lujvo for "spelling"? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] How do you write "Eyjafjallajökull"? (a sentence from tatoeba))

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

I think we should have a lujvo for the relationship between a word and
its spelling.
Its definition could be
"x1 is a spelling of word x2."

Currently, my best attempt at expressing that in lojban is
{ko'e valsi fi'o lerfu porsi ko'a},
inspired by iesk (more ideas below). Am I missing a better possibility?

My current idea for a veljvo is {valsi ke lerfu porsi}, giving {vlakemlerpoi}
({vlalerpoi} being possibly a string of letters (as opposed to other
letterals)).

An important thing to consider is how the spelling would be expressed. The
straightforward representation of a {ce'o}-sequence of individual letterals
would give things like {me'o .e bu ce'o me'o .ybu li'o}, and these {ce'o me'o}
are distracting. CLL 17.2 suggests lerfu strings for the purpose of spelling.
I guess we could define the terjvo to be something like {me'o .ebu .ybu li'o}.

What do you think? Any suggestions?

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 3 July 2012 11:46, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tried translating this one and failed.
> <How do you write "Eyjafjallajökull"?> actually means <How do you spell
> "Eyjafjallajökull"?> or <Please dictate the spelling of "Eyjafjallajökull">
> Any ideas?
>

On 3 July 2012 12:16, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ma tadji lonu ciska zo'oi.Eyjafjallajökull.
>
> Or without using "experimental" cmavo:
>
> ma tadji lonu ciska zoi by. Eyjafjallajökull .by

On 3 July 2012 17:47, iesk <pa....@gmx.de> wrote:
> .i .u'i ki'a xu zoi zoi. Eyjafjallajökull .zoi se ciska fi'o za'e lerfyporsi
> .e bu ce'o .y bu ce'o jy. ce'o .a bu ce'o fy. ce'o jy. ce'o .a bu ce'o ly.
> ce'o ly. ce'o .a bu ce'o jy. ce'o tei .o bu relmoc. bu foi ce'o ky. ce'o .u
> bu ce'o ly. ce'o ly.
>

[Jonathan Jones]

For one thing, you don't want to be using me'o at all. Spelling isn't math.

The only way I know of to spell a word without using ce'o between each letter is with lo'u ... le'u:

lo'u by. .abu ry. dy. .abu le'u tadji lonu ciska lu barda li'u

--
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 )

[Jacob Errington]

On 12 July 2012 15:20, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For one thing, you don't want to be using me'o at all. Spelling isn't math.
>

Actually, {me'o} is just fine. How else are you supposed to say "I
write the letter 'b'," if not by using {.i mi ciska me'o by.} ({mi
ciska by} is out of the question, because by is anaphoric) ?

> The only way I know of to spell a word without using ce'o between each
> letter is with lo'u ... le'u:
>

Using lo'u .. le'u just amounts to a shorthand for {ce'o}, yes. The
problem is that if told you {ko ciska lo'u ci ra ki ba na ku te le'u}
I'd expect "ci ra ki ba na ku te" to be on the ciska3, not something
else. By extension, I'd expect "by a bu ky ny i bu" to be on the
ciska3 if I said {.i ko ciska lo'u by abu ky ny ibu le'u}.

> lo'u by. .abu ry. dy. .abu le'u tadji lonu ciska lu barda li'u
>

That suffers from more than one problem, because I'd figure that only
abstractions (or descriptions referring to abstractions, of course)
could be tadji1. A list cannot be a method; that just doesn't make
sense (my answer would be uanai).

Again, I suggest using something involving probably LAhE, porsi, and
lerfu: {vu'i me'o by abu ky ny ibu lerfu porsi fi vu'i zo bakni}.
The rationale behind using vu'i on a quote is that if the quote is a
word-quote, the (only?) logical sequence that vu'i can return is a
list of letters. I'd suppose that vu'i on a grammatical-text quote
returns the list of words. (I differentiate grammatical text quotes
from multi-word quotes, but I won't get into that.)
The justification for using a sequence in porsi3, which is of type
[set] (assuming places are typed, which is what I believe) is that all
sequences are also sets (the sequence type inherits all the properties
of the set type).
Using {vu'i me'o by abu ky ny ibu} is *perhaps* not a good solution
(albeit certainly understandable). Maybe, a better solution would be
the much longer {me'o by ce'o me'o abu ce'o me'o ky ce'o me'o ny ce'o
me'o ibu} which *presumably* parses in the PEG and probably not in
jbofi'e, but I'd never expect anyone to *ever* say that, *ever*.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 15:20, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For one thing, you don't want to be using me'o at all. Spelling isn't math.
>

Actually, {me'o} is just fine. How else are you supposed to say "I
write the letter 'b'," if not by using {.i mi ciska me'o by.} ({mi
ciska by} is out of the question, because by is anaphoric) ?

That's not "I write the letter "b". me'o by. is the VARIABLE b.
 

