Difference between revisions of "On the meaning of ⟨ro broda cu brode⟩"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
  
== Lojbanistani Culture ==
+
'''Work in progress'''
  
The culture of [[jbocre: Lojbanistan|Lojbanistan]].
+
I'm working on a revised version that sums up the upshot of the Jboske debate on quantifiers & importingness. Once checked by the debate's participants, the write up could be announced on Lojban list, to prove that some things really do
  
In [[jbocre: Lojban Description|Lojban Description]]: lojbo kulnu or jboklu
+
get settled.
  
* um. "lojbo" is a culture word.  "lojbo kulnu" is redundant.  -jrd
+
'''Two types of quantification.''' Quantifiers come in two sorts, which we can tentatively label ''''cardinals'''' and ''''fractionals''''. The numbers ''pa, re, ci...'', "1, 2, 3...", are examples of cardinals. ''So'e'', "most", is an example of a fractional. Fractionals may either involve taking a fraction of the extension of a set, as in "one third of all lojbanists", or they may be formulated as 'frequencies', as in "one in (every) three lojbanists", "one per three lojbanists". The frequency variety of fractionals is suitable for fractionally quantifying over sets with infinite size.
** It's also a language/nationality/community word. IMO ''lojbo kulnu'' picks out one of those meanings and is clearer/more specific than ''lojbo'' alone. Or how about ''lojbo le ka ce'u kulnu'', in the spirit of [[jbocre: Simple phrases he phrasebook|Simple phrases he phrasebook]]? Or ''kulnu (be) loi lojbo''? -pne
 
  
xu ti poi ke'a papri ku'o cu sa'u -- Hope this means what I want it to mean. ;)
+
'''The meaning of ''ro''.''' What does ''ro'' mean in ''lo ro broda''? Well, if there are 7 broda, then ''lo ro broda'' is equivalent to ''lo ze broda''. If there are a hundred broda, then it is equivalent to ''lo pa no no broda''. ''Ro'', then, expressed a cardinal number. In ''lo ro broda'', ''ro'' expresses the cardinal number that is the cardinality of ''lo'i broda''. In ''ro (lo) broda'', ''ro'' again expresses the number that is the cardinality of ''lo'i broda'', but here the number is functioning as a cardinal quantifier, so ''ro lo ze broda'' = ''ze (lo ze) broda'', ''ro lo pa no no broda'' = ''pa no no (lo pa no no) broda''. The same goes for ''ro da poi broda''. In the case of unrestricted quantification, as in ''ro da ga broda gi brode'', ''ro'' expresses the number that is the number of da in the universe (-- everything in the universe is a da).
  
''sa'u is not a selbri, so we don't understand you. Maybe you meant sampu.''
+
'''Ways of saying "all".''' Sometimes we might want to express "all" by means of a fractional quantifier -- "all (of the) lojbanists", "1 in every 1 lojbanist", "100% of lojbanists". However that would be done in Lojban, it is not done by plain unadorned ''ro''.
  
*The afore-illustrated exchange is of course, one of the characteristics of Lojbanistani Culture (but arguably also of any [[jbocre: conlang|conlang]]): people correct each others' grammar. :-)
+
'''Existential import of ''ro''.''' The issue that led to the discussion that led to this record was the question of whether ''ro broda cu brode'' can be true when there are no broda. It turns out that ''ro broda cu brode'' can be true when there are no broda''. This is easy to see. If the cardinality of ''lo'i broda'' is 0, then ''ro broda'' = ''no broda''. Plainly, ''no broda cu brode'' is true when there are no broda.
  
----
+
'''The principal quantiers.''' There are four principal cardinal quantifiers: ''no'', "0"; ''su'o (pa)'', "at least one"; ''me'i (ro)'', "less than ro"; ''ro''. The details of these are discussed elsewhere. [[jbocre: WHERE?]] (NB It has not yet been fully established that plain ''me'i'' is equivalent to ''me'i ro'', or that ''me'i'' is the best choice to express one of the four principal cardinal quantifiers.) By deduction, ''su'o'' and ''me'i'' have exstential import and ''no'' and ''ro'' do not.
  
