[lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu
jjllambias2000
la djorden cusku di'e
> Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical
connectives
> for this.
Connectives and quantifiers are tightly related. In fact, most
connectives have a corresponding quantifier:
ko'a e ko'e - ro le re co'e
ko'a a ko'e - su'o le re co'e
ko'a na.enai ko'e - no le re co'e
ko'a onai ko'e - pa le re co'e
ko'a na.anai ko'e - su'epa le re co'e
Those are all the symmetric logical connectives except one:
"o". I don't think there is a quantifier for "o". A useful
one might be a quantifier meaning "all or none". Maybe we
should propose an experimental cmavo for this.
Some non-logical symmetric connectives also have corresponding
gadri:
ko'a joi ko'e - lei re co'e
ko'a ce ko'e - le'i re co'e
One gadri that I sometimes miss is one corresponding
to {ko'a fa'u ko'e}. Non-symmetric connectives don't have
corresponding quantifiers/gadri.
Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to
{ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since
logically they are essentially the same thing.
> And since you're arguing against the left to right
> interpretation, shouldn't {paroi ro le re djedi} mean once in all
> of the two days?
That's the interpretation I'm arguing against. I'm arguing
for "once in each of the two days".
> > Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and
> > unwanted effects on logical connectives.
>
> Where's the perverse effects? *boggle*
If {paroi ro le re djedi} means "once in the whole of the two
days", then {paroi le pavdei e le reldei} has to mean that
also, which would be perverse, because there would be no way
to get the {e} out of the influence of {paroi}.
> I think you have the expansion wrong (I have no idea why you moved
> paroiku into the prenex. This was recently discussed in another
> thread: the only thing which exports to the prenex is naku).
Everything can export to the prenex. The other discussion was
about the fact that the only thing that exports to the prenex
out of order is {na} (it always jumps to first position).
{naku} exports in correct order, like everything else.
> It
> actually expands to:
> mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas.
> I went to paris exactly once; I went to rome exactly once.
> Which is exactly what you would expect from a logical connective.
I proposed both alternatives. To make it more clear:
paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas
Expands to:
paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
The question is, does it further expand to:
paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas
I think it should not. In any case, whatever applies to
{ko'a e ko'e} should apply as well to {ro le re co'e}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
>paroiku should behave just like any other floating tense-modal.
Indeed.
>For
>example
> baku mi klama la romas. .e la paris.
>means
> mi ba klama la romas. gi'e ba klama la paris.
> mi ba klama la romas. .ije mi ba klama la paris.
Does that say that my going to Paris happens after my going to
Rome?
>and not
> mi ba klama la romas. gi'e klama la paris.
But nobody suggested that {paroiku} would apply to the first
connectand only. I would have said:
baku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
I don't think this establishes which of Paris or Rome is gone
to first. If distributing {ba} makes no difference to the
meaning, I don't see how this helps us to decide whether
{paroiku} can be distributed or not. Consider one that clearly
does make a difference:
ta'eku mi klama la paris e la romas
This is:
ta'eku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
Typically, I go both to Paris and to Rome.
Is this the same as:
ta'eku mi klama la paris ije ta'eku mi klama la romas
Typically I go to Paris, and typically I go to Rome.
I don't think it is. Or use {ta'enai} for an even more clear case.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical connectives
> > for this.
> Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to
> {ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since
> logically they are essentially the same thing.
What chapter, please?
> > And since you're arguing against the left to right
> > interpretation, shouldn't {paroi ro le re djedi} mean once in all
> > of the two days?
>
> That's the interpretation I'm arguing against. I'm arguing
> for "once in each of the two days".
Right; since you are arguing against it, I would assume you should
be trying to show how that interpretation breaks things, instead
of showing examples using the interpretation you prefer without
relating them to the left-to-right interpretation.
> > > Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and
> > > unwanted effects on logical connectives.
> >
> > Where's the perverse effects? *boggle*
>
> If {paroi ro le re djedi} means "once in the whole of the two
> days", then {paroi le pavdei e le reldei} has to mean that
> also, which would be perverse, because there would be no way
> to get the {e} out of the influence of {paroi}.
All you've done here is proved that your quantifer-connective thing
is just plain false.
> > I think you have the expansion wrong (I have no idea why you moved
> > paroiku into the prenex. This was recently discussed in another
> > thread: the only thing which exports to the prenex is naku).
>
> Everything can export to the prenex. The other discussion was
> about the fact that the only thing that exports to the prenex
> out of order is {na} (it always jumps to first position).
> {naku} exports in correct order, like everything else.
Right, but if you move paroiku to the prenex, you have to define
other terms there in the same order also. Otherwise you break
the sentence (like you did). You can't move terms to the prenex
out of order without changing the meaning ("na" doesn't parse as
a term, but this is true for "naku", which is a term).
> > It
> > actually expands to:
> > mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas.
> > I went to paris exactly once; I went to rome exactly once.
> > Which is exactly what you would expect from a logical connective.
>
> I proposed both alternatives. To make it more clear:
>
> paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas
>
> Expands to:
>
> paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
No it doesn't. What rule are you claiming it expands to this under?
The only expansion rule I know of for logical connectives clearly says
that this becomes
mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas.
> The question is, does it further expand to:
>
> paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas
>
> I think it should not. In any case, whatever applies to
> {ko'a e ko'e} should apply as well to {ro le re co'e}.
