[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 03:49 PM 1/6/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > (hence what happens
> > > > > when we try to explicate "only" or "just")
> > > >
> > > >I don't know what you mean by these examples
> > >
> > > The logical expansion of English "only" is very long-winded, and I'm not
> > > sure we ever agreed on the logical expansion of English "just". Thus we
> > > added po'o as an abbreviation for the logical long-windedness
> >
> >A good logical language is one that is not only logically precise but
> >also concise
>
> Why?
Because a notation that is insufficiently concise is a deterrent to
using it. If it takes ages to say what you want to say, then you
are more likely to choose to say something shorter than what you
had wanted to say.
Creating a logical language is a pretty trivial undertaking, because
logic notations have already been invented. The challenge is to
create a more concise (and hence more usable) notation.
> Formal predicate notation is concise only in using single symbols for
> concepts. I never made it far in logic class, but it seemed to take very
> little to end up with quite complex "sentences", and there was no sense
> that there needed to be abbreviations presented.
That is because in logic class there is no call for concision, but
there is a call for a notation that is homomorphous with the
logical formula, so that the logical structure is the more
apparent.
> The concept of using
> discursives as abbreviations for logical constructs was largely my own,
> though JCB had discursives that were logically unanalyzed. (I think jimc
> also had the idea of analyzing discursives logically, and he and pc may
> have had some go-rounds on this issue before I became involved). JCB's
> examples of "spoken symbolic logic" in Loglan 1 were generally quite
> long-winded
I have always presumed that was because of a failure on JCB's part
to understand that lexical structure needn't be homomorphous with
logical structure, and -- due to inexperience -- a failure to
apprehend the importance of concision.
> >It is positively desirable that lexical form be shorter
> >than and hence not homomorphous with logical form, but that lexical
> >form should map unambiguously to logical form. Hence it is not true
> >to say that the logical form is long-winded, because the language
> >designer can choose how long-winded the make the lexical form that
> >encodes it
> >
> >{po'o} is not an abbreviation for logical 'only': it is a vaguely-
> >defined UI that may also cover the ground of, say, 'merely'. It
> >is a vaguer alternative to logical 'only', not any sort of
> >abbreviation
>
> At one point we defined it in terms of a specific sort of logical expansion
> (which Nick originally proposed, IIRC)
> The discussion appears to have been in 1993
> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9305/threads.html
> having several threads on the subject, finally resulting in the assignment
> of po'o. Cowan proposed changing the keyword to "uniquely" rather than
> "only" to make it clearer as to which sense of "only" was intended, but
> that change never made it into the cmavo list
> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9305/msg00063.html
> is a confirmation that I had in mind the "and no other" meaning of "only"
> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9305/msg00117.html
> suggested mi'unai for a(nother) meaning of "only"
> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9305/msg00086.html
> was the actual assignment of po'o
I remembered the contributions from jimc and the final assignment
by John, a UI meaning "without parallel". I have nothing against
that UI, and it may save us from so often wishing to express
'logical only', but it does not itself express 'logical only', does
it.
> > > For example, we have a logical expansion for po'o
> >
> >We don't. We know what logical 'only' means, but to the best of my
> >recollection {po'o} has never meant logical 'only'
>
> See above. I thought (and still think) that there was, but that the
> expansion was variable depending on what was being only-ed, and invariably
> long-winded. It was the desire for a short form that justified a cmavo for
> "only"
Indeed. Unfortunately, the short form wasn't a short form for logical
'only'. Now I could do better than "po'o", but 10 years ago I was okay
with logic but not expert in Lojban.
> > > I am not sure what
> > > happens to that meaning when within a negation. I am quite sure that
> > > people won't consider what happens to that meaning, until someone does the
> > > analysis and calls them on it
> >
> >It is easy to say what happens to logical 'only' within negation
>
> What is "logical 'only'"? If we could have agreed as to what it was, it
> would have probably been explicitly adopted
"only x is broda" = "every broda = x".
> >We can't say what happens to {po'o}, because that has no logical
> >definition, and nor is there any general account of how UI that
> >might encode logical meaning interact with other logical elements
> >in the bridi
>
> There is *in general* very little account of how cmavo interact with each
> other.
In cases where CLL is explicit enough about the individual cmavo, we
can deduce how they interact.
> > > >In that case, i am all in favour
> > > >of vagueness as an option, but I object to the mistaken notion
> > > >that brevity requires vagueness and logical precision requires
> > > >verbosity
> > >
> > > So you reject the Cowan doctrine about the price of infinite precision
> > > being infinite verbosity?
> >
> >No, not at all. I reject the widespread tacit belief that logical
> >precision is infinite
>
> Logical semantic precision would be equally infinite as non-logical
> semantic precision
You seem to me to be making confident pronouncements about a
subject you don't understand, but I often have that impression and
sometimes it's wrong. Maybe you could explain to me why you think
logical semantic precision would be infinite? Take some logical
formula: in what respects is it imprecise? Perhaps you mean that
nonlogical semantic precision, in definition of nonlogical
semantic predicates must perforce involve a logical element? If
so, then that's not what I meant by logical precision.
> >So on the one hand we have the deluded newbies, to whom
> >Cowan's dictum is addressed, who come to a logical language
> >misguidedly seeking general precision beyond what a natlang can
> >offer. And on the other hand we have the deluded oldtimers who
> >have taken Cowan's dictum to heart, but fail to understand that
> >it doesn't apply to logical precision (because of its very limited
> >and finite nature)
>
> You want logically precise semantics, rather than logically precise syntax
> (which we have)
Lojban syntax is bogus, because true linguistic syntax cannot be
separated from semantics. But yes, I do want logically precise
semantics, and it doesn't require infinite verbosity.
> > > > > >"pa lo re si'e" would be a continuous half, such as is found in a
> > > > > >tin of apricot halves
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh? "pa lo re si'e means nothing to me, since I have trouble
> > > > > contemplating a si'e greater than 1
> > > >
> > > >Read the ma'oste (entry for si'e) and you will understand. In learning
> > > >Lojban it is important that you should read the ma'oste
> > >
> > > I wrote it
> >
> >I know you wrote it. But you obviously had forgotten what you had
> >written. Read the entry for si'e and you will see that resi'e
> >means 1/2
> >
> > > Read the entry for piresi'e
> >
> >That is the entry for piresi'e. If you read through the ma'oste you
> >will see that 1/2 can be said as resi'e or pimusi'e
>
> There are no examples of integer quantifiers on si'e in the ma'oste. The
> concept that resi'e and pimusi'e would mean the same thing seems very
> mind-boggling
>
> Jorge indeed raised this very question, and Cowan answered it in the way I
> would expect (though he typoed si'e)
> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9412/msg00005.html
You're doing an admirable job of navigating archives I have always
found unnavigable!
There is no escaping the fact that the ma'oste says:
"x1 is an (n)th portion of mass/totality x2"
which I don't find ambiguous. Examples elsewhere show that pimusi'e is
also legitimate, but that definition shows that resi'e is legitimate.
As I say, it is something that the BF can rule on, though.
> >You may opine
> >that the ma'oste is mabla, but at least you would know what resi'e
> >means, since ma'oste is baselined
>
> resi'e is not in the cmavo list that I can see
I have quoted the entry for si'e above.
> >resi'e = x1 is a 2th portion of mass x2
>
> The definition was poorly worded. Trying to define things baseline-ably in
> 100 characters with no examples was something we never intended, and no one
> checked my wordings before baselining (which I never wanted to do before
> the dictionary). But a "2th" portion is not English-grammatical anyway
> (nor is a 1/2th, I'll admit)
We all agree that the vlaste are rife with poor wordings. Sometimes
that wordings are unclear, sometimes they give rise to contradiction,
sometimes they fail to express the designers' intention. Si'e is an
instance of the last of these. But these are the baselined materials,
and they define current SL. Yes, current SL is a total mess, and
that's why there have been calls for BF and AL.
> >lo resi'e = at least one thing that is a countable half of something
>
> Only if you assume that a 2th is a half
I do. I would consider anybody who didn't to be an imbecile, in this
particular context, just as I would consider imbecilic anybody who
thought ordinal remoi couldn't mean "second" because the definition
of moi uses "(n)th". Indeed, I am pretty disgusted at you for even
raising the notion, because it lowers the calibre of discussion
so much. You often give me the impression that when you are trying
to argue for your views you throw up any and every old argument
without heed to its foolishness, which is why I sometimes dismiss
your arguments overhastily.
> > > > > If John is right and we can use set descriptions for collections,
> > the the
> > > > > answer may be different. I would be inclined to use "piro" on lo'i
> > and ro
> > > > > on le'i, but if something other than this was said in CLL, I wouldn't
> > > > > likely argue
> > > >
> > > >Why would you not use {mo'e zi'o}? Why do you insist on quantification?
> > >
> > > I don't. But you can in fact put a quantifier there. So the question is
> > > what that quantifier is when it is ellipsized
> >
> >You don't have to assume it is elliptized. You could take the veiw that
> >the absence of an overt quantifier means the absence of a covert one
>
> We did not make that assumption, which never would have occurred to me
Which assumption didn't you make? That the quantifier is elliptized?
I know you didn't assume that the absence of an overt quantifier means
the absence of a covert one, but it would have been sensible to do so
had it occurred to you.
> >Even if you had some objection to that, you could make the elliptized
> >quantifier mo'ezi'o
>
> zi'o was not around at the time, and I still don't really accept zi'o even
> if I can vaguely understand it when used
tu'o is mo'e zi'o, according to CLL, though according to ma'oste it is
mo'ezo'e (it's pretty clear that CLL is right here).
Lojban has unquantified sumti -- "ko'a ce ko'e", for example. So it
surprises me that you cannot imagine "lo'i broda" -- or an expression
meaning "the set of all broda" -- as unquantified.
> > > These sorts of arguments on
> > > default quantifiers came from just the same sorts of efforts by earlier
> > > jboskeists to try to assign logical meanings to strings that were
> > > grammatical but not logically explicit. Some of those logical meanings
> > > were useful ones, so that we can say "lo broda" without having to
> say "su'o
> > > lo broda"
> >
> >This one is not a very good example, because we can say "su'o broda";
> >{lo} is a comparatively useless gadri
>
> Until late 1994, su'o broda was distinct from su'o lo broda, and I never
> agreed to conflate the two, and I still don't like it.
But what do you see as the difference between them? (But see below.)
> That was Cowan's decision based on his understanding of the debate of
> the time. That you guys have finally come up with reasons why they
> should not have been conflated merely vindicates my instincts.
I'm afraid we haven't. The conflation is unassailable, except in that
I have proposed to assign the meaning of {su'o lo} to {su'o loi}
and to make {su'o broda} equivalent to {su'o loi broda}, so the
underlying conflation remains even here.
> I believe that su'o broda was
> su'o da poi broda and lo broda was not defined in terms of da poi broda so
> su'o lo broda was not. I don't remember and likely did not understand the
> justification for merging the two, and at one time HAD understoof the
> reason for treating them separately
Ah. I see what you mean. Yes, I have in the last day or two shown
that {lo broda} is not equivalent to {da poi broda}, so if {su'o
broda} were short for {su'o da poi broda} then yes, the conflation
would be annulled and {su'o lo broda} would not be equivalent to
{su'o broda}. It makes only a slight difference to the meaning of
{su'o broda}, and I'm not sure which I prefer.
Interesting.
> (It was that debate BTW, that started me on the path from dropping out of
> these discussions - I could not communicate my instincts in ways that you
> guys could understand, and I got tired of having my words twisted in knots
> that I could not unravel in a reasonable amount of time)
I sympathize, but I can't see any alternative but to cede the discussions
to those who can make themselves understood to one another (and who
include among their number some who can make themselves understood
to nonparticipants).
--And.