"Any" and {ro}

[la gleki]

I couldn't reply to the post (due to server error every time i tried to send my reply) so I'm creating another topic.

This is really an interesting question.

*Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?

I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all" ({ro}) but I can't describe it.

On Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:22:11 PM UTC+4, John Cowan wrote:

Our friends in the Loglan community are beginning to worry about "any", too,
it seems.

----- Forwarded message from Rex May - Baloo <rm...@mac.com> -----

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:54:03 -0700
From: Rex May - Baloo <rm...@mac.com>
To: loglan <logla...@ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <BA9E0ADB....@mac.com>
Subject: [loglanists] "Any"

How does Loglan express 'any' in the sense of:

Which book do you want?
Any.

Meaning that I'll take one of the books, it doesn't matter which.

-- 
>PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rm...@mac.com
> Rex F. May (Baloo)
> Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp
> Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm
> Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm
>Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ceqli/

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
"May the hair on your toes never fall out!"     John Cowan
        --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo)         jco...@reutershealth.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[selpa'i]

Am 15.08.2012 14:35, schrieb la gleki:

I couldn't reply to the post (due to server error every time i tried to send my reply) so I'm creating another topic.

This is really an interesting question.

*Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?

I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all" ({ro}) but I can't describe it.

Logically, "any" is su'o/ro/no:
mi na ponse [su'o] da  (same as mi ponse no da)
I don't have anything.

xu do ponse [su'o] da
Do you possess anything?

For the sentence in question ("Which book do you want?" — "I'll take any"), you can also use su'o:
A: ma poi cukta cu jai se djica do
B: su'o boi cy / su'o lo cukta

The emphasis seems different, which is why I personally like to use {ma kau} for some of these cases.
mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
I want to go wherever

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

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

[la gleki]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:04:33 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 15.08.2012 14:35, schrieb la gleki:

I couldn't reply to the post (due to server error every time i tried to send my reply) so I'm creating another topic.

This is really an interesting question.

*Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?

I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all" ({ro}) but I can't describe it.

Logically, "any" is su'o/ro/no:
mi na ponse [su'o] da  (same as mi ponse no da)
I don't have anything.

xu do ponse [su'o] da
Do you possess anything?

For the sentence in question ("Which book do you want?" — "I'll take any"), you can also use su'o:
A: ma poi cukta cu jai se djica do
B: su'o boi cy / su'o lo cukta

The emphasis seems different, which is why I personally like to use {ma kau} for some of these cases.
mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
I want to go wherever

The same for "anywhere, anytime, anyway"?

[selpa'i]

Am 15.08.2012 15:33, schrieb la gleki:

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:04:33 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 15.08.2012 14:35, schrieb la gleki:

I couldn't reply to the post�(due to server error every time i tried to send my reply)�so I'm creating another topic.

This is really an interesting question.

*Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?

I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all" ({ro}) but I can't describe it.

Logically, "any" is su'o/ro/no:

mi na ponse [su'o] da� (same as mi ponse no da)

I don't have anything.

xu do ponse [su'o] da
Do you possess anything?

For the sentence in question ("Which book do you want?" � "I'll take any"), you can also use su'o:

A: ma poi cukta cu jai se djica do
B: su'o boi cy / su'o lo cukta

The emphasis seems different, which is why I personally like to use {ma kau} for some of these cases.
mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
I want to go wherever

The same for "anywhere,�anytime,�anyway"?

All those things are the same thing, just in different sumti places. You can say
mi citka ma kau
mi citka ca ma kau
mi citka bu'u ma kau
mi citka ta'i ma kau
mi citka tai ma kau
etc.

This is just something I do, I don't know who else would accept such usage.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[la gleki]

For me the issue is closed.

Anyway, this is how I can define "any".

- What do you want to eat?

- Anything (="every random selection would do")

If anybody doesn't like la selpa'i's (although he is beloved by default) solution please post about it anytime anywhere anyhow.

(gosh, too much play on word)

[tijlan]

On 15 August 2012 14:04, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
> The emphasis seems different, which is why I personally like to use {ma kau}
> for some of these cases.
> mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
> I want to go wherever

On 15 August 2012 14:37, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
> All those things are the same thing, just in different sumti places. You can
> say
> mi citka ma kau
> mi citka ca ma kau
> mi citka bu'u ma kau
> mi citka ta'i ma kau
> mi citka tai ma kau
> etc.

That wouldn't work consistently with {du'u}. According to that
interpretation, one would have

do djuno lo du'u mi citka ma kau
You know that I eat anything.

do djuno lo du'u mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
You know that I want to go wherever

, which are wrong.


mu'o

[John E Clifford]

Well, {ma kau} marks an indirect question and in this usage there seems to be nothing either indirect or a question.  "Any" in English is a context leaper universal quantifier.  Placed within the scope of a negation (including a conditional antecedent) or a question (a probably some others) it functions as a universal over the whole (outside the question or negation or conditional). Provided some conditions are met (slightly different in each case), it functions equally well as a particular quantifier within the the complex. 

"I any boy comes, the girls will be happy" = either "If some boy comes, all the girls will be happy" or "For every boy x, if x comes the girls will be happy"  (note, this will not work with "If any boy comes, the girls will dance with him", since the condition is that the scope of the "any" is confined to the antecedent.  This has to be "For every boy x, if x comes, all the girls will dance with x".  The best way to do this in Lojban is in some dispute.) 

"Do you have anything" = either "Do you have something?" or "For every x, do you have x?"

"I don't have anything" = either "It is not the case I have something" or "For every x, it is not the case I have x"

---

From: selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

Am 15.08.2012 15:33, schrieb la gleki:

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:04:33 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 15.08.2012 14:35, schrieb la gleki:

I couldn't reply to the post (due to server error every time i tried to send my reply) so I'm creating another topic.

This is really an interesting question.

*Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?

I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all" ({ro}) but I can't describe it.

Logically, "any" is su'o/ro/no:

mi na ponse [su'o] da  (same as mi ponse no da)

I don't have anything.

xu do ponse [su'o] da
Do you possess anything?

For the sentence in question ("Which book do you want?" — "I'll take any"), you can also use su'o:

A: ma poi cukta cu jai se djica do
B: su'o boi cy / su'o lo cukta

The emphasis seems different, which is why I personally like to use {ma kau} for some of these cases.
mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
I want to go wherever

The same for "anywhere, anytime, anyway"?

All those things are the same thing, just in different sumti places. You can say
mi citka ma kau
mi citka ca ma kau
mi citka bu'u ma kau
mi citka ta'i ma kau
mi citka tai ma kau
etc.

This is just something I do, I don't know who else would accept such usage.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

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

--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday 15 August 2012 08:35:28 la gleki wrote:
> I couldn't reply to the post

> <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/e1QaF7iQv1o/discussion>(due to

> server error every time i tried to send my reply) so I'm creating another
> topic.
>
> This is really an interesting question.
> *Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?
> I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all" ({ro})
> but I can't describe it.

The French for that is "n'importe quel", and the Spanish is "no importa cual"
(or is it "importe"? the French is ambiguous), so maybe something
like "nalvaidza". ("mo" has no rafsi, and I'm not sure what to use as the
third rafsi.)

Pierre

--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

[selpa'i]

Am 15.08.2012 16:05, schrieb tijlan:
> That wouldn't work consistently with {du'u}. According to that
> interpretation, one would have
>
> do djuno lo du'u mi citka ma kau
> You know that I eat anything.
>
> do djuno lo du'u mi djica lo nu klama ma kau
> You know that I want to go wherever

Yes, the first example I gave isn't good. The point of this ma kau is
that it appears outside of an abstraction, but of course what you show
is still a problem. The usage of that ma kau would be limited to outside
of abstractions.

Am 15.08.2012 16:26, schrieb John E Clifford:
> Well, {ma kau} marks an indirect question and in this usage there
> seems to be nothing either indirect or a question.

Well, I'm not sure that's true. Many natlangs use a Wh-question word for
this construction. French has n'importe ou/quoi/qui etc, English has
whatever/wherever, German has wo auch immer, wer auch immer, sonstwo...
So maybe there really is a hint of a question there, if just in that the
speaker indirectly talks about the possible answer without saying what
it is.

For the other meanings of any, su'o/ro/no is still the way to go, but I
don't think anybody argues with that anyway.

[selpa'i]

I invented -mo'e- as rafsi for {mo} some time ago.
I agree that in each natlang realization of this idea, there is a hint
of "it's doesn't matter", so this might a good path to go down.

[John E Clifford]

I wouldn't want to make too much of interrogative pronouns in IE languages, since they are notoriously shifty (collapsing with relatives in one direction, for example).  In a logical language, it is to be presumed that the roles is unmistakable. One might make a case that an "anywhere" answer to "Where are you going/ do you want to go?" somehow is derived from a sentence still in the question frame work (one member -- or all the members -- of the set of answers, I suppose).  But such an extraction in Lojban should require some surface evidence and {ma kau}, at least, evidences the wrong kind of motion.  I'm not sure what might work.

---

From: selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:07 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

-- 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.

[John E Clifford]

Oh! So {ma kau} could come from "I don't care where I go" or some such, which is related practically, if not obviously linguistically to "any where".  OK, but it doesn't he;lp much with "anywhere" itself.

---

From: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
To: "loj...@googlegroups.com" <loj...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:25 AM

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

[Jorge Llambías]

The Spanish word is "cualquiera", with a fairly transparent etymology
from "whichever one wants". "No importa cual" is grammatical but not
the most common way of saying it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[And Rosta]

tijlan, On 15/08/2012 15:05:

So "mi citka ma kau" would mean not "I eat anything" but rather "I eat whatever it is that I eat" -- because "do djuno lo du'u mi citka ma kau" means "Whatever it is that I eat, you know know that I eat it" = "You know what I eat".

That makes "mi citka ma kau" still possibly useful, but doesn't give us a way to say "I eat anything". For that, I suggest "ro da su'o mu'ei ku mi citka da", "ro da ka'e ku mi citka da", "I could eat anything", or else "ro da ro mu'ei ku mi citka da", "I would eat anything".

--And.

[la gleki]

I guess you forgot the word {zo'u}.

--And.

[Paul Predkiewicz]

What about {zo'e}? i allways thought it means something like "nothing specific" which is similar in meaning to anything.

Anything means something like "of all possible answers to the question of 'what is this about', i choose nothing specific"

"what would you like to eat?" "nothing specific."

.u'i I wouldnt recommend to say that to a waitor though, he might bring you indeed something unspecific.

"if no-specific pupil would offer himself as the culprit of this prank, i wouldn't punish the whole class." =

"if any pupil would offer himself as the culprit of this prank, i wouldn't punish the whole class. "

hm, im not too certain about all this.. what do you think?

2012/8/16 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

--And.

--

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/-/O7lSjCVnomsJ.

[la gleki]

The only predicate that comes to my mind when I think of "any" is {cunso}.

[djandus]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:57:56 AM UTC-5, la gleki wrote:

The only predicate that comes to my mind when I think of "any" is {cunso}.

To use {cunso} is to change the context of the conversation. "I could eat anything." has no context asking for {cunso}, as it is a question of nonspecific preference. Like, {mi citka zo'e} or {mi citka roda} or {mi citka su'o da} or any of the other possible options already mentioned. Alternatively, if you really want a predicate, I would go with:

.i do ba citka ma

.i go'i lo cuxna co nalvai be mi

What will you eat?

I will eat a choice that is unimportant to me.

Alternatively:

.i do ba citka ma

.i lo te citka cu nalvai mi

What will you eat?

What I will eat isn't important to me.

mu'o mi'e djos

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:58 AM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .i do ba citka ma
> .i lo te citka cu nalvai mi

...i je do mi ja'a vajni .i se mu'i bo ko surla .i do snura ... ca lo cabna

> What will you eat?
> What I will eat isn't important to me.

I think that would be:

lo nu mi ba citka ma kau cu nalvai mi

or:

lo nu go'i [ma kau] cu nalvai mi

[tijlan]

On 16 August 2012 08:26, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.pre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about {zo'e}? i allways thought it means something like "nothing
> specific" which is similar in meaning to anything.

In {mi ca rirni zo'e}, most likely you would be saying that you are
the parent of something in particular, not "anything" or "nothing
specific".

> "what would you like to eat?" "nothing specific."
> .u'i I wouldnt recommend to say that to a waitor though, he might bring you
> indeed something unspecific.

Or even nothing.


mu'o

[Paul Predkiewicz]

but its definition says "an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes bridi true" which would be a good description for "anything" aswell, or wouldn't it?

2012/8/17 tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com>

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

[tijlan]

On 17 August 2012 12:41, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.pre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but its definition says "an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value
> which makes bridi true" which would be a good description for "anything"
> aswell, or wouldn't it?

There can be a difference between "un/specified" and "un/specific".
One can have a physically specific but officially unspecified child,
for example. {zo'e} is to have an unspecified but not necessarily
unspecific value, it seems. Suppose there are an apple & an orange on
a table; you want to eat the apple; below would be a valid statement:

mi djica lo nu citka zo'e

{zo'e} is referring to whatever citka2 that makes the bridi true,
which in this case is specifically the apple. If there were nothing on
the table but you nevertheless wanted to eat something, the same
statement would again be valid, except that {zo'e} would this time be
referring to unspecific objects.


mu'o

[Paul Predkiewicz]

Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and unspecific.

also, i don't get your point. if i neither state nor point at which of those fruits i desire to eat, then it doesn't really matter. Even if there were lying an apple and an orange, if i tell my wife i wanted to eat something and she got no means to tell what i want, she would give me anything.

I still have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anything" would be ok. Maybe not in all situations but if what i say is ambiguis, the person im talking to could still ask if i meant the apple, the orange, the cheese, which is in the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a beaver.

2012/8/17 tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com>

mu'o

[tijlan]

On 17 August 2012 13:50, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.pre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and unspecific.

A thing can be specific without being specified by the speaker. You
are probably looking at some specific computer display but you can
just leave it unspecified in your utterance by calling it "zo'e": a
specific unspecified thing.

> also, i don't get your point. if i neither state nor point at which of those
> fruits i desire to eat, then it doesn't really matter.

"I want to eat the apple (not the orange)" and "I want to eat anything
(an apple, an orange, or else)" are obviously different situations,
and the statement {mi djica lo nu citka zo'e} would be valid for both.
I'm giving you this example to demonstrate that {zo'e} can refer to
specific (particular) or unspecific (general) objects. In the apple
case, {zo'e} would have the value of "the apple"; in the anything
case, the value would be "anything".

> Even if there were
> lying an apple and an orange, if i tell my wife i wanted to eat something
> and she got no means to tell what i want, she would give me anything.

Yes, she could give you the orange instead of the apple that you want.
But the {zo'e} that you uttered has meant the apple, since that's the
value that makes {mi djica lo nu citka zo'e} true here.

If you had to tell her that you want specifically the apple, you
normally wouldn't use {zo'e} -- this isn't a problem. The problem
would be when you used {zo'e} to mean "anything":

mi djica lo nu citka zo'e

How could your wife be sure that you meant

Any citka2 can make this bridi true.

and not

There is a citka2 that makes this bridi true.

Both interpretations would seem possible. And only the latter would
warrant a further question ("What citka2 are you talking about?").

> I still have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anything" would be ok. Maybe not
> in all situations but if what i say is ambiguis, the person im talking to
> could still ask if i meant the apple, the orange, the cheese, which is in
> the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a beaver.

How would you respond if you meant anything, not the apple etc.?


mu'o

[Paul Predkiewicz]

2012/8/17 tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com>

On 17 August 2012 13:50, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.pre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and unspecific.

A thing can be specific without being specified by the speaker. You
are probably looking at some specific computer display but you can
just leave it unspecified in your utterance by calling it "zo'e": a
specific unspecified thing.

Ok, from the talker-perspective this might be true, but for the listener there is no real difference between "he didn't tell me" (unspecified?) and "he doesn't care" (unspecific?)

untill of course the talker continues and finaly does specify what he was talking about. or stating he doesn't care.

Or, if she interpreted it as the first one she'd give me some options from which i would choose one. Or tell her that i don't really care.

> I still have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anything" would be ok. Maybe not
> in all situations but if what i say is ambiguis, the person im talking to
> could still ask if i meant the apple, the orange, the cheese, which is in
> the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a beaver.

How would you respond if you meant anything, not the apple etc.?

Ok, now you got me xD

If i meant anything and since i don't know how to express it differently, i would probably repeat my statement stressing {zo'e}. Or ask what she got to offer. Which would be a bit more productive in that situation.

or, if i remembered nalvaidza in that situation, i might use that, or whatever you guys come up with.

[la gleki]

It's beginning to turn into Lojban beginners conversation.

Still .e'u that we create a list of examples to translate each representing a different aspect of meaning. Some will be translated with {ro}, some with {su'o}.

But we'll discuss the other situations.

[sunderland]

To answer {do djica lonu citka ma} with "anything," I'd just say {roda}, which here means "for each x, I('d) want to eat x," not that "I want to eat the-mass-of everything" as in English (maybe I misunderstand {roda}?).

But answering with a noun (any/where/thing) is sorta an Englishism. In Chinese you'd probably use an adverb (随便/suibian). You could answer {do djica lonu citka ma} with an attitudinal. Maybe {se'inai} "other-oriented." Or maybe {ri .aucu'i} or {.aucu'i go'i lonu citka makau} "indifference." Or even {roda .a'u} "interest."

[Jacob Errington]

On 17 August 2012 19:43, sunderland <gatew...@gmail.com> wrote:

To answer {do djica lonu citka ma} with "anything," I'd just say {roda}, which here means "for each x, I('d) want to eat x," not that "I want to eat the-mass-of everything" as in English (maybe I misunderstand {roda}?).

.i ue do djica da'i lo nu citka lo su'u lo gerku cu batci lo mlatu

That problem with da is that its scope is the subject of much debate. Does it really scope over *everything in the universe*. A sort of contextually-relevant "any" might be interesting. Something like {da poi co'e} maybe.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

 

But answering with a noun (any/where/thing) is sorta an Englishism. In Chinese you'd probably use an adverb (随便/suibian). You could answer {do djica lonu citka ma} with an attitudinal. Maybe {se'inai} "other-oriented." Or maybe {ri .aucu'i} or {.aucu'i go'i lonu citka makau} "indifference." Or even {roda .a'u} "interest."

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:04:45 AM UTC-4, la gleki wrote:

For me the issue is closed.

Anyway, this is how I can define "any".

- What do you want to eat?

- Anything (="every random selection would do")

If anybody doesn't like la selpa'i's (although he is beloved by default) solution please post about it anytime anywhere anyhow.

(gosh, too much play on word)

--
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/-/DMhg3sGz-isJ.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM, sunderland <gatew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To answer {do djica lonu citka ma} with "anything," I'd just say {roda},
> which here means "for each x, I('d) want to eat x," not that "I want to eat
> the-mass-of everything" as in English (maybe I misunderstand {roda}?).

It depends where you put it:

ro da zo'u mi djica lo nu mi citka da
"Every x is such that I('d') want to eat x."

vs.

mi djica lo nu ro da zo'u mi citka da
"I('d) want that every x be such that I eat x."

The first one may be a case of indifference, but the second one is
certainly a case of gluttony.

I would interpret "mi djica lo nu mi citka ro da" as the second one
because I take the quantifier as belonging to the most immediate
prenex, and probably a simple "ro da" answer to "ma" as well.

[tijlan]

On 17 August 2012 15:45, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.pre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A thing can be specific without being specified by the speaker. You
>> are probably looking at some specific computer display but you can
>> just leave it unspecified in your utterance by calling it "zo'e": a
>> specific unspecified thing.
>
>
> Ok, from the talker-perspective this might be true, but for the listener
> there is no real difference between "he didn't tell me" (unspecified?) and
> "he doesn't care" (unspecific?)
> untill of course the talker continues and finaly does specify what he was
> talking about. or stating he doesn't care.

It's similar to how {lo} works, at least under xorlo. {lo plise} can
refer to specific or non-specific apples -- a distinction that may be
subjectively held by the speaker but objectively illegible to the
listener.

Some existing UI might help to disambiguate some of the differences:

mi citka lo su'a plise
I eat general instances of plise1.

mi citka lo su'anai plise
I eat particular instances of plise1.

mi citka zo'e su'a
I eat something general.

mi citka zo'e su'anai
I eat something particular.


mu'o

[tijlan]

On 18 August 2012 00:43, sunderland <gatew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But answering with a noun (any/where/thing) is sorta an Englishism. In
> Chinese you'd probably use an adverb (随便/suibian). You could answer {do
> djica lonu citka ma} with an attitudinal. Maybe {se'inai} "other-oriented."
> Or maybe {ri .aucu'i} or {.aucu'i go'i lonu citka makau} "indifference." Or
> even {roda .a'u} "interest."

I would consider {.e'inai} as well:

A: do djica lo nu citka ma

What do you want to eat?

B: zo'e .e'inai
Something [resistance against constraint]. --> Anything.


mu'o

[la gleki]

Well, long ago a new cmavo was proposed, {xe'e}.

[la gleki]

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 8:47:41 AM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:

Well, long ago a new cmavo was proposed, {xe'e}.

And here are the links. Hopefully, we can find a solution soon.

{xe'e}="any"

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/FnytvREKa60/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/ZXJI593tZ18/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/rK3uXlKKLVM/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/aWGbUt_SQiQ/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/MDmCtOYCNuA/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/Rvelhp1uNtU/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yBtCzxJGhSg/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/T7G_fA0ZcKI/discussion

Mention:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/V-YN3GLx4BM/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/SiONr-NXBwY/discussion 

[la gleki]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:46:19 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:

Two questions.

1. Don't you think that it can mean "for each specific x in a possible world it's possible/necessary that I will eat it".

2. Even if I'm wrong then {any} in this example must mean not choosing any specific object.

For now I'm gonna stick to {su'a} as "any" has no relation to logic. It's clear that we're dealing with the attitude.

{xe'e} in PA would be somewhat strange.

--And.

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 20/08/2012 09:53:

> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:46:19 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
> So "mi citka ma kau" would mean not "I eat anything" but rather "I eat whatever it is that I eat" -- because "do djuno lo du'u mi citka ma kau" means "Whatever it is that I eat, you know know that I eat it" = "You know what I eat".
>
> That makes "mi citka ma kau" still possibly useful, but doesn't give us a way to say "I eat anything". For that, I suggest "ro da su'o mu'ei ku mi citka da", "ro da ka'e ku mi citka da", "I could eat anything", or else "ro da ro mu'ei ku mi citka da", "I would eat anything".
>
> Two questions.
> 1. Don't you think that it can mean "for each specific x in a
> possible world it's possible/necessary that I will eat it".

It means "For each x, it is the case that in all/some circumstances/eventualities I will/would/can/could eat it". Which is what "I will/would/can/could eat anything means", no?

> 2. Even if I'm wrong then {any} in this example must mean not
> choosing any specific object.

I don't understand...


--And.

[la .lindar.]

CLEARLY we must invent a new gismu for this!

I propose {bleni} because "Blah!" for how you react to this suggestion, and then it also sounds like "any".

On a more serious note, I think a clear-cut PA would be very handy.

[la gleki]

- Give me an apple?

- Which one? There are several in this basket.
- Any. I want to eat.

I think logic can't define the difference between "one of..." and "any". There for {xe'e} in PA would be strange.
What are your objections against {su'a}?

{da} - some apple in the basket.
{da su'a} - any apple in the basket.
{da su'anai} - some specific apple in the basket (e.g. the yellow one).

[John E Clifford]

English, like most languages, I suspect, has problems defining the scope of its quantifiers. This is the reason for a week in the middle o0f a formal logic course about how to translate the the various English (or whatever) quantifier expressions.  Lojban, in trying to be a more "natural" language has inherited this problem. The main problem for English seems to be the universal quantifiers "each, every, any and all". For the purposes of ordinay logic, most of the differences here can be dealt with by determining the scope of the quantifier represented, the most complex rule being "'any' in the scope of a negation or in the antecedent of a conditional is a particular if its scope is limited to that  part, but a universal over the larger sentence if the scope goes outside that part".  This is followed by some practice exercises including, usually, "If any boy comes, the girls will be happy" ("If there is an x such x is a boy and x comes then the girls will be happy") and  "I any boy comes, all the girls will dance with him ("For all x, if x is a boy and x comes the all the girls will dance with x") (the ambiguity of "all the girls' is in the next exercise). 

The world and language tends to go beyond logic, however, so that this limited advice does not help much.  The scope of quantifiers may well be beyond sentence boundaries: the second example above might well continue "He will be wined and dined.  He may even get lucky a couple of times." and so on.  Or there may be no obvious scope: "Get me a gun!" "Which one?" "Any one; just get me a goddam gun!".  Here we might well read the "a" as "any" and note that commands are another of those strange places where "any" follows its usual rule, though here the scope is harder to determine and the results are less certain. Straightforwardly, we have "!there is an x, x is a gun and you get me x", but he move with negations and conditionals of moving the quantifier out as a universal does not seem to work: "For every gun x, ! you get me x"  seems like a lot more orders than occurred.  But maybe the surface is misleading here: a question is logically the disjunctive set of its answers; maybe a command is the disjunctive set of its obediences.  Thus, "you get me gun a" is a proper member of the command, and, hence, so is "For some gun x, you got me x", and als all the corresponding sentences about guns b, c, ....  But again, not "For all guns x, you get me x", since that exceeds the order.  We need to move beyond the set of obediences to the rule which built the set, rule into near worlds (as much like this one as possible except for the defining characteristic) "If you were to get me gun a, then the order would be obeyed" and so on, which can now be summarized as either "If you were to get me some gun, the order would be obeyed." or "For all guns x, if you were to get me x, the order would be obeyed." (Whether the rules also requires "If the order were to be obeyed, you would have got me some gun" -- but not the particular cases nor the external universal -- is for another discussion.)  In Lojban terms, {da'i}, even when invisible,  creates one of special places for "any".  But as a practical matter, "any" is just a particular quantifier, until the obviously extended scope (the real one, not the superficial) forces it up a level (or more) as a universal.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

--
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/-/raKKVPTaHFoJ.

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 24/08/2012 15:15:

>
>
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 4:42:37 PM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:
>
> CLEARLY we must invent a new gismu for this!
> I propose {bleni} because "Blah!" for how you react to this suggestion, and then it also sounds like "any".
>
> On a more serious note, I think a clear-cut PA would be very handy.
>
> - Give me an apple?
> - Which one? There are several in this basket.
> - Any. I want to eat.
>
> I think logic can't define the difference between "one of..." and "any".

I showed you in an earlier message how logic can do it. If you are committed to the logical aspect of Lojban (as I believe you are), don't you hace a responsibility to seek and explore the logic behind the difference?

--And.

[la gleki]

On Friday, August 24, 2012 5:08:51 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:

la gleki, On 20/08/2012 09:53:

> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:46:19 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>     So "mi citka ma kau" would mean not "I eat anything" but rather "I eat whatever it is that I eat" -- because "do djuno lo du'u mi citka ma kau" means "Whatever it is that I eat, you know know that I eat it" = "You know what I eat".
>
>     That makes "mi citka ma kau" still possibly useful, but doesn't give us a way to say "I eat anything". For that, I suggest "ro da su'o mu'ei ku mi citka da", "ro da ka'e ku mi citka da", "I could eat anything", or else "ro da ro mu'ei ku mi citka da", "I would eat anything".
>
> Two questions.
> 1. Don't you think that it can mean "for each specific x in a
> possible world it's possible/necessary that I will eat it".

It means "For each x, it is the case that in all/some circumstances/eventualities I will/would/can/could eat it". Which is what "I will/would/can/could eat anything means", no?

 

Please don't translate {su'omu'ei} as "...I will/would/can/could eat it " because it explains nothing.

Let's use your definition from the wiki for instance.
mi su'o mu'ei citka = "... there are possible worlds wherein I eat"

Let's try to describe "da" which will mean some apples present in our basket.

We'll describe the situation "I could eat any apple from that basket".

Let's take {ro da su'omu'ei ku mi mi citka da}. It will mean "For each x which can mean different things in different possible worlds I eat this x". 

However, "I could eat any of these apples" describes the apples present in this world.

"any" in this sentence means that the choice is distributed over real apples, not over what each apple turns into     in some possible worlds.

In other words, "da su'omu'ei ku" can mean one specific object that can be other than apple but "da su'omu'ei ku" doesn't express that these options refer only to the set of apples present in this basket.

I'd express our situation as {mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo su'a plise pe ti poi lanka}

And {mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo su'anai plise pe ti poi lanka}  - describes some specific apples present in this basket. = "I could eat some specific apples (that I have in mind) present in this basket".

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 25/08/2012 08:10:

>
>
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 5:08:51 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> la gleki, On 20/08/2012 09:53:
>
> > On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:46:19 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
> > So "mi citka ma kau" would mean not "I eat anything" but rather "I eat whatever it is that I eat" -- because "do djuno lo du'u mi citka ma kau" means "Whatever it is that I eat, you know know that I eat it" = "You know what I eat".
> >
> > That makes "mi citka ma kau" still possibly useful, but doesn't give us a way to say "I eat anything". For that, I suggest "ro da su'o mu'ei ku mi citka da", "ro da ka'e ku mi citka da", "I could eat anything", or else "ro da ro mu'ei ku mi citka da", "I would eat anything".
> >
> > Two questions.
> > 1. Don't you think that it can mean "for each specific x in a
> > possible world it's possible/necessary that I will eat it".
>
> It means "For each x, it is the case that in all/some circumstances/eventualities I will/would/can/could eat it". Which is what "I will/would/can/could eat anything means", no?
>
> Please don't translate {su'omu'ei} as "...I will/would/can/could eat it " because it explains nothing.

I translated it as "in some circumstances/eventualities"...

> Let's use your definition from the wiki for instance.

> /mi su'o mu'ei citka/= "... there are possible worlds wherein I eat"

>
> Let's try to describe "da" which will mean some apples present in our basket.

> We'll describe the situation *"I could eat any apple from that basket"*.

> Let's take {ro da su'omu'ei ku mi mi citka da}. It will mean "For each x which can mean different things in different possible worlds I eat this x".
> However, "I could eat any of these apples" describes the apples present in this world.

Those same apples exist in infinitely many worlds.

> "any" in this sentence means that the choice is distributed over real
> apples, not over what each apple turns into in some possible worlds.

That's not what "any" itself means. The apples in question remain the same across possible worlds.

"ro da poi me le plise zo'u mi su'o mu'ei citka da" means "Each of these applies is such that there is some possible world/circumstance/eventuality in which I eat it".

> In other words, "da su'omu'ei ku" can mean one specific object that
> can be other than apple but "da su'omu'ei ku" doesn't express that
> these options refer only to the set of apples present in this
> basket.

No, but "da poi me le plise" does. Your problem has to do with the lack of restriction on da, not on the introduction of "suo'o mu'ei".

> I'd express our situation as {mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo su'a plise pe
> ti poi lanka}> And {mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo su'anai plise pe ti poi
> lanka} - describes some specific apples present in this basket. = "I
> could eat some specific apples (that I have in mind) present in this
> basket".

Delete {su'a} because it adds nothing to the logical form:

{mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo plise pe ti poi lanka [ke'a]}

Your sentence(s) mean "I could eat the basketed apple(s) here". It doesn't have the "any" meaning (except to the extent that it's included within the broad interpretation of {lo}).

--And.

[v4hn]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 07:15:35AM -0700, la gleki wrote:
> I think logic can't define the difference between "one of..." and "any".
> There for {xe'e} in PA would be strange.
> What are your objections against {su'a}?
>
> {da} - some apple in the basket.
> {da su'a} - any apple in the basket.
> {da su'anai} - some specific apple in the basket (e.g. the yellow one).

.i mi mutce nelci di'u
.i xu di'u drani loka fanva kei fo rodo

mu'o mi'e la .van.

[la gleki]

OK. Please translate

"I could eat some specific apple from that basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"

"I could eat any apple from that basket".

[Jacob Errington]

On 25 August 2012 10:23, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK. Please translate

"I could eat some specific apple from that basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"

"I could eat any apple from that basket".

.i mi citka da'i lo plise pe lo lanka zi'e poi pelxu

.i mi citka da'i roda poi plise zi'e pe lo lanka

I've never had issues expressing these concepts before. I honestly don't see how this is even a problem. 

As far as I'm concerned, this is a non-problem.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

 

--

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/-/TnfyuVzI86wJ.

[.arpis.]

The latter to me sounds like you're saying that you could eat _all_ the apples in the basket.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[John E Clifford]

Well, no, I don't think so.  {da'i} is from another (though related) game, about counterfactual conditionals, not possibilities (different restrictions on worlds, for one thing).  So, you offer "Suppose I eat an apple from the basket, namely the yellow one" and "suppose I ate every apple from the basket".  The obvious question is "Then what would follow?".  If {da'i} is meant to throw us into an alternate world, there is also the problem of what of what is the basket in that world (even with all the near-world restrictions) or, in the first case, the apple?  We need to specify the apple and the basket as being these right here now (which will also be in the appropriate near worlds, by the way they are introduced).  So something like 'lo plise pi lo lanka zi'e lo pelxu zo'u mi ka'e (I don't like su'o mu'ei) citka py' or 'da poi plise se lanka ti zo'u mi ka'e citka da', which put both the basket and the apple out here.  Similarly, 'roda poi plise se lanka ti zo'u mi citka da'

---

From: Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 11:10 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

[John E Clifford]

Yes, it is hard to tell just what the scope of {da'i} is supposed to be.  I assume it is the whole sentence, which is rather worse than I portrayed it just now.  It is important that the universal -- and the particular before it -- are outside the world shifting.

---

From: .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:01 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 25/08/2012 15:23:

> OK. Please translate
>
> "I could eat some specific apple from that basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"

"mi su'o mu'ei citka le plise je se lanka be ta"

> "I could eat any apple from that basket".

"ro da poi ge plise gi se lanka ta zo'u mi su'o mu'ei citka da"

--And.

[And Rosta]

v4hn, On 25/08/2012 14:24:

The objections to this {su'a} idea is that it's trying to express a logical distinction by searching through the dictionary to find words with vaguely relevant glosses (such as "particular"), finding some discourse markers glossed in that way, and arbitrarily inventing new uses for those discourse markers in the hope that they will magically express the desired meaning. It's the {da'i} bollocks all over again.

--And.

[la .lindar.]

I was actually serious, you know.

Why not have a PA for "any"?

http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/PA4 

There a bunch of other weird numbers like, "Almost all" and "Too many", so why not, "Any"?

[John E Clifford]

We have a bunch of PA for "any" already; the trick is to use the right one in the right place.  To replace all of those (well, actually, two) with a single word to be used anywhere is to lose logical precision, which is at least one point of Lojban.  To be sure, knowing what to use where requires knowing what you are saying, but that is the point of any language and merely comes to the fore in moving from English to Lojban. We can get away with not being clear what we are saying in English because our native speaker intuitiin guides us through the morass, but, when we go to another language (not just Lojban), we need to think things through to fit in with the new idiom and short rules. like "any" is "some" or "any" is "all" don't always work right, since the context in Lojban may not be that in English.  So far you have about three quarters of the cases for translating "any" and they cover more than three quarters of the cases and point to the handling of the rest.  Do you want the rest of the lecture?

---

From: la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:34 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

--
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/-/y6ee9ZmPAzYJ.

[la .lindar.]

To play devil's advocate, I think an unquantified sumti is pretty much what we want.

However, we don't have "which", so we don't really have "any".

"Which sandwich do you want?"

"Any sandwhich is fine."

In Lojban I wouldn't say it that way.

{.i ko cuxna fi loi snuji} or summat.

Whatever... I'm out of opinions/suggestions.

[.arpis.]

I wonder if we can rely on pragmatics...

{tu'a ma poi nabyplane do citka se djica}
{.i da}

We do have which, I think: {ma poi}

--

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/-/_yaqp1NSe-wJ.

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.

[John E Clifford]

Relying on pragmatics is best when the semantics is sound, which is not clear here.  I can't parse {nabyplane} off hand, so I'll skip that and also the awkwardness of having both {tu'a} and the elided predicate {citka} present.  The scope of {ma} is problematic: is it this world, where, admittedly, the answer presumably lies, or the world of {lo nu do citka}, where the language places it?  Happily, the answer is a this-worldly {da}, which covers the difference smoothly (the event world presumably in these cases includes the relevant portions of the actual world and, perhaps, then some).

---

From: .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:14 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

[John E Clifford]

So, then we can rely on pragmatics.  To answer merely "something" is, by the Rule of Quantity, inadequate, if you have druthers.  But, assuming -- as we always should -- that you are cooperating, this is adequate and, therefore, you have no preferences: "anything will do".

---

From: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
To: "loj...@googlegroups.com" <loj...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:12 AM

[.arpis.]

I'm not dyslexic, but lojban sometimes makes me feel like I am; I meant to say {nabypalne}, which is glossed as sandwich among other things.

The {tu'a} and using {citka} in a tanru are idiosyncratic and probably not necessary in a more carefully constructed sentence.

[John E Clifford]

Sorry about lack of patience with metathesis, just not enough context to start a good guess.  {tu'a} not immediately in the object place of {djicua}, etc., was just a shock (I don't get out much).

---

From: .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 8:06 PM

[la gleki]

1. So "Give me any three apples from the basket!"  would be {ro da poi plise zo'u ko su'omu'ei dunda ci da}? So in every possible world I'm asking for three {da}?

2. Is it possible to get rid of {zo'u}?

--And.

[Jacob Errington]

zo'oru'e .i ko mi setese dunda ci lo ro da poi ke'a ge plise gi se lanka ta

 

2. Is it possible to get rid of {zo'u}?

Of course, but it's impossible to use different quantifiers on bound variables inside the same bridi.

 

--And.

--
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/-/sKR90CRrXtsJ.

[John E. Clifford]

WTF?  Whence all this possible worlds talk in a simple imperative? ko dunda ci da poi ge plise gi se lanka ta

Sent from my iPad

--

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 27/08/2012 05:34:

>
>
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:58:19 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> la gleki, On 25/08/2012 15:23:
> > OK. Please translate
> >
> > "I could eat some specific apple from that basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"
>
> "mi su'o mu'ei citka le plise je se lanka be ta"
>
> > "I could eat any apple from that basket".
>
> "ro da poi ge plise gi se lanka ta zo'u mi su'o mu'ei citka da"
> >
> 1. So "Give me any three apples from the basket!" would be {ro da poi
> plise zo'u ko su'omu'ei dunda ci da}?

I think that means "For every bunch of apples, make it the case that you could give me three out of the bunch.

For "Give me any three apples", I'd suggest "e'o do dunda mi lo plise cimei", or "e'o do mi dunda ci da poi plise". Maybe "ko dunda" would do, but afaik scope of ko isn't defined.

There's no single Lojban word corresponding to English _any_. But there are Lojban sentences expressing the meaning of English sentences that contain _any_.

> So in every possible world I'm asking for three {da}?

No.

> 2. Is it possible to get rid of {zo'u}?

In your Lojban? I can't a way, but maybe I'm being slow.

--And.

[la gleki]

On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:14:28 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:

la gleki, On 27/08/2012 05:34:
>
>
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:58:19 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
>     la gleki, On 25/08/2012 15:23:
>      > OK. Please translate
>      >
>      > "I could eat some specific apple from that basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"
>
>     "mi su'o mu'ei citka le plise je se lanka be ta"
>
>      > "I could eat any apple from that basket".
>
>     "ro da poi ge plise gi se lanka ta zo'u mi su'o mu'ei citka da"
>  >
> 1. So "Give me any three apples from the basket!" would be {ro da poi
> plise zo'u ko su'omu'ei dunda ci da}?

I think that means "For every bunch of apples, make it the case that you could give me three out of the bunch.

For "Give me any three apples", I'd suggest "e'o do dunda mi lo plise cimei", or "e'o do mi dunda ci da poi plise". Maybe "ko dunda" would do, but afaik scope of ko isn't defined.

"e'o do mi dunda ci da poi plise" - it's not Loglan. {dunda - x1 [donor] gives/donates gift/present x2 to recipient/beneficiary x3 [without payment/exchange].}

So it should be "e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise".

Now translate "Give me three (specific) apples" - it will again be translated as "e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise".

When I suggested

da - some/any

da su'a - any

da su'anai - some specific

I was hinting at a scale (specific/ non-specific). It's something that was completely lost after xorlo reform ({le} meant some objects that I have in mind and therefore worked much like an attitudinal. I'm not suggesting restoring pre-xorlo rules, of course).

I must acknowledge that {ro da zo'u mi su'omu'ei citka da} solves the problem (and I want exactly this sentence rephrased without {zo'u} like it's possible to do in English).

But if adding {e'o} turns it into "For every bunch of apples, make it the case that you could give me three out of the bunch."

then it's not a solution.

"any" (in this sense) is {su'o} number of apples from the set in the basket.

If we have 4 apples (numbered from 1 to 4) then "Give me three apples from the basket" would mean in all possible worlds ({romu'ei} ?) one of the following:

123

124

134

234

So here "Give me any three apples" = "In every possible world give me exactly three apples out of the 4 from that basket."

[selpa'i]

Am 27.08.2012 18:00, schrieb la gleki:
>
> I was hinting at a scale (specific/ non-specific). It's something that
> was completely lost after xorlo reform ({le} meant some objects that I
> have in mind and therefore worked much like an attitudinal. I'm not
> suggesting restoring pre-xorlo rules, of course).

lo is as specific as you want it to be, you can pick the zo'e. da is
never specific, because it has no value.

>
> I must acknowledge that {ro da zo'u mi su'omu'ei citka da} solves the
> problem (and I want exactly this sentence rephrased without {zo'u}
> like it's possible to do in English).
> But if adding {e'o} turns it into "For every bunch of apples, make it
> the case that you could give me three out of the bunch."
> then it's not a solution.

Why for every bunch? Don't you want three apples from this particular
basket?

> "any" (in this sense) is {su'o} number of apples from the set in the
> basket.
>
> If we have 4 apples (numbered from 1 to 4) then "Give me three apples
> from the basket" would mean in all possible worlds ({romu'ei} ?) one
> of the following:
> 123
> 124
> 134
> 234
>
> So here "Give me any three apples" = "In every possible world give me
> exactly three apples out of the 4 from that basket."

Using ro mu'ei for this is quite extreme. It would include worlds in
which one of the persons got shot, and still you want that other person
to give you the apples anyway. I don't think mu'ei is at all needed
here, and it's awkward to involve possible words in a command as
concrete as the one at hand.

ko dunda ci plise [pe lo lanka] mi
"Make it true that you give me three apples from the basket, it
doesn't matter which three."
"Give me any three apples from the basket."

Adding ro mu'ei would be a nice way to make this very impolite and bossy.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

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

^:i \jl /flr sen |ziu \su xn go kror
^:i \sym tfn /zu viw \xn jy ^jaiw

[John E. Clifford]

"Give me three specific apples from the basket" seems to assume we have agreed (or, at least, I think we have) on which ones, so {ko fi mi dunda fe le ci plise} (dropping extraneous frills).  Not the same as the previous case at all.  I don't see how xorlo -- widely appealed to but poorly understood -- affects this point, since it did not change the specific (or was it definite?) status of { le}. The thought that {le} is somehow related to attitudinals (but {lo} is not?) needs some developing to be clear.  

So does the notion that possible worlds are involved in all this essentially.  I am no longer sure what problem {ro da zo'u mi su'omu'ei citka da} solves, if any (the relative scopes {ro da} and {su'o mu'ei} can be disputed), but, if it is "I can eat anything", then the {zo'u} is indispensable.  But the possible worlds come from the "can", not "any", and it is they that require the prenex form.  I am not sure how {e'o} works in all this, if it has any effect at all beyond politeness.  And I assume you mean to take one of the four possible subsets in each world, not in all of them.

Sent from my iPad

--

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/-/FyxBrUzWluQJ.

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 27/08/2012 17:00:

>
>
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:14:28 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> la gleki, On 27/08/2012 05:34:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:58:19 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > la gleki, On 25/08/2012 15:23:
> > > OK. Please translate
> > >
> > > "I could eat some specific apple from that basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"
> >
> > "mi su'o mu'ei citka le plise je se lanka be ta"
> >
> > > "I could eat any apple from that basket".
> >
> > "ro da poi ge plise gi se lanka ta zo'u mi su'o mu'ei citka da"
> > >
> > 1. So "Give me any three apples from the basket!" would be {ro da poi
> > plise zo'u ko su'omu'ei dunda ci da}?
>
> I think that means "For every bunch of apples, make it the case that you could give me three out of the bunch.
>
> For "Give me any three apples", I'd suggest "e'o do dunda mi lo plise cimei", or "e'o do mi dunda ci da poi plise". Maybe "ko dunda" would do, but afaik scope of ko isn't defined.
>

> So it should be "*e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise*".

Right.

> Now translate "Give me three (specific) apples" - it will again be
> translated as "e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise".

No, it's "e'o do fi mi dunda fe le ci plise"

> When I suggested
>
> da - some/any
> da su'a - any
> da su'anai - some specific
>
> I was hinting at a scale (specific/ non-specific).

I understood, but I think it's a terrible idea, both because it's unnecessary -- the le/lo distinction does the job (possibly in tandem with scope relations) -- and is an abuse of "su'a".

> It's something that was completely lost after xorlo reform ({le}
> meant some objects that I have in mind and therefore worked much like
> an attitudinal. I'm not suggesting restoring pre-xorlo rules, of
> course).

No, "le" is specific; "in mind" is just a layperson's nonjargon gloss for "specific".

I don't know if there's a definite presentation of xorlo somewhere. At any rate, I maintained that, under xorlo, {le broda} = {lo co'e voi broda}.

> I must acknowledge that {ro da zo'u mi su'omu'ei citka da} solves the
> problem (and I want exactly this sentence rephrased without {zo'u}
> like it's possible to do in English).

I don't think there's a zo'u-less version, and I don't think you should be wanting one either. Zo'uless versions are just abbreviations of zo'u versions; sometimes a zo'uless abbreviation is possible and sometimes one isn't.

> But if adding {e'o} turns it into "For every bunch of apples, make it
> the case that you could give me three out of the bunch." then it's
> not a solution.

Why do you think that? Everything you want to say can be said, with transparent logical form and no abracadabras.

> "any" (in this sense) is {su'o} number of apples from the set in the basket.
>
> If we have 4 apples (numbered from 1 to 4) then "Give me three apples from the basket" would mean in all possible worlds ({romu'ei} ?) one of the following:
> 123
> 124
> 134
> 234
>
> So here "Give me any three apples" = "In every possible world give me exactly three apples out of the 4 from that basket."

"Give me any three apples" is "Make it the case that there are three apples that you give me". Each of 123,124,134,234 will satisfy that request.

I don't see how the meaning of "Give me any three apples" requires invoking quantification over possible worlds.

--And.

[tijlan]

On 27 August 2012 17:00, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now translate "Give me three (specific) apples" - it will again be
> translated as "e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise".

({e'o} concerns a request more than a command.)

The difference between

a) three apples

and

b) three specific apples

is that (b) explicitly speaks of entities to which some restrictive
piece of information other than "be-apple" can be attributed. I think
{poi co'e} would do the job:

ko dunda ci plise poi co'e
Give (me) three apples which are/do something.

It doesn't specify which apples, but it is meant to refer to specific apples.


mu'o

[la gleki]

On Monday, August 27, 2012 9:05:26 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:

"Give me three specific apples from the basket" seems to assume we have agreed (or, at least, I think we have) on which ones, so {ko fi mi dunda fe le ci plise} (dropping extraneous frills).  Not the same as the previous case at all.

Yes, if we create ad-hoc cmavo {su'ai} it will look like

da su'ai - any (doesn't matter what exactly apples I need)

da su'ainai - some specific apples

1.- Where are you going?

2.- To buy some food [some specific food, namely apples but I haven't tell you yet]

3.- Well, I can buy food for you myself 

4.- No, I need some specific food. Apples.

5.- Ah, I see.

In 2. we could use {da}/{cidja}.

In 4. we could use {da su'ainai}/{cidja sua'inai}

 I don't see how xorlo -- widely appealed to but poorly understood -- affects this point, since it did not change the specific (or was it definite?) status of { le}. The thought that {le} is somehow related to attitudinals (but {lo} is not?) needs some developing to be clear.  

Now it's history. I guess both {lo}/{le} worked like attitudinals. But now {lo}={zo'e noi} so we need to find another better way of solving this problem.

So does the notion that possible worlds are involved in all this essentially.  I am no longer sure what problem {ro da zo'u mi su'omu'ei citka da} solves, if any (the relative scopes {ro da} and {su'o mu'ei} can be disputed), but, if it is "I can eat anything", then the {zo'u} is indispensable.  But the possible worlds come from the "can", not "any", and it is they that require the prenex form.

I'm pretty sure that in this case and in these meanings "can"  and "any" are related.

[tijlan]

On 28 August 2012 05:07, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see how xorlo -- widely appealed to but poorly understood --
>> affects this point, since it did not change the specific (or was it
>> definite?) status of { le}. The thought that {le} is somehow related to
>> attitudinals (but {lo} is not?) needs some developing to be clear.
>
> Now it's history. I guess both {lo}/{le} worked like attitudinals. But now
> {lo}={zo'e noi} so we need to find another better way of solving this
> problem.

{le} has seen ambiguous uses in veridical or non-veridical
descriptions. Pre-xorlo {le plise} could refer to something that is or
isn't really an apple. That stands to be the case today too, since its
BPFK section still has the classic example of {le ninmu}, a man who
looks like a woman. And it seems to me that either usage
(veridical/non-veridical) would concern a specific entity. The
effective differences could be summarized as follows:

lo plise = zo'e noi plise
(something that is veridically plise)

le plise = zo'e noi plise poi co'e
(something that is veridically plise and can be further specified)

le plise = zo'e voi plise poi co'e
(something that is non-veridically plise and can be further specified)

But {voi} is restrictive unlike {noi}, and I'm not entirely sure how
it would logically interact with {zo'e}.


mu'o

[John E Clifford]

But the issue is, why create an ad hoc or experimental cmavo for this when it is handled well enough (i.e., logically perfectly) by what we have?  Your conversation doesn't appear to pertain to the issue ("any" does not occur, for example).  In the simplest terms -- to get back to the main point (I thought), the difference you want is between the {[su'o] da poi  cidja} inside (indefinite) or outside (definite but one stated) the {lo nu terve'u da}. 
I still don't see how either {le} or {lo} is or was related to attitudinals, but clearly they are not now, since {le} as {zo'e voi} is exactly parallel to {lo} as {zo'e noi} (I would have thought {poi}, but then I don't know what {zo'e} means, anyhow).
If you mean by "'can' and 'any' are related" that the the modal context of "can" is one of the places where "any" is an appropriate (even more clear) way "some" (or, from a different point of view, "all"), then you are right, but the rules about "any" are basically the same regardless of which context is involved, modal or negative or ... . I suspect you just not yet comfortable with using these rules in Lojban.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:07 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/2mX0GCr8M5IJ.

[la gleki]

OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.

1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific apples, namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm too lazy to mention it]

2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

3. "Give me any three apples from the basket"

4. "Give me three apples from the basket" [not known whether I need some specific apples or not]

[selpa'i]

Am 28.08.2012 18:39, schrieb la gleki:
> OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.
> 1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific
> apples, namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm
> too lazy to mention it]

mi ba citka lo ci plise pe lo lanka

> 2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

mi ba citka ci plise pe lo lanka

> 3. "Give me any three apples from the basket"

ko dunda ci plise pe lo lanka mi

> 4. "Give me three apples from the basket" [not known whether I need
> some specific apples or not]

You have to either use da or zo'e, so I don't think this is possible
with a quantifier. Without quantifier, you can say

ko dunda lo plise pe lo lanka mi

and be vague about it.

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:06:52 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 28.08.2012 18:39, schrieb la gleki:
> OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.
> 1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific
> apples, namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm
> too lazy to mention it]

mi ba citka lo ci plise pe lo lanka

> 2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

mi ba citka ci plise pe lo lanka

zo'opei??? 

mi na krici

[v4hn]

Hey,

just to get some feedback on my current understanding of lojban:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:39:15AM -0700, la gleki wrote:
> OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.
> 1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific apples,
> namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm too lazy to
> mention it]

.i mi ba citka le ci plise poi se lanka

> 2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

.i mi ba citka ci lo plise poi se lanka

> 3. "Give me any three apples from the basket"

.i ko dunda fi mi fe ci lo plise poi se lanka

> 4. "Give me three apples from the basket" [not known whether I need some
> specific apples or not]

To me this is the same as 3. You can always go on with something like
{zi'e poi crino gi'a xunre gi'a pelxu} to further specify the apples.


Why should people stop to use {le} if it literally means "the thing you have in mind"..

mu'o

[selpa'i]

Am 28.08.2012 22:19, schrieb v4hn:
> Why should people stop to use {le} if it literally means "the thing
> you have in mind".. mu'o

Because it doesn't mean that any more than "lo" does. Both are defined
in terms of "zo'e", so "lo" is just as specific as "le", and "le" can be
just as vague as "lo". There isn't anything that "le" does that "lo"
cannot do.

[John E Clifford]

So now the only distinction between {le} and {lo} is veridicality?

---

From: selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:23 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

-- 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.

[selpa'i]

Am 28.08.2012 23:51, schrieb John E Clifford:

So now the only distinction between {le} and {lo} is veridicality?

I can't speak for anybody else, but to me this distinction is irrelevant. "lo" is usually veridical, which means you call things "lo broda" that you think brodas. However, you can just as easily use lo broda for something that you aren't sure brodas, .i.e "lo ru'a broda" - "something that I assume brodas". Because of this, veridicality is not something that we need "le" for either. I personally have no use for "le" (which is why I think it would be better to reassign it a new (unrelated) function, but this would digress too far from the topic of this thread.)

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[v4hn]

DISCLAIMER: The following is highly subjective and
should probably not be taken too serious.

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:23:44PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> Am 28.08.2012 22:19, schrieb v4hn:
> >Why should people stop to use {le} if it literally means "the
> >thing you have in mind".. mu'o
>
> Because it doesn't mean that any more than "lo" does. Both are
> defined in terms of "zo'e", so "lo" is just as specific as "le", and
> "le" can be just as vague as "lo". There isn't anything that "le"
> does that "lo" cannot do.

You know, there's a term for your usage of the {lo} in german.
It's "eierlegende Wollmilchsau".

If you read more of the gadri proposal than just the formal
definitions, then you find that {lo} is described as "generic article"
whereas {le} gets quite a bit of attention as well and is described as
"specific article". This proposal does not make any "specific" usage of
{le} deprecated as far as I can see.

The distinction made in the proposal looks to me like
the core of the "any" vs "specific ones" discussion.

You're right in that this generic/specific distinction does not
seem to exist in the given formal definitions.
Is this intensional? What's the point in describing in two pages
two different concepts for {le} and {lo} if you afterwards define
both in terms of {zo'e} without mentioning the generic/specific distinction?


mu'o mi'e la .van.

[Jacob Errington]

On 28 August 2012 12:39, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.

1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific apples, namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm too lazy to mention it]

2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

3. "Give me any three apples from the basket"

4. "Give me three apples from the basket" [not known whether I need some specific apples or not]

gleki,  Lojban doesn't really distinguish this. What real information is being conveyed that is so important by that addition of "any"? 

There are n apples in the basket. You tell someone you're going to eat three. They expect that at some time in the future, after you've eaten them, that there will be n-3 apples. That's it. If the listener *cares* about which apples you're planning on eating, they'll *ask*. The distinction is unnecessary, as evidenced in selpa'i's reply, i.e. the one you thought was a joke.

.i mi citka ci lo plise

I'm going to eat three apples. 

Whether those apples are specific or not isn't really important, and thus isn't specified. This is a lot like tense, in Lojban. Specifying tense can become superfluous in the same way that specificity can too.

However, I do agree, there are few ways to incorporate specificity into determining lojban referent sets. In my opinion, {lo} is unspecific as to specificity, which makes it the all-purpose article. I personally dislike {le}, but I don't think that it should disappear because it does form the only way to really be specific. {lo} can be as specific as {le}, but {le} should always be specific. In that sense, {le} just represents a special case of {lo}, namely when the referents are desired to be marked as explicitly specific.

{.i mi citka ci le plise pe lo lanka}

I'm going to eat three specific apples from the basket.

{.i mi citka ci lo plise pe lo lanka}

I'm going to eat three apples, maybe particular ones, maybe random ones, from the basket.

{.i mi citka ci lo ro da poi plise gi'e se lanka ta

I'm going to eat three unspecific apples from that basket.

I elected to use {ci lo ro da poi broda} because simple {.i ci da poi plise gi'e se lanka ta zo'u mi citka da} says that there are exactly three things in the universe that are apples and are in the basket, and that I'm going to eat all three of them.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/UI67W49r2DcJ.

[selpa'i]

Am 29.08.2012 00:52, schrieb Jacob Errington:

On 28 August 2012 12:39, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.

1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific apples, namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm too lazy to mention it]

2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

3. "Give me any three apples from the basket"

4. "Give me three apples from the basket" [not known whether I need some specific apples or not]

gleki,  Lojban doesn't really distinguish this. What real information is being conveyed that is so important by that addition of "any"? 

There are n apples in the basket. You tell someone you're going to eat three. They expect that at some time in the future, after you've eaten them, that there will be n-3 apples. That's it. If the listener *cares* about which apples you're planning on eating, they'll *ask*. The distinction is unnecessary, as evidenced in selpa'i's reply, i.e. the one you thought was a joke.

.i mi citka ci lo plise

I'm going to eat three apples. 

Whether those apples are specific or not isn't really important, and thus isn't specified.

But this doesn't say which three apples you are going to eat, and it does so explicitly. The outer quantifier gives you unspecific referents.

This is a lot like tense, in Lojban. Specifying tense can become superfluous in the same way that specificity can too.

However, I do agree, there are few ways to incorporate specificity into determining lojban referent sets. In my opinion, {lo} is unspecific as to specificity, which makes it the all-purpose article. I personally dislike {le}, but I don't think that it should disappear because it does form the only way to really be specific. {lo} can be as specific as {le}, but {le} should always be specific. In that sense, {le} just represents a special case of {lo}, namely when the referents are desired to be marked as explicitly specific.

{.i mi citka ci le plise pe lo lanka}

I'm going to eat three specific apples from the basket.

Same problem as before, the apples are not specific, because you used an outer quantifier. This sentence would mean "I will eat three of the apples I have in mind", which helps you very little.

{.i mi citka ci lo plise pe lo lanka}

I'm going to eat three apples, maybe particular ones, maybe random ones, from the basket.

Again, the three apples are explicitly unspecific. Any three apples you eat will make this true.

{.i mi citka ci lo ro da poi plise gi'e se lanka ta

I'm going to eat three unspecific apples from that basket.

Okay.

The problem is that even though you call it "specific" in the gloss, the listener has no idea what referents you have in mind. "le" doesn't help you at all to convey to the listener which apples you want. The only way to do that is to either point at them, or describe them otherwise, for instance, you could say "lo plise poi zunle traji" or something, which is much more specific than "le plise pe lo lanka".

I elected to use {ci lo ro da poi broda} because simple {.i ci da poi plise gi'e se lanka ta zo'u mi citka da} says that there are exactly three things in the universe that are apples and are in the basket, and that I'm going to eat all three of them.

It says there are three things that are apples and are in the basket that you will eat, which is true with or without prenex.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[John E Clifford]

I am sorry to see {le} and {lo} here again, since I thought we got through those many years ago.  I am old school enough to still think that {le plise} refers to some thing(s) that I have specified to myself and hope you will understand and that I am calling apples to help you get the right thing(s), whether they really are apples or not.  {lo plise} refers to apples, but which ones is left up to context, etc. etc.; I haven't anything specific in mind and maybe don't even care.  xorlo has clarified this in various ways, but does not -- to me -- seem to have changed the basic character.  As a consequence, I dislike expressions like {ci lo plise} since they seem to me to be partitive on a given (how ever indefinitely) bunch of apples.  To be sure, in this case, the bunch is given: the ones in the basket.  But the expression is still discommoding.  Since we are on about "any" officially, it seems best to stick, as much as possible, to quantified variables, where "any" mainly is.  Unfortunately, some of the examples asked about did not lend themselves to that sort of translation -- the ones requiring specifics, which quantifiers cannot generally give.  {da poi plise} is just about as inspecific (and indefinite) as possible, while still sticking to apples. {lo plise} moves from that somewhat, if only pragmatically.  {le plise} moves to very specific, but leaves apples behind, in principle, though rarely in practice.

I suppose that {ci lo ro da poi plise} is somehow grammatical, though I can't quite work it out.  It seems to amount to just {ci lo ro plise}, three of all the apples there are.
{ci da plise} says that there are exactly three apples in the universe. {ci da poi plise zo'u mi citka da}, like {mi citka ci da poi plise}, says I eat three apples -- without any comment about how many remain uneaten. 

---

From: selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:15 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

--

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

[And Rosta]

la gleki, On 28/08/2012 05:07:

> Yes, if we create ad-hoc cmavo {su'ai} it will look like
> da su'ai - any (doesn't matter what exactly apples I need)
> da su'ainai - some specific apples
>
> 1.- Where are you going?
> 2.- To buy some food [some specific food, namely apples but I haven't tell you yet]
> 3.- Well, I can buy food for you myself
> 4.- No, I need some specific food. Apples.
> 5.- Ah, I see.
>
> In 2. we could use {da}/{cidja}.
> In 4. we could use {da su'ainai}/{cidja sua'inai}

The ambiguity of (2) is specific to English. It shouldn't arise with Lojban, setting aside all the uncertainty about the rules for deriving logical formulas from Lojban setences (because those uncertainties would be fixed by adding new official interpretation rules, not by adding new cmavo).

la gleki, On 28/08/2012 17:39:

> OK. Please everyone translate the following sentences.
> 1. "I'm gonna eat three apples from that basket" [some specific apples, namely the red one. the yellow one and the green one but I'm too lazy to mention it]

I suspect that {ba} does not create irrealis environments, so using {ba'oi} instead [-- I mean the future-oriented mu'ei, if I've misremembered the form]:

a. "ci plise mi ro ba'oi se citka"
b. "mi ro ba'oi citka le ci plise"
c. "mi ba citka le ci plise"

(a--c) don't mean the same thing, but are consistent with (1).

I assume "ci plise" is still equivalent to "ci da poi plise"

> 2. "I'm gonna eat any three apples from that basket"

"mi ro ba'oi citka ci plise"

> 3. "Give me any three apples from the basket"

"e'o do dunda ci plise mi"

> 4. "Give me three apples from the basket" [not known whether I need some specific apples or not]

I don't think there's a way of expressing that ambiguity. For the reading where not just any apples will necessarily do:

"ci plise e'o do mi se dunda"
"e'o do dunda le ci plise mi"


--And.

[Michael Turniansky]

mi tugni do lo du'u ro lo nu casnu bau la lojban cu xamgu lo jbopre .i mi ta'e manci lo nu lo jbopre di'i penmi bu'u la irk gi'e ku'i ta'e tavla fo la gliban po'o .i ju'ocu'i lo fasnu ba'e puza ckaji la'e di'u  .i la'acu'i na jetnu  caku .i mi badri lo du'u noda mansa do tu'a lo do nu talsa

ni'o to pe'i do nitcu lo setca zo kei lo lidne be zo ka'e be te di'o lu  se gu lo nu darlu ka'e plixau gi pe'i ta'e xagmau fa lo nu tavla fo lo lojbo li'u toi

ni'o lo so'e ca brojda nunsla cu gasnu lo nu mi tolcando .i ji'a lo zu'o lo gunka cu cikre lo mi dizlo dijysenta lo nu tolcko lo djacu keikei cu go'i .i lo go'i cu ji'a gasnu lo za'i mi  pindi zo'onai

.i mi pacna lo nu mi ba se srana lo mutce cinri lisri

         --gejyspa

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

coi ro do

   ni'o se gu lo nu darlu ka'e plixau gi pe'i ta'e xagmau fa lo nu tavla fo lo lojbo .i .ai lo dei selskucilta cu jai bu'u tavla fo lo lojbo po'o .i ba'a ro da se prali
   ni'o .e'a ro da te tavla .i lo nu ma kau te tavla na vajni mutce .i lo nu ba'e *pilno* lo lojbo cu vajni ralju .i ru'a .i'u so'i do ba se nandu lo nu pensi lo da'i te tavla .i se mu'i bo mi stidi la'e di'e .i ma traji lo ka cinri selfri do kei lo ro selfri pe lo do nunjmive .i mu'a xu do ba'o plipe fi lo vofli vinji .i ma do li'i pa re'u penmi lo do se prami .i do ma senva .i si'a co'e li'o
   ni'o li'a ro do jai se curmi fai lo nu cnegau lo se casnu .i ke'u ga nai lojbo gi xamgu
   ni'o .a'o su'o do se cinri la'e di'u

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

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

^:i \jl /flr sen |ziu \su xn go kror
^:i \sym tfn /zu viw \xn jy ^jaiw

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[v4hn]

coi rodo

.i mi na'e pu sisti lonu pensi lonu ma'a pilno zo le .e zo lo kei .e
loi preti poi pu se cusku mi gi'e se sitna

.i xu ma'a ba'e na nitcu loi cmavo be zo le bei lonu ka'e jarco
lodu'u lo cusku ku pensi lo se steci gi'ikau na'e pensi lo se steci

mu'o mi'e la .van.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:33:39AM +0200, v4hn wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:23:44PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> > Am 28.08.2012 22:19, schrieb v4hn:
> > >Why should people stop to use {le} if it literally means "the
> > >thing you have in mind".. mu'o
> >
> > Because it doesn't mean that any more than "lo" does. Both are
> > defined in terms of "zo'e", so "lo" is just as specific as "le", and
> > "le" can be just as vague as "lo". There isn't anything that "le"
> > does that "lo" cannot do.
>

[selpa'i]

Am 19.10.2012 20:50, schrieb v4hn:
> coi rodo
>
> .i mi na'e pu sisti lonu pensi lonu ma'a pilno zo le .e zo lo kei .e
> loi preti poi pu se cusku mi gi'e se sitna
>
> .i xu ma'a ba'e na nitcu loi cmavo be zo le bei lonu ka'e jarco
> lodu'u lo cusku ku pensi lo se steci gi'ikau na'e pensi lo se steci

pe'i na nitcu .i li'a lo drata cu jinvi lo drata .i mi no roi pilno na'e
bo zo lo pe lo selma'o be zo le gi'e no roi se nabmi .i mi sanji lo su'o
drata poi simsa jinvi .i ja'o lo mi se lifri cu stidi ge nai lo nu zo le
se nitcu gi lo nu to'e plixau .i li'a mi na skudji lo se du'u lo drata
na jai se curmi fai lo nu pilno zo le .i tavla fi lo po'o mi selfri .i
klina fa lo nu zasti fa lo za'u pa ficysi'u ke lojbo tarmi .i je .a'o
ma'a kakne lo nu nalpro

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku


.

[selpa'i]

la gleki cu cusku di'e
> This is really an interesting question.
> *Any* ideas of how to express "any" in Lojban?
> I can clearly feel the difference between "any" and "each/every/all"
> ({ro}) but I can't describe it.

Thinking back to this topic, I'm wondering why nobody suggested simple
{lo}. It's more or less perfect for this kind of thing.

ko dunda lo plise pe lo lanka mi
Give me any apple from the basket.

No need for quantifiers.

In fact, some of the quantifier examples might be incorrect, depending
on the scope of {ko}.

We don't want to say "There is an apple that I want you to give me"
(because we are happy with *any* apple), but this would happen if {da}
had scope over {ko}. Does the CLL say anything about this?

[v4hn]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 06:12:02PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> Thinking back to this topic, I'm wondering why nobody suggested
> simple {lo}. It's more or less perfect for this kind of thing.
>
> ko dunda lo plise pe lo lanka mi
> Give me any apple from the basket.

Because according to your usual arguments, this sentence can also mean

"Give me an apple (and I might have a specific one in mind) from the basket"

and

"Give me the apple from the basket."

Therefore it would be unclear whether you have a specific one in mind.
So what do you reply if someone asks you in response "Which apple exactly?",
e.g. {lo plise poi mo} or whatever.

You could answer {ko cuxna}, but the major question is, whether you can
avoid such a question in the first place.


v4hn

[selpa'i]

la v4hn cu cusku di'e

> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 06:12:02PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
>> Thinking back to this topic, I'm wondering why nobody suggested
>> simple {lo}. It's more or less perfect for this kind of thing.
>>
>> ko dunda lo plise pe lo lanka mi
>> Give me any apple from the basket.
>
> Because according to your usual arguments, this sentence can also mean
>
> "Give me an apple (and I might have a specific one in mind) from the basket"
>
> and
>
> "Give me the apple from the basket."
>
> Therefore it would be unclear whether you have a specific one in mind.

{lo} by itself doesn't refer to a specific apple, but me wanting a
specific one doesn't make {lo} false. It's an important distinction,
which, I admit, I didn't see as clearly then (in fact some of what I
said in this thread doesn't seem quite right now in retrospect, and I
certainly didn't express myself well!). However, as things stand, what I
said above is true, {lo} is not specific, but you might very well have a
specific apple in mind (without making {lo plise} incorrect). It's just
not conveyed by {lo}, and if context isn't strong enough, some relative
clause that clarifies the intended referent will be needed e.g. {lo
plise poi pritu traji} or similar.

{le} will give you a specific apple (though the listener still has no
idea which one), but I don't feel like using {le} myself.

> So what do you reply if someone asks you in response "Which apple exactly?",
> e.g. {lo plise poi mo} or whatever.

lo va plise poi se barna lo so'i cmalu ke manku xunre

> You could answer {ko cuxna}, but the major question is, whether you can
> avoid such a question in the first place.

Using {lo} should avoid it, {da} will only work if the scope is right.

[v4hn]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 07:04:04PM +0100, selpa'i wrote:
> {lo} by itself doesn't refer to a specific apple, but me wanting a
> specific one doesn't make {lo} false. It's an important distinction,

{.ue mi nelci di'u .ije ju'o mi tugni}

> which, I admit, I didn't see as clearly then (in fact some of what I
> said in this thread doesn't seem quite right now in retrospect, and
> I certainly didn't express myself well!). However, as things stand,
> what I said above is true, {lo} is not specific, but you might very
> well have a specific apple in mind (without making {lo plise}
> incorrect). It's just not conveyed by {lo}, and if context isn't
> strong enough, some relative clause that clarifies the intended
> referent will be needed e.g. {lo plise poi pritu traji} or similar.
>
> {le} will give you a specific apple (though the listener still has
> no idea which one), but I don't feel like using {le} myself.
>
> >So what do you reply if someone asks you in response "Which apple exactly?",
> >e.g. {lo plise poi mo} or whatever.
>
> lo va plise poi se barna lo so'i cmalu ke manku xunre

The question is, what do you answer, if you _don't_ have a specific one
(or a group of specific ones) in mind, but {lo plise} is the most specific
thing you can say?

> >You could answer {ko cuxna}, but the major question is, whether you can
> >avoid such a question in the first place.
>
> Using {lo} should avoid it, {da} will only work if the scope is right.

Sure, uttering {ko dunda lo plise mi} means that you want an apple,
but it _leaves open_ whether it's specific or not.

If you want a specific one, you can use {lo plise poi broda}
to make use of contexual saliency or simply use {le}.

However, there does not seem to be a short(any?) construct to say,
you _don't_ want a specific one (or you don't have it in mind).

All you seem to be able to do is using {lo} and referring to the Gricean maxim
of quality to argue that you would have said something more specific if you
wanted something more specific.

The trouble is, it seems many people don't apply this maxim in such a situation
(at least in my experience) and will still ask you which one you like.

In english you reply with "any", in german you reply with "irgendeinen", but in
Lojban you have to say something like "your choice" {ko cuxna}.


v4hn

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 19:58:05 v4hn wrote:
> The question is, what do you answer, if you _don't_ have a specific one
> (or a group of specific ones) in mind, but {lo plise} is the most specific
> thing you can say?

"lo co'e plise"? "lo nalsteci plise"?

Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

[Jonathan Jones]

pa plise = pa lo plise = "one of one or more things which actually is an apple" = an apple (as opposed to "that apple")

--
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+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 )

[Jonathan Jones]

I would think that, in any language, if you are asked what you'd like and you say "an apple", and are then asked "which apple?" and say "an apple", only a true idiot would not realize you don't care which one, as long as it's "an apple".

[Jacob Errington]

On 26 December 2012 14:09, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

pa plise = pa lo plise = "one of one or more things which actually is an apple" = an apple (as opposed to "that apple")

This was only true in pre-xorlo. Under the gadri proposal, {pa broda} -> {pa da poi ke'a broda} directly. In xorlo, {pa broda} and {pa lo broda} are thus very different.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

 

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org> wrote:

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 19:58:05 v4hn wrote:
> The question is, what do you answer, if you _don't_ have a specific one
> (or a group of specific ones) in mind, but {lo plise} is the most specific
> thing you can say?

"lo co'e plise"? "lo nalsteci plise"?

Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Ian Johnson]

This formula is now false. PA SELBRI = PA da poi ke'a SELBRI now, while PA SUMTI = PA da poi ke'a me SUMTI. With xorlo now introducing a zo'e when you use lo, PA SELBRI and PA lo SELBRI are now entirely unrelated.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

[Ian Johnson]

Gah I see tsani already said this, oh well.

[John E Clifford]

A couple of recent threads have gone back and forth on the issue that there was no logical way to do something in Lojban or that the way to do it in Lojban wasn't very logical.  Given relevant readings of "logical",  these claims are true.  But uninteresting.  Lojban is not merely logical (in the relevant restricted senses), it is also a language and the things that are illogical to say in Lojban are things peculiar to language, without any logical significance (or significance that can be introduced into logic only with difficulty).

The matter of the comments inserted into quotations is purely a language matter, style, in fact (logic notoriously does not have style in the short run).  Repeating "Alice said" or "said Alice" at the beginning or ending of every paragraph is monotonous.  So you find other ways to do it without interfering with the structure and metastructural inserts do the job quite nicely.  The quote is not "really" split, of course, because the {sei ...se'u} phrase is not really there (i.e. in the place it appears to be).  Illogical because deceptive in appearance and unnecessary in the structure -- except for speaking and reading humans.

The "any" case is slightly more complex, because one can force some logical distinction into it sometimes.  "Any" is broad scope universal quantifier which (quite logically) sometimes serves as a narrow scope particular in negative contexts (and, perhaps, some other odd contexts as well -- dialects vary and donkey sentences make their own muck).  That is the language situation.  And the logic situation is not much different, but the use of an imperative form creates a problem, since it is not clear about the relative scopes of the quantifier and the speech-act indicator.  Usually, the speech-act indicator has to come first, because, otherwise, we would have a sentence without performance instructions, but in complex situations this need not be a problem.  But here we have a simple case: Give me an apple. That is, logicially, Imp(( Sx: apple x) you give x to me) (roughly speaking).  A sentence which is "true" (fulfilled) if you give me something, anything, that is an apple.  But, you say, suppose I want a particular apple -- or want to explicitly exclude that possibility.  The exclusion is easy -- the given English (or {ko dando da poi plise/ su'o plise}in Lojban) does the trick.  I have explicitly NOT restricted the choice of apples.  If I do want to restrict that choice, I have to take another step, either  moving the quantifier (or marking it as moved), explicitly specifying some further restriction on the apple, or appealing implicitly to some aspect of the situation not in the present sentence: "There is an apple I want, give it to me", "Give me a certain apple", "Give me the golden apple", "Give me the apple".  The first of these is, as noted, tricky to transcribe in strict logical form (though the dialogical form is probably straightforward).  The second is equally difficult, since logic does not generally have expressions like "a certain" that have broad scope even in restricted contexts (that is language again, not logic).  The third is obvious.  The fourth uses some sort of descriptor, {le} or {lo} depending (more or less) on whether the implicit context is internal or external.  A case can be made that {lo} also functions as a long scope particular quantifier, running back at least to the introduction of its bound predicate, and so might also be used for the second case (again, this passes beyond logic somewhat to dialogical analysis, but that seems to be the wave of the future anyhow). 

---

[John E Clifford]

---

From: John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
To: "loj...@googlegroups.com" <loj...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:26 PM
Subject: [lojban] The gap between log and lang

A couple of recent threads have gone back and forth on the issue that there was no logical way to do something in Lojban or that the way to do it in Lojban wasn't very logical.  Given relevant readings of "logical",  these claims are true.  But uninteresting.  Lojban is not merely logical (in the relevant restricted senses), it is also a language and the things that are illogical to say in Lojban are things peculiar to language, without any logical significance (or significance that can be introduced into logic only with difficulty).

The matter of the comments inserted into quotations is purely a language matter, style, in fact (logic notoriously does not have style in the short run).  Repeating "Alice said" or "said Alice" at the beginning or ending of every paragraph is monotonous.  So you find other ways to do it without interfering with the structure and metastructural inserts do the job quite nicely.  The quote is not "really" split, of course, because the {sei ...se'u} phrase is not really there (i.e. in the place it appears to be).  Illogical because deceptive in appearance and unnecessary in the structure -- except for speaking and reading humans.

The "any" case is slightly more complex, because one can force some logical distinction into it sometimes.  "Any" is broad scope universal quantifier which (quite logically) sometimes serves as a narrow scope particular in negative contexts (and, perhaps, some other odd contexts as well -- dialects vary and donkey sentences make their own muck).  That is the language situation.  And the logic situation is not much different, but the use of an imperative form creates a problem, since it is not clear about the relative scopes of the quantifier and the speech-act indicator.  Usually, the speech-act indicator has to come first, because, otherwise, we would have a sentence without performance instructions, but in complex situations this need not be a problem.  But here we have a simple case: Give me an apple. That is, logicially, Imp(( Sx: apple x) you give x to me) (roughly speaking).  A sentence which is "true" (fulfilled) if you give me something, anything, that is an apple.  But, you say, suppose I want a particular apple -- or want to explicitly exclude that possibility.  The exclusion is easy -- the given English (or {ko dando da poi plise/ su'o plise}in Lojban) does the trick.  I have explicitly NOT restricted the choice of apples.  If I do want to restrict that choice, I have to take another step, either  moving the quantifier (or marking it as moved), explicitly specifying some further restriction on the apple, or appealing implicitly to some aspect of the situation not in the present sentence: "There is an apple I want, give it to me", "Give me a certain apple", "Give me the golden apple", "Give me the apple".  The first of these is, as noted, tricky to transcribe in strict logical form (though the dialogical form is probably straightforward).  The second is equally difficult, since logic does not generally have expressions like "a certain" that have broad scope even in restricted contexts (that is language again, not logic).  The third is obvious.  The fourth uses some sort of descriptor, {le} or {lo} depending (more or less) on whether the implicit context is internal or external.  A case can be made that {lo} also functions as a long scope particular quantifier, running back at least to the introduction of its bound predicate, and so might also be used for the second case (again, this passes beyond logic somewhat to dialogical analysis, but that seems to be the wave of the future anyhow). 

Oh yeah, the stuff about proofs goes into the one place where Logic does have style.  We can, with a suitable proof system, either extend this complication or contract it.  Generally, in logic, it is bad form to use the same notation for bound and free terms (and, indeed, the free terms are strictly only dummies, not really in the language at all).  The descent to Bob and the like, rather than x4, say, is misleading in its specificity, as it were.  The best solution (theoretically -- practically it is a nightmare) is to use the most likely F and the least likely F, which is a modified version of Skolem's system: to prove {AxFx}, prove {F the least like x to be F}, to instantiate {Sx Fx} use {F the most likely x to be F}.  For the rest, spelling out the steps carefully usually makes it clear -- eventually (or course, what constitutes a step is an extralogical issue: if you know how it goes, then you can skip it; if you don't, you have to have it in).

[Jacob Errington]

.i .o'a zo'o mi do ninja

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 26 December 2012 14:09, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

pa plise = pa lo plise = "one of one or more things which actually is an apple" = an apple (as opposed to "that apple")

This was only true in pre-xorlo. Under the gadri proposal, {pa broda} -> {pa da poi ke'a broda} directly. In xorlo, {pa broda} and {pa lo broda} are thus very different.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

No they aren't.

{pa lo broda} = {pa zo'e noi ke'a broda}
{pa broda} = {pa da poi ke'a broda}

{zo'e noi...} and {da poi...} are very similar in meaning. The two phrases may not be "equal", but they are certainly still equivalent.