implied co'e and Multiple-Question Questions: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at
{{irci|vensa}} short for '''mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami''' :)
{{irci|vensa}} short for '''mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami''' :)
{{irci|@xalbo}} je'e
{{irci|xalbo}} je'e
{{irci|vensa}} you think '''mi de'a jibni''' would also be understandable?
{{irci|vensa}} you think '''mi de'a jibni''' would also be understandable?
{{irci|@xalbo}} probably, yeah
{{irci|xalbo}} probably, yeah
{{irci|vensa}} hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance
{{irci|vensa}} hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance
{{irci|vensa}} probably in order to be able to answer questions like '''ma zvati ma'''
{{irci|vensa}} probably in order to be able to answer questions like '''ma zvati ma'''
{{irci|@xalbo}} Exactly.
{{irci|xalbo}} Exactly.
{{irci|vensa}} :)
{{irci|vensa}} :)
{{irci|Volatile}} Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere?
{{irci|Volatile}} Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere?
Line 14: Line 14:
{{irci|vensa}} the answer to that does not involve a single '''co'e''' relation between the two '''ma'''s
{{irci|vensa}} the answer to that does not involve a single '''co'e''' relation between the two '''ma'''s
{{irci|Volatile}} Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out?
{{irci|Volatile}} Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out?
{{irci|@xalbo}} I think there's some debate on whether one can omit '''co'e''' or not.
{{irci|xalbo}} I think there's some debate on whether one can omit '''co'e''' or not.
{{irci|vensa}} IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which '''ma''' each one is answering...
{{irci|vensa}} IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which '''ma''' each one is answering...
{{irci|Volatile}} Is ''' zo'e zo'e ''' a legit answer, or do you have to do ''' zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e ''' ? :)
{{irci|Volatile}} Is ''' zo'e zo'e ''' a legit answer, or do you have to do ''' zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e ''' ? :)
{{irci|@xalbo}} '''zo'e zo'e''' is absolutely a legit answer.
{{irci|xalbo}} '''zo'e zo'e''' is absolutely a legit answer.
{{irci|@xalbo}} And there's also a '''bu'a''' such that '''mi ti bu'a''' is the same as '''mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva''', it's just a complicated one :)
{{irci|xalbo}} And there's also a '''bu'a''' such that '''mi ti bu'a''' is the same as '''mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva''', it's just a complicated one :)
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: how do you define that bu'a?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: how do you define that bu'a?
{{irci|vensa}} (using cei)
{{irci|vensa}} (using cei)
{{irci|@xalbo}} I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use '''ckaji''', but there needs to be something for more variables.
{{irci|xalbo}} I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use '''ckaji''', but there needs to be something for more variables.
{{irci|Volatile}} Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation words?
{{irci|Volatile}} Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation words?
{{irci|@xalbo}} That is, '''ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva''' is <u>almost</u> it, but not quite.
{{irci|xalbo}} That is, '''ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva''' is <u>almost</u> it, but not quite.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including '''co'e'''. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be '''co'e''' even if its unclear what '''co'e''' actually is...?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including '''co'e'''. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be '''co'e''' even if its unclear what '''co'e''' actually is...?
{{irci|vensa}} wow! that was beautifuly complicated
{{irci|vensa}} wow! that was beautifuly complicated
{{irci|vensa}} I think I understood the "gist" of it
{{irci|vensa}} I think I understood the "gist" of it
{{irci|@xalbo}} '''djica co cliva''' is pretty darn close, of course :)
{{irci|xalbo}} '''djica co cliva''' is pretty darn close, of course :)
{{irci|vensa}} yes
{{irci|vensa}} yes
{{irci|vensa}} but an <u>exact</u> selbri is possible? because '''ckaji''' isnt <u>exactly</u> the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those '''xi'''s
{{irci|vensa}} but an <u>exact</u> selbri is possible? because '''ckaji''' isnt <u>exactly</u> the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those '''xi'''s
{{irci|@xalbo}} So, absent a question we're answering, '''mi lo mensi be do''' is a grammatical utterance, and '''mi co'e lo mensi be do''' is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter.
{{irci|xalbo}} So, absent a question we're answering, '''mi lo mensi be do''' is a grammatical utterance, and '''mi co'e lo mensi be do''' is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter.
{{irci|vensa}} also: I misunderstand '''ce'uxipa ce'uxire'''. y not just '''ce'uxire'''
{{irci|vensa}} also: I misunderstand '''ce'uxipa ce'uxire'''. y not just '''ce'uxire'''
{{irci|@xalbo}} I wanted '''mi ti cliva''', not '''ti cliva'''
{{irci|xalbo}} I wanted '''mi ti cliva''', not '''ti cliva'''
{{irci|vensa}} oh "I leave here".. ok
{{irci|vensa}} oh "I leave here".. ok
{{irci|@xalbo}} And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means.
{{irci|xalbo}} And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: but still: '''mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva''' puts '''ti''' in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: but still: '''mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva''' puts '''ti''' in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire
{{irci|vensa}} I think that '''mi co'e lo mensi be do''' means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using '''co'e''' even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon )
{{irci|vensa}} I think that '''mi co'e lo mensi be do''' means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using '''co'e''' even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon )
{{irci|kribacr}} .i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do
{{irci|kribacr}} .i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do
{{irci|vensa}} doi kribacr xa'a'a
{{irci|vensa}} doi kribacr xa'a'a
{{irci|@xalbo}} I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed <u>simply</u>.
{{irci|xalbo}} I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed <u>simply</u>.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL?
{{irci|@xalbo}} (and I knew the '''ckaji''' was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time)
{{irci|xalbo}} (and I knew the '''ckaji''' was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time)
{{irci|@xalbo}} If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though.
{{irci|xalbo}} If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple '''ma broda lonu brode ma''' with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of '''ma'''s?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple '''ma broda lonu brode ma''' with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of '''ma'''s?
{{irci|@xalbo}} Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc"
{{irci|xalbo}} Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc"
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: that would probably solve it
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: that would probably solve it
{{irci|vensa}} but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken
{{irci|vensa}} but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken
{{irci|vensa}} IF you add the implied co'e
{{irci|vensa}} IF you add the implied co'e
{{irci|@xalbo}} vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go.
{{irci|xalbo}} vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go.
{{irci|vensa}} but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing?
{{irci|vensa}} but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing?
{{irci|@xalbo}} There's nothing <u>fundamentally</u> unexpressible about that.
{{irci|xalbo}} There's nothing <u>fundamentally</u> unexpressible about that.
{{irci|vensa}} yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e)
{{irci|vensa}} yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e)
{{irci|vensa}} so, whats the main argument AGAINST?
{{irci|vensa}} so, whats the main argument AGAINST?
{{irci|@xalbo}} I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it.
{{irci|xalbo}} I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it.
{{irci|vensa}} this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for
{{irci|vensa}} this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for
{{irci|@xalbo}} I tend to include explicit '''co'e''', but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.
{{irci|xalbo}} I tend to include explicit '''co'e''', but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.
{{irci|kribacr}} I think the problem with implied '''co'e''' is when people just speak vocatives.
{{irci|kribacr}} I think the problem with implied '''co'e''' is when people just speak vocatives.
{{irci|vensa}} kribacr: what does that mean?
{{irci|vensa}} kribacr: what does that mean?
Line 69: Line 69:
{{irci|vensa}} perhasp '''coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e''' is '''coi la kribacr mi rinsa do'''
{{irci|vensa}} perhasp '''coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e''' is '''coi la kribacr mi rinsa do'''
{{irci|vensa}} btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI
{{irci|vensa}} btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI
{{irci|@xalbo}} Answering questions is weird anyway. '''.i ma fanta lo nu do mo''', for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all.
{{irci|xalbo}} Answering questions is weird anyway. '''.i ma fanta lo nu do mo''', for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all.
{{irci|vensa}} but there too I believe there is an implied '''co'e'''
{{irci|vensa}} but there too I believe there is an implied '''co'e'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments
{{irci|@xalbo}} Yeah.
{{irci|xalbo}} Yeah.
{{irci|vensa}} I would reply '''do fanta lonu mi surla''' to be clear
{{irci|vensa}} I would reply '''do fanta lonu mi surla''' to be clear
{{irci|vensa}} but is '''do surla''' a valid answer???
{{irci|vensa}} but is '''do surla''' a valid answer???
Line 79: Line 79:
{{irci|vensa}} because e.g. '''broda pa''' is ungramatical
{{irci|vensa}} because e.g. '''broda pa''' is ungramatical
{{irci|vensa}} but I could have asked: '''do mo xo gerku'''?
{{irci|vensa}} but I could have asked: '''do mo xo gerku'''?
{{irci|@xalbo}} ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway.
{{irci|xalbo}} ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway.
{{irci|vensa}} I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word
{{irci|vensa}} I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word
{{irci|vensa}} or perhaps: '''.i'''-seperated answers
{{irci|vensa}} or perhaps: '''.i'''-seperated answers
Line 89: Line 89:
{{irci|vensa}} you could be asking yourself aloud
{{irci|vensa}} you could be asking yourself aloud
{{irci|vensa}} or asking the listener to answer instead of you
{{irci|vensa}} or asking the listener to answer instead of you
{{irci|@xalbo}} There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement.
{{irci|xalbo}} There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement.
{{irci|vensa}} .iesai
{{irci|vensa}} .iesai
{{irci|UukGoblin}} why 'unrelated'? ;-]
{{irci|UukGoblin}} why 'unrelated'? ;-]
* vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas
* vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas
{{irci|UukGoblin}} definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said
{{irci|UukGoblin}} definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said
{{irci|@xalbo}} Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question"
{{irci|xalbo}} Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question"
{{irci|vensa}} uuk: the statement '''do surla''' answers the question '''ma fanta lonu do mo''' but it makes an unrelated statement
{{irci|vensa}} uuk: the statement '''do surla''' answers the question '''ma fanta lonu do mo''' but it makes an unrelated statement
{{irci|@xalbo}} "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
{{irci|xalbo}} "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
{{irci|UukGoblin}} oh, I see
{{irci|UukGoblin}} oh, I see
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :)
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :)
{{irci|UukGoblin}} I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement
{{irci|UukGoblin}} I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement
{{irci|vensa}} no
{{irci|vensa}} no
{{irci|@xalbo}} Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with '''mo''', I need a way to <u>not</u> answer it, and any bridi I saw <u>will</u> answer it.
{{irci|xalbo}} Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with '''mo''', I need a way to <u>not</u> answer it, and any bridi I saw <u>will</u> answer it.
{{irci|UukGoblin}} mhm
{{irci|UukGoblin}} mhm
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: example?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: example?
{{irci|tcatipax}} mi na djuno?
{{irci|tcatipax}} mi na djuno?
{{irci|@xalbo}} ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
{{irci|xalbo}} ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
{{irci|UukGoblin}} like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?"
{{irci|UukGoblin}} like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?"
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: whats wrong with answering '''do mo''' with '''lo tcima cu pluka'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: whats wrong with answering '''do mo''' with '''lo tcima cu pluka'''
{{irci|vensa}} ?
{{irci|vensa}} ?
{{irci|@xalbo}} .i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi
{{irci|xalbo}} .i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi
{{irci|vensa}} yeah. so whats the problem?
{{irci|vensa}} yeah. so whats the problem?
{{irci|@xalbo}} Well, it <u>probably</u> carries over the x2, at least.
{{irci|xalbo}} Well, it <u>probably</u> carries over the x2, at least.
{{irci|vensa}} wha?!
{{irci|vensa}} wha?!
{{irci|vensa}} why does it carry stuff over?
{{irci|vensa}} why does it carry stuff over?
{{irci|@xalbo}} Think about it. Is not '''cinba''' a valid answer there?
{{irci|xalbo}} Think about it. Is not '''cinba''' a valid answer there?
{{irci|vensa}} you said '''melbi'''. not '''go'i'''. not '''co'e'''
{{irci|vensa}} you said '''melbi'''. not '''go'i'''. not '''co'e'''
{{irci|vensa}} yes. '''cinba''' is valid but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
{{irci|vensa}} yes. '''cinba''' is valid but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
{{irci|@xalbo}} The answer to '''mo''' is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the '''mo''' make it true.
{{irci|xalbo}} The answer to '''mo''' is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the '''mo''' make it true.
{{irci|vensa}} but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
{{irci|vensa}} but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
{{irci|@xalbo}} I don't see where you get that from.
{{irci|xalbo}} I don't see where you get that from.
{{irci|vensa}} common sense
{{irci|vensa}} common sense
{{irci|vensa}} x1 or any other x
{{irci|vensa}} x1 or any other x
Line 128: Line 128:
{{irci|vensa}} kribacr: that is a y/n question.
{{irci|vensa}} kribacr: that is a y/n question.
{{irci|vensa}} so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question
{{irci|vensa}} so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question
{{irci|@xalbo}} Well in '''.i do mo / citka lo badna''', we're replacing in '''lo badna''' for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled?
{{irci|xalbo}} Well in '''.i do mo / citka lo badna''', we're replacing in '''lo badna''' for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled?
{{irci|vensa}} hmmm
{{irci|vensa}} hmmm
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any
Line 135: Line 135:
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about '''i''' seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about '''i''' seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you
{{irci|UukGoblin}} let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks '''do mo''', and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say '''carvi''', but that'll make /you/ rain
{{irci|UukGoblin}} let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks '''do mo''', and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say '''carvi''', but that'll make /you/ rain
{{irci|@xalbo}} My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then '''.i''' would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering.
{{irci|xalbo}} My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then '''.i''' would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering.
{{irci|kribacr}} .i but for answers?
{{irci|kribacr}} .i but for answers?
{{irci|kribacr}} I like that.
{{irci|kribacr}} I like that.
Line 149: Line 149:
{{irci|vensa}} you could change '''paunai''' to mean "answer follows" :P
{{irci|vensa}} you could change '''paunai''' to mean "answer follows" :P
{{irci|kribacr}} Eww... no.
{{irci|kribacr}} Eww... no.
{{irci|@xalbo}} '''.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo'''.
{{irci|xalbo}} '''.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo'''.
{{irci|vensa}} uuk: in the '''carvi''' case I would just say '''ti carvi''' thereby overriding hte x1 '''do''' and making it into a statement not a question
{{irci|vensa}} uuk: in the '''carvi''' case I would just say '''ti carvi''' thereby overriding hte x1 '''do''' and making it into a statement not a question
{{irci|valsi}} nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2.
{{irci|valsi}} nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2.
{{irci|@xalbo}} Just <u>try</u> and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override.
{{irci|xalbo}} Just <u>try</u> and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: ooohhh
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: ooohhh
{{irci|vensa}} you got me
{{irci|vensa}} you got me
Line 169: Line 169:
{{irci|UukGoblin}} hm.
{{irci|UukGoblin}} hm.
{{irci|UukGoblin}} I kinda thought '''na'i''' would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it"
{{irci|UukGoblin}} I kinda thought '''na'i''' would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it"
{{irci|@xalbo}} vensa: That says it's not raining.
{{irci|xalbo}} vensa: That says it's not raining.
* vensa is looking up na'i
* vensa is looking up na'i
{{irci|@xalbo}} (could also be '''noi''' instead of '''poi''')
{{irci|xalbo}} (could also be '''noi''' instead of '''poi''')
{{irci|dbrock}} I too would like to have �a word that indicates that something is an answer
{{irci|dbrock}} I too would like to have �a word that indicates that something is an answer
{{irci|dbrock}} the opposite of '''pau'''
{{irci|dbrock}} the opposite of '''pau'''
Line 178: Line 178:
{{irci|dbrock}} if I got to choose, '''pau nai''' would mean "answer follows", '''pau cu'i''' would mean "question does not follow", and '''pau nai cu'i''' would mean "answer does not follow"
{{irci|dbrock}} if I got to choose, '''pau nai''' would mean "answer follows", '''pau cu'i''' would mean "question does not follow", and '''pau nai cu'i''' would mean "answer does not follow"
{{irci|vensa}} I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time
{{irci|vensa}} I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time
{{irci|@xalbo}} dbrock: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose.
{{irci|xalbo}} dbrock: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose.
{{irci|dbrock}} :)
{{irci|dbrock}} :)
{{irci|@xalbo}} Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much.
{{irci|xalbo}} Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much.
{{irci|kribacr}} da'au
{{irci|kribacr}} da'au
{{irci|vensa}} dbrock: does '''pau''' currently have a '''cu'i'''?
{{irci|vensa}} dbrock: does '''pau''' currently have a '''cu'i'''?
{{irci|dbrock}} yeah, I think of '''UI nai''' as being a separate scale
{{irci|dbrock}} yeah, I think of '''UI nai''' as being a separate scale
{{irci|dbrock}} but that's not how most people think of it
{{irci|dbrock}} but that's not how most people think of it
{{irci|@xalbo}} I just don't like '''.i''' between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
{{irci|xalbo}} I just don't like '''.i''' between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: what was that an answer to?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: what was that an answer to?
{{irci|dbrock}} to me, the '''pau''' scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the '''pau nai''' scale would be "how much of an answer is this"
{{irci|dbrock}} to me, the '''pau''' scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the '''pau nai''' scale would be "how much of an answer is this"
Line 191: Line 191:
{{irci|vensa}} how about '''pauna'i''' for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P
{{irci|vensa}} how about '''pauna'i''' for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P
{{irci|dbrock}} well, '''pau nai pau''' would be a more natural order, I guess
{{irci|dbrock}} well, '''pau nai pau''' would be a more natural order, I guess
{{irci|@xalbo}} vensa: What was what an answer to?
{{irci|xalbo}} vensa: What was what an answer to?
{{irci|@xalbo}} ('''ge'i''', for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence)
{{irci|xalbo}} ('''ge'i''', for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence)
{{irci|dbrock}} '''fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o'''?
{{irci|dbrock}} '''fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o'''?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked that
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked that
{{irci|dbrock}} for a three-part-answer
{{irci|dbrock}} for a three-part-answer
{{irci|@xalbo}} vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence.
{{irci|xalbo}} vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence.
{{irci|valsi}} ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi).
{{irci|valsi}} ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi).
{{irci|vensa}}  <@xalbo> I just don't like '''.i''' between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
{{irci|vensa}}  <@xalbo> I just don't like '''.i''' between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
Line 210: Line 210:
{{irci|dbrock}} what's the problem with that?
{{irci|dbrock}} what's the problem with that?
{{irci|vensa}} yeah, xalbo?
{{irci|vensa}} yeah, xalbo?
{{irci|@xalbo}} Means that a question with '''ge'i''' is harder to answer.
{{irci|xalbo}} Means that a question with '''ge'i''' is harder to answer.
{{irci|vensa}} not if we add implied '''gi''' to the grammar parser
{{irci|vensa}} not if we add implied '''gi''' to the grammar parser
{{irci|dbrock}} true
{{irci|dbrock}} true
{{irci|@xalbo}} At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank.
{{irci|xalbo}} At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank.
{{irci|dbrock}} I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective?
{{irci|dbrock}} I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective?
{{irci|vensa}} de'a
{{irci|vensa}} de'a
{{irci|@xalbo}} Um, *'''ge gi''' isn't legal either.
{{irci|xalbo}} Um, *'''ge gi''' isn't legal either.
{{irci|dbrock}} see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo?
{{irci|dbrock}} see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo?
{{irci|@xalbo}} Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question.
{{irci|xalbo}} Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question.
{{irci|vensa}} dbrock: a question could contain both '''ge'i''' AND '''ji''' so that answering in a diff form would be confusing
{{irci|vensa}} dbrock: a question could contain both '''ge'i''' AND '''ji''' so that answering in a diff form would be confusing
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get '''ge co'e gi co'e'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get '''ge co'e gi co'e'''
{{irci|@xalbo}} If you try to answer out of order, though, you <u>really</u> screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem.
{{irci|xalbo}} If you try to answer out of order, though, you <u>really</u> screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: why do you think '''.i''' between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: why do you think '''.i''' between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply?
{{irci|@xalbo}} '''.i''' separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi.
{{irci|xalbo}} '''.i''' separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi.
{{irci|vensa}} why?
{{irci|vensa}} why?
{{irci|vensa}} ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do
{{irci|vensa}} ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do
{{irci|vensa}} means: '''.i mi tavla .i do se tavla'''
{{irci|vensa}} means: '''.i mi tavla .i do se tavla'''
{{irci|vensa}} (remeber the implied co'e)
{{irci|vensa}} (remeber the implied co'e)
{{irci|@xalbo}} That seems very different from '''mi tavla do'''.
{{irci|xalbo}} That seems very different from '''mi tavla do'''.
{{irci|vensa}} why? context welds them together IMO
{{irci|vensa}} why? context welds them together IMO
{{irci|vensa}} how do you solve the '''do surla''' bug with something other than a seperating '''i'''?
{{irci|vensa}} how do you solve the '''do surla''' bug with something other than a seperating '''i'''?
Line 235: Line 235:
{{irci|vensa}} so '''newI mi newI do''' is acceptable xalbo?
{{irci|vensa}} so '''newI mi newI do''' is acceptable xalbo?
{{irci|dbrock}} danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do
{{irci|dbrock}} danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do
{{irci|@xalbo}} Seems much more so, yes.
{{irci|xalbo}} Seems much more so, yes.
{{irci|vensa}} i c
{{irci|vensa}} i c
{{irci|vensa}} fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers)
{{irci|vensa}} fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers)
{{irci|@xalbo}} (I'd still probably just answer '''mi do''', but for more complicated ones, yes)
{{irci|xalbo}} (I'd still probably just answer '''mi do''', but for more complicated ones, yes)
{{irci|dbrock}} I don't really see why we need a new I
{{irci|dbrock}} I don't really see why we need a new I
{{irci|@xalbo}} The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled '''.i''') keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging.
{{irci|xalbo}} The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled '''.i''') keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging.
{{irci|dbrock}} well, it's not a matter of need, of course
{{irci|dbrock}} well, it's not a matter of need, of course
{{irci|vensa}} in that case I am "for" dbrock's '''paunai''' def
{{irci|vensa}} in that case I am "for" dbrock's '''paunai''' def
{{irci|dbrock}} but I mean other similar things are solved using UI
{{irci|dbrock}} but I mean other similar things are solved using UI
{{irci|@xalbo}} (and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem)
{{irci|xalbo}} (and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem)
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: isnt there an implied '''oldI''' at the start?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: isnt there an implied '''oldI''' at the start?
{{irci|@xalbo}} I strongly oppose changing '''pau nai'''. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one.
{{irci|xalbo}} I strongly oppose changing '''pau nai'''. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one.
{{irci|dbrock}} I don't propose changing '''pau nai'''
{{irci|dbrock}} I don't propose changing '''pau nai'''
{{irci|dbrock}} you can't do things like that
{{irci|dbrock}} you can't do things like that
Line 265: Line 265:
{{irci|vensa}} who cares about the old meaning of '''paunai''' its probably rarely been used
{{irci|vensa}} who cares about the old meaning of '''paunai''' its probably rarely been used
{{irci|dbrock}} yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal
{{irci|dbrock}} yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal
{{irci|@xalbo}} (Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I"
{{irci|xalbo}} (Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I"
{{irci|dbrock}} '''pau nai''' has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO"
{{irci|dbrock}} '''pau nai''' has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO"
{{irci|vensa}} uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'
{{irci|vensa}} uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'
Line 284: Line 284:
{{irci|vensa}} Volatile: you can translate word by word using valsi. it still wont help you understand the grammar
{{irci|vensa}} Volatile: you can translate word by word using valsi. it still wont help you understand the grammar
{{irci|vensa}} Volatile: that doesnt parse
{{irci|vensa}} Volatile: that doesnt parse
{{irci|@xalbo}} vensa: Feels like an attitudinal to me.
{{irci|xalbo}} vensa: Feels like an attitudinal to me.
{{irci|vensa}} you need '''zoi .gy. bla bla bla .gy'''
{{irci|vensa}} you need '''zoi .gy. bla bla bla .gy'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: does '''i''' feel like an attitudinal?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: does '''i''' feel like an attitudinal?
{{irci|vensa}} are there experimental-cmavo attitudinals?
{{irci|vensa}} are there experimental-cmavo attitudinals?
{{irci|vensa}} I guess ur right tho
{{irci|vensa}} I guess ur right tho
{{irci|@xalbo}} I'm used to single vowels being connectives, and multiple vowels being UI1. It's not set in stone of course, but probably not good to mess with.
{{irci|xalbo}} I'm used to single vowels being connectives, and multiple vowels being UI1. It's not set in stone of course, but probably not good to mess with.
{{irci|Volatile}} vensa: I meant to just quote one word, but then I realize that I don't really know the correct grammar (modals, no?) to express what I wanted anyhow...
{{irci|Volatile}} vensa: I meant to just quote one word, but then I realize that I don't really know the correct grammar (modals, no?) to express what I wanted anyhow...
{{irci|vensa}} V: fine
{{irci|vensa}} V: fine
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: '''da'au'''?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: '''da'au'''?
{{irci|@xalbo}} Better.
{{irci|xalbo}} Better.
{{irci|vensa}} or: '''ni'au''' (ni'o''' + '''danfu''')
{{irci|vensa}} or: '''ni'au''' (ni'o''' + '''danfu''')
{{irci|kribacr}} .u'i sai coi jungo
{{irci|kribacr}} .u'i sai coi jungo
Line 305: Line 305:
{{irci|kribacr}} I lamented the fact that '''dau''' was unavailable.
{{irci|kribacr}} I lamented the fact that '''dau''' was unavailable.
{{irci|kribacr}} Indeed.
{{irci|kribacr}} Indeed.
{{irci|@xalbo}} Right now I have my head in the <u>huge</u> bpfk thread from the weekend, about where "texts" begin and end with multiple speakers
{{irci|xalbo}} Right now I have my head in the <u>huge</u> bpfk thread from the weekend, about where "texts" begin and end with multiple speakers
{{irci|ksion}} coi rodo .i ma lamji je fanza se stidi la vensa u'i
{{irci|ksion}} coi rodo .i ma lamji je fanza se stidi la vensa u'i
{{irci|vensa}} thats also a big one
{{irci|vensa}} thats also a big one
{{irci|vensa}} .u'iru'e .oiro'a doi ksion
{{irci|vensa}} .u'iru'e .oiro'a doi ksion
{{irci|@xalbo}} Unfortunately, we don't have a convention for quoting selma'o names in running English text (since for all but I there's not much problem), nor even for talking about them in Lojban.
{{irci|xalbo}} Unfortunately, we don't have a convention for quoting selma'o names in running English text (since for all but I there's not much problem), nor even for talking about them in Lojban.
{{irci|vensa}} doi ksion ni'au lo danfu valsi
{{irci|vensa}} doi ksion ni'au lo danfu valsi
{{irci|ksion}} ue
{{irci|ksion}} ue
Line 315: Line 315:
{{irci|ksion}} s/lo danfu pe/lo danfu zi'epe
{{irci|ksion}} s/lo danfu pe/lo danfu zi'epe
{{irci|vensa}} ksion: '''ni'au''' (sounds cooler) is the proposed cmavo which will act "like" an '''i''' but signal that the utterance is a "partial reply" to a question word, and not a full sentence
{{irci|vensa}} ksion: '''ni'au''' (sounds cooler) is the proposed cmavo which will act "like" an '''i''' but signal that the utterance is a "partial reply" to a question word, and not a full sentence
{{irci|@xalbo}} .i cmavo lo selma'o be zo .i
{{irci|xalbo}} .i cmavo lo selma'o be zo .i
{{irci|ksion}} And the need for having this is ...?
{{irci|ksion}} And the need for having this is ...?
{{irci|vensa}} imagine you are asked a multiple-question question, e.g.:
{{irci|vensa}} imagine you are asked a multiple-question question, e.g.:
Line 400: Line 400:
{{irci|vensa}} gr8
{{irci|vensa}} gr8