[Jacob Errington]

On 12 July 2012 17:39, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 July 2012 15:20, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > For one thing, you don't want to be using me'o at all. Spelling isn't
>> > math.
>> >
>> Actually, {me'o} is just fine. How else are you supposed to say "I
>> write the letter 'b'," if not by using {.i mi ciska me'o by.} ({mi
>> ciska by} is out of the question, because by is anaphoric) ?
>
>
> That's not "I write the letter "b". me'o by. is the VARIABLE b.
>

Then could you tell me how to say it?
Also, I have better than good reason to believe that it's NOT the
variable b, given the definition of me'o which I'd assumed you'd know:
"me'o = the mathematical expression (unevaluated); convert unevaluated
mathematical expression to sumti."

What is the unevaluated expression "2+2" ? I think it's "2+2". That
leads me to believe that the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", even
if b has the value, say, 4, in which case its evaluated expression is
"4" and not "b".

[Jonathan Jones]

The letter "b" in Lojban is {by.}

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, I have better than good reason to believe that it's NOT the
variable b, given the definition of me'o which I'd assumed you'd know:
"me'o = the mathematical expression (unevaluated); convert unevaluated
mathematical expression to sumti."

What is the unevaluated expression "2+2" ? I think it's "2+2". That
leads me to believe that the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", even
if b has the value, say, 4, in which case its evaluated expression is
"4" and not "b".

Yes, the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", however, it is the VARIABLE "b", NOT the LETTER "b". We're talking about mathematics here. Math doesn't have letters. It has constants, variables, and operations. Things REPRESENTED by letters are VARIABLES.

[Jacob Errington]

On 12 July 2012 18:52, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also, I have better than good reason to believe that it's NOT the
>> variable b, given the definition of me'o which I'd assumed you'd know:
>> "me'o = the mathematical expression (unevaluated); convert unevaluated
>> mathematical expression to sumti."
>>
>> What is the unevaluated expression "2+2" ? I think it's "2+2". That
>> leads me to believe that the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", even
>> if b has the value, say, 4, in which case its evaluated expression is
>> "4" and not "b".
>
>
> Yes, the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", however, it is the VARIABLE "b",
> NOT the LETTER "b". We're talking about mathematics here. Math doesn't have
> letters. It has constants, variables, and operations. Things REPRESENTED by
> letters are VARIABLES.
>
>

Sure, but what matters is the result, no? If I say "write the
unevaluated expression 'b'" and I get a "b" on a piece of paper, and
that's what I wanted to happen, then I've succeeded, haven't I?

Regardless, in a 100% lojbanic environment, the listener would just
write {by} on the paper if I told em/them/him/her {.i ko ciska me'o by
lo papri}.
Looking at the definition of {lerfu}, the gimste seems to suggest that
a letter can be referred to with {la'e zo BY}. Is it thus the case
that {la'e zo by ce'o abu ce'o...} (which is redundant to {la'e lo'u
by abu ... le'u}) is the correct way to give a letter list?

And, I think I should mention that you haven't answered my question.
How would you give a letter list? It's good and well to tell everyone
that they're wrong, but if you suggest no solutions, I'm afraid you're
only being unproductive.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> --
> 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]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 18:52, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, I have better than good reason to believe that it's NOT the
>> variable b, given the definition of me'o which I'd assumed you'd know:
>> "me'o = the mathematical expression (unevaluated); convert unevaluated
>> mathematical expression to sumti."
>>
>> What is the unevaluated expression "2+2" ? I think it's "2+2". That
>> leads me to believe that the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", even
>> if b has the value, say, 4, in which case its evaluated expression is
>> "4" and not "b".
>
>
> Yes, the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", however, it is the VARIABLE "b",
> NOT the LETTER "b". We're talking about mathematics here. Math doesn't have
> letters. It has constants, variables, and operations. Things REPRESENTED by
> letters are VARIABLES.

Sure, but what matters is the result, no? If I say "write the
unevaluated expression 'b'" and I get a "b" on a piece of paper, and
that's what I wanted to happen, then I've succeeded, haven't I?

I would say no, because a variable is a symbol which represents a numeric value, possibly unknown, most likely changing according to circumstances, even possibly imaginary, but a value nonetheless, whereas a letter represents a phoneme. While it is true that the symbols for both /can/ be the same, it is not true that they represent the same thing. Regardless of which, /you don't need to use me'o at all/. {.i ko ciska me'o by.} Means "You! write the mathematical expression 'b'." {.i ko ciska by.} means "You! write the letter 'b'."
 

Regardless, in a 100% lojbanic environment, the listener would just
write {by} on the paper if I told em/them/him/her {.i ko ciska me'o by
lo papri}.

In any environment where you told someone to write the variable b, they would would place a vertical line with a connecting closed loop at the bottom to the right. It's not a Lojbanic-specific thing.
 

