Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
mukti
Some languages do not mark a distinction between referents a speaker has in mind. Others only mark it in special situations. Spanish, for example, makes a distinction in noun phrases with relative clauses:
"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." (specific)
"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero." (non-specific)
Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmarked:
"Me voy a casar con una mujer." (may be specific or non-specific)
(Note: My Spanish is limited and I owe this example to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish".)
A similar distinction is made in English:
"I intend to buy a car." (may be specific or non-specific)
And then either: "It's cheap and has low mileage." (disambiguated as specific)
Or: "It should be cheap and have low mileage." (disambiguated as non-specific)
In both English and Spanish, it is the non-specific case that is marked.
The English definite article, "the", often discussed in relation with specificity, subordinates the consideration of whether the speaker has referents in mind to the question of whether the referents are identifiable in context.
"I want to rob a bank." (may be specific or non specific)
Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardless of the speaker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguate the reference: There may not be an obvious referent, or there may be more than one.
In lojban, a speaker has a choice between {lo}, which includes no claim as to whether or not the speaker has specific referents in mind, and {le} which does include such a claim. In the gadri reform of 2004, the definition of {lo} was broadened such that it became possible for a speaker to use it in nearly any case where one might use {le}, provided that the speaker does not insist on either:
- including a claim that they have referents in mind
- withholding a claim that the properties of description are predicated of the referents
In 2002, the ratio of {le} over {lo} in the corpus reached its zenith, but by 2005 -- within a year of BPFK's vote on the gadri proposal -- {lo} surpassed {le}. It has continued to gain in popularity: By 2012, {lo} received ten times as much usage as {le}.
Every now and then, there is a discussion of why {le} is not used more. Some have suggested that it is a matter or fashion, or that people have been unduly discouraged from using it.
It seems to me that reason that {le} is not often used is that the distinctions it bears have not, over the course of the last ten years, proven useful to speakers (and writers and translators) most of the time. If the distinction of speaker-oriented specificity were important, for example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a matter of conformism, I would expect to see more locutions like:
{mi djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a}
I'm interested in knowing what other people think about all of this. (But less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they're currently thinking about it.)
mi'e la mukti mu'o
Romaji ####
Pierre Abbat
<li'o>
> distinctions it bears have not, over the course of the last ten years,
> proven useful to speakers (and writers and translators) most of the time.
> If the distinction of speaker-oriented specificity were important, for
> example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a matter of conformism, I
> would expect to see more locutions like:
>
> {mi djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a}
>
> I'm interested in knowing what other people think about all of this. (But
> less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they're currently thinking
> about it.)
\v 3 .i cirko le fetxasli pe la .kic. noi patfu la .ca'ul .i ri cusku lu ko se
kansa lo selfu lo nu sisku le xasli li'u la .ca'ul.
The writer has specific donkeys in mind.
\v 5 .i tolcliva la .tsuf .i la .ca'ul. cusku lu .e'u mi'o xruti mi'o
.itezu'ebo naku lo patfu be mi cu tolmo'i fi le xasli gi'e xanka tu'a mi'o li'u
le selfu noi kansa .sy
Saul has his father specifically in mind, but he has only one father, so
there's no need to signal the fact. But Kish may have other jennies who
weren't lost. (Kish's lost donkeys, like the one Balaam rode, were female, for
which Hebrew uses a completely different word.)
\v 6 .i dafsku lu le cevni nanmu cu xabju lo vi tcadu .i ra goi ko'a mutce
misno .i ro lo se cusku be ko'a cu binxo lo jetnu je'usai .i .e'u mi'o vitke
ko'a .i.a'o ko'a cusku lo sedu'u mi'o klama fo makau .ei kei mi'o li'u
The servant knows who the man of God is, but Saul doesn't know who he is or
even that there is one nearby.
\v 15 ni'o ca lo prulamdei be lo nu la .ca'ul. tolcliva kei la .iaves.
tolmipri fi la .cmuel. lo nu ri tirna kei
\v 16 fe lu ba za lo djedi be li pa mi benji fo'a goi le nanmu pe lo la
.beniamin. tumla do li'o li'u
How can God *not* have a specific one in mind? :)
Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli ku po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko
Gleki Arxokuna
Some languages do not mark a distinction between referents a speaker has in mind. Others only mark it in special situations. Spanish, for example, makes a distinction in noun phrases with relative clauses:
"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." (specific)
"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero." (non-specific)
Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmarked:
"Me voy a casar con una mujer." (may be specific or non-specific)
(Note: My Spanish is limited and I owe this example to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish".)
A similar distinction is made in English:
"I intend to buy a car." (may be specific or non-specific)
And then either: "It's cheap and has low mileage." (disambiguated as specific)
Or: "It should be cheap and have low mileage." (disambiguated as non-specific)
It seems to me that you are talking about "any"/"some" distinction that mi'a were talking earlier. Here is its resume:
In both English and Spanish, it is the non-specific case that is marked.
The English definite article, "the", often discussed in relation with specificity, subordinates the consideration of whether the speaker has referents in mind to the question of whether the referents are identifiable in context.
"I want to rob a bank." (may be specific or non specific)
Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardless of the speaker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguate the reference: There may not be an obvious referent, or there may be more than one.
In lojban, a speaker has a choice between {lo}, which includes no claim as to whether or not the speaker has specific referents in mind, and {le} which does include such a claim. In the gadri reform of 2004, the definition of {lo} was broadened such that it became possible for a speaker to use it in nearly any case where one might use {le}, provided that the speaker does not insist on either:
- including a claim that they have referents in mind
- withholding a claim that the properties of description are predicated of the referents
In 2002, the ratio of {le} over {lo} in the corpus reached its zenith, but by 2005 -- within a year of BPFK's vote on the gadri proposal -- {lo} surpassed {le}. It has continued to gain in popularity: By 2012, {lo} received ten times as much usage as {le}.
Every now and then, there is a discussion of why {le} is not used more. Some have suggested that it is a matter or fashion, or that people have been unduly discouraged from using it.
