Specifying sumti types: another revision of gimste is complete

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Another revision of gimste done by me is complete.

I based it on excellent simple definitions of gismu made by la .aionys. (.io) but changed them here and there.

The most important difference is that I specified possible sumti types for each place.

E.g.

(event) - an event place. {nu} or any other place like nicte1 that has {nu} inside is possible for this place.

(assertion) - du'u

(property) - ka with ce'u referring to x1 of the current gismu

(property of x2) - ka with ce'u referring to x2 of the current gismu
One of the rare sumti types is e.g. (ordered set) that requires using {ce'o}.

Places with just x1, x2... without a sumti type specified imply "object" sumti type (e.g. mlatu1)

This revision primarily deals not with rearranging the place structure but instead with ignoring final places if they are not necessary.

Thus it is 99% compatible with the official gimste.

It is a part of a project of making tutorials for Simple Lojban.

The gismu that changed their place structure are:

zabna, mabla, traji, satci, konju

A few gismu had weird places in non-final places. Unlike other proposals I am not suggesting to change the place structure.

I just removed those gismu from the list and replaced them with new fu'ivla created by me.

There are three of them: {anli} intead of {djine}, {lianzi} instead of {linsi}, {kombitu} instead of {komcu}.

I also included some important cimjvo and fu'ivla into the list so that it can reflect the basic ontology more precisely (although, ofc. no such ontology would be perfect).

The current version can be seen here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahngu1CNj7wddFltdkVpZFNLWlQ5dVN1VVpXSnphVVE&usp=drive_web#gid=7

Feedback is welcome.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Another revision of gimste done by me is complete.

I based it on excellent simple definitions of gismu made by la .aionys. (.io) but changed them here and there.

The most important difference is that I specified possible sumti types for each place.

E.g.

(event) - an event place. {nu} or any other place like nicte1 that has {nu} inside is possible for this place.

(assertion) - du'u

(property) - ka with ce'u referring to x1 of the current gismu

(property of x2) - ka with ce'u referring to x2 of the current gismu
One of the rare sumti types is e.g. (ordered set) that requires using {ce'o}.

Places with just x1, x2... without a sumti type specified imply "object" sumti type (e.g. mlatu1)

Do you have a full list of the types you used? When you flag a place with a type, do you mean that no other type is allowed in that place, or just that at least the mentioned type is allowed? 

The gismu that changed their place structure are:

zabna, mabla, traji, satci, konju

There are many gismu with place structure "x1 is a ... (some shape) of material x2". If you remove the material place from "konju", wouldn't it also make sense to remove it from bolci, slanu, clupa, djine, bliku, tapla, tubnu, grana, bidju, dirgo, and many others? Why "konju" specifically? 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-24 18:31 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Another revision of gimste done by me is complete.

I based it on excellent simple definitions of gismu made by la .aionys. (.io) but changed them here and there.

The most important difference is that I specified possible sumti types for each place.

E.g.

(event) - an event place. {nu} or any other place like nicte1 that has {nu} inside is possible for this place.

(assertion) - du'u

(property) - ka with ce'u referring to x1 of the current gismu

(property of x2) - ka with ce'u referring to x2 of the current gismu
One of the rare sumti types is e.g. (ordered set) that requires using {ce'o}.

Places with just x1, x2... without a sumti type specified imply "object" sumti type (e.g. mlatu1)

Do you have a full list of the types you used?

I tried to put all registered sumti types and subtypes into one table. However, I can miss some of them.

http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=La_Bangu:_dictionary 

When you flag a place with a type, do you mean that no other type is allowed in that place

No other place is allowed. If you disagree for a given places of a given brivla please bug me.

Such restriction will allow users to manage the dictionary better and avoid sumti raisings and metonymy.

, or just that at least the mentioned type is allowed? 

The gismu that changed their place structure are:

zabna, mabla, traji, satci, konju

There are many gismu with place structure "x1 is a ... (some shape) of material x2". If you remove the material place from "konju", wouldn't it also make sense to remove it from bolci, slanu, clupa, djine, bliku, tapla, tubnu, grana, bidju, dirgo, and many others? Why "konju" specifically? 

To remove those material places we'd need to assume that {slanu} can be only a material object. Therefore, a cylinder drawn in AutoCAD would require a separate brivla. It's better to think that ignoring a place in a discourse leads to putting {zi'o} into that place but without changing the predicate (therefore, {zi'o} is not really correct, let's just say the place is deleted).

As for {konju} i filed a separate bug for it in the mriste. Its official definition is somewhat broken.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-05-24 18:31 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

When you flag a place with a type, do you mean that no other type is allowed in that place

No other place is allowed. If you disagree for a given places of a given brivla please bug me.

Then I think you are being overly restrictive. I can't go over the whole list, but just from looking at some random words:

The x1 of ckaji, for example, can be anything at all, it's not restricted to objects.

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Since "object" and "group" are different types, does that mean that you wouldn't accept a group as the x1 or x2 of ckasu?

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

 

As for {konju} i filed a separate bug for it in the mriste. Its official definition is somewhat broken.

The x3 of konju is somewhat like the stripes of tirxu, but the x2 is part of a regular pattern. Arguably, all the "of material" places are a hindrance, but picking on this particular one seems a bit random.  Your definition as cone made of lines means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-24 23:55 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-05-24 18:31 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

When you flag a place with a type, do you mean that no other type is allowed in that place

No other place is allowed. If you disagree for a given places of a given brivla please bug me.

Then I think you are being overly restrictive.

Yes, i chose  the way "it's better to be restrictive and specify tersumti types especially in their relation to each other within the selsumti than to allow too much freedom"

I can't go over the whole list, but just from looking at some random words:

The x1 of ckaji, for example, can be anything at all, it's not restricted to objects.

okay, fixed 

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Because then we dont know what is the property of {lo since} that makes it dangerous.

Since "object" and "group" are different types, does that mean that you wouldn't accept a group as the x1 or x2 of ckasu?

good point. of course i would accept but for now im not sure how better to reflect that in the table.

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

 

As for {konju} i filed a separate bug for it in the mriste. Its official definition is somewhat broken.

The x3 of konju is somewhat like the stripes of tirxu, but the x2 is part of a regular pattern. Arguably, all the "of material" places are a hindrance, but picking on this particular one seems a bit random.  Your definition as cone made of lines

no, not lines but linear segments 

means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?

that cone is characterized by two segments such that one has been revolved around the other one forming the cone. I think we are going to delve into Uqbar now since e.g. a traffic triangle is similarly not really a triangle and so on meaning that geometrical ideal shapes are impossible in this real world.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

The x1 of ckaji, for example, can be anything at all, it's not restricted to objects.

okay, fixed 

Are (object, event, text) all the types there are? x1 of ckaji can be of any type at all, not just those three.

The same goes for mutce, milxe, dukse, satci, and so on. In fact any time one of the arguments is a property of another argument, there's a good chance that the type of that other argument is dictated only by the type of the ce'u in the property, This also applies to comparatives (zmadu, mleca, dunli, simsa,...) It would be easier to revise the list if you sort it by type signature rather than just alphabetically.For comparatives, the property is a property of each of two arguments, not just the first.

 

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Because then we dont know what is the property of {lo since} that makes it dangerous.

Surely that can't be the reason. In "lo nu kelci lo fagri cu ckape", how do you know what the property of playing with fire is that makes it dangerous? 

Since "object" and "group" are different types, does that mean that you wouldn't accept a group as the x1 or x2 of ckasu?

good point. of course i would accept but for now im not sure how better to reflect that in the table.

I don't think "group" is a type in this sense at all. A few places do require plural arguments, but most (all?) places allow plural arguments. This is independent of the type of argument they expect. 

 

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

You skipped this one. Can't x3 of ckire be an event?

 

means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?

that cone is characterized by two segments such that one has been revolved around the other one forming the cone. I think we are going to delve into Uqbar now since e.g. a traffic triangle is similarly not really a triangle and so on meaning that geometrical ideal shapes are impossible in this real world.

My question is more basic. You decided to move "konju" from the bolci/slanu/... class to the linji/kurfa/... class. konju is not the only word in its class, so if you think it needs to be redefined, shouldn't all other words in that class be redefined as well? Why just "konju"?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-25 18:11 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

The x1 of ckaji, for example, can be anything at all, it's not restricted to objects.

okay, fixed 

Are (object, event, text) all the types there are? x1 of ckaji can be of any type at all, not just those three.

What other possible types you can imagine?

The same goes for mutce, milxe, dukse, satci, and so on.

I'll try to fix that.

 

In fact any time one of the arguments is a property of another argument, there's a good chance that the type of that other argument is dictated only by the type of the ce'u in the property, This also applies to comparatives (zmadu, mleca, dunli, simsa,...) It would be easier to revise the list if you sort it by type signature rather than just alphabetically.

Sort them by x1 or show the tersumti type for each place in separate columns?

 

For comparatives, the property is a property of each of two arguments, not just the first.

 

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Because then we dont know what is the property of {lo since} that makes it dangerous.

Surely that can't be the reason. In "lo nu kelci lo fagri cu ckape", how do you know what the property of playing with fire is that makes it dangerous? 

Inject {makau}?

 

Since "object" and "group" are different types, does that mean that you wouldn't accept a group as the x1 or x2 of ckasu?

good point. of course i would accept but for now im not sure how better to reflect that in the table.

I don't think "group" is a type in this sense at all. A few places do require plural arguments, but most (all?) places allow plural arguments. This is independent of the type of argument they expect. 

Well, "group" is used mostly for species of animal gismu. Any ideas what would be the best name for it for newbies?

 

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

You skipped this one. Can't x3 of ckire be an event?

1. I don't think so. This implies x3 is independent of x2

2. Actually I don't separate events and properties. They can often be in the same places, I agree that this rule needs further clarification.

 

 

means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?

that cone is characterized by two segments such that one has been revolved around the other one forming the cone. I think we are going to delve into Uqbar now since e.g. a traffic triangle is similarly not really a triangle and so on meaning that geometrical ideal shapes are impossible in this real world.

My question is more basic. You decided to move "konju" from the bolci/slanu/... class to the linji/kurfa/... class. konju is not the only word in its class, so if you think it needs to be redefined, shouldn't all other words in that class be redefined as well? Why just "konju"?

Well, okay I can ignore all non-x1 place of {konju} then but this would require discussing tools of describing defining features of all those geometric shapes in a separate thread.

  

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I added a new service column "Structure". See if it helps you. If you need each formula to be split into separate columns please inform.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-05-25 18:11 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>: 

Are (object, event, text) all the types there are? x1 of ckaji can be of any type at all, not just those three.

What other possible types you can imagine?

number, property, du'u...

 

I'm not exactly sure how "type", "subtype" and "denotation in the dictionary" are supposed to interact though. If a place is tagged "person", does that mean that it can't be used to fill a place tagged "agent"? Obviously that can't be right, "person" and "agent" are compatible. So it's hard to tell to what extent the types are restrictive.

 

In fact any time one of the arguments is a property of another argument, there's a good chance that the type of that other argument is dictated only by the type of the ce'u in the property, This also applies to comparatives (zmadu, mleca, dunli, simsa,...) It would be easier to revise the list if you sort it by type signature rather than just alphabetically.

Sort them by x1 or show the tersumti type for each place in separate columns?

It would be nice to have all the gismu where x2 is a property of x1 together for example, those where x3 is a property of both x1 and x2 together, those where x2 is a number, those where x2 is the material of x1, and so on. With these type of criteria gismu can be sorted into 20 or so classes in which all have roughly the same type of place structure. I did that some time in the past but unfortunately I lost the files I worked with. 

 

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Because then we dont know what is the property of {lo since} that makes it dangerous.

Surely that can't be the reason. In "lo nu kelci lo fagri cu ckape", how do you know what the property of playing with fire is that makes it dangerous? 

Inject {makau}?

Inject it where? "ckape" tells you that x1 is dangerous to x2, it doesn't tell you which property of x1 makes it dangerous. You can always ask "lo nu ta ckape cu jalge lo nu ta ckaji ma", or "ta ckape ri'a ma" if you want to know wgat makes it dangerous. That goes both for objects and events. Just because it's an event that is dangerous doesn't mean that you know what property of the event makes it dangerous.

 

I don't think "group" is a type in this sense at all. A few places do require plural arguments, but most (all?) places allow plural arguments. This is independent of the type of argument they expect. 

Well, "group" is used mostly for species of animal gismu. Any ideas what would be the best name for it for newbies?

No, I've never been able to figure out how to use the species places. CLL suggests Linnaean names, but since I don't know the Linnaean name of practically any animal and much less plant, I don't really have a use for those places.

 

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

You skipped this one. Can't x3 of ckire be an event?

1. I don't think so. This implies x3 is independent of x2

Not really, just because something is not mentioned as part of an event doesn't mean the event is independent of it. The meaning of "ckire" requires that x1 believes x2 to be somehow responsible for x3.

 

2. Actually I don't separate events and properties. They can often be in the same places, I agree that this rule needs further clarification.

 

 

means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?

that cone is characterized by two segments such that one has been revolved around the other one forming the cone. I think we are going to delve into Uqbar now since e.g. a traffic triangle is similarly not really a triangle and so on meaning that geometrical ideal shapes are impossible in this real world.

My question is more basic. You decided to move "konju" from the bolci/slanu/... class to the linji/kurfa/... class. konju is not the only word in its class, so if you think it needs to be redefined, shouldn't all other words in that class be redefined as well? Why just "konju"?

Well, okay I can ignore all non-x1 place of {konju} then but this would require discussing tools of describing defining features of all those geometric shapes in a separate thread.

Yes, it's better to discuss them as a group rather than each word in isolation.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be nice to have all the gismu where x2 is a property of x1 together for example, those where x3 is a property of both x1 and x2 together, those where x2 is a number, those where x2 is the material of x1, and so on. With these type of criteria gismu can be sorted into 20 or so classes in which all have roughly the same type of place structure. I did that some time in the past but unfortunately I lost the files I worked with.

Actually, it seems I didn't lose everything. This is what I had at the time:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6_W7c63cKIdHdHamFCS25JazgzVVFOcVU2MU13dEE&usp=sharing

mu'o mié xorxes

 

[Pierre Abbat]

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 20:09:04 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> No, I've never been able to figure out how to use the species places. CLL
> suggests Linnaean names, but since I don't know the Linnaean name of
> practically any animal and much less plant, I don't really have a use for
> those places.

You can use any name, from the Linnaean name quoted with "la'o" to a selbri
with "la" in front. For example:

lo cionmau be la barda cu cionmau la'o .ly. Ailuropoda .ly .i lo cionmau be la
cmalu cu cionmau la'o .ly. Ailurus .ly. (I sometimes jokingly call the latter
"cionme'a".) Using the species place makes it clear you're not talking about a
panda bear cub, which could be called "cmalu cionmau".

ti gerku la dotco lange'u. This sounds redundant, but "lo dotco lange'u" could
refer to a Caucasian ovcharka who was born and lived all her life in Germany.

"ti guzme la .luf." is equivalent to "ti panjyzme".

You can also use "lo'e se <some other plant/animal word>" in the species
place. E.g. "ti spati lo'e se guzme", "ti spati la'o ly. Cucurbitaceae .ly.",
and "ti guzme" are equivalent. Similarly Polygonaceae = lo'e se xruba. ("lo'e
se latna" and "lo'e se cionmau" aren't taxa, whatever they are.)

What are some plants or animals that you talk about or would like to?

Pierre
--
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-26 3:09 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-05-25 18:11 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>: 

Are (object, event, text) all the types there are? x1 of ckaji can be of any type at all, not just those three.

What other possible types you can imagine?

number, property, du'u...

 

I'm not exactly sure how "type", "subtype" and "denotation in the dictionary" are supposed to interact though. If a place is tagged "person", does that mean that it can't be used to fill a place tagged "agent"? Obviously that can't be right, "person" and "agent" are compatible. So it's hard to tell to what extent the types are restrictive.

