Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

selpa'i wrote:

That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.

If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/bpfk-list

It's the institution created by the Logical Language Group (LLG) specifically for the management of the language. Its primary tasks are to document the language as completely as possible, and vote on proposed changes to the language.

There is also currently a freeze on any language changes until the language as it is right now is finished being documented. Doing the actual documenting isn't particularly difficult, but neither is it exciting or glamorous. Anyone with half an interest and some free time can help, everything one needs to know to assist is here.

Whether or not this discussion belongs in the Beginner's list, obviously the above information does, since what should be common knowledge apparently isn't.

 

Here is a relevant thread from right after the change was made: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/XutjWBUhPMY

Please continue this discussion on the main list, if interested. It's not suited to the beginners' list in my opinion.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[selpa'i]

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

selpa'i wrote:

That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.

If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

[snip]

I assume you posted the lengthy explanation about the BPFK's duties not to educate me, but to explain it to the general audience on the beginners list.

Whether or not this discussion belongs in the Beginner's list, obviously the above information does, since what should be common knowledge apparently isn't.

What should be common knowledge is not that there is such a thing as the BPFK, but that it is dead now. It seems more useful to create a new taskforce (it might end up having the same name, but certainly not the same members) as soon as CLL1.1 is done.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

selpa'i wrote:

That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.

If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those members who care will vote, those members who do not care will abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing.

[snip]

I assume you posted the lengthy explanation about the BPFK's duties not to educate me, but to explain it to the general audience on the beginners list.

A bit of both.

Whether or not this discussion belongs in the Beginner's list, obviously the above information does, since what should be common knowledge apparently isn't.

What should be common knowledge is not that there is such a thing as the BPFK, but that it is dead now. It seems more useful to create a new taskforce (it might end up having the same name, but certainly not the same members) as soon as CLL1.1 is done.

Not active is not dead. There's nothing for the BPFK to do as long as the language freeze exists beyond doing that which is required to lift the freeze- documenting the language as is. The fact that documenting the language is dull and dreary grunt work that quickly makes anyone who is doing desire to do something else, and that therefore no one, BPFK member or not, is working on it, does not make the BPFK dead.

And it isn't the CLL1.1 that's preventing any BPFK work from being done. It's the documentation of the language as is that's doing that.

 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
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?hl=en.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[selpa'i]

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

selpa'i wrote:

That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.

If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those members who care will vote, those members who do not care will abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing.

The members who are allowed to vote are not as active in the community as they used to be and new active members now exist who aren't allowed to vote even though I'd say their opinion should matter. That's why I don't think the (current) BPFK can still be justifiably given the status you want it to have.

Not active is not dead.

What's the practical difference between eternal coma and death? You're not gonna get much done either way.

There's nothing for the BPFK to do as long as the language freeze exists beyond doing that which is required to lift the freeze- documenting the language as is. The fact that documenting the language is dull and dreary grunt work that quickly makes anyone who is doing desire to do something else

Hmm... it sounds like a lot of fun to me.

, and that therefore no one, BPFK member or not, is working on it, does not make the BPFK dead.

The problem I see is the phrase "the language as is". If anything, it should be "the langauge as was", since nobody is still using all the old definitions. I see little use in defining a given CLL cmavo when it's so obvious that the cmavo already has taken on a new meaning. It's just such a waste of time and energy.
However, defining the language as it is actually currently being used (or how people want it to be used); *that*, to me, seems a fun task, and much more worthwhile.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:55 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

On 21.05.2013 13:25, Robert LeChevalier wrote:

selpa'i wrote:

That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the
sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier,
''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo
broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the
recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)

Who had the authority to make such a change?

xorxes made that change after being asked to do so. I think PC was complaining.

If it isn't voted on, the change is not official, and as you can see,
people won't understand what you mean. That is WHY it is supposed to
be hard to make changes, and why they are supposed to be strictly
controlled.

Of course, but there is no institution left to vote on such things right now, is there?

Yes, there is. It's called the BPFK.

The BPFK is out of business, that was my point. The BPFK is not in a state where it can vote.
"Yes, there was. It was called the BPFK."

Yes it is. Post something that needs voting on to the list, those members who care will vote, those members who do not care will abstain. Voting is not a difficult thing.

The members who are allowed to vote are not as active in the community as they used to be and new active members now exist who aren't allowed to vote even though I'd say their opinion should matter. That's why I don't think the (current) BPFK can still be justifiably given the status you want it to have.

There's no such thing as a member of the BPFK that can't vote. IFF you're in the BPFK, you can vote.

 

Not active is not dead.

What's the practical difference between eternal coma and death? You're not gonna get much done either way.

 The practical difference is that the BPFK doesn't need to be replaced by a new body. It's not active because nothing other than language documentation is /allowed/ to be done until the language documentation is completed. And replacement body would have the exact same problem, because the primary purpose of any replacement body would be language documentation.

In short, get the language documentation done, and then we can discuss the other duties of the BPFK or any replacement thereof, until then, no matter what body we have, it's going to be just as inactive as it is now, regardless of what it's called or who's on it.

There's nothing for the BPFK to do as long as the language freeze exists beyond doing that which is required to lift the freeze- documenting the language as is. The fact that documenting the language is dull and dreary grunt work that quickly makes anyone who is doing desire to do something else

Hmm... it sounds like a lot of fun to me.

 And to the rest of the Lojban community as well, which is why Lindar is not the person who did most of the work on documentation since the last checkpoint and there's currently 50,000 people each working on it. </sarcasm>

, and that therefore no one, BPFK member or not, is working on it, does not make the BPFK dead.

The problem I see is the phrase "the language as is". If anything, it should be "the langauge as was", since nobody is still using all the old definitions. I see little use in defining a given CLL cmavo when it's so obvious that the cmavo already has taken on a new meaning. It's just such a waste of time and energy.
However, defining the language as it is actually currently being used (or how people want it to be used); *that*, to me, seems a fun task, and much more worthwhile.

That happens to be exactly what is supposed to be getting done. Let me quote from the instructions page:

• Grab your CLL, or use one of the online versions. Figure out what the cmavo means. Write it down. See the templates below.

...

• Find (or, if you really can't find any, make) examples of usage of the cmavo; use the Corpora page for this.
• Search the mailing list, or anything else that seems relevant, for debate about the nature of the cmavo or its category. Make notes of any you find, seperate from the body of the definition. (This would include changes in usage or accepted meaning.)
  

At any stage along the way, if you see any problem (contradictions, arguments, confusions, whatever) about either the cmavo itself or the general category it belongs to, make sure they are noted down, either in the Issues section for the cmavo or the Issues section (make one if necessary) for the whole page.

[John E Clifford]

Herein is the crux.  What is Lojban?  It is surely not the language off CLL or much like it; it is not that modified by xorlo (any of the dozen or so xorlos, not counting those by xorxes himself).  Honesty would have it extracted from all the text around, assuming that could be collected, but that is probably not a consistent corpus and certainly would not meet the requirements of being a loglang.  Even the corpus of one Lojbanist is somewhat iffy.  You have two choices: a new presecriptivism, which decides all issues and lays down the law in a tight program, (OK, three -- we could go back to CLL) or a free-for-all building to a new consensus and eventual formalization. 
(In either case, {PA lo broda} is not the same as {PA broda}.)

---

From: selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

[selpa'i]

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

> There's no such thing as a member of the BPFK that can't vote. IFF
> you're in the BPFK, you can vote.

You misunderstood. I meant "new active members of the lojban community".
We have several of them and their opinion should matter, and yet they
cannot vote (that is, if there even were any votings). Thus, the BPFK no
longer is a proper representation of the lojban community, which means
that their decisions would no longer be accepted as law by everyone.

To the rest of your response; you don't have to explain the BPFK to me.

[selpa'i]

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
>

> Hmm... it sounds like a lot of fun to me.
>
>
> And to the rest of the Lojban community as well, which is why Lindar
> is not the person who did most of the work on documentation since the
> last checkpoint and there's currently 50,000 people each working on it.
> </sarcasm>

I wasn't being sarcastic. Maybe it doesn't sound interesting to you, but
I like to work out definitions and formalizations. I just don't want to
work on definitions of an outdated version of the language.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .aionys. cu cusku di'e

There's no such thing as a member of the BPFK that can't vote. IFF

you're in the BPFK, you can vote.

You misunderstood. I meant "new active members of the lojban community". We have several of them and their opinion should matter, and yet they cannot vote (that is, if there even were any votings). Thus, the BPFK no longer is a proper representation of the lojban community, which means that their decisions would no longer be accepted as law by everyone.

All they have to do to be heard is join the BPFK. It's not an exclusive club. Desire to be a part of it is the only criteria. Well, that and a working knowledge of Lojban, of course.

 

To the rest of your response; you don't have to explain the BPFK to me.

Apparently I do, since you don't seem to understand it, nor its purpose, nor what is required to make it stop being, as you put it, "dead".

[Jonathan Jones]

I was close tagging ME. Lindar is the person who's done nearly all of the work since the last checkpoint, and there's currently 0 people working on it.

 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
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.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[selpa'i]

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e

> Herein is the crux. What is Lojban? It is surely not the language off
> CLL or much like it;

Surely not.

> it is not that modified by xorlo (any of the dozen
> or so xorlos, not counting those by xorxes himself).

xorlo is but a tiny fraction of what sets apart CLL-Lojban from Now-Lojban.

> Honesty would have
> it extracted from all the text around, assuming that could be collected,
> but that is probably not a consistent corpus and certainly would not
> meet the requirements of being a loglang. Even the corpus of one
> Lojbanist is somewhat iffy. You have two choices: a new
> presecriptivism, which decides all issues and lays down the law in a
> tight program, (OK, three -- we could go back to CLL) or a free-for-all
> building to a new consensus and eventual formalization.

In case of choice number 1, who would decide all the issues and lay down
the law?

> (In either case, {PA lo broda} is not the same as {PA broda}.)

Right. I wouldn't call them equivalent, since obviously {PA lo broda} is
quantification over the referent(s) of {lo broda}, while {PA broda}
never goes through that step. It just happens that there are cases where
it makes no difference which one you use. When it does make a
difference, it is often an "anaphoric" use of {lo broda}, sometimes in a
malgli way (when the speaker unconsciously wants to do what {le}
actually does). The difference between the two expressions (or the lack
thereof) hinges to some degree at least on how {lo broda} is
conceptualized; is it a group of indeterminate number or is it {lo xo
na'i broda} (that is, the concept of number just doesn't apply to it
until you explicitly specify number using an inner quantifier) ?.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:01 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e

Herein is the crux.  What is Lojban?  It is surely not the language off
CLL or much like it;

Surely not.

it is not that modified by xorlo (any of the dozen
or so xorlos, not counting those by xorxes himself).

xorlo is but a tiny fraction of what sets apart CLL-Lojban from Now-Lojban.

Honesty would have
it extracted from all the text around, assuming that could be collected,
but that is probably not a consistent corpus and certainly would not
meet the requirements of being a loglang.  Even the corpus of one
Lojbanist is somewhat iffy.  You have two choices: a new
presecriptivism, which decides all issues and lays down the law in a
tight program, (OK, three -- we could go back to CLL) or a free-for-all
building to a new consensus and eventual formalization.

In case of choice number 1, who would decide all the issues and lay down the law?

Robin AKA camgusmis AKA BDFL.

(In either case, {PA lo broda} is not the same as {PA broda}.)

Right. I wouldn't call them equivalent, since obviously {PA lo broda} is quantification over the referent(s) of {lo broda}, while {PA broda} never goes through that step. It just happens that there are cases where it makes no difference which one you use. When it does make a difference, it is often an "anaphoric" use of {lo broda}, sometimes in a malgli way (when the speaker unconsciously wants to do what {le} actually does). The difference between the two expressions (or the lack thereof) hinges to some degree at least on how {lo broda} is conceptualized; is it a group of indeterminate number or is it {lo xo na'i broda} (that is, the concept of number just doesn't apply to it until you explicitly specify number using an inner quantifier) ?.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
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.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[John E Clifford]

But xorlo is the only *official* difference (whatever that is worth, obviously).  Your final comments raise the issue of what your xorlo is like -- clearly different from mine ("salient node ...") and apparently making {lo broda} applicable to things totally unlike brodas (which might, I suppose, be particularly bad cases of {le broda}).  To be sure, many cases of {lo broda} are anaphoric in the sense that they renew an earlier reference to brodas, but that is just what nouns repeated most often do.  As to whether numbers apply to lo broda, that depends upon what brodas are, I suppose, but pretty generally, given Lojban's implicit ontology, they are enumeratable, 

---

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

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:01 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

-- 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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Robert LeChevalier]

selpa'i wrote:
> la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
>> Herein is the crux. What is Lojban? It is surely not the language off
>> CLL or much like it;
>
> Surely not.
>
>> it is not that modified by xorlo (any of the dozen
>> or so xorlos, not counting those by xorxes himself).
>
> xorlo is but a tiny fraction of what sets apart CLL-Lojban from Now-Lojban.

Anyone who uses something other that CLL-Lojban plus xorlo is not using
the standard language. I, for one, probably won't understand them,
because I have explicitly chosen NOT to learn experimental/proposed
changes. I suspect that a lot of others are like me.

lojbab

[selpa'i]

la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e

A good example is the evolution of {ka}. Nowadays, most proficient
speakers would not consider {lo ka ta pelxu} a well-formed expression,
even though the CLL accepts it.

There are many more such cases. It would be naive to assume that
everyone is still speaking CLL-Lojban.

[John E Clifford]

{lo ka ta pelxu} is clearly grammatical.  the problem is that (like most things that are grammatical) it doesn't make any obvious sense or, perhaps, makes too many not very obvious senses.  A property of worlds, say, or a particular shade of yellow in this one or ... .  How is it to be avoided ? Allowing only {ce'u} after {ka}?  And thus creating a new word class --or two?  Seems Draconian, when you can get by by just not using it.

Be nice to know what version of xorlo Lojbab understands.

---

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

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:43 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[selpa'i]

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e

> {lo ka ta pelxu} is clearly grammatical. the problem is that (like most
> things that are grammatical) it doesn't make any obvious sense or,
> perhaps, makes too many not very obvious senses. A property of worlds,
> say, or a particular shade of yellow in this one or ... . How is it to
> be avoided ? Allowing only {ce'u} after {ka}? And thus creating a new
> word class --or two? Seems Draconian, when you can get by by just not
> using it.

{lo ka ta pelxu} is grammatical but makes no sense to said group of
speakers because a {ka} abstraction must contain at least one {ce'u}.
There is no obvious place to go for {ce'u} here, so it's not
well-formed. {ce'u}-less {ka} has fallen out of use and that's not
really a new development, seeing that old jboske discussions already had
settled on it.

[v4hn]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:15:17PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> {lo ka ta pelxu} is grammatical but makes no sense to said group of
> speakers because a {ka} abstraction must contain at least one
> {ce'u}. There is no obvious place to go for {ce'u} here, so it's not
> well-formed.

To me it's

{lo ka ta pelxu} => {lo ka ta pelxu ce'u}
"The property of being something that is related
to the statement that /that/(ta) is yellow"

As John said, this can mean quite a lot, so you shouldn't use it, right.
But it's still grammatical and should not be considered "ungrammatical"
on the same level as "li mi ku zbabu".

Anyway, could we please settle the problem I pointed out earlier
and fix the faulty wiki page. Either revert the change by xorxes
(I doubt that's going to happen) or update the text I quoted
to reflect the difference between {PA broda} and {PA lo broda}.
Honestly, I still don't get why the first one was decided to be
grammatical in the first place.. I don't really see any necessity
to have this, especially if it's not just a short hand.


mi'e la .van. mu'o

[selpa'i]

la .van. cu cusku di'e

> Anyway, could we please settle the problem I pointed out earlier
> and fix the faulty wiki page.

Sorry, when and what did you say earlier? I cannot seem to find a recent
post by you (only one in the LaTeX thread).

> Either revert the change by xorxes
> (I doubt that's going to happen) or update the text I quoted
> to reflect the difference between {PA broda} and {PA lo broda}.

Could you quote it again, please?

> Honestly, I still don't get why the first one was decided to be
> grammatical in the first place.. I don't really see any necessity
> to have this, especially if it's not just a short hand.

It *is* a shorthand:

PA broda == PA da poi ke'a broda.

Is that not a useful shorthand to have?

[selpa'i]

la selpa'i cu cusku di'e

> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>> Anyway, could we please settle the problem I pointed out earlier
>> and fix the faulty wiki page.
>
> Sorry, when and what did you say earlier?

Oh it's on the beginner's list. Sorry. If you have a tiki account, you
can change it yourself.

[v4hn]

I don't have an account and also wouldn't want to change it myself,
because I wasn't involved in that whole debate at all.

I just wanted to point out that this has to be fixed(by someone who
exactly knows what he's doing there .u'iru'e)


v4hn

[John E Clifford]

That is, it is a stylistic convention, not a grammar change.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but not a change in the language per se, merely in its use.

---

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

Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:15 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

[John E Clifford]

I tend to distrust equivalences of this mechanical sort (see concurrent discussion) but this one seems to work about right.

---

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

Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:28 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

[selpa'i]

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e

> That is, it is a stylistic convention, not a grammar change. Nothing
> wrong with that, of course, but not a change in the language per se,
> merely in its use.

Which is just as important. What use is it that it's grammatical, if
your interlocutor doesn't understand you? A change in semantics is still
a change in the language, in my opinion.

[Robert LeChevalier]

John E Clifford wrote:
> {lo ka ta pelxu} is clearly grammatical. the problem is that (like most
> things that are grammatical) it doesn't make any obvious sense or,
> perhaps, makes too many not very obvious senses. A property of worlds,
> say, or a particular shade of yellow in this one or ... . How is it to
> be avoided ? Allowing only {ce'u} after {ka}? And thus creating a new
> word class --or two? Seems Draconian, when you can get by by just not
> using it.
>
> Be nice to know what version of xorlo Lojbab understands.

None of them. %^(

I rely on xorxes having said that if I treat things as if it was still
the old system, I will have no problems (though I might find the
preference for "lo" over "le" to be odd. If that ceases to be true,
then I won't understand, because no explanation of xorlo has never made
any sense to me for more than a few minutes.

My own usage (which I admit is hardly enormous these days) hasn't
changed much. Recognizing that most people use lo instead of le, I try
to use lo more often when it seems to make sense; it is stylistic rather
than correctness that dictates the choice. For me, veridicality is still
the most salient feature of lo, and much of the time that is not my intent.

lojbab

[selpa'i]

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e

> Your final comments raise the issue of what your xorlo is
> like -- clearly different from mine ("salient node ...") and apparently
> making {lo broda} applicable to things totally unlike brodas (which
> might, I suppose, be particularly bad cases of {le broda}).

I wasn't presenting my view of xorlo, but merely asking a hypothetical
question. Some of this comes from the time when {ci lo mu bakni} meant
"three groups of five cows" and {PA lo broda} was defined to be
quantifying over a singluar Broda (so the {lo} could be dropped). The
final version of xorlo doesn't have this anymore, so now {lo broda} must
be able to create plural groups, which it obviously does, or else lo
tadni could not sruri a dinju. Still, I'm not sure if, when taking {lo
tadni} to be singular even in the sruri case, it's just English that
makes it sound strange, or if it really is strange. By my comment I was
trying to "invite" people to try to think about this very question but
without going through English first and to see if there might not be
some sense in it. In more slightly different terms: Would it be strange
for a myopic singular student to surround a building?

[John E. Clifford]

Oh, hot damn! I haven't seen a myopic singular in a while. -- nor an explanation or justification in even longer. It would be strange for a myopic singular (in the & sense) to do anything, including exist or even be. But there is nothing odd about {lo tadni cu sruri lo dinja}, from which I would infer-- did I not know it already -- that the expression doesn't refer to such things (whatever they may be said to be), but just to ordinary tadni and dinja going about their ordinary business in ordinary ways.

Sent from my iPad

> --
> 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.

[John E Clifford]

Because I suspect it bears on the confusion here somewhat, I should add that there is nothing odd about {lo tadni cu ge sruri lo dinja gi dasni l crino creka} either, though it is strictly logically (but not linguistically) incomplete.

---

From: John E. Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com>
To: "loj...@googlegroups.com" <loj...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:08 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] questions about lojban

Oh, hot damn!  I haven't seen a myopic singular in a while. -- nor an explanation or justification in even longer.  It would be strange for a myopic singular (in the & sense) to do anything, including exist or even be.  But there is nothing odd about {lo tadni cu sruri lo dinja}, from which I would infer-- did I not know it already -- that the expression doesn't refer to such things (whatever they may be said to be), but just to ordinary tadni  and dinja going about their ordinary business in ordinary ways.

Sent from my iPad

On May 22, 2013, at 14:36, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

> la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
>> Your final comments raise the issue of what your xorlo is
>> like -- clearly different from mine ("salient node ...") and apparently
>> making {lo broda} applicable to things totally unlike brodas (which
>> might, I suppose, be particularly bad cases of {le broda}).
>
> I wasn't presenting my view of xorlo, but merely asking a hypothetical question. Some of this comes from the time when {ci lo mu bakni} meant "three groups of five cows" and {PA lo broda} was defined to be quantifying over a singluar Broda (so the {lo} could be dropped). The final version of xorlo doesn't have this anymore, so now {lo broda} must be able to create plural groups, which it obviously does, or else lo tadni could not sruri a dinju. Still, I'm not sure if, when taking {lo tadni} to be singular even in the sruri case, it's just English that makes it sound strange, or if it really is strange. By my comment I was trying to "invite" people to try to think about this very question but without going through English first and to see if there might not be some sense in it. In more slightly different terms: Would it be strange for a myopic singular student to surround a building?
>
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
> --
> 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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.