Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds
>
>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?

Because it has been used in more ways than to mark indirect questions,
at least in the sense that I understand them.

>> >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?

Not without the lerfu paper showing the word assignments for the Greek
lerfu.

But using the bu convention, how about:

mi .alfas.bumoi gi'e .omegas.bumoi 

or 

mi medu be alfas.bu .e .omegas.bu

>> >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.

Then it will not be generally used for anything more complex than that -
I can live wit this.  We provided a grammar for more complex stuff, but
the vocabulary, even it is a bit much for you, really doesn't allow
coverage of much more than the simple stuff.

>> 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?

         pu'o le nanca vo pi'i reno su'i ze mei  would presumably work
         pu'o le nanca vo pi'i renomei pe bazi/puzi le zemei

>> (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.

Certainly the Mex words are for the most part irrelevant to most
everyday usage, but so is a lot of other stuff, including some stuff you
did not comment on in your hit list.  If you want a SIMPLE and
expressive language and are not concerned with translation, you can
eliminate a LOT of stuff - most BAIs, lots of converters, etc.  JCB is
doing fine with only the equivalent of le, la and loi, though I suspect
there may be bugs in some of the translations done in TLI Loglan because
of oversimplification.  But for basic expression, you don't need a lot.
In the original draft textbook that was going to cover the entirety of
the language, we were not going to tackle more than simple numbers until
the late lessons.

>> >        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.

I opine that jei is a relationship between a du'u implied by the clause
and its numerical truth value (which perhaps should be the x1 of the jei
bridi)?

For mi djuno tu'a le jei [bridi]
This would give "I know that the truth value of [bridi] is li tu'o"
(oops, you'll have to look up that Mex word %^)
which is not far removed from "I know "what" the truth value of [bridi] is"

>"
>> >{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.

Not necessarily, though I could see it.  You CAN experience a relationship
without being part of the relationship (or at least your part is ga'ami)

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

But a paraplegic does not experience an event of being belegged.

The primary place for li'i abstractions will be in the x2 place of
lifri, especially for situations where the speaker does not want to
imply that the event actually "happened" to the x1, but merely was,
ummm, "experienced by".  This is akin to the du'u/si'o distinction of
course, si'o abstractions are of the not-necessarily-rational mind
rather than of the world, du'u and jei are strictly rational and pertain
to a specific world, li'i pertains to perceptions which may be of the
mind, or merely of the senses, but again do not need to have anything to
do with a real world.

>> 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.

No but I think that it claims that there is a world where its truth
could be rationally evaluated.  You think so too, or you would not try
to presume that jai could be subsumed under du'u. 

>> >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

The ZAhOs are DEFINED in terms of the event contours and/or vice versa.
it is "nu" that is vague.

I am sure you have somewhere read my paraphrase of pc's analysis of
"running (a race)" in terms of the various NU and ZAhO elements.

>> 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...

Ah, and how would you make this clear.  As is they are defined as point
events.  So start a whole nother topic.  I mean it isn't like a dozen
simultaneous interacting threads in this list is ENOUGH, is it %^).

>> >        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.

This could be said about a lot of the language.  But where they are
missed is usually in translation.

I'll bet your list of words that could be deleted is different from and
smaller than it would have been a year ago, and will be different and
smaller a year from now.

>> >        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.

You are attempting to impose objective criteria on a subjective tense.

I cannot evaluate whether typically is always more frequent than
habitually.  It seems probable that typically is habitually more
frequent than habitually, but I am not sure that typically is typically
more frequent than habitually.       %^)

Hmm.  When you are running, your feet are not typically on the ground,
but they are habitually on the ground.

I suggest that typically is evaluated using a point-in-time sampling
during the interval.  If most such samples showed the subevent is true
then it typically happens during the interval.

I suspect that habitually is more akin to "regularly" or "periodically"
and cannot be evaluated by a set of point samples, but instead is
evaluated by looking for cycles and repetition of phases, though they
may not be on a strictly speaking "regular" basis.  It thus is more easy
to identify habitual behavior in systems that have complex events.  Thus
the answer to the distinction between these two may rest in
understanding the distinction between the kinds of NU events.

lojbab