xorxes on requantification: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
For the Lojban symbol see [[GIF images of the Lojban symbol]]
(moved from [[XXS: Extended XS proposal]])


----
What still needs to be worked out in detail is what happens with re-quantification, for example when we use a quantifier with anaphora whose antecedent is an already quantified term, or when anaphora are used outside the scope of its antecedent's quantifier. I think that in those cases the quantification is over the same set as the previous quantifier's. For example:


.i se'a .o'acai ri'esai le lojbo noi banli zo'u na'ebo ly. ca'a kalci bangu
no le ci prenu cu klama le zarci i re ra stali le zdani i pa ra klama le panka


.i ma traji le ka jbopa'i
''None of the three people went to the market. Two of them stayed home. One of them went to the park.''


.i ju'ocai le pruxi po'e ly. cu prane
{ra} is both times {le ci prenu}, because it is outside of the scope of its antecedent's quantifier.


.i ga'i .i'i le jbopei le rarbaupei cu zmadu le ka logji je vlipa
--[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]


.i .iisai .i ko terpa sai le bazu fatci jbopei .iosai
*Thanx. The {le} cases are relatively easy, because {le ci prenu} is a constant through the whole, the same choice at each occurrence, anaphorized or not. Doing the same with {ci prenu} is trickier and, of course, {lo ci prenu} is impossible. I find the old "a/the" shift to be a possibility here: later references to {ci prenu} first shift to {le ci prenu}, the ones picked up -- whoever they are -- by the previous instance.  Of course, with anaphora we could just use {re py} for example, but full forms require an intervening something.


----
In the case of quantified {le}, when the pronoun is within the scope of the quantifier, shouldn't it behave like da rather than copying the le? Example:


See ''[[jbocre: le pu naje ca xamsi cnita|le pu naje ca xamsi cnita]]''.
ro le ci nixli cu cinba le ri mamta


----
''Each of the three girls kissed her own mother.''


''Since I think we need to jettison all [[jbocre: cultural gismu|cultural gismu]] (except "lojbo") and replace them with stage threes, [http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?full=spero speranto] is no exception! --xod''
In this case, {ri} is within the scope of {ro}. Shouldn't it act as {da} would in {ro da poi ke'a cmima le ci nixli}?


Why should ''lojbo'' be an exception? What's wrong with ''banrlojbani''?
To say that each of the girls kissed their (common) mother we'd need {le mamta be le ro ri}, the mother of the all of them.


''(Well for one thing, the "-ban" at the end means bangu; that word you created thus means "language, logical language".) On the other hand, There is no need for us to try not to be culturally chauvinistic. --xod''
With ci prenu:


No, ''lojban'' is a name. I can also talk about ''kulnrlojbani'' and ''gugrlojbani''.
ci prenu cu klama le zarci i muboi py stali le zdani i biboi py klama le panka


''Are you telling me that '''lojban''' does NOT mean lojbo bangu? --xod''
''Three people went to the market, five stayed home, eight went to the park.''


No, it doesn't. It supposed to remind you of ''logji bangu'', but it's a name. If you want it to mean that, use ''lojbau''. Likewise, if you want a word meaning ''lojbo bangu'', use ''jbobau''.
[[{mu py}, believe it or not, is a single number, so the boi is needed to separate quantifier from pronoun.]]


I still don't get it. Are you saying we ''should'' be culturally chauvinistic? If there's some reason that all the other [[jbocre: cultural gismu|cultural gismu]] should be dropped, why doesn't it apply to ''[[jbocre: lojbo|lojbo]]''? (Not that I'm agreeing, just wondering what the reason is.)
Here {py} is always lo prenu, Mr Person, and quantification is over its avatars. I agree that in order to say something else about the three that went to the market we'd have to switch to {le}, because now they would be specific. Unless we were still under the scope of {ci}, in which case the pronoun again would function as da:


I agree. Lojbo as the only cultural gismu makes lojban culture seem superior to other cultures. I thought our goal was neutrality...
ci prenu cu klama le zarci fu le py karce


''I really don't see why cultural neutrality has anything to do with Lojban culture! Are we supposed to be free of that too? As soon as we see ourselves establishing a Lojban culture we're supposed to stop, for fear of malylojbo? Clearly if the idea of neutrality is taken to ridiculous extremes, it contradicts itself. If SW is valid, there exists a (largely-undiscovered) Lojban culture. If we waste our time with Lojban it's because we think such a culture would be a good thing. If you're a Lojban Chauvinist like me, you absolutely believe that a Lojbanic culture is, in fact, superior to any other. --xod''
''Three people went to the market (each) in their own car''


I don't have a problem with Lojban culture, but if fu'ivla are better than gismu for talking about all the other cultures, why is ''lojbo'' an exception?
In this case py behaves as da would in {ci da poi prenu ... da}, because it is under the scope of {ci}.
 
''So we can use the jbo- rafsi.  --xod''
 
Then why doesn't the ''mer-'' rafsi justify the existence of ''merko''?
 
''Because this is the Lojban language, not the American language! Therefore a lojbocentric viewpoint need not even be justified. --xod''
 
I just remind you once again of Ralph Dumain's dictum: Cultural Neutrality != Cultural Nullity. (And he thinks Lojban has the latter) -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]].
 
