x2 of remna

[Pierre Abbat]

In the gimste, {remna} has no x2, unlike other words for kinds of organisms.
As several species are placed in the genus Homo, we should have a way to talk
about them. Should we use {remna} with x2 ({ta remna la .denisov.}, or {ta
remna la .aiutac.} using the Altai name for the cave), or make up another
word?

Pierre
--
I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.

[mezohe]

2019-06-20 12:07 Pierre Abbat:

> In the gimste, {remna} has no x2, unlike other words for kinds of organisms.
> As several species are placed in the genus Homo, we should have a way to talk
> about them. Should we use {remna} with x2 ({ta remna la .denisov.}, or {ta
> remna la .aiutac.} using the Altai name for the cave), or make up another
> word?
>
> Pierre
>

Species places in taxon words make it impractical to correctly talk
about individuals in the same taxon that aren't in the exact same
species. Non-essential places in general are liabilities.

> ! so'i cakcinki cu xabju lo purdi
doesn't work because it expands to

> ! so'i cakcinki be zo'e cu xabju lo purdi [be zo'e bei zo'e]
zo'e is a constant; so'i can't scope over it. All this can mean is "many
beetles of the obvious species live in the garden"; nothing is said
about beetles of other species. And there does have to be a single
species zo'e refers to, since having it refer to multiple ones would say
for *each* beetle that it's a member of all the species.

In this case, there's a fairly simple way to get the intended meaning:

> so'i cakcinki be su'o da cu xabju lo purdi
Many beetles, each of some species. Problem solved. But consider

> ! lo cakcinki poi xabju lo purdi cu dirba je se manci mi
where we have the same implicit zo'e -- "the beetles of that species
that live in the garden" --

> ! lo cakcinki be zo'e be'o poi xabju lo purdi
but in this case, even when we replace zo'e with a quantified variable,
there's no improvement, as there's no singular quantifier to scope over
it. (There can't be one if things like {lo jmaji} or {lo simxu} are to
mean anything!)

> ! lo cakcinki be su'o da be'o poi xabju lo purdi
If lo doesn't give us a singular quantifier, let's introduce one.

> ? lo poi'i ro me ke'a su'o da cakcinki poi xabju lo purdi
A constant such that each thing among it is a beetle of some species.
And that they live in the garden. Phew.

So now we have something likely to mean what was intended, but are
people ready to accept this kind of verbosity (twice as many syllables
as the English equivalent) into their everyday speech?

I'd be happy to lose all species places, and then some, in exchange for
not having to talk like that.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, 20 June 2019 07.06.39 EDT mezohe wrote:
> > ! so'i cakcinki cu xabju lo purdi
>
> doesn't work because it expands to
>
> > ! so'i cakcinki be zo'e cu xabju lo purdi [be zo'e bei zo'e]
>
> zo'e is a constant; so'i can't scope over it. All this can mean is "many
> beetles of the obvious species live in the garden"; nothing is said
> about beetles of other species. And there does have to be a single
> species zo'e refers to, since having it refer to multiple ones would say
> for *each* beetle that it's a member of all the species.

Where do you get the idea that zo'e is a constant? As I understand it, {mi
viska ci cakcinki} is equally true if I see three Japanese beetles (of which
there are many on the blackberry plants) or if I see a cocuyo, a scarab, and a
weevil. Anyway, x2 of {cakcinki} can be {la'o .ly. Coleoptera .ly.}, which is
equivalent to {lo'e se cakcinki}.

Pierre
--
Lanthanidia deliciosa: What the kiwifruit would be
if it weren't so radioactive.

[uakci]

I’m pretty sure this is not how all this works. If a place isn’t invoked, it doesn’t participate in the quantification; therefore, «so’i cakcinki cu xabju lo purdi» has *unary* «cakcinki», so the correct meaning – ‘there are many beetles living in the garden.’ 

la tersmu agrees:

  purdi(c0); (so'i)x1:(cakcinki(_)). zvati(x1,c0)

Therefore, the sumti phrase «so’i cakcinki» means «so’i poi’i ke’a su’o da cakcinki» rather than «pa da zo’u… so’i cakcinki be da».

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

— mi’e la uakci

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/6562214.O196nLXU51%40mooncat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[mezohe]

> Where do you get the idea that zo'e is a constant? As I understand it, {mi
> viska ci cakcinki} is equally true if I see three Japanese beetles (of which
> there are many on the blackberry plants) or if I see a cocuyo, a scarab, and a
> weevil.

xorxes, at least, intended for zo'e to be a constant [1]. zo'e
(especially explicit zo'e) as a variable would be problematic for
negation [2].

[1] https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri#Notes_2
[2] http://mail.lojban.org/lojban-list/msg47182.html

> I’m pretty sure this is not how all this works. If a place isn’t invoked,
> it doesn’t participate in the quantification; therefore, «so’i cakcinki cu
> xabju lo purdi» has *unary* «cakcinki», so the correct meaning – ‘there are
> many beetles living in the garden.’

In practice it does seem like unfilled places don't exist, although if
you ask people they'll usually say that there is something filling them,
most often zo'e [3-5], hence my slightly tongue-in-cheek outrage.

[3] https://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_karda#Elliptical_words
[4] https://lojban.github.io/cll/7/7/
[5] https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Lojban_Wave_Lessons/2

Some will say unfilled places are zi'o, which is blessed with at least
two competing meanings, or that they are ambiguous between zo'e and zi'o.

zi'o1: remove the place, creating a new predicate that has nothing do to
with the removed place
zi'o2: remove the place on the surface by substituting {be su'oi da}

zi'o2 is, imo, only marginally better than zo'e, as it still takes only
one value when in a LO phrase.

zi'o1 is nice, but feels pragmatically odd in that when explicit, it's
supposed to make an utterance less specific by adding words to it, which
might give a weak implicature that {broda zi'o .e no da}. Though this is
just baggage from zo'e officially being default I think -- implicit
zi'o1 should be free of it.

>
> la tersmu agrees:
> purdi(c0); (so'i)x1:(cakcinki(_)). zvati(x1,c0)

(I wouldn't think tersmu has much to say here as it doesn't have a
dictionary of predicates' arities)

[And Rosta]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019, 13:46 mezohe, <wow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where do you get the idea that zo'e is a constant? As I understand it, {mi
> viska ci cakcinki} is equally true if I see three Japanese beetles (of which
> there are many on the blackberry plants) or if I see a cocuyo, a scarab, and a
> weevil.

xorxes, at least, intended for zo'e to be a constant [1]. zo'e
(especially explicit zo'e) as a variable would be problematic for
negation [2].

[1] https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gadri#Notes_2
[2] http://mail.lojban.org/lojban-list/msg47182.html

I have (too) hastily scanned these without locating the rationale for this. May we not speak of, say, three readers without precluding that they do not read the same thing? Or, if zo'e must be a constant, then it must be a constant at the level of abstraction that eliminates the difference between the different species and different reading materials.

--And.

[solpahi]

On 6/20/2019 1:06 PM, mezohe wrote:
> [...li'o]

mi gleki lo nu do jmive .i di'u po'o poi'i mi djica lo nu mi cusku ke'a

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[mezohe]

2019-06-23 02:39 solpahi:

> mi gleki lo nu do jmive .i di'u po'o poi'i mi djica lo nu mi cusku ke'a
>

mi ckire do lo ka xendo coi do

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Em sábado, 22 de junho de 2019 15:46:45 UTC+3, mezohe escreveu:

>

coi xruti

 

>
> la tersmu agrees:
>   purdi(c0); (so'i)x1:(cakcinki(_)). zvati(x1,c0)

(I wouldn't think tersmu has much to say here as it doesn't have a
dictionary of predicates' arities)

If a given place of a given brivla is a constant/su'o da/su'o da'au/zu'i then it's up to the [future+official+(not-nau-existing)] dictionary to specify that.  

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Em quinta-feira, 20 de junho de 2019 13:07:53 UTC+3, Pierre Abbat escreveu:

In the gimste, {remna} has no x2, unlike other words for kinds of organisms.
As several species are placed in the genus Homo, we should have a way to talk
about them. Should we use {remna} with x2 ({ta remna la .denisov.}, or {ta
remna la .aiutac.} using the Altai name for the cave), or make up another
word?

I think {remna} without x2 is fine to avoid issues with classifying entities with human rights into those who wear iWatches and those who mix tabs with spaces when writing documents (the latter class should be deprived of human rights).

I think a separate word for the genus Homo is necessary.

[Mike S.]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:07 AM Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org> wrote:

In the gimste, {remna} has no x2, unlike other words for kinds of organisms.
As several species are placed in the genus Homo, we should have a way to talk
about them. Should we use {remna} with x2 ({ta remna la .denisov.}, or {ta
remna la .aiutac.} using the Altai name for the cave), or make up another
word?
 

I find {ta remna la .denisov.} to be nice, clear and Lojbanic.  The rationale for squelching *{se remna} was explained by John Cowan a long time ago, but I never was too persuaded, given the utility in discussing paleoanthropology (as you show by your example), science fiction scenarios (set in future, perhaps dealing with human evolution in the stars), and alternate opinions about human biology (even if you want to disagree with the point of view, you need to be able to express what you're disagreeing with, and a well-designed language should let you express it).

-Mike