Yes, "type" is what restricts a place, not a subtype. Subtypes are rather hints for newbies of what should go into a place.

 

In fact any time one of the arguments is a property of another argument, there's a good chance that the type of that other argument is dictated only by the type of the ce'u in the property, This also applies to comparatives (zmadu, mleca, dunli, simsa,...) It would be easier to revise the list if you sort it by type signature rather than just alphabetically.

Sort them by x1 or show the tersumti type for each place in separate columns?

It would be nice to have all the gismu where x2 is a property of x1 together for example, those where x3 is a property of both x1 and x2 together, those where x2 is a number, those where x2 is the material of x1, and so on. With these type of criteria gismu can be sorted into 20 or so classes in which all have roughly the same type of place structure.

Well, for now there are 5 "structure" columns but "property" places lost their links to other places. I'll have to prepare more precise signatures.

I did that some time in the past but unfortunately I lost the files I worked with. 

I can see that you grouped them into semantic classes. Well,  i think i can import my semantic classification. Will it help?

 

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Because then we dont know what is the property of {lo since} that makes it dangerous.

Surely that can't be the reason. In "lo nu kelci lo fagri cu ckape", how do you know what the property of playing with fire is that makes it dangerous? 

Inject {makau}?

Inject it where? "ckape" tells you that x1 is dangerous to x2, it doesn't tell you which property of x1 makes it dangerous. You can always ask "lo nu ta ckape cu jalge lo nu ta ckaji ma", or "ta ckape ri'a ma" if you want to know wgat makes it dangerous. That goes both for objects and events. Just because it's an event that is dangerous doesn't mean that you know what property of the event makes it dangerous.

 

I don't think "group" is a type in this sense at all. A few places do require plural arguments, but most (all?) places allow plural arguments. This is independent of the type of argument they expect. 

Well, "group" is used mostly for species of animal gismu. Any ideas what would be the best name for it for newbies?

No, I've never been able to figure out how to use the species places. CLL suggests Linnaean names, but since I don't know the Linnaean name of practically any animal and much less plant, I don't really have a use for those places. 

 

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

You skipped this one. Can't x3 of ckire be an event?

1. I don't think so. This implies x3 is independent of x2

Not really, just because something is not mentioned as part of an event doesn't mean the event is independent of it. The meaning of "ckire" requires that x1 believes x2 to be somehow responsible for x3.

 

2. Actually I don't separate events and properties. They can often be in the same places, I agree that this rule needs further clarification.

 

 

means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?

that cone is characterized by two segments such that one has been revolved around the other one forming the cone. I think we are going to delve into Uqbar now since e.g. a traffic triangle is similarly not really a triangle and so on meaning that geometrical ideal shapes are impossible in this real world.

My question is more basic. You decided to move "konju" from the bolci/slanu/... class to the linji/kurfa/... class. konju is not the only word in its class, so if you think it needs to be redefined, shouldn't all other words in that class be redefined as well? Why just "konju"?

Well, okay I can ignore all non-x1 place of {konju} then but this would require discussing tools of describing defining features of all those geometric shapes in a separate thread.

Yes, it's better to discuss them as a group rather than each word in isolation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes 

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, "type" is what restricts a place, not a subtype. Subtypes are rather hints for newbies of what should go into a place.

There seems to be some confusion between types and roles. Agent and patient (experiencer), tool, observer, are roles, not types. If the sumti filling that place loses the property when removed from that place, then that prooperty is a role, not a type. A type should be intrinsic to the sumti. A number is always a number, a property is always a property, an agent is only an agent when playing that role.

I did that some time in the past but unfortunately I lost the files I worked with. 

I can see that you grouped them into semantic classes.

They are meant to be argument structure classes, not semantic classes, although semantic classes do tend to share structure.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

BTW, I added signatures to "Structure" columns. Are they okay to you?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

BTW, I added signatures to "Structure" columns. Are they okay to you?

 That's useful, yes. 

Sorting by "structure x1", I see you only have 11 gismu listed with (any type) in x1. I'm missing things like zabna, mabla, nutli, cimni, mulno, drani, prane, zasni, vitno, curve, manto, vrici, dikni, vitci, stodi, cenba, zenba, jdika, cnici, porsi, kalsa, cnano, traji, mupli, rirci, fadni, claxu, pindi, ricfu, kandi, carmi, ruble, tsali, ralci, denmi, banli, sampu, pluja, kantu, cmalu, barda, cinla, rotsu, jarki, ganra, tordu, clani, caxno, condi, makcu, suksa, girzu, all of the cultural gismu, mintu, xadba, panra, mapti, sarxe, drata, frica, dukti, lamji, jibni, darno, lidne, jbini, jimte, bancu, ralju, vipsi, klesi, all the SI prefixes, and maybe something else I'm forgetting, 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Well, I made corrections except in the following words. Please explain how can:

girzu1 be an event? x1 (group) is a group with common feature x2 (property) due to set x3 linked by relations x4 (assertion)

jarki1 be an event? x1 is narrow in length/width etc. x2 (property)

jbini1 be an event or a numeral x1 is between x2 (set) in x3 (property)

jibni1 be an event? x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property)

pindi be an event of a numeral? x1 is poor in x2

ricfu be an event of a numeral? x1 is rich in x2 (property)

rotsu1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is thick in length/width etc. x2 (property)

ruble1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is weak or frail in x2 (property)

suksa1 be an object of a numeral? x1 (event) is sudden at stage x2 (event) in process x3 (event)

sumji1 be an event of a numeral? x1 (object) is the sum of x2 (object) plus x3 (object); x1 (numeral) is the sum of x2 (numeral) plus x3 (numeral)

tordu1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is short in length/width etc. x2 (property)

tsali1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is strong in property x2 (property)

xadba1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is half of x2

zenba1 be a numeral? x1 (object, event) increases in x2 (property) by amount x3

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I made corrections except in the following words. Please explain how can:

girzu1 be an event? x1 (group) is a group with common feature x2 (property) due to set x3 linked by relations x4 (assertion)

A group of events is both girzu and fasnu. As I said before, I don't think "group" should be a type, or at least it doesn't seem to belong to the same typology.

 

jarki1 be an event? x1 is narrow in length/width etc. x2 (property)

If events can have dimensions (and they can) they can be jarki. It's a vi'a or vi'u event which is ve'i in the second most significant dimension.

jbini1 be an event or a numeral x1 is between x2 (set) in x3 (property)

(I think you want "number" rather than "numeral". A numeral is a symbol (me'o) that refers to a number (li). "5" and "V" are two different numerals that refer to the same number, the number five.)

What's so weird about an event being among other events, or a number between other numbers? Events have locations, numbers have magnitudes.

jibni1 be an event? x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property)

Of course an event can be near something, that's what "vi" indicates when the property is spatial position.

 

pindi be an event of a numeral? x1 is poor in x2

ricfu be an event of a numeral? x1 is rich in x2 (property)

Yes, an event can have an abundance or be scarce in a certain property. A number too. Prime numbers are pindi in divisors, for example.

 

rotsu1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is thick in length/width etc. x2 (property) 

Events have spatial dimensions, therefore they can be rotsu. I admit I can't think at the moment in what property a number could be rotsu, but it's just because I'm not feeling imaginative.

 

ruble1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is weak or frail in x2 (property)

I suppose if it's a property they could easily lose.

 

suksa1 be an object of a numeral? x1 (event) is sudden at stage x2 (event) in process x3 (event)

Here I have to point out that my definition of "suksa" is different from the official one: "x1 is-sudden-in/suddenly-does x2 (ka)". 

"lo mlatu cu suksa lo ka canci", "lo se centre be lo pinji cu suksa lo ka banro"

sumji1 be an event of a numeral?

Yes, if you add two events, the result is an event. Are you asking how sumji1 could be a number?

 

x1 (object) is the sum of x2 (object) plus x3 (object); x1 (numeral) is the sum of x2 (numeral) plus x3 (numeral)

tordu1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is short in length/width etc. x2 (property)

An event can certainly be tordu in duration. For numbers see rotsu.

 

tsali1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is strong in property x2 (property)

See ruble.

 

xadba1 be an event of a numeral? x1 is half of x2 

What's the problem?

 

zenba1 be a numeral? x1 (object, event) increases in x2 (property) by amount x3

Yes, if "lo se mitre be da" can change, then it can increase or decrease in magnitude.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Okay, since there was misunderstanding of what "numeral" is I'll have to replace it with "number". Now how can a number be {ruble}?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Now how can a number be {ruble}?

.i xu li ci ruble lo ka ce'u termifckiku

[Gleki Arxokuna]

okay, everything fixed acc. to your suggestions.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

okay, everything fixed acc. to your suggestions.

I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni" has x2 (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree that the x2 has to be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and events must share the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events can be close to objects in position. I think all the comparatives should have x2 same type as x1, they must be things that can have the same property. Same goes for klesi, jibni and others.

Is the x2 of porsi an assertion, or should it be a (transitive, antisymmetric, total) binary relation? I think "porsi" works something like "li pa ce'o li re ce'o li ci cu porsi lo ka ce'u mleca ce'u" 

What's the difference between a property and an aspect? ("Aspect" comes in handy to cluster al the cultural words together when sorting, but does it mean anything different from "property"?)

For mupli you have "x2 (property of x2)". mupli/fadni/traji/cnano/rirci should have the same for x3, and it should be the same type as x1 (a group of that type). If you have x3 as a set, then property x2 is not a property of x3, but a property of the members of x3. 

And let's drop x3 and x4 of girzu!

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I added my semantic categorization to the sheet. It was created long long ago and wasn't meant to be used with tesumti interactions table. So in case there are inconsistencies you are free to correct it.

Also filters are now shown in column headers so you can quickly show only rows with necessary values in a chosen column. E.g. click on filter in "klesi 2", click on "clear" and then select "Location and direction". This will show you only the following rows:

"jibni,zvati,darno,lamji,jbini,crane,diklo,nenri,ragve,sivni,mokca,gubni,farna,bartu,berti,cnita,cpana,dandu,dizlo,galtu,gapru,jorne,midju,mipri,pencu,pinta,pritu,sanli,snanu,sraji,sruri,stici,stuna,stuzi,trixe,vreta,zunle,zutse,mlana"

To change back to showing the whole gimste again click on that filter and choose "Select all".

Quite handy provided that semantic categorization has no flaws.

2014-05-31 2:00 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

okay, everything fixed acc. to your suggestions.

I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni" has x2 (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree that the x2 has to be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and events must share the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events can be close to objects in position.

Two options:

1. Split the definition into:
"x1 (event,object) is near or close to x2 (event, object) in x3 (property); x1 (number, abstraction) is near or close to x2 (same type as x1) in x3 (property)"

This will quickly make definitions bulky. On the other hand there are not so many space gismu.

2. Make objects and events one type which will lead to {lo mlatu ka'e fasnu}.

Any other ideas?

I think all the comparatives should have x2 same type as x1, they must be things that can have the same property. Same goes for klesi, jibni and others.

Is the x2 of porsi an assertion, or should it be a (transitive, antisymmetric, total) binary relation? I think "porsi" works something like "li pa ce'o li re ce'o li ci cu porsi lo ka ce'u mleca ce'u" 

It doesn't contradict that porsi2 is an assertion since {ka} is a subclass of {du'u} but I added your example to the sheet (very last columns) until a better glossing of this place is found.

 

What's the difference between a property and an aspect? ("Aspect" comes in handy to cluster al the cultural words together when sorting, but does it mean anything different from "property"?)

No. May be I should remove it since they can be shown by selecting in "klesi 2" only:

Continents

Culture. Nationalities

Culture. Religion

Culture. Languages

For mupli you have "x2 (property of x2)". mupli/fadni/traji/cnano/rirci should have the same for x3, and it should be the same type as x1 (a group of that type). If you have x3 as a set, then property x2 is not a property of x3, but a property of the members of x3. 

Fixed. I moved all of them to "General =>Set structure" class, however, steci should probably also belong to them.

as well as some other gismu from "Groups & parts" class.

For future considerations: "General comparisons" class might also intersect with them and thus needs rearranging.

And let's drop x3 and x4 of girzu!

done.

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I added my semantic categorization to the sheet. It was created long long ago and wasn't meant to be used with tesumti interactions table. So in case there are inconsistencies you are free to correct it.

Also filters are now shown in column headers so you can quickly show only rows with necessary values in a chosen column.

That's useful. You have 7 gismu that don't start the x2 column with "x2", 8 that don't start the x3 column with "x3", 2 for x4 and 1 for x5.

I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni" has x2 (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree that the x2 has to be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and events must share the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events can be close to objects in position.

Two options:

1. Split the definition into:
"x1 (event,object) is near or close to x2 (event, object) in x3 (property); x1 (number, abstraction) is near or close to x2 (same type as x1) in x3 (property)"

This will quickly make definitions bulky. On the other hand there are not so many space gismu.

2. Make objects and events one type which will lead to {lo mlatu ka'e fasnu}.

Any other ideas?

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu". We don't usually think of living things as "happening", especially since we have the more specific "jmive" for them, But in any case, I'm now not happy with "same type as" for comparatives. I realized that anything can be compared with anything else if you just choose the right property for comparison. For instance:

    li ci zmadu lo sfofa lo ka mi'o xo kau casnu ce'u

    "The number three exceeds sofas in how many times we discuss them".

Since there are properties that can easily accomodate any type (such as "lo ka ce'u se casnu") then x1 and x2 are not really restricted to one of the types of the number/object-event/proposition/property/relation/... typology. It's really the property x3 that fixes the type of x1 and x2 so I'd say: "x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property of x1 and x2)".

Notice that "(property of x1 and x2}" is not the same as "{relation between x1 and x2}", which is required by something like "ckini". Properties have a single open argument and relations have (at least) two,

Is the x2 of porsi an assertion, or should it be a (transitive, antisymmetric, total) binary relation? I think "porsi" works something like "li pa ce'o li re ce'o li ci cu porsi lo ka ce'u mleca ce'u" 

It doesn't contradict that porsi2 is an assertion since {ka} is a subclass of {du'u} but I added your example to the sheet (very last columns) until a better glossing of this place is found.

If "property" is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition") then they don't belong in the same level of the typology. Shouldn't the types be mutually exclusive?  

For mupli you have "x2 (property of x2)". mupli/fadni/traji/cnano/rirci should have the same for x3, and it should be the same type as x1 (a group of that type). If you have x3 as a set, then property x2 is not a property of x3, but a property of the members of x3. 

Fixed. I moved all of them to "General =>Set structure" class, however, steci should probably also belong to them.

as well as some other gismu from "Groups & parts" class.

"selte'i" does belong to the same class. Unfortunately "steci" has x1 and x2 reversed.

 

For future considerations: "General comparisons" class might also intersect with them and thus needs rearranging.

I think place order is relevant. (thing-with-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu",  (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property),  e.g. "mupli". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. "steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearly they can all be grouped in one superclass.  

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-31 18:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I added my semantic categorization to the sheet. It was created long long ago and wasn't meant to be used with tesumti interactions table. So in case there are inconsistencies you are free to correct it.

Also filters are now shown in column headers so you can quickly show only rows with necessary values in a chosen column.

That's useful. You have 7 gismu that don't start the x2 column with "x2", 8 that don't start the x3 column with "x3", 2 for x4 and 1 for x5.

I will check them when others leave the sheet so that I can make corrections without disturbing anyone.

I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni" has x2 (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree that the x2 has to be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and events must share the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events can be close to objects in position.

Two options:

1. Split the definition into:
"x1 (event,object) is near or close to x2 (event, object) in x3 (property); x1 (number, abstraction) is near or close to x2 (same type as x1) in x3 (property)"

This will quickly make definitions bulky. On the other hand there are not so many space gismu.

2. Make objects and events one type which will lead to {lo mlatu ka'e fasnu}.

Any other ideas?

