Talk:BPFK Section: Numeric selbri
Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on? While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."
pc: > Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) > opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member > of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on?
Good point, thank you. The reason for the somewhat opaque definitions is that I want them to apply not just to the {number MOI} construct but also to the {ME sumti MOI} one. But I can give both the restricted definition for numbers as well as the general one for any sumti.
> While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."
Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like that into {djica} territory either.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:32:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope." > > Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. > In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also > means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought > that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have > used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful > to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't > make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like > that into {djica} territory either.
I think that the probability place of {pacna} is useful, and that the fault is in "hope" being the keyword. There are other cases of misleading keywords in the gismu list. -- Rob Speer
Rob Speer: > I think that the probability place of {pacna} is useful, and that the fault > is > in "hope" being the keyword. There are other cases of misleading keywords in > the gismu list.
I would agree, except that "hope" is not just the keyword, but the whole definition as it is: "x1 hopes/wishes for/desires x2" when it should be "x1 expects x2".
One problem with "fixing" this might be Nick's translation of MLK's "I have a dream" speech, that uses {mi pacna} all over the place.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.
Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
pc: > Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) > opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member > of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on?
Good point, thank you. The reason for the somewhat opaque definitions is that I want them to apply not just to the {number MOI} construct but also to the {ME sumti MOI} one. But I can give both the restricted definition for numbers as well as the general one for any sumti.
> While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."
Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like that into {djica} territory either.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Rob Speer wrote:On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:32:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the
> > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a
> > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."
>
> Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss.
> In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also
> means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought
> that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have
> used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful
> to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't
> make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like
> that into {djica} territory either.
I think that the probability place of {pacna} is useful, and that the fault is in "hope" being the keyword. There are other cases of misleading keywords in the gismu list. -- Rob Speer
pc: > Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps > not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.
{me mi moi} for example is "x1 is/are the one(s) among x2 that correspond(s) to me by rule x3", in other words "x1 is/are my x2's by rule x3".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?
Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps > not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.
{me mi moi} for example is "x1 is/are the one(s) among x2 that correspond(s) to me by rule x3", in other words "x1 is/are my x2's by rule x3".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> ?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work > through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?
There need not be any numbers involved. The rule might be "is the one wearing it", then {ta memimoi lo mapku lo ka makau dasni ce'u} "That's mine among hats by rule who's wearing it".
Of course in general the rule won't be given explicitly, and also maybe not the x2: {ta medomoi}, "that's yours".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Can {moi} really do this? It is, of course, the original {me} (a baby's first Loglan was {memi}) and so a needed device, but it is hard to see it as an ordering. I gather though that the ordering part has here been reduce merely to a correlation with something or other, not necessarily an ordinal. I'm not convinced an the example given is so weird (unintelligible) that it doesn't help me out much.
Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> ?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work > through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?
There need not be any numbers involved. The rule might be "is the one wearing it", then {ta memimoi lo mapku lo ka makau dasni ce'u} "That's mine among hats by rule who's wearing it".
Of course in general the rule won't be given explicitly, and also maybe not the x2: {ta medomoi}, "that's yours".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: BPFK Section: Numeric selbri Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on? While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."
Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.
Jorge Llambías wrote:
pc: > Boy, are these definitions in English (and only sllightly less so in Lojban) > opaque. Why not just say "is *number* in number," "is the *number*th member > of X2 according to ordering X3" and so on?
Good point, thank you. The reason for the somewhat opaque definitions is that I want them to apply not just to the {number MOI} construct but also to the {ME sumti MOI} one. But I can give both the restricted definition for numbers as well as the general one for any sumti.
> While you are dropping (on another thread) superfluous places, the > probbability place in {pacna} is a natural to go, since it has no place in a > concept that can reasonably be correlated with "hope."
Yes, I always thought that place of {pacna} was funny for the "hope" gloss. In Spanish, "esperar" means both "to hope" and "to expect" (it also means "to wait" but that's not relevant here) so I suppose someone thought that {pacna} in Lojban could also cover both. But if so, they should have used "expect" as the keyword. A place for an expectation value is useful to have, but I agree that mixing it with hope/wish/desire just doesn't make any sense. And I don't see why {pacna} has to encroach like that into {djica} territory either.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?
Jorge Llambías wrote: pc: > Since the ME + sumti are always going to evaluate to a number (though perhaps > not very definitely), I don't see the need for the second version.
{me mi moi} for example is "x1 is/are the one(s) among x2 that correspond(s) to me by rule x3", in other words "x1 is/are my x2's by rule x3".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Can {moi} really do this? It is, of course, the original {me} (a baby's first Loglan was {memi}) and so a needed device, but it is hard to see it as an ordering. I gather though that the ordering part has here been reduce merely to a correlation with something or other, not necessarily an ordinal. I'm not convinced an the example given is so weird (unintelligible) that it doesn't help me out much.
Jorge Llambías wrote:
> ?? So, this shows what (other than that we don't know — until we work > through Rule 3 and my place — what the number is)?
There need not be any numbers involved. The rule might be "is the one wearing it", then {ta memimoi lo mapku lo ka makau dasni ce'u} "That's mine among hats by rule who's wearing it".
Of course in general the rule won't be given explicitly, and also maybe not the x2: {ta medomoi}, "that's yours".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail