Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

coi. goran.
 > It's not that silly. It *looks* silly because you're not used to it.
 > What I'm saying is that the story looks quite unambiguous and concise
 > even without the paragraph boundaries. Yes, empty lines don't count in
 > lojban, there was no confusion arising because of the lack of ni'o, so
 > no harm done.

Sometime I'm going to try doing some serious mathematics in Lojban; then
we'll see how well the principle holds up...

 > ... < more on exploding stomachs> ...
 > > Does {lo} imply singularity?  I would think that either {le betfu} or {lo
 > > betfu} could refer to one or more than one stomach, the only difference
 > > being whether the things actually are stomachs or only described that
 > > way.
 >
 > No. lo means some, at least one, of the entire set, indiscriminately
 > taken. More or less. le means all of the some, at least one, I think about.
 > If more than one, in both cases, they are taken individually: each of...,
 > not as a group. That is what loi/lei are for.

Well, there are two things going on.  There's the default quantifiers:
{su'i} (at least one) for {lo}, and {ro} (all) for {le}.  But that's
not the important semantic difference between the two, which is
whether the description is supposed to be sufficient to understand the
reference.  (i.e., with {lo} theoretically anything matching the
description fits, while with {le} there's something particular in
mind.)  So, for instance, Jorge's original sentence
        roroi ca le nu lo betfu cu spoja kei le lorxu cu sruri klama li'o
says, literally
        Every time when {at least one belly, somewhere, exploded} the
                fox went around [the oven] and ...

I would have worded it using ...{pale betfu}... (or {su'ile betfu} to
match {lo betfu}), just in case there were other bellies exploding
elsewhere in the world.

(Apologies if you knew that.)

 > ...
 > > How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up?
                                       ^^ should be {be}
 >
 > The mass of stomacks of the fox cub(s) begins to explode. = All the
 > stomachs there are in one or more cubs I think about begin to explode,
 > together.

I don't think that's quite right.  Because of the {le lorpanzi}, each of
the referents of {lei betfu be le lorpanzi} is a mass of stomachs, each
belonging to just one fox cub.  (Naturally, each mass of stomachs will
have only one stomach.)  So this means just the same thing as {co'a
spoja fa le betfu be le lorpanzi}.  I think.

 > ...
 > > Let me voice a premature opinion.  Saying {lo crida} makes just as much
 > > sense as {le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu};
 > > ...
 >
 > That is also my opinion. The main point here is universe of discourse.
 > If you talk about events in Midsummer's Night Dream, the fairies are
 > real. So, lo crida is OK. If you are saying, There are no fairies, you
 > CAN'T say lo crida na zasti, because that's logical contradiction. IMHO.
 > I don't know the current consensus on this.

Ok, now let me give a slight less premature opinion.  {lo crida na
zasti} is the exact contradiction of {lo crida zasti}:  "there is at
least one thing that is a fairy."  Since {lo crida zasti} is true, {lo
crida na zasti} is false (and says there are no faries).  An alternative
phrasing is {no lo crida cu zasti}.

 > > > le ly. betfo ba'o binxo lo/le plana   means   The fox's stomack finished
 > > > becoming a/the bloated thing. The lo variant corresponds to the given
 > > > sentence pretty closely, though neither quite capture the whole sense of
 > > > the English sentence (i.e. the stomack is now a bloated thing, but not
 > > > necessarily a stomack any more. ...
 > > > The le variant is not what you want, because of its
 > > > definiteness ...
 > > Good!  I think this answers my query about {lo} vs. {le}
 >
 > Jorge doesn't approve this explanation. I still hold it. Let's see: le
 > means in-mind referrent. You can't have an in-mind referrent if it's a
 > new one. Dunno. Maybe. You still have to explain your stand to me,
 > xorxes...

Let me give a try:  you can have an in-mind referent even if it's new,
just as long as (the listener understands what you mean.  (As would be
the case here.)  I think {le ly. betfo ba'o binxo le plana} is fine,
just as long as you understand that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
if there's more than one fox and/or stomach in mind:  _each_ if the
foxes becomes _each_ of the bloated things.

 > .oiro'ese'i Right. Agave is a something with needles on it's leaves.
 > Some AmerIndians used its needles as needles, and its fibers for making
 > cloth.

OK, I think I do know what it is now.  {ki'e}

 ... more helpful answers I have no arguments with ...

 > > e'u do cilre lei bangu .i zo'o zo'onai ro bangu te djuno be do cu
 > > banri'a .ai le ka do na ka'e seljmi
 > (...)
 > > Should the first {do} be {ko}?
 >
 > If you say ko, thenn it's a command. I say: I suggest that you study
 > languages. I am not telling you, but it would be better for you if you
 > did.

Um.  Well, Jorge is of the opinion that {e'u do} is exactly equivalent
to {ko}.  In any case, I'd still argue for {ko}:  you really are giving
a command, it's just a question of how strong it is:  you're not really
require obedience, but that's an attitude question.  (I suppose
{.oise'inai} would make it a true command.)

Many natural languages (including English) have politeness rules that
require you to avoid sounding like you're imperious when you're not.
But that's not Lojbanic.

 > > And do you want the {do} in the x3 place of {bangu te djuno}?  i.e.,
 > > ...{ro bangu te djuno be fi do}...
 >
 > = All languages known by you. What's the matter?

Right, that's what you _should_ have.  What you _did_ have was {ro
bangu te djuno be do}, which just doesn't make sense.

 > > The x2 of jimpe is a fact, not a person.  Shouldn't it be {le ka ma do na
 > > ka'e seljmi}?  ({ma do} standing for {le do selsku} or {le do te djuno}.)
 >
 > No, no, no. There is an error, and thanks for pointing it out to me... I
 > stopped seeing the sig. But the solution is much simpler than that (even
 > if yours worked, which it doesn't): le ka do terjmi.

Um.  Well, OK, a person can be a subject.

 > > co'o mi'e dilyn. TRS,ton.
 >
 > co'o mi'e goran. poi finti lo cnino famselsku

mu'o mi'e. dilyn. noi denpa .a'a.a'u le cnino famselsku