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu". We don't usually think of living things as "happening", especially since we have the more specific "jmive" for them, But in any case, I'm now not happy with "same type as" for comparatives. I realized that anything can be compared with anything else if you just choose the right property for comparison. For instance:

    li ci zmadu lo sfofa lo ka mi'o xo kau casnu ce'u

    "The number three exceeds sofas in how many times we discuss them".

Yes, there are already similar places in other gismu that dont interact with "same type as..." way.

Since there are properties that can easily accomodate any type (such as "lo ka ce'u se casnu") then x1 and x2 are not really restricted to one of the types of the number/object-event/proposition/property/relation/... typology. It's really the property x3 that fixes the type of x1 and x2 so I'd say: "x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property of x1 and x2)".

Notice that "(property of x1 and x2}" is not the same as "{relation between x1 and x2}", which is required by something like "ckini". Properties have a single open argument and relations have (at least) two,

You mean that e.g. bruna3 has one ce'u that is equally applied to bruna1 and bruna2 whereas ckini3 and simxu2 have two ce'u inside?

Note taken.

Is the x2 of porsi an assertion, or should it be a (transitive, antisymmetric, total) binary relation? I think "porsi" works something like "li pa ce'o li re ce'o li ci cu porsi lo ka ce'u mleca ce'u" 

It doesn't contradict that porsi2 is an assertion since {ka} is a subclass of {du'u} but I added your example to the sheet (very last columns) until a better glossing of this place is found.

If "property" is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition")

"assertion" was chosen because it has higher frequency in English. Don't forget that this is to be meant "Simple English gimste" (it is still part of "teach simple lojban" project) although we can have any number of columns for developers.

then they don't belong in the same level of the typology. Shouldn't the types be mutually exclusive?  

"assertion" is du'u. property is {ka}. Isn't {ka}  the same as {du'u} but with at least one ce'u inside? [See http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ka,_du%27u,_si%27o,_ce%27u,_zo%27e]

For mupli you have "x2 (property of x2)". mupli/fadni/traji/cnano/rirci should have the same for x3, and it should be the same type as x1 (a group of that type). If you have x3 as a set, then property x2 is not a property of x3, but a property of the members of x3. 

Fixed. I moved all of them to "General =>Set structure" class, however, steci should probably also belong to them.

as well as some other gismu from "Groups & parts" class.

"selte'i" does belong to the same class. Unfortunately "steci" has x1 and x2 reversed.

 

For future considerations: "General comparisons" class might also intersect with them and thus needs rearranging.

I think place order is relevant. (thing-with-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu",  (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property),  e.g. "mupli". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. "steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearly they can all be grouped in one superclass.  

Let's not mix "klesi"  and "structure" columns then. "klesi" is about semantics, "structure" is about interaction of places and variable type declaration.

Further development and evolution will give those columns more precise definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-31 18:48 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:

2014-05-31 18:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I added my semantic categorization to the sheet. It was created long long ago and wasn't meant to be used with tesumti interactions table. So in case there are inconsistencies you are free to correct it.

Also filters are now shown in column headers so you can quickly show only rows with necessary values in a chosen column.

That's useful. You have 7 gismu that don't start the x2 column with "x2", 8 that don't start the x3 column with "x3", 2 for x4 and 1 for x5.

I will check them when others leave the sheet so that I can make corrections without disturbing anyone.

Corrections made.

 

I still see issues on gismu with properties. For example, "jibni" has x2 (same type as x1), but "darno" has x2 (object). I agree that the x2 has to be of the same type as x1 in these but then objects and events must share the same type (spatio-temporal entities), since events can be close to objects in position.

Two options:

1. Split the definition into:
"x1 (event,object) is near or close to x2 (event, object) in x3 (property); x1 (number, abstraction) is near or close to x2 (same type as x1) in x3 (property)"

This will quickly make definitions bulky. On the other hand there are not so many space gismu.

2. Make objects and events one type which will lead to {lo mlatu ka'e fasnu}.

Any other ideas?

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu".

If so why not consider objects as assertions or even properties? This will quickly destroy the whole system of variable types leaving only  their interactions relevant.

We don't usually think of living things as "happening", especially since we have the more specific "jmive" for them, But in any case, I'm now not happy with "same type as" for comparatives. I realized that anything can be compared with anything else if you just choose the right property for comparison. For instance:

    li ci zmadu lo sfofa lo ka mi'o xo kau casnu ce'u

    "The number three exceeds sofas in how many times we discuss them".

Corrections made.

 

Yes, there are already similar places in other gismu that dont interact with "same type as..." way.

Since there are properties that can easily accomodate any type (such as "lo ka ce'u se casnu") then x1 and x2 are not really restricted to one of the types of the number/object-event/proposition/property/relation/... typology. It's really the property x3 that fixes the type of x1 and x2 so I'd say: "x1 is near or close to x2 in x3 (property of x1 and x2)".

Notice that "(property of x1 and x2}" is not the same as "{relation between x1 and x2}", which is required by something like "ckini". Properties have a single open argument and relations have (at least) two,

You mean that e.g. bruna3 has one ce'u that is equally applied to bruna1 and bruna2 whereas ckini3 and simxu2 have two ce'u inside?

Note taken.

Corrections made.

So we've got a new type/subtype (whetever you call it) "relation". Such place contains two {ce'u} inside:

porsi2, lanzu3, ckini3, jilra3, simxu2, rimni4.

You can easily find them by searching for {ce'u} on the current sheet. 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote

2014-05-31 18:48 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:

2014-05-31 18:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu".

If so why not consider objects as assertions or even properties? This will quickly destroy the whole system of variable types leaving only  their interactions relevant.

I don't see how cats could be properties, since they don't have any open argument places, and I'm not sure what it would mean for them to be assertions. How do you assert a cat? What's the truth value of a cat?

The difference between objects and events is the focus on spatial or temporal properties, but both have both. What properties of events do cats lack? They have position, they have duration, they can be seen, they can cause other things to happen. I'm not saying you can never distinguish objects from events, I'm saying that they have more in common than not.

 

So we've got a new type/subtype (whetever you call it) "relation". Such place contains two {ce'u} inside:

porsi2, lanzu3, ckini3, jilra3, simxu2, rimni4.

porsi, ckini and simxu I agree with. I'm not at all clear on jilra, rimni and lanzu. 

It seems that jilra3 could be a property of jilra2, one which jilra1 would like to have but doesn't, or does but not in the manner in which jilra2 has it. I can see how a relation between them could also be used there, so perhaps both property of x2 or relation between x1 and x2 should be allowed. 

The order of the two ce'u is sometimes relevant for these (i.e. which ce'u is for x1 and which one for x2). Should we assume that it's always the first for x1 and the second for x2 when there are two? 

Shouldn't rimni4 be a property that both rimni1 and rimni2 share? "zo rimni zo cimni cu rimni lo ka zoi ke imni ke cu fanmo ce'u"

(x3 dropped on purpose).

For lanzu3, I don't really have much of a clue how to use it.

 

If "property" is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition")

"assertion" was chosen because it has higher frequency in English. Don't forget that this is to be meant "Simple English gimste" (it is still part of "teach simple lojban" project) although we can have any number of columns for developers.

But these things are not always asserted. Asserting them is just one of the things you can do with propositions. 

 

"assertion" is du'u. property is {ka}. Isn't {ka}  the same as {du'u} but with at least one ce'u inside? [See http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ka,_du%27u,_si%27o,_ce%27u,_zo%27e]

Properties are neither assertions nor propositions. A "ka" is an incomplete "du'u". It's fine if we allow "du'u" to be incomplete, but in such cases they are not complete propositions. I agree that it's sometimes difficult to combine "simple" with "correct". 

 

I think place order is relevant. (thing-with-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu",  (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property),  e.g. "mupli". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. "steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearly they can all be grouped in one superclass.  

Let's not mix "klesi"  and "structure" columns then. "klesi" is about semantics, "structure" is about interaction of places and variable type declaration.

Further development and evolution will give those columns more precise definitions.

Good!

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-05-31 20:24 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote

2014-05-31 18:48 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:

2014-05-31 18:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu".

If so why not consider objects as assertions or even properties? This will quickly destroy the whole system of variable types leaving only  their interactions relevant.

I don't see how cats could be properties, since they don't have any open argument places, and I'm not sure what it would mean for them to be assertions. How do you assert a cat? What's the truth value of a cat?

The difference between objects and events is the focus on spatial or temporal properties, but both have both. What properties of events do cats lack? They have position, they have duration, they can be seen, they can cause other things to happen. I'm not saying you can never distinguish objects from events, I'm saying that they have more in common than not.

Right now in x1 space there are 188 object+event places (including "any type" places), 97 pure "event" places, 1062 "object"/"object+number" places. It'd be a huge work to determine if we can merge "event" and "object" types together in every case.

Apart from them sance1 and zgike1 (have the role "sound") can be probably merged. Although I wonder if they are of "text" type too (krixa, siclu, cmoni also have "text+sound" places).

 

So we've got a new type/subtype (whetever you call it) "relation". Such place contains two {ce'u} inside:

porsi2, lanzu3, ckini3, jilra3, simxu2, rimni4.

porsi, ckini and simxu I agree with. I'm not at all clear on jilra, rimni and lanzu. 

It seems that jilra3 could be a property of jilra2, one which jilra1 would like to have but doesn't, or does but not in the manner in which jilra2 has it. I can see how a relation between them could also be used there, so perhaps both property of x2 or relation between x1 and x2 should be allowed.  

The order of the two ce'u is sometimes relevant for these (i.e. which ce'u is for x1 and which one for x2). Should we assume that it's always the first for x1 and the second for x2 when there are two? 

Yes. And since both x2 and x1+x2 can be inside x3 then let's by fiat declare that jilra3 is of the type "x3 (property of x2)". x1 can be reached using {lo no'a} when necessary since it might not be that intuitive for humans as it is with other properties (the latter justify the existence of {ce'u} over {lo [SE] no'a}).

Shouldn't rimni4 be a property that both rimni1 and rimni2 share? "zo rimni zo cimni cu rimni lo ka zoi ke imni ke cu fanmo ce'u"

(x3 dropped on purpose).

rimni4 changed to "x4 (property of x1 and x2)".

 

For lanzu3, I don't really have much of a clue how to use it.

{ti lanzu lo mamta jo'u lo patfu jo'u lo verba lo ka [ce'u ce'u] prami} ? ;)

 

If "property" is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition")

"assertion" was chosen because it has higher frequency in English. Don't forget that this is to be meant "Simple English gimste" (it is still part of "teach simple lojban" project) although we can have any number of columns for developers.

But these things are not always asserted. Asserting them is just one of the things you can do with propositions. 

^ to be changed.

 

"assertion" is du'u. property is {ka}. Isn't {ka}  the same as {du'u} but with at least one ce'u inside? [See http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ka,_du%27u,_si%27o,_ce%27u,_zo%27e]

Properties are neither assertions nor propositions. A "ka" is an incomplete "du'u". It's fine if we allow "du'u" to be incomplete, but in such cases they are not complete propositions. I agree that it's sometimes difficult to combine "simple" with "correct". 

 

I think place order is relevant. (thing-with-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu",  (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property),  e.g. "mupli". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. "steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearly they can all be grouped in one superclass.  

Let's not mix "klesi"  and "structure" columns then. "klesi" is about semantics, "structure" is about interaction of places and variable type declaration.

Further development and evolution will give those columns more precise definitions.

Good!

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Right now in x1 space there are 188 object+event places (including "any type" places), 97 pure "event" places, 1062 "object"/"object+number" places. It'd be a huge work to determine if we can merge "event" and "object" types together in every case.

It doesn't have to be done in one day, but I think any object ko'a could be seen as the event "lo nu ko'a du ko'a", "ko'a being itself".

 

Apart from them sance1 and zgike1 (have the role "sound") can be probably merged. Although I wonder if they are of "text" type too (krixa, siclu, cmoni also have "text+sound" places).

I think "sound" is way too specific to be a type. Something like "living organism", or even "container" would have many more instances than "sound". And if sance1 and zgike1 are "sound", shouldn't tonga1, voksa1, savru1 and rilti1 be as well?

Other suspect types in x1 are:

(la'e text) for lerfu1. "la'e text" doesn't mean anything, since anything at all can be la'e text with the right text. lo lerfu cu sinxa gi'e marna, I don't think we need to treat it as a special type.

mixre/gunma/kamni/ciste/lanzu/jenmi have x1 (mass), while bakfu/derxi/sorcu/stura/liste/trene/linji/cecmu/bende/salta/sanmi and perhaps others don't. I don't think (mass) should be a type. These are just things that consist of a group of more or less homogeneous things and which as a group is distinctive enough to get special recognition as an emerging object. 

jinga/casnu/porsi are marked as sets, I think casnu and porsi are just groups, they only need to be plural, and jinga doesn't even need to be a group, I don't get why it's marked as a set. rilti is marked as a sequence but again it should be just a group, it shouldn't have a sui generis type.

ckilu/sidbo are marked as "(concept)". A sidbo is a du'u, it's something that could potentially become a fact. I don't think it needs a special type. And ckilu has little to do with concepts, as far as I can tell. 

pincivi is marked as "(body)", which seems strange given that vikmi/vamtu/sputu/kafke/klaku/vasxu/citka/pinxe/xagji/taske/... are not (and should not).

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Other news: about cultural gismu.

To show all cultural gismu one had to select in "klesi 2" Continents, Culture.Languages, Culture.Nationalities, Culture.Religion

However, the last class includes not only examples for religion but also generic gismu like {ranmi}. Therefore I moved budjo, dadjo,jegvo,muslo,xriso and all Culture.Languages, Culture.Nationalities 

to Culture.Examples.

Indeed, {spero} and {lojbo} are not only languages but cultures appeared on top of them.

However, it'd be hard to imagine {ketco} or {bemro} as a single culture. Therefore, Continents and Culture.Examples are classes that filter out all cultural gismu.

Thus now we can remove "aspect" as a role in gismu places.

2014-06-01 4:30 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Right now in x1 space there are 188 object+event places (including "any type" places), 97 pure "event" places, 1062 "object"/"object+number" places. It'd be a huge work to determine if we can merge "event" and "object" types together in every case.

It doesn't have to be done in one day, but I think any object ko'a could be seen as the event "lo nu ko'a du ko'a", "ko'a being itself".

Before that we need to check if some proposition and property places can  also take events.

E.g. kakne2 was an event place that could lead to an object place (mi kakne lo bajra) there. Now it's a property place (mi kakne lo ka ce'u du lo bajra).

Propositions can be seen as properties (mi kakne lodu'u lo no'a cu du lo bajra). What is chosen in this or that place seems to be rather arbitrary to me.

So the first step is to clearly separate events vs. propositions+properties.

 

Apart from them sance1 and zgike1 (have the role "sound") can be probably merged. Although I wonder if they are of "text" type too (krixa, siclu, cmoni also have "text+sound" places).

I think "sound" is way too specific to be a type. Something like "living organism", or even "container" would have many more instances than "sound". And if sance1 and zgike1 are "sound", shouldn't tonga1, voksa1, savru1 and rilti1 be as well?

rilti1 or rilti2? Or both? Also sanga2.

The problem for me is that krixa2, cmoni2 can probably be texts. And text and sound often go together.

Semantic categorization currently puts them in different classes (communication, non-linguistic utterances, Music/sound...)

Can I cusku a selsanga? That's why I wanted "sound" to be a separate type that could include both sounds and "text".

 

Other suspect types in x1 are:

(la'e text) for lerfu1. "la'e text" doesn't mean anything, since anything at all can be la'e text with the right text. lo lerfu cu sinxa gi'e marna, I don't think we need to treat it as a special type.

changed to "any type".

mixre

changed to "x1 (object, event) is a mixture including x2 (set of objects or events)"

 

/gunma  

changed to "x1 (object, event) is a joint mass, team of components that are x2 (object, event)"
 

/kamni

kamni3 is probably a "set".

/ciste

changed  

/lanzu

changed 

/jenmi have x1 (mass)

changed 

, while bakfu/derxi/sorcu/stura/liste/trene/linji/cecmu/bende/salta/sanmi and perhaps others don't. I don't think (mass) should be a type. These are just things that consist of a group of more or less homogeneous things and which as a group is distinctive enough to get special recognition as an emerging object. 

jinga/casnu/porsi are marked as sets, I think casnu and porsi are just groups, they only need to be plural, and jinga doesn't even need to be a group

changed

 

, I don't get why it's marked as a set. rilti is marked as a sequence but again it should be just a group

Any example of rilti1?

 

What is a group according to you?

porsi1 includes {ce'o}

casnu1 includes {ce} or {jo'u}.

, it shouldn't have a sui generis type.

ckilu/sidbo are marked as "(concept)". A sidbo is a du'u, it's something that could potentially become a fact. I don't think it needs a special type. And ckilu has little to do with concepts, as far as I can tell. 

What to fill ckilu1 with if not with {si'o kei}? 

pincivi is marked as "(body)"

fixed

 

, which seems strange given that vikmi/vamtu/sputu/kafke/klaku/vasxu/citka/pinxe/xagji/taske/... are not (and should not).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Before that we need to check if some proposition and property places can  also take events.

It seems to me that properties (i.e. incomplete propositions) are in a sense incompatible with anything else. The only way a property place could also take something else is through overloading. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means using the same word for two strongly related but different predicates.

 

E.g. kakne2 was an event place that could lead to an object place (mi kakne lo bajra) there. Now it's a property place (mi kakne lo ka ce'u du lo bajra).

And in the opposite direction, some people prefer binxo2 as a property, so that "mi binxo lo bajra" becomes "mi binxo lo ka ce'u bajra".

 

Propositions can be seen as properties (mi kakne lodu'u lo no'a cu du lo bajra). What is chosen in this or that place seems to be rather arbitrary to me.

Incomplete propositions are not complete propositions, but since places for incomplete propositions are normally tied to another place that contains what is required to complete the proposition, then yes, in principle either way could be chosen to define the predicate. This doesn't apply so easily to cases where the property is tied to two places at once though, because there's no immediate proposition that could replace the property.

Most predicates with places tagged as "du'u" also have an additional "about" place, which means they could be replaced with property places: "mi djuno lo ka ce'u nelci lo cakla kei do". The problem here is that in these predicates the "about" place comes after the proposition place, and for most property predicates the thing-with-property place comes before the property. So a more natural order would be "mi djuno do lo ka ce'u nelci lo cakla".

 

So the first step is to clearly separate events vs. propositions+properties.

An incomplete proposition does not describe an event. A complete proposition can and often does describe an event. If we wanted to, we could easily make do with a single NU for all subordinate clauses, since it's not really necessary to point out explicitly that a proposition describes an event, and we don't strictly need more than "ce'u" to mark an incomplete proposition. So yes, the assignment of ka/du'u/nu to argument places is rather arbitrary.

du'u: introduces a complete proposition, unless it contains an explicit ce'u, in which case it introduces an incomplete proposition.

ka: introduces an incomplete proposition. It may but need not contain an explicit ce'u, because if not explicit an implicit one is assumed.

nu: introduces a complete proposition that describes an event. Same as du'u with respect to ce'u.

Some propositions are just too abstract to be said to describe an event e.g. lo du'u li vo sumji li re li re, where or when would that take place? Not really an event. 

I think "sound" is way too specific to be a type. Something like "living organism", or even "container" would have many more instances than "sound". And if sance1 and zgike1 are "sound", shouldn't tonga1, voksa1, savru1 and rilti1 be as well?

rilti1 or rilti2? Or both? Also sanga2.

I was only looking at the x1 column, but yes, those would seem to be sounds too.

 

The problem for me is that krixa2, cmoni2 can probably be texts. And text and sound often go together.

Semantic categorization currently puts them in different classes (communication, non-linguistic utterances, Music/sound...)

Can I cusku a selsanga? That's why I wanted "sound" to be a separate type that could include both sounds and "text".

If a text is anything with linguistic meaning, then some sounds are also text. But there are sounds that are not text, and texts that are not sound. cmoni2 is explicitly described as non-linguistic.

 

mixre

changed to "x1 (object, event) is a mixture including x2 (set of objects or events)"

 

/gunma  

changed to "x1 (object, event) is a joint mass, team of components that are x2 (object, event)"

I think those should be "any type".  

 

 

/kamni

kamni3 is probably a "set".

In my opinion no place should be marked as "set".

 

 rilti is marked as a sequence but again it should be just a group

Any example of rilti1?

 It's easy to provide vague examples like

   lo sutra cu rilti lo nau zgike

   "A fast one is the rhythm of this music."

but I guess you want a more specific description like "3/4 is the rhythm of this song". I can already hear the objections, but I think I would go with "li ci fi'u vo cu rilti lo nau zgike".

What is a group according to you?

One that consists of many. E pluribus unum.

 

porsi1 includes {ce'o}

casnu1 includes {ce} or {jo'u}.

I think porsi1 takes the one (lo gunma) while casnu1 takes the many (lo se gunma). But these are not types in our number/object/event/proposition/property typology. Both the one and the many could be of any of those types.

 

ckilu/sidbo are marked as "(concept)". A sidbo is a du'u, it's something that could potentially become a fact. I don't think it needs a special type. And ckilu has little to do with concepts, as far as I can tell. 

What to fill ckilu1 with if not with {si'o kei}? 

I don't exactly know, but I have a lot of difficulty extracting a scale from a proposition. 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-01 18:42 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Before that we need to check if some proposition and property places can  also take events.

It seems to me that properties (i.e. incomplete propositions) are in a sense incompatible with anything else. The only way a property place could also take something else is through overloading. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means using the same word for two strongly related but different predicates.

 

E.g. kakne2 was an event place that could lead to an object place (mi kakne lo bajra) there. Now it's a property place (mi kakne lo ka ce'u du lo bajra).

And in the opposite direction, some people prefer binxo2 as a property, so that "mi binxo lo bajra" becomes "mi binxo lo ka ce'u bajra".

 

Propositions can be seen as properties (mi kakne lodu'u lo no'a cu du lo bajra). What is chosen in this or that place seems to be rather arbitrary to me.

Incomplete propositions are not complete propositions, but since places for incomplete propositions are normally tied to another place that contains what is required to complete the proposition, then yes, in principle either way could be chosen to define the predicate. This doesn't apply so easily to cases where the property is tied to two places at once though, because there's no immediate proposition that could replace the property.

Most predicates with places tagged as "du'u" also have an additional "about" place, which means they could be replaced with property places: "mi djuno lo ka ce'u nelci lo cakla kei do". The problem here is that in these predicates the "about" place comes after the proposition place, and for most property predicates the thing-with-property place comes before the property. So a more natural order would be "mi djuno do lo ka ce'u nelci lo cakla".

 

So the first step is to clearly separate events vs. propositions+properties.

An incomplete proposition does not describe an event. A complete proposition can and often does describe an event. If we wanted to, we could easily make do with a single NU for all subordinate clauses, since it's not really necessary to point out explicitly that a proposition describes an event, and we don't strictly need more than "ce'u" to mark an incomplete proposition. So yes, the assignment of ka/du'u/nu to argument places is rather arbitrary.

du'u: introduces a complete proposition, unless it contains an explicit ce'u, in which case it introduces an incomplete proposition.

ka: introduces an incomplete proposition. It may but need not contain an explicit ce'u, because if not explicit an implicit one is assumed.

nu: introduces a complete proposition that describes an event. Same as du'u with respect to ce'u.

But then you will say that (apart from very abstract propositions) propositions are events and events are objects. Then what? Replace all of them to just objects?

I want students of Lojban (AI included) to understand how to form this or that place. porsi1 require ce'o, casnu1 and kamni3 require jo'u. This should be reflected in the definitions.

 

ckilu/sidbo are marked as "(concept)". A sidbo is a du'u, it's something that could potentially become a fact. I don't think it needs a special type. And ckilu has little to do with concepts, as far as I can tell. 

What to fill ckilu1 with if not with {si'o kei}? 

I don't exactly know, but I have a lot of difficulty extracting a scale from a proposition. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

But then you will say that (apart from very abstract propositions) propositions are events and events are objects. Then what? Replace all of them to just objects?

No, some propositions describe events, but the proposition that describes the event is not the event. And events are not objects (in some strict sense of "object"), although both events and objects are spatio-temporal entities.

 

I want students of Lojban (AI included) to understand how to form this or that place. porsi1 require ce'o, casnu1 and kamni3 require jo'u. This should be reflected in the definitions.

But in what sense does porsi1 require ce'o or casnu1 require jo'u? "lo valsi cu porsi lo lerfu", "lo re prenu cu casnu lo tcima".  porsi1 allows ce'o, it doesn't require it, and it allows it because "ko'a ce'o ko'e" basically means someting like "lo porsi be fi ko'a jo'u ko'e". And casnu1 allows jo'u (it doesn't require it) because ko'a jo'u ko'e is defined so that "ko'a .e ko'e me ko'a jo'u ko'e .i je ro me ko'a jo'u ko'e cu me ko'a gi'a me ko'e". But that's more about the definition of "ce'o" and "jo'u" than about porsi or casnu.

What casnu1 requires is a sumti with more than one referent, and "jo'u" is just one of many ways to provide that, and porsi1 requires a sumti whose referent consists of many things in order, and "ce'o" is just one of many ways to provide that.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-02 4:15 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

But then you will say that (apart from very abstract propositions) propositions are events and events are objects. Then what? Replace all of them to just objects?

No, some propositions describe events, but the proposition that describes the event is not the event. And events are not objects (in some strict sense of "object"), although both events and objects are spatio-temporal entities.

 

I want students of Lojban (AI included) to understand how to form this or that place. porsi1 require ce'o, casnu1 and kamni3 require jo'u. This should be reflected in the definitions.

But in what sense does porsi1 require ce'o or casnu1 require jo'u? "lo valsi cu porsi lo lerfu", "lo re prenu cu casnu lo tcima".  porsi1 allows ce'o, it doesn't require it, and it allows it because "ko'a ce'o ko'e" basically means someting like "lo porsi be fi ko'a jo'u ko'e". And casnu1 allows jo'u (it doesn't require it) because ko'a jo'u ko'e is defined so that "ko'a .e ko'e me ko'a jo'u ko'e .i je ro me ko'a jo'u ko'e cu me ko'a gi'a me ko'e". But that's more about the definition of "ce'o" and "jo'u" than about porsi or casnu.

Okay, I will put {ce'o} to notes then. 

You said that porsi1 is a group. You also said that it's gunma1. But in another post you said that gunma1 should be "any type". Can you describe once again what "group" would mean?

I hope this thread wont die out since I want to finish with the gimste as soon as possible.

What casnu1 requires is a sumti with more than one referent, and "jo'u" is just one of many ways to provide that, and porsi1 requires a sumti whose referent consists of many things in order, and "ce'o" is just one of many ways to provide that.

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

You said that porsi1 is a group. You also said that it's gunma1.

Right, "lo porsi cu gunma lo te porsi". (I think x2 and x3 of porsi should switch order though.)

 

But in another post you said that gunma1 should be "any type".

Right, I think "lo gunma be lo fatci cu fatci .ije lo gunma be lo selsku cu selsku .ije lo gunma be lo selkai cu selkai .ije lo gunma be lo fasnu cu fasnu .ije lo gunma be lo dacti cu dacti" The only one I hesitate about is whether "lo gunma be lo namcu cu namcu", but whwther it'a a namcu or not, it doesn't seem to be of any of the other types.

Can you describe once again what "group" would mean?

 One that consists of many. Examples of groups: "lo gunma be lo xanto", "lo bende be lo gunka", "lo porsi be (fi) lo manti", "lo linji be lo mokca", "lo bakfu be lo grana", "lo derxi be lo tapla", "lo sorcu be lo plise", "lo stura be lo tersu'i", "lo liste be lo valsi", "lo trene be lo carce", "lo cecmu be lo cinfo", "lo mixre be lo skari", "lo salta be lo grute", "lo sanmi be lo lenku", "lo lanzu be lo mirli". It's a new entity that emerges from its constituents.

I hope this thread wont die out since I want to finish with the gimste as soon as possible.

When you say that casnu1 and simxu1 are "sets", you mean "plural", right? As in "lo ci prenu cu casnu lo cukta", "lo re prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u prami ce'u". Or do you mean "set" as in "lo'i"/"lu'i"? Or both?

Moving on to the x2's:

You also have sets for mixre2, porpi2, spoja2, lanxe2, jbini2, fenso2, konju2, liste2, kampu2, ralju2, lanzu2, bilma2, kancu2, linji2, plita2, sarni2, jinga2 (why?), misno2, natmi2, pesxu2, ransu2, terdi2, gredile2, kombitu2, vlamei2;

That suggests that you do mean "plural" by "set". But then there's cmima2, which shouldn't be a set by that rule.

BTW, is there a difference between (set) and (set of any type)? 

(jibni2 and basti2 say x1 instead of x2.)

(observer) is not a type in the same sense that proposition/property/number/etc are types. If you take a property from one bridi and move it to another bridi, it's still a property. If you take an observer out of a bridi and use it in another bridi, there's a good chance that it won't be an observer there. (observer) is a role, not a type. That's not to say you can't include roles as well as types in the definitions, but just to be clear. The type will be (object) and the role will be (observer).

You seem to have redefined "cinza" from being a body-part to being a somewhat odd action predicate with an x2 agent (which is also a role, not a type). This change just makes the gimste more irregular. I think if you are to redefine "cinza" from being a body-part, you should eliminate the x2 altogether.  

cmana2 and volve2 have (place), but lalxu2 and klama2 (and several others) don't. Why those two specifically? I suspect (place) is a role too, since any object could be a place, no? Same with dikca2 (medium).

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-03 3:09 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

You said that porsi1 is a group. You also said that it's gunma1.

Right, "lo porsi cu gunma lo te porsi". (I think x2 and x3 of porsi should switch order though.)

 

But in another post you said that gunma1 should be "any type".

Right, I think "lo gunma be lo fatci cu fatci .ije lo gunma be lo selsku cu selsku .ije lo gunma be lo selkai cu selkai .ije lo gunma be lo fasnu cu fasnu .ije lo gunma be lo dacti cu dacti" The only one I hesitate about is whether "lo gunma be lo namcu cu namcu", but whwther it'a a namcu or not, it doesn't seem to be of any of the other types.

Can you describe once again what "group" would mean?

 One that consists of many. Examples of groups: "lo gunma be lo xanto", "lo bende be lo gunka", "lo porsi be (fi) lo manti", "lo linji be lo mokca", "lo bakfu be lo grana", "lo derxi be lo tapla", "lo sorcu be lo plise", "lo stura be lo tersu'i", "lo liste be lo valsi", "lo trene be lo carce", "lo cecmu be lo cinfo", "lo mixre be lo skari", "lo salta be lo grute", "lo sanmi be lo lenku", "lo lanzu be lo mirli". It's a new entity that emerges from its constituents.

I hope this thread wont die out since I want to finish with the gimste as soon as possible.

When you say that casnu1 and simxu1 are "sets", you mean "plural", right? As in "lo ci prenu cu casnu lo cukta", "lo re prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u prami ce'u". Or do you mean "set" as in "lo'i"/"lu'i"? Or both?

Moving on to the x2's:

You also have sets for mixre2, porpi2, spoja2, lanxe2, jbini2, fenso2, konju2, liste2, kampu2, ralju2, lanzu2, bilma2, kancu2, linji2, plita2, sarni2, jinga2 (why?), misno2, natmi2, pesxu2, ransu2, terdi2, gredile2, kombitu2, vlamei2;

That suggests that you do mean "plural" by "set". But then there's cmima2, which shouldn't be a set by that rule.

BTW, is there a difference between (set) and (set of any type)? 

Well, I'm losing the track of this discussion. What are your suggestions on naming those places? Of course I can change all of them to just "object".

Still I wish a formalized explanation was given for each place of what connective to choose. E.g. using {jo'u} for porsi1 would be strange.

