[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
jjllambias2000
la pycyn cusku di'e
> <<
> > le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
> >
> > 1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2
> > in direction x3"?
> >>
> 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?)
> <<
> 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?
> >>
> 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".
> 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?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ 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
> > 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.
Of course, but exactly the same happens with {pa prenu}. You
can't treat it separately from all other things that have
relevant scope.
> > 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)
Of course, everything with scope that comes before it must move
to the prenex before it.
>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.
Ok. That's a possibility. You're saying that tags never
have scope over other sumti. Then when we apply this to
{paroiku}:
(1a) paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas
expands to:
(1b) paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas
And:
(2a) paroiku mi klama ro le re tcadu
expands to:
(2b) roda voi tcadu zo'u paroiku mi klama da
For each of the (two) cities, I once went to it.
Also:
(3) paroi le pavdei e le reldei mi klama la paris
will expand to:
(3a) paroi le pavdei mi klama la paris
ije paroi le reldei mi klama la paris
And similarly:
(4) paroi ro le re djedi mi klama la paris
will expand as:
(4a) roda voi djedi zo'u paroi da mi klama la paris
Q.E.D.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la and cusku di'e
>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}
You're right. Jordan does accept this expansion, but he doesn't
accept that it is equivalent to the {ro} case, so I got mixed up
with the argument I was having with him.
The quantifier inside the tag is not quantifying the tag. The tag
is a single tag, essentially a selbri to its sumti (but not to other
sumti of the main bridi). As a aselbri it can have quantified
arguments, but it cannot itself be quantified. So {paroi <sumti>},
from the point of view of this sumti, is like {ra'inrapli li pa
<sumti>}, where {ra'inrapli} has the place structure "x1 repeats
x2 times in interval x3". This {li pa} is not a quantifier. The
sumti of {paroi} sees {pa} as embedded in the selbri that the tag
represents. Other terms don't see it that way, because they are
not arguments of that selbri. (Do you agree that tags are essentially
like a selbri to its sumti?)
> > >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?
Yes.
>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.
I wrote {ciroi lei ze djedi}. I'm lost now. I don't understand
how one occasion can happen on each of seven days. Wouldn't
that make it seven occasions? It can last for seven days, but
that's a different thing, to be covered with {ze'a}.
>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.
Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say
"x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly. But I also think that
it is the only truly sensible one, because of how the relationship
between tag and sumti works.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > 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.
>
> Of course, but exactly the same happens with {pa prenu}. You
> can't treat it separately from all other things that have
> relevant scope.
I agree.
> > > 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)
>
> Of course, everything with scope that comes before it must move
> to the prenex before it.
Yes.
> >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.
>
> Ok. That's a possibility. You're saying that tags never
> have scope over other sumti. Then when we apply this to
> {paroiku}:
I'm saying tags have scope defined by position, of course...
> (1a) paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas
>
> expands to:
>
> (1b) paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas
>
> And:
>
> (2a) paroiku mi klama ro le re tcadu
As discussed, this transformation is lossy; you are saying the same thing
but only because of context, and this transformation also isn't guarenteed
to always be valid.
> expands to:
>
> (2b) roda voi tcadu zo'u paroiku mi klama da
> For each of the (two) cities, I once went to it.
Nononono. You're breaking what we just talked about. Because "paroi"
has a quantifier, you can't just switch the order in which it appears
relative to da and claim it has the same meaning. You can do
paroi ku ro da voi tcadu zo'u mi klama da
if you want, but of course that wouldn't help you "proove" your viewpoint.
Note, btw, that since you are using a "ku" after paroi here paroi
is its own term, and you can't move other quantified terms to the
prenex without moving the ones before it if you want the same
meaning.
> Also:
>
> (3) paroi le pavdei e le reldei mi klama la paris
>
> will expand to:
>
> (3a) paroi le pavdei mi klama la paris
> ije paroi le reldei mi klama la paris
I agree with this one.
> And similarly:
>
> (4) paroi ro le re djedi mi klama la paris
>
> will expand as:
>
> (4a) roda voi djedi zo'u paroi da mi klama la paris
You're breaking the same rules again. "paroi ro le re djedi" is a
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.