Examples can be found in the many [[jbocre: Lojban literary forms ojban Poems|Lojban literary forms ojban Poems]], the [[jbocre: Lojban Description|Lojban Description]] translations of the Bible and Alice in Wonderland, ''[[jbocre: jbozgiMusic bozgi|jbozgiMusic bozgi]]'' music, the [[jbocre: TeaCeremony ojban Tea Ceremony|TeaCeremony ojban Tea Ceremony]], and several other cultural items of lojbanistan.
+
'''Existential import of fractionals.''' Fractionals involve a slightly modified notion of existential import: for example, "99% of lojbanists are broda" or "99 in (every) hundred lojbanists are broda" are meaningful only if there are at least a hundred lojbanists. So the crucial issue here is not whether the sentence is true when there are no lojbanists, but whether the sentence is true when there are fewer than 100 lojbanists. Given this generalized notion of importingness, it turns out that sometimes we want fractionals to be importing, and sometimes we don't. For example, we probably want "half my messages to Lojban list this month have been garbage" to (importingly) mean "I have written at least 2 messages ti Lojban list this month, and 1 in 2 of them have been garbage". On the other hand, we probably want "half my message to Lojban list each month are garbage" to (nonimportingly) mean "For each month, either I write fewer than 2 messages to LL or I write at least 2 messages to LL and 1 in 2 of them are garbage"; that way, the statement holds true even though there are some months when I don't write as many as 2 messages to Lojban list. Of course, the statement would be rather daft if I have never written as many as 2 messages in a single month. It is probably best to see fractionals as basically nonimporting, the oddity of saying "half my messages to LL this month have been garbage" when I've not written 2 or more messages to LL is due to its extreme uninformativeness, analogously to saying "every brother of mine has emigrated" when I have no brothers.
  
The color combination orange & silver (''narju joi rijnyska'') are sometimes thought of as ''[[jbocre: lobykai|lobykai]]'' (or at least, they were prominent in [[jbocre: ziryroi|ziryroi]]), but seldom used symbolically as such.
+
------------------------------------------------------------
  
----
+
Old version due to be deleted or heavily revised.
  
''.i lo jbojbe ba jdice'' (The Lojban-born will decide.)
+
1-5 sum up my views, but I believe they ought to be able to satisfy all parties. Point 3 is the consensus arising from several debates in previous years about imaginaries.
  
'''->[[jbocre: Native speakers|Native speakers]] '''
+
==== Original text ====
  
----
+
1. RESTRICTED QUANTIFICATION. ''Q broda = Q da poi broda''
  
==== Emblems ====
+
2. All quantification ranges over a nonempty set. For unrestricted quantification (with plain poi-less da), this is the set of everything. For restricted quantification, ''Q broda, Q da poi broda'', this is the set of everything that is a broda. Quantification cannot meaningfully range over a nonempty set, so it is immaterial whether quantification of an empty set is true or false.
  
* The [[jbocre: Lojban Logo|Lojban Logo]]
+
3. Every bridi contains an element that specifies which world(s) the bridi is claimed to be true of. This element is usually left implicit. When left implicit it is glorked from context. Currently there is no agreed way to make the element explicit (of nonexperimental cmavo, proposed candidates over the years have been ''da'i, da'i nai, ca'a, ka'e'').
* [[jbocre: Lojban Anthem|Lojban Anthem]]
 
  
==== Mythos ====
+
4. When quantifying over ''lo'i pavyseljirna'' or ''lo'i students who pass the exam next semester'', we are quantifying over the set of su'o things that in a world where unicorns exist are unicorns, and the set of su'o things that in some world are students who pass the exam next semester. This can be made explicit by ''Q world-indicator broda, Q da poi world-indicator broda''.
  
* [[jbocre: LojbanicMythology ojbanic Mythology|LojbanicMythology ojbanic Mythology]]
+
5. When talking about sets that are empty in all worlds, or when we don't want to claim that a set is nonempty in some worlds -- e.g. when talking about the set of even primes greater than 2, we use unrestricted coordination.
* [[jbocre: jbotut ojban map|jbotut ojban map]]
 
  
==== Expression ====
+
--And.
  
* [[jbocre: Lojban Style|Lojban Style]]
+
==== Commentary ====
* [[jbocre: LojbanSlang|LojbanSlang]]
 
  
* [[jbocre: LojbanAphorisms|LojbanAphorisms]]
+
-----
* [[jbocre: Lojban literary forms|Lojban literary forms]]
 
  
* [[jbocre: Saying nothing|Saying nothing]], verbosely
+
Original version moved to [[jbocre: On the meaning of 'ro broda cu brode' (arsedead version)-|On the meaning of 'ro broda cu brode' (arsedead version)-]]. I have left the discussion here. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
  
==== Daily Living ====
+
-----
  
* [[jbocre: terjukpa ecipes|terjukpa ecipes]]
+
*As i (''mi'e maikl.'') said [http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?ganai%2C%20gi here]: "I think the jbojbe may end up using ganai with the understanding (call it logical etiquette) that they are not to use this with a counterfactual clause. (There are, after all, other ways to express those kinds of statements.)"
* [[jbocre: MMORPG|MMORPG]]--Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
+
** Are you suggesting that ganai, gi should only be used when the former bridi is known to be true, flattening the concept into "ja'o"? --[[User:xod|xod]]
 
 
==== External Relations ====
 
 
 
* [[jbocre: Lojban and Esperanto|Lojban and Esperanto]]
 
* [[jbocre: Lojban and Klingon|Lojban and Klingon]]
 
 
 
* [[jbocre: The Emergence of [jbocre: Lojban Description|Lojban Description]] Nationalism]
 
 
 
----
 
 
 
One value is very strong in modern Lojbanistan: respect for the '''[[jbocre: baseline|baseline]]'''.
 
 
 
*Note that respect for the [[jbocre: baseline|baseline]] is like respect for the law: one respects it without necessarily agreeing with it. -- mi'e [[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
 
** Or even necessarily obeying it...
 
 
 
*** Sounds like some people have a broken idea of what 'respect' means.
 
**** I respect my parents, I don't always obey them. In fact, they don't give orders now, but they do make suggestions. Sometimes I follow their suggestions, sometimes I don't. Sometimes their ideas are too oldfashioned or impractical for me, so I do things they wouldn't approve of, but I still respect them. As a child I didn't always obey them either, sometimes even when I should have, but I still respected them. The baseline is not like a god that demands unquestioning obedience, it is more like a parent or a teacher. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]
 

Revision as of 17:07, 4 November 2013

Work in progress

I'm working on a revised version that sums up the upshot of the Jboske debate on quantifiers & importingness. Once checked by the debate's participants, the write up could be announced on Lojban list, to prove that some things really do

get settled.

Two types of quantification. Quantifiers come in two sorts, which we can tentatively label 'cardinals' and 'fractionals'. The numbers pa, re, ci..., "1, 2, 3...", are examples of cardinals. So'e, "most", is an example of a fractional. Fractionals may either involve taking a fraction of the extension of a set, as in "one third of all lojbanists", or they may be formulated as 'frequencies', as in "one in (every) three lojbanists", "one per three lojbanists". The frequency variety of fractionals is suitable for fractionally quantifying over sets with infinite size.

The meaning of ro. What does ro mean in lo ro broda? Well, if there are 7 broda, then lo ro broda is equivalent to lo ze broda. If there are a hundred broda, then it is equivalent to lo pa no no broda. Ro, then, expressed a cardinal number. In lo ro broda, ro expresses the cardinal number that is the cardinality of lo'i broda. In ro (lo) broda, ro again expresses the number that is the cardinality of lo'i broda, but here the number is functioning as a cardinal quantifier, so ro lo ze broda = ze (lo ze) broda, ro lo pa no no broda = pa no no (lo pa no no) broda. The same goes for ro da poi broda. In the case of unrestricted quantification, as in ro da ga broda gi brode, ro expresses the number that is the number of da in the universe (-- everything in the universe is a da).

Ways of saying "all". Sometimes we might want to express "all" by means of a fractional quantifier -- "all (of the) lojbanists", "1 in every 1 lojbanist", "100% of lojbanists". However that would be done in Lojban, it is not done by plain unadorned ro.

Existential import of ro. The issue that led to the discussion that led to this record was the question of whether ro broda cu brode can be true when there are no broda. It turns out that ro broda cu brode can be true when there are no broda. This is easy to see. If the cardinality of lo'i broda is 0, then ro broda = no broda. Plainly, no broda cu brode is true when there are no broda.

The principal quantiers. There are four principal cardinal quantifiers: no, "0"; su'o (pa), "at least one"; me'i (ro), "less than ro"; ro. The details of these are discussed elsewhere. jbocre: WHERE? (NB It has not yet been fully established that plain me'i is equivalent to me'i ro, or that me'i is the best choice to express one of the four principal cardinal quantifiers.) By deduction, su'o and me'i have exstential import and no and ro do not.

Existential import of fractionals. Fractionals involve a slightly modified notion of existential import: for example, "99% of lojbanists are broda" or "99 in (every) hundred lojbanists are broda" are meaningful only if there are at least a hundred lojbanists. So the crucial issue here is not whether the sentence is true when there are no lojbanists, but whether the sentence is true when there are fewer than 100 lojbanists. Given this generalized notion of importingness, it turns out that sometimes we want fractionals to be importing, and sometimes we don't. For example, we probably want "half my messages to Lojban list this month have been garbage" to (importingly) mean "I have written at least 2 messages ti Lojban list this month, and 1 in 2 of them have been garbage". On the other hand, we probably want "half my message to Lojban list each month are garbage" to (nonimportingly) mean "For each month, either I write fewer than 2 messages to LL or I write at least 2 messages to LL and 1 in 2 of them are garbage"; that way, the statement holds true even though there are some months when I don't write as many as 2 messages to Lojban list. Of course, the statement would be rather daft if I have never written as many as 2 messages in a single month. It is probably best to see fractionals as basically nonimporting, the oddity of saying "half my messages to LL this month have been garbage" when I've not written 2 or more messages to LL is due to its extreme uninformativeness, analogously to saying "every brother of mine has emigrated" when I have no brothers.


Old version due to be deleted or heavily revised.

1-5 sum up my views, but I believe they ought to be able to satisfy all parties. Point 3 is the consensus arising from several debates in previous years about imaginaries.

Original text

1. RESTRICTED QUANTIFICATION. Q broda = Q da poi broda

2. All quantification ranges over a nonempty set. For unrestricted quantification (with plain poi-less da), this is the set of everything. For restricted quantification, Q broda, Q da poi broda, this is the set of everything that is a broda. Quantification cannot meaningfully range over a nonempty set, so it is immaterial whether quantification of an empty set is true or false.

3. Every bridi contains an element that specifies which world(s) the bridi is claimed to be true of. This element is usually left implicit. When left implicit it is glorked from context. Currently there is no agreed way to make the element explicit (of nonexperimental cmavo, proposed candidates over the years have been da'i, da'i nai, ca'a, ka'e).

4. When quantifying over lo'i pavyseljirna or lo'i students who pass the exam next semester, we are quantifying over the set of su'o things that in a world where unicorns exist are unicorns, and the set of su'o things that in some world are students who pass the exam next semester. This can be made explicit by Q world-indicator broda, Q da poi world-indicator broda.

5. When talking about sets that are empty in all worlds, or when we don't want to claim that a set is nonempty in some worlds -- e.g. when talking about the set of even primes greater than 2, we use unrestricted coordination.

--And.

Commentary


Original version moved to On the meaning of 'ro broda cu brode' (arsedead version)-. I have left the discussion here. --And Rosta


  • As i (mi'e maikl.) said here: "I think the jbojbe may end up using ganai with the understanding (call it logical etiquette) that they are not to use this with a counterfactual clause. (There are, after all, other ways to express those kinds of statements.)"
    • Are you suggesting that ganai, gi should only be used when the former bridi is known to be true, flattening the concept into "ja'o"? --xod