Again, what support do you have for this claim?
--
Jordan DeLong - frac...@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Jordan DeLong
[...]
> So, I would say that the tag always falls within the scope of the
> sumti's quantifier. (Unless someone comes up with interesting
> cases where the opposite interpretation makes sense.)
Now that I think about it, I actually think the book's example goes
the other way. In
mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi
unfortunately we can assume there's only 1 ca djedi, and thus it
doesn't say definitively. But if we assume the general left to
right rule applies, and consider the same thing meaning "current
days" instead of the "current day", it doesn't make sense that the
re should change to re * number_of_days.
The forethought isn't neccesary here anyway if you use a gadri
like we were discussing, but I think in the general case tags
probably scope just like anything else.
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >na behaves differently because it needs to export to the leftmost
> >end of the prenex (inverting any quantifiers) before being interpreted.
>
> I did not use {na}. I used {naku} both times, which exports in the
> order where it appears. {na} goes directly to the leftmost without
> inverting anything.
I was, of course, refering to naku.
> >Next, though, is that all of the above interpretations work provided
> >that ko'a and ko'e either can do quantifier inversion automatically
> >(which I think makes sense) or that in this case they were bound
> >to single items so inversion is a no op:
> > naku ko'a .e ko'e broda ==
> > naku zo'u ko'a .e ko'e broda ==
> > naku zo'u ge ko'a broda gi ko'e broda
> >It is false that: ko'a and ko'e broda.
>
> Correct so far.
>
> >This is the truth function FFFT,
>
> Nope. It is the negation of TFFF, i.e. FTTT.
> It is the case that either ko'a is not broda
> or ko'e is not broda (or both). In other words:
> naku ko'a broda ija naku ko'e broda
You're right.
> Just as passing a negation through {ro} changes it to {su'o},
> passing a negation through {e} changes it to {a}.
>
> The rest is an expansion of {ko'a e ko'e naku broda}:
>
> >which you can get with
> > ko'a na.enai ko'e broda
> > ko'a .e ko'e na broda
> >or
> > ko'a na broda .ijenai ko'e broda
> > ko'a na broda .ije ko'e na broda
> >which means
> > naku ko'a broda .ije naku ko'e broda ==
> > naku zo'u ko'a broda .ije naku zo'u ko'e broda
> >works fine.
>
> See the section starting on pg. 407.
I dunno where that is; I don't have a hardcopy (chapter+section is
better). But you're right about the expansions since I misthunk
the truth function.
> >I'm not even sure what the relation you're suggesting is anyway.
> >You have "ko'a .e ko'e" and can say "ro le re broda" meaning the
> >same thing... so what? You can always say the same thing in many
> >different ways, and the transformation loses information.
>
> It's deeper than that. You can think of a quantification with
> {ro} as a long string of conjunctions:
>
> ro broda = le broda e le broda e le broda e le broda e ...
>
> where each {le broda} picks one member of {lo'i broda}.
> See also
>
> http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?DeMorgan%27s%20Laws
>
> for more about this.
So e has scope then, and it matters where you put the naku boundary
with regard to it, etc. But I still don't see the relevance here
to which convention is used for tag+sumti scoping. We still can
interpret
paroiku ko'a .e ko'e broda
as
ko'a paroi broda .ije ko'e paroi broda
because floating tenses work differently than naku. And
paroi ko'a .e ko'e broda
as
paroi ko'a broda .ije paroi ko'e broda
py...@aol.com
<<
> <<
> > le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
> >
> I tend to see what something takes a turn around as a center rather
than an
> axis, which {carna} seems to require -- is this a legitimate
extension?
I meant a full rotation around its axis, yes.
(How would we talk about a revolution around another body?)
>>
Which tends to make me wonder what x2 of {carna} is supposed to be anyhow -- it always is the axis of rotation and how wlse is it going to be described? So the place is there not to be used in that place, but to give a means of saying "axis of rotation" in other places. Not ideal, however handy. And we won't get into the age-old problem of how to give the direction of turn (why this once did we leave out "from vantage point x4"?) But even then, how do we say it: it isn't "toward the left" and it isn't "the left," so what is the word?
As for the other, the best suggestion seems to be {se jendu} -- in a nice inversion of {carna} -- though that may not be dynamic. {jincarna} is a bit of a stretch but better than the alsosuggested {gunro}.
<<
> Why doesn't this mean "the planet makes a full turn around all
minutes once,"
> i.e., why isn't {ro mentu} x2?
{paroi} is a tag, so it tags the following sumti.
> {paroi} seems to be a free modifier so has
> at most rhetorical effect on its neighbors and there is nothing in
CLL or the
> cmavo list to suggest that {PAroi} takes a sumti to indicate the
span within
> which the repetitions are counted (though maybe it should).
Actually, it does. It even has an example (pg 233): {mi klama
le zarci reroi le ca djedi}, "I go to the market twice today".
>>
Thanks. Chalk up another place where the index leaves out all the interesting cases.
<<
> Maybe something like {ca ro mentu le plini paroi mulcarna}, though
I'd be
> happier with something more intervally than {ca} -- can {ze'e} be
used in
> that way (there used to be something like {ci'a}, but that may be
all th way
> back to Loglan.
