Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> > I still don't think it's true, even on the distributive
> > interpretation. "Every cmavo is not needed" entails "There
> > is no cmavo that is needed",
> Yes, just like there is no kidney that is (absolutely) needed.
> > which surely means we could get by with a cmavoless language.
> No. To say that none of the four legs of a table is essential for the
> table not to fall is not like saying that the table won't fall if
> it has no legs.

I think I get it. You're saying
   -Ex NEC x belegs table
whereas I was understanding
   -NEC Ex x belegs table

You said "every cmavo is not needed" meaning
   Ax -NEC x is cmavo, -Ex NEC x is cmavo
and I took it as
   -NEC Ex x is cmavo

Was I simply wrong, or was the Lojban ambiguous? (I said some cmavo
aren't needed (Ex x is cmavo & -NEC x is cmavo) and you said that
is true of all cmavo.)

> > Well, say {sohe} means "getting on for all" - then scopewise
> > it behaves pretty much like {ro}. Say, for sake of argument,
> > {sohe} is "75% of". Then "75% of camvo are unneeded" is very
> > different from "It's not the case that 75% of cmavo are needed".
> Are you saying that the latter allows for all cmavo to be needed?
> Otherwise, I still don't see the difference. (Unless you are taking
> 75% as an exact number.)

Try this instead:
"Most are unneeded" is false if less than most are needed.
"It is not the case that most are needed" is false if most are needed.

> > > >   klama fo da ku fo de .i
> > > >   klama bai da ku bai de
> > Another bugoid, I reckon. English doesn't allow it, at least not with
> > complements.
> Well, you can say things like "he was at home at three", but I guess
> you'd say that "at" is two different words there. Or "he plays with
> the car with John".

More clearly, "I bought some food because I was hungry, because
it was necessary" or "I left quickly angrily". It's only multiple
complements that have to be coordinated; adjuncts needn't be.
But Lojban sumti are more like complements.

> > Okay then: anaphors are an add-on convenience. But let us make
> > a distinction between conveniences for avoiding the merely cumbersome
> > from conveniences for avoiding the impossibly cumbersome.
> I consider the avoidance of {kau} impossibly cumbersome. Or is there
> an objective measure of cumbersomeness?

There may be in principle, but in practice it is subjective - a matter
for taste and consensus. As I've said, I think by my criteria is
redundant but nonetheless convenient.

> > No, the more general method is the one used in the most constructions
> > (so long as it is used with the same grammar in each construction).
> "Most" as in "most frequent" or as in "most possible".
> I assume you'll want "most possible". What if there are infinite
> possibilities for both?

Yes, "most possible". If they are equivalent by this measure then neither
is more basic than the other; either is redundant.

> > I can't think of an actual example offhand, so here's an imaginary
> > one. Suppose we had two ways of expressing numbers, but one way
> > could be used in all contexts where PA can, but the other way worked
> > only when descriptored by {li}. The first way would be the more
> > general and the more basic.
> I agree that having one cmavo doing nothing but
> repeat what another does would not be useful.

I didn't say it wouldn't be useful. It would be less basic. It could
be useful because shorter, or more intuitive, or whatever.

> > Every lg needs a word/morpheme for "1", but doesn't need one
> > word/morpheme for "7582342".
> Needs? Lojban could do without {pa} if it keeps all the other PAs.
> Or you could use things like {le namcu pe le solri be le terdi}
> or some other thing that is unique. Why should 1 necessarily be a single
> word/morpheme? What do you mean here by "need"?

"Need" by some criterion whereby the language ought to approximately
model cognition/world-view. That's usually implicit in the design of
invented lgs. I find it reasonable to claim that we readily conceptualize
"1", but not "7583342", & a language shd in part reflect this somehow.

> > > There are many ways of expressing the same idea. That holds for every
> > > language, including Lojban.
> > And so it follows by my reasoning that you cd get away with having
> > only one way.
> How does that follow?

There are many ways I can light my cigarette. A petrol lighter, matches,
the stove... I could get away with using only one of them.

> In fact, I doubt that you could device a language
> for standard human comunication in which each idea can be expressed in
> a unique single way.

This is not the goal I've been speculating about. Rather, I've been
speculating about minimizing the size of the grammar. And I do think
one could do without duplicating constructions of equivalent expressive
power.

> > Suppose you had to
> > devise a notation for all numbers. You could use as many symbols as
> > there are numbers. Or you could use fewer symbols but add a grammar
> > for interpreting combinations of symbols. As you use fewer and fewer
> > symbols you'd come to an irreducible minimum. One symbol alone will
> > not suffice. I guess some mathematician has worked out how few will
> > suffice.
> Two. It's called binary notation ;)

Wdn't that just do positive integers?

> But then expressing ideas is not as simple as finding a notation for
> numbers, nor is it simple (maybe impossible in some cases) to say when
> two ideas are the same, which you need to do in order to check whether
> you are duplicating some of them or not.

Fortunately that's not the issue. Lexis & syntax is less slippery than
semantics, and L & S are what I was hypothetically seeking to simplify.

----
And