It seems to me that reason that {le} is not often used is that the distinctions it bears have not, over the course of the last ten years, proven useful to speakers (and writers and translators) most of the time. If the distinction of speaker-oriented specificity were important, for example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a matter of conformism, I would expect to see more locutions like:
{mi djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a}
I'm interested in knowing what other people think about all of this. (But less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they're currently thinking about it.)
mi'e la mukti 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jorge Llambías
Some languages do not mark a distinction between referents a speaker has in mind. Others only mark it in special situations. Spanish, for example, makes a distinction in noun phrases with relative clauses:
"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero." (specific)
"Me voy a casar con una mujer que tenga mucho dinero." (non-specific)
Without a relative clause, however the distinction is unmarked:
"Me voy a casar con una mujer." (may be specific or non-specific)
(Note: My Spanish is limited and I owe this example to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish".)
A similar distinction is made in English:
"I intend to buy a car." (may be specific or non-specific)
And then either: "It's cheap and has low mileage." (disambiguated as specific)
Or: "It should be cheap and have low mileage." (disambiguated as non-specific)
In both English and Spanish, it is the non-specific case that is marked.
The English definite article, "the", often discussed in relation with specificity, subordinates the consideration of whether the speaker has referents in mind to the question of whether the referents are identifiable in context.
"I want to rob a bank." (may be specific or non specific)
Here the indefinite article ("a") indicates that, regardless of the speaker's state of mind, context is not sufficient to disambiguate the reference: There may not be an obvious referent, or there may be more than one.
It seems to me that reason that {le} is not often used is that the distinctions it bears have not, over the course of the last ten years, proven useful to speakers (and writers and translators) most of the time. If the distinction of speaker-oriented specificity were important, for example, and if the neglect of {le} were merely a matter of conformism, I would expect to see more locutions like:
{mi djica lo nu terve'u lo karce poi mi nau pensi tu'a ke'a}
I'm interested in knowing what other people think about all of this. (But less interested, perhaps, in whether or not they're currently thinking about it.)
Jorge Llambías
Here are some verses from 1 Samuel 9 (which la mukti has been reviewing):
\v 3 .i cirko le fetxasli pe la .kic. noi patfu la .ca'ul .i ri cusku lu ko se
kansa lo selfu lo nu sisku le xasli li'u la .ca'ul.
The writer has specific donkeys in mind.
\v 5 .i tolcliva la .tsuf .i la .ca'ul. cusku lu .e'u mi'o xruti mi'o
.itezu'ebo naku lo patfu be mi cu tolmo'i fi le xasli gi'e xanka tu'a mi'o li'u
le selfu noi kansa .sy
Saul has his father specifically in mind, but he has only one father, so
there's no need to signal the fact. But Kish may have other jennies who
weren't lost. (Kish's lost donkeys, like the one Balaam rode, were female, for
which Hebrew uses a completely different word.)
\v 6 .i dafsku lu le cevni nanmu cu xabju lo vi tcadu .i ra goi ko'a mutce
misno .i ro lo se cusku be ko'a cu binxo lo jetnu je'usai .i .e'u mi'o vitke
ko'a .i.a'o ko'a cusku lo sedu'u mi'o klama fo makau .ei kei mi'o li'u
The servant knows who the man of God is, but Saul doesn't know who he is or
even that there is one nearby.
\v 15 ni'o ca lo prulamdei be lo nu la .ca'ul. tolcliva kei la .iaves.
tolmipri fi la .cmuel. lo nu ri tirna kei
\v 16 fe lu ba za lo djedi be li pa mi benji fo'a goi le nanmu pe lo la
.beniamin. tumla do li'o li'u
How can God *not* have a specific one in mind? :)
Jorge Llambías
i mi zu'edji lo ka te vecnu pa karce noi da'inai tolkargu (there is car such that i intend to buy it and btw it is cheap)
And Rosta
On 27 Sep 2014 15:48, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main reason I stopped using "le" is that I never knew when it was supposed to be used. I would spend an inordinately long time trying to decide each time I had to use a gadri which one to use, I was never completely satisfied that I had made the right choice, and in the end it didn't seem to make much difference anyway. So I abandoned "le" at least until I have a clear idea of how it's supposed to work.
I understand {le broda} to be short for {lo co'e voi ke'a broda}, which is probably equivalent to unbound {ko'a voi ke'a broda}, tho that depends on whether unbound {ko'a} is interpreted as definite (like third person pronouns). Do you disagree? If not, don't the {co'e} and, contingently, the {voi} give a meaning usefully and intelligibly distinct from {lo broda}?
--And.
Jorge Llambías
I understand {le broda} to be short for {lo co'e voi ke'a broda}, which is probably equivalent to unbound {ko'a voi ke'a broda}, tho that depends on whether unbound {ko'a} is interpreted as definite (like third person pronouns). Do you disagree? If not, don't the {co'e} and, contingently, the {voi} give a meaning usefully and intelligibly distinct from {lo broda}?
And Rosta
On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I understand {le broda} to be short for {lo co'e voi ke'a broda}, which is probably equivalent to unbound {ko'a voi ke'a broda}, tho that depends on whether unbound {ko'a} is interpreted as definite (like third person pronouns). Do you disagree? If not, don't the {co'e} and, contingently, the {voi} give a meaning usefully and intelligibly distinct from {lo broda}?
>
> Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?
The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
> There is some dispute about what it means for a restrictive clause to attach to a sumti without an accompanying quantifier. Some say that "ti poi toldi" means something like "those among these that are butterflies",
That's how I'd interpret it.
whereas others say it means something like "these, which I'm helping you to identify by telling you that they are butterflies".
That looks like {ti noi toldi}.
I'm not sure if in "ko'a voi broda" you intend "ko'a" to have more referents than "le broda", from which the restrictive voi clause will select some, or whether it is meant to have the same referents of "le broda" with the restrictive voi clause being there to help identify what they are.
I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory function of the relative clause.
In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause (voi'i).
--And.
mukti
I thank you sincerely for demolishing my examples. A few follow-ups.
"me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero"
Given a situation where the speaker is identifying more than one woman, I could accept "mujer que tiene mucho dinero" -- less "una" -- to be a collective reference, and as specific as we might consider such a reference to be. I'm thinking how I might represent that in lojban with "una" in the outer quantifier:
{pa le ricfu ninmu}
But then I wonder: What would it look like without a given number?
"me voy a casar con las mujeres que tiene mucho dinero"
Setting aside the issue of whether these marriages are intended concurrently or consecutively, how distinct must the enumeration of brides be in order for the sentence to be correct? Does that question make any sense? I don't actually expect a natural language to have a clear policy. But I think it's fair to ask where lojban comes down on such things. To the point, what would the standard of specific reference be for this statement?
{mi ba speni le ricfu ninmu}
Is the answer different if we add an inner quantifier that describes a large and/or vague quantity?
{mi ba speni le so'i ricfu ninmu}
How does one refer specifically to an imprecise number of individuals? Does this touch upon the "levels of specificity" you suggested? Can {le} as presently defined ("refers specifically to an individual or individuals that the speaker has in mind") tolerate continuous, or even graded, levels of specificity? Is there any supposed limit to the number of individuals that can be held in mind at once? And can {le} only be used with countables?
Jorge Llambías
On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory function of the relative clause.
In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause (voi'i).
Jorge Llambías
I thank you sincerely for demolishing my examples. A few follow-ups.
"me voy a casar con una mujer que tiene mucho dinero"
Given a situation where the speaker is identifying more than one woman, I could accept "mujer que tiene mucho dinero" -- less "una" -- to be a collective reference, and as specific as we might consider such a reference to be. I'm thinking how I might represent that in lojban with "una" in the outer quantifier:
{pa le ricfu ninmu}
But then I wonder: What would it look like without a given number?
"me voy a casar con las mujeres que tiene mucho dinero"
Setting aside the issue of whether these marriages are intended concurrently or consecutively, how distinct must the enumeration of brides be in order for the sentence to be correct? Does that question make any sense?
I don't actually expect a natural language to have a clear policy. But I think it's fair to ask where lojban comes down on such things. To the point, what would the standard of specific reference be for this statement?
{mi ba speni le ricfu ninmu}
Is the answer different if we add an inner quantifier that describes a large and/or vague quantity?
{mi ba speni le so'i ricfu ninmu}
How does one refer specifically to an imprecise number of individuals?
Does this touch upon the "levels of specificity" you suggested? Can {le} as presently defined ("refers specifically to an individual or individuals that the speaker has in mind") tolerate continuous, or even graded, levels of specificity? Is there any supposed limit to the number of individuals that can be held in mind at once? And can {le} only be used with countables?
selpa'i
> <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e
> voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't
> found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I
> may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems
> utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
>
> I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will
> soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all
> those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.
You might recognize it as being basically {poi'i}, but shorter and
without experimental shape. So far it seems there are already a few
people who like new-{voi} and are already using it, possibly a bit
timidly. I think a lot of potential changes have been prevented through
peer-pressure in the past; people are being attacked and/or treated like
outcasts when they do something different. I'm sure that if that weren't
so, there would have been even more proposals and actual changes in
usage (because less fear allows for more creativity).
As for old-{voi}, I agree it's utterly useless.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
Gleki Arxokuna
--
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.
TR NS
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com
> <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e
> voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't
> found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I
> may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems
> utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
>
> I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will
> soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all
> those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.
I might as well link to http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=new_voi
Gleki Arxokuna
--
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.
And Rosta
On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?
>>
>> The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
>
> Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents.
I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?
> Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2".
"x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss.
>> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
>
> I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.
I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?
>> The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory function of the relative clause.
>>
>> In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause (voi'i).
>
> I think I would rather have a predicate that meant "certain" instead of a gadri for specificity. Or at least we could define "le" in terms of that predicate.
{le} might or might not be a worthwhile abbreviation for {lo co'e voi'i}, but that's what it does seem to be an abbreviation of, so is not mysterious as to its meaning. I don't know about lei or le'i or le'e -- all those lV(')V gadri should, as Nick Nicholas would say, die in the arse.
--And.
Gleki Arxokuna
On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?
>>
>> The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
>
> Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents.I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?
> Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2".
"x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss.
>> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
>
> I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?
Other than that I m against repurposing any cmavo since this is not a conlang project but a live language.
>> The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory function of the relative clause.
>>
>> In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause (voi'i).
>
> I think I would rather have a predicate that meant "certain" instead of a gadri for specificity. Or at least we could define "le" in terms of that predicate.{le} might or might not be a worthwhile abbreviation for {lo co'e voi'i}, but that's what it does seem to be an abbreviation of, so is not mysterious as to its meaning.
But this {lo co'e voi'i} seems strange. if voi'i is the non-veridical NOI, then what is veridical? At what point bear goo stops being a bear?
I don't know about lei or le'i or le'e -- all those lV(')V gadri should, as Nick Nicholas would say, die in the arse.
--And.
--
And Rosta
Assigning /voi/ to {poi'i} -- excellent stuff! I'm delighted to hear it's being used already. Rereading today some discussion from 12+ years ago, I see {se ka} was also proposed, subject to instigation of a convention for coercing added sumti places by addition of SE or FA.
Is there a list of cmavo recycling proposals? I saw somewhere a proposal to recycle /du/, which I was initially a little consternated by, since {le du} had seemed very useful to me (as meaning unbound "he, she, it, they"), but I guess that could be got by {lo co'e}, with {co'e} meriting a monosyllabic form.
--And.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
And Rosta
On 28 Sep 2014 17:00, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-09-28 19:33 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and....@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2014 01:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?
>> >>
>> >> The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
>> >
>> > Even if "co'e" is some specific predicate that the speaker has in mind, I don't think "lo co'e" has to have specific referents, since any predicate could have non specific referents.
>>
>> I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?
>>
>> > Maybe "co'e" is meant to stand for the predicate "x1 is/are certain x2".
>>
>> "x1 is a certain thing" would do as a gloss.