The tense can't tag the selbri, otherwise the scope is still
wrong. I suppose {le plini cu mulcarna ze'a ro mentu paroiku}
does work. It is still very tempting to just say {paroi ro mentu}
though. Could we say that the tagged sumti's quantifier has
scope over the tag's quantifier?
>>
Not too easily, without mucking with the left to right scope marking. Is it the case that the tense attached to a selbri is, like {na} to be taken as at the far left of the prefix. Obviously yes, as it should be. So, how do we override that? Explicitly seems the only answer: {ze'a ro mentu paroiku zo'u ...} But how to do it on the fly? I remember asking to build in context leapers a long time agoand having that idea rejecteed out of hand. Maybe it is time to make the suggestion again -- on loCCan, fo course.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
 |
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > into account that {e} has a scope of its own as well. When you
> > > split {paroi ko'a e ko'e} into {paroi ko'a ije paroi ko'e}, you're
> > > saying that {e} has scope over {paroi}. If {paroi} had scope over
> > > {e} you could not make the expansion. Expanding {e} is equivalent
> > > to exporting {ro} to the prenex.
> >
> >Where's the book say that? And strictly speaking btw, since the
> >claims of pavdei and reldei aren't related (e instead of jo'u) the
> >scoping of quantifiers from the first one won't change the meaning.
> >I don't think it makes sense to talk about quantifier scope for
> >{e}, which has no quantifiers.
>
> Whether the book says it or not in so many words, {e} does have
> scope. Consider {naku ko'a e ko'e broda}. You can't expand this
> to {naku ko'a broda ije naku ko'a brode}, precisely because {e}
> does not have scope over {naku}. But you can expand {ko'a e ko'e
> naku broda} to {ko'a naku broda ije ko'e naku broda}, because in
> this case {e} does have scope over {naku}.
First of all, what you're talking about here is totally different:
na behaves differently because it needs to export to the leftmost
end of the prenex (inverting any quantifiers) before being interpreted.
Next, though, is that all of the above interpretations work provided
that ko'a and ko'e either can do quantifier inversion automatically
(which I think makes sense) or that in this case they were bound
to single items so inversion is a no op:
naku ko'a .e ko'e broda ==
naku zo'u ko'a .e ko'e broda ==
naku zo'u ge ko'a broda gi ko'e broda
It is false that: ko'a and ko'e broda.
This is the truth function FFFT, which you can get with
ko'a na.enai ko'e broda
ko'a .e ko'e na broda
or
ko'a na broda .ijenai ko'e broda
ko'a na broda .ije ko'e na broda
which means
naku ko'a broda .ije naku ko'e broda ==
naku zo'u ko'a broda .ije naku zo'u ko'e broda
works fine.
> The relation between {e} and {ro} is not something I'm postulating
> for Lojban, it is something that is there as part of their logical
> meanings.
I'm not even sure what the relation you're suggesting is anyway.
You have "ko'a .e ko'e" and can say "ro le re broda" meaning the
same thing... so what? You can always say the same thing in many
different ways, and the transformation loses information.
--
jjllambias2000
la and cusku di'e
> If {pa roi ko'a} means, roughly, {pa roi ca ko'a} xor {ca ko'a
> pa roi}, doesn't that imply that the tag's relation to its own
> sumti is at the same level as its relation to its sister sumti?
Roughly, yes. But the roughness is precisely at the point in
question. {paroi ca ko'a} means "once in the unspecified interval,
and coincident with ko'a". Now, it could well be that ko'a is the
unspecified interval, but consider a quantified case:
{paroiku ca ci da} that's "once in the unspecified interval, and
coincident with three things". The three things can't all be the
unspecified interval.
> (What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure
> John will enjoy telling me...)
The Earth rotates around its axis and revolves around the Sun.
> > {ci djedi} cannot be the length of one occurrence, it is
> > three separate lengths.
>
> It is three separate lengths, but they can perfectly well be
> contiguous -- cf "I travelled just the once, on Monday, Tuesday,
> and Wednesday".
That would require joining the days with {joi}.
> So {re roi ci djedi cu klama} would mean "travel twice, each
> travelling occuring on each of three things of a day's duration".
I think that has to be {re roi pa djedi be li ci}, one three-day
period, not three one-day periods.
> That's not how I'd read {ca ci djedi} -- I'd say it says something
> happens on day 1, day 2 and day 3, but not that it necessarily
> happens three times. E.g. {mi zvati la paris ca re djedi} is
> sensical if I went there for a weekend trip.
It is sensical, but you're viewing it as two events:
re da poi djedi zo'u mi zvati la paris ca da
The property {mi zvati la paris ca ce'u} is said to hold for
exactly two values. ({ze'a} is better than {ca} to indicate
that each of the events lasts exactly one full day, rather than
just being coincident at some point with one day, but the same
principle applies.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
jjllambias2000
> Now that I think about it, I actually think the book's example goes
> the other way. In
> mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi
> unfortunately we can assume there's only 1 ca djedi, and thus it
> doesn't say definitively.
So the book's example doesn't go either way. As usual, sumti with
singular referents don't care about the scope of quantifiers.
> But if we assume the general left to
> right rule applies, and consider the same thing meaning "current
> days" instead of the "current day", it doesn't make sense that the
> re should change to re * number_of_days.