(jibni2 and basti2 say x1 instead of x2.)

Fixed.

 

(observer) is not a type in the same sense that proposition/property/number/etc are types.

Okay I can change that from "x3 (observer)" to ''observer x3 (object)".

If you take a property from one bridi and move it to another bridi, it's still a property. If you take an observer out of a bridi and use it in another bridi, there's a good chance that it won't be an observer there. (observer) is a role, not a type. That's not to say you can't include roles as well as types in the definitions, but just to be clear. The type will be (object) and the role will be (observer).

You seem to have redefined "cinza" from being a body-part to being a somewhat odd action predicate with an x2 agent (which is also a role, not a type). This change just makes the gimste more irregular. I think if you are to redefine "cinza" from being a body-part, you should eliminate the x2 altogether.  

probably not {cinza} but something else. {cinza} is not a body part. They are tweezers.

  

cmana2 and volve2 have (place), but lalxu2 and klama2 (and several others) don't. Why those two specifically? I suspect (place) is a role too, since any object could be a place, no? Same with dikca2 (medium).

The same as with "observer".

One last question.

nelci - x1 is fond of/likes/has a taste for x2 (object/state).

Can we say:

mi nelci lo plise

mi nelci lo nu do limna

mi nelci lo ka limna

mi nelci li mu

?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-03 3:09 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

When you say that casnu1 and simxu1 are "sets", you mean "plural", right? As in "lo ci prenu cu casnu lo cukta", "lo re prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u prami ce'u". Or do you mean "set" as in "lo'i"/"lu'i"? Or both?

Moving on to the x2's:

You also have sets for mixre2, porpi2, spoja2, lanxe2, jbini2, fenso2, konju2, liste2, kampu2, ralju2, lanzu2, bilma2, kancu2, linji2, plita2, sarni2, jinga2 (why?), misno2, natmi2, pesxu2, ransu2, terdi2, gredile2, kombitu2, vlamei2;

That suggests that you do mean "plural" by "set". But then there's cmima2, which shouldn't be a set by that rule.

BTW, is there a difference between (set) and (set of any type)? 

Well, I'm losing the track of this discussion. What are your suggestions on naming those places?

It depends on what the goal is. Are we just specifying types for each argument place, or something else besides types? You started by saying you were specifying mutually incompatible types. For this, the first thing to do is to list all the possible types, so we know what we have to choose from. "Mutually incompatible" is realatively easy to achieve for the more abstract types (proposition, property, relation, number), but for the more concrete types (event, sound, text, object) it is not always so easy to see them as mutually incompatible, since there's a lot of overlap.   

Another difficulty is that many of the specifications (usually inherited from the official gimste) are not about permanent types at all, but either about roles (agent, patient, instrument, observer, place, medium) or about distributivity ("set", "mass", "individual"). I put those in scare quotes because there isn't even an agreed definition for what they mean, so using them to explain something else is always risky.

 

Of course I can change all of them to just "object".  Still I wish a formalized explanation was given for each place of what connective to choose. E.g. using {jo'u} for porsi1 would be strange.

It all depends on how you use it. Since "porsi" can just as easily mean "are sequences" as "is a sequence", there shouldn't be a problem in using a plural sumti formed with "jo'u" in x1. You just have to know that "jo'u" doesn't create an emergent single thing like ce/ce'o (and "joi" with some of its definitions) do.

The important thing for porsi1 is that it has to be something that consists of other things, so that it can make sense to say that those other things are in some order. But "something that consists of other things" is not a type, at least not a type in the above typology, because all the concrete types there can consist of other things, and probably most of the abstract types too. If we make "set" another abstract type, and the only type allowed for porsi1, then we connot say such elementary things as "mi viska lo porsi be (fi) lo manti" because abstract sets are not the type of thing that can be seen. 

Most of the places marked as "set" are usually plural and non-distributive, i.e. it doesn't make much sense to fill them with a sumti that refers to only one thing, and when filled by a sumti that refers to more than one thing you cannot distribute the predication for each of the things, it applies to all of them together. But that's independent of the type of the things.

To sum up: "type", "role" and "distributivity" are three different and mostly independent properties of argument places. 

(observer) is not a type in the same sense that proposition/property/number/etc are types.

Okay I can change that from "x3 (observer)" to ''observer x3 (object)".

That works for me. One problem with the word "object" though is that sometimes it includes, but sometimes it is used in contrast with, sentient beings. I guess this should be clarified somewhere. These "objects" will almost always be people.

 

 

  {cinza} is not a body part. They are tweezers.

Hmm, right, it's mainly a tool:

 "x1 is a/are tong(s)/chopsticks/pincers/tweezers/pliers [tool/body-part] for x2 to pinch x3"

But it doesn't describe an action. "ko'a ca'a cinza ko'e ko'i" doesn't mean that ko'i actually gets pinched, just that ko'a actually is for pinching ko'i. If "cinza" was an action, the expected definition for me would be "x1 pinches x2 with x3 (at locus x4)". So I don't think x2 is an agent. I can see how x3 fits with the tool definition, but I don't really see why there is an x2 at all though, other than to make it a body part..

 

One last question.

nelci - x1 is fond of/likes/has a taste for x2 (object/state).

Can we say:

mi nelci lo plise

mi nelci lo nu do limna

I have no problem with those two.

 

mi nelci lo ka limna

I can accept this one, but to me it entails a separate meaning for "nelci" if it is to mean that I like to swim, as opposed to just liking the abstract property of being a swimmer:

 

mi nelci li mu

?

And that's why you always bet on it when playing roulette?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-04 2:40 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-03 3:09 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

When you say that casnu1 and simxu1 are "sets", you mean "plural", right? As in "lo ci prenu cu casnu lo cukta", "lo re prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u prami ce'u". Or do you mean "set" as in "lo'i"/"lu'i"? Or both?

Moving on to the x2's:

You also have sets for mixre2, porpi2, spoja2, lanxe2, jbini2, fenso2, konju2, liste2, kampu2, ralju2, lanzu2, bilma2, kancu2, linji2, plita2, sarni2, jinga2 (why?), misno2, natmi2, pesxu2, ransu2, terdi2, gredile2, kombitu2, vlamei2;

That suggests that you do mean "plural" by "set". But then there's cmima2, which shouldn't be a set by that rule.

BTW, is there a difference between (set) and (set of any type)? 

Well, I'm losing the track of this discussion. What are your suggestions on naming those places?

It depends on what the goal is.

I want a gimste that would teach 1. te sumti interactions 2. what type can go into each place. 3. how plurality is formed inside each place if applicable.

If you can see other goals (like e.g. improving semantic categorization) you are free to add new columns or ask me if it requires some automation.

Are we just specifying types for each argument place, or something else besides types? You started by saying you were specifying mutually incompatible types. For this, the first thing to do is to list all the possible types, so we know what we have to choose from. "Mutually incompatible" is realatively easy to achieve for the more abstract types (proposition, property, relation, number), but for the more concrete types (event, sound, text, object) it is not always so easy to see them as mutually incompatible, since there's a lot of overlap.   

Another difficulty is that many of the specifications (usually inherited from the official gimste) are not about permanent types at all, but either about roles (agent, patient, instrument, observer, place, medium) or about distributivity ("set", "mass", "individual"). I put those in scare quotes because there isn't even an agreed definition for what they mean, so using them to explain something else is always risky.

 

Of course I can change all of them to just "object".  Still I wish a formalized explanation was given for each place of what connective to choose. E.g. using {jo'u} for porsi1 would be strange.

It all depends on how you use it. Since "porsi" can just as easily mean "are sequences" as "is a sequence", there shouldn't be a problem in using a plural sumti formed with "jo'u" in x1. You just have to know that "jo'u" doesn't create an emergent single thing like ce/ce'o (and "joi" with some of its definitions) do.

Out of {ce'o}, {jo'u}, {joi} casnu1 can accept {jo'u} but not {ce'o}, porsi1 can accept {ce'o} but not {jo'u} (unless that jo'u connect sumti then connected with {ce'o} again, right?

This is what I also want to reflect in the gimste.

The important thing for porsi1 is that it has to be something that consists of other things, so that it can make sense to say that those other things are in some order. But "something that consists of other things" is not a type, at least not a type in the above typology, because all the concrete types there can consist of other things, and probably most of the abstract types too. If we make "set" another abstract type, and the only type allowed for porsi1, then we connot say such elementary things as "mi viska lo porsi be (fi) lo manti" because abstract sets are not the type of thing that can be seen. 

Most of the places marked as "set" are usually plural and non-distributive, i.e. it doesn't make much sense to fill them with a sumti that refers to only one thing, and when filled by a sumti that refers to more than one thing you cannot distribute the predication for each of the things, it applies to all of them together. But that's independent of the type of the things.

If I define
porsi1 as "x1 (any type; {ce'o} for showing sequence)"
casnu1 as just "x1 (any type)"

gunma as "x1 (any type; {joi} for showing mass)"

would it be okay?

To sum up: "type", "role" and "distributivity" are three different and mostly independent properties of argument places. 

(observer) is not a type in the same sense that proposition/property/number/etc are types.

Okay I can change that from "x3 (observer)" to ''observer x3 (object)".

That works for me. One problem with the word "object" though is that sometimes it includes, but sometimes it is used in contrast with, sentient beings. I guess this should be clarified somewhere. These "objects" will almost always be people.

If you have a better term than "object"...

 

 

 

  {cinza} is not a body part. They are tweezers.

Hmm, right, it's mainly a tool:

 "x1 is a/are tong(s)/chopsticks/pincers/tweezers/pliers [tool/body-part] for x2 to pinch x3"

But it doesn't describe an action. "ko'a ca'a cinza ko'e ko'i" doesn't mean that ko'i actually gets pinched, just that ko'a actually is for pinching ko'i. If "cinza" was an action, the expected definition for me would be "x1 pinches x2 with x3 (at locus x4)". So I don't think x2 is an agent. I can see how x3 fits with the tool definition, but I don't really see why there is an x2 at all though, other than to make it a body part..

 

One last question.

nelci - x1 is fond of/likes/has a taste for x2 (object/state).

Can we say:

mi nelci lo plise

mi nelci lo nu do limna

I have no problem with those two.

 

mi nelci lo ka limna

I can accept this one, but to me it entails a separate meaning for "nelci" if it is to mean that I like to swim, as opposed to just liking the abstract property of being a swimmer:

If it is to mean "I like to swim" then the place would be

"x2 (any type, property of x1)"

 

mi nelci li mu

?

And that's why you always bet on it when playing roulette?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I want a gimste that would teach 1. te sumti interactions 2. what type can go into each place. 3. how plurality is formed inside each place if applicable.

If you can see other goals (like e.g. improving semantic categorization) you are free to add new columns or ask me if it requires some automation.

More than a semantic categorization, I'd like a categorization of place structures with relatively few categories, each category with many members. Categories such as "x1 is a ... consisting of x2", "x1 is a ... of x2", "x1 is ... in property x2", "x1 is ... relative to x2 in property x3", "x1 feels ... about x2", and so on.   

 

Out of {ce'o}, {jo'u}, {joi} casnu1 can accept {jo'u} but not {ce'o},

If a queue of people are discussing something, or if they are just taking turns to speak, could that not be a porsi discussing something?

porsi1 can accept {ce'o} but not {jo'u} (unless that jo'u connect sumti then connected with {ce'o} again, right?

What about "lo latmo selyle'u jo'u lo xelso selyle'u cu porsi", with no "ce'o" involved?

 

If I define
porsi1 as "x1 (any type; {ce'o} for showing sequence)"
casnu1 as just "x1 (any type)"

gunma as "x1 (any type; {joi} for showing mass)"

would it be okay?

Personally, I avoid the word "mass".  I also avoid using "joi", since I prefer "ko'a jo'u ko'e" for a plural reference and "lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e" for a reference to the emerging group.

Which places besides porsi1 are you going to be marking with ce'o? liste1? lerfu2? pruce4?  

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-05 2:44 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I want a gimste that would teach 1. te sumti interactions 2. what type can go into each place. 3. how plurality is formed inside each place if applicable.

If you can see other goals (like e.g. improving semantic categorization) you are free to add new columns or ask me if it requires some automation.

More than a semantic categorization, I'd like a categorization of place structures with relatively few categories, each category with many members. Categories such as "x1 is a ... consisting of x2", "x1 is a ... of x2", "x1 is ... in property x2", "x1 is ... relative to x2 in property x3", "x1 feels ... about x2", and so on.   

Since I'm not an expert in Lojban I can only offer something if I already see any examples. No idea which gismu are "consisting of x2" and so on. As for "x1 feels..." I think they should just all be tagged as "Emotions" or "Attitudes" in semantic categorization columns.

 

Out of {ce'o}, {jo'u}, {joi} casnu1 can accept {jo'u} but not {ce'o},

If a queue of people are discussing something, or if they are just taking turns to speak, could that not be a porsi discussing something?

porsi1 can accept {ce'o} but not {jo'u} (unless that jo'u connect sumti then connected with {ce'o} again, right?

What about "lo latmo selyle'u jo'u lo xelso selyle'u cu porsi", with no "ce'o" involved?

 

If I define
porsi1 as "x1 (any type; {ce'o} for showing sequence)"
casnu1 as just "x1 (any type)"

gunma as "x1 (any type; {joi} for showing mass)"

would it be okay?

Personally, I avoid the word "mass".  I also avoid using "joi", since I prefer "ko'a jo'u ko'e" for a plural reference and "lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e" for a reference to the emerging group.

Which places besides porsi1 are you going to be marking with ce'o? liste1? lerfu2? pruce4?  

If you think this is useless I can mark all of them with just (plural) or (plural of any type).

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[selpa'i]

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

> Which places besides porsi1 are you going to be marking with ce'o?
> liste1? lerfu2? pruce4?

bridi3 seems to be an important one. I'm wondering if we should turn
{ce'o} from an "ordered {ce}" into an "ordered {jo'u}" to make it more
practical. As an ordered {ce}, we can't say {mi ce'o do nerkla}, but as
ordered {jo'u} we could. Then porsi1 is an ordered plural, and things
become more flexible.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Changed to:

simxu1 x1 (plural of any type)

porsi1 x1 (ordered plural of any type)
porsi3 x3 (plural of any type)

rilti1 x1 (ordered plural of any type)

casnu1 x1 (object)
liste2 x2 (plural)
lerfu2 x2 (ordered plural of any type)
pruce4 x4 (ordered plural of events)

I'm thinking of changing both "object" and "event" into "located" (until a better English gloss for this type is found). Ofc. simple global replacement can lead in the list to possible mistakes to be fixed.

(set) pseudo-type will be dealt with separately.

As for emotions/attitudes everyone is also welcome to suggest corrections for the semantic columns.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 19:44:11 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> What about "lo latmo selyle'u jo'u lo xelso selyle'u cu porsi", with no
> "ce'o" involved?

I think that's false. lo latmo selyle'u joi lo xelso selyle'u cu norporsi, and
I've seen a list alphabetized like that. 'C' is neither before nor after 'Γ'.

Pierre
--
The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Another tesumti interaction i clean forgot to add to the list is {ce'u} inside {be}.

E.g. junla = x1 is clock/watch/timer measuring time units x2 to precision x3 ...
Here x3 is the same as the second place of x2 (junla lo snidu [be lipimu] lipimu)

A similar behaviour is for {cortu}.

By default {mi cortu lo xance} = {mi cortu lo xance be mi}

The second {mi} of course can be changed but only if we are talking about Avatar technologies.
Still by default it is the same as x1 of the outer bridi, i.e. cortu1.

I'm not sure about sevzi2 but I think it should also be x1 be default so that 
{mi catra lo sevzi} = {mi catra lo sevzi be mi}.

This would make sez-/se'i- lujvo perfect jvajvo.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, June 05, 2014 21:56:16 Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Another tesumti interaction i clean forgot to add to the list is {ce'u}
> inside {be}.
> E.g. junla = x1 is clock/watch/timer measuring time units x2 to precision
> x3 ...
> Here x3 is the same as the second place of x2 (junla lo snidu [be lipimu]
> lipimu)
>
> A similar behaviour is for {cortu}.
>
> By default {mi cortu lo xance} = {mi cortu lo xance be mi}
>
> The second {mi} of course can be changed but only if we are talking about
> Avatar technologies.
> Still by default it is the same as x1 of the outer bridi, i.e. cortu1.

"mi cortu lo xance be do" is a twiddler. See
http://kith.org/logos/words/lower/t.html.

Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli ku po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:51 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

Which places besides porsi1 are you going to be marking with ce'o?
liste1? lerfu2? pruce4?

bridi3 seems to be an important one. I'm wondering if we should turn {ce'o} from an "ordered {ce}" into an "ordered {jo'u}" to make it more practical. As an ordered {ce}, we can't say {mi ce'o do nerkla}, but as ordered {jo'u} we could.

I think it is in practice used as an ordered "jo'u" more often than not.  

 

Then porsi1 is an ordered plural, and things become more flexible.

If it's not the case that "lo porsi cu gunma fi lo te porsi", then I don't see much point in "porsi" having three places though. I have been thinking of "porsi" as meaning "x1 is a sequence/queue/succession/row/series/train of x3" rather than as "x1 are in a sequence/queue/..."

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Changed to:

simxu1 x1 (plural of any type)

porsi1 x1 (ordered plural of any type)
porsi3 x3 (plural of any type)

rilti1 x1 (ordered plural of any type)

casnu1 x1 (object)
liste2 x2 (plural)
lerfu2 x2 (ordered plural of any type)
pruce4 x4 (ordered plural of events)

I think lerfu2 is not in general plural, while casnu1 is. If rilti1 is meant to be plural then perhaps "rythmical" might be a better gloss, since "a rhythm" is obviously singular. 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

A similar behaviour is for {cortu}.

By default {mi cortu lo xance} = {mi cortu lo xance be mi}

The second {mi} of course can be changed but only if we are talking about Avatar technologies.
Still by default it is the same as x1 of the outer bridi, i.e. cortu1.

I think you will find this behavior in most of the gismu that contain the word "locus" in their definition.

But I don't like this wording:

"x2 (object; by default the second place of which is the same as x1)"

Objects don't have argument places, and besides, even though most, perhaps all, body-part gismu have the "body" in x2, there's no rule that a body-part can only be referred to with a body-part word. You could say "mi cortu lo te jgari", and that should not mean "lo te jgari be mi" by default. You could say:

"x2 (object; a locus on x1)" or something like that.

 

I'm not sure about sevzi2 but I think it should also be x1 be default so that 
{mi catra lo sevzi} = {mi catra lo sevzi be mi}.

This is something quite different, but in the definition of "sevzi" you should be talking about the places of "sevzi", not the places of "catra" or any selbri in which "lo sevzi" could be used as an argument. 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Note. Someone has damaged "simplified brivla" tab so I restored my revision of it. I can see that Jorge and some anonymous users were editing it after me si all your changes you've made during June 5 - June 6 have been lost. Please, restore them.

--

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.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-06 3:08 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Changed to:

simxu1 x1 (plural of any type)

porsi1 x1 (ordered plural of any type)
porsi3 x3 (plural of any type)

rilti1 x1 (ordered plural of any type)

casnu1 x1 (object)
liste2 x2 (plural)
lerfu2 x2 (ordered plural of any type)
pruce4 x4 (ordered plural of events)

I think lerfu2 is not in general plural

Then how would you describe lerfu2? As for types it can be either located (aka "object/event") or text (e.g. letters).

But what about it being a set? Compare e.g. mlatu1 and lerfu2. What is it that they they differ in?
If you do think they can both be named "sets" then of course i'll remove this "set" as a role/type ... whatever you call it since then "set" would be meaningless.

, while casnu1 is.

fxd

 

If rilti1 is meant to be plural then perhaps "rythmical" might be a better gloss, since "a rhythm" is obviously singular. 

fxd

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-06 4:05 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

A similar behaviour is for {cortu}.

By default {mi cortu lo xance} = {mi cortu lo xance be mi}

The second {mi} of course can be changed but only if we are talking about Avatar technologies.
Still by default it is the same as x1 of the outer bridi, i.e. cortu1.

I think you will find this behavior in most of the gismu that contain the word "locus" in their definition.

But I don't like this wording:

"x2 (object; by default the second place of which is the same as x1)"

Objects don't have argument places

Imagine  that the place structure required NU in cortu2.
{mi cortu lo nu xance mi}. Although, I don't know if this behavior exists with cortu2 in any natlangs.

, and besides, even though most, perhaps all, body-part gismu have the "body" in x2, there's no rule that a body-part can only be referred to with a body-part word. You could say "mi cortu lo te jgari", and that should not mean "lo te jgari be mi" by default. You could say:

"x2 (object; a locus on x1)" or something like that.

That would require specifying "locus" as a role in all those brivla.
 

 

I'm not sure about sevzi2 but I think it should also be x1 be default so that 
{mi catra lo sevzi} = {mi catra lo sevzi be mi}.

This is something quite different, but in the definition of "sevzi" you should be talking about the places of "sevzi", not the places of "catra" or any selbri in which "lo sevzi" could be used as an argument. 

I propose "x1 is a self of x2 (x1 by default)".

For "ego" we need another brivla.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

--

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.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Note. Someone has damaged "simplified brivla" tab so I restored my revision of it. I can see that Jorge and some anonymous users were editing it after me si all your changes you've made during June 5 - June 6 have been lost. Please, restore them.

I never made any changes to it, at least not consciously, I wasn't even aware that anyone but you could make changes. 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Well, I can't see any options to make filters available for all users but disable editing of cells. Thus blocking the sheet seems not optimal.

Other news: i replaced/removed all instances of "set". Search for "plural" in filters for what is left of them.

Also "observer" is removed.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-06 3:08 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

I think lerfu2 is not in general plural

Then how would you describe lerfu2? As for types it can be either located (aka "object/event") or text (e.g. letters).

Text is fine, but not plural. "lo ci se lerfu" to me is three alphabets, not three letters that constitute an alphabet. So lerfu2 is for the alphabets, not for the letters.

But what about it being a set? Compare e.g. mlatu1 and lerfu2. What is it that they they differ in?

If you mean "set" in the abstract set theoretical sense, then no, because alphabets can for example be recited (abstract sets can't), alphabets can evolve (abstract sets can't) and so on. If you mean "set" in a more general, everyday sense, then yes, alphabets are indeed sets of letters.

 

Do you mean mlatu2? I don't think mlatu1 has much to do with sets.

 

If you do think they can both be named "sets" then of course i'll remove this "set" as a role/type ... whatever you call it since then "set" would be meaningless.

mlatu2 and lerfu2 are sets in a general sense. The word "set" shouldn't be a problem as long as it's not taken to mean the abstract objects of set theory, which is what the Lojban tradition has used it for.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-06 4:05 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

But I don't like this wording:

"x2 (object; by default the second place of which is the same as x1)"

Objects don't have argument places

Imagine  that the place structure required NU in cortu2.
{mi cortu lo nu xance mi}. Although, I don't know if this behavior exists with cortu2 in any natlangs.

Events don't have argument places either. Predicates have argument places. I understand what you mean, I just don't think your wording there was correct.

  

I'm not sure about sevzi2 but I think it should also be x1 be default so that 
{mi catra lo sevzi} = {mi catra lo sevzi be mi}.

This is something quite different, but in the definition of "sevzi" you should be talking about the places of "sevzi", not the places of "catra" or any selbri in which "lo sevzi" could be used as an argument. 

I propose "x1 is a self of x2 (x1 by default)".

If x2 is x1 by default, then "sevzi" defaults to "du". I think you mean the x1 of the main selbri in which "sevzi" is used as a description of an argument, rather than the x1 of sevzi, which is the only one you can really mention in a definition of "sevzi"

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I propose "x1 is a self of x2 (x1 by default)".

I think a better definition for "sevzi" would have been "x1 does x2 to itself", parallel to "simxu":

ko'a simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u prami

ko'a love one another.

ko'a sevzi lo ka ce'u ce'u prami

ko'a love themselves.

Or with lujvo: ko'a pamsi'u, ko'a pamse'i

[Jorge Llambías]

A few comments on some x3's that caught my attention:

(1) What would be an example of a scale in dukti3?

I think dukti3 will usually be a property with kau:

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u jinvi ma kau

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u cinse fi ma kau 

(ignoring the messiness of the "cinse" place structure)

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u zvati lo mo kau mlana be lo klaji

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ma kau farna ce'u

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u dikca fi ma kau

and so on. Are those scales?

  
(2) You have "klani" backwards. x2 is the number, x1 is the thing, as in all other measure words. "klani" is the generic measure word.

  ko'a klani li ci lo ka xo kau da bruna ce'u

  ko'a klani li pa pi mu lo ka ce'u citka lo xo kau plise 

  ko'a klani li mu lo ka ce'u xo roi klama lo zdani be mi

and so on. So, can we say that scales are property+kau? If so, then a lot more places should be marked as "scale", all the comparatives for example.

(3) If lidne3 is something like a lerfu2, I don't think it's a plural:

  ko'a lidne ko'e lo latmo selyle'u

(4) ckini1 and ckini2 can be of any type. "ckini" is the two-place equivalent of "ckaji", they are completely general.

(5) Why is cimni3 (quantity)? Is that the same as (number)? (I think cimni3 should be dropped though)

Not sure why length and width are specifically mentioned in the definition of cimni, since cimni2 can be any property, not just a spatial dimension.

(6) I would have expected parbi1 (number), parbi2 (any type), parbi3 (any type). Isn't parbi1 the number of parbi2 divided by the number of parbi3? 

(7) Why is lerfu3 a "location"? Isn't it normally a sound/phoneme? And that mysterious "concept" shows up again.

(8) ciska3 and tcidu3 "medium" is a role right, not a type?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I mean that sevzi2 coudld be {zu'i=x1} by default (just like miter2 = 1 by default) whereas du2=zo'e by default.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

This is no longer {sevzi}  but another gismu.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

  

--

[Gleki Arxokuna]

ToDo: As of now there are still 13 instances of "scale" and 4 instance of "concept" remaining.

Other news: as was found years ago 2D spreadsheet is not optimal for storing semantic tags. Take {voksa} which is both "Socio Communication" and "Socio Music/sound". This certainly makes filtering necessary semantic classes harder. Google Sheets currently can't search in filters with regexps so I can't merge all 4 semantic columns into one (thus getting a tag list). And of course the ultimate semantic classification should be based on mlismu.

2014-06-07 3:38 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

A few comments on some x3's that caught my attention:

(1) What would be an example of a scale in dukti3?

I think dukti3 will usually be a property with kau:

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u jinvi ma kau

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u cinse fi ma kau 

(ignoring the messiness of the "cinse" place structure)

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u zvati lo mo kau mlana be lo klaji

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ma kau farna ce'u

  ko'a ko'e dukti lo ka ce'u dikca fi ma kau

and so on. Are those scales?

  
(2) You have "klani" backwards. x2 is the number, x1 is the thing, as in all other measure words. "klani" is the generic measure word.

  ko'a klani li ci lo ka xo kau da bruna ce'u

  ko'a klani li pa pi mu lo ka ce'u citka lo xo kau plise 

  ko'a klani li mu lo ka ce'u xo roi klama lo zdani be mi

and so on. So, can we say that scales are property+kau? If so, then a lot more places should be marked as "scale", all the comparatives for example.

No, let's call them "property of xM and xN with {kau}" to avoid polysemy of "scale" within this gimste project.

I corrected dukti and most other brivla from "klesi 2=General comparisons" semantic column.

(3) If lidne3 is something like a lerfu2, I don't think it's a plural:

  ko'a lidne ko'e lo latmo selyle'u

fxd

 

(4) ckini1 and ckini2 can be of any type. "ckini" is the two-place equivalent of "ckaji", they are completely general.

And srana1,srana2 too.

fxd. 

(5) Why is cimni3 (quantity)? Is that the same as (number)? (I think cimni3 should be dropped though)

Not sure why length and width are specifically mentioned in the definition of cimni, since cimni2 can be any property, not just a spatial dimension.

fxd. cimni3 ignored (i.e. removed but only from the list). 

(6) I would have expected parbi1 (number), parbi2 (any type), parbi3 (any type). Isn't parbi1 the number of parbi2 divided by the number of parbi3? 

fxd

 

(7) Why is lerfu3 a "location"? Isn't it normally a sound/phoneme? And that mysterious "concept" shows up again.

I changed to x3 (located, sound). Probably "sound" is a pseudo-type but let it be a temporary place until brivla with this "sound" are marked in semantics columns.

lerfu probably can stand not only for phonemes. Take Chinese characters. The sound encoded in a Chinese character is only part of what it encodes. Very often it encodes a whole verb-brivla.

And yes, I think the mass of thousands of Chinese characters can be called an alphabet.

(8) ciska3 and tcidu3 "medium" is a role right, not a type?

Yes, fixed. I also dont understand why ciska4 exists but tcidu4 does not (I read with my own eyes/hands). Can't listening to audiobooks be called reading? 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-07 0:33 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I propose "x1 is a self of x2 (x1 by default)".

If x2 is x1 by default, then "sevzi" defaults to "du". I think you mean the x1 of the main selbri in which "sevzi" is used as a description of an argument, rather than the x1 of sevzi, which is the only one you can really mention in a definition of "sevzi"

I mean that sevzi2 coudld be {zu'i=x1} by default (just like miter2 = 1 by default) whereas du2=zo'e by default.

What do you mean by "x1"? In: "la djan cu jinvi lo du'u la alis ba catra lo sevzi", what are you saying sevzi2 would be by default? jinvi1=la djan, catra1=la alis, or sevzi1, which would make "sevzi" the same as "du"?

I believe you want sevzi2 to default to la alis in that example, but "x1" is not a good way of explaining it

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Other news: for now only ckilu and gradu have concept/scale in their definitions.

Any more ideas on what to fill them with?

Yes, to {lo no'a}, not to {vo'a}, sorry.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Other news: for now only ckilu and gradu have concept/scale in their definitions.

Any more ideas on what to fill them with?

For me "gradu" is the otherwise missing link in the 10^n series:

...

megdo

kilto

xecto

dekto

gradu

decti

centi

milti

mikri

...

so its place structure should match the others.

As for ckilu, ckilu2 seems to be one of the few places for properties that have no corresponding place for the thing with the property. Maybe "ckilu" is a relation beteen properties?

lo ka ce'u mitre ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u clani se la'u ma kau

lo ka ce'u bunda ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau junta ce'u

lo ka ce'u snidu ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau ditcu ce'u

lo ka ce'u kelvo ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u glare se la'u ma kau

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-07 20:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Other news: for now only ckilu and gradu have concept/scale in their definitions.

Any more ideas on what to fill them with?

For me "gradu" is the otherwise missing link in the 10^n series:

...

megdo

kilto

xecto

dekto

gradu

decti

centi

milti

mikri

...

so its place structure should match the others.

All of them changed to "x1 (text, located) is a million of x2 (same type as x1) in length/width etc. x3 (property)"
and {gradu} moved to their semantic class.
 

As for ckilu, ckilu2 seems to be one of the few places

Question: Few? Are there others?

 

for properties that have no corresponding place for the thing with the property. Maybe "ckilu" is a relation beteen properties?

lo ka ce'u mitre ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u clani se la'u ma kau

lo ka ce'u bunda ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau junta ce'u

lo ka ce'u snidu ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau ditcu ce'u

lo ka ce'u kelvo ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u glare se la'u ma kau

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Question: Now I wonder what uses can {si'o} have since it has just been completely eliminated from the gimste. 

Question: can megdo1 be a property?

Seems there are only the following types: located, property (that includes located), proposition, relation, sound, number, text, plural of other types, ordered plural of other types, species, second place of x2 in junla.

Species and sound are rather roles and here for convenience (and might be removed in future).

Question: is "text" abstract or it is an object therefore a subtype of "located"?

Question: may be remove junla3 so that {ti junla lo snidu [be zo'e]} = "This clock measures seconds", {ti junla lo snidu be li pimu} = "This clock measures seconds to the precision of 0.5 seconds"?

[Jorge Llambías]

More random comments:

(1) Shouldn't venfu3 be (property of x2) like cnemu3, sfasa3, ckasu3, xlura3 (this last one with reversed causality from the others)?

(2) I don't think cpedu2 should be limited to properties, especially when the property holder comes later in the structure. 

(3) How is pandi4 a property of pandi3?

(4) Shouldn't bancu2 be of the same type as bancu1?

(5) pleji2/vecnu4 are most often money, not properties, and pleji4/vecnu2 can be goods.

(6) I don't think vamji1 is a property of vamji2

(7) Shouldn't jaspu4 be a property of x2?

(8) gismu2 and tanru4 should be something with one or more ce'u, not text or located.or proposition

(9) Shouldn't farvi4/pluta4/kruvi4 be ordered like pruce4?

(10) sefta3 and sefta4 should be dropped.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-07 20:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

...

megdo

kilto

xecto

dekto

gradu

decti

centi

milti

mikri

...

so its place structure should match the others.

All of them changed to "x1 (text, located) is a million of x2 (same type as x1) in length/width etc. x3 (property)"
and {gradu} moved to their semantic class.

x1 should be (any type), since all types can have quantifiable properties. I would also remove "length/width" since any quantifiable property can be used.   

 

As for ckilu, ckilu2 seems to be one of the few places

Question: Few? Are there others? 

 

for properties that have no corresponding place for the thing with the property.

I seem to remember there were a couple in the official gimste, but I don't remember which.

 

Maybe "ckilu" is a relation beteen properties?

lo ka ce'u mitre ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u clani se la'u ma kau

lo ka ce'u bunda ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau junta ce'u

lo ka ce'u snidu ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau ditcu ce'u

lo ka ce'u kelvo ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u glare se la'u ma kau

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Question: Now I wonder what uses can {si'o} have since it has just been completely eliminated from the gimste. 

None.

 

Question: can megdo1 be a property?

Yes, for example: "lo ka ce'u broda cu megdo lo ka ce'u brode kei lo ka ko'a xo kau roi zukte ce'u

 

Seems there are only the following types: located, property (that includes located), proposition, relation, sound, number, text, plural of other types, ordered plural of other types, species, second place of x2 in junla.

How does property include located? Aren't properties abstract?  

Species and sound are rather roles and here for convenience (and might be removed in future).

I don't think sound is a role, it's a subtype of "located". A sound is a sound whether it's the argument of some predicate or not, and it is located is space and time.

Question: is "text" abstract or it is an object therefore a subtype of "located"?

I'd say a subtype of located.

 

Question: may be remove junla3 so that {ti junla lo snidu [be zo'e]} = "This clock measures seconds", {ti junla lo snidu be li pimu} = "This clock measures seconds to the precision of 0.5 seconds"?

Of course. 

[Jorge Llambías]

There are very few predicates with types "xN (property of xM)" with M > N:

makfa

x1 (property of x3) is magic or supernatural to x2 performed by x3

That's the only one where the property skips a place. I don't think x1 needs to be a property of x3 though, couldn't we say:

   lo nu lo ractu cu canci cu makfa lo verba la djan

I think makfa1 could be something that x3 makes happen, not necessarily something in which x3 takes a part.

vamji

x1 (property of x2) is what x2 is worth of to x3 for use x4 (property of x2)

This one I think is wrong. vamji1 is not a property of x2, it is something that x3 is willing to give up or endure in exchange for obtaining or keeping x2.

krali	x1 (property of x2) is a legal/moral entitlement of individual x2 in legal system x3 (located)
marde	x1 (property of x2) are the ethices of performer x2 about situation x3 (located)
cfila	x1 (property of x2) is a flaw or defect in x2 causing x3 (located)
jinzi	x1 (property of x2) is an innate or natural property of x2
kampu	x1 (property of x2) is common among x2
steci	x1 (property of x3) is specific or particular to member x2 among x3
tengu	x1 (property of x2) is a texture of x2
jibri	x1 (property of x2) is a job of person x2
frili	x1 (property of x2) is easy for x2

steci3 should be "property of x2". These seem fine, although they could have been defined in reverse order for the most part. Here we seem to be missing some though: nandu/tcaci/snuti/cimde/vrusi?/tarmi?

tseli2 says (property of x2) instead of (property of x1).

sisku

x1 searches for x2 (property of x3) among x3

I don't agree with that one, I think sisku2 should be an object not a property.

mupli	x1 (any type) is an example of x2 (property of x3) among x3
fadni	x1 (any type) is ordinary in x2 (property of x3) among x3
traji	x1 (any type) is superlative in x2 (property of x3) among x3
cnano	x1 (any type) is an average in x2 (property of x3) among x3
rirci	x1 (any type) is rare or unusual in x2 (property of x3) among x3

These should all have x2 (property of x1)

cpedu	x1 requests or asks for x2 (property of x3) from x3 in manner x4 (property of x1)
stidi	x1 suggests x2 (property of x3) to x3
javni	x1 (located) is a rule mandating x2 (property of x3) in x3

Shouldn't flalu follow the pattern of javni?

I think those are all. There are no properties in x3 or x4 that send to a later place. 

[Ian Johnson]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

(2) I don't think cpedu2 should be limited to properties, especially when the property holder comes later in the structure. 

I disagree with this one, I think anything other than ka in cpedu2 is raising. You're asking them to do something, so if the objective you're talking about is some other event which does not have the cpedu3 in it directly, then use {tu'a}, {lo ka ce'u gasnu ...}, or something similar.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I think that since "located" can contain NU then "property" (which is based on {ka}) is a subtype of "located".

E.g. in {mi kakne lo NU bajra} we have a "located" but in a more precise {mi kakne lo ka bajra} we have a property.

2014-06-07 22:08 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

More random comments:

(1) Shouldn't venfu3 be (property of x2) like cnemu3, sfasa3, ckasu3, xlura3 (this last one with reversed causality from the others)?

fxd. All of them are also  in Psycho:Attitude class. (however, some belong to other classes so "Psycho" is in the class3 column sometimes.

(2) I don't think cpedu2 should be limited to properties, especially when the property holder comes later in the structure. 

Woudn't it be raising then if the action of cpedu2 is not done by cpedu3? The same for {pikci}.

(3) How is pandi4 a property of pandi3?

Should pandi4 be a property of pandi2? Or both?
 

(4) Shouldn't bancu2 be of the same type as bancu1?

Not sure if the boundary should be of the same type as bancu1/bancu3.
 

(5) pleji2/vecnu4 are most often money, not properties, and pleji4/vecnu2 can be goods.

See my note above on located vs. properties. I can of course change these places to "located, property".

(6) I don't think vamji1 is a property of vamji2

ti se vamji lo ka se vecnu
 

(7) Shouldn't jaspu4 be a property of x2?

Yes, fxd (something got broken at one point).

 

(8) gismu2 and tanru4 should be something with one or more ce'u, not text or located.or proposition

gismu2 = property of gismu3?

tanru4 is just valsi2, isn't it? 

(9) Shouldn't farvi4/pluta4/kruvi4 be ordered like pruce4?

changed to "ordered plural of located" although kruvi doesn't have a vector like farvi/pruce/pluta have.

 

(10) sefta3 and sefta4 should be dropped.

done.

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-07 22:29 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-07 20:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

...

megdo

kilto

xecto

dekto

gradu

decti

centi

milti

mikri

...

so its place structure should match the others.

All of them changed to "x1 (text, located) is a million of x2 (same type as x1) in length/width etc. x3 (property)"
and {gradu} moved to their semantic class.

x1 should be (any type), since all types can have quantifiable properties. I would also remove "length/width" since any quantifiable property can be used.   

Yes, fxd. since you agree that it can be a property too.

 

 

As for ckilu, ckilu2 seems to be one of the few places

Question: Few? Are there others? 

 

for properties that have no corresponding place for the thing with the property.

I seem to remember there were a couple in the official gimste, but I don't remember which.

 

Maybe "ckilu" is a relation beteen properties?

lo ka ce'u mitre ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u clani se la'u ma kau

lo ka ce'u bunda ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau junta ce'u

lo ka ce'u snidu ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ma kau ditcu ce'u

lo ka ce'u kelvo ma kau cu ckilu lo ka ce'u glare se la'u ma kau

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Question: Now I wonder what uses can {si'o} have since it has just been completely eliminated from the gimste. 

None.

 

Question: can megdo1 be a property?

Yes, for example: "lo ka ce'u broda cu megdo lo ka ce'u brode kei lo ka ko'a xo kau roi zukte ce'u

 

Seems there are only the following types: located, property (that includes located), proposition, relation, sound, number, text, plural of other types, ordered plural of other types, species, second place of x2 in junla.

How does property include located? Aren't properties abstract?

Explained in an earlier message since "located" includes both objects and events (the latter are NU).

 

Species and sound are rather roles and here for convenience (and might be removed in future).

I don't think sound is a role, it's a subtype of "located". A sound is a sound whether it's the argument of some predicate or not, and it is located is space and time.

Question: is "text" abstract or it is an object therefore a subtype of "located"?

I'd say a subtype of located.

 

Question: may be remove junla3 so that {ti junla lo snidu [be zo'e]} = "This clock measures seconds", {ti junla lo snidu be li pimu} = "This clock measures seconds to the precision of 0.5 seconds"?

Of course. 

done. an example added.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Question. If located include both {nu} and objects can we allow both

{mi cortu lo xance be mi} and {mi cortu lo nu xance mi} as non-ambiguous and meaning the same?

This question is coming from Robin's paper on bridi math where he proposed a NU-cmavo {ni'ai} such that:
"le ni'ai brivla x2 x3 ..." == "le bridi be x2 bei x3 ..."

But then may be can say now that ni'ai=nu ?

A separate question is about {ka}.

Can we say that {mi kakne lo ka ce'u klama la paris} = {mi kakne lo klama be la paris} provided that ce'u is by default in {be fa ce'u}?

2014-06-08 1:53 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

There are very few predicates with types "xN (property of xM)" with M > N:

makfa

x1 (property of x3) is magic or supernatural to x2 performed by x3

That's the only one where the property skips a place. I don't think x1 needs to be a property of x3 though, couldn't we say:

   lo nu lo ractu cu canci cu makfa lo verba la djan

I think makfa1 could be something that x3 makes happen, not necessarily something in which x3 takes a part.

fxd. ur example added.

 

vamji

x1 (property of x2) is what x2 is worth of to x3 for use x4 (property of x2)

This one I think is wrong. vamji1 is not a property of x2, it is something that x3 is willing to give up or endure in exchange for obtaining or keeping x2.

hm, okay. fxd.

 

krali	x1 (property of x2) is a legal/moral entitlement of individual x2 in legal system x3 (located)
marde	x1 (property of x2) are the ethices of performer x2 about situation x3 (located)
cfila	x1 (property of x2) is a flaw or defect in x2 causing x3 (located)
jinzi	x1 (property of x2) is an innate or natural property of x2
kampu	x1 (property of x2) is common among x2
steci	x1 (property of x3) is specific or particular to member x2 among x3
tengu	x1 (property of x2) is a texture of x2
jibri	x1 (property of x2) is a job of person x2
frili	x1 (property of x2) is easy for x2

steci3 should be "property of x2".

These seem fine, although they could have been defined in reverse order for the most part. Here we seem to be missing some though: nandu/tcaci/snuti/cimde

fxd. Do we need cimde3? 

 

/vrusi?/tarmi?

ToDo: not sure about {vrusi}. this question is also relevant for all sensory brivla including viska/tirna/skari/smaka/sumne/panci/tasta/palpi/jvinu...

tseli2 says (property of x2) instead of (property of x1).

fxd.

 

sisku

x1 searches for x2 (property of x3) among x3

I don't agree with that one, I think sisku2 should be an object not a property.

{mi sisku lo ka ce'u se zvati lo penbi vau lo nenri be lo mi zdani}

mupli	x1 (any type) is an example of x2 (property of x3) among x3
fadni	x1 (any type) is ordinary in x2 (property of x3) among x3
traji	x1 (any type) is superlative in x2 (property of x3) among x3
cnano	x1 (any type) is an average in x2 (property of x3) among x3
rirci	x1 (any type) is rare or unusual in x2 (property of x3) among x3

These should all have x2 (property of x1)

fxd.

 

cpedu

x1 requests or asks for x2 (property of x3) from x3 in manner x4 (property of x1)

Not sure how cpedu4 would differ from just {tai}. May be remove it?

The same question for rinsa3.

 

stidi	x1 suggests x2 (property of x3) to x3
javni	x1 (located) is a rule mandating x2 (property of x3) in x3

Shouldn't flalu follow the pattern of javni?

ok, flalu4 and flalu5 removed, javni is in "Socio Government, law & territory" now.

I think those are all. There are no properties in x3 or x4 that send to a later place. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-08 12:21 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:

ToDo: not sure about {vrusi}. this question is also relevant for all sensory brivla including viska/tirna/skari/smaka/sumne/panci/tasta/palpi/jvinu...

I think vrusi1 is a prototype (probably a role) and is "located". The full definitions says

x1 (ka) is a taste/flavor of/emitted by x2; x2 tastes of/like x1.

Also: x2 tastes of seasoning x1, x1 is a seasoned flavor of x2 (= tsapyvu'i); vrusi may overlap the senses of taste and smell, since the latter is a significant component of taste. See also kukte, tsapi, cpina, panci

[Jorge Llambías]

I was thinking of objects rather than events. This really should be discussed within the wider frame of all the possession and transfer predicates, so I will leave my comments for later.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that since "located" can contain NU then "property" (which is based on {ka}) is a subtype of "located".

E.g. in {mi kakne lo NU bajra} we have a "located" but in a more precise {mi kakne lo ka bajra} we have a property.

"located" doesn't contain all NU. It contains nu (and therefore its subtypes mu'e, za'i, zu'o, pu'u) it doesn't contain du'u and ka.

Propositions (du'u) are things that can be true or false. 

Properties (ka with one ce'u) are things that when applied to something are true or false.

(Binary) relations (ka with two ce'u) become true or false when applied to an ordered pair.

N-ary relations become true or false when applied to an ordered n-tuple.

Properties could also be called unary relations, and propositions can be called nullary relations.

All of these things are abstract, none of them are located. 

A proposition can _describe_ an event, which is something located in space-time. But the proposition itself is not the event.

 

(3) How is pandi4 a property of pandi3?

Should pandi4 be a property of pandi2? Or both?

I have no idea, why does it have to be a property? I would have thought it was a proposition describing the syntactic/semantic effect of the punctuation. The creator of Loglan made a big deal about Loglan having "spoken punctuation", and the creators of Lojban bought it, that's the only explanation I can find for "pandi" being part of the core vocabulary, although I can't find a corresponding word it in the Loglan dictionary I have. Is pandi2 an unpunctuated text? Since terminators are often called punctuation in Lojban, does it mean pandi2 has to be a text without terminators, possibly ungrammatical?

(4) Shouldn't bancu2 be of the same type as bancu1?

Not sure if the boundary should be of the same type as bancu1/bancu3.

How could it be of a different type? If bancu1 and bancu3 are numbers, shouldn't bancu2 be a number as well? If they are objects, shouldn't it be an object?

(5) pleji2/vecnu4 are most often money, not properties, and pleji4/vecnu2 can be goods.

See my note above on located vs. properties. I can of course change these places to "located, property".

I'll leave this for a more detailed discussion on possession, transfer and exchange predicates.

 

(8) gismu2 and tanru4 should be something with one or more ce'u, not text or located.or proposition

gismu2 = property of gismu3?

tanru4 is just valsi2, isn't it? 

tanru and gismu are both predicates, their meaning is always a relation. valsi are more general in what meanings they can have, the meaning of some valsi (gismu, lujvo, fu'ivla i.e. all brivla) is a relation, but the meaning of most cmavo is not a relation.

 

(9) Shouldn't farvi4/pluta4/kruvi4 be ordered like pruce4?

changed to "ordered plural of located" although kruvi doesn't have a vector like farvi/pruce/pluta have.

linji2 is also like kruvi4 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-08 17:44 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that since "located" can contain NU then "property" (which is based on {ka}) is a subtype of "located".

E.g. in {mi kakne lo NU bajra} we have a "located" but in a more precise {mi kakne lo ka bajra} we have a property.

"located" doesn't contain all NU. It contains nu (and therefore its subtypes mu'e, za'i, zu'o, pu'u) it doesn't contain du'u and ka.

Propositions (du'u) are things that can be true or false. 

Properties (ka with one ce'u) are things that when applied to something are true or false.

(Binary) relations (ka with two ce'u) become true or false when applied to an ordered pair.

N-ary relations become true or false when applied to an ordered n-tuple.

Properties could also be called unary relations, and propositions can be called nullary relations.

All of these things are abstract, none of them are located. 

A proposition can _describe_ an event, which is something located in space-time. But the proposition itself is not the event.

 

(3) How is pandi4 a property of pandi3?

Should pandi4 be a property of pandi2? Or both?

I have no idea, why does it have to be a property? I would have thought it was a proposition describing the syntactic/semantic effect of the punctuation. The creator of Loglan made a big deal about Loglan having "spoken punctuation", and the creators of Lojban bought it, that's the only explanation I can find for "pandi" being part of the core vocabulary, although I can't find a corresponding word it in the Loglan dictionary I have. Is pandi2 an unpunctuated text? Since terminators are often called punctuation in Lojban, does it mean pandi2 has to be a text without terminators, possibly ungrammatical?

(4) Shouldn't bancu2 be of the same type as bancu1?

Not sure if the boundary should be of the same type as bancu1/bancu3.

How could it be of a different type? If bancu1 and bancu3 are numbers, shouldn't bancu2 be a number as well? If they are objects, shouldn't it be an object?

fxd.

 

(5) pleji2/vecnu4 are most often money, not properties, and pleji4/vecnu2 can be goods.

See my note above on located vs. properties. I can of course change these places to "located, property".

I'll leave this for a more detailed discussion on possession, transfer and exchange predicates.

.i mi pleji lo nu mi lumci lo kumfa vau fo lo nu do ctigau mi

.i mi pleji lo ka lumci lo kumfa vau do lo ka do ctigau mi

.i mi pleji lo sicni do lo plise

Which solutions are correct?

 

(8) gismu2 and tanru4 should be something with one or more ce'u, not text or located.or proposition

gismu2 = property of gismu3?

tanru4 is just valsi2, isn't it? 

tanru and gismu are both predicates, their meaning is always a relation. valsi are more general in what meanings they can have, the meaning of some valsi (gismu, lujvo, fu'ivla i.e. all brivla) is a relation, but the meaning of most cmavo is not a relation.

Can u give an example of gismu, tanru with  all place filled?

 

(9) Shouldn't farvi4/pluta4/kruvi4 be ordered like pruce4?

changed to "ordered plural of located" although kruvi doesn't have a vector like farvi/pruce/pluta have.

linji2 is also like kruvi4 

fxd. and sarnu, konju...

Some brivla moved to "Shapes" class where kruvi resides. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

.i mi pleji lo nu mi lumci lo kumfa vau fo lo nu do ctigau mi

.i mi pleji lo ka lumci lo kumfa vau do lo ka do ctigau mi

.i mi pleji lo sicni do lo plise

Which solutions are correct?

In my opinion, the first and third are definitely correct, and the second (I think you meant "lo ka [ce'u] ctigau mi") is probably correct but requires some justification, which I'm planning to write some more on.

tanru and gismu are both predicates, their meaning is always a relation. valsi are more general in what meanings they can have, the meaning of some valsi (gismu, lujvo, fu'ivla i.e. all brivla) is a relation, but the meaning of most cmavo is not a relation.

Can u give an example of gismu, tanru with  all place filled?

I'm not advocating these by any means, I think grammar words are particularly messy and could do with some unbloating, but this is how I read the current definitions:

zo nelci cu gismu lo ka ce'u ce'u nelci kei lo nelci ce'o lo se nelci zoi ke nel ke jo'u zoi ke nei ke jo'u zoi ke nelcy ke jo'u zoi ke nelci ke

lo'u mutce nelci le'u cu tanru zo mutce zo nelci lo ka ce'u xi pa mutce lo ka ce'u xi pa nelci ce'u xi re kei kei lu mi na mutce nelci lo tersu'i stura be zo tanru li'u

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Most important grammar words are now in "klesi B=Grammar word".

I removed most places from them. In order to express "language" places I added {uenzi}="x1 is a text in language x2" (etymology: Chinese "wénzì") since {bangu3} has to be specially treated to be converted into "text".

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Other news. Semantic categorization. Any given tag can now be found not more than in one column. So if you selected "Links" in "klesi C" you can now be sure that you didn't miss other words with the same tag in other coumns.

[Jorge Llambías]

Looking at the places tagged as "plural":

simxu1 - OK

casnu1 - OK

jmaji1 - missing

porsi1 - I disagree.

rilti1 - no idea

fenso2 - OK

liste2 - OK

linji2 - OK

plita2 - OK?

sarni2 - ?

lanzu2 - since the definition is "including x2" then it doesn't have to be a plural, "lo lanzu be mi", "my family".

gunma2 - missing

bakfu2 - missing (I think it should be a complete specification)

derxi2 - same

stura2 - same

trene2 - same

cecmu2 - same

bende2 - same

mixre2 - same

porsi3 - OK

snuji3 - OK

cuxna3 - OK

ciste3 - missing

pruce4 - OK

farvi4 - OK

pluta4 - OK

kruvi4 - OK?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-15 17:28 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

Looking at the places tagged as "plural":

simxu1 - OK

casnu1 - OK

jmaji1 - missing

x1 (plural of located) gather at location x2 from locations x3 (plural of located)
 

porsi1 - I disagree.

By ordered plural I mean {ce'o}, by "plural" I mean {jo'u}.

 

rilti1 - no idea

fenso2 - OK

liste2 - OK

linji2 - OK

plita2 - OK?

sarni2 - ?

three corners imply that all of them are to be specified.

 

lanzu2 - since the definition is "including x2" then it doesn't have to be a plural, "lo lanzu be mi", "my family".

fxd.

I think this gunma2 vs. cmima1 difference is to be specified more clearly since this is not the only example of "full set" vs. "a member of the full set".

I added an additional "; full set" to gunma2.

gunma2 - missing

fxd.

 

bakfu2 - missing (I think it should be a complete specification)

fxd. I added an additional "; full set" to bakfu2. 

derxi2 - same 

stura2 - same

trene2 - same

cecmu2 - same

bende2 - same

mixre2 - same

^ all of them fixed, "full set" added.

porsi3 - OK

snuji3 - OK

cuxna3 - OK

ciste3 - missing

fxd, "full set"  added.

pruce4 - OK

farvi4 - OK

pluta4 - OK

kruvi4 - OK?

"full set added".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

porsi1 - I disagree.

By ordered plural I mean {ce'o}, by "plural" I mean {jo'u}.

But what do you mean by "ce'o"? It has two competing definitions.

I would define jo'u and ce'o as follows:

(1) ko'a jo'u ko'e := zo'e noi ge ko'a .e ko'e me ke'a gi ro me ke'a cu me ko'a gi'a me ko'e

(2a) ko'a ce'o ko'e := ko'a jo'u ko'e vu'o noi ko'a lidne ko'e

But "ko'a ce'o ko'e" could also be defined as:

(2b) ko'a ce'o ko'e := lo porsi be fi ko'a jo'u ko'e be'o noi ko'a lidne ko'e ke'a

 

With definition (2a), "ko'a ce'o ko'e" is plural, with its referents forming a sequence. But "ko'a ce'o ko'e" doesn't refer to the sequence, it refers to the members of the sequence.

With definition (2b), "ko'a ce'o ko'e" is singular, and its referent is a sequence that has ko'a and ko'e as members.

With (2a), ko'a ce'o ko'e cu se cunma. With (2b), ko'a ce'o ko'e cu gunma.

porsi1 is for the sequence, not for the ordered members of the sequence, so it isn't plural, just like gunma1 or linji1 are not plural. I understand "lo ci porsi" to be three sequences, not three things in a sequence, which would be "lo ci te porsi". If porsi1 is plural then porsi1 and porsi3 would refer to the same things.

And if you use "ce'o" to create a sequence (definition (2b)), then it probably shouldn't be used in places for ordered plurals. 

 

plita2 - OK?

sarni2 - ?

three corners imply that all of them are to be specified.

Yes, I understood that, I was just wondering at the weirdness of the place structures. I guess the idea was that since geometric gismu mostly have weird place structures, if we are to create a new one it should come with a weird place structure as well. Shouldn't kubli3 and kerfa2 be plural too? and kubli2 a number? The geometric gismu obviously need some revision.

Another plural: morna2

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-17 1:58 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

porsi1 is for the sequence, not for the ordered members of the sequence, so it isn't plural, just like gunma1 or linji1 are not plural. I understand "lo ci porsi" to be three sequences, not three things in a sequence, which would be "lo ci te porsi". If porsi1 is plural then porsi1 and porsi3 would refer to the same things.

ok, porsi1 changed  to "located".

And if you use "ce'o" to create a sequence (definition (2b)), then it probably shouldn't be used in places for ordered plurals. 

 

plita2 - OK?

sarni2 - ?

three corners imply that all of them are to be specified.

Yes, I understood that, I was just wondering at the weirdness of the place structures. I guess the idea was that since geometric gismu mostly have weird place structures, if we are to create a new one it should come with a weird place structure as well. Shouldn't kubli3 and kerfa2

kurfa2.

be plural too? and kubli2 a number? The geometric gismu obviously need some revision.

Another plural: morna2

all of them fixed.

I agree that a language à la John Wilkins (i.e. strictly regularised) would be useful for geometry (unlike many other  semantic classes).

Currently I have no ideas but may be there exists a classification of geometrical forms that we can apply to new fu'ivla.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

ok, porsi1 changed  to "located".

Shouldn't it be any type? 

[Jorge Llambías]

Looking at "number" places:

saclu

x1 (number) is the decimal equivalent of fraction x2 (number) in base x3 (number)

This doesn't really make much sense. If "li pa pi mu du li ci fi'u re" is true, and "li pa pi mu cu saclu" is true, then we should be able to conclude that "li ci fi'u re cu daclu" is true as well, so this place structure needs to be fixed. One possibility is "x1 (text) is the decimal representation of x2 (number) in base x3 (number)".

sumti

x1 (text) is an argument of predicate x2 (text) filling place x3 (number)

What about places that are not named with numbers, such as fai-places? Tagged places are also an issue, since tags not only add a place to a predicate but by doing so they modify the predicate, so it's hard to find a simple way to name the resulting predicate.

A few "(number)" seem to be missing:

dugri1, dugri2, dugri3

detri1 is like tcika1 (debatable whether they are numbers).

stero2

mitre2

delno2

kelvo2

litce2

molro2

xampo2

bunda2

dekpu2

gutci2

kramu2

minli2

jeftu2

snidu2

masti2

mentu2

cisni2? How does "cisni" differ from "klani"?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-18 0:59 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

ok, porsi1 changed  to "located".

Shouldn't it be any type? 

By "any type" we assume here anything but "property" ?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-06-18 0:59 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

ok, porsi1 changed  to "located".

Shouldn't it be any type? 

By "any type" we assume here anything but "property" ?

Why? Can't we say, for example:

  ro se zukte cu porsi fi lo cmamau se zukte 

  "Every action is a sequence of smaller actions."

[Gleki Arxokuna]

porsi1 changed to "any type".

2014-06-18 1:48 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

Looking at "number" places:

saclu

x1 (number) is the decimal equivalent of fraction x2 (number) in base x3 (number)

This doesn't really make much sense. If "li pa pi mu du li ci fi'u re" is true, and "li pa pi mu cu saclu" is true, then we should be able to conclude that "li ci fi'u re cu daclu" is true as well, so this place structure needs to be fixed. One possibility is "x1 (text) is the decimal representation of x2 (number) in base x3 (number)".

fxd. 

sumti

x1 (text) is an argument of predicate x2 (text) filling place x3 (number)

What about places that are not named with numbers, such as fai-places? Tagged places are also an issue, since tags not only add a place to a predicate but by doing so they modify the predicate, so it's hard to find a simple way to name the resulting predicate.

okay, then sumti3 is to be expressed via FA/TAG.

{mi catlu fa'a do} 

{zo do sumti zo catlu zo fa'a}

A few "(number)" seem to be missing:

dugri1, dugri2, dugri3

detri1 is like tcika1 (debatable whether they are numbers).

stero2

mitre2

delno2

kelvo2

litce2

molro2

xampo2

bunda2

dekpu2

gutci2

kramu2

minli2

jeftu2

snidu2

masti2

mentu2

fxd.

 

cisni2? How does "cisni" differ from "klani"?

no idea. The list has some brivla that might not be worth having in the list of the upper ontology. Anyway, {cisni} removed from this list.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Pierre Abbat]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 18:48:54 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> Looking at "number" places:
>
> saclux1 (number) is the decimal equivalent of fraction x2 (number) in base

> x3 (number)
>
> This doesn't really make much sense. If "li pa pi mu du li ci fi'u re" is
> true, and "li pa pi mu cu saclu" is true, then we should be able to
> conclude that "li ci fi'u re cu daclu" is true as well, so this place
> structure needs to be fixed. One possibility is "x1 (text) is the decimal
> representation of x2 (number) in base x3 (number)".

x1 should be a mekso: "me'o pa pi mu cu saclu li ci fi'u re li pa no". Also it
makes no sense for the left operand of "ju'u" to be a number; it has to be an
unevaluated digit string.

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Well, mekso belongs to "text" type/subtype here.

[Jacob Errington]

In my theory of typed Lojban, I distinguish between evaluated numbers and unevaluated numbers, the latter being a subcategory of text.
The types I believe in are:
* predicates (ka and du'u abstractions)
* events (nu abstractions)
* numbers and parsed text (evaluated numbers introduced generally with {li} as well as lu..li'u quotes)
* unparsed text (introduced with zo, lo'u...le'u, zoi, and me'o)
* concrete sumti

The problem I have with this formalization is that I can't seem to pin any good invariants on the class of concrete sumti. Even things which arguably do not have any spatial extent are included in my class of concrete sumti. Therefore, sadly, the defining characteristic of my concrete sumti is "is not any other kind of sumti"; it's a catch-all class.

I believe furthermore in a number of subclasses to each kind of thing, so really, these 5 major types above really are type classes more so than types, and certain expressions can be polymorphic in which instance of the type class they are.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

In my theory of typed Lojban, I distinguish between evaluated numbers and unevaluated numbers, the latter being a subcategory of text.
The types I believe in are:
* predicates (ka and du'u abstractions)
* events (nu abstractions)
* numbers and parsed text (evaluated numbers introduced generally with {li} as well as lu..li'u quotes)
* unparsed text (introduced with zo, lo'u...le'u, zoi, and me'o)
* concrete sumti

What's the connection between numbers and parsed text? The way I see it, li and du'u are smuni1 to me'o and se du'u as smuni2 respectively, or conversely me'o and se du'u are sinxa1 to li and du'u as sinxa2.

I also think me'o belongs with parsed, not unparsed text, since it's a structured set of words with a specific meaning, not just a meaningless random collection of words. 

 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

As of now:

gradu x1 (any type) is a unit on scale x2 (same type as x1) measuring x3 (property)

ckilu x1 (property of nonce place with {kau}) is a scale of units for measuring x2 (property of nonce place with {kau})

Shouldn't gradu2=ckilu1?

--