Looking at the definition of {lerfu}, the gimste seems to suggest that
a letter can be referred to with {la'e zo BY}. Is it thus the case
that {la'e zo by ce'o abu ce'o...} (which is redundant to {la'e lo'u
by abu ... le'u}) is the correct way to give a letter list?

No. {zo} only quotes one word. It would either be {la'e zo by. ce'o lu .abu li'u ce'o ...} or possibly {la'e lu by. .abu ... li'u}. And I'm not saying either are "correct", except in a grammatical sense.
 

And, I think I should mention that you haven't answered my question.
How would you give a letter list? It's good and well to tell everyone
that they're wrong, but if you suggest no solutions, I'm afraid you're
only being unproductive.

I have answered your question. That you haven't seen it is not my fault.
 

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> --
> 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 )
>

> --
> 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.

--
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.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 18:52, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, I have better than good reason to believe that it's NOT the
>> variable b, given the definition of me'o which I'd assumed you'd know:
>> "me'o = the mathematical expression (unevaluated); convert unevaluated
>> mathematical expression to sumti."
>>
>> What is the unevaluated expression "2+2" ? I think it's "2+2". That
>> leads me to believe that the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", even
>> if b has the value, say, 4, in which case its evaluated expression is
>> "4" and not "b".
>
>
> Yes, the unevaluated expression "b" is "b", however, it is the VARIABLE "b",
> NOT the LETTER "b". We're talking about mathematics here. Math doesn't have
> letters. It has constants, variables, and operations. Things REPRESENTED by
> letters are VARIABLES.

Sure, but what matters is the result, no? If I say "write the
unevaluated expression 'b'" and I get a "b" on a piece of paper, and
that's what I wanted to happen, then I've succeeded, haven't I?

I would say no, because a variable is a symbol which represents a numeric value, possibly unknown, most likely changing according to circumstances, even possibly imaginary, but a value nonetheless, whereas a letter represents a phoneme. While it is true that the symbols for both /can/ be the same, it is not true that they represent the same thing. Regardless of which, /you don't need to use me'o at all/. {.i ko ciska me'o by.} Means "You! write the mathematical expression 'b'." {.i ko ciska by.} means "You! write the letter 'b'."

I have to correct myself. {.i ko ciska by.} means to write what is being referred to by {by.}, which granted usually doesn't make sense. After all, if by. refers to a lo barda cipni, how do you write a big bird? And keep in mind this isn't writing about a big bird, or writing down the words "big bird", but actually writing the big bird itself.
 

[.arpis.]

The CLL seems to disagree with you on this point somewhat.

http://dag.github.com/cll/17/10/

But I like the lo'u ... li'u suggestion for spelling.

mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jacob Errington]

I think that taking a look at the CLL might clear things up, as arpis mentioned.
Chapter 17 section 10 example two clearly demonstrates use of me'o for
denoting letters.
Furthermore, pure use of quotations is definitely incorrect, as
evidenced in examples four and five.

>>
>> Regardless, in a 100% lojbanic environment, the listener would just
>> write {by} on the paper if I told em/them/him/her {.i ko ciska me'o by
>> lo papri}.
>
>
> In any environment where you told someone to write the variable b, they
> would would place a vertical line with a connecting closed loop at the
> bottom to the right. It's not a Lojbanic-specific thing.
>

You're wrong. I'm definitely not dreaming when I'm saying that the
variable b in Lojban is {by}. As you must already know, {b} by itself,
in Lojban, is a cmevla, and even though I'm stating what's blatantly
obvious here, cmevla are not "mathematical expressions" by ANY
stretch.

>>
>> Looking at the definition of {lerfu}, the gimste seems to suggest that
>> a letter can be referred to with {la'e zo BY}. Is it thus the case
>> that {la'e zo by ce'o abu ce'o...} (which is redundant to {la'e lo'u
>> by abu ... le'u}) is the correct way to give a letter list?
>
>
> No. {zo} only quotes one word. It would either be {la'e zo by. ce'o lu .abu
> li'u ce'o ...} or possibly {la'e lu by. .abu ... li'u}. And I'm not saying
> either are "correct", except in a grammatical sense.
>

I now notice that I forgot some {zo} (and lu..li'u).
I think you fail to understand my understanding of lo'u..le'u which
I'm almost certain I've explained: {lo'u by cy dy le'u} == {zo by ce'o
zo cy ce'o zo dy}.
Using {la'e lu abu by cy li'u} is wrong on a different level, because
inside a lu..li'u words INTERACT with each other, such that all those
BY (and ABU) compound to form one variable.

>>
>> And, I think I should mention that you haven't answered my question.
>> How would you give a letter list? It's good and well to tell everyone
>> that they're wrong, but if you suggest no solutions, I'm afraid you're
>> only being unproductive.
>
>
> I have answered your question. That you haven't seen it is not my fault.
>

If by "answered" you're that semantically incorrect use of {tadji},
then no, you haven't answered it at all. You've told me my solutions
are no good, and I've thus made more. I have yet to see you
reciprocate that behaviour.

[Jacob Errington]

> If by "answered" you're * that semantically incorrect use of {tadji},

> then no, you haven't answered it at all. You've told me my solutions
> are no good, and I've thus made more. I have yet to see you
> reciprocate that behaviour.
>

* referring to

[.arpis.]

Use of {lu} quotations is incorrect, but {lo'u} quotations may be different in this case.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jacob Errington]

Well, according to my interpretation of things, a lo'u quotation
amounts to a sequence of zo quotations. If using dereferenced zo
quotations is correct, then using dereference zo quotation sequences
is certainly correct in producing a sequence of "letters".

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Jonathan Jones]

No. lo'u ... le'u is not equivalent to a string of zo-quotes placed in a sequence using ce'o. It is equivalent to a single lu .. li'u qutoe, except that the internal contents only need to be in Lojban, they do not need to be grammatical.
 

Using {la'e lu abu by cy li'u} is wrong on a different level, because
inside a lu..li'u words INTERACT with each other, such that all those
BY (and ABU) compound to form one variable.

I fail to see how "the referent of 'b a r d a'" is wrong on /any/ level, but it's not a moot point, because I wasn't suggesting that it's the correct way to do things, but merely that it's GRAMMATICAL.
 

>>
>> And, I think I should mention that you haven't answered my question.
>> How would you give a letter list? It's good and well to tell everyone
>> that they're wrong, but if you suggest no solutions, I'm afraid you're
>> only being unproductive.
>
>
> I have answered your question. That you haven't seen it is not my fault.
>

If by "answered" you're that semantically incorrect use of {tadji},
then no, you haven't answered it at all. You've told me my solutions
are no good, and I've thus made more. I have yet to see you
reciprocate that behaviour.

No, by answered I mean my responses to what you have said.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 20:41, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If by "answered" you're referring to that semantically incorrect use of {tadji},

> then no, you haven't answered it at all. You've told me my solutions
> are no good, and I've thus made more. I have yet to see you
> reciprocate that behaviour.

Also, I've seen no opinion's as to the "semantic correctness" of using tadji besides your own. To date, no jbocertu has made a comment one way or the other. Until at least one of them does, I'm going to continue with the opinion that there is nothing wrong with using tadji to ask how to spell something.

[Jacob Errington]

That's one way to see it. A grammatical quote differs fundamentally
from a multi-word quote in that inside a grammatical quote, the words
actually interact. {lo'u a bu le'u} is fundamentally different from
{lu a bu li'u}. Inside the lu-quote, bu is actually a magic word,
unlike when inside a lo'u-quote (check in jbofi'e, I'm not kidding
you).

Regardless, I wasn't asserting that a lo'u...le'u quote be equivalent
to a sequence of zo-quotes; I was simply telling you that's how I see
it, considering that pretty much any other interpretation of it fails.
In fact, the CLL in that aforementioned chapter, uses a lu-quote to
quote {abu} rather than a lo'u-quote. I presume that it's for the very
good reason that {bu} is not magical inside a lo'u-quote.

>>
>> Using {la'e lu abu by cy li'u} is wrong on a different level, because
>> inside a lu..li'u words INTERACT with each other, such that all those
>> BY (and ABU) compound to form one variable.
>
>
> I fail to see how "the referent of 'b a r d a'" is wrong on /any/ level, but
> it's not a moot point, because I wasn't suggesting that it's the correct way
> to do things, but merely that it's GRAMMATICAL.
>

Like I've said it already, the lu-quote produces one meaningful lump
of text, whereas the lo'u-quote produces a sequence of words. Inside a
lu-quote, words get parsed and INTERACT with each other (I dreadfully
feel like I'm repeating myself). This causes all the BY to collide and
form ONE SINGLE VARIABLE. Because we want to get at the individual
letters, allowing them to merge as such is undesired. Therefore, using
a lu-quote is unuseful for this purpose.

As it apparently wasn't clear, the level on which {la'e lu by abu ry
dy abu li'u} is wrong is a SEMANTIC level. Obviously, it's grammatical
-- I never argued that point.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. lo'u ... le'u is not equivalent to a string of zo-quotes placed in a
> sequence using ce'o. It is equivalent to a single lu .. li'u qutoe, except
> that the internal contents only need to be in Lojban, they do not need to be
> grammatical.
>

That's one way to see it. A grammatical quote differs fundamentally
from a multi-word quote in that inside a grammatical quote, the words
actually interact. {lo'u a bu le'u} is fundamentally different from
{lu a bu li'u}. Inside the lu-quote, bu is actually a magic word,
unlike when inside a lo'u-quote (check in jbofi'e, I'm not kidding
you).

Well then, based on that, I would say that we don't want to use lo'u ... le'u.
 

Regardless, I wasn't asserting that a lo'u...le'u quote be equivalent
to a sequence of zo-quotes; I was simply telling you that's how I see
it, considering that pretty much any other interpretation of it fails.
In fact, the CLL in that aforementioned chapter, uses a lu-quote to
quote {abu} rather than a lo'u-quote. I presume that it's for the very
good reason that {bu} is not magical inside a lo'u-quote.

>>
>> Using {la'e lu abu by cy li'u} is wrong on a different level, because
>> inside a lu..li'u words INTERACT with each other, such that all those
>> BY (and ABU) compound to form one variable.
>
>
> I fail to see how "the referent of 'b a r d a'" is wrong on /any/ level, but
> it's not a moot point, because I wasn't suggesting that it's the correct way
> to do things, but merely that it's GRAMMATICAL.
>

Like I've said it already, the lu-quote produces one meaningful lump
of text, whereas the lo'u-quote produces a sequence of words. Inside a
lu-quote, words get parsed and INTERACT with each other (I dreadfully
feel like I'm repeating myself). This causes all the BY to collide and
form ONE SINGLE VARIABLE. Because we want to get at the individual
letters, allowing them to merge as such is undesired. Therefore, using
a lu-quote is unuseful for this purpose.

Yeah, I don't see how. Out side of a lu .. li'u, each BY would fill a separate sumti in a bridi, they don't clump together into one thing. The mere act of quoting a series of letterals doesn't cause them to become "one single variable".
 

As it apparently wasn't clear, the level on which {la'e lu by abu ry
dy abu li'u} is wrong is a SEMANTIC level. Obviously, it's grammatical
-- I never argued that point.

As /I/ said, I fail to see how it is wrong on /any/ level. I then moved on to say that I didn't feel it was up for debate, as I wasn't suggesting anything about it's correctness /other/ than on a grammatical level.

In other words, it's not wrong grammatically, and I don't see how it's wrong in any other capacity either, but I don't really care.

[Jacob Errington]

Behaviour for everything is identical inside and out of a lu...li'u.
BY *do* clump together; they don't fill individual sumti slots. For
instance, {mi tavla ry abu} is "I talk to RA," and not "I talk to R
about A." This is verifiable in jbofi'e.

>>
>> As it apparently wasn't clear, the level on which {la'e lu by abu ry
>> dy abu li'u} is wrong is a SEMANTIC level. Obviously, it's grammatical
>> -- I never argued that point.
>
>
> As /I/ said, I fail to see how it is wrong on /any/ level. I then moved on
> to say that I didn't feel it was up for debate, as I wasn't suggesting
> anything about it's correctness /other/ than on a grammatical level.
>
> In other words, it's not wrong grammatically, and I don't see how it's wrong
> in any other capacity either, but I don't really care.
>
>

Fine.

> --
> 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]

In that case, there's no escaping using ce'o, then.
 

[Jacob Errington]

On 12 July 2012 22:54, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 July 2012 20:41, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If by "answered" you're referring to that semantically incorrect use of
>> > {tadji},
>>
>> > then no, you haven't answered it at all. You've told me my solutions
>> > are no good, and I've thus made more. I have yet to see you
>> > reciprocate that behaviour.
>
>
> Also, I've seen no opinion's as to the "semantic correctness" of using tadji
> besides your own. To date, no jbocertu has made a comment one way or the
> other. Until at least one of them does, I'm going to continue with the
> opinion that there is nothing wrong with using tadji to ask how to spell
> something.
>
>

Talk of our discussion transpired into #lojban. The consensus is that
using tadji is wrong or malglico:

[11:01] <selpa`i> .i ma tadji lo nu ciska lo vi valsi -- does feel
slightly off. Personally I'd use dratai or similar
[11:01] <@xalbo> "How do you spell this word?" as {tadji} feels malgli
to me. I very much prefer {ma lerpoi zo broda} (or whatever)
[11:02] <selpa`i> See we all agree :)
[11:02] < @xalbo> If the answer is "With a pen", then you're asking
the wrong question.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> --
> 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]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 22:54, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 July 2012 20:41, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If by "answered" you're referring to that semantically incorrect use of
>> > {tadji},
>>
>> > then no, you haven't answered it at all. You've told me my solutions
>> > are no good, and I've thus made more. I have yet to see you
>> > reciprocate that behaviour.
>
>
> Also, I've seen no opinion's as to the "semantic correctness" of using tadji
> besides your own. To date, no jbocertu has made a comment one way or the
> other. Until at least one of them does, I'm going to continue with the
> opinion that there is nothing wrong with using tadji to ask how to spell
> something.
>
>

Talk of our discussion transpired into #lojban. The consensus is that
using tadji is wrong or malglico:

[11:01] <selpa`i> .i ma tadji lo nu ciska lo vi valsi -- does feel
slightly off. Personally I'd use dratai or similar
[11:01] <@xalbo> "How do you spell this word?" as {tadji} feels malgli
to me. I very much prefer {ma lerpoi zo broda} (or whatever)
[11:02] <selpa`i> See we all agree :)
[11:02] < @xalbo> If the answer is "With a pen", then you're asking
the wrong question.

"To date, no jbocertu has made a comment one way or the other."

This statement is still true.

Also, you people use maglico way too often and inappropriately. {maglico} refers to things which are wrong because they reflect ENGLISH. If it's not an anglicism, it's not malglico.
 

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> --
> 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 )
>

> --
> 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.

--
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.

[Robin Lee Powell]

0___o

You need to do some research before you say things like that.

xalbo has been jbocre nearly as long as I have, and is in my top 3
list of people to go to when I myself am confused.

As for selpa'i and tsani ... Umm, if you think they're not jbocre,
you need to spend a lot more time in IRC. A huge segment of the
community is there chatting reams of Lojban every day.
http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/2012_01/2012_01_01.txt
-- that's *one day*, and it's more Lojban from each of them than
I've ever seen you generate.

I would think twice, personally, before arguing with any of them
about this sort of thing.

And, no, tadji is really not appropriate here; tadji would be
something like {lo nu lamji cusku ro lerfu cu tadji lo nu valci
skicu}, i.e. "I speak each letter in sequence" is a tadji, the
sequence of letters is not.

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

[Jonathan Jones]

There are only three people I consider jbocre: .xorxes., .camgusmis., and gejyspa.

Well, and .lindar., in some areas.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

...you need to spend a lot more time in IRC....

That would more appropriately, "spend time /at all/ in IRC".

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:32:38AM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>
> There are only three people I consider jbocre: .xorxes.,
> .camgusmis., and gejyspa.
>
> Well, and .lindar., in some areas.

(1) Your list is ... odd.

(2) If you mean "these three people", you should list them out
rather than saying "jbocre".

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:32:38AM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>
> There are only three people I consider jbocre: .xorxes.,
> .camgusmis., and gejyspa.
>
> Well, and .lindar., in some areas.

(1)  Your list is ... odd.

Why?
 

(2)  If you mean "these three people", you should list them out
rather than saying "jbocre".

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

--
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.

[kozmikreis]

On 13 Jul 2012, at 17:01, Jonathan Jones wrote:

> Also, you people use maglico way too often and inappropriately. {maglico} refers to things which are wrong because they reflect ENGLISH.

{maglico} looks more like a question to me, doesn't imply anything about wrongness.

Just sayin'.

kozmikreis

[Adam Lopresto]

[11:01] <@xalbo> "How do you spell this word?" as {tadji} feels malgli
to me. I very much prefer {ma lerpoi zo broda} (or whatever)
[11:02] <selpa`i> See we all agree :)
[11:02] < @xalbo> If the answer is "With a pen", then you're asking
the wrong question.

"To date, no jbocertu has made a comment one way or the other."

This statement is still true.

Also, you people use maglico way too often and inappropriately. {maglico} refers to things which are wrong because they reflect ENGLISH. If it's not an anglicism, it's not malglico.

I said malgico, and I meant it. Using {tadji} for "How is this spelled?" is like translating «¿Cómo se llama?» as "How are you called?" or {ma tadji lo nu rinsa do}. The "how" is an accident of the fact that colloquial English for some reason chooses that instead of "What is the spelling of...?"

mu'o mi'e la xalbo

[Jonathan Jones]

Except that tadji is a what....
 

mu'o mi'e la xalbo

--
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.

[Jonathan Jones]

Yeah. It's not. malglico
 

kozmikreis

--
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.

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

I see the discussion drifted too much towards the nature of a spelling.
As long as the formal character of a spelling makes it practical when
spoken, I am satisfied. In that way, lu / lo'u / me'o quotes look equally
fine so far. Furthermore, if different people use different styles, there
will be no comprehension difficulty.

With regards to the lujvo itself, I don't remember any suggestions or
opinions. Are you fine with {vlakemlerpoi}? What would you define as
{lerpoi} and {vlalerpoi}?

My current opinion is that {lerpoi} is a good candidate for the relevant
grammatical concept of lerfu string, {vlale'u} could be a letteral of the
kind that appears in words, i.e., a regular letter, and then {vlalerpoi}
would be a vlale'u string. Leaving {vlakemlerpoi} as a lerfu string that
is associated with an actual word.

Do you agree with this? In that case, the decision of how to refer to a
spelling could be based on how we want to refer to a lerfu string.

[Jacob Errington]

{vlale'u} doesn't seem useful, but both {vlakemlerpoi} and {lerpoi} do.
My proposed definitions of lerpoi and vlakemlerpoi:

#1a .i lo ka lerpoi cu ka ce'u noi fa'ugi lu'a ke'a gi lu'o ke'a lerfu
ce'u fa'u zi'o zi'o fa'u ce'u cu porsi zi'o zi'o
"x1 is a character string (sequence of letters) in character set x2
representing x3."
porsi2 and porsi3 seem irrelevant. The fa'u-hackage is required,
because individually the letters-digits-symbols are a part of the
character set, but as a sequence or mass, aren't. However,
individually, they don't represent anything, but as a mass, they do.
The definition can be given with a termset rather than the non-logical
connective {fa'u}:
#1b .i lo ka lerpoi cu ka ce'u noi nu'i ge lu'a ke'a ce'u zi'o nu'u gi
lu'o ke'a zi'o ce'u lerfu cu porsi zi'o zi'o

(for simplicity's sake, I'm not going to give the full gismu-deep
structure of vlakemlerpoi)
#2 .i lo ka vlakemlerpoi cu ka ce'u lerpoi ce'u ce'u noi ke'a valsi ce'u ce'u
"x1 is a string in character set x3 representing word x3 meaning x4 in
language x5."
or "x1 is the spelling of x3."

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

ki'e tsani

I liked the English definitions. With regards to {vlakemlerpoi}, I
just don't like much the
fact that the alphabet comes before the word itself in the place
structure, but I understand
your motivation to make it parallel to the veljvo components.

An alternative proposal would be to have for {vlakemlerpoi} just

"x1 is a spelling of word x2."

and let the other admittedly possibly relevant place(s) be added as modals.
Or we could leave the other places at the end, preserving parallelism
as much as possible:
"x1 is a spelling of word x2 meaning x3 in language x4, alphabet x5."

What do you people think?

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

[Jacob Errington]

On 17 July 2012 23:16, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ki'e tsani
>
> I liked the English definitions. With regards to {vlakemlerpoi}, I
> just don't like much the
> fact that the alphabet comes before the word itself in the place
> structure, but I understand
> your motivation to make it parallel to the veljvo components.
>
> An alternative proposal would be to have for {vlakemlerpoi} just
> "x1 is a spelling of word x2."
> and let the other admittedly possibly relevant place(s) be added as modals.
> Or we could leave the other places at the end, preserving parallelism
> as much as possible:
> "x1 is a spelling of word x2 meaning x3 in language x4, alphabet x5."
>
> What do you people think?
>
> mu'o
> mi'e .asiz.

I'm very must against arbitrary reordering of places in lujvo. If the
reordering can be achieved with SE, then those SE must be included in
the lujvo (eliding SE just seems bad).

[iesk]

I'm sorry if I missed it, but ... *how do* I say '"broda" is spelt bee, ar, o, dee, a." in Lojban?

-iesk

[vitci'i]

On 07/20/2012 01:04 PM, iesk wrote:
> I'm sorry if I missed it, but ... *how do* I say '"broda" is spelt bee, ar,
> o, dee, a." in Lojban?

I can't find it on vlasisku. I'd like to nominate {lerfu mifra} for
veljvo. (cf. lertermifra, character encoding.)

[Jonathan Jones]

The consensus is on lerpoi.

--
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.

[vitci'i]

jbovlaste's definition for lerpoi doesn't seem to have a place for the
word formed by the sequence of letters. I have to repeat iesk's question.

[Jonathan Jones]

That definition has 0 votes and therefore doesn't count.

Quoting a previous message in this thread:

{vlale'u} doesn't seem useful, but both {vlakemlerpoi} and {lerpoi} do.
My proposed definitions of lerpoi and vlakemlerpoi:

#1a .i lo ka lerpoi cu ka ce'u noi fa'ugi lu'a ke'a gi lu'o ke'a lerfu
ce'u fa'u zi'o zi'o fa'u ce'u cu porsi zi'o zi'o
"x1 is a character string (sequence of letters) in character set x2
representing x3."
porsi2 and porsi3 seem irrelevant. The fa'u-hackage is required,
because individually the letters-digits-symbols are a part of the
character set, but as a sequence or mass, aren't. However,
individually, they don't represent anything, but as a mass, they do.
The definition can be given with a termset rather than the non-logical
connective {fa'u}:
#1b .i lo ka lerpoi cu ka ce'u noi nu'i ge lu'a ke'a ce'u zi'o nu'u gi
lu'o ke'a zi'o ce'u lerfu cu porsi zi'o zi'o

(for simplicity's sake, I'm not going to give the full gismu-deep
structure of vlakemlerpoi)
#2 .i lo ka vlakemlerpoi cu ka ce'u lerpoi ce'u ce'u noi ke'a valsi ce'u ce'u
"x1 is a string in character set x3 representing word x3 meaning x4 in
language x5."
or "x1 is the spelling of x3."

mu'o mi'e la tsani

--
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.

[vitci'i]

If I understand correctly, then:
{zoi .ler. by ry .obu dy .abu .ler. cu lerpoi fi zo broda}

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jbovlaste's definition for lerpoi doesn't seem to have a place for the
> word formed by the sequence of letters. I have to repeat iesk's question.

Maybe "lerpoipo'i": ko'a porpi ko'e noi porsi lo lerfu

zo broda lerpoipo'i by ce'o ry ce'o .obu ce'o dy ce'o .abu

The pronoun "by" is not the name of the letter B, but it can well be
used to refer to the letter B since whatever its name is in Lojban, if
it has one, it probably begins with B.

Another maybe more practical option is:

zo broda lerpoipo'i by ry .obu dy .abu

where the pronoun "by ry .obu dy .abu" is used to refer to the letter
sequence B, R, O, D, A. It's unlikely that this pronoun will ever be
used to refer to anything else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Michael Turniansky]

  Personally, my philosophy on a lujvo for spelling would be more based on "ganzu", rather than "porsi", for the simple reason that spelling is usually agential in nature...

                -gejyspa

[.arpis.]

The (correct) spelling of a word is irrespective of the person doing the spelling (action). There are two concepts: "food" is spelled "f-o-o-d" regardless of who's talking, and I can spell "food" "f-o-o-d".

--
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 .arpis.

[Michael Turniansky]

  Absolutely.  But you can use either method of lujvo formation to get both meanings.  It's just whether you want to add a gau part to a non-agential word to make it agential, or use zi'o (or just leave it blank, zo'e'ing it) to make an agential work into a non-agential one.  Personal preference *shrug*  If (for example) "lerganzu" means something like "g1 spells word l3 as g3=l1 in language/by rules g4=l2" you can ask "ma te lerganzu zo barda" and receive back an answer of "me'o by ce'o abu ce'o ry ce'o dy ce'o abu" or "me'o by ce'o ibu ce'o gy go'i fi mi lo ka tolmencre se ra'a mi"

    --gejsypa

[Jacob Errington]

The spelling of a word is irrelevant to who it is that spells it. Lojbanically speaking, that is only a half truth. Words are intrinsically related to a language by virtue of valsi3, and languages are intrinsically related to their speakers by virtue of bangu2. Therefore, words are somewhat related to the speakers of the language to which the word belongs. That, however, is irrelevant because someone can spell a word without knowing that the word exists.

Regardless of that short philosophical part, we can form regular lujvo of the type "x1 says [seltau] to xN-1 via medium xN" by suffixing -sku to pretty much whatever (please don't raise {djisku} as a counter-argument; {djisku} is among the most horrible lujvo ever, jvajvo-speaking).

lo ka lerpoisku cu ka cusku ce'u noi lerpoi

replace {lerpoi} with my previous definition of lerpoi.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[Michael Turniansky]

  No, the PROPER spelling of a word is irrelevant to who spells it.  But it is only PARTIALLY related to the language in which it is spelled.  For example there are many words that have more than one legitimate spelling -- theatre/theater, labor/labour, for example.  (Did you know there are actually 8 spellings of the word "ganef" in the Scrabble dictionary that are all acceptable?) The standard by which a word is spelled is therefore a potentially needful part (but can be defaulted as I did in my first answer, though).  As for the actual speller of a word, in a given instance of spelling  ("HOW did you spell that word on the test?") is definitely important to know.  (i.e. the proper spelling is an intrinsic property of the word, but an instantiation of  spelling is agential. )  But that's just the way I think about it, and since I spell words all the time, for money ( http://cross-tables.com/results.php?playerid=2141 )  and need to spell them correctly for other pursuits  http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?ShowcaseAction=Author&ShowcaseAuthor=1128 , I like to think my feelings on spelling have some weight. YMMV 

            --gejyspa

[Jacob Errington]

We can specify a standard, if required, with a sumti tag like {ma'i}.

When asking the question, we can use a relative phrase to restrict the referents to the ones related to the listener {.i ma pe do lerpoi ... }

Those seem like sufficient methods to include a standard or speller. Equally, if a word has a different spelling depending on context, we can use a {va'o} tag. Lujvo are limited in that we have to compromise with the places. We can't just throw some in, if the component words of the lujvo don't have them. 

I didn't see you object to {lerpoisku}; is it fine?

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[Michael Turniansky]

mi na tsali fapro fi tu'a zo lerpoisku .i ma prali ta'o fi lo nu go'i
.i za'a lo jinga be lo za'i lo jboce'u cu pilno bei fo lo nufinit
cei broda lo valsi be ro da bei la lojban cu so'eroi du lo pamoi be
lo'i broda

--gejyspa

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

Epilogue: I recently added tsani's definitions of {lerpoi} and {vlakemlerpoi} to jbovlaste, since I noted no one ever did it.

We currently have three definitions for {lerpoi}. You may wish to vote or discuss (in a new thread pe'i).

mu'o
mi'e .asiz. no'u la .filipos.

On 14 July 2012 00:53, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote: