[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
respectives
>From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
>Subject: Re: Some how-do-you-says
>
>And Rosta wrote:
>> How to render in Lojban:
>>
>> 1a The people each read **a different** book.
>
> le prenu cu tcidu lo frica cukta
>
>No problem here, because the scope of "lo" is within that of "le". You
>cannot however rephrase as:
>
> lo frica cukta cu se tcidu le prenu
>
>which does not mean: A different book is read by each of the people.
>It rather means that there is at least one "different book" read by all.
I resist this kind of scoping difference, though I have not analyzed it.
Not trying to override the refgram, or even what "needs to be", I
presume in general that all sumti are equal scope regardless of order
(possibly excepting this when there are explicit external quantifiers).
If I want to specify scope, I put it in the prenex. This may make me
"wrong", but I'll probably need to be corrected a LOT of times before I
accept it, because it does not fit my internalization of the language.
Jumping ahead to your response to Chris:
>Chris Bogart wrote:
>> And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK> said:
>> > 1a The people each read **a different** book.
>> le prenu pa'a tcidu le cukta
>>
>> (The cmaste happens to use this very example; look under pa'aku.
>> It means "respectively")
>
>Yes, unfortunately it does. This has nothing to do with the usual
>function of BAIs though, so I don't find it correct. To me it means
>that each of the people read each of the books, and this happens in
>parallel with something.
>
>If BAIs are going to have this power of meddling with the scope of
>quantifiers, it should be explained in much more detail than as a lost
>example in the cmaste, I think.
ma'oste (no 'r')
Remember that not all BAIS were originally designed to be used at the
main bridi level, but some are rather intended to be attached to
individual sumti using "pe"/"ne".
Furthermore, many BAIs and even more so discursives were added to the
language specifically to allow a short cut avoidance of what logical
precision might require. Especially this tricky scope stuff. The
analytic interpretation of BAI came long after it was solidly a part of
the language. The original sense of BAI used adverbially like a tense
(without a specific sumti attached), was that of an abbreviated separate
sentence (hence outside of the scope of this sentence) which brings in
additional information about the relationship between the other sumti.
>> 1b the couple who are respectively french and german
>
> le remei poi ge pa ke'a fraso gi pa ke'a dotco
>
>The slight difference is that the Lojban here allows for one member
>being franco-german and nothing is said of the other, but I think
>pragmatics should take care of that. If that's what you meant you would
>just say:
>
> le remei poi pa ke'a fraso gi'e dotco
The question is vague without context. Is there a reason for the order?
Would "the couple who are respectively german and french" do equally
well?
I would just say "le fraso ku fa'u le dotco" given no other information.
>> 2a the mothers of Xorxe and And
>
> le mamta be la xorxes a la and
>
>i.e. Each of those that are either mother of Xorxe or mother of And (or
>both). Notice that this does _not_ expand to:
>
> le mamta be la xorxes ku a le mamta be la and
Again, I think fa'u works better as the connective.
>> 2b the mothers of the men
>
> lei mamta be lei nanmu
>
>If you don't want to use lei you can say:
>
> le mamta be su'o le nanmu
> Each of those that are a mother of at least one of the men.
>
>I think that the proper scope here is as in:
>
> ro da poi su'o de poi nanmu zo'u ke'a mamta de
>
>>
>> 2c the children of the women
>
> lei panzi be lei ninmu
>
>or:
>
> le panzi be su'o le ninmu
> Each of those that are a child of at least one of the women.
Pragmatically, there is no need to insert quantification or
'respectiveness' into these.
Quantification in Lojban is supposed to be optional and default
quantifiers may be overridden when context makes sense, so "le mamta be
le nanmu" should work as well as "le panzi be le ninmu".
Of course in these cases we can beg the question with "le fetsi se
bersa" (or "seke makcu remna bersa" if you are speciesist) and "le se
mamta", respectively.
>> 2d The french and germans [not only people with dual nationality]
>
> le fraso e le dotco
>
> lei fraso ku joi lei dotco
and a variety of other non-logical connectives, depending on context.
"fa'u" and "jo'u" being most likely.
>> I can only manage them with long circumlocutions. Are there some
>> tricks I'm missing?
>
>Tricks indeed they are. I don't think there is a standard easy way to
>respectivize.
Partly because we have no context to indicate what the respectivization
is for. Partly becuase you are trying to quantify in a language which,
while rigidly scoped when fully quantified, is supposed to have optional
number.
>> Mark Vines responds:
>>
>> Because I'm only a beginner, my suggestions may be less than
>> reliable, but I have a suggestion regarding 2a-2c, & that is
>> to use {vrici}:
>>
>> 2a le vrici mamta be la xorxes. je la .and.
>> 2b le vrici mamta be le vrici nanmu
>> 2c le vrici verba be le vrici ninmu
>> 2c le vrici panzi be le vrici ninmu
>>
>> If my suggestion is incorrect or suboptimal, I hope someone will
>> say so.
>
>I don't think that works. In 2a you're describing each of the things as
>being vrici mamta of both Jorge and And. In 2b you talk of each of the
>vrici mamta of everyone of the vrici men, and so on.
But a "le vrici mamta" need not be a singularity, but rather a complex
"in-mind" which embodies the respectively attribute. The "je" might
cause problems, though, since it implies expansibility into two
sentences.
>> > > 2a the mothers of Xorxe and And
>>
>> le mamta be la xorxes .e la .and
>
>I think that has to be a mother of both. It does not expand to le mamta
>be la xorxes ku e le mamta be la and.
Why not?
The plausible alternative is that it expands to "le mamta be la xorxes
je mamta be la .and.", since the "le" is attached to a unitary
description. But I suspect that we never have ruled between the two,
and indeed could not find an example of be with connection in a quick
search of the refgram.
>Didn't we talk about this some time ago? I'm feeling all dejavuish.
Yes. With the normal lack of resolution %^)
Here, BTW, is what seems like the relevant section of the refgram on the
topic of respectively:
|The normal Lojban
|way of saying that James and George are brothers is:
|<p>
|<ex "brothers">
|<pre><a name=e14d8>14.8) la djeimyz. bruna la djordj.
| James is-the-brother-of George.
|</pre>possibly adding a discursive element meaning ``and vice versa''.
However,
|``James and George are brothers'' cannot be correctly translated as:
|<p>
|<pre><a name=e14d9>14.9) la djeimyz. .e la djordj. bruna
| James and George is-a-brother.
|</pre>since that expands to two bridi and means that James is a brother and
|so is George, but not necessarily of each other. If the ``.e'' is changed
|to ``jo'u'', however, the meaning of <a href=#e14d8>Example 14.8</a> is
preserved:
|<p>
|<pre><a name=e14d10>14.10) la djeimyz. jo'u la djordj.
| cu remei bruna
| James in-common-with George
| are-a-twosome type-of-brothers.
|</pre><p>The tanru ``remei bruna'' is not strictly necessary in this sentence,
|but is used to make clear that we are not saying that James and George
|are both brothers of some third person not specified. Alternatively,
|we could turn the tanru around: the x1 place of ``remei'' is a mass with
|two components, leading to:
|<p>
|<lx "joi">
|<pre><a name=e14d11>14.11) la djeimyz. joi la djordj.
| cu bruna remei
| James massed-with George
| are-a-brother type-of-twosome.
|</pre>where ``joi'' is used to create the necessary mass.
|<p>
|<lx "fa'u">
|<cx "connection, non-distributed">
|<cx "respectively, specifying with fa'u">
|<ex "respectively">
|Likewise, ``fa'u'' can be used to put two individuals together where
|order matters. Typically, there will be another ``fa'u'' somewhere else
|in the same bridi:
|<p>
|<pre><a name=e14d12>14.12) la djeimyz. fa'u la djordj.
| prami la meris. fa'u la martas.
| James jointly-in-order-with George
| loves Mary jointly-in-order-with Martha.
| James and George love Mary and Martha, respectively.
|</pre><cx "fa'u, contrasted with .e">
|<cx ".e, contrasted with fa'u">
|Here the information carried by the English adverb ``respectively'', namely
|that James loves Mary and George loves Martha, is divided between the
|two occurrences of ``fa'u''.
lojbab
----
lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";