No gismu for Difference

[Jacob Errington]

I'm nearly certain this has been remarked on in the past, but there appears to be no gismu for "difference" in the mathematical sense. This is pretty inconsistent, as there're gismu for the other three basic mathematical operators, namely {sumji}, {pilji}, and {dilcu}, for sum, product, and quotient, respectively.

As it stands, there're a few non-gismu solutions, such as {selsumji}. Indeed, cleverly rearranging the places of a sum produces a difference in much the same way as doing so to the places for a product produces a quotient. Why, then, should {dilcu} and not <difference> exist?

If we consider that {vu'u}, the mekso subtraction operator, is based on {vimcu}, we can try to make a subtraction selbri from it. First, we need to remove the agent with zil-, then we need to convert the (thus) x3 with ter-: {terzilvi'u}.

{terzilvi'u} has one obvious problem though: semantically, it isn't purely mathematical. The other three are clearly definitely mathematical, whereas {vimcu} is used for any partial removal of something. "Getting a haircut" is phrased in terms of {vimcu}.

It seems like it'd add consistency if a gismu were simply made up for this rather than try to find other solutions. I (naïvely) suggest {subja}, with -sub- from English & romlang "subtract" and -ja- from Mandarin "jiǎn".

subja = x1 is the difference, x2 minus x3

If there were other suggestions for a potential gismu for this in the past, I'd like to know them. If there were none, I'll probably add this to jbovlaste within a few days.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[la gleki]

On Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:15:11 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

I'm nearly certain this has been remarked on in the past, but there appears to be no gismu for "difference" in the mathematical sense. This is pretty inconsistent, as there're gismu for the other three basic mathematical operators, namely {sumji}, {pilji}, and {dilcu}, for sum, product, and quotient, respectively.

As it stands, there're a few non-gismu solutions, such as {selsumji}. Indeed, cleverly rearranging the places of a sum produces a difference in much the same way as doing so to the places for a product produces a quotient. Why, then, should {dilcu} and not <difference> exist?

If we consider that {vu'u}, the mekso subtraction operator, is based on {vimcu}, we can try to make a subtraction selbri from it. First, we need to remove the agent with zil-, then we need to convert the (thus) x3 with ter-: {terzilvi'u}.

{terzilvi'u} has one obvious problem though: semantically, it isn't purely mathematical. The other three are clearly definitely mathematical, whereas {vimcu} is used for any partial removal of something. "Getting a haircut" is phrased in terms of {vimcu}.

It seems like it'd add consistency if a gismu were simply made up for this rather than try to find other solutions. I (naïvely) suggest {subja}, with -sub- from English & romlang "subtract" and -ja- from Mandarin "jiǎn".

.ienai when jian3 was chosen for {jdika} it was nearly okay. but "jian3" for sure should be converted to lojban as "dzian" or "dian". however, you chose {ja} which in Mandarin will be "ra". So whats the advantage of importing mnemonics that wont work at all?

Next, why you choose the gloss "to subtract". Whats the proposed definition?

x1 is a difference/result of subtraction of x3 from x2 ?

Then the glossword should be "difference"

Bulgarian: разлика (bg) f

Czech: rozdíl (cs) m

Danish: differens (da) c

Dutch: verschil (nl) n

Esperanto: diferenco

Finnish: erotus (fi)

French: différence (fr) f

German: Differenz (de) f

Hebrew: הפרש (hefresh) m

Indonesian: selisih

Italian: differenza (it) f

Japanese: 差 (さ, sa)

Persian: اختلاف (fa) (extelâf), تفاضل (fa) (tafâzol)

Polish: różnica (pl) f

Romanian: diferență (ro) f

Russian: разность (ru) (ráznost’) f, разница (ru) (ráznitsa) f

Slovene: razlika (sl) f

Spanish: diferencia (es) f

Swedish: differens (sv) c, skillnad (sv) c

Telugu: భేదము (bhaedamu)

As for Mandarin it is cha1shu4

Of course we can play with  the sounds a bit but in order to get a better mnemonic we have to choose either chinese or romance etymology.

So I suggest either {tcacu}/{tcaco} (.uinaisai it clashes with {tcaci}) or {difro} (final -o is normal for mekso gismu).

However, selsumji seems fine to me. But if you do really want to add it to jvs please consider that jian3 is not suitable.

[la gleki]

oh i forgot to provide a link to Mandarin word. 

http://cdict.net/?q=+%E5%B7%AE%E6%95%B0

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then the glossword should be "difference"
>
> Bulgarian: разлика (bg) f
> Czech: rozdíl (cs) m
> Danish: differens (da) c
> Dutch: verschil (nl) n
> Esperanto: diferenco
> Finnish: erotus (fi)
> French: différence (fr) f
> German: Differenz (de) f
> Hebrew: הפרש (hefresh) m
> Indonesian: selisih
> Italian: differenza (it) f
> Japanese: 差 (さ, sa)
> Persian: اختلاف (fa) (extelâf), تفاضل (fa) (tafâzol)
> Polish: różnica (pl) f
> Romanian: diferență (ro) f
> Russian: разность (ru) (ráznost’) f, разница (ru) (ráznitsa) f
> Slovene: razlika (sl) f
> Spanish: diferencia (es) f
> Swedish: differens (sv) c, skillnad (sv) c
> Telugu: భేదము (bhaedamu)
>
> As for Mandarin it is cha1shu4

Presumably that should result in "fricu", which is already taken, but
"cufri" might get the same score.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

(I meant to say "frica".)

[la gleki]

The problem here is why to apply the algorithm that gives no mnemonic advantages?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem here is why to apply the algorithm that gives no mnemonic
> advantages?

That's a good question.

[Ian Johnson]

Indeed, this has been something that has nagged at the back of my mind since I started studying the language; there are fairly few words which are sufficiently similar to their source language counterparts to help a speaker of a source language learn the language more easily. The stated purpose of the algorithm doesn't seem like it was really achieved, pe'i. Not that that's a bad thing, as it still provides a source of an a priori vocabulary.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
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.
 
 

[MorphemeAddict]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, this has been something that has nagged at the back of my mind since I started studying the language; there are fairly few words which are sufficiently similar to their source language counterparts to help a speaker of a source language learn the language more easily.

This is why I say the vocabulary is equally dífficult for everybody. The memory hooks aren't numerous for any given language, and they're not consistent enough to make them useful to learn. Totally ad hoc words could hardly be more difficult to learn than what we have. 

stevo

[la gleki]

On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:50:26 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, this has been something that has nagged at the back of my mind since I started studying the language; there are fairly few words which are sufficiently similar to their source language counterparts to help a speaker of a source language learn the language more easily.

This is why I say the vocabulary is equally dífficult for everybody. The memory hooks aren't numerous for any given language, and they're not consistent enough to make them useful to learn. Totally ad hoc words could hardly be more difficult to learn than what we have. 

This algorithm originated in the first SciAm paper by JCB. He claimed the existence of global etymology. sei mi morji Lojban doesnt have any goals to prove the existence of such thing. The only reason to apply the algorithm is mnemonics. Otherwise Lojban is completely apriori.

Given that the number of speakers of Romance languages exceed the number of Chinese speakers I suggest {difro} or similar gismu once again.

However, what I'd like more is not to add more gismu but instead to remove some of the existing. The adoption of {selsumji}="difference" will teach newbies "predicate reasoning". If a person can cope with rearranging sumti places and knows the basic vocabulary then 'ey is already a good speaker of Lojban.

[Ian Johnson]

The problem is that arithmetic is supposed to abstract physical situations. Addition abstracts the merging of groups, while subtraction abstracts the removal of a subgroup from a group. In other words, + panra jmina, - panra vimcu. From this standpoint "6=8-2" is essentially "if you take away 2 from 8 you get 6". {selsumji} fi'o tarmi ku is thinking of "6=8-2" as something like "if you put 2 back in 6, you would get 8", which is rather convoluted. It's truth-functionally the same, but the character of the description feels different.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

The problem is that arithmetic is supposed to abstract physical situations. Addition abstracts the merging of groups, while subtraction abstracts the removal of a subgroup from a group. In other words, + panra jmina, - panra vimcu. From this standpoint "6=8-2" is essentially "if you take away 2 from 8 you get 6". {selsumji} fi'o tarmi ku is thinking of "6=8-2" as something like "if you put 2 back in 6, you would get 8", which is rather convoluted. It's truth-functionally the same, but the character of the description feels different.

But it matches the other math gismu, all of which are "x1 is the result of x2 <operand> x3".
 

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:02 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:50:26 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, this has been something that has nagged at the back of my mind since I started studying the language; there are fairly few words which are sufficiently similar to their source language counterparts to help a speaker of a source language learn the language more easily.

This is why I say the vocabulary is equally dífficult for everybody. The memory hooks aren't numerous for any given language, and they're not consistent enough to make them useful to learn. Totally ad hoc words could hardly be more difficult to learn than what we have. 

This algorithm originated in the first SciAm paper by JCB. He claimed the existence of global etymology. sei mi morji Lojban doesnt have any goals to prove the existence of such thing. The only reason to apply the algorithm is mnemonics. Otherwise Lojban is completely apriori.

Given that the number of speakers of Romance languages exceed the number of Chinese speakers I suggest {difro} or similar gismu once again.

However, what I'd like more is not to add more gismu but instead to remove some of the existing. The adoption of {selsumji}="difference" will teach newbies "predicate reasoning". If a person can cope with rearranging sumti places and knows the basic vocabulary then 'ey is already a good speaker of Lojban.

 

The stated purpose of the algorithm doesn't seem like it was really achieved, pe'i. Not that that's a bad thing, as it still provides a source of an a priori vocabulary.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

--
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 )

[Ian Johnson]

Only truth-functionally, which is my point. Structurally it's more like x2 = x1+x3, just moving the + to a different spot instead of actually introducing a -.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Only truth-functionally, which is my point. Structurally it's more like x2 = x1+x3, just moving the + to a different spot instead of actually introducing a -.

I was referring to order, but either way, selsumji isn't anywhere near ideal for "subtraction".
 

[la gleki]

On Monday, March 25, 2013 9:02:45 AM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:

On Monday, March 25, 2013 5:50:26 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed, this has been something that has nagged at the back of my mind since I started studying the language; there are fairly few words which are sufficiently similar to their source language counterparts to help a speaker of a source language learn the language more easily.

This is why I say the vocabulary is equally dífficult for everybody. The memory hooks aren't numerous for any given language, and they're not consistent enough to make them useful to learn. Totally ad hoc words could hardly be more difficult to learn than what we have. 

This algorithm originated in the first SciAm paper by JCB. He claimed the existence of global etymology. sei mi morji Lojban doesnt have any goals to prove the existence of such thing. The only reason to apply the algorithm is mnemonics. Otherwise Lojban is completely apriori.

Given that the number of speakers of Romance languages exceed the number of Chinese speakers I suggest {difro} or similar gismu once again.

Oh, by Romance languages I meant  "Romance languages + English" :)

[Adam Chevalier]

Wait, what about vimcu?

Its not perfect, especially when you see the notation about alienation (i've been learning gismu with Anki and it doesn't have this notation, so I assumed it was mathematical until grabbed that link).

[Jacob Errington]

On 25 March 2013 12:01, Adam Chevalier <chevali...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wait, what about vimcu?

Its not perfect, especially when you see the notation about alienation (i've been learning gismu with Anki and it doesn't have this notation, so I assumed it was mathematical until grabbed that link).

Ian explained this rather well, I think.

On 25 March 2013 1 AM, Ian wrote:

The problem is that arithmetic is supposed to abstract physical situations. Addition abstracts the merging of groups, while subtraction abstracts the removal of a subgroup from a group. In other words, [addition is parallel to {jmina}, and subtraction is parallel to {vimcu}]

Indeed, {vimcu} is for the physical removal of a subgroup from a group, such as getting a haircut. Math is the abstracted version of this physical situation. More importantly, it doesn't make sense for jmina, fendi, and <I don't know which physical relationship relates to pilji> to have mathematical abstractions, namely sumji, dilcu, and pilji, but not {vimcu}.

[Ian Johnson]

I was also referring to order; selsumji(x1,x2,x3) is true iff x1=x2-x3. A better description than my previous one is that selsumji is extensionally but not intensionally equivalent to a subtraction brivla. I think the intensional meaning is important to how we utilize subtraction, because we think of removal, not re-addition.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:17:14 PM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

I was also referring to order; selsumji(x1,x2,x3) is true iff x1=x2-x3. A better description than my previous one is that selsumji is extensionally but not intensionally equivalent to a subtraction brivla. I think the intensional meaning is important to how we utilize subtraction, because we think of removal, not re-addition.

Does that also mean that we need two separate gismu for "to buy" and "to sell"?

[Ian Johnson]

Does that also mean that we need two separate gismu for "to buy" and "to sell"?

This is a good question. I considered the possibility of wanting to have this since "sell" is somewhat of an agentive verb in English (sure, a grocery store selling something isn't particularly agentive, but a car salesman selling something is), which if {te vecnu} is really "buy" rather than "is sold" isn't reflected in the semantics of {vecnu}.

At any rate, this is a marked inconsistency either way; if {selsumji} is adequate for subtraction then {selpilji} is adequate for division.

[Ian Johnson]

Sorry to add, but I think this problem of whether truth-functionally equivalent selbri whose connotation seems significantly different is an important one, and one we should probably try and formulate a general response to. Having some brivla with specialized connotation (dilcu vs. selpilji, mu'a) and not others feels rather sloppy.

[la gleki]

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 4:27:08 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

Sorry to add, but I think this problem of whether truth-functionally equivalent selbri whose connotation seems significantly different is an important one, and one we should probably try and formulate a general response to. Having some brivla with specialized connotation (dilcu vs. selpilji, mu'a) and not others feels rather sloppy.

It bothers me that if there is a word WITH connotation there might be NO  words WITHOUT such connotation. For me {vecnu} doesnt have such connotation that's why {se vecnu} both means "sold" and "bought". However, in the case of  {difro} we implicitly state that it differs from {selsumji}. And my problem is that there is no such vague word that would be a generalisation of this concept.