[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> > > dunda lo'e xrula = kairdunda tu'o ka ce'u xrula
> > > dunda lo xrula = da poi xrula zo'u kairdunda tu'o ka ce'u du da
> >
> >= dunda co'e tu'o du'u dunda co'e lo xrula
> >
> >If you accept that, then I think we can all rest content with
> >the definition of {lo'ei}
>
> I'm not sure what your {co'e}s are, but the main idea is to
> bury any quantifier so I guess your paraphrase might work as
> well
The expositive problem with the kairdunda version is that we
don't know what kairdunda means. When we look to sisku for
help, we have the advantage of knowing that it means "seek",
so we can translate "seek" into logical form (approximately,
"try to find") and thereby understand sisku.
The co'e are there in my paraphrase because in general, neither
co'e is necessarily equivalent to the selbri that has lo'ei
as a sumti, but on a selbri-specific basis the selbri constrains
the interpretation of each co'e.
> >I guess the equivalences would be:
> >
> > lo'ei broda cu brode
> >= brode co'e tu'o du'u lo cmima be lo'i broda cu brode co'e
> >
> > le'ei broda cu brode
> >= brode co'e tu'o du'u lo cmima be le'i broda cu brode co'e
>
> Or closer to my terms:
>
> brode lo'ei broda = kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u poi'i ke'a broda
> brode le'ei broda = kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u voi'i ke'a broda
>
> Where voi'i : poi'i :: voi : poi
Actually, although that's a possible analysis, it's not quite
what I had in mind.
{voi} = {poi/noi ju'anai}
{voi'i} = {poi'i ju'anai}
(where {ju'anai} scopes over the following bridi).
{le'i broda} = {le(i) du voi ke'a klesi lo'i broda}
IOW, voi gives pure nonveridicality, while le gives both
nonveridicality and specificity.
your {ce'u voi'i ke'a broda} = {ce'u poi'i ke'a du da voi broda}
-- it gives only nonveridicality, without the specificity.
Perhaps if you change your version to:
brode le'ei broda = kairbroda le du poi ke'a du'u ce'u voi'i ke'a broda
it would restore the requisite specificity.
> >In effect the strategy is: When it is cumbersome and time-wasting
> >to spell out an explicit logical form, when most of that form
> >could be glorked from context, we can instead use a device,
> >{lo'ei}, that makes the logical form much vaguer and more
> >underspecified, but leaves the sentence much easier to say
>
> Yes. Easier to say and to understand. Tenses are optional in
> Lojban, when it is pointless to use them, for whatever
> reason, we don't use them. {lo'ei} is the way to make
> quantifiers optional as well, so that when it is pointless
> to use them we don't have to use them. {lo'ei} adds some
> truth to the often claimed "number is optional in Lojban"
I have been using {loi'e} and {lei'e} in cases where number is
truly irrelevant. But the special ingredient of {lo'ei}/{le'ei}
is that it neutralizes opaque contexts too.
> >I have no problem with that. I think {lo'ei} and {le'ei} are
> >definitely worth having. (Not as the meanings of {lo'e} and
> >{le'e}, but that's a different discussion.)
>
> I will keep using {lo'e} as I always have (since 1994!)
> in my usage, but I agree to call it {lo'ei} in these
> metadiscussions for the sake of clarity
And I'll leave you to face the wrath of baseline hardliners
on your own!
--And.