Lojban culture superior to all others? Isn't that dangerous? When europe thought that, look what happened. Slave trade, exploitation of native americans, destruction of the largest and most developed country then in existence. We have a word for this, xod. Xenophobia. I agree that cultural gismu put some cultures 'ahead' of others, so if we remove them we should remove lojbo. Lojban culture can exist, but lojban chauvinism is just anti-nolylojbo in disguise. I prefer the ADDITION of gismu for cultures we lack, such as norgo. ''I second the motion.''
 
''We don't have enough extra potential gismu to accomodate all the cultures and languages in existence.'' '''Yes we do.''' [[jbocre: For small values of 'yes'.|For small values of 'yes'.]] '''See [[jbocre: Free Gismu Space|Free Gismu Space]]'''
 
''Furthermore, such approximations are very far from the original names, whereas with fu'ivla we can do much better -- we can approximate the original names to the extent that our letters let us.--xod''
 
''Cultures evolve. Are all cultures interchangeably equal and equivalent? No. If you hate all those aforementioned atrocities, let's do what we can do evolve past them. Part of this evolution is the development of cultural elements that are better than previous ones. I happen to think that a logical language is better than a natural language at enabling its speakers to deal with reality and logic and complexity. The atrocities you are wary of might be regarded as antithetical to the evolution I am discussing. --xod''
 
''Europe didn't colonize the whole world because they had racial superiority theories, but rather because they gained the tech superiority to pull it off. --xod''
 
just seems to me like a language/culture ought to be allowed to have a native word for itself, and then borrow in the names of the other cultures. however, why argue? both systems are compatible: start making a list of [[jbocre: cultural fu'ivla|cultural fu'ivla]] and then people who agree will use them. people who don't agree will continue to use the [[jbocre: cultural gismu|cultural gismu]]. the inferior words will die out sooner or later. --[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]]
 
''Well, some cultures use words like "jetnu" or "prenu" to refer to themselves. How about "la jetybau"? -- [[jbocre: Adam|Adam]]'' (''jdice cumki bangu'')
 
Because names have to end with consonants followed by full stops... try ''le jetybau'' or ''la jetyban.''
 
''No, they don't; selma'o LA can appear anywhere LE can. (There's the ''stace = Frank'' example in [[jbocre: the book|the book]] somewhere.) Personally, I find morphological cmene to be ugly and hard to pronounce, and I suggest using them as little as possible (certainly not when there's a clearer selbri).''
 
----
 
ma goi ko'a pare'u morsi mu'i le nu prami le lojbo kulnu i a'ocai ko'a na renro lo vinji poi vasru ko'a e so'o drata prenu ku'o lo dinju poi vasru so'i prenu i mi'e tinkit
 
----
 
{mrobi'o} Can one ''be'' dead (or anything else) for a motive?

Latest revision as of 08:36, 15 June 2015

(moved from XXS: Extended XS proposal)

What still needs to be worked out in detail is what happens with re-quantification, for example when we use a quantifier with anaphora whose antecedent is an already quantified term, or when anaphora are used outside the scope of its antecedent's quantifier. I think that in those cases the quantification is over the same set as the previous quantifier's. For example:

no le ci prenu cu klama le zarci i re ra stali le zdani i pa ra klama le panka

None of the three people went to the market. Two of them stayed home. One of them went to the park.

{ra} is both times {le ci prenu}, because it is outside of the scope of its antecedent's quantifier.

--xorxes

  • Thanx. The {le} cases are relatively easy, because {le ci prenu} is a constant through the whole, the same choice at each occurrence, anaphorized or not. Doing the same with {ci prenu} is trickier and, of course, {lo ci prenu} is impossible. I find the old "a/the" shift to be a possibility here: later references to {ci prenu} first shift to {le ci prenu}, the ones picked up -- whoever they are -- by the previous instance. Of course, with anaphora we could just use {re py} for example, but full forms require an intervening something.

In the case of quantified {le}, when the pronoun is within the scope of the quantifier, shouldn't it behave like da rather than copying the le? Example:

ro le ci nixli cu cinba le ri mamta

Each of the three girls kissed her own mother.

In this case, {ri} is within the scope of {ro}. Shouldn't it act as {da} would in {ro da poi ke'a cmima le ci nixli}?

To say that each of the girls kissed their (common) mother we'd need {le mamta be le ro ri}, the mother of the all of them.

With ci prenu:

ci prenu cu klama le zarci i muboi py stali le zdani i biboi py klama le panka

Three people went to the market, five stayed home, eight went to the park.

[[{mu py}, believe it or not, is a single number, so the boi is needed to separate quantifier from pronoun.]]

Here {py} is always lo prenu, Mr Person, and quantification is over its avatars. I agree that in order to say something else about the three that went to the market we'd have to switch to {le}, because now they would be specific. Unless we were still under the scope of {ci}, in which case the pronoun again would function as da:

ci prenu cu klama le zarci fu le py karce

Three people went to the market (each) in their own car

In this case py behaves as da would in {ci da poi prenu ... da}, because it is under the scope of {ci}.

Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=xorxes_on_requantification&oldid=115373"