Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> (Heck, I am still
> waiting for someone to propose a new definition line for "kau" for the
> cmavo list - the existing definition is worse than inadequate.

Why? kau marks indirect questions, and that is what the cmavo list says,
why is it inadequate?

> Actually, I think you HAVE used a few of them, at least in examples,
> over the last few months.  I wouldn't doubt that you puca'a memorized a
> few of them (I am thinking of la'i/le'i/lo'i as I write this).

True, but my views on the language are still evolving. I probably would
disagree now with the word choices I made back then.

> >Since letterals are really pro-sumti and not letters, these shifts
> >only augment the number of available pro-sumti,
>
> alpha particles, gamma rays, "I am the alpha and the omega" - these
> things tend to crop up in non-mathematical language on occasion.

And can you show how you would use shifts for these, rather than names?


> >If written down in symbols, it can't be directly read out in grammatical
> >Lojban anyway, so what's the point of having such an elaborate mekso
> >system?
>
> It is the intent that it CAN be directly read out in grammatical Lojban.

That may be the intent, but I don't think it works for anything more
complicated than a sum or a product, especially because of all the
extra brackets needed.

> puca'a.  Try to do "four score and seven years ago" without MEX words.

        zapu lei vo nanca renomei ku joi le zemei

How would it be using MEX?

> (Not too easy WITH MEX words).  Most MEX-in-everyday-Lojban WILL be
> short phrases that use only a few words/symbols.

I think the language without MEX has enough resources for everyday
uses. It was a big simplification for me when I realized I could
just ignore everything to do with MEX, which wasn't evident when I
started learning it.

> >        jei li'i si'o mu'e pu'u za'i zu'o (abstractions)
> >
> >{jei} I don't know what it could be used for, since all the examples
> >are as a substitute for {du'u xukau}, but this is not the same as the
> >truth value of a bridi.
>
> Even if that is all it means, it is a heck of a lot shorter.  But I
> think "jei" will become more useful iff people start trying to talk
> fuzzy logics and fuzzy sets.

My point is that it can't mean both "the truth value of <bridi>" and
"what is the truth value of <bridi>". If it's a shorthand for {du'u xukau},
fine, but then it should be glossed as "whether <bridi>", not as "the truth
value of <bridi>". If it is this, then I can't find any selbri where
to use it. I've heard about this supposed fuzzy logic use, but I haven't
seen examples.

> >{li'i} and {si'o} I'm still not sure how to use. And has been using si'o
> >lately for the opacity examples, but I would use du'u for all of those,
> >and I don't see what si'o adds to it.
>
> The classic example of li'i, from the paraplegic who proposed it, is
> "le li'i tuple" in such paraplegics.

I suppose that is the experience of having legs, not of being legs. Here
the lambda variable would also be useful.

But how do you use it? Doesn't a claim about an event involving someone
already contain that that someone experiences that relationship?

> If ledu'u is redundant to lesi'o, it is only because we made du'u a two
> placer - it originally talked only about expressions.  I think that du'u
> tends to emphasize the bridi-ness (truth claim ness) of a relationship
> whereas si'o more strongly emphasizes the conceptual nature.  I would
> feel uncomfortable using du'u for ideas that have no obvious
> manifestation in the real world.

So {si'o} is something like {du'uda'i}? I don't believe that using {du'u}
claims that its bridi is true.

> >The four subdivisions of {nu} I think I understand, but I never feel
> >the need to use them instead of the simple {nu}. Maybe I will come to
> >need them when I become more fluent, but for the moment I don't.
>
> puca'a pilno quite a lot - I like them and the implied contours that
> they generate.  I don't notice you complaining about the ZAhOs that
> correspond to these.

Because the ZAhOs I do find useful (in spite of some confusion in how
they were named :)

I have no problem with {le nu co'i broda}, what I don't really have a need
for is the seemingly synonimous {le mu'e broda}. For the other three, I
don't see any direct relation with the ZAhOs

> If you find them useful and meaningful you will
> find these.  A point event is a point event, whether it is co'i or co'a
> or co'u.

co'a and co'u can be thought of as extended events in some circumstances,
but that is a whole nother topic...

> >        go'a go'e go'u nei (pro-bridis)
>
> I have used go'a and go'e in conversation, and maybe even go'u once.
> go'e is useful in dichotomies.

I agree that one of the three would be useful, just for that purpose.
I doubt that the detailed distinction between the three is really needed.
I think I've used them all in writing, but I don't think it would have been
a problem to use always the same one.

> go'a and go'u are going to be used in
> relative proportion to go'i, about with the same ratio as ra and ru are
> to ri - and for the same reason.

You don't really know this is true, although it may well be. I agree that
if they are there they will be used. I also think that if they weren't all
there they wouldn't be missed.

> >        na'o  (typically)
> >
> I habitually celebrate my birthday, but celebrating my birthday is not a
> state I will typically be found in.  My computer (and I) is/are
> habitually logged into this email address, but not typically so.

So typically means more frequent than habitually? I still feel that this
distinction, if it exists, doesn't belong at the interval modifier level.

Jorge