>>
>> >> I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
>> >
>> > I don't think it has seen much use at all. I'm sure the irci boys will soon find a better use for it since they seem to be re-purposing all those wasted one syllable cmavo like "tau", "lau" and such.
>>
>> I would go for du'u, ke'a, ce'u, zo'u, zo'e, co'e, poi'i (which I'm amazed to see lives), su'o(i), mu'ei to be monosyllabic. Do the irci boys have a list of ideas?
>
> I disagree on using mu'ei. Has anyone expaliend what {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} means when the two PA are different?
The sumti complement of mu'ei should be {lo du'u}, so {PAmu'ei PAnu broda} is gobbledygook, regardless of whether the PA are different. It is regrettable that there is no single cmavo that converts a bridi into a sumti; that's what's needed here.
{mu'ei} isn't perfect, because it lacks a way to extend it to different modalities (epistemic, deontic, etc.). (Another problem is that it suffers from Lojban's lack of a decent way to do donkey sentences, e.g. "mostly, every farmer who owns a donkey beats it".)
> I prefer the new system that can easily turn from possible worlds to real world: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ELG._Subjunctives,_imaginary_situations
I haven't seen that page before, but I think it's largely garbage, I'm afraid. Does that page have support among logicolinguistically savvy lojbanists? If so, then maybe I'll try to find the time to denounce it.
--And.
TR NS
any better?
selpa'i
> it's being used already. Rereading today some discussion from 12+ years
> ago, I see {se ka} was also proposed, subject to instigation of a
> convention for coercing added sumti places by addition of SE or FA.
>
> Is there a list of cmavo recycling proposals?
been considered (and I mean considered, not settled by any means):
ce'u -> ce
ke'a -> ki
tu'a -> tau
jo'u -> jau
du'u -> du
su'o -> sa / su
poi'i -> voi
And there is this proposal to replace good ol' never-used {soi}:
http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=new_soi
This proposal is quite popular actually (among those who know about it).
(I also have a secret proposal to assign the currently un-assigned cmavo
{ja'u} to {na ka'e na} (also known as {bi'ai}).
> I saw somewhere a proposal
> to recycle /du/, which I was initially a little consternated by, since
> {le du} had seemed very useful to me (as meaning unbound "he, she, it,
> they"), but I guess that could be got by {lo co'e}, with {co'e} meriting
> a monosyllabic form.
and pro-bridi in general.
Jacob Errington
Assigning /voi/ to {poi'i} -- excellent stuff! I'm delighted to hear it's being used already. Rereading today some discussion from 12+ years ago, I see {se ka} was also proposed, subject to instigation of a convention for coercing added sumti places by addition of SE or FA.
Is there a list of cmavo recycling proposals? I saw somewhere a proposal to recycle /du/, which I was initially a little consternated by, since {le du} had seemed very useful to me (as meaning unbound "he, she, it, they"), but I guess that could be got by {lo co'e}, with {co'e} meriting a monosyllabic form.
And Rosta
Thanks for the info, selpa'i & Jacob. It's great to see people so engaged with the usability and logical basis of the language. New soi seems a very good idea.
Is there a body of opinion that thinks that designwise ce'u should be retained, or is it rather the case that the prevailing opinion is that any reforms should focus on the important changes rather on those (such as scrapping ce'u) that could justly be called tinkering?
--And.
Jorge Llambías
I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?
Pierre Abbat
> As for old-{voi}, I agree it's utterly useless.
rangutano cu me lo remsmismani voi se kerfa lo xunre bunre} allows an ape to
still be an orangutan even if it's albino.
Pierre
--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.
And Rosta
On 29 Sep 2014 01:33, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:33 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what having "nonspecific referents" is. If a specific referent is one underdetermined by the description, is a nonspecific one one that is fully determined by the description, e.g. a generic?
>
> Nice. Is "underdetermined by the description" a common definition or test for specificity?
It's the definition I would offer, but I arrive at it from my own lucubration rather than from the literature, which I'm simply unfamiliar with. Ironically (what with the long-standing involvement with Lojban) I don't know much about logical semantics; syntax and phonology are more my thing.
> I'm not sure it excludes generics though. In:
>
> "Certain things are better left unsaid."
>
> would you agree that "certain things" is +specific and +generic?
I think it depends on your definition of genericity. Certainly your example can be paraphrased as "certain kinds of thing", which would make a good criterion for genericity. But anyway, I'd meant not to say that specificity is incompatible with genericity but rather only that generics provide good examples of referents fully determined by the description, as in "Tuesday is the day after Monday".
--And.
And Rosta
On 29 Sep 2014 01:40, "Pierre Abbat" <ph...@bezitopo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:03:18 selpa'i wrote:
> > As for old-{voi}, I agree it's utterly useless.
>
> I don't think so. It has its place, though I don't see much use for it. {lo
> rangutano cu me lo remsmismani voi se kerfa lo xunre bunre} allows an ape to
> still be an orangutan even if it's albino.
On further consideration, I agree it's not useless. But
(1) For every relative, noi, poi, ne, pe, no'u, po'u (that list from memory -- hope it's right) a nonveridical counterpart would be at least as useful as voi--poi is.
(2) It's nonveridical noi that would figure in a logical expansion of le and English definite descriptions, so is a candidate for usefulest.
Selpa'i has suggested a UI for (non)veridicality. The snag with that is that you'd not want the unmarked default to be "unspecified veridicality", and usually you'd want the unmarked default to be Veridical, but sometimes, specifically when the phrase has an identificatory function, you want the unmarked default to be Nonveridical. So this leads me to think that maybe better than a UI would be a nonveridical poi'i, or maybe a nonveridical poi'i that includes co'e in its meaning. You could even use /voi/ for that, tho not at the cost of depriving poi'i of a shorter allomorph.
I'm kind of brainstorming here, not presenting a decidedly optimal change.
--And.
Jorge Llambías
On further consideration, I agree it's not useless. But
(1) For every relative, noi, poi, ne, pe, no'u, po'u (that list from memory -- hope it's right) a nonveridical counterpart would be at least as useful as voi--poi is.
selpa'i
> >
> > On Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:03:18 selpa'i wrote:
> > > As for old-{voi}, I agree it's utterly useless.
> >
> > I don't think so. It has its place, though I don't see much use for
> it. {lo
> > rangutano cu me lo remsmismani voi se kerfa lo xunre bunre} allows an
> ape to
> > still be an orangutan even if it's albino.
>
> On further consideration, I agree it's not useless. But
practice, however, I have never needed {voi}, and nobody else uses it
more than once per year. Not being a primitive, in the rare cases that
it is needed one can always use a full form involving a predicate. (see
below)
> (1) For every relative, noi, poi, ne, pe, no'u, po'u (that list from
> memory -- hope it's right) a nonveridical counterpart would be at least
> as useful as voi--poi is.
(from which you can define a UI or tag if necessary), so that you don't
have to make non-veridical versions of everything.
If there is a predicate (currently {skicu} seems to come closest) then
neither {voi}, nor any of the hypothetical non-veridical counterparts of
the GOI you mentioned is necessary.
> (2) It's nonveridical noi that would figure in a logical expansion of le
> and English definite descriptions, so is a candidate for usefulest.
overstated. Human speech tends to be metaphorical in general, so I don't
think something like that should be a feature of a gadri, because that
would limit it to sumti. A predicate, UI or tag on the other hand can be
used anywhere.
For the definite description nature of {le}, which is its main purpose,
non-veridicality is irrelevant, and it would more likely to be defined
in terms of quantifiers in a formal logic.
> Selpa'i has suggested a UI for (non)veridicality. The snag with that is
> that you'd not want the unmarked default to be "unspecified
> veridicality", and usually you'd want the unmarked default to be
> Veridical, but sometimes, specifically when the phrase has an
> identificatory function, you want the unmarked default to be
> Nonveridical. So this leads me to think that maybe better than a UI
> would be a nonveridical poi'i, or maybe a nonveridical poi'i that
> includes co'e in its meaning. You could even use /voi/ for that, tho not
> at the cost of depriving poi'i of a shorter allomorph.
>
> I'm kind of brainstorming here, not presenting a decidedly optimal change.
is all that is needed to capture non-veridicality.
Instead of {lo broda voi brode} you can always say {lo broda noi/poi mi
skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode} and {noi simlu lo ka brode}. As this is
something that is relatively rarely needed, it doesn't matter that it
doesn't have a shortcut cmavo. But that's just my opinion.
Ilmen
As for its meaning:
• fo'a poi'i (ke'a) broda (kei) = « fo'a is such that [ it/him/he/they brodas ] » = fo'a broda
So it's a kind of syntactic sugar, it helps having more word order freedom. The ke'a within the bridi enclosed by poi'i-kei binds to (stands for) the x1 of the selbri created by poi'i-kei. {poi'i} parallels the English construction "X is such that ... it ..."
Here are a few examples coming from the new-voi page:
• « la .pam. cu melbi gi'e poi'i so'i da nelci (ke'a) (kei) » = « la .pam. cu melbi gi'e se nelci so'i da »
> "Pam is beautiful and is such that many like her." = "Pam is beautiful and is liked by many."
( here, {poi'i so'i da nelci ke'a (kei)}, underlined in the example, is a predicate which means "x1 is such that many things like x1". )
• « la. pit. cu stati gi'e poi'i so'i da manci lo nu ke'a dansu » = « la. pit. cu stati .ije so'i da manci lo nu la .pit. cu dansu »
> "Pete is talented and (is such that) many are amazed by his dancing"
• « mi kecti lo poi'i ke'a jinvi lo du'u ke'a to'e melbi »
> "I feel sorry for the-thing(s)-which is/are-such-that it/they think that it/they are the-opposite-of-beautiful."
> "I feel sorry for those who think that they aren't beautiful."
.a'o mi sidju
mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o
And Rosta
> For the definite description nature of {le}, which is its main
> purpose, non-veridicality is irrelevant, and it would more likely to
> be defined in terms of quantifiers in a formal logic.
> Instead of {lo broda voi brode} you can always say {lo broda noi/poi
> mi skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode} and {noi simlu lo ka brode}.
> As this is something that is relatively rarely needed, it doesn't
> matter that it doesn't have a shortcut cmavo.
Without it, you lose a bit of needed functionality, but you don't wreck the (putative) logical foundations of the language.
--And.
selpa'i
> selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
>> la .and. cu cusku di'e
>> I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is
>> overstated.
>
> Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-level
> understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.
someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also
how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague
explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the different
gadri.
>> For the definite description nature of {le}, which is its main
>> purpose, non-veridicality is irrelevant, and it would more likely to
>> be defined in terms of quantifiers in a formal logic.
>
> On the contrary, the description, with its identificatory function, is
> nonveridical; to put it another way, it has independent illocutionary
> force of an identification, not an assertion; it is not part of the
> propositional content of the main sentential illocution.
definite descriptions, as I see it. The logical structure of "The cats
are still in my garden" can be examined without bothering with
non-veridicality. Does {le} need to be different?
When I say it can be defined in terms of quantifiers, I mean that any
expression involving {le} or {lo} has an equivalent form that uses {da}.
In the simplest form, we know that {lo broda cu brode} entails {su'oi da
broda gi'e brode} (but not {su'o da broda gi'e brode}).
These kinds of relationships can be taken much further, so that we not
only arrive at -> but also at <->.
For example, one possible way to define {lo} or {le} is:
lo broda cu brode
su'oi da poi ge broda gi ro'oi de poi brode zo'u de me da zo'u da brode
[Exx : broda(xx) /\ [Ayy : brode(yy)] me(yy,xx)] brode(xx)
(where double letters denote plural variables)
That's what I did in Toaq Dzu.
One could now argue about whether this is more appropriate as a
definition of {le} rather than {lo}, but the point is that this is the
kind of thing I would understand to be an actual definition.
Questions of veridicality are at another level, and in my opinion they
are not specific to {le}. We know that the possible referents of {lo}
vary wildly between domains, and in practice it doesn't matter if {lo
broda} is used to refer to something that actually doesn't broda but
which everyone thinks does broda, because the logical form is unaffected
by this, it's only the domain that's different.
