Re: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

 >The scale necessarily provides the units.

But your examples provided earlier in the message gave no indication of
the scale in terms that would provide units.  Example:
> >>    le nu ko'a sutra le nu broda cu cenba [le ka ce'u klani li xokau]
>>>    Koha's speed at brodaing varies [in how much it is].

How does one know even that this is speed rather than acceleration, much
less whether it is kilometers/hour, meters/second**2 or furlongs/fortnight?
The scale, to be m4eaningful, must provide the units pretty explicitly, so
we need a way of  expressing scales that includes a unit expression - hence
si'o and something invoking the units as a measurement.

>Lojbab:
>> I can think of
>>no English sentence where I could use (with meaning)
>>"1-B, where B is the blueness of the picture", without in some way
>>introducing some units to measure blueness at the very least
>
>The expression "1-B" strongly suggests that the scale goes from
>0 for no blueness to 1 for maximum blueness, however that be
>defined.

Except that ni isn't generally used for 0 to 1 scales first of all, and
I see no sign of an attempt to make it explicit that such a scale is intended
(of course there might not be if all you have is one sumti).  I know that
it never occurred to >ME< that this might be the interpretation of that
example.


>In any case, I don't really care whether {ni} has the number
>meaning or the xokau-meaning. I don't use it either way.

Fine, but I suspect that I won't understand if you use the substitutes that
you have shown thus far.

> >>    le nu ko'a sutra le nu broda cu cenba [le ka ce'u klani li xokau]
>>>    Koha's speed at brodaing varies [in how much it is].
>>
>>That first sumti is discussing the event of ko'a being fast, and not the
>>measureable property of that event, which is the speed of le nu broda
>>taking place All you have said is that this event of ko'a being fast
>>has varied in some specific property of being associated with a number that
>>has some value.
>
>--More--
>Exactly, yes.
>
>>What numerical property of the event that is varying is not
>>in any way made clear and indeed it could be any numerical property.
>
>Of course!
>
> >>Of course, if broda was more specific we could be more
>>>specific about le se cenba. For example if broda was
>>>travelling by car, le se cenba could be kilometers per hour.
> >
>>Yes, but the event of John being fast at travelling by car can vary in the
>>number of times John stops for gas. Another number unrelated to speed that
>>is a variation in the event of John being fast.  Isee no way that this
>>interpretation is excluded by your ce'u klani format.
>
>It isn't excluded. Why would we want it to be excluded, if it is
>worded in an almost maximally general way? Is it excluded
>using {ni}?

Yes.  If you want stops for gas, you need the count of stops for gas.
The degree/amount of fastness is a speed (or perhaps a velocity if one
made an effort to express it).  It is not an acceleration, which is
a rate of change in speed
le parbi be leni leni sutra cu cenba ku le temci

You may not know the specific units of a ni expression, but you should know
what kind of units *might* be appropriate.

I want to know how  you would express things *specifically* - we did after
all start with the question of resolving ambiguity in English vs. Lojban.
I need an expression that is at least as clear as an English language
definition of speed or acceleration or whatever.

> >>    le nu broda cu cenba le ka ko'a sutra ce'u kei sela'u xokau
>>>    The brodaing varies in the extent to which koha is fast at it.
>>
>>I dunno - the latter in particular seems to suggest acceleration to me more
>>that speed.
>
>Any change in speed is an acceleration.

True - so what is varying, the speed or the acceleration?

>>>(1)        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre
>>>             John's arm is 1 in meters.
>>
>>But there is no disambiguation present to indicate what about John's arm
>>is 1 in meterness even if this were an acceptable use of klani.
>
>You're right about that of course, but it is not a problem particular
>to this sentence. Infinite precision requires infinite verbosity and all
>that. But disambiguation is perfectly possible:
>
>        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre fi le clarai
>        John's arm is 1 in meters in the longest dimension.

Saved by my including the direction place in mitre, eh? %^)

Pardon me if I don't try to see you explain energy flux in Lojban, or something
else reasonably complicated that I suspect would need quantity abstractions.

> >>(2)    lei va plise cu klani li mu le ka mi kancu
>>>         Those apples there are 5 by my reckoning.
>>
>>Those apples are a quantity?
>
>Right.

So if we wanted to talk about John's age, then either John or the event of
John's living (lenu la djan. jmive) is a klani?

MInd boggling.

>>>(3)    le gugde cu klani li ciciki'oki'o le ka namcu pe lei xabju
>>>         The country is 33,000,000 in number of inhabitants.
> >
>>There are a lot of numbers associated with said inhabitants, the count of
>which
>>is only one - see the Statistical Abstract ofthe US for 1000 pages of
>numbers
>>measuiring the inhabitants of the US in a variety of ways.
>
>Is that an objection or just a comment? Of course I agree. There are
>--More--
>of course ways to be more precise. I could have used a predicate like
>"x1 is the number of members of x2" if there was an obvious one.
>I didn't use {kancu} because last time I used it you objected that
>it required someone doing the counting.

??? le gugde cu klani li ciciki'oki'o leka le turni cu kancu le .y. .y.
ni le prenu cu xabju vo'a

or maybe le cmima be le'i xabju be co'a

The leni expression is of course what I would have put in the x1 of klani
since that is the actual quantity.  A country is not a quantity.  You seem
to be making mincemeat of the concepts of quantity and scale.  Not something
I would have expected from someone trained in the physical sciences.

> >>I don't know. I didn't invent {ni}, nor do I have much use for it.
>>
>>Well you are trying to pretend it isn't needed, but when you are not
>>careful, no one knows what you are measuring.
>
>Could you explain what you mean by that? I am not pretending
>that I don't need it. If you just read what I write in Lojban you would
>see that I really don't use it.

Maybe we aren't talking about things that are measured all that often.
certaionly not with reference to actually being able to express a
measurement.  If you want to talk about speed without referring to
it being measureable, leka sutra is adequate if vague.

> >>    i mi do prami sela'u li piso'i
> >>    I love you in quantity a lot.
>>
>>Vague as the relationship of the quantity with the predicate.
>
>Of course it's vague! Is the English version less vague?
>Is the version with {ni} less vague? What is your better translation?

I'll back off on this, in that my version

leni mi do prami cu mutce
or                  klani li so'i

is not less vague. I can more directly invoke how I am measuring ni prami,
giving scale, units etc. at the main predicate level, whereas you have to do
it with tela'u.

I suspect that your approach would break down in a more complicated
expression, but I am not up to finding the example that breaks your
approach.

If I were using the language as much as you, no doubt I would have the
experiences and examples to throw at you, but I don't these days.

It might be interesting to see your attempt to translate something
technical in the sciences, but itprobably would be a waste in that I
and most others would not be up to the challenge of checking it.
JCB tested his language version on Scientific American (in singularly most
uninspiring translations, but also unreadable ones - most of the words
were fu'ivla, so you needed to look at the English to find out what the
words meant if it was out of your field).

lojbab