On the contrary, I think "twice every day" for {reroi le so'i djedi}
makes eminent sense. What you want to do is give it the sense
of {reroi le djedi be li so'i}, twice in the many-days-period. But
that's a different thing. {reroi} tells you the number of times
in one given period, never the number of times in a number of
periods taken together. So the quantification over periods must
always have scope over the number of times in each period.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
And Rosta
> Here's another argument on why {paroi ro mentu} has to mean
> "once per minute" and not "once in an interval that contains
> every minute":
>
> As a general rule, we want {broda <tag> ko'a e ko'e} to expand
> to {broda <tag> ko'a ije broda <tag> ko'e}. I don't think we
> want tags that explicitly contain quantifiers to break this
> rule, so {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei e le reldei} means
> "I went to the market once on Monday and I went to the market
> once on Tuesday" (or was it Sunday and Monday?), it does not mean
> that I went once on the sum of Monday and Tuesday. To get that
> meaning we have to say {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei ku joi
> le reldei}, "I went once in the Monday-Tuesday period".
>
> If we accept that {e} must expand as usual even with quantified
> tags, then the same must apply to quantified sumti, since the
> quantifier {ro} corresponds closely to the connective {e} for
> these purposes: {mi klama le zarci paroi ro le re djedi}, "I went
> to the market once on each of the two days". To say that I went
> once in the two-day period we can say {mi klama le zarci paroi lei
> re djedi}, which corresponds to {le pavdei ku joi le reldei}, or
> in this case we can also say {mi klama paroi le djedi be li re}.
>
> Conclusion: the quantifier of a tagged sumti always has scope over
> the quantifier within its tag, even though the latter appears first
> in the expression. Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and
> unwanted effects on logical connectives.
If the {e} case expands as you say, then your reasoning is right
(i.e. I agree with it...). But:
1. The general rule doesn't apply when, say, {e} is within the
scope of {na}. So it can't be taken for granted that it applies
to the present instance.
2. For {ci roi le pavdei ku joi le reldei} and {ci roi lei re djedi},
I would like to be sure that there is some way to say that the
three occasions are distributed throughout the two days, such
that {ci roi le pavdei} and {ci roi lei pa djedi} would be false.
If that is doable, then my reservations would be assuaged.
> A different issue altogether is the interaction of quantified
> tags with other than its own sumti. In this case we can have:
> {mi klama paroiku la paris e la romas}. This expands to
> {paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas}
> "Exactly once, I went to Paris and I went to Rome."
> I have no idea if from that we can further expand to {mi klama
> paroiku la paris ije mi klama paroiku la romas}, "I went to Paris
> exactly once and I went to Rome exactly once", I think we shouldn't.
> Depending on how this goes, then tags will or will not have scope
> over quantifiers of following sumti other than its own.
Ah, this is good.
So what do these mean?
ci roi ku ca re djedi
-- three occasions, each occurring over two days
ca re djedi ku ci roi
-- occurring on two days, thrice on each day
Is that right?
Remind me what is to be gained by using roi + sumti rather
than roi + ku?
--And.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
jjllambias2000
la and cusku di'e
> Looking at it purely as a grammatical problem, I don't think
> you can justifiably complain about {ro da poi mentu zo'u
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} requiring forethought. That's
> an almost inevitable consequence of an unambiguous logical language.
I'm not sure that the quantifier in the tag is at the
same level as the quantifier of the sumti. I think it's
like a quantifier embedded within a selbri (tags are basically
selbri after all) and thus it has minimal scope with respect
to its sumti. In other words, {paroi}, as a tag and with
respect to its simti, is acting like the selbri {rapli li pa},
and so {pa} does not have scope over the sumti's quantifier.
(I emphasize that this is only with respect to its sumti, not
with respect to other sumti.)
> Looking at it as a semantic problem, what you want to say is
> "The planet revolves, and for each month during which the planet
> revolves, it revolves once", and not "During every month, the
planet
> revolves once".
(I meant "rotates", but that doesn't change the issue. Also,
{mentu} is "minute": it's a planet with 144 sunsets every 24
hours, that's why the little prince, who is very fond of sunsets,
likes it so much.)
> Does {re roi la uenzdix klama} mean "go twice on Wednesday"?
Yes.
> You want {re roi ci djedi ku klama} to mean "go twice on each of 3
> days", so the going occurs over 3 days, six goings in all.
Correct.
> Whereas, standardly it means "go twice, each going occuring on
> three days, = 6 days' worth of going, with two goings in all.
No, it can't mean that. That would be {re roi lo djedi be li ci}
{ci djedi} cannot be the length of one occurrence, it is
three separate lengths. That's why I think the sumti's
quantifier always has precedence. Otherwise you'd be talking
of two occasions, each of which happens in each of three days.
Compare with {ca ci djedi}: It says something happens three
times, on three separate days, not that it happens simultaneously
on three days: therefore {ci} has scope over {ca}.
> I don't really see why the nonstandard interp is so much better
> than the standard that it justifies its deviancy.
I don't think the "standard" (if by that we mean that the tag's
quantifier has scope over its sumti) can ever be meaningful. I don't
think it is standard either, as there hasn't been any official
discussion of the matter.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
And Rosta
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >scope of {na}. So it can't be taken for granted that it applies
> >to the present instance.
>
> than {ro}. Of course {e} and {ro} are equally affected by things
> with scope. I believe {broda <tag> ko'a e ko'e} should always
> expand as {broda <tag> ko'a ije broda <tag> ko'e}, and if that
> holds, then {paroi ro mentu} has to mean "once per minute".
You seem to be repeating what you originally said, rather than
responding to my point, which is that {na brode ko'a e ko'e}
does not expand to {na brode ko'a i je na brode ko'e}, and
therefore it cannot be taken for granted that
{broda <quantifier + tag> ko'a e ko'e}
should always expand as
{broda <quantifier + tag> ko'a i je broda <quantifier + tag> ko'e}
> >2. For {ci roi le pavdei ku joi le reldei} and {ci roi lei re djedi},
> >I would like to be sure that there is some way to say that the
> >three occasions are distributed throughout the two days, such
> >that {ci roi le pavdei} and {ci roi lei pa djedi} would be false.
> >If that is doable, then my reservations would be assuaged.
>
> I don't understand why you want that. If {ciroi le jeftu} is
> true, it can also be true that {ciroi le pavdei}. Similarly for
> {ciroi lei ze djedi}, and {ciroi lei re djedi}.
Is this {le pa jeftu}, you mean?
I'm not disputing that {ci roi le pa jeftu} means what you
say it does. But I was thinking that (on the scope that you
argue against), {ci roi le ze djedi} means that each of the
occasions happens on each ot the days, which is a potentially
useful meaning.
> >So what do these mean?
> >
> >ci roi ku ca re djedi
> > -- three occasions, each occurring over two days
> >ca re djedi ku ci roi
> > -- occurring on two days, thrice on each day
> >
> >Is that right?
>
> That's what I would like, yes. The other possibility is that
> they both mean the second, if tags never have scope over
> following terms, but I don't see the advantage of that.
>
> >Remind me what is to be gained by using roi + sumti rather
> >than roi + ku?
>
> That the sumti gives the exact interval in which the repetitions
> occur, {ca} just gives an event with some overlap. I suppose
> {ze'a ro mentu paroi} would work just as well as {paroi ro mentu}.
Given that we can say what we want using ze'a and roiku, I don't
suppose it matters all that much which reading is given to
roi+sumti. It should be whichever is the more convenient, I guess.
--And.
jjllambias2000
la djorden cusku di'e
> (particularly the
> subset for which the planet hasn't yet been engulfed in its sun's
> supernova or however else planets cease to be, and after which it
> has formed). So I suggest {paroi le'e mentu}. pe'ipei
Yes, I guess you're right. That would neatly solve the scope issue
too, though I'm becomeing more convinced that the sumti always must
have scope over the tag:
{ze'a ro mentu} can never be the same ze'a for each minute.
{rere'u ro djedi} can never be the same second time for every day.
{ciroi ro masti} can never be the same three times every month.
So, I would say that the tag always falls within the scope of the
sumti's quantifier. (Unless someone comes up with interesting
cases where the opposite interpretation makes sense.)
> (btw; on a tangent: what the hell does x3 and x4 of plini mean?
lojbab knows!
> Has anyone ever used them in a sentence?)
Of course not! :)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
> > Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to
> > {ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since
> > logically they are essentially the same thing.
>
>What chapter, please?
Chapter 22. :)
You won't find an answer to every question in the book.
If you don't agree that {ko'a e ko'e} and {ro le re co'e} are
essentially the same thing from the point of view of scopes of
quantifiers and expansions, then it is probably pointless that
we keep arguing about this, as our starting points would be too
different.
> > To make it more clear:
> >
> > paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas
> >
> > Expands to:
> >
> > paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
>
>No it doesn't. What rule are you claiming it expands to this under?
Start from {paroiku zo'u mi klama la paris e la romas} if you prefer.
The point is the same.
>The only expansion rule I know of for logical connectives clearly says
>that this becomes
> mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas.
What does the rule you know say for {pa le prenu cu klama la paris
e la romas}? Does it expand to:
(1) pa le prenu cu klama la paris ije pa le prenu cu klama la romas
or to:
(2) ko'a goi pa le prenu zo'u ko'a klama la paris ije ko'a klama la romas
If your answer is (2), then you agree with me, and what I'm saying
is that {paroi} should behave like {pa le prenu}. If your answer
is (1), then we disagree at such a basic level that we will never
reach an agreement about the original point we were discussing.
> > In any case, whatever applies to
> > {ko'a e ko'e} should apply as well to {ro le re co'e}.
>
>Again, what support do you have for this claim?
Just common sense. I don't like special rules cropping up
everywhere.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
>First of all, what you're talking about here is totally different:
>na behaves differently because it needs to export to the leftmost
>end of the prenex (inverting any quantifiers) before being interpreted.
I did not use {na}. I used {naku} both times, which exports in the
order where it appears. {na} goes directly to the leftmost without
inverting anything.
>Next, though, is that all of the above interpretations work provided
>that ko'a and ko'e either can do quantifier inversion automatically
>(which I think makes sense) or that in this case they were bound
>to single items so inversion is a no op:
> naku ko'a .e ko'e broda ==
> naku zo'u ko'a .e ko'e broda ==
> naku zo'u ge ko'a broda gi ko'e broda
>It is false that: ko'a and ko'e broda.
Correct so far.
>This is the truth function FFFT,
Nope. It is the negation of TFFF, i.e. FTTT.
It is the case that either ko'a is not broda
or ko'e is not broda (or both). In other words:
naku ko'a broda ija naku ko'e broda
Just as passing a negation through {ro} changes it to {su'o},
passing a negation through {e} changes it to {a}.