> Q.E.D.
Umm yeah right...
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.
This might be something that is worth gathering usage statistics
on PAroi+sumti or just plain tag+sumti for all tags which can have
quantifiers (re'u, etc). If people have been mainly using it with
right-to-left, then since the book isn't definite here we would
probably go that way, but if not the normal futher-left-gets-wider-scope
rule seems to make sense.
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
>You're breaking the same rules again. "paroi ro le re djedi" is a
>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.
The rule I think is the Right Thing is that {e}/{ro} have
scope over {pa} in that example.
>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).
>This might be something that is worth gathering usage statistics
>on PAroi+sumti or just plain tag+sumti for all tags which can have
>quantifiers (re'u, etc). If people have been mainly using it with
>right-to-left, then since the book isn't definite here we would
>probably go that way, but if not the normal futher-left-gets-wider-scope
>rule seems to make sense.
To me that rule does not make sense in this case because it forces
a kind of massification of the quantified sumti, which when wanted
should be done by other means.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la and cusku di'e
>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.
I used the case of {e} because it seemed to me to be more intuitive
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".
>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}.
>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}.
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
Jay F Kominek
> > 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?
Probably not universal, just because people are sloppy. There aren't
too many situations where your average person needs to contrast the
two meanings, so in general use I suspect they're blurring.
Physicists, astronomers, aerospace engineers and such would all know
the difference, though, and, I suspect, contrast them in their own
speech, even outside of a scientific setting.
--
Jay Kominek <jkom...@miranda.org>
Tact is the ability to tell a man he has
an open mind when he has a hole in his head.
Jordan DeLong
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:07:05PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > 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.
Hrm; the only example I could find using "ze'i" as a sumtcita has
no quantification. So much for that.. :P
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > 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}.
paroiku should behave just like any other floating tense-modal. 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.
and not
mi ba klama la romas. gi'e klama la paris.
--
jjllambias2000
la pier cusku di'e
> > (How would we talk about a revolution around another body?)
>
> le terdi cu klama mo'iru'u le solri paroi ro nanca
I don't like {klama} much for this, with origin and destination
palces. I think {sruli'u}, from {ko'a litru le sruri be ko'e ko'i}.
le terdi cu mulsruli'u le solri paroi ro nanca
(Can gravity be a means/vehicle?)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jordan DeLong
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:34:49PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.
After the baseline ends, if there is sufficent desire for it a cmavo
could be created to invert tag scope, so you would say
ro mentu <some cmavo> paroi
(for all minutes once). This requires a real grammar change and
such though, so I don't advocate using it until/unless it were to
be adopted into the official grammar after the baseline.
(It would need to add a
term -> sumti <that cmavo> tag
rule).
Jordan DeLong
> 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".
I agree with all the above. If the monday-tuesday period was part
of the same trip, I think {jo'u} might be nicer than {joi}, in that
it makes it clear you went on both days and not just the two
considered together (which would allow if I had only gone on monday).
> 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}.
Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical connectives
for this. 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?
> 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.
Where's the perverse effects? *boggle*
> 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.
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). 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.
mu'o
And Rosta
> 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?
Does {re roi la uenzdix klama} mean "go twice on Wednesday"?
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.
Whereas, standardly it means "go twice, each going occuring on
three days, = 6 days' worth of going, with two goings in all.
I don't really see why the nonstandard interp is so much better
than the standard that it justifies its deviancy.
--And.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > 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.
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.
John Cowan
> 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 scarcely think it universal. Indeed, last week's science section of
the NYTimes used "rotate" and "revolve" synonymously in a single
paragraph.
It's just one of those quirky distinctions that Make Physics Phun!
--
John Cowan jco...@reutershealth.com
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse
Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse
But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues
Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues.
--Cousin James
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
> > 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.
>
>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}.
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.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Jordan DeLong
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >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.
>
> I used the case of {e} because it seemed to me to be more intuitive
> 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".
Huh? How's that? Expansion of {e} has nothing to do with {ro mentu}.
> >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}.
>
> >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.
No one is debating that tags have scope over following terms. The
question is whether they have scope over a sumti contained in the
*same* term. When you say "ciroi ku", you have made a full term;
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.
I think you missed his use of "ku ca" maybe? Under either approach
both of them mean exactly what And said. The question is what
{ciroi re djedi} means.
Under the left-to-right approach the following interpretation:
ciroi re djedi
three times in 2 days
Yours is
ciroi re djedi
three times for each of two days
> >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}.
I agree. Of course, as was likely And's intention to suggest, you
*can* express either of the meanings which are being suggested for
"paroi ro mentu" through seperate mechanisms. However I don't think
there should much doubt of that for almost anything in lojban, so
I'm not sure what his point was.
Jorge Llambias
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"?
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?
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 ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
And Rosta
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > 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.)
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?
> > 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.
(What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure
John will enjoy telling me...)
> 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.)
I thought it was 'minute', but that seemed less plausible & I was
too lazy to look it up.
> > 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.
It is three separate lengths, but they can perfectly well be
contiguous -- cf "I travelled just the once, on Monday, Tuesday,
and Wednesday".
So {re roi ci djedi cu klama} would mean "travel twice, each
travelling occuring on each of three things of a day's duration".
> 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.
Okay, but I don't see the problem there with that meaning.
>
> 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}.
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.
> > 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.
Okay, but I need more persuading on this.
> I don't
> think it is standard either, as there hasn't been any official
> discussion of the matter.
Fair enough, but the default left-to-right scope rule *is* the
standard rule, and unless there are good reasons to the contrary,
we assume that it applies even to cases that haven't been discussed.
--And.
Jordan DeLong
> jordan:
> > After the baseline ends, if there is sufficent desire for it a cmavo
> > could be created to invert tag scope, so you would say
> > ro mentu <some cmavo> paroi
> > (for all minutes once). This requires a real grammar change and
> > such though, so I don't advocate using it until/unless it were to
> > be adopted into the official grammar after the baseline.
> > (It would need to add a
> > term -> sumti <that cmavo> tag
> > rule).
>
Well you could, but it's somewhat lame. I think it would be nicer
either to preserve the order of the quantifiers by doing something
which would invert them, or to make it have its own selma'o so it
would only be allowed in the rule for terms formed from tag+sumti.
Either way it's definitely not a pressing concern that is worth
violating the baseline over: it seems to make sense that things
should still go left to right for terms made from tag+sumti, and
it can always be overidden with a prenex.
Jordan DeLong
> 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.
I see; so you're defining your own rules. I don't think it's fair
game to try to use your own modifications to the language to claim
that something doesn't work in the actual language. Regardless of
whether or not tags are an exception to the left-to-right scope for
quantifiers, this is clearly not support for either direction.
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.
So I agree this is probably a pointless argument, as I am apparently
discussing lojban, whereas you are discussing lojban + local hacks.
> > > 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.
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
I'm still not sure what that has to do with anything, though.
And Rosta
> After the baseline ends, if there is sufficent desire for it a cmavo
> could be created to invert tag scope, so you would say
> ro mentu <some cmavo> paroi
> (for all minutes once). This requires a real grammar change and
> such though, so I don't advocate using it until/unless it were to
> be adopted into the official grammar after the baseline.
> (It would need to add a
> term -> sumti <that cmavo> tag
> rule).
Couldn't you just use an experimental cmavo in UI?
--And.
py...@aol.com
<<
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?
>>
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
 |
And Rosta
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 06:00:27PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> > la djorden cusku di'e
> > > 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?
Woldy is the gospel for Lojban but not for logic.
> > > > 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.
Xorxes was talking about equivalence according to logic, not
necessarily about equivalence according to Lojban, though we all
(or at least all the jboskepre, tho perhaps not the jboplijda)
share the premise that Lojban should follow logic.
[in a later message:]
> > 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.
It is not necessary to look to the book. The book is a reference
grammar for people who don't know much about Lojban or about logic.
Instead, look to logic (or books on logic) and to the body of
jboske built up over the 13 years of Lojban list.
Or at least, that attitude I've just described is a premise of
these jboske discussions. The premise can be rejected by a
CLL-fundamentalist (who, I'm sure, would be disavowed by CLL's
author), but such a rejection does render participation in the
discussions somewhat unproductive.
> > >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.
>
> I see; so you're defining your own rules. I don't think it's fair
> game to try to use your own modifications to the language to claim
> that something doesn't work in the actual language. Regardless of
> whether or not tags are an exception to the left-to-right scope for
> quantifiers, this is clearly not support for either direction.>
> 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.
>
> So I agree this is probably a pointless argument, as I am apparently
> discussing lojban, whereas you are discussing lojban + local hacks.
You are being misled by Jorge's nonconfrontational mode of arguing:
if he can possibly manage it without abusing the god of Reason, he
will never say "You're Wrong" & will always instead say "We can
agree to differ".
But the facts seem to be that you are discussing CLL-fundamentalist
Lojban while Jorge is discussing jboske Lojban. He's not defining
his own rules; he's making use of the knowledge and understanding
we have collectively accumulated in tens of thousands of messages
to this list.
--And.
Chris Double
<lojba...@lojban.org> said:
> > Note however that both are being archived, and as such have an equal
> > degree of permanence, though not an equal degree of accessibility.
>
> So long as Yahoo deigns to retain the archives.
There is a limit to the size apparently. The Squeak Smalltalk list hit
the limit (64MB?) recently and messages silently drop of the tail (if I
understand the recent email discussions on it lately).
Chris.
--
Chris Double
chris....@double.co.nz
Jordan DeLong
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > 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}.
Interesting. Now that I fully understand your reasoning I think
it makes sense. This applies to interpetations of all the tags as
you were saying. So
sera'a ro le re gerku mi se batci
would indicate I was bitten 2 times under your interpretation, which
probably makes more sense actually, as I could just say
sera'a lei gerku mi se batci
to get the other interpretation.
Oh I just thought of another point: it seems to be more similar to
to how it would be treated in the actual sumti place of a bridi:
fi'o se srana ro le re gerku mi se batci
So I now think your interpretation is better.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the book defining tag+sumti
when the sumti has a quantifier other than a su'opa which is expected
to refer to a single thing, and since it's technically all within
one term the left-to-right stuff doesn't really address it. So
this definitely needs to be clarified.
How is this stuff usually done? If it isn't documented somewhere
as a clarification and made quasi-official (whichever way the
interpretation goes) there's no way to prevent it from being used
both ways...
Jay F Kominek
> > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:28:26 -0600, "Jay F Kominek"
> > <lojba...@lojban.org> said:
> > > > Note however that both are being archived, and as such have an equal
> > > > degree of permanence, though not an equal degree of accessibility.
> > >
> > > So long as Yahoo deigns to retain the archives.
>
The stuff which predates the creation of the mirror list? No, of course
not. The only source for that is Yahoo, and they make it very, very
difficult to retrieve that data. Sure, you can go in and pull down any
message you like, but we're talking about something on the order of
14000 messages. You don't do that by hand, and Yahoo actively tries
to confound the tools one would normally use to retrieve that much
stuff.
And Rosta
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 12:02:03AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > la and cusku di'e
> > >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}.
>
> I agree. Of course, as was likely And's intention to suggest, you
> *can* express either of the meanings which are being suggested for
> "paroi ro mentu" through seperate mechanisms. However I don't think
> there should much doubt of that for almost anything in lojban, so
> I'm not sure what his point was.
... that when we consider the question of what such-and-such means,
one important consideration is whether there are convenient alternative
ways to express the candidate meanings. In situations where there
isn't a convenient alternative way to express a candidate meaning,
that candidate meaning becomes a stronger contender to be the
Correct Meaning.
I am here articulating a principle implicit in general debates on
Lojban List, not a principle that I have declared ex catheter.
--And.
And Rosta
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >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}
>
> You're right. Jordan does accept this expansion, but he doesn't
> accept that it is equivalent to the {ro} case, so I got mixed up
> with the argument I was having with him.
>
> The quantifier inside the tag is not quantifying the tag. The tag
> is a single tag, essentially a selbri to its sumti (but not to other
> sumti of the main bridi). As a aselbri it can have quantified
> arguments, but it cannot itself be quantified. So {paroi <sumti>},
> from the point of view of this sumti, is like {ra'inrapli li pa
> <sumti>}, where {ra'inrapli} has the place sructure "x1 repeats
> x2 times in interval x3". This {li pa} is not a quantifier. The
> sumti of {paroi} sees {pa} as embedded in the selbri that the tag
> represents. Other terms don't see it that way, because they are
> not arguments of that selbri.
I agree.
> (Do you agree that tags are essentially
> like a selbri to its sumti?)
Yes, and also the bridi is the other argument of the tag-qua-selbri.
> > > >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?
>
> Yes.
>
> >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.
>
> I wrote {ciroi lei ze djedi}. I'm lost now. I don't understand
> how one occasion can happen on each of seven days. Wouldn't
> that make it seven occasions? It can last for seven days, but
> that's a different thing, to be covered with {ze'a}.
If a feast lasts for seven days, it can be seen as happening on
seven days. Analogously, if I line up a row of logs side by
side and lie on them, I can be seen as lying on (or being
located at) each of the logs.
> >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.
>
> Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say
> "x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly.
I agree, but my concern is that "I do it once per minute" does
not mean "for every x that is a minute, I do it once". Rather, it
means, "for every x that is quantity of minutes and during which
I do it, x is a pa mei" or, better:
ro da poi de ge mentu ke'a gi jai ca gasnu zo'u du li pa da
So although I'm happy with your arguments about scope, I'm not
happy with the way you propose to say "n times per x".
> But I also think that
> it is the only truly sensible one, because of how the relationship
> between tag and sumti works.
Can fi'o take a selbri with sumti, as in {fi'o [broda be ko'a] fo'a}?
If so, then you could formulate {roi} as {fi'o ra'inrapli be li pa
fo'a}, and prove your point using that reformulation.
--And.
------------------------ 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/
And Rosta
> <lojba...@lojban.org> said:
> > > Note however that both are being archived, and as such have an equal
> > > degree of permanence, though not an equal degree of accessibility.
> >
> > So long as Yahoo deigns to retain the archives.
So they're not archived at Lojban.org?
--And.
And Rosta
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > 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?
>
> 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.
But could they be portions of 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}.
How come? It's true that "I travelled on Monday and I travelled on
Tuesday and I travelled on Wednesday". But that's not entailed by
"travelled on Mon joi tues joi Weds".
> > 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 means (on your story) "travel twice, there being exactly
one travelling per three-day period".
Probably the best way to get the meaning I gave is
{re roi ca ci djedi}.
>
> > 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.
{re da poi ke'a djedi se ka mi zvati la paris ca ce'u}
is true. But
{re da nu mi zvati la paris ca da poi ke'a djedi}
is not necessarily true. Criteria for delimiting events are rather
vague & (IMO) flexible.
--And.
And Rosta
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:03:11PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan DeLong
> > > > la djorden cusku di'e
> 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?
> >
> > Woldy is the gospel for Lojban but not for logic.
>
> the thread.
I read the whole thread before responding. I observed that you
eventually understood xorxes & came round to his point of view.
But I was not criticizing you for disagreeing with xorxes, I was
dissenting with your CLL-fundamentalism, or with the way you
employed CLL-fundamentalism as an argument.
> [...]
> > Or at least, that attitude I've just described is a premise of
> > these jboske discussions. The premise can be rejected by a
> > CLL-fundamentalist (who, I'm sure, would be disavowed by CLL's
> > author), but such a rejection does render participation in the
> > discussions somewhat unproductive.
>
> Chapter one:
> ...
> You can learn the language described here with assurance that
> (unlike previous versions of Lojban and Loglan, as well as most
> other artificial languages) it will not be subject to further
> fiddling by language-meisters.
> ...
>
> If even the book's author disclaims that goal, as you claim he
> would, then this language is seriously fucked.
First off, he's talking about the official language. Since it's
placed in the public domain it is impossible to prevent unofficial
fiddling.
Second, very little of the big technical discussions have to do
with fiddling -- in the sense of making alterations. They mainly have
to do with matters of interpretation in areas where no interpretation
had been defined. Lojban semantics was wittingly left in a very
undefined state, to be filled in later either through the hazards
of usage or through the deliberations of jboskepre. The issue you
were debating with xorxes was such a case.
> However, I don't
> think that that goal would be disclaimed by all but a small (and
> unfortunately loud) minority of "lojbanists". Though there are
> certainly a few who would say they are in favor of that goal, but
> act the opposite.
>
> So thankfully the massive amount of fiddling which you are hilariously
> referring to as "jboske" is more or less inconsequential.
It baffles me why you and others bother with this endless whinge.
I'd understand it if you said "Please move these discussions to
Jboske; I don't want to have to be bothered with them flooding into
my inbox". But no, the very existence of the discussions is taken
as an affront. Why so intolerant?
I suppose I myself do from time to time make scornful comments about
those who care much for usage and little for logic, but I make such
comments occasionally and in passing, and in the context of technical-
focused discussions. I don't butt in to text/usage-focused
discussions or wiki pages to vent my daily quotum of spleen. I'm
happy for everyone to get their pleasures from Lojban in whatever
way they can, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's.
> Certainly postings on the wiki have far more import than messages sent
> around the list, though, due to their lack of transience.
I agree about the wiki being better as a record, though it has its
disadvantages.
--And.
jjllambias2000
>
> There is a limit to the size apparently. The Squeak Smalltalk list
hit
> the limit (64MB?) recently and messages silently drop of the tail
(if I
> understand the recent email discussions on it lately).
The messages page says we're using 50.6 of 512 MB (9%)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
jjllambias2000
la and cusku di'e
> If a feast lasts for seven days, it can be seen as happening on
> seven days. Analogously, if I line up a row of logs side by
> side and lie on them, I can be seen as lying on (or being
> located at) each of the logs.
I'd say {ze'a le djedi be li ze} or {ze'a lei ze djedi}
and {ve'a lei ze grana}.
Also {ca le ze djedi} and {bu'u le re grana} would work, yes.
But the sumti of {roi} is for the interval over which the
number of instances repeat, not for the duration of the event.
> > Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say
> > "x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly.
>
> I agree, but my concern is that "I do it once per minute" does
> not mean "for every x that is a minute, I do it once".
It does mean that, as long as we think of time as divided
into a series of minutes. It doesn't mean that if we allow
overlapping minutes, I agree. Is that the objection?
>Rather, it
> means, "for every x that is quantity of minutes and during which
> I do it, x is a pa mei" or, better:
> ro da poi de ge mentu ke'a gi jai ca gasnu zo'u du li pa da
It doesn't mean that either, because if I do it once per
minute then there are for example many 1.5 minute intervals
in which I do it once. (There are other 1.5 minute intervals
in which I do it twice.)
(One minute is not the duration of each instance. It is the
duration of the interval in which the n instances occur.)
> Can fi'o take a selbri with sumti, as in {fi'o [broda be ko'a]
fo'a}?
Yes.
> If so, then you could formulate {roi} as {fi'o ra'inrapli be li pa
> fo'a}, and prove your point using that reformulation.
Yes, that's good, though I think I want to keep the quantifier
vis-a-vis the rest of the terms in the bridi.
Jordan DeLong
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 06:00:27PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Woldy is the gospel for Lojban but not for logic.
I had misunderstood xorxes' claim. I suggest you read further in
the thread.
[...]
> Or at least, that attitude I've just described is a premise of
> these jboske discussions. The premise can be rejected by a
> CLL-fundamentalist (who, I'm sure, would be disavowed by CLL's
> author), but such a rejection does render participation in the
> discussions somewhat unproductive.
Chapter one:
...
You can learn the language described here with assurance that
(unlike previous versions of Lojban and Loglan, as well as most
other artificial languages) it will not be subject to further
fiddling by language-meisters.
...
If even the book's author disclaims that goal, as you claim he
would, then this language is seriously fucked. However, I don't
think that that goal would be disclaimed by all but a small (and
unfortunately loud) minority of "lojbanists". Though there are
certainly a few who would say they are in favor of that goal, but
act the opposite.
So thankfully the massive amount of fiddling which you are hilariously
referring to as "jboske" is more or less inconsequential. Certainly
postings on the wiki have far more import than messages sent around
the list, though, due to their lack of transience.
--