[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: #At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: #> > >I wasn't aware of the "retu'o" usage #> > #> > I'm not sure if it has been used, but it has been thought of, once we had #> > created tu'o for the other purpose #> #>If retu'o is not canonical then it is plainly wrong, seeing as the mo'ezi'o #>meaning of tu'o is canonical. # #I don't know what you mean by canonical. If you mean that CLL says that #tu'o and mo'ezi'o are identical in meaning, can I trouble you for a cite, #because I certainly don't see it. Indeed zi'o is never discussed in #interaction with anything else. In the mekso chapter, tu'o is introduced as an operand that turns a binary operator into a unary one -- i.e. it