>> Instead of {lo broda voi brode} you can always say {lo broda noi/poi
>> mi skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode} and {noi simlu lo ka brode}.
>
> Almost. But you need to sort out the illocutionarity. Is there a UI for
> 'hereby'? What'd be good would be a ko-like version of mi, meaning "I
> hereby", such that the bridi it is a sumti of expresses an independent
> illocution: {lo broda noi/poi mi HEREBY skicu ke'a fo lo ka brode}
bad, but CLL agrees with the perfomative interpretation.
>> As this is something that is relatively rarely needed, it doesn't
>> matter that it doesn't have a shortcut cmavo.
>
> It comes prebaked into le- gadri,
> but for any other identificatory
> phrase it's needed. E.g. for something like "the day of the week that we
> got married on", referring to Tuesday (without claiming we got married
> on Tuesday), "lo day-of-the-week identificatory-poi we got married on
> ke'a" -- much as Pierre's orangutan example.
the weekday on which we got married
What problems do you see with this?
> Without it, you lose a bit of needed functionality, but you don't wreck
> the (putative) logical foundations of the language.
defining characteristic of {le} and by acknowledging it as a general
part of human speech.
People already have trouble defining {le}; it probably doesn't help that
it does two things at once.
TR NS
On Monday, September 29, 2014 11:32:58 AM UTC-4, Ilmen wrote:
{poi'i} is a NU abstractor, therefore a poi'i phrase has the form {poi'i [bridi] (kei)}, and behaves as a selbri. Thus it has a syntax different from that of {poi}.
As for its meaning:
• fo'a poi'i (ke'a) broda (kei) = « fo'a is such that [ it/him/he/they brodas ] » = fo'a broda
So it's a kind of syntactic sugar, it helps having more word order freedom. The ke'a within the bridi enclosed by poi'i-kei binds to (stands for) the x1 of the selbri created by poi'i-kei. {poi'i} parallels the English construction "X is such that ... it ..."
Here are a few examples coming from the new-voi page:
• « la .pam. cu melbi gi'e poi'i so'i da nelci (ke'a) (kei) » = « la .pam. cu melbi gi'e se nelci so'i da »
> "Pam is beautiful and is such that many like her." = "Pam is beautiful and is liked by many."
( here, {poi'i so'i da nelci ke'a (kei)}, underlined in the example, is a predicate which means "x1 is such that many things like x1". )
• « la. pit. cu stati gi'e poi'i so'i da manci lo nu ke'a dansu » = « la. pit. cu stati .ije so'i da manci lo nu la .pit. cu dansu »
> "Pete is talented and (is such that) many are amazed by his dancing"
• « mi kecti lo poi'i ke'a jinvi lo du'u ke'a to'e melbi »
> "I feel sorry for the-thing(s)-which is/are-such-that it/they think that it/they are the-opposite-of-beautiful."
> "I feel sorry for those who think that they aren't beautiful."
Ian Johnson
Thank you, Ilmen! Blessings and many Karma points for your troubles.So basically it is a way to define a new selbri on the fly. Is that about the short of it?
TR NS
On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:18:43 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:
la .and. cu cusku di'e
> selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
>> la .and. cu cusku di'e
>> I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is
>> overstated.
>
> Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-level
> understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.
It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see
someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also
how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague
explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the different
gadri.
TR NS
On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, TR NS wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:18:43 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:la .and. cu cusku di'e
> selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
>> la .and. cu cusku di'e
>> I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is
>> overstated.
>
> Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-level
> understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.
It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see
someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and also
how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does. Vague
explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the different
gadri.
"The logical theory of descriptions, following Russell (1905), gives a slightly different account of these matters, namely that the description '(i)Fx' purports to name (i.e., designate) the one and only object of which 'F' is true, 'F' being some predicate expression which allows this interpretation, e.g., 'is an author of Waverly' (see, for example, Quine 1961a:222). On this interpretation 'the author of Waverly' (Russell's classic example) is taken to contain the covert claim 'There is an x such that x is an author of Waverly and, for any y, if y is an author of Waverly, then y is identical to x.' But the uniqueness claim is patently false for the majority of expressions commencing with 'the' in everyday speech, e.g., 'the man', 'the red thing', etc. What is common to all such expressions is the intention of the speaker to single out however crudely (e.g. 'the whachamacallit') the unique object, or set of objects, about which da has something to say. That such expressions use predicates is apparently misleading, for they do not use them predicatively; any more than names used vocatively actually name. On the view taken in this book, no claim whatever is made by a description. What is signified by the use of one is (among other things) the speaker's readiness to help the listener locate the unique object about which da has something to say. We may say that this implies that da believes that such objects exist, but this is a different matter. No one may be accused of claiming everything that da's words imply. There is more on this in Loglan 2, Chapter 8 (Brown 1969b, reprinted in TL2:31-41)."
selpa'i
> have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from this is
> that the definition of le is essentially:
>
> ∃X: P(X) and if ∃Y: P(Y) then Y=X, with the proviso C(X) & C(Y).
>
> P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context of
> conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the the
> missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs.
for plurals (though you did use capital letters for your variables). To
make it work for plurals, you need to use plural variables and replace
the identity relation with the among relation in your formula.
In any case, if that is what {le} means, then how does it differ from
{lo}, for which the same definition would also make sense?
TR NS
On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:55:34 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:
la .trans. cu cusku di'e
> I would very much like to read Loglan 2 Chapter 8 to learn more, but I
> have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from this is
> that the definition of le is essentially:
>
> ∃X: P(X) and if ∃Y: P(Y) then Y=X, with the proviso C(X) & C(Y).
>
> P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context of
> conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the the
> missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs.
This is more or less what I suggested, but your formula does not account
for plurals (though you did use capital letters for your variables). To
make it work for plurals, you need to use plural variables and replace
the identity relation with the among relation in your formula.
In any case, if that is what {le} means, then how does it differ from
{lo}, for which the same definition would also make sense?
And Rosta
>> selpa'i, On 29/09/2014 13:27:
>>> la .and. cu cusku di'e
>>> I think the whole notion of veridicality and non-veridicality is
>>> overstated.
>>
>> Yes, it is overstated in CLL, early teaching materials, and Lojbab-level
>> understanding of gadri, but it is nevertheless not insignificant.
>
> It probably depends on what one takes {le} to mean. I have yet to see
> someone formulate a theory of its semantics in logical terms, and
> also how it might differ from {lo}, which I'm not convinced it does.
> Vague explanations are no longer enough to define the meaning of the
> different gadri.
>>> For the definite description nature of {le}, which is its main
>>> purpose, non-veridicality is irrelevant, and it would more likely to
>>> be defined in terms of quantifiers in a formal logic.
>>
>> On the contrary, the description, with its identificatory function, is
>> nonveridical; to put it another way, it has independent illocutionary
>> force of an identification, not an assertion; it is not part of the
>> propositional content of the main sentential illocution.
>
> Sure, but why does that matter so much? This isn't a necessary part
> of definite descriptions, as I see it. The logical structure of "The
> cats are still in my garden" can be examined without bothering with
> non-veridicality. Does {le} need to be different?
The logical structure of "the cats are still in my garden" must include identificatory illocutionary operators, which is bothering with nonveridicality.
[...]
> definition of {le} rather than {lo}, but the point is that this is
> the kind of thing I would understand to be an actual definition.
> Questions of veridicality are at another level, and in my opinion
> they are not specific to {le}. We know that the possible referents of
> {lo} vary wildly between domains, and in practice it doesn't matter
> if {lo broda} is used to refer to something that actually doesn't
> broda but which everyone thinks does broda, because the logical form
> is unaffected by this, it's only the domain that's different.
>> It comes prebaked into le- gadri,
>
> Out of necessity or simply for historical reasons?
>> but for any other identificatory
>> phrase it's needed. E.g. for something like "the day of the week that we
>> got married on", referring to Tuesday (without claiming we got married
>> on Tuesday), "lo day-of-the-week identificatory-poi we got married on
>> ke'a" -- much as Pierre's orangutan example.
>
> lo jeftydei poi ca ke'a mi'o spesimbi'o
> the weekday on which we got married
>
> What problems do you see with this?
>> Without it, you lose a bit of needed functionality, but you don't wreck
>> the (putative) logical foundations of the language.
>
> I do not see what would be lost by ignoring non-veridicality as a
> defining characteristic of {le} and by acknowledging it as a general
> part of human speech.
--And.
And Rosta
> veridicality.
--And.
selpa'i
> definite descriptions comprise a referent and an illocutionarily
> identificatory description of it. IOW, {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda} is
> simply an explication in Lojban of what a definite description is. Now,
> it's also the case that we have often taken le- to mean 'certain', and
> for that, {lo co'e noi ke'a broda} seems the appropriate Lojban
> explication. My reason for taking current le to be the voi'i version is
> that all the official documents insist it is nonveridical.
>
> The logical structure of "the cats are still in my garden" must include
> identificatory illocutionary operators, which is bothering with
> nonveridicality.
> [...]
>> the weekday on which we got married
>>
>> What problems do you see with this?
>
> Illocutionarily different from the original; it makes {ca ke'a mi'o
> spesimbi'o} part of what is asserted (or part of the propositional
> content of whatever the sentential illocution is).
hinting at when I said it depends on what one takes {le} to mean. You
can think of it the way you did, or in terms of quantifiers. I was doing
the latter, but I understand that you, and I think PC, think it has to
be the former.
That position treats {le} like {la}. It is nothing more than a name, a
label, and that's why the relative clause needs to have a different
illocution, because it is used to define the label in the current
context (and that's why it doesn't have to satisfy the predicate it is
"named" after).
So we were simply talking about different things.
As I'm not a {le}-user myself, I don't think I'm going to try to put my
definition on it. Let the {le}-users define what it means.
selpa'i
> definition on it. Let the {le}-users define what it means.
showed is available to define {lo}. Then there would at least be a much
clearer difference between the two gadri. And maybe it would make PC
happy, too: {le} is a name, and {lo} takes the maximal bunch of brodas :)
TR NS
John E. Clifford
Sent from my iPad
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
John E. Clifford
Sent from my iPad
John E. Clifford
Sent from my iPad
TR NS
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42:47 AM UTC-4, clifford wrote:
Say what? That is exactly what {lo} does.
Jorge Llambías
Although, if {le} is defined as a name, then the other definition I showed is available to define {lo}. Then there would at least be a much clearer difference between the two gadri.
TR NS
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:00:45 AM UTC-4, xorxes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:35 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
Although, if {le} is defined as a name, then the other definition I showed is available to define {lo}. Then there would at least be a much clearer difference between the two gadri.The reason a Russell type quantifier is not quite right for "lo" is that we don't want "naku lo broda cu brode" to be true just because there are no brodas. The Frege/Strawson analysis is more in line with "lo", I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description
That's the reason for "noi" in the definition, we don't want the description to share the illocutionary force of the claim, it has to be a presupposition or something like that.
John E. Clifford
Sent from my iPad
Dustin Lacewell
A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is the.
An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing.
Some people will argue that this distinction isn't useful or claim to have a complete inability to fathom such contexts where the distinction between definite and indefinite descriptions is actually useful for communication. I find it -childishly trivial- to come up with examples where the distinction between the indefinite and definite descriptions of some 'kind' or platonic class is important for encouraging comprehension between two interlocutors.
I have argued that {lo} and {le} have the same exact lojbanic expansion, {le} doesn't affect quantification after all, it just makes this metadiscourse signal to the listener. But if I had to come up with something, if {lo broda} is expanded to {zo'e noi ke'a broda} then, in my world, {le broda} is defined as {zo'e noi ke'a broda jecu se dubyfa'i do'o} or something like that. Its probably wrong, but it just shows that the identity of the thing for which the description is given must be concretely identifiable.
TR NS
TR NS
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:52:19 PM UTC-4, TR NS wrote:
rather I expect there to be another word that means "all together", for argument sake say "ro" means that, so "ro lo" would be what I'd use.
la durka
The platonic form may or may not be captured by lo'e/le'e (seems reasonable to me, though ba'anai it's a contentious point).
The cmavo you were looking for is {lu'o}.
mu'o mi'e la durka
Dustin Lacewell
Alexander Kozhevnikov
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Dustin Lacewell wrote:
> I'm putting this here because I was asked to do so (probably for
> completeness in discourse)
> water-cooler and some women walking past hear them making sexist remarks.
> One women isn't going to confuse the other by saying something like "Those
> dogs are disgusting". Does the listener really require such a
> front-and-center indication of non-veridicality? As far as I'm concerned
> the answer is blaring "no".
communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture's
metaphors, whether that be primitive AI, hypothetical aliens, or just
people from a culture a few countries away where "dogs" is not a metaphor
for intellectually-primitive-human-males.
I think overall, having an efficient way to say what you really mean is a
good thing, and in this case, that means having an ability to specify in
a concise manner that something is or isn't metaphorical.
Having that means the more literal-minded, or those who struggle with
metaphorical speech, such as many autistic individuals for example, can be
readily cued in to what you are implying. It means children (and more
generally though less commonly mentally mature people as well) will be
less likely to pick up mis-conceptions when delving into a new topic -
because sure comparing people to animals is conceptually a fairly
widespread metaphor in its various permutations - but when you get into
less typical/casual matters it's no longer that easy.
The inability to distinguish between the literal and metaphorical quickly
will also manifest when you have a situation with both literal and
metaphorical instances of the thing involved. The above example becomes
insta-ambiguous if you also add in a couple of actual dogs doing something
disgusting, or appearing disgusting. Of course in your example that
doesn't strike me as a likely problem, but I think it's easy enough to run
into cases like that in practice.
I think we also overlook another value of the ability to be explicitly
metaphorical: it enables one to readily introduce new metaphors which
otherwise would require more load on the other parties in the conversation
to figure out. This is a generalization of my first point about speakers
who don't know the metaphor being deployed - except instead of limiting
our consideration to metaphors regularly used in one culture being
misunderstood by others, consider how much easier it is to throw a truly
novel metaphor into a conversation - trying this in English has often
generated uncomprehending looks when I've tried it, because I guess some
people just aren't good at recognizing metaphors they aren't familiar with
on the fly. I think we can have more creative and expressive uses of
language if we can readily differentiate the literal meaning from
non-literal.
Personally, one of the points which currently draw me to Lojban is it's
claimed ability to allow unambiguous communication efficiently. I
want a one-or-two syllable way to draw the distinction between me
being literal and not. (Though I don't have enough lojban knowledge yet to
particularly care whether le/lo have anything to do with making this
distinction.)
Or maybe I missed the whole point of this "veridicality" discussion, in
which case apologies for me wasting the time you all had to spend to read
this.
mu'o mi'e .aleksandr.kojevnikov. do'u
TR NS
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:31:39 PM UTC-4, la durka wrote:
I'm confused, because you seem to be complaining that loi/lei invokes a Platonic form instead of grouping some individuals "all together" into a mass, but the latter _is_ exactly what it does.
Dustin Lacewell
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:47:07 PM UTC-7, Alexander Kozhevnikov wrote:
I just wanted to quickly butt in and voice disagreement with this example:
I think the answer is a clear 'yes' if you are going to effectively
communicate with speakers who are not familiar to your culture's
metaphors
[...] and in this case, that means having an ability to specify in
a concise manner that something is or isn't metaphorical.
or those who struggle with
metaphorical speech, such as many autistic individuals for example
[..a lot of stuff..]
Personally, one of the points which currently draw me to Lojban is it's
claimed ability to allow unambiguous communication efficiently.
Or maybe I missed the whole point of this "veridicality" discussion, in
which case apologies for me wasting the time you all had to spend to read
this.
TR NS
Dustin Lacewell
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/m3RoHDxxc7E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
TR NS
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 2:00:46 AM UTC-4, Dustin Lacewell wrote:
It helps if you mention who you are replying to, trans
Dustin Lacewell
And Rosta
To you, Dustin, I would say the same as I said to selpa'i: the definite article, by its very nature, introduces a nonveridical description. The description is not part of the propositional content of the main illocution but instead constitutes the propositional content of an autonomous illocution of identification. Therefore, without realizing it, you have always used {le} to indicate a non-veridical description. The reason you and selpa'i thought otherwise is that you have apparently understood 'nonveridical' in a way that is etymologically appropriate but contextually and technically inappropriate, namely as constituting something like a lack of necessary adherence to literalness, whereas in the context of discussion of definite descriptions it has the different more technical sense I explained above.
> The example I habitually provide is, imagine some men are hanging out
> by a water-cooler and some women walking past hear them making sexist
> remarks. One women isn't going to confuse the other by saying
> something like "Those dogs are disgusting".
Incidentally, I agree with cognitive linguistics that there is no natural clear-cut cognitive distinction between literalness and figurativeness. Lojbanists who think it is feasible (or even desirable) to insist on always marking deviations from literalness are chasing a mirage. Veridicality in the technical sense has nothing to do with spurious literalness but rather with the logical structure, where I understand the logical structure to include illouctionary oerators.
--And.
Dustin Lacewell
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:29:39 PM UTC-7, And Rosta wrote:
Dustin Lacewell, On 30/09/2014 22:51:
> I have -never- used {le} to indicate a non-veridical description.
[...]
> {le} has always existed as a Definite Article for me.
If {le}'s definition as "in-mind" and "nonveridical" stands (and clearly not everybody thinks it should), {le} must be a Definite Article. If you nixed "nonveridical" and kept "in-mind" then "le broda" would mean not "the broda" but "certain broda", which is also a useful candidate meaning.
To you, Dustin, I would say the same as I said to selpa'i: the definite article, by its very nature, introduces a nonveridical description.
The description is not part of the propositional content of the main illocution but instead constitutes the propositional content of an autonomous illocution of identification.