again about "out of"

[Gleki Arxokuna]

There were discussions on how to say "out of".

http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9501/msg00080.html 

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Go+outside 

{fa'aze'o} says nothing about crossing the border. I can only think of {pagre} or just {klama}.

{pagre fi lo bartu be da fi da} or 

{klama lo bartu be vo'i}

Recently I've found a frequency dictionary of esperanto affixes and root words (mixed together). Here are top 50.

The list is largely unimportant for lojbanists. But look at #22. "out of" is among first 22 most frequent words of the language!

Seems like a possible flaw in lojban for not having such a short word. Hopefully "el" might have several meanings including simple {to'o}.

Still...

1 LA (the)

2 DE (of, from)

3 KAJ (and)

4 EN (in)

5 AL (to, towards)

6 MI (me, I)

7 ESTAS (am, is, are)

8 NE (no, not)

9 POR (for)

10 LI (he)

11 KE (conj. that)

12 PRI (about)

13 VI (you)

14 NI (we)

15 SED (but)

16 ESTIS (was, were)

17 ILI (they)

18 KUN (with)

19 KIU (who)

20 TIU (det. that)

21 TIO (pron. that)

22 EL (out of)

23 PLI (more)

24 KIEL (as)

25 ONI (pron. one)

26 ANKAU (also)

27 GHI (it)

28 PER (by, with)

29 SUR (on)

30 SE (if)

31 CHI (dem. this)

32 NUR (only)

33 DUM (during)

34 DIRIS (said)

35 POVAS (can)

36 DA (quant. of)

37 SHI (she)

38 KIUJ (which, pl.)

39 CHU (interrog.)

40 UNU (num. one)

41 KIAM (when)

42 NUN (now)

43 AU (or)

44 PRO (because of)

45 CHAR (because)

46 JAM (already)

47 NIA (our)

48 MIA (my)

49 CHE (at)

50 PLEJ (most)

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The list is largely unimportant for lojbanists. But look at #22. "out of" is
> among first 22 most frequent words of the language!
> Seems like a possible flaw in lojban for not having such a short word.
> Hopefully "el" might have several meanings including simple {to'o}.
> Still...

[...]
> 22 EL (out of)

Yes, the Esperanto preposition "el" has a much wider meaning than the
spatial "out of", it is also used for a more abstract or general
origin or provenance: "li estas el Francio" (he's from France), "krono
el floroj" (a crown of flowers), "unu el ili" (one of them).

For "out of" as opposite of "into" in Lojban I suggest "to'o ne'i":

lo gerku cu bajra to'o ne'i lo zdani
"The dog runs out of the house."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[John E Clifford]

I worry a bit about treating "out of" as a unit, separate from the verbs involved: "made out of" is very different from either "get out of" or from "go out of" or even from "be out of" in sevreal of its meanings.  And examples could multiply, not much of a common even very general meaning.

---

From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] again about "out of"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Escape Landsome]

Suppose I want to say : "He let the cat out of the bag"

(whis is a metaphor for "He let out concealed information")

How would I say that in Lojban ?

*** Please consider this : ***

I would like to keep the ability to make metaphors in Lojban.

So maybe, there should exist a way to say this in Lojban :

"I let out (the cat + the concealed information) out of (the bag +
what conceals)"

in such a way that it would use a special construction that binds
"cat" to "concealed info", and "bag" to "concealment". Thus, using
some other construction which I write here as "*", one could say
further :

"The *cat was interesting enough"

which would be understood as

"The (concealed information) was interesting"

*** So, is anybody interested by this ? ***

[selpa'i]

Am 29.07.2012 18:36, schrieb Escape Landsome:
> Suppose I want to say : "He let the cat out of the bag"
>
> (whis is a metaphor for "He let out concealed information")
>
> How would I say that in Lojban ?
>
> *** Please consider this : ***
>
> I would like to keep the ability to make metaphors in Lojban.

You do have the ability to make metaphors in Lojban.

> So maybe, there should exist a way to say this in Lojban :
>
> "I let out (the cat + the concealed information) out of (the bag +
> what conceals)"

If you explain the metaphor while using it, what's the point of having
the metaphor?
Still:
If {mi barcru lo mlatu lo dakli} means "I let out the cat out of the bag"

(1) mi barcru lo mlatu no'u lo se mipri lo dakli no'u lo gacri
"I let out the cat, which is hidden, out of the sack, which is the
conealer."

You could also say la mlatu, calling the hidden thing a cat but not
claiming that it is one, and similarly la dakli.

Of course, this metaphor might not be understood by everybody from every
country.

>
> in such a way that it would use a special construction that binds
> "cat" to "concealed info", and "bag" to "concealment". Thus, using
> some other construction which I write here as "*", one could say
> further :
>
> "The *cat was interesting enough"
>
> which would be understood as
>
> "The (concealed information) was interesting"

I don't understand why a "cat" should be used in this sentence. What's
the point?
If I understand correctly, you want to systematically import this (and
maybe other) metaphors for regular use (as in, following a rule) in any
desired context.
If people started using lo mlatu (or la mlatu) to regularly refer to a
concealed thing, Lojban might come dangerously close to natlang
territory, where what you say and what you mean are often not the same
thing.
Please explain your motivation for this.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

[John E Clifford]

Somehow, this misses the point of metaphors, which -- to beat the horse corpse again -- rely on a range of cultural background knowledge, lacking in cultureless (well, not really but you get the idea) Lojban.

---

From: Escape Landsome <esca...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 11:36 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] again about "out of"

[la .lindar.]

I'm sure selpa'i and tsani and all of that lot are going to tease me endlessly for this, but I came up with an experimental cmavo a while back when I did the BPFK work that addressed this very problem.

{te'i} from {to'e nenri} or {to'e + ne'i}.

It marks of what something is outside.

[Escape Landsome]

> If you explain the metaphor while using it, what's the point of having
> the metaphor?

Nobody ever said that a metaphor was intended to be necessarily
opaque. What I would like is some construction half-way metaphor, and
half-way lojbanic. This would need two new operators [see original
message].

> I don't understand why a "cat" should be used in this sentence. What's
> the point?

A metaphor has something to do with a cultural experience, that is,
some experience most speakers of the language have had, or which they
have been taught about, through their relatives.

Thus, the story of the cat out-of the bag, is the following : in
former days, when a merchant on a market wanted to sell a good
chicken, but had not the fowl, he put a cat in a bag, and sold the cat
as though it were a chicken. But, suppose the cat escaped from the
bag, the treachery came into light at that precise moment.

So, suppose some speakers of some language X, Y, Z... have the same
cultural foreground, which include this "story" or "experience" of the
cat-thing, then it is acceptable, on linguistic basis, to use this
language imagery to convey this meaning.

---

Now, either there is some cultural background common to everybody in
Lojbanistan (and the notions of lojban grammar are a part of such a
cultural background, so this background IS NON-EMPTY)...

or that is not the case.

In the former case, some metaphors should be possible to carry out.

In the latter, no metaphor can be produced, but at least some new
construction whose goal would be "to introduce instant and temporary
metaphors that have meaning during the interaction", should be
feasible.

I would say ( // and * would be two new lojban words ) :

"You really let the cat//info out-of the bag//concealment !"

And you would reply

"But the *cat was nearly dead..."

[tijlan]

On 30 July 2012 09:37, Escape Landsome <esca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, either there is some cultural background common to everybody in
> Lojbanistan (and the notions of lojban grammar are a part of such a
> cultural background, so this background IS NON-EMPTY)...
>
> or that is not the case.
>
> In the former case, some metaphors should be possible to carry out.
>
> In the latter, no metaphor can be produced, but at least some new
> construction whose goal would be "to introduce instant and temporary
> metaphors that have meaning during the interaction", should be
> feasible.
>
> I would say ( // and * would be two new lojban words ) :
>
> "You really let the cat//info out-of the bag//concealment !"
>
> And you would reply
>
> "But the *cat was nearly dead..."

You don't have to mark "cat" and "bag" separately as a metaphor. You
can mark your whole sentence as a metaphor: add {pe'a} at the
beginning.


mu'o

[Escape Landsome]

>> "You really let the cat//info out-of the bag//concealment !"
>>
>> And you would reply
>>
>> "But the *cat was nearly dead..."
>
> You don't have to mark "cat" and "bag" separately as a metaphor. You
> can mark your whole sentence as a metaphor: add {pe'a} at the
> beginning.

To be honest, it is not really a METAPHOR.

It is something intermediary between a METAPHOR and a FORMAL ANALOGY.

It is funny because it would be the first trope that is exclusive to lojban.

The // operator tells the speaker to "mix together" the meaning of two
broda, but not in a tanru form.

Rather in a way such that the * operator will recall the semantic of
broda when brode is said.

Thus I say first cat//info, mixing together the semantics of "cat" and
"piece of information"

Then when I say The *cat is dead, I mean that the info is Xed, where
X::die = info::cat.

I understand by formal analogy resolution that this means the info is
no longer available... (or is rotten)

Formal analogy resolution is regarded by AI folks as as much natural
as, say, addition or multiplication of real numbers

[Jacob Errington]

{to'e ne'i} as one cmavo doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and is likely to be added to the language, officially, I'd say. In fact, I've used {to'e ne'i} before, on more than one occasion.

mu'e mi'e la tsani

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/IGLBwWO6RzYJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[selpa'i]

Am 30.07.2012 12:15, schrieb Jacob Errington:

On 29 July 2012 23:13, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm sure selpa'i and tsani and all of that lot are going to tease me endlessly for this, but I came up with an experimental cmavo a while back when I did the BPFK work that addressed this very problem.

{te'i} from {to'e nenri} or {to'e + ne'i}.

It marks of what something is outside.

{to'e ne'i} as one cmavo doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, and is likely to be added to the language, officially, I'd say. In fact, I've used {to'e ne'i} before, on more than one occasion.

Yes, it's useful. However, it doesn't help for "walk out of the forest". The thing tagged by {te'i} or {to'e ne'i} doesn't talk about where you are coming from. I've used {to'o ne'i} "away from inside": mi cadzu to'o ne'i lo ricfoi.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[Gleki Arxokuna]

+1 for {to'o ne'i}.

Still it's not neutral for a semantically neutral language to have a word for "inside" but not have the word for "outside".

Of course, this leads to another, more global question: for how long shall lojbanists invent new cmavo for the sake of symmetry making the learning of the language harder and harder due to to a huge list of words?

We should really search for better algorithms (like reusing gismu, rephrasing jufra instead of imitating European languages).

[Jonathan Jones]

Why to'e nenri and not se nenri, just out of curiosity?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Dc_Z0jdYTGgJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
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 )