Re: ago24 & replies

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la pycyn cusku di'e

>         I am not sure what "a medium tempo-
>         ral distance from the set of three years" means (if I understand
>         _za_ correctly) and so am unsure that it is true of an event
>         three years ago.

Right, but the proposed new interpretation is that {za lei ci nanca} would
mean "a medium temporal distance OF DURATION three years", and not
"FROM the three years", as currently.

My argument is that the <sumti> tagged with {za} should not be the origin
but the magnitude, just as is the case with {ze'a}. Is there any problem
with {ze'a lei ci nanca}, which means "for an interval OF DURATION three
years"?

>              To be fair, the alternative proposed is not meant to mean
>         "ago" in Lojban-as-of-now but is rather a proposal for a "small,
>         cheap" change to Lojban-new-and-improved.

It is certainly cheap, since no new cmavo are required, and no cmavo
would change meaning. All we need is to change the interpretation of
the sumti tagged by the ZAs, something that has almost never been used
(and with good reason, as you point out, the current meaning is rather
useless).

One of the proposed alternatives would be a bit more expensive, since
it would require a new cmavo.

>         One of the effects of
>         living with an ancient cmavo list is that I regularly see how
>         much has changed in the last several years. Some of these changes
>         have no doubt been useful and needed. Some of them have arguably
>         improved things somewhat

I guess I should be grateful that I came to know Lojban after the
baselining, so that I've seen practically no changes, other than a couple
of minor ones in place structures.

>         (adding a place for the sequence to n-
>         moi may be one of these, though, thinking back to the fight to
>         get the origin added as a place, it does seem that the sequence
>         probably is less often referred to and so should be the third
>         place rather than the second -- I assume the origin is the third
>         place, so "_befi la Cac_ to be on the safe side").

The 3rd place is a "rule", according to the cmavo list. That's why I was
confused by {la Cac}, it didn't seem to make sense neither as a set nor
as a rule.

>         Now, I do not know what happened to change _zai_ from a
>         tensor (presumably a metric on a vector, though the description
>         is not very clear) to whatever it is now, but it seems to have
>         been done without regard to the need for such tensors.

I can't comment on that, since I try to ignore as much as possible the
MEX part of the language, but I don't really see how something like that
would help with "ago".

>         Similar-
>         ly, the move from _ze'e_ meaning "during an indefinite (i.e., not
>         specified as short, medium or long) interval" to (can this really
>         be right?) "an infinite time interval" (when would we use that?)

I have used it several times. It is useful to talk about everlasting events.
It is often a better translation of "always" than {roroi}, which really
means "every time", while {ze'e} is one infinitely long time.

The semi-infinite intervals are also useful: {ze'epu} and {ze'eba}. If you
want to say that something has never happened, then {pu noroi} is not really
definite enough, because it says "never in a certain past interval", what
if someone asks in what interval? {ze'u}, a very long one, is not enough.

On the other hand, I really don't see that much difference between an
indefinite and a medium time interval. "Medium" is almost as non-descript
as "indefinite". Also, there wasn't an equivalent "indefinite" for the za,
zi, zu series.


>         was not carefully planned (and it is hard to imagine what could
>         have prompted it -- even if it turns out that I did it myself).

I'm glad it's there, whatever prompted it. I have found it very useful.

>         Finally, some of the shifts seem just pointless, if not counter-
>         productive. Some of the above may be of that sort, but the shift
>         of _lo_broda_ from "all broda" to "some broda," both of which are
>         redundant for Qda poi constructions and much less efficient in
>         that role, strikes me as an especially clear case of change for
>         change sake and without regard to further consequences.

I'd hate to have to use {su'o broda} every time I use {lo broda}. I think
that a statistical analysis of the Lojban produced so far will yield
that {lo broda} is much more common than {ro broda}, so it makes sense
that it should be that. Also, I find {lo broda} usually much better than
{da poi broda}, but that may be a bias from natlangs. (Also, {ro broda}
is as short and simple as {lo broda}, what would we gain by them both
meaning the same thing?)

>              I am not sure that the proposed changes in _za zi zu_ (why
>         all three, by the way?

Consistency. I actually would prefer not to change any than changing only
one. And I would like to clarify that I don't want to touch their definition,
the cmavo list would stay unchanged. What would change is how to interpret
a sumti tagged by them. That is not explained in the cmavo list. To assume
that the sumti so tagged is the origin is just as arbitrary (and redundant
to the PUs) as to take it as the actual magnitude of the distance, which
is already done for the ZEhAs.

>         -- since the metric applied gives the more
>         exact size)

Is three years a long time, a short one, or a medium one? It entirely
depends on the context. This is exactly analogous to the ZEhAs, anyway.
I'm not proposing anything revolutionary.

>         is as pointless as these or even that it reflects the
>         frequent quick-fix-rather-than-working-in-the-system attitude
>         that some changes surely have.

Since the proposed change would not affect anything that is baselined,
but only a little part of one of John's papers, it could be argued not
to be a change in practice at all, but rather a change in theory.
If there is practically no use of the ZAs as tcita, then the only
thing that gives them meaning in that role is their description in
that paper.

>         The claim that the set are not
>         used (i.e., that no one has yet had occasion to use or, perhaps,
>         has yet figured out how to use) shows at least some concern with
>         the effects of such a shift, though the systemic ramifications
>         have not been dealt with yet - what does this do for the set as
>         tense affixes, for example, or for the meaning of other tense
>         affixes that also serve as tags?

It doesn't change them. In fact, I based my proposal on their meaning as
tenses:

        mi pu za ze'a tcidu le selcku
        I <past> <medium distance> <medium interval> read the book.
        I read the book for a while, a while back.

        mi tcidu le cukta pu le dormidju za le cacra ze'a le cacryxadba
        I read the book <past> noon <medium distance> one hour
        <medium interval> half an hour.
        I read the book for half an hour, one hour before noon.

Just like the complement of {ze'a} gives the length of the interval, so
the complement of {za} gives the length of the distance, and the complement
of {pu} gives the origin.

The origin has to be the complement of PU anyway, so why use the ZAs to
duplicate that job?

>         Barring some clarification on
>         those points, I would have to say that the proposal had not yet
>         earned acceptance.

I hope this clarifies some.

>              (BTW, what is _bu'u_?

bu'u      FAhA3    coincident with
        location tense relation/direction;
        coincident with/at the same place as;
        space equivalent of ca

This, and not {vi}, is the space equivalent of {ca}. Of course, that is
the theory. In practice, {vi} is the one used as such.

>         I still have it as a bound predicate
>         variable, the only second order part of this system.

Those things were reduced to three: bu'a, bu'e, bu'i, just like da, de, di.

>         In the same
>         way, _ne'a_ is given as a non-restrictve relative clause giving
>         membership in a set

ne'a      FAhA3    next to
        location tense relation/direction;
        approximating/next to ...

I guess for the old meaning you'd have to use {noi cmima}.

>         and _to'o_ is a toggle for print case on
>         words.

to'o      FAhA4    away from point
        location tense relation/direction;
        departing from/directly away from ...

I would banish all case shifts from the language ;)

>         Losing the last two does not seem a loss, assuming they
>         went to a good cause, but the first one would cripple the logical
>         nature of the language if it went completely.  Has it been re-
>         placed?)

No, the list has just been reduced. I can't say I'd miss them, though.
I can't find any use for them in normal conversation.

>         Incidentally, most of the examples of _xo'u_
>         are not from unlikely meanings but from cases of English "any,"
>         which functions in English in just the same way.

Are we talking about the same {xo'u}?

Does

        le re prenu cu djuno le du'u xo'u lo mlatu cu gruzi

mean
        There is a cat such that each of the two persons knows
        that it is grey.


If yes, then I don't see the direct link with "any".
If not, then And and I misinterpreted what you meant by it.


>         2.  The use of _vi_ for "at" is already in Urloglan, c.1960, and
>         probably is ineradicable.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that it is probably rooted too deep.
(Like the worst weeds :)

>         Nor is getting rid of it necessarily
>         desirable: "at" just is not a precise term at all and the dis-
>         tinction between it and "right up close to" is not going to be
>         more than one which varies with purposes.  See Mad Ludwig on
>         "Stand just there."

In some cases it makes a difference, in others it doesn't. "At the door"
and "very close to the door" are practically the same thing.
"In Argentina" and "very close to Argentina" are practically a very
different thing.

>         3.  The thing And wants for this sibling problem, one from column
>         A and one from column J is a Cartesian product, for which we once
>         had a cmavo in JOI, though I cannot now lex it.

Do you mean:

pi'u      JOI      cross product
non-logical connective: cross product; Cartesian product of sets

What is {le mamta be la and pi'u la xorxes}? I don't get it.

Assuming that {la and} is the set with single element "And", (which
I'm not sure is right,) the Cartesian product gives the set with single
element (And, Jorge), an ordered pair. Are we to interpret the ordered
pair (And's mum, Jorge's mum) as the mother of the previous one?

I would be happy with {fa'u}:

fa'u      JOI      and respectively
        non-logical connective: respectively;
        unmixed ordered distributed association

even though normal use would be more something like:

        ko'a fa'u ko'e selsau le mamta be la and fa'u la xorxes
        He, respectively she, knows the mother of And, respectively Jorge.

I can accept the barbarism:

        ko'a selsau le mamta be la and fa'u la xorxes
        He knows the mothers of And and Jorge.

Even though there is only one explicit {fa'u}, I can accept the
"respectively" to pragmatically distribute the mothers.

>         5. If we are to have lambda variable, we need a slough of them,
>         since the whole point of lambdacism is that different ones can be
>         replaced differently.

Could you give an example of a sentence that would require two
lambdas within the same relation? I can't think of anything.

On the other hand, for some tersumti, like the x3 of frica, zmadu, mleca,
dunli, simsa it seems that one lambda variable is essential.

I'd be happy with only one. (And even happier if {ke'a} was given this
extra job, so that no new cmavo needs to be added.)

Jorge