how, you have !specifiy which one it is.
Sent from my iPod
Sent from my iPod
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/eomLqYD836AJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
selpa'i
Dec 29, 2012, 5:19:34 PM12/29/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
la tsani cu retsku di'e
djine (with old-lo) = "at least one of all the rings there are".
With old-lo:
(1) la djan e la djim cu dunda [su'o] lo djine la meris
The ".e" has scope over "su'o", so both John and Jim give at least one
ring to Mary. It doesn't say that they give the same ring (and they
probably don't).
If you wanted both of them to give Mary the same ring, you'd have to
move the PA lo djine in front of the ".e" to fix the scope:
(2) pa da poi djine zo'u la djan e la djim cu dunda da la meris
"There exists [exactly] one ring, such that both John and jim give
it to Mary."
xorlo affects this in that it removes default quantifiers from all sumti
(except da), which means scope no longer plays a role when using a
description like "lo djine".
The vagueness remains in the xorlo version, however; It is not specified
if they both give the same ring to Mary or not in:
(3) la djan e la djim cu dunda lo djine la meris
All it says that they give a ring.
Again, a quantifier with scope over the ".e" can be introduced to have
both of them give the same ring to Mary as in (2).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
> I'm joking far more than I'm serious in saying this, but considering
> that {lo djine} is a constant, wouldn't {la .djan. e la .djim. dunda
> lo djine la .meris.} mean that they each gave her *the same* ring :P ?
la gejyspa cu spusku di'e
> that {lo djine} is a constant, wouldn't {la .djan. e la .djim. dunda
> lo djine la .meris.} mean that they each gave her *the same* ring :P ?
> Yes, I believe it would, although I don't know if xorlo affects
> that. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't. The second sentence would be
> one instance of giving (e.g they presented it to her together). But the
> first sentence (to me) would still imply they both gave her a particular
> ring (since it's only specified once), but they might have given it to
> her at different times.
xorlo does and doesn't affect this. Prior to xorlo, lo djine = su'o lo
> that. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't. The second sentence would be
> one instance of giving (e.g they presented it to her together). But the
> first sentence (to me) would still imply they both gave her a particular
> ring (since it's only specified once), but they might have given it to
> her at different times.
djine (with old-lo) = "at least one of all the rings there are".
With old-lo:
(1) la djan e la djim cu dunda [su'o] lo djine la meris
The ".e" has scope over "su'o", so both John and Jim give at least one
ring to Mary. It doesn't say that they give the same ring (and they
probably don't).
If you wanted both of them to give Mary the same ring, you'd have to
move the PA lo djine in front of the ".e" to fix the scope:
(2) pa da poi djine zo'u la djan e la djim cu dunda da la meris
"There exists [exactly] one ring, such that both John and jim give
it to Mary."
xorlo affects this in that it removes default quantifiers from all sumti
(except da), which means scope no longer plays a role when using a
description like "lo djine".
The vagueness remains in the xorlo version, however; It is not specified
if they both give the same ring to Mary or not in:
(3) la djan e la djim cu dunda lo djine la meris
All it says that they give a ring.
Again, a quantifier with scope over the ".e" can be introduced to have
both of them give the same ring to Mary as in (2).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
Felipe Gonçalves Assis
Dec 29, 2012, 8:08:20 PM12/29/12
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
My first opinion on this is that you should be careful of not scaring
people in the beginners list.
Please move the discussion to the main list.
With regards to "multiple xn", Annie, you should do fine connecting
sumti with {jo'u}.
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
people in the beginners list.
Please move the discussion to the main list.
With regards to "multiple xn", Annie, you should do fine connecting
sumti with {jo'u}.
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages