[lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i}

[Daniel Brockman]

I have a proposal for a simplification and improvement
of the interpretation of attitudinal scales.

This is nothing new --- in fact, I'm just going to describe
the way I've been using attitudinals for years --- but I'm
not sure how common this particular interpretation is.

The core of my suggestion might be that we stop giving
definitions of {UI cu'i}: I believe that {UI cu'i} should have
a completely compositional meaning. It's good to give
usage examples, of course, but I think we should treat
{UI cu'i} more or less exactly like {UI ru'e} or {UI sai}.

Just as {UI ru'e} and {UI sai} always mean simply
"attitude weak" and "attitude strong", the meaning
of {UI cu'i} should be "attitude not present" --- nothing
more, nothing less.

This should be contrasted with {UI nai}, which always
has a lexical meaning. You can guess the meaning,
because it's usually some kind of opposite of {UI},
but you can't be sure until you look in a dictionary.

So, my proposal:

* {UI} and {UI nai} are dictionary-defined.
* {UI sai}, {UI ru'e} and {UI cu'i} are fully compositional.

I'm leaving out {cai} on purpose because its semantics
doesn't really matter for this issue, and we can talk about
that later (I happen to think it should be lexical).

Again, this is not really a change proposal so much
as a proposal to simplify the explanation of UI.

--
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.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Brockman <dbro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, my proposal:
>
>  * {UI} and {UI nai} are dictionary-defined.
>  * {UI sai}, {UI ru'e} and {UI cu'i} are fully compositional.

It sounds reasonable, but consider for example:

.o'a (UI1)
Attitudinal. Used to express pride / dignity / self-confidence /
smugness / bravado / grandiloquence / pomposity / cockiness / conceit
/ arrogance. (cf. jgira)

.o'a cu'i (UI*1)
Attitudinal. Used to express modesty / humility / humbleness /
discreetness / meekness / unpretentiousness / reserve. (cf. cumla)

.o'a nai (UI*1)
Attitudinal. Used to express shame / abashment / embarrassment /
humiliation / mortification. (cf. ckeji)

Isn't it useful to have the words modesty / humility / humbleness /
discreetness / meekness / unpretentiousness / reserve associated in
some way with "o'a cu'i"? And also the lojban word "cumla"? At least
the entry for "cumla" should probably make some reference to "o'a
cu'i", and in an English-Lojban dictionary the entries for modesty,
humility, etc should mention "o'a cu'i", whether the dictionary has an
entry for ".o'a cu'i" or not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

I forgot to reply to this.

2010/4/25 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Brockman <dbro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, my proposal:
>>
>>  * {UI} and {UI nai} are dictionary-defined.
>>  * {UI sai}, {UI ru'e} and {UI cu'i} are fully compositional.
>
> It sounds reasonable, but consider for example:
>
> .o'a (UI1)
> Attitudinal. Used to express pride / dignity / self-confidence /
> smugness / bravado / grandiloquence / pomposity / cockiness / conceit
> / arrogance. (cf. jgira)
>
> .o'a cu'i (UI*1)
> Attitudinal. Used to express modesty / humility / humbleness /
> discreetness / meekness / unpretentiousness / reserve. (cf. cumla)
>
> .o'a nai (UI*1)
> Attitudinal. Used to express shame / abashment / embarrassment /
> humiliation / mortification. (cf. ckeji)
>
> Isn't it useful to have the words modesty / humility / humbleness /
> discreetness / meekness / unpretentiousness / reserve associated in
> some way with "o'a cu'i"? And also the lojban word "cumla"? At least
> the entry for "cumla" should probably make some reference to "o'a
> cu'i", and in an English-Lojban dictionary the entries for modesty,
> humility, etc should mention "o'a cu'i", whether the dictionary has an
> entry for ".o'a cu'i" or not.

Agreed.

In general, I don't object to listing a compositional phrase in the
dictionary as the Lojban translation of an English word.

We can list {re roi} as the translation of "twice", too, but that doesn't
mean we should think of {re roi} as having a definition of its own.
Instead, the meaning of {re roi} follows directly from the meaning of
its components, and I think the same should hold for {.o'a cu'i}.

Besides, why'd you leave out {.o'a nai cu'i}?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> We can list {re roi} as the translation of "twice", too, but that doesn't
> mean we should think of {re roi} as having a definition of its own.
> Instead, the meaning of {re roi} follows directly from the meaning of
> its components, and I think the same should hold for {.o'a cu'i}.

I agree that "re roi" is transparently compositional and should not be
listed, but I'm not so sure about ".o'a cu'i". Is modesty really the
midpoint between pride and shame? It's some kind of midpoint in some
sense, if we decompose them as something like:

o'a: feels good about self or own actions and displays it.
o'acu'i: feels good about self or own actions but minimizes it.
o'anai: feels bad about self or own actions and displays it.

> Besides, why'd you leave out {.o'a nai cu'i}?

What does it mean? "shameless"? "shows no shame"?

Maybe it shouldn't be left out.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

2010/5/10 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>>
>> We can list {re roi} as the translation of "twice", too, but that doesn't
>> mean we should think of {re roi} as having a definition of its own.
>> Instead, the meaning of {re roi} follows directly from the meaning of
>> its components, and I think the same should hold for {.o'a cu'i}.
>
> I agree that "re roi" is transparently compositional and should not be
> listed, but I'm not so sure about ".o'a cu'i". Is modesty really the
> midpoint between pride and shame?

No, I don't think {.o'a cu'i} is a midpoint at all. I think it's a
zero point. To me, {cu'i} means zero.

So {.o'a cu'i} simply means zero pride.

>> Besides, why'd you leave out {.o'a nai cu'i}?
>
> What does it mean? "shameless"? "shows no shame"?
>
> Maybe it shouldn't be left out.

Exactly. Zero shame.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> No, I don't think {.o'a cu'i} is a midpoint at all.  I think it's a
> zero point.  To me, {cu'i} means zero.
>
> So {.o'a cu'i} simply means zero pride.

"Zero pride" has negative connotations that ".o'a cu'i" doesn't have,
and it's not quite the same as "modesty", but that may or may not be
relevant to what you are saying.

