implied co'e and Multiple-Question Questions
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 :)