* vensa is glad there is a use for his archiving
* vensa is glad there is a use for his archiving
{{irci|@xalbo}} .oi
{{irci|xalbo}} .oi
{{irci|ksion}} vensa: You can extract a place from any number of nested abstractions be using an appropriate number of '''jai''' and SE.
{{irci|ksion}} vensa: You can extract a place from any number of nested abstractions be using an appropriate number of '''jai''' and SE.
{{irci|@xalbo}} It seems wrong that we use the same cmavo ('''.i''') for starting a new complete bridi, and for filling in sequential fragments of someone else's bridi.
{{irci|xalbo}} It seems wrong that we use the same cmavo ('''.i''') for starting a new complete bridi, and for filling in sequential fragments of someone else's bridi.
{{irci|Volatile}} "facepalm" sounds like some kind of tree to me. Guess it's some malglico...
{{irci|Volatile}} "facepalm" sounds like some kind of tree to me. Guess it's some malglico...
{{irci|vensa}} I think we should decide between 3 options: 1. you need to say '''co'e''' and '''ji'i''' for every question to get it out of the way first (i dont like this option) 2. you say '''ta'a''' or '''ni'o''' or something to imply that you are NOT answering the question 3. you use '''ni'au''' for cases when you want to indicate that you ARE answering
{{irci|vensa}} I think we should decide between 3 options: 1. you need to say '''co'e''' and '''ji'i''' for every question to get it out of the way first (i dont like this option) 2. you say '''ta'a''' or '''ni'o''' or something to imply that you are NOT answering the question 3. you use '''ni'au''' for cases when you want to indicate that you ARE answering
Line 419: Line 419:
{{irci|selpa`i}} Sure, but in those cases, you can clarify.
{{irci|selpa`i}} Sure, but in those cases, you can clarify.
{{irci|ksion}} "What are you doing?" "Raining"
{{irci|ksion}} "What are you doing?" "Raining"
{{irci|@xalbo}} Well, 4 is always going to be the most common, and with good reason. But it still seems important (there's that "seems" again) to be able to specify one way or another.
{{irci|xalbo}} Well, 4 is always going to be the most common, and with good reason. But it still seems important (there's that "seems" again) to be able to specify one way or another.
{{irci|Volatile}} I'd say that in this language more than others, specificity matters...
{{irci|Volatile}} I'd say that in this language more than others, specificity matters...
{{irci|vensa}} wouldnt it be prettier if lojban had an elegent way to deal with it?
{{irci|vensa}} wouldnt it be prettier if lojban had an elegent way to deal with it?
Line 425: Line 425:
{{irci|ksion}} There you go, your miraculous "escape-all-questions" cmavo.
{{irci|ksion}} There you go, your miraculous "escape-all-questions" cmavo.
{{irci|vensa}} selpa'i: calrifying with more sentences is exaclty the thing we want to avoid in lojban
{{irci|vensa}} selpa'i: calrifying with more sentences is exaclty the thing we want to avoid in lojban
{{irci|@xalbo}} The example I use before, I think, was '''.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo'''. Answering '''co'e''' there is a bad idea.
{{irci|xalbo}} The example I use before, I think, was '''.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo'''. Answering '''co'e''' there is a bad idea.
{{irci|selpa`i}} Is that so?
{{irci|selpa`i}} Is that so?
{{irci|@xalbo}} ksion: Problem is that '''na'i''' isn't avoiding an answer, it's specifically saying that there <u>isn't</u> one.
{{irci|xalbo}} ksion: Problem is that '''na'i''' isn't avoiding an answer, it's specifically saying that there <u>isn't</u> one.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: yes! thank you! the '''catra''' example
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: yes! thank you! the '''catra''' example
{{irci|vensa}} .ie on the '''na'i''' not working
{{irci|vensa}} .ie on the '''na'i''' not working
{{irci|vensa}} '''na'i''' is something else
{{irci|vensa}} '''na'i''' is something else
{{irci|selpa`i}} Why did you kill the monarch?
{{irci|selpa`i}} Why did you kill the monarch?
{{irci|@xalbo}} If you ask the above catra question, I can't plead the fifth in Lojban. I can use '''na'''', or I can give a reason, but I can't just say "I want a lawyer!" without that being my answer for why I killed him.
{{irci|xalbo}} If you ask the above catra question, I can't plead the fifth in Lojban. I can use '''na'''', or I can give a reason, but I can't just say "I want a lawyer!" without that being my answer for why I killed him.
{{irci|ksion}} je'e
{{irci|ksion}} je'e
{{irci|ksion}} Then that's why we have '''na'i'''.
{{irci|ksion}} Then that's why we have '''na'i'''.
{{irci|@xalbo}} '''na'i''' doesn't do that, though. It says that the question itself is wrong (in this case, because I didn't kill him), not that I'm not going to answer it.
{{irci|xalbo}} '''na'i''' doesn't do that, though. It says that the question itself is wrong (in this case, because I didn't kill him), not that I'm not going to answer it.
{{irci|vensa}} ksion '''na'i catra .i mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer'''?
{{irci|vensa}} ksion '''na'i catra .i mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer'''?
* Volatile klama .i co'o
* Volatile klama .i co'o
{{irci|ksion}} vensa: '''na'i''' is UI. Thus '''.i go'i na'i'''
{{irci|ksion}} vensa: '''na'i''' is UI. Thus '''.i go'i na'i'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: so why not '''i go'i na'i .i <what you want to say>'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: so why not '''i go'i na'i .i <what you want to say>'''
{{irci|@xalbo}} That means '''mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu no'a na'i''', which sure seems b0rken to me.
{{irci|xalbo}} That means '''mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu no'a na'i''', which sure seems b0rken to me.
{{irci|ksion}} ...What?
{{irci|ksion}} ...What?
{{irci|vensa}} huh?
{{irci|vensa}} huh?
{{irci|selpa`i}} ..?
{{irci|selpa`i}} ..?
{{irci|@xalbo}} I asked for a '''mo'''. You gave me a bridi.
{{irci|xalbo}} I asked for a '''mo'''. You gave me a bridi.
{{irci|vensa}} it says '''na'i mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu ma'''
{{irci|vensa}} it says '''na'i mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu ma'''
{{irci|vensa}} ohhhh
{{irci|vensa}} ohhhh
Line 450: Line 450:
{{irci|vensa}} wow - this raises another issue
{{irci|vensa}} wow - this raises another issue
{{irci|ksion}} ...
{{irci|ksion}} ...
{{irci|@xalbo}} But even without that, the '''na'i''' doesn't not answer the question. it asserts that the question is wrong. That's different.
{{irci|xalbo}} But even without that, the '''na'i''' doesn't not answer the question. it asserts that the question is wrong. That's different.
{{irci|vensa}} A says '''do djica lonu mo''' B wants to repeat the question to A. does '''go'i ra'o''' work?
{{irci|vensa}} A says '''do djica lonu mo''' B wants to repeat the question to A. does '''go'i ra'o''' work?
{{irci|ksion}} xalbo: It doesn't answer it.
{{irci|ksion}} xalbo: It doesn't answer it.
Line 456: Line 456:
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: legal differences. "I didnt say I didnt do it" :P
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: legal differences. "I didnt say I didnt do it" :P
----
----
{{irci|@xalbo}} For whatever legal reason, I don't want to say that I <u>didn't</u> kill him, but I sure as Hell don't want to say I did. All I <u>want</u> to say is "I want a lawyer".
{{irci|xalbo}} For whatever legal reason, I don't want to say that I <u>didn't</u> kill him, but I sure as Hell don't want to say I did. All I <u>want</u> to say is "I want a lawyer".
{{irci|@xalbo}} '''na'i''' does the first of those three, '''co'e''' the second.
{{irci|xalbo}} '''na'i''' does the first of those three, '''co'e''' the second.
{{irci|labnytru}} So, folks.
{{irci|labnytru}} So, folks.
{{irci|ksion}} Congratulations. You made me use the biggest cannon.
{{irci|ksion}} Congratulations. You made me use the biggest cannon.
{{irci|labnytru}} How many of you know what SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is?
{{irci|labnytru}} How many of you know what SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is?
{{irci|ksion}} Behold, '''sei'''! ... '''.i sei na pinka'''
{{irci|ksion}} Behold, '''sei'''! ... '''.i sei na pinka'''
{{irci|@xalbo}} labnytru: I only know of SEO as "Evil people trying to hijack Google to show me what they want instead of what I want."
{{irci|xalbo}} labnytru: I only know of SEO as "Evil people trying to hijack Google to show me what they want instead of what I want."
{{irci|ksion}} (Although I still think xalbo misunderstands '''na'i''' giving it less "power" than it really has)
{{irci|ksion}} (Although I still think xalbo misunderstands '''na'i''' giving it less "power" than it really has)
{{irci|labnytru}} Good enough answer, although it doesn't have to be that way.
{{irci|labnytru}} Good enough answer, although it doesn't have to be that way.
{{irci|labnytru}} Ultimately, you could have a website with valuable information related to the keyword and not have it show up on Google because of it's lack of optimization.
{{irci|labnytru}} Ultimately, you could have a website with valuable information related to the keyword and not have it show up on Google because of it's lack of optimization.
{{irci|ksion}} '''na'i''' is metalinguistic. It invalidates EVERYTHING linguistically associated with statement it marks. It does not only negate the "truth case", but also "false case".
{{irci|ksion}} '''na'i''' is metalinguistic. It invalidates EVERYTHING linguistically associated with statement it marks. It does not only negate the "truth case", but also "false case".
{{irci|@xalbo}} Point.
{{irci|xalbo}} Point.
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: why not go with option2? '''do pu catra lo nulraitru ki'u lonu mo''' -> '''ni'o mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer'''
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: why not go with option2? '''do pu catra lo nulraitru ki'u lonu mo''' -> '''ni'o mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer'''
{{irci|labnytru}} Well, with that in mind...
{{irci|labnytru}} Well, with that in mind...
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: does "point" mean you agree about '''na'i''' with ksion?
{{irci|vensa}} xalbo: does "point" mean you agree about '''na'i''' with ksion?
{{irci|@xalbo}} It means that ksion made a good point about '''na'i''', and I'm stepping back to reconsider in light of that.
{{irci|xalbo}} It means that ksion made a good point about '''na'i''', and I'm stepping back to reconsider in light of that.
{{irci|labnytru}} I've been working with an SEO forum to learn more...and I've been chosen to be the sole co-moderator of it.
{{irci|labnytru}} I've been working with an SEO forum to learn more...and I've been chosen to be the sole co-moderator of it.
{{irci|vensa}} ok. so we're going with option2 and '''na'i'''?
{{irci|vensa}} ok. so we're going with option2 and '''na'i'''?

Revision as of 19:31, 19 December 2014

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at

vensa {{{2}}}

short for mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami :)

xalbo {{{2}}}

je'e

vensa {{{2}}}

you think mi de'a jibni would also be understandable?

xalbo {{{2}}}

probably, yeah

vensa {{{2}}}

hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance

vensa {{{2}}}

probably in order to be able to answer questions like ma zvati ma

xalbo {{{2}}}

Exactly.

vensa {{{2}}}

 :)

Volatile {{{2}}}

Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere?

Volatile {{{2}}}

co'e

vensa {{{2}}}

volatile:im not sure, but I can think of cases where it shouldnt be

vensa {{{2}}}

e.g.: ma djica lonu ma cliva

vensa {{{2}}}

the answer to that does not involve a single co'e relation between the two mas

Volatile {{{2}}}

Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out?

xalbo {{{2}}}

I think there's some debate on whether one can omit co'e or not.

vensa {{{2}}}

IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which ma each one is answering...

Volatile {{{2}}}

Is zo'e zo'e a legit answer, or do you have to do zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e  ? :)

xalbo {{{2}}}

zo'e zo'e is absolutely a legit answer.

xalbo {{{2}}}

And there's also a bu'a such that mi ti bu'a is the same as mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva, it's just a complicated one :)

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: how do you define that bu'a?

vensa {{{2}}}

(using cei)

xalbo {{{2}}}

I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use ckaji, but there needs to be something for more variables.

Volatile {{{2}}}

Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation words?

xalbo {{{2}}}

That is, ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva is almost it, but not quite.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including co'e. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be co'e even if its unclear what co'e actually is...?

vensa {{{2}}}

wow! that was beautifuly complicated

vensa {{{2}}}

I think I understood the "gist" of it

xalbo {{{2}}}

djica co cliva is pretty darn close, of course :)

vensa {{{2}}}

yes

vensa {{{2}}}

but an exact selbri is possible? because ckaji isnt exactly the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those xis

xalbo {{{2}}}

So, absent a question we're answering, mi lo mensi be do is a grammatical utterance, and mi co'e lo mensi be do is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter.

vensa {{{2}}}

also: I misunderstand ce'uxipa ce'uxire. y not just ce'uxire

xalbo {{{2}}}

I wanted mi ti cliva, not ti cliva

vensa {{{2}}}

oh "I leave here".. ok

xalbo {{{2}}}

And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: but still: mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva puts ti in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire

vensa {{{2}}}

I think that mi co'e lo mensi be do means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using co'e even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon )

kribacr {{{2}}}

.i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do

vensa {{{2}}}

doi kribacr xa'a'a

xalbo {{{2}}}

I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed simply.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL?

xalbo {{{2}}}

(and I knew the ckaji was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time)

xalbo {{{2}}}

If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple ma broda lonu brode ma with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of mas?

xalbo {{{2}}}

Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc"

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: that would probably solve it

vensa {{{2}}}

but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken

vensa {{{2}}}

IF you add the implied co'e

xalbo {{{2}}}

vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go.

vensa {{{2}}}

but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing?

xalbo {{{2}}}

There's nothing fundamentally unexpressible about that.

vensa {{{2}}}

yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e)

vensa {{{2}}}

so, whats the main argument AGAINST?

xalbo {{{2}}}

I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it.

vensa {{{2}}}

this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for

xalbo {{{2}}}

I tend to include explicit co'e, but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.

kribacr {{{2}}}

I think the problem with implied co'e is when people just speak vocatives.

vensa {{{2}}}

kribacr: what does that mean?

vensa {{{2}}}

example?

kribacr {{{2}}}

Well...

kribacr {{{2}}}

Is there an implied co'e there?

vensa {{{2}}}

dunno. and if there is. what harm does it do?

kribacr {{{2}}}

If there is, is it harmless?

kribacr {{{2}}}

Right.

vensa {{{2}}}

I think its harmless

kribacr {{{2}}}

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

vensa {{{2}}}

obviously, if I am addressing you, I am telling you something

vensa {{{2}}}

perhasp coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e is coi la kribacr mi rinsa do

vensa {{{2}}}

btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI

xalbo {{{2}}}

Answering questions is weird anyway. .i ma fanta lo nu do mo, for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all.

vensa {{{2}}}

but there too I believe there is an implied co'e

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments

xalbo {{{2}}}

Yeah.

vensa {{{2}}}

I would reply do fanta lonu mi surla to be clear

vensa {{{2}}}

but is do surla a valid answer???

vensa {{{2}}}

that seems wrong

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

I'd just reply go'i ;-]

vensa {{{2}}}

because e.g. broda pa is ungramatical

vensa {{{2}}}

but I could have asked: do mo xo gerku?

xalbo {{{2}}}

ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway.

vensa {{{2}}}

I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word

vensa {{{2}}}

or perhaps: .i-seperated answers

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

does go'i re-ask a ma/mo question?

vensa {{{2}}}

do .i. surla

vensa {{{2}}}

broda .i pa

vensa {{{2}}}

uuk: yes IMO

vensa {{{2}}}

you are repeating the question, leaving it in question form.

vensa {{{2}}}

you could be asking yourself aloud

vensa {{{2}}}

or asking the listener to answer instead of you

xalbo {{{2}}}

There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement.

vensa {{{2}}}

.iesai

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

why 'unrelated'? ;-]

  • vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas
UukGoblin {{{2}}}

definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said

xalbo {{{2}}}

Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question"

vensa {{{2}}}

uuk: the statement do surla answers the question ma fanta lonu do mo but it makes an unrelated statement

xalbo {{{2}}}

"What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

oh, I see

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :)

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement

vensa {{{2}}}

no

xalbo {{{2}}}

Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with mo, I need a way to not answer it, and any bridi I saw will answer it.

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

mhm

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: example?

tcatipax {{{2}}}

mi na djuno?

xalbo {{{2}}}

ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?"

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: whats wrong with answering do mo with lo tcima cu pluka

vensa {{{2}}}

 ?

xalbo {{{2}}}

.i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi

vensa {{{2}}}

yeah. so whats the problem?

xalbo {{{2}}}

Well, it probably carries over the x2, at least.

vensa {{{2}}}

wha?!

vensa {{{2}}}

why does it carry stuff over?

xalbo {{{2}}}

Think about it. Is not cinba a valid answer there?

vensa {{{2}}}

you said melbi. not go'i. not co'e

vensa {{{2}}}

yes. cinba is valid but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?

xalbo {{{2}}}

The answer to mo is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the mo make it true.

vensa {{{2}}}

but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?

xalbo {{{2}}}

I don't see where you get that from.

vensa {{{2}}}

common sense

vensa {{{2}}}

x1 or any other x

kribacr {{{2}}}

Tuesday's coming. Did you bring your coat?

vensa {{{2}}}

kribacr: is "Tuesday's coming" the answer?

kribacr {{{2}}}

I live in a giant bucket.

vensa {{{2}}}

kribacr: that is a y/n question.

vensa {{{2}}}

so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question

xalbo {{{2}}}

Well in .i do mo / citka lo badna, we're replacing in lo badna for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled?

vensa {{{2}}}

hmmm

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any

vensa {{{2}}}

IMO when you OVERRIDE one of them, it becomes a "dodging" statement

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

well

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about i seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks do mo, and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say carvi, but that'll make /you/ rain

xalbo {{{2}}}

My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then .i would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering.

kribacr {{{2}}}

.i but for answers?

kribacr {{{2}}}

I like that.

kribacr {{{2}}}

.i ma gletu ma

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: ohhhh

kribacr {{{2}}}

new-I la .kribacr. new-I lo mamta be do

kribacr {{{2}}}

.i'e

vensa {{{2}}}

.u'isai

kribacr {{{2}}}

Hmm.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Seems unnecessary

vensa {{{2}}}

and new-I la kribacr .i lo tcima would be a partial answer

kribacr {{{2}}}

Are there any CVV or CV'V that could be derived from ... danfu is it?

vensa {{{2}}}

you could change paunai to mean "answer follows" :P

kribacr {{{2}}}

Eww... no.

xalbo {{{2}}}

.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo.

vensa {{{2}}}

uuk: in the carvi case I would just say ti carvi thereby overriding hte x1 do and making it into a statement not a question

valsi {{{2}}}

nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2.

xalbo {{{2}}}

Just try and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: ooohhh

vensa {{{2}}}

you got me

kribacr {{{2}}}

D'oh, dau is taken.

kribacr {{{2}}}

Stupid hex.

vensa {{{2}}}

how about mi na catra .i do bebna :P

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

there was this meta-negator

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

metalinguistic negator

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

na'i

vensa {{{2}}}

yes! good point Uk

vensa {{{2}}}

it seems very handy here

vensa {{{2}}}

.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo. na'i

vensa {{{2}}}

I wanted to say also that the "new i" should be for cases where you DONT intend to answer becuz those are the less frequent cases

vensa {{{2}}}

so using na'i for that purpose exactly seems brilliant. (and the intended way)

vensa {{{2}}}

so the answer to the carvi problem would be. .i na'i carvi

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

hm.

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

I kinda thought na'i would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it"

xalbo {{{2}}}

vensa: That says it's not raining.

  • vensa is looking up na'i
xalbo {{{2}}}

(could also be noi instead of poi)

dbrock {{{2}}}

I too would like to have �a word that indicates that something is an answer

dbrock {{{2}}}

the opposite of pau

kribacr {{{2}}}

Hmm. I wish there was more CVV and CV'V space available. ._.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: so, na'i .i carvi

dbrock {{{2}}}

if I got to choose, pau nai would mean "answer follows", pau cu'i would mean "question does not follow", and pau nai cu'i would mean "answer does not follow"

vensa {{{2}}}

I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time

xalbo {{{2}}}

dbrock: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose.

dbrock {{{2}}}

 :)

xalbo {{{2}}}

Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much.

kribacr {{{2}}}

da'au

vensa {{{2}}}

dbrock: does pau currently have a cu'i?

dbrock {{{2}}}

yeah, I think of UI nai as being a separate scale

dbrock {{{2}}}

but that's not how most people think of it

xalbo {{{2}}}

I just don't like .i between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: what was that an answer to?

dbrock {{{2}}}

to me, the pau scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the pau nai scale would be "how much of an answer is this"

dbrock {{{2}}}

so you could have pau pau nai for "answering with a question"

vensa {{{2}}}

how about pauna'i for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P

dbrock {{{2}}}

well, pau nai pau would be a more natural order, I guess

xalbo {{{2}}}

vensa: What was what an answer to?

xalbo {{{2}}}

(ge'i, for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence)

dbrock {{{2}}}

fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o?

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked that

dbrock {{{2}}}

for a three-part-answer

xalbo {{{2}}}

vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence.

valsi {{{2}}}

ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi).

vensa {{{2}}}

<@xalbo> I just don't like .i between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.

vensa {{{2}}}

gerna ge

gerna {{{2}}}

not grammatical: ge ⚠

vensa {{{2}}}

gerna e

gerna {{{2}}}

(0e)0

vensa {{{2}}}

hmmm.. geks alone seem to be ungramatical

dbrock {{{2}}}

gerna ge co'e gi co'e

gerna {{{2}}}

(0ge co'e VAU gi co'e VAU VAU)0

vensa {{{2}}}

gerna ge gi

gerna {{{2}}}

not grammatical: ge _gi_ ⚠

dbrock {{{2}}}

what's the problem with that?

vensa {{{2}}}

yeah, xalbo?

xalbo {{{2}}}

Means that a question with ge'i is harder to answer.

vensa {{{2}}}

not if we add implied gi to the grammar parser

dbrock {{{2}}}

true

xalbo {{{2}}}

At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank.

dbrock {{{2}}}

I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective?

vensa {{{2}}}

de'a

xalbo {{{2}}}

Um, *ge gi isn't legal either.

dbrock {{{2}}}

see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo?

xalbo {{{2}}}

Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question.

vensa {{{2}}}

dbrock: a question could contain both ge'i AND ji so that answering in a diff form would be confusing

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get ge co'e gi co'e

xalbo {{{2}}}

If you try to answer out of order, though, you really screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: why do you think .i between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply?

xalbo {{{2}}}

.i separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi.

vensa {{{2}}}

why?

vensa {{{2}}}

ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do

vensa {{{2}}}

means: .i mi tavla .i do se tavla

vensa {{{2}}}

(remeber the implied co'e)

xalbo {{{2}}}

That seems very different from mi tavla do.

vensa {{{2}}}

why? context welds them together IMO

vensa {{{2}}}

how do you solve the do surla bug with something other than a seperating i?

dbrock {{{2}}}

xalbo has already proposed the addition of new I

vensa {{{2}}}

oh.

vensa {{{2}}}

so newI mi newI do is acceptable xalbo?

dbrock {{{2}}}

danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do

xalbo {{{2}}}

Seems much more so, yes.

vensa {{{2}}}

i c

vensa {{{2}}}

fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers)

xalbo {{{2}}}

(I'd still probably just answer mi do, but for more complicated ones, yes)

dbrock {{{2}}}

I don't really see why we need a new I

xalbo {{{2}}}

The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled .i) keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging.

dbrock {{{2}}}

well, it's not a matter of need, of course

vensa {{{2}}}

in that case I am "for" dbrock's paunai def

dbrock {{{2}}}

but I mean other similar things are solved using UI

xalbo {{{2}}}

(and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem)

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: isnt there an implied oldI at the start?

xalbo {{{2}}}

I strongly oppose changing pau nai. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one.

dbrock {{{2}}}

I don't propose changing pau nai

dbrock {{{2}}}

you can't do things like that

vensa {{{2}}}

paucu'i is currently undefined

dbrock {{{2}}}

it's impossible, so debating it is a waste of time

vensa {{{2}}}

dbrock: 1. anything is posible

vensa {{{2}}}

2. didn't you suggest that earlier?

vensa {{{2}}}

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Discursives

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

hm.

dbrock {{{2}}}

I have long been an advocate of thinking of UI ja'ai and UI nai as completely separate scales

vensa {{{2}}}

so you did suggest to change paunai

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

with stuff like 'paunai', what is there to distinguish between definitions like 'answer follows', 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'?

dbrock {{{2}}}

that's why I said "if I got to choose, pau nai would mean "answer follows" "

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

 :-]

dbrock {{{2}}}

I didn't say "I propose we change the meaning of pau nai"

vensa {{{2}}}

oh

vensa {{{2}}}

I read that as that

vensa {{{2}}}

who cares about the old meaning of paunai its probably rarely been used

dbrock {{{2}}}

yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal

xalbo {{{2}}}

(Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I"

dbrock {{{2}}}

pau nai has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO"

vensa {{{2}}}

uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'

dbrock {{{2}}}

and the only effect of trying to change its meaning will be to cement the old meaning even further

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo :)

vensa {{{2}}}

"cement"?

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

vensa, "the following is not meant to be intepreted as a question" and "the following is meant to cancel the question in question"

vensa {{{2}}}

I am very much an advocate of changing the old for the benefit of the future. as an answer to the nay-saying conservatives I have proposed the "version\scripting" system

UukGoblin {{{2}}}

cementing is a popular technique of postponing trouble with blown up nuclear reactors for later

vensa {{{2}}}

uuk: regular i is the first. and you cant obliterate a question once it was asked. you can just choose to not answer it with regular i


UukGoblin {{{2}}}

vensa, nah, it's kinda not my question... my problem is pau nai is a cluster, but because pau can be negated in different ways, doesn't it make pau nai a bit ambiguous?


vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: how does i'au sound to you as the "newI"? (from i + danfu)

  • Volatile citka
vensa {{{2}}}

Volatile: zo'oi is for one word quote only

Volatile {{{2}}}

vensa: well, that was one word quoted. Then, I kinda changed language.

vensa {{{2}}}

Volatile: you can translate word by word using valsi. it still wont help you understand the grammar

vensa {{{2}}}

Volatile: that doesnt parse

xalbo {{{2}}}

vensa: Feels like an attitudinal to me.

vensa {{{2}}}

you need zoi .gy. bla bla bla .gy

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: does i feel like an attitudinal?

vensa {{{2}}}

are there experimental-cmavo attitudinals?

vensa {{{2}}}

I guess ur right tho

xalbo {{{2}}}

I'm used to single vowels being connectives, and multiple vowels being UI1. It's not set in stone of course, but probably not good to mess with.

Volatile {{{2}}}

vensa: I meant to just quote one word, but then I realize that I don't really know the correct grammar (modals, no?) to express what I wanted anyhow...

vensa {{{2}}}

V: fine

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: da'au?

xalbo {{{2}}}

Better.

vensa {{{2}}}

or: ni'au (ni'o + danfu)

kribacr {{{2}}}

.u'i sai coi jungo

vensa {{{2}}}

yeah it does sound a bit chinese

vensa {{{2}}}

kribacr: did you hear about our idea?

kribacr {{{2}}}

Yes.

kribacr {{{2}}}

I for responses.

kribacr {{{2}}}

I was here yesterday.

vensa {{{2}}}

those are different I's in ur 2 sentences...

vensa {{{2}}}

english ambiguity :P

kribacr {{{2}}}

I lamented the fact that dau was unavailable.

kribacr {{{2}}}

Indeed.

xalbo {{{2}}}

Right now I have my head in the huge bpfk thread from the weekend, about where "texts" begin and end with multiple speakers

ksion {{{2}}}

coi rodo .i ma lamji je fanza se stidi la vensa u'i

vensa {{{2}}}

thats also a big one

vensa {{{2}}}

.u'iru'e .oiro'a doi ksion

xalbo {{{2}}}

Unfortunately, we don't have a convention for quoting selma'o names in running English text (since for all but I there's not much problem), nor even for talking about them in Lojban.

vensa {{{2}}}

doi ksion ni'au lo danfu valsi

ksion {{{2}}}

ue

ksion {{{2}}}

xu do stidi tu'a lo cmavo pe lo danfu pe fi'o simsa zo pau

ksion {{{2}}}

s/lo danfu pe/lo danfu zi'epe

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: ni'au (sounds cooler) is the proposed cmavo which will act "like" an i but signal that the utterance is a "partial reply" to a question word, and not a full sentence

xalbo {{{2}}}

.i cmavo lo selma'o be zo .i

ksion {{{2}}}

And the need for having this is ...?

vensa {{{2}}}

imagine you are asked a multiple-question question, e.g.:

vensa {{{2}}}

ma djica lonu do mo

ksion {{{2}}}

xalbo: I usually say zo'oi FAhA.

vensa {{{2}}}

if you want the full answer to be do djica lonu mi surla would you say do surla?

ksion {{{2}}}

No, do .i surla.

vensa {{{2}}}

becuz that seems to imply some other nonexistent bridi relationship

vensa {{{2}}}

yes, that may be enough. but

vensa {{{2}}}

then we got into decding how we are supposed to "avoid" a question

vensa {{{2}}}

I ask you do mo but you dont want to answer. you want to point out that it's raininng so you say carvi

vensa {{{2}}}

it "seems" as though you are claiming that mi carvi

ksion {{{2}}}

.i co'e .i carvi

selpa`i {{{2}}}

how bout ni'o

ksion {{{2}}}

ni'o or ta'o is fine too.

vensa {{{2}}}

xsion: what about if I ask xo and you dont want to answer?

ksion {{{2}}}

ji'i

vensa {{{2}}}

so basically the questioner forces the listener to respond to their question, even if its with a vague answer, get the question "out of the way" before he can say anything?

ksion {{{2}}}

(if you want a question type where I don't have a 'neutral' reply, try cu'e :) )

vensa {{{2}}}

IMO that is a little annoying

vensa {{{2}}}

valsi cu'e

valsi {{{2}}}

cu'e = tense/modal question.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

I dont think its a problem

ksion {{{2}}}

Then .i .i <your stuff> works.

vensa {{{2}}}

do'e

selpa`i {{{2}}}

When I answer by saying something unrelated, then context will show that I didnt care to answer.

vensa {{{2}}}

do'e is vague of cu'e

vensa {{{2}}}

but there is no vague for fi'a

vensa {{{2}}}

valsi fi'a

selpa`i {{{2}}}

That happens all the time in natural languages too

valsi {{{2}}}

fi'a = sumti place tag: place structure number/tag question.

ksion {{{2}}}

faxiji'i

vensa {{{2}}}

selpa'i: but there can be unclear cases where it's not clear if you are answering or not

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: nice

selpa`i {{{2}}}

In such a case, the question asker will ask for clarification like normal

vensa {{{2}}}

still. y force the listener to "get the question out of the way".

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: Question is not enforced grammatically. You don't have to escape it by grammatical means, really.

vensa {{{2}}}

if I ask you ma mo mo xo ma mo xu

selpa`i {{{2}}}

That's a stupid question

vensa {{{2}}}

selpa'i: it's just an example

ksion {{{2}}}

Then the correct answer is ko ko gletu :P

selpa`i {{{2}}}

yes

vensa {{{2}}}

I can fill it with other "meaning" words and leave the same number of Q words

selpa`i {{{2}}}

u'i

vensa {{{2}}}

xa'a

selpa`i {{{2}}}

If you ask me such a dumb question, you cant expect me to answer it

ksion {{{2}}}

Or ki'a, if you still want to be polite (I'd not be).

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: you say I dont have to escape the question. so why do you propose the co'e .i broda approach?

selpa`i {{{2}}}

co'e is a polite evasion move

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: Because it is customary to expect an answer after a question. It's not by-grammar though, but only by-semantics.

vensa {{{2}}}

IMO if you ask me a question I should be able to say whatever I want. but only if I want to ONLY "fill in the slots" of the question words, I need something like ni'au

selpa`i {{{2}}}

I agree.

timonator {{{2}}}

ni'au?

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: I think this should be decided by grammar. much like the go'i answer is a gramatical mechanism

ksion {{{2}}}

ta'a ni'o ta'o a'anai -- Possible solutions.

ksion {{{2}}}

go'i being answer is not grammatical mechanism. go'i being last bridi is.

vensa {{{2}}}

I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity

timonator {{{2}}}

right, go'i is by far not only for answers

vensa {{{2}}}

not only

timonator {{{2}}}

i za'a ta muvdu i do go'i gasnu i mi na go'i

vensa {{{2}}}

nm go'i

kribacr {{{2}}}

.i do ja'a go'i

ksion {{{2}}}

<vensa> I think not defining this issue is leaving room for some sort of ambiguity -- And?

kribacr {{{2}}}

ko cikna binxo

vensa {{{2}}}

And? do you like ambiguity?

selpa`i {{{2}}}

lojban is hella ambiguous anyway

vensa {{{2}}}

says you

vensa {{{2}}}

it's not supposed to be

ksion {{{2}}}

Semantically, I'm from neutral to positive.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Semantically it is.

ksion {{{2}}}

Of course it is supposed to be.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Grammatically, not so much.

ksion {{{2}}}

.i mi za'e firxance lo se cusku be la vensa

vensa {{{2}}}

is that an example of semantic ambiguity?

ksion {{{2}}}

Nope ;)

vensa {{{2}}}

but it is

ksion {{{2}}}

Well, nonce words are an example of it.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: help me out here

ksion {{{2}}}

(firxance, as it's not-so-hard to figure out, is meant to mean "facepalm" :) )

vensa {{{2}}}

why did we think it was a good idea yesterday?

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: you want to go over the discussion and see if you agree with any of it?

vensa {{{2}}}

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Implied+%7Bco%27e%7D+and+Multiple-Question+Questions

ksion {{{2}}}

Sure.

vensa {{{2}}}

gr8

  • vensa is glad there is a use for his archiving
xalbo {{{2}}}

.oi

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: You can extract a place from any number of nested abstractions be using an appropriate number of jai and SE.

xalbo {{{2}}}

It seems wrong that we use the same cmavo (.i) for starting a new complete bridi, and for filling in sequential fragments of someone else's bridi.