Are you saying that:

(1) There shouldn't be an entry for ".o'a cu'i" in jbovlaste.

(2) There shouldn't be a definition for ".o'a cu'i" in
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+Realis+Attitudinals

(3) In the event that the LLG ever publishes a dictionary, that
dictionary should not have an entry for ".o'a cu'i".

As for (1), the way jbovlaste was designed it is not possible to have
a natlang -> lojban result unless there is a lojban entry, so the only
way that jbovlaste can return something for a search on "twice" is if
it has an entry for "re roi". That may be a less than optimal design,
but that's how it is.

As for (2), I'm not convinced that the cu'i words are really
transparently compositional. The wording "zero X" does not seem to
capture their meaning in most cases, but that may be just a failure of
the English idiom "zero X". "Zero patience" suggests impatience, not
"o'o cu'i", "zero relaxation" suggests stress, not "o'u cu'i", and so
on.

As for (3), it's probably too early to decide anything one way or the
other, but I suppose the obvious choice would be to follow whatever we
do for (2).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Luke Bergen]

I have a suspicion that if a person were brought speaking lojban only, they would probably understand ".o'ocu'i" to mean the same thing that we would put in a dictionary for it.  I think probably everyone in this discussion (myself certainly included) is being influenced by the fact that our native languages do not have attitudinals.  I think that a Xcu'i emotion would be easily intuited by a person who is fluent or a person whose first language was lojban.

As you say xorxes, I think the fact that "zero relaxation" sounds kind of like "impatience" is an affect of malglico mindset. 

2010/5/10 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a suspicion that if a person were brought speaking lojban only, they
> would probably understand ".o'ocu'i" to mean the same thing that we would
> put in a dictionary for it.

That suggests that a Lojban-Lojban dictionary may not need to define
them. But we have been considering Lojban-English dictionaries.

> I think probably everyone in this discussion
> (myself certainly included) is being influenced by the fact that our native
> languages do not have attitudinals.

All languages have attitudinals, even if not as tidy or systematic as
Lojban tries to. English "Wow!" is an attitudinal, for example.

> I think that a Xcu'i emotion would be
> easily intuited by a person who is fluent or a person whose first language
> was lojban.

By definition of fluency, that must be so.

> As you say xorxes, I think the fact that "zero relaxation" sounds kind of
> like "impatience" is an affect of malglico mindset.

Did I really say that?

[Daniel Brockman]

2010/5/10 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>>
>> No, I don't think {.o'a cu'i} is a midpoint at all.  I think it's a
>> zero point.  To me, {cu'i} means zero.
>>
>> So {.o'a cu'i} simply means zero pride.
>
> "Zero pride" has negative connotations that ".o'a cu'i" doesn't have,
> and it's not quite the same as "modesty", but that may or may not be
> relevant to what you are saying.

Yeah, "zero" was a sloppy way of expressing what I mean.

> Are you saying that:
>
> (1) There shouldn't be an entry for ".o'a cu'i" in jbovlaste.

I don't care much about that, but I think there should be one
if and only if there is one for {re roi}.

> (2) There shouldn't be a definition for ".o'a cu'i" in
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+Realis+Attitudinals

Yes, exactly. I have no problem with mentioning it, but I think
it should be more of an explanation than a definition.

> (3) In the event that the LLG ever publishes a dictionary, that
> dictionary should not have an entry for ".o'a cu'i".

Don't care.

> As for (2),  I'm not convinced that the cu'i words are really
> transparently compositional. The wording "zero X" does not seem to
> capture their meaning in most cases, but that may be just a failure of
> the English idiom "zero X". "Zero patience" suggests impatience, not
> "o'o cu'i", "zero relaxation" suggests stress, not "o'u cu'i", and so
> on.

Okay, here's what I mean.

{o'a cu'i} = "not proud (but not necessarily ashamed)"
{o'a ru'i} = "a little proud"
{o'a} = "proud"
{o'a sai} = "very proud"

So {cu'i} kind of means "I don't particularly feel this."

{o'o cu'i} = "not patient (but not necessarily impatient)"
{o'u cu'i} = "not relaxed (but not necessarily stressed)"

It works in the opposite direction too:

{o'a nai cu'i} = "not ashamed (but not necessarily proud)"
{o'o nai cu'i} = "not impatient (but not necessarily patient)"
{o'u nai cu'i} = "not stressed (but not necessarily relaxed)"

Essentially, I want to split each scale into two separate scales (usually
opposite, but sometimes not quite), ranging from {cu'i}, which I consider
to be zero, through {ru'e}, {ja'ai}, {sai} and maybe beyond.

Every scale becomes a question of "how much of this do you feel,"
rather than a gradient between two emotions.

Am I making sense?

[Luke Bergen]

>> As you say xorxes, I think the fact that "zero relaxation" sounds kind of
>> like "impatience" is an affect of malglico mindset.

> Did I really say that?

I assumed that that was what you were getting at when you said: 

"The wording "zero X" does not seem to
capture their meaning in most cases, but that may be just a failure of
the English idiom "zero X". "Zero patience" suggests impatience, not
"o'o cu'i", "zero relaxation" suggests stress, not "o'u cu'i", and so
on."

If the concept of "zero patience" implies "impatience" (to'e patience) in english, and if that is influencing our understanding of what {.o'ocu'i} means then that is malglico is it not?

2010/5/10 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Luke Bergen <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As you say xorxes, I think the fact that "zero relaxation" sounds kind of
>>> like "impatience" is an affect of malglico mindset.
>
>> Did I really say that?
> I assumed that that was what you were getting at when you said:
> "The wording "zero X" does not seem to
> capture their meaning in most cases, but that may be just a failure of
> the English idiom "zero X". "Zero patience" suggests impatience, not
> "o'o cu'i", "zero relaxation" suggests stress, not "o'u cu'i", and so
> on."
>
> If the concept of "zero patience" implies "impatience" (to'e patience) in
> english, and if that is influencing our understanding of what {.o'ocu'i}
> means then that is malglico is it not?

But I don't think it is influencing anybody's understanding. I don't
think we are in disagreement about anything important here, but there
was no malglico involved or suggested. We agree that "zero X" is not
an ideal gloss for "X cu'i", that's all.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> Okay, here's what I mean.
>
> {o'a cu'i} = "not proud (but not necessarily ashamed)"
> {o'a ru'i} = "a little proud"
> {o'a} = "proud"
> {o'a sai} = "very proud"
>
> So {cu'i} kind of means "I don't particularly feel this."
>
> {o'o cu'i} = "not patient (but not necessarily impatient)"
> {o'u cu'i} = "not relaxed (but not necessarily stressed)"
>
> It works in the opposite direction too:
>
> {o'a nai cu'i} = "not ashamed (but not necessarily proud)"
> {o'o nai cu'i} = "not impatient (but not necessarily patient)"
> {o'u nai cu'i} = "not stressed (but not necessarily relaxed)"
>
> Essentially, I want to split each scale into two separate scales (usually
> opposite, but sometimes not quite), ranging from {cu'i}, which I consider
> to be zero, through {ru'e}, {ja'ai}, {sai} and maybe beyond.
>
> Every scale becomes a question of "how much of this do you feel,"
> rather than a gradient between two emotions.
>
> Am I making sense?

It makes sense, and I think that's how it works for the most part.
Where we may disagree is in that I think the cu'i point in many cases
(not always) is qualitatively different from just being the zero point
on a scale. An extreme example might be "ba'a cu'i", which I don't
know how you could fit as the zero point of the "ba'a" scale, but even
without going to such extreme cases, something like "modesty" is not
quite the same as mere absence of pride, it's more like an extreme
minimization or tempering, toning down, mitigating of pride (much more
than "ru'e"). Or somehing like that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

> It makes sense, and I think that's how it works for the most part.
> Where we may disagree is in that I think the cu'i point in many cases
> (not always) is qualitatively different from just being the zero point
> on a scale. An extreme example might be "ba'a cu'i", which I don't
> know how you could fit as the zero point of the "ba'a" scale,

You're right. It doesn't work for {ba'a cu'i}. I hadn't thought of that. That
one really does have a very non-compositional meaning. We would have
to abandon it or make it a special case (ugh).

So I guess that's that.

> but even
> without going to such extreme cases, something like "modesty" is not
> quite the same as mere absence of pride, it's more like an extreme
> minimization or tempering, toning down, mitigating of pride (much more
> than "ru'e"). Or somehing like that.

Then I don't want {o'a cu'i} to mean "modesty", because I want it to
mean "absence of pride", which is close enough to "modesty" for me.
(But maybe you've changed my mind, now, with {ba'a cu'i}.)

But then so if {o'a cu'i} is a distinct attitude of its own, why can't we
modify it with {sai} and {ru'e}?

Why not {o'a cu'i sai} for "strong modesty"?

[Daniel Brockman]

Also: if {cu'i} doesn't do it, how do we indicate absence of an emotion?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> You're right.  It doesn't work for {ba'a cu'i}.  I hadn't thought of that.  That
> one really does have a very non-compositional meaning.  We would have
> to abandon it or make it a special case (ugh).

ba'acu'i is weird.

It makes it difficult to say you don't expect something, or that you
forgot something. Although I suppose "ba'anai cu'i" is still available
for not remembering.

I suppose "ba'aru'ecai" is as close as you can get to not expecting.

> But then so if {o'a cu'i} is a distinct attitude of its own, why can't we
> modify it with {sai} and {ru'e}?

We can. CAIs can be piled on indefinitely.

> Why not {o'a cu'i sai} for "strong modesty"?

That's how I would understand it. Although it doesn't seem very modest
to express modesty so strongly. Let's say "u'o cu'i sai" for extreme
shyness instead.

> Also: if {cu'i} doesn't do it, how do we indicate absence of an emotion?

I would have said "be'u", but apparently someone feels very strongly
that "be'u" cannot apply to other attitudinals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

Having slept on this, I think I'm back to my original position,
and I now think that {ba'a cu'i} should mean "non-expectation".
But at least now I know that it's not fully backwards-compatible.

I might prefer {cu'i} as a contradictory negator for attitudinals,
by the way, rather than a "zeroer".

That gives

UI = sei broda
UI ru'e = sei milxe lo ka broda
UI sai = sei mutce lo ka broda
UI cu'i = sei na broda
UI nai = sei to'e broda
UI sai cu'i = sei na mutce lo ka broda
UI ru'e sai = sei milxe lo ka mutce broda

I think this is my current preferred scheme.


Some random examples:

o'a = sei jgira
o'a cu'i = sei na jgira
ba'a = sei kanpe
ba'a cu'i = sei na kanpe
ba'a nai = sei morji
ba'a nai cu'i = sei na morji
ba'a sai cu'i = se ina mutce lo ka kanpe

> I suppose "ba'aru'ecai" is as close as you can get to not expecting.

Ugh...

>> Why not {o'a cu'i sai} for "strong modesty"?
>
> That's how I would understand it. Although it doesn't seem very modest
> to express modesty so strongly. Let's say "u'o cu'i sai" for extreme
> shyness instead.

Good point. :-)

>> Also: if {cu'i} doesn't do it, how do we indicate absence of an emotion?
>
> I would have said "be'u", but apparently someone feels very strongly
> that "be'u" cannot apply to other attitudinals.

I have never used {be'u} nor seen it used, so I have no intuitions
about what it might mean.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
> Having slept on this, I think I'm back to my original position,
> and I now think that {ba'a cu'i} should mean "non-expectation".
> But at least now I know that it's not fully backwards-compatible.

I would agree with that.

> I might prefer {cu'i} as a contradictory negator for attitudinals,
> by the way, rather than a "zeroer".
>
> That gives
>
> UI = sei broda
> UI ru'e = sei milxe lo ka broda
> UI sai = sei mutce lo ka broda
> UI cu'i = sei na broda

What about "nutli" instead of "na"? Or maybe na/na'e/nutli are all
more or less equivalent in this context.

> UI nai = sei to'e broda
> UI sai cu'i = sei na mutce lo ka broda
> UI ru'e sai = sei milxe lo ka mutce broda

Shouldn't that be "sei mutce lo ka milxe lo ka broda"?

> I have never used {be'u} nor seen it used, so I have no intuitions
> about what it might mean.

I think it's "sei to'e dukse".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

>> I might prefer {cu'i} as a contradictory negator for attitudinals,
>> by the way, rather than a "zeroer".
>>
>> That gives
>>
>> UI = sei broda
>> UI ru'e = sei milxe lo ka broda
>> UI sai = sei mutce lo ka broda
>> UI cu'i = sei na broda
>
> What about "nutli" instead of "na"? Or maybe na/na'e/nutli are all
> more or less equivalent in this context.

Yeah, they're probably equivalent, but I particularly like the {na}
interpretation because {UI sai cu'i} = {sei na mutce lo ka broda}
ends up meaning something useful. If we take {cu'i} for {nutli}, then
we get {sei nutli lo ka mutce lo ka broda}, which seems useless.

>> UI nai = sei to'e broda

I meant {sei to'e zei broda}, of course.

>> UI sai cu'i = sei na mutce lo ka broda
>> UI ru'e sai = sei milxe lo ka mutce broda
>
> Shouldn't that be "sei mutce lo ka milxe lo ka broda"?

Sorry, yes. Exactly.

>> I have never used {be'u} nor seen it used, so I have no intuitions
>> about what it might mean.
>
> I think it's "sei to'e dukse".

Well... okay. So could I say {be'u} when I'm hungry?
Whenever I have too little of something, {be'u} applies?

[Daniel Brockman]

>>> UI nai = sei to'e broda
>
> I meant {sei to'e zei broda}, of course.

Actually, scratch the "of course", there.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Daniel Brockman
<dan...@gointeractive.se> wrote:
>
> Yeah, they're probably equivalent, but I particularly like the {na}
> interpretation because {UI sai cu'i} = {sei na mutce lo ka broda}
> ends up meaning something useful. If we take {cu'i} for {nutli}, then
> we get {sei nutli lo ka mutce lo ka broda}, which seems useless.

I think I would tend to read that as ((UI sai) cu'i) rather than as
(UI (sai cu'i)).

What about "UI cu'i cu'i"? Would the two cu'i cancel out in your scheme?

All of this reminds me of this long ago exercise:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Three-value+Logic

This is what was said of "cu'i" in that three-value logic system:

"(0,1,-1) is not absolutely neutral, it is uncertainty with a bent
towards assertion, but it is the closest to neutral and we do need it
to generate others, so {cu'i} has to be it."

Which is kind of similar to what I was saying about "o'acu'i" and "modesty".

In the three-value system, full neutrality was cu'icai (-1, 1, -1)
(i.e. an operator that returns false for true or false, and true for
neutral.)

>>> I have never used {be'u} nor seen it used, so I have no intuitions
>>> about what it might mean.
>>
>> I think it's "sei to'e dukse".
>
> Well... okay. So could I say {be'u} when I'm hungry?
> Whenever I have too little of something, {be'u} applies?

Not sure if "be'u" by itself would be very clear just to express that
you're hungry, but if you are hungry and someone is not serving enough
on your plate, you might indicate that with "be'u", "not enough!"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

>> Yeah, they're probably equivalent, but I particularly like the {na}
>> interpretation because {UI sai cu'i} = {sei na mutce lo ka broda}
>> ends up meaning something useful.  If we take {cu'i} for {nutli}, then
>> we get {sei nutli lo ka mutce lo ka broda}, which seems useless.
>
> I think I would tend to read that as ((UI sai) cu'i) rather than as
> (UI (sai cu'i)).

What do you mean, what difference would that make?

> What about "UI cu'i cu'i"? Would the two cu'i cancel out in your scheme?

I guess {ui cu'i cu'i} = "It's not that I'm not happy..."

> All of this reminds me of this long ago exercise:
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Three-value+Logic
>
> This is what was said of "cu'i" in that three-value logic system:
>
> "(0,1,-1) is not absolutely neutral, it is uncertainty with a bent
> towards assertion, but it is the closest to neutral and we do need it
> to generate others, so {cu'i} has to be it."
>
> Which is kind of similar to what I was saying about "o'acu'i" and "modesty".
>
> In the three-value system, full neutrality was cu'icai (-1, 1, -1)
> (i.e. an operator that returns false for true or false, and true for
> neutral.)

Yeah, I read about that once. Very interesting, even though I don't
quite grasp the concept of three-value logic.

>>>> I have never used {be'u} nor seen it used, so I have no intuitions
>>>> about what it might mean.
>>>
>>> I think it's "sei to'e dukse".
>>
>> Well... okay.  So could I say {be'u} when I'm hungry?
>> Whenever I have too little of something, {be'u} applies?
>
> Not sure if "be'u" by itself would be very clear just to express that
> you're hungry, but if you are hungry and someone is not serving enough
> on your plate, you might indicate that with "be'u", "not enough!"

Right, okay. :-)

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Brockman
<dan...@gointeractive.se> wrote:
>>> Yeah, they're probably equivalent, but I particularly like the {na}
>>> interpretation because {UI sai cu'i} = {sei na mutce lo ka broda}
>>> ends up meaning something useful.  If we take {cu'i} for {nutli}, then
>>> we get {sei nutli lo ka mutce lo ka broda}, which seems useless.
>>
>> I think I would tend to read that as ((UI sai) cu'i) rather than as
>> (UI (sai cu'i)).
>
> What do you mean, what difference would that make?

Nevermind, "na" and "nutli" both give ((UI sai) cu'i), it's "na'e"
that gives (UI (sai cu'i)).

>> What about "UI cu'i cu'i"? Would the two cu'i cancel out in your scheme?
>
> I guess {ui cu'i cu'i} = "It's not that I'm not happy..."

More like "sei no'e no'e gleki" than "sei na na gleki" = "sei gleki"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Luke Bergen]

I thought that {na na broda} = {na broda}.... or maybe that was something to do with answering {xu [na] broda} questions...

2010/5/11 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

[Daniel Brockman]

>>> What about "UI cu'i cu'i"? Would the two cu'i cancel out in your scheme?
>>
>> I guess {ui cu'i cu'i} = "It's not that I'm not happy..."
>
> More like "sei no'e no'e gleki" than "sei na na gleki" = "sei gleki"?

I guess, in that case, more like {sei na'e na'e gleki}.

Yeah, it's probably {na'e} rather than {na}.

[Daniel Brockman]

What we could do about {ba'a cu'i} is turn it into a separate cmavo.
Then we get to define another variant of it as well (its opposite):

ba'u'i = I experience
ba'u'i nai = I imagine/fantasize about

.i ba'u'i nai mabla zgike = I have this awful song stuck in my head

[Michael Turniansky]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

What we could do about {ba'a cu'i} is turn it into a separate cmavo.
Then we get to define another variant of it as well (its opposite):

ba'u'i = I experience
ba'u'i nai = I imagine/fantasize about

.i ba'u'i nai mabla zgike = I have this awful song stuck in my head

  We have the same issues with the event contour, bu'ocu'i, don't we?     I'm quite willing to say that [na]cu'i/ru'e/sai/cai are context dependent, in the same way that "jai" or "bo" do different things in different contexts.  There is no reason why lojban can't have cmavo"idioms" that aren't necessarily necessarily parseable in meaning by their components.  Lujvo, for example, already and explicitly are this.  Some things are already in common use, for example za'u roi

  This is probably heresy, though...

           --gejyspa

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm quite willing to say that [na]cu'i/ru'e/sai/cai are context dependent,
> in the same way that "jai" or "bo" do different things in different
> contexts.

Not quite in the same way though. BO and JAI are purely structural,
they add no meaning of their own, they only add structure to a text.
On the other hand, selma'o CAI is purely semantic, not structural.

(I understand why you might say that BO has more than one function,
but why JAI? It always does the same thing: it changes the argument
structure of the selbri by removing the x1 from first position and
replacing it with a non-core argument.)

>  There is no reason why lojban can't have cmavo"idioms" that
> aren't necessarily necessarily parseable in meaning by their components.
> Lujvo, for example, already and explicitly are this.

It's nice to minimize such cases though.

> Some things are
> already in common use, for example za'u roi

Why is "more than once" not compositional?

If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
compositional to me.

>   This is probably heresy, though...

Nothing wrong with heresy, as long as you don't mind the heat. It can
get hot at those stakes. :)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Michael Turniansky]

2010/5/13 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm quite willing to say that [na]cu'i/ru'e/sai/cai are context dependent,
> in the same way that "jai" or "bo" do different things in different
> contexts.

Not quite in the same way though. BO and JAI are purely structural,
they add no meaning of their own, they only add structure to a text.
On the other hand, selma'o CAI is purely semantic, not structural.

(I understand why you might say that BO has more than one function,
but why JAI? It always does the same thing: it changes the argument
structure of the selbri by removing the x1 from first position and
replacing it with a non-core argument.)

I don't know, it always seems to me like JAI BAI and JAI SELBRI don't really function in quite the same way, meaningwise.  (And what exactly does JAI PU do?  Does anyone use it?  Examples?)

> Some things are
> already in common use, for example za'u roi

Why is "more than once" not compositional?

If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
compositional to me.

   I did mean that, yes,


 

>   This is probably heresy, though...

Nothing wrong with heresy, as long as you don't mind the heat. It can
get hot at those stakes. :)

 u'i
      --gejyspa
 

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday 13 May 2010 21:11:30 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> I don't know, it always seems to me like JAI BAI and JAI SELBRI don't
> really function in quite the same way, meaningwise. (And what exactly does
> JAI PU do? Does anyone use it? Examples?)

I think "jai selbri" is equivalent to "jai do'e selbri". As to "jai
<tense-marker>", consider "jai ru'u":
mi jai ru'u vofli fai loi cmasfani (I am surrounded by flying gnats / I am
flown around by gnats) =
ru'u mi cu vofli fa loi cmasfani (Around me fly gnats)
"jai pu" does make sense if the subject is an event or time:
lo nu kunzba cu jai pu rokcedra
(This is hard to translate. It's like an antipassive, except it isn't.)
"Smelting was *past-ed by the Stone Age"?
"Smelting was *Stone-Aged before it happened"?
The un-jai-ed version, "pu lo nu kunzba cu rokcedra", is much easier: "Before
smelting was the Stone Age". The difficulty of translating JAI PU, at least
into accusative languages and probably into ergative languages as well,
probably explains why it isn't used much.

Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[Michael Turniansky]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Thursday 13 May 2010 21:11:30 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> I don't know, it always seems to me like JAI BAI and JAI SELBRI don't
> really function in quite the same way, meaningwise.  (And what exactly does
> JAI PU do?  Does anyone use it?  Examples?)

[snip] 

lo nu kunzba cu jai pu rokcedra
(This is hard to translate. It's like an antipassive, except it isn't.)
"Smelting was *past-ed by the Stone Age"?
"Smelting was *Stone-Aged before it happened"?
The un-jai-ed version, "pu lo nu kunzba cu rokcedra", is much easier: "Before
smelting was the Stone Age". The difficulty of translating JAI PU, at least
into accusative languages and probably into ergative languages as well,
probably explains why it isn't used much.

  Okay, that's what I thought, but then I thought maybe I was thinking about it wrong.   ki'e
        --gejyspa
 

[Daniel Brockman]

> I don't know, it always seems to me like JAI BAI and JAI SELBRI don't really
> function in quite the same way, meaningwise.

jai broda = jai fi'o pa moi sumti sucta pagbu fe'u broda

(By the way, sucta pagbu = se sucta, in this context?)

> (And what exactly does JAI PU do?  Does anyone use it?  Examples?)

The same as JAI BAI: it switches whatever PU would have tagged into x1.

Made-up example:

i lo nu spoja cu se rinka lo jai ca nu iklki

The explosion was caused by something that happened at the same
time as the button was pressed.

(Weird fu'ivla, by the way --- found it in jbovlaste.)

[Daniel Brockman]

> If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
> compositional to me.

It's compatible with the compositional meaning, but it usually
means something more specific: "a time after the last time".

Which I guess is fine, but it is a slight lexicalization.

[Daniel Brockman]

> I think "jai selbri" is equivalent to "jai do'e selbri".

No, it's more specific that that. It switches some unspecified place
from *inside* the original x1 (which must be an abstraction), into x1.

i mi jai rinka lo nu do tcidu dei

I am part of the cause of you reading this.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>> If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
>> compositional to me.
>
> It's compatible with the compositional meaning, but it usually
> means something more specific: "a time after the last time".

Isn't every time (other than the first one) a time after the previous
one? What is the difference between "a time after the last time" and
"a time other than the first time"?

> Which I guess is fine, but it is a slight lexicalization.

Then every combination used more or less frequently is a
lexicalization. Is "la'e di'u" a lexicalization?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Luke Bergen]

I understand this usage (jai selbri) but the other usage (jai BAI/jai PU/jai X) confuses the crap out of me no matter how many times it has been explained to me.

If someone would be willing to explain it in simple (read: stupid people) terms I will put my greatest effort into understanding it again.

I can say with some certainty that it is/will be the last piece of lojban grammar for me to "get"

On May 14, 2010 12:51 PM, "Daniel Brockman" <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

> I think "jai selbri" is equivalent to "jai do'e selbri".

No, it's more specific that that.  It switches some unspecified place
from *inside* the original x1 (which must be an abstraction), into x1.

   i mi jai rinka lo nu do tcidu dei

   I am part of the cause of you reading this.

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

To po...

[Daniel Brockman]

>>> If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
>>> compositional to me.
>>
>> It's compatible with the compositional meaning, but it usually
>> means something more specific: "a time after the last time".
>
> Isn't every time (other than the first one) a time after the previous
> one? What is the difference between "a time after the last time" and
> "a time other than the first time"?

You're right. The thing about {za'u re'u} is it suggests {za'u so'i re'u}.
It does apply to any time other than the first time, but is *usually* used
to indicate that something happens again after relatively many times.

At least, that's my interpretation. But note that I'm not saying this that
this is a problem! Most vague expressions will have SOME "more likely"
subset of all the compositionally possible interpretations, often due to the
language culture. I think this is impossible to avoid.

What we can do is try to keep it at a reasonable level, and make the
lexicalization explicit, instead of keeping it implicit, when possible.
When a tanru gets to become too lexicalized, turn it into a lujvo so
that tanru space can remain as compositional as possible.

When a cmavo cluster becomes too lexicalized, coin a new cmavo so
that the original cmavo can remain as compositional as possible, or
explicitly define the cmavo cluster to have the more specific meaning.
(This is done with {UI nai}, for example.)

Of course, this is only a problem when the lexicalized meaning is a
significant restriction of the compositionally possible meanings.

For example, there's no need to do anything about {lo nu} just because we
probably often think of it as a single lexical item, because the lexicalized
meaning is identical to the compositional one.

>> Which I guess is fine, but it is a slight lexicalization.
>
> Then every combination used more or less frequently is a
> lexicalization. Is "la'e di'u" a lexicalization?

Definitely. The question is: is the lexicalized meaning a significant
restriction of the possible meanings? I'm not sure, but at least it doesn't
seem like a huge restriction: {la'e di'u} is itself quite vague. But there's
little question to me that it is a lexical item of its own in our brains.


By the way, I think it may be a good idea to have an escape hatch for
this kind of lexicalization. A way to say, "interpret this compositionally."
Preferably as a UI. Then we would get "interpret this lexically" for free.

For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically". But how do we say
"do not interpret this tanru lexically"?

[Daniel Brockman]

The {jai BAI} syntax is even easier: it just switches the BAI place into x1:

i lo glico cu jai bau casnu la lojban
= i bau lo glico cu casnu la lojban
English is the language of discussion about Lojban.

The original x1 ends up in the place tagged by {fai}:

i lo glico cu jai bau casnu la lojban fai mi'o
English is the language in which we discuss Lojban.

[Luke Bergen]

Oooooooh.  It basically does exactly the same thing as jai selbri but marks the aditional information of the x1 being a sumti of type BAI.

Errr wait.  So does {lo jbobau jai bau tavla} = {tavla bau lo jbobau} or something else like {lo ibobau cu tavla} where the x1 of tavla now means something like {fi'o bangu}?  (wasn't sure how to express that fully in lojban without using jai again. 

Now that I think I understand tagged jai (for the 8th time), is there a formal definition of it IN lojban?  i.e.  if you wanted to re-write {le jbobau cu jai bau tavla} without using jai how would you (assuming it's even possible)

On May 14, 2010 3:56 PM, "Daniel Brockman" <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

The {jai BAI} syntax is even easier: it just switches the BAI place into x1:

   i lo glico cu jai bau casnu la lojban
   = i bau lo glico cu casnu la lojban
   English is the language of discussion about Lojban.

The original x1 ends up in the place tagged by {fai}:

   i lo glico cu jai bau casnu la lojban fai mi'o
   English is the language in which we discuss Lojban.

--
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 e...

[Daniel Brockman]

> if you wanted to re-write {le jbobau cu jai bau tavla} without using jai
> how would you

Very simple, very mechanical:

tavla bau le jbobau

It means nothing more, nothing less.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>
> The thing about {za'u re'u} is it suggests {za'u so'i re'u}.
> It does apply to any time other than the first time, but is *usually* used
> to indicate that something happens again after relatively many times.

I don't know. I would have thought using it for the second time was
about as common as for all other times combined. And probably the same
for "again".
Would you not naturally use "again" for the second time something happens?

> When a tanru gets to become too lexicalized, turn it into a lujvo so
> that tanru space can remain as compositional as possible.

lujvo are not just lexicalized tanru. In fact there should be no
connection between lujvo and tanru. Unfortunately, lujvo are taught as
"coming from an underlying tanru", but they don't really come from a
tanru. The place structure of a lujvo is usually rather different from
that of any tanru one might want to associate with it. The only
connection between a lujvo and a tanru might be with respect to the x1
of each, but all else is in general different.

> By the way, I think it may be a good idea to have an escape hatch for
> this kind of lexicalization.  A way to say, "interpret this compositionally."
> Preferably as a UI.  Then we would get "interpret this lexically" for free.

There's "pe'a", although that's not exactly what you're talking about.

> For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically".  But how do we say
> "do not interpret this tanru lexically"?

I wouldn't say that's what ZEI is. What would be an example of a
lexical interpretation of a tanru?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Luke Bergen]

Sweet.  That's so much simpler than I realized, maybe it'll stick this time.  Thanks for the explaination

On May 14, 2010 4:16 PM, "Daniel Brockman" <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

> if you wanted to re-write {le jbobau cu jai bau tavla} without using jai
> how would you

Very simple, very mechanical:

   tavla bau le jbobau

It means nothing more, nothing less.

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

To po...

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

For more options,...

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 14 May 2010 15:55:50 Daniel Brockman wrote:
> The {jai BAI} syntax is even easier: it just switches the BAI place into
> x1:
>
> i lo glico cu jai bau casnu la lojban
> = i bau lo glico cu casnu la lojban
> English is the language of discussion about Lojban.
>
> The original x1 ends up in the place tagged by {fai}:
>
> i lo glico cu jai bau casnu la lojban fai mi'o
> English is the language in which we discuss Lojban.

{jai} is similar to the passive, with {fai} corresponding to "by":
*In English is discussed Lojban by us.
English has a dative-passive (which in Lojban is {te}, using {dunda} as the
selbri, and doesn't use {fai}), but no language-passive, so the above
sentence sounds weird in English.

Pierre

--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[tijlan]

On 14 May 2010 20:47, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

The thing about {za'u re'u} is it suggests {za'u so'i re'u}.
It does apply to any time other than the first time, but is *usually* used
to indicate that something happens again after relatively many times.

When I use {za'u re'u}, I'm thinking about that the number in question is larger than another contextually understood number, not about whether or not the number refers to the quantity of "many". For example, if the event of a thief robbing my bag is contextually understood to have happened once in the past and now I want to report a new, second occurence of it, I would likely use {za'u re'u} as {re} is greater than {pa}. It would be the same as {re re'u} except that this wouldn't emphasize {re}'s being greater than certain numbers.  If I had to express that the number in question is large to the extent of "many", I would say {so'i re'u}.

{za'u so'i re'u} sounds to me more like {du'e re'u}, "(occuring as) the more than many-th (too-many-th) time".

Also, {pa} is more than {no}, so perhaps {za'u re'u} could apply to "the first time" as well.

 

By the way, I think it may be a good idea to have an escape hatch for
this kind of lexicalization.  A way to say, "interpret this compositionally."
Preferably as a UI.  Then we would get "interpret this lexically" for free.

For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically".  But how do we say
"do not interpret this tanru lexically"?

It might be irrelevant but {ta'u} comes to mind. I don't know much about the difference between {ta'u} "making a tanru" and {ta'unai} "expanding the tanru", though.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:21 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, {pa} is more than {no}, so perhaps {za'u re'u} could apply to "the
> first time" as well.

"za'u" is "za'u pa" by default.

If "za'u re'u" could apply to the first time, it would be useless,
since the whole point of "za'u re'u" is to mean "other than the first
time".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Daniel Brockman]

>> The thing about {za'u re'u} is it suggests {za'u so'i re'u}.
>> It does apply to any time other than the first time, but is *usually* used
>> to indicate that something happens again after relatively many times.
>
> I don't know. I would have thought using it for the second time was
> about as common as for all other times combined. And probably the same
> for "again". Would you not naturally use "again" for the second time
> something happens?

Yes, I would, but in many cases re = so'i.

But the more you suggest that I am wrong about this, the more convinced I
become. I do not take your experience with this language lightly. You have
probably used the phrase {za'u re'u} a hundred times more than I have. Hell,
for all I know, you invented it! (Or "discovered" it?)

I'll reconsider my use of it and my interpretation of others' use of
it. I don't
really have any strong opinions about it; someone else brought it up and I
just used it as an example.

We do agree, though, that whatever lexical bias about {za'u re'u} is small
and in any case not in conflict with the compositional meaning.

>> When a tanru gets to become too lexicalized, turn it into a lujvo so
>> that tanru space can remain as compositional as possible.
>
> lujvo are not just lexicalized tanru. In fact there should be no
> connection between lujvo and tanru. Unfortunately, lujvo are taught as
> "coming from an underlying tanru", but they don't really come from a
> tanru. The place structure of a lujvo is usually rather different from
> that of any tanru one might want to associate with it. The only
> connection between a lujvo and a tanru might be with respect to the x1
> of each, but all else is in general different.

Well, that sounds a little extreme. People are quite strict about what the
place structure and meaning of a lujvo should be. You're right: the place
structure is not the same as any tanru, but it's usually derived from the
places of the components of a tanru. At least my experience is that the
general opinion is that a lujvo should be a restriction of a tanru.

Of course, there are lujvo, like {nu zei broda}, that have no corresponding
tanru, but those are special cases.

Anyway, I do agree that there is probably too much focus on the connection
between lujvo and tanru. In fact, I think there is too much focus on lujvo
altogether: I would like to hear the word "brivla" much more often than either
of the words "gismu", "lujvo" and "fu'ivla" (and the word "selbri" much more
often than the word "brivla"). People get hung up on the categories of brivla,
when those are usually quite inconsequential. A brivla is a brivla is a brivla.

I wonder where we would be today if gismu and lujvo had not been invented.
The process of coining new words might have been more constructive.

>> By the way, I think it may be a good idea to have an escape hatch for
>> this kind of lexicalization.  A way to say, "interpret this compositionally."
>> Preferably as a UI.  Then we would get "interpret this lexically" for free.
>
> There's "pe'a", although that's not exactly what you're talking about.

It is relevant, though! Good point.

I'm thinking that {bi'u} is sort of similar to what I'm talking about, too.

>> For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically".  But how do we say
>> "do not interpret this tanru lexically"?
>
> I wouldn't say that's what ZEI is. What would be an example of a
> lexical interpretation of a tanru?

I'm stretching the meaning of the word "lexical" there. What I meant
was that ZEI forces a *particular* interpretation of a tanru. In a way,
it's sort of the same difference as that between {lo broda} and {le broda}.
The former is "compositional", whereas the latter is "lexical", in the sense
that you explicitly can't expect to understand it fully just by combining the
meaning of the words {le} and {broda}.

But to answer your question, to fully understand {fukpi zei valsi} you cannot
rely on combining {fukpi} and {valsi}: you have to look it up in a dictionary.

By the way, now that {lo} is purely syntactical, a similar thing happens
there: how do you indicate that you're using {lo broda} "compositionally";
in other words, what's the "opposite" of {le}? I know we have several other
gadri to choose from ({lo'e} in particular seems relevant), but I think that's
sidestepping a little bit: I could say the same thing about {lo'e broda}: how
do I indicate that I'm not talking about a *particular* kind of typical broda?

To take a concrete example, let's say {lo logji bangu}. That's a relatively
lexicalized phrase. We all have a preconception about what it means:
something like {lo simsa be la loglan}. But it can just as well mean, for
example, a formal system of logic. How do I wash away the sticky lexical
goo from the phrase so that I can utilize its full compositional potential?

[Daniel Brockman]

> When I use {za'u re'u}, I'm thinking about that the number in question is
> larger than another contextually understood number,

That's roughly what I meant by "a time after the previous time", and I think
it may be the core of the argument.

That {za'u re'u} is used as if it meant {za'u tu'o re'u}.

[tijlan]

On 15 May 2010 23:07, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

> I wouldn't say that's what ZEI is. What would be an example of a
> lexical interpretation of a tanru?

I'm stretching the meaning of the word "lexical" there.  What I meant
was that ZEI forces a *particular* interpretation of a tanru.

That isn't a general description of ZEI. {dai zei broda}, for example, has no tanru to (associatively) force a particular interpretation of.

[tijlan]

On 15 May 2010 23:12, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

> When I use {za'u re'u}, I'm thinking about that the number in question is
> larger than another contextually understood number,

That's roughly what I meant by "a time after the previous time", and I think
it may be the core of the argument.

That {za'u re'u} is used as if it meant {za'u tu'o re'u}.

Yes, I agree. And I see {za'u tu'o re'u} as the default meaning of {za'u re'u}. I don't think {za'u re'u} should suggest {za'u so'i re'u} "more-than-many-th time" by default.

[Daniel Brockman]

> I see {za'u tu'o re'u} as the default meaning of {za'u re'u}.

But {za'u re'u} is *explicitly defined* to mean {za'u pa re'u}.

[tijlan]

On 16 May 2010 21:55, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:

> I see {za'u tu'o re'u} as the default meaning of {za'u re'u}.

But {za'u re'u} is *explicitly defined* to mean {za'u pa re'u}.

I forgot about that :P

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 May 2010 23:12, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>>
>> That {za'u re'u} is used as if it meant {za'u tu'o re'u}.
>
> Yes, I agree. And I see {za'u tu'o re'u} as the default meaning of {za'u
> re'u}.

"tu'o" is the PA equivalent of "zi'o", used to fill a place when the
syntax requires an argument and the semantics require that there be no
argument. What could "za'u tu'o" mean? Maybe you're thinking of "no'o"
rather than "tu'o"?

"za'u re'u" means "za'u pa re'u", i.e. "re re'u ja ci re'u ja vo re'u
ja mu re'u ja ..."

I don't think "za'u re'u" gives any hint at all as to which time it
is, other than explicitly excluding it being the first one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[tijlan]

2010/5/16 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

"tu'o" is the PA equivalent of "zi'o", used to fill a place when the
syntax requires an argument and the semantics require that there be no
argument. What could "za'u tu'o" mean? Maybe you're thinking of "no'o"
rather than "tu'o"?

I wasn't too sure "no'o"s sense of "typical/average value" would apply to every case. In a case where "za'u re'u" means "za'u so re'u" for example, I don't see why the numbers from "pa" to "so" (the set of numerals less than ten) would represent "typical/average" values. "tu'o" seemed more aptly generic to me.

I thought "tu'o" was more like "zo'e" than "zi'o". "tu'o"s definition: non-specific/elliptical number. This doesn't necessarily mean a non-existing value, does it? Does "pa so so tu'o" mean "199[no number]" or "199[unspecific number]"? I think the latter. Hence "1990s", in my opinion.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a case where "za'u re'u" means "za'u so re'u" for example,

"za'u re'u" means "za'u pa re'u". There is no case in which it means
"za'u so re'u", although in some case "za'u so re'u" could be true at
the same time.

> I thought "tu'o" was more like "zo'e" than "zi'o".

See: http://jbotcan.org/docs/cll/c18/s14.html

> "tu'o"s definition:
> non-specific/elliptical number. This doesn't necessarily mean a non-existing
> value, does it?

The full "deffinition" is: "digit/number: null operand (used in unary
operations); a non-specific/elliptical number."

So, yes, if you ignore the "null operand" part, it could be a
non-specific number. That's the kind of thing the BPFK is meant to
settle.

>Does "pa so so tu'o" mean "199[no number]" or
> "199[unspecific number]"? I think the latter. Hence "1990s", in my opinion.

I've seen it used like that, yes. But the 1990s is a whole decade,
while "199[some digit]" would be a single year, no? And if tu'o is a
non-specific number, why should it be used as a non-specific digit?

Things like "pa so so tu'o" to name a decade are better examples of
non-compositional lexicalization than the fully compositional "za'u
re'u".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Adam D. Lopresto]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 May 2010 23:12, Daniel Brockman <dan...@brockman.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> That {za'u re'u} is used as if it meant {za'u tu'o re'u}.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. And I see {za'u tu'o re'u} as the default meaning of {za'u
>> re'u}.
>
> "tu'o" is the PA equivalent of "zi'o", used to fill a place when the
> syntax requires an argument and the semantics require that there be no
> argument. What could "za'u tu'o" mean? Maybe you're thinking of "no'o"
> rather than "tu'o"?
>
> "za'u re'u" means "za'u pa re'u", i.e. "re re'u ja ci re'u ja vo re'u
> ja mu re'u ja ..."
>
> I don't think "za'u re'u" gives any hint at all as to which time it
> is, other than explicitly excluding it being the first one.

I think the biggest issue is that there's a missing PA. {tu'o} is like
{zi'o}, and {no'o} is like {zu'i}, and none of those is used all that often.
There's nothing that's like {zo'e}, but it's what's used all the time. If
there were a {zo'e}-like PA, it would make a great deal of sense for that (and
not {pa} itself) to the default value for all the comparative PA ({za'u},
{me'i}, {su'o}, etc).
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Dogs come when called. Cats take a message and get back to you.