Re: [lojban] termsets
Jorge Llambias
la xod cusku di'e
> > ze'a lo cacra be li pimu: "for half an hour"
> > ve'a lo kramu be li re: "throughout two acres"
> > za lo mentu be li mu: "five minutes ago" or "five minutes from now"
> > va lo minli be li ci: "three miles away"
>
>This being so straightforward, why do you suppose the Book issues termsets
>as the only way to make magnitudes explicit?
In the case of ve'a and ze'a, I don't think the Book
disagrees with me. In the case of va and za, the Book
has a different interpretation for the tagged sumti:
the origin of the displacement, rather than its
magnitude. This is unnecessary, because the origin
can already be tagged with PU and FAhA.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month.
Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads!
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aHOo4D/KJoEAA/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/
John Cowan
> In the case of ve'a and ze'a, I don't think the Book
> disagrees with me. In the case of va and za, the Book
> has a different interpretation for the tagged sumti:
> the origin of the displacement, rather than its
> magnitude. This is unnecessary, because the origin
> can already be tagged with PU and FAhA.
True, but historical precedent made it necessary. I intended to remain
silent on the sumtcita use of intervals, since there are different
precedents pulling different ways.
--
John Cowan jco...@reutershealth.com
"You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China"
--fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la and cusku di'e
>This sort of coordination is very normal
>and unmarked in English. It's a shame that GA is not
>already equivalent to "nu'i GA" (so that all coordination
>is termset coordination), but the result is just averagely
>lojbanically clunky, and not downright unusable.
I agree that the concept behind termsets makes sense,
but I don't think that its Lojban implementation is just
averagely clunky. At least I find it very difficult
to make it work with the rest of the sentence structure.
The reason plain GA won't suffice seems to be that GA...GI...
doesn't have a terminator, so {ge ko'a gi ko'e ko'i} would
have {ko'e ko'i} as a termset. I don't think that would be
a bad thing though. You could always recover the present
reading with {ge ko'a gi ko'e vau ko'i}. But I guess that
will have to wait until the deadline ends (there is no danger
of termsets becoming popular in the meantime, so I expect it
will be easy to reform them away).
But anyway, one trick to avoid termsets is this:
ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i gi'e co'e ko'o ko'u
ko'a gives ko'e to ko'i and (does) ko'o to ko'u
I suppose {go'i} won't work there, and I don't know
whether there is something more precise than {co'e},
but if there isn't there very well could be.
Compare with the equivalent "afterthought" termset form:
ko'a dunda ko'e ce'e ko'i pe'e je ko'o ce'e ko'u
which is longer and also requires some forethought for the
first {ce'e}.
The forethought form with {co'e} is just as long as the
forethought termset form with {nu'i}, if the {nu'u}s can
be elided, but the co'e form is more flexible, so you can
say things like:
ge ko'a prami ko'e gi ko'i ko'o co'e
instead of the fixed order required by nu'i:
nu'i ge ko'a ko'e gi ko'i ko'u prami
which can also be replicated with co'e as:
ge ko'a ko'e co'e gi ko'i ko'o prami
So, my conclusion is that termsets can always be substituted
advantageously by another form.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Invent Yourself
claims, how are they different from ".e"?
--
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn
Invent Yourself
> ze'a lo cacra be li pimu: "for half an hour"
> ve'a lo kramu be li re: "throughout two acres"
> za lo mentu be li mu: "five minutes ago" or "five minutes from now"
> va lo minli be li ci: "three miles away"
This being so straightforward, why do you suppose the Book issues termsets
as the only way to make magnitudes explicit?
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
> > >{A, B} love {C, D} means that A loves C and B loves D.
> >
> > That corresponds to Lojban jo'u:
> >
> > abu jo'u by prami cy jo'u dy
>
>Isn't fa'u more like that?
> .imu'a .abu. fa'u by. prami cy. fa'u dy.
Yes! I meant {fa'u}, not {jo'u}. I don't know what {jo'u}
means.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
And Rosta
> Termsets group things differently:
>
> nu'i ge abuboi cy gi by.boi dy prami
> {A C} and {B D} love.
>
> A more natural example in English would be:
>
> A gives {B to C} and {D to F}.
> abu dunda nu'ige by boi cy gi dy boi fy
>
> Each term in a termset fills a different place.
> Does the fact that not even John Cowan can get this straight
> prove that termsets are unusable and should be avoided?
I don't think so. This sort of coordination is very normal
and unmarked in English. It's a shame that GA is not
already equivalent to "nu'i GA" (so that all coordination
is termset coordination), but the result is just averagely
lojbanically clunky, and not downright unusable.
--And.
Jorge Llambias
la xod cusku di'e
> > A gives {B to C} and {D to F}.
> > abu dunda nu'ige by boi cy gi dy boi fy
> >
> > Each term in a termset fills a different place.
>
>I'm not sure how this logic fits with using termsets to specify precise
>magnitudes with sumtcita tenses.
It doesn't. That's an ad-hoc use of termsets.
>Is there another way to achieve explicit magnitudes?
Yes. Interval magnitudes with VEhA and ZEhA, displacement
magnitudes with VA and ZA.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Jorge Llambias
la djan cusku di'e
>Invent Yourself scripsit:
>
> > Termsets, rarely used, few understand them. In marking simultaneous
> > claims, how are they different from ".e"?
>
>{A, B} love {C, D} means that A loves C and B loves D.
That corresponds to Lojban jo'u:
abu jo'u by prami cy jo'u dy
Termsets group things differently:
nu'i ge abuboi cy gi by.boi dy prami
{A C} and {B D} love.
A more natural example in English would be:
A gives {B to C} and {D to F}.
abu dunda nu'ige by boi cy gi dy boi fy
Each term in a termset fills a different place.
Does the fact that not even John Cowan can get this straight
prove that termsets are unusable and should be avoided?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month.
Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads!
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aHOo4D/KJoEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
>From: Robin Lee Powell <lojba...@lojban.org>
> > >Is there another way to achieve explicit magnitudes?
> >
> > Yes. Interval magnitudes with VEhA and ZEhA, displacement magnitudes
> > with VA and ZA.
>
>the explicit info.
Yes, that's what I meant. For example:
ze'a lo cacra be li pimu: "for half an hour"
ve'a lo kramu be li re: "throughout two acres"
za lo mentu be li mu: "five minutes ago" or "five minutes from now"
va lo minli be li ci: "three miles away"
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
John Cowan
> ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i gi'e co'e ko'o ko'u
> ko'a gives ko'e to ko'i and (does) ko'o to ko'u
>
> I suppose {go'i} won't work there,
No, but it will in "ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i .ije go'i ko'o ko'u".
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan jco...@reutershealth.com
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month.
Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads!
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aHOo4D/KJoEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
And Rosta
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >This sort of coordination is very normal
> >and unmarked in English. It's a shame that GA is not
> >already equivalent to "nu'i GA" (so that all coordination
> >is termset coordination), but the result is just averagely
> >lojbanically clunky, and not downright unusable.
>
> I agree that the concept behind termsets makes sense,
> but I don't think that its Lojban implementation is just
> averagely clunky. At least I find it very difficult
> to make it work with the rest of the sentence structure.
>
> The reason plain GA won't suffice seems to be that GA...GI...
> doesn't have a terminator, so {ge ko'a gi ko'e ko'i} would
> have {ko'e ko'i} as a termset. I don't think that would be
> a bad thing though. You could always recover the present
> reading with {ge ko'a gi ko'e vau ko'i}. But I guess that
> will have to wait until the deadline ends (there is no danger
> of termsets becoming popular in the meantime, so I expect it
> will be easy to reform them away).
In my own usage I just ignore the official grammar of GA and
follow the principle that in GA X GI Y, the syntactic type
of Y is determined by X.
> But anyway, one trick to avoid termsets is this:
>
> ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i gi'e co'e ko'o ko'u
> ko'a gives ko'e to ko'i and (does) ko'o to ko'u
>
> I suppose {go'i} won't work there, and I don't know
> whether there is something more precise than {co'e},
> but if there isn't there very well could be.
I don't like having to use a trick, though. Conceptually,
coordination of single sumti ought to be seen as coordination
of singleton termsets, since all sumti coordination is
essentially an abbreviatory mechanism.
> Compare with the equivalent "afterthought" termset form:
>
> ko'a dunda ko'e ce'e ko'i pe'e je ko'o ce'e ko'u
>
> which is longer and also requires some forethought for the
> first {ce'e}.
>
> The forethought form with {co'e} is just as long as the
> forethought termset form with {nu'i}, if the {nu'u}s can
> be elided, but the co'e form is more flexible, so you can
> say things like:
>
> ge ko'a prami ko'e gi ko'i ko'o co'e
>
> instead of the fixed order required by nu'i:
>
> nu'i ge ko'a ko'e gi ko'i ko'u prami
>
> which can also be replicated with co'e as:
>
> ge ko'a ko'e co'e gi ko'i ko'o prami
>
> So, my conclusion is that termsets can always be substituted
> advantageously by another form.
You'd have to find something better than "co'e". Maybe an
experimental cmavo in GI that inserts and implicit GOhA.
Your examples would then be:
ge ko'a prami ko'e gi'ai ko'i ko'o
ko'a ge dunda ko'e ko'i gi'ai ko'o ko'u
--And.
Invent Yourself
> A gives {B to C} and {D to F}.
> abu dunda nu'ige by boi cy gi dy boi fy
>
> Each term in a termset fills a different place.
I'm not sure how this logic fits with using termsets to specify precise
magnitudes with sumtcita tenses. There is, after all, only one place
there: the place opened by the sumtcita. Using termsets then seems like
wrapping one sumti (term) inside another.
> Does the fact that not even John Cowan can get this straight
> prove that termsets are unusable and should be avoided?
Is there another way to achieve explicit magnitudes?
--
Robin Lee Powell
>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
>
> Yes. Interval magnitudes with VEhA and ZEhA, displacement magnitudes
> with VA and ZA.
Those aren't very explicit, unless you mean using those as sumtcita for
the explicit info.
-Robin
--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/
John Cowan
> Does the fact that not even John Cowan can get this straight
> prove that termsets are unusable and should be avoided?
No, it means that I got up two hours earlier today than customary,
and I should have shut up.
--
John Cowan jco...@reutershealth.com
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com
Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory
that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia.
--blurb for _Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi_
Jordan DeLong
> la djan cusku di'e
> >Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > > Termsets, rarely used, few understand them. In marking simultaneous
> > > claims, how are they different from ".e"?
> >
> >{A, B} love {C, D} means that A loves C and B loves D.
>
> That corresponds to Lojban jo'u:
>
> abu jo'u by prami cy jo'u dy
Isn't fa'u more like that?
.imu'a .abu. fa'u by. prami cy. fa'u dy.
--
Jordan DeLong
frac...@allusion.net
John Cowan
> Termsets, rarely used, few understand them. In marking simultaneous
> claims, how are they different from ".e"?
{A, B} love {C, D} means that A loves C and B loves D.
A and B love C and D means that A loves C and D, and likewise B loves C and D.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <jco...@reutershealth.com>
"Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram
that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
as any, even sans digital signature." --me