Volatile {{{2}}}

"facepalm" sounds like some kind of tree to me. Guess it's some malglico...

vensa {{{2}}}

I think we should decide between 3 options: 1. you need to say co'e and ji'i for every question to get it out of the way first (i dont like this option) 2. you say ta'a or ni'o or something to imply that you are NOT answering the question 3. you use ni'au for cases when you want to indicate that you ARE answering

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: "seems wrong" is a bit short of an argument IMO

selpa`i {{{2}}}

#3 seems terrible

ksion {{{2}}}

4. You say what you want since question aren't grammatically binding.

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: ki'e

selpa`i {{{2}}}

I like 4 the best.

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: if 4, then who knows whether I'm answering you or not?

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Context.

vensa {{{2}}}

I can imagine cases where it's unclear from context

  • Volatile does not like "
Volatile {{{2}}}

argh

Volatile {{{2}}}

4

vensa {{{2}}}

so what if "natlangs get away with it"

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Sure, but in those cases, you can clarify.

ksion {{{2}}}

"What are you doing?" "Raining"

xalbo {{{2}}}

Well, 4 is always going to be the most common, and with good reason. But it still seems important (there's that "seems" again) to be able to specify one way or another.

Volatile {{{2}}}

I'd say that in this language more than others, specificity matters...

vensa {{{2}}}

wouldnt it be prettier if lojban had an elegent way to deal with it?

ksion {{{2}}}

<UukGoblin> na'i -- uasai, how could I forget it!

ksion {{{2}}}

There you go, your miraculous "escape-all-questions" cmavo.

vensa {{{2}}}

selpa'i: calrifying with more sentences is exaclty the thing we want to avoid in lojban

xalbo {{{2}}}

The example I use before, I think, was .i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo. Answering co'e there is a bad idea.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Is that so?

xalbo {{{2}}}

ksion: Problem is that na'i isn't avoiding an answer, it's specifically saying that there isn't one.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: yes! thank you! the catra example

vensa {{{2}}}

.ie on the na'i not working

vensa {{{2}}}

na'i is something else

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Why did you kill the monarch?

xalbo {{{2}}}

If you ask the above catra question, I can't plead the fifth in Lojban. I can use na', or I can give a reason, but I can't just say "I want a lawyer!" without that being my answer for why I killed him.

ksion {{{2}}}

je'e

ksion {{{2}}}

Then that's why we have na'i.

xalbo {{{2}}}

na'i doesn't do that, though. It says that the question itself is wrong (in this case, because I didn't kill him), not that I'm not going to answer it.

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion na'i catra .i mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer?

  • Volatile klama .i co'o
ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: na'i is UI. Thus .i go'i na'i

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: so why not i go'i na'i .i <what you want to say>

xalbo {{{2}}}

That means mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu no'a na'i, which sure seems b0rken to me.

ksion {{{2}}}

...What?

vensa {{{2}}}

huh?

selpa`i {{{2}}}

..?

xalbo {{{2}}}

I asked for a mo. You gave me a bridi.

vensa {{{2}}}

it says na'i mi catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu ma

vensa {{{2}}}

ohhhh

ksion {{{2}}}

No, I gave you a selbri. Which is incidentally the same.

vensa {{{2}}}

wow - this raises another issue

ksion {{{2}}}

...

xalbo {{{2}}}

But even without that, the na'i doesn't not answer the question. it asserts that the question is wrong. That's different.

vensa {{{2}}}

A says do djica lonu mo B wants to repeat the question to A. does go'i ra'o work?

ksion {{{2}}}

xalbo: It doesn't answer it.

labnytru {{{2}}}

coi rodo

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: legal differences. "I didnt say I didnt do it" :P


xalbo {{{2}}}

For whatever legal reason, I don't want to say that I didn't kill him, but I sure as Hell don't want to say I did. All I want to say is "I want a lawyer".

xalbo {{{2}}}

na'i does the first of those three, co'e the second.

labnytru {{{2}}}

So, folks.

ksion {{{2}}}

Congratulations. You made me use the biggest cannon.

labnytru {{{2}}}

How many of you know what SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is?

ksion {{{2}}}

Behold, sei! ... .i sei na pinka

xalbo {{{2}}}

labnytru: I only know of SEO as "Evil people trying to hijack Google to show me what they want instead of what I want."

ksion {{{2}}}

(Although I still think xalbo misunderstands na'i giving it less "power" than it really has)

labnytru {{{2}}}

Good enough answer, although it doesn't have to be that way.

labnytru {{{2}}}

Ultimately, you could have a website with valuable information related to the keyword and not have it show up on Google because of it's lack of optimization.

ksion {{{2}}}

na'i is metalinguistic. It invalidates EVERYTHING linguistically associated with statement it marks. It does not only negate the "truth case", but also "false case".

xalbo {{{2}}}

Point.

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: why not go with option2? do pu catra lo nulraitru ki'u lonu mo -> ni'o mi djica tu'a la'oi lawyer

labnytru {{{2}}}

Well, with that in mind...

vensa {{{2}}}

xalbo: does "point" mean you agree about na'i with ksion?

xalbo {{{2}}}

It means that ksion made a good point about na'i, and I'm stepping back to reconsider in light of that.

labnytru {{{2}}}

I've been working with an SEO forum to learn more...and I've been chosen to be the sole co-moderator of it.

vensa {{{2}}}

ok. so we're going with option2 and na'i?


ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: So, did we come to any conclusions regarding your question issues?

vensa {{{2}}}

selpa'i: i mi kakne lonu ca lonu sounded like you were correcting yourself

selpa`i {{{2}}}

*fai

selpa`i {{{2}}}

I wasnt

kribacr {{{2}}}

Yes, exactly.

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: I think we said to use na'i if you want to avoid answering a question

selpa`i {{{2}}}

or was I? It should be in the text

kribacr {{{2}}}

The x1 becomes the fai-tagged slot.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Yes.

vensa {{{2}}}

you wasnt

kribacr {{{2}}}

Tagless jai basically implies a tu'a for the x1.

vensa {{{2}}}

but your voice sounded like you were

vensa {{{2}}}

it confused me

selpa`i {{{2}}}

okay

kribacr {{{2}}}

You understand .i tu'a mi bandu do?

valsi {{{2}}}

bandu = x1 (event) defends/protects x2 (object/state) from threat/peril/potential x3 (event).

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Yes. I do.

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: Okay. Thing is, I don't like it. xalbo was wrong about na'i invalidationg only the "truth variant" of the question but was right about it invalidating the question and not only expressing the desire to avoid answering it.

kribacr {{{2}}}

.i mi jai bandu do means pretty much the same thing.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

head explodes

tcatypatxu {{{2}}}

mi citka lo pitnanba be lo vo cilra

tcatypatxu {{{2}}}

Guess!

ksion {{{2}}}

cilra ki'a

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: "invalidating the question" gives you the option to say something else. you dont need to "express your desire to not answer it" IMO. you could do that with an additional attitudianl

selpa`i {{{2}}}

So jai bandu is the selbri?

kribacr {{{2}}}

Yes.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Which has x1 = tu'a something

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: True. But na'i also states that question is metalinguistically wrong regardless of you wanting or not to answer it.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Okay

tcatypatxu {{{2}}}

I assume my sentence is correct since no one is telling me 101 ways I'm horribly wrong :D

kribacr {{{2}}}

With a place structure of "x1 defends/protects x2 (object/state) from threat/peril/potential x3 (event) with event of defending fai". Or something like that.

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: And the other way around: you would have to invalidate a totally valid question if you didn't want to answer it and used na'i to express that unwillingness/

selpa`i {{{2}}}

uanai

kribacr {{{2}}}

Where am I losing you?

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: ok. so do you feel better about ni'o instead of na'i?

selpa`i {{{2}}}

It's just so weird and confusing

selpa`i {{{2}}}

Especially since it seems to double

selpa`i {{{2}}}

fai and x2 are the same there or not?

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: Yes.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

And in mi jai bandu do fai is not even used.

smajis {{{2}}}

.i coi

kribacr {{{2}}}

fai is just another spot.

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: good. then let that be the new conclusion. except we'll need the BPFK to include that in the definition of ni'o

kribacr {{{2}}}

You don't have to fill every place.

kribacr {{{2}}}

Same with SE.

selpa`i {{{2}}}

I know.

kribacr {{{2}}}

You can easily just say .i mi te vecnu.

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: Maybe. Not sure if it's needed. "New topic" being the key part of ni'o's definition is pretty clear.

vensa {{{2}}}

ksion: ok. then maybe in the second-layer guidelines

selpa`i {{{2}}}

It's confusing that tu'a mi bandu du = mi jai bandu do

ksion {{{2}}}

vensa: u'i You like the layers! :)

vensa {{{2}}}

yes :)