The rest is an expansion of {ko'a e ko'e naku broda}:
>which you can get with
> ko'a na.enai ko'e broda
> ko'a .e ko'e na broda
>or
> ko'a na broda .ijenai ko'e broda
> ko'a na broda .ije ko'e na broda
>which means
> naku ko'a broda .ije naku ko'e broda ==
> naku zo'u ko'a broda .ije naku zo'u ko'e broda
>works fine.
See the section starting on pg. 407.
>I'm not even sure what the relation you're suggesting is anyway.
>You have "ko'a .e ko'e" and can say "ro le re broda" meaning the
>same thing... so what? You can always say the same thing in many
>different ways, and the transformation loses information.
It's deeper than that. You can think of a quantification with
{ro} as a long string of conjunctions:
ro broda = le broda e le broda e le broda e le broda e ...
where each {le broda} picks one member of {lo'i broda}.
See also
http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?DeMorgan%27s%20Laws
for more about this.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Rob Speer
> > From: John Cowan [mailto:jco...@reutershealth.com]
> > And Rosta scripsit:
> >
> > > (What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure
> > > John will enjoy telling me...)
> >
> > respectively. The Earth rotates on its axis daily, and revolves
> > around the sun yearly.
>
> Is this physics terminology, or universal? Should the Beatles' LP
> have been called 'Rotator'? Is it in fact impossible for meat to
> slowly revolve on a spit?
I don't even think the terminology is entirely consistent in physics.
When a wheel turns 360 degrees on its axis, it is said to have completed
one revolution, not one rotation.
--
mu'o mi'e rab.spir
Jordan DeLong
> What do you all think of this:
>
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
>
> 1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2
> in direction x3"?
This works fine I think; I don't think carna requires that the
axis of rotation intersect the le carna, so it should be fine.
> 2- The problem with {paroi ro mentu} is that the quantifiers
> are in the wrong order. The alternative {ro da poi mentu zo'u
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is too longwinded and requires
> forethought. Any ideas?
But it's not actually true that it does it paroi ro mentu. Certainly
the planet hasn't been there forever, eh? lo'e mentu isn't quite
right either probably (i'm no astronomer though). It seems like
this may be a good place to use "le'e", as it's really not neccesarily
a representative lo'e minute of all the minutes, but is instead
representative of a relevant subset of lo'i mentu (particularly the
subset for which the planet hasn't yet been engulfed in its sun's
supernova or however else planets cease to be, and after which it
has formed). So I suggest {paroi le'e mentu}. pe'ipei
(btw; on a tangent: what the hell does x3 and x4 of plini mean?
Has anyone ever used them in a sentence?)
--
la_skat
> (btw; on a tangent: what the hell does x3 and x4 of plini mean?
> Has anyone ever used them in a sentence?)
>
What do they *mean*? I would think x3 means the mass and the
diameter, and possibly whether the planet is "terrestrial"
or "jovian", how many (possibly zero) natural satellites it has,
etc. "Orbital parameters" (x4) means its period, semi-major axis,
eccentricity, the angle of inclination to the ecliptic, etc.
How you would *use* any of this in a sentence? I have no effin' clue.
mu'o mi'e skat
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
Here's another argument on why {paroi ro mentu} has to mean
"once per minute" and not "once in an interval that contains
every minute":
As a general rule, we want {broda <tag> ko'a e ko'e} to expand
to {broda <tag> ko'a ije broda <tag> ko'e}. I don't think we
want tags that explicitly contain quantifiers to break this
rule, so {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei e le reldei} means
"I went to the market once on Monday and I went to the market
once on Tuesday" (or was it Sunday and Monday?), it does not mean
that I went once on the sum of Monday and Tuesday. To get that
meaning we have to say {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei ku joi
le reldei}, "I went once in the Monday-Tuesday period".
If we accept that {e} must expand as usual even with quantified
tags, then the same must apply to quantified sumti, since the
quantifier {ro} corresponds closely to the connective {e} for
these purposes: {mi klama le zarci paroi ro le re djedi}, "I went
to the market once on each of the two days". To say that I went
once in the two-day period we can say {mi klama le zarci paroi lei
re djedi}, which corresponds to {le pavdei ku joi le reldei}, or
in this case we can also say {mi klama paroi le djedi be li re}.
Conclusion: the quantifier of a tagged sumti always has scope over
the quantifier within its tag, even though the latter appears first
in the expression. Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and
unwanted effects on logical connectives.
A different issue altogether is the interaction of quantified
tags with other than its own sumti. In this case we can have:
{mi klama paroiku la paris e la romas}. This expands to
{paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas}
"Exactly once, I went to Paris and I went to Rome."
I have no idea if from that we can further expand to {mi klama
paroiku la paris ije mi klama paroiku la romas}, "I went to Paris
exactly once and I went to Rome exactly once", I think we shouldn't.
Depending on how this goes, then tags will or will not have scope
over quantifiers of following sumti other than its own.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >For
> >example
> > baku mi klama la romas. .e la paris.
> >means
> > mi ba klama la romas. gi'e ba klama la paris.
> > mi ba klama la romas. .ije mi ba klama la paris.
>
> Does that say that my going to Paris happens after my going to
> Rome?
No. I believe that would be
mi ba klama la romas. .ijebabo mi klama la paris.
> >and not
> > mi ba klama la romas. gi'e klama la paris.
>
> But nobody suggested that {paroiku} would apply to the first
> connectand only. I would have said:
>
> baku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
This works in this case, but as we discussed it's not something you
can generally do unless you move every other tense (and in the paroi
case, move everything with a quantifier) into the prenex also to
preserve order. For example, if there were other tense-modals in
the selbri tag or floating at different locations, a transformation
such as this would order, just like the paroiku example.
> I don't think this establishes which of Paris or Rome is gone
> to first. If distributing {ba} makes no difference to the
> meaning, I don't see how this helps us to decide whether
> {paroiku} can be distributed or not. Consider one that clearly
> does make a difference:
>
> ta'eku mi klama la paris e la romas
>
> This is:
>
> ta'eku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas
> Typically, I go both to Paris and to Rome.
I agree with the first line (though, as I said above it doesn't work
in the general case without moving other shit into the prenex also)
but I think your translation to english is bad. I think the sentence
means the translation you give for the next sentence. To get the
sentence you said, I think you would need either
ta'eku mi klama la paris. jo'u la romas.
or
ta'eku mi klama la paris. joi la romas.
> Is this the same as:
>
> ta'eku mi klama la paris ije ta'eku mi klama la romas
> Typically I go to Paris, and typically I go to Rome.
>
> I don't think it is. Or use {ta'enai} for an even more clear case.
Why not? It seems like the correct interpretation to me. Where are
you getting the idea that it should be otherwise? I think the connectives
chapter is pretty clear on this, but i'll reread it now just in case.
mu'o
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
> > {paroi ro le re djedi} is a single term as much as
> > {paroi le pavdei e le reldei} is a single term. Whatever rule
> > applies to one (scopewise) should apply to the other.
>
>Of course...
>
> > The rule I think is the Right Thing is that {e}/{ro} have
> > scope over {pa} in that example.
>
>That is of course the whole discussion. My viewpoint is that the
>paroi scopes over the pavdei, which scopes over the reldei, etc.
You say of course, but you don't apply it. You are not taking
into account that {e} has a scope of its own as well. When you
split {paroi ko'a e ko'e} into {paroi ko'a ije paroi ko'e}, you're
saying that {e} has scope over {paroi}. If {paroi} had scope over
{e} you could not make the expansion. Expanding {e} is equivalent
to exporting {ro} to the prenex.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Pierre Abbat
> What do you all think of this:
>
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
>
> 1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2
> in direction x3"?
Sounds fine to me.
> 2- The problem with {paroi ro mentu} is that the quantifiers
> are in the wrong order. The alternative {ro da poi mentu zo'u
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is too longwinded and requires
> forethought. Any ideas?
{le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu} is correct. {ro da poi mentu zo'u
le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is also correct but sounds funny; if {le} were
replaced with {lo} in both sentences, the second would mean "For every
minute, there is a planet that completes a turn during it," whereas the first
would mean "There is a planet that completes a turn every minute."
phma
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
And Rosta
> What do you all think of this:
>
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
>
> 1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2
> in direction x3"?
>
> are in the wrong order. The alternative {ro da poi mentu zo'u
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is too longwinded and requires
> forethought. Any ideas?
Looking at it purely as a grammatical problem, I don't think
you can justifiably complain about {ro da poi mentu zo'u
le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} requiring forethought. That's
an almost inevitable consequence of an unambiguous logical language.
(I can imagine a logical language with scope going in the other
direction, but that would be more difficult.) As for longwindedness,
that's an inherent property of Lojban -- it was not designed to
be concise or to make longwindedness avoidable.
Looking at it as a semantic problem, what you want to say is
"The planet revolves, and for each month during which the planet
revolves, it revolves once", and not "During every month, the planet
revolves once".
{ca ro mentu poi le plini ca ke'a mulcarna cu pa roi go'i} is
about the best I can come up with today.
Maybe {ro da poi ke'a mentu zo'u le plini cu mulcarna go ca da
gi pa roi ku}? No.
{ca ro nu le plini cu mulcarna ku pa mentu -elapses}? That seems
more promising.
--And.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Pierre Abbat
> I meant a full rotation around its axis, yes.
> (How would we talk about a revolution around another body?)
le terdi cu klama mo'iru'u le solri paroi ro nanca
mu'omi'e pier.
And Rosta
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > (What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure
> > John will enjoy telling me...)
>
> Whether the axis passes or doesn't pass through the turning body,
> respectively. The Earth rotates on its axis daily, and revolves
> around the sun yearly.
Is this physics terminology, or universal? Should the Beatles' LP
have been called 'Rotator'? Is it in fact impossible for meat to
slowly revolve on a spit?
--And
jjllambias2000
la djorden cusku di'e
> ko'a .e ko'e may sometimes (or even most of the time) mean the same
> thing as ro le re co'e, but since it is not a specified part of the
> language it has no relevance to a discussion about how quantified
terms
> and tags containing quantifiers work in the language.
For me it is extremely relevant.
> So I agree this is probably a pointless argument, as I am apparently
> discussing lojban, whereas you are discussing lojban + local hacks.
You're picking up pc's bad habits... :)
I don't really mind how you label it, I think I'm discussing Lojban.
> > {pa le prenu cu klama la paris e la romas}?
> >
> > (1) pa le prenu cu klama la paris ije pa le prenu cu klama la
romas
> >
> > (2) ko'a goi pa le prenu zo'u ko'a klama la paris ije ko'a klama
la romas
>
> I agree in that it has the meaning of number 2. I don't agree that
> it has the side effect of defining ko'a. A better way of putting it
> is that it first expands to
> pa le prenu cu klama la paris gi'e klama la romas
Then the {paroiku} case first expands to:
paroiku mi klama la paris gi'e klama la romas
{paroiku} should behave just like {pa prenu}.
> I'm still not sure what that has to do with anything, though.
It shows that quantifiers of other terms can have scope over {e},
in exactly the same way that they can have scope over {ro}.
mu'omi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
> > See the section starting on pg. 407.
>
>I dunno where that is; I don't have a hardcopy (chapter+section is
>better). But you're right about the expansions since I misthunk
>the truth function.
Ch.16 section 12.
When using the hardcopy, page number is much better, because it is
difficult to find the chapters by number. The only place the number
appears is at the beginning of the chapter. It's unfortunate that
chapter numbers were not used in every page, or at least to label
the examples. We should take this into account for the coming books.
>So e has scope then, and it matters where you put the naku boundary
>with regard to it, etc.
Right. It matters where you put the naku boundary, quantifiers,
other connectives, and anything else that has scope.
>But I still don't see the relevance here
>to which convention is used for tag+sumti scoping. We still can
>interpret
> paroiku ko'a .e ko'e broda
>as
> ko'a paroi broda .ije ko'e paroi broda
>because floating tenses work differently than naku.
We can have special rules for every case if we like, but it is better
to have a uniform rule. Floating tenses work essentially like naku,
I don't see why you would say they work differently.
>And
> paroi ko'a .e ko'e broda
>as
> paroi ko'a broda .ije paroi ko'e broda
That's what I want, so we agree about this case. But for me this
is the exact same case as {paroi ro le re co'e cu broda}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >single term. You can't just bring parts of it forward, all of it
> >must go if you want to keep the same meaning. You could do
> > paroi roda voi djedi zo'u mi klama la paris.
>
> {paroi ro le re djedi} is a single term as much as
> {paroi le pavdei e le reldei} is a single term. Whatever rule
> applies to one (scopewise) should apply to the other.
Of course...
> The rule I think is the Right Thing is that {e}/{ro} have
> scope over {pa} in that example.
That is of course the whole discussion. My viewpoint is that the
paroi scopes over the pavdei, which scopes over the reldei, etc.
> >It's quite clear to me that either convention for tag+sumti scopes
> >can be delt with consistently, and the book doesn't say which is
> >right. The book does say thing go left-to-right for terms, but
> >since these are in the same term in the parse it's not a definite
> >answer. I think left-to-right makes most sense, however, because it
> >seems to be what would be expected when using a tag which has a
> >quantifier in it, since everything else is left-to-right.
>
> Notice however that it's not just tags with explicit PA that are
> involved. For example {ze'a ro mentu} with my interpretation says
> that the event happens in each medium-length minute interval. With
> the other interpretation it says that the event happens in the
> medium interval consisting of all minutes (surely not very medium-
> length).
Good point. I don't know what ze'a <sumti> means for sure, but
maybe this can settle the issue for us if we can find an example
in the book which chooses one or the other.
[...]
John Cowan
> (What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure
> John will enjoy telling me...)
Whether the axis passes or doesn't pass through the turning body,
respectively. The Earth rotates on its axis daily, and revolves
around the sun yearly.
--
Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring jco...@reutershealth.com
by moving the Unix. http://www.reutershealth.com
--ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
(see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jordan DeLong
[...]
> there's no debate on this because the book clearly says that each
> full term has scope over all the terms to the left of it, unless
> you override it with termsets.
Errr; of course I meant to say all the terms to the *right* of it :)
And Rosta
> jjlla...@hotmail.com writes:
> <<
[...]
> It is still very tempting to just say {paroi ro mentu}
> though. Could we say that the tagged sumti's quantifier has
> scope over the tag's quantifier?
> >>
> Not too easily, without mucking with the left to right scope marking.
> Is it the case that the tense attached to a selbri is, like {na} to
> be taken as at the far left of the prefix. Obviously yes, as it
> should be. So, how do we override that? Explicitly seems the only
> answer: {ze'a ro mentu paroiku zo'u ...} But how to do it on the
> fly? I remember asking to build in context leapers a long time
> agoand having that idea rejecteed out of hand. Maybe it is time to
> make the suggestion again -- on loCCan, fo course.
As I recall, the scope leaping idea wasn't rejected out of hand;
it just died because nobody succeeded in proposing a workable
solution. The problem with indicating scope by afterthought
means is that it is extremely hard to show where something has
to leap to. IMO, the grammatical and mental complexity of a
functional system of afterthought scope marking would outweigh
its benefits.
--And.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
And Rosta
> {le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu} is correct. {ro da poi mentu zo'u
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is also correct but sounds funny; if {le} were
> replaced with {lo} in both sentences, the second would mean "For every
> minute, there is a planet that completes a turn during it," whereas the first
> would mean "There is a planet that completes a turn every minute."
Why does that make {ro da poi mentu zo'u le plini cu mulcarna paroi da}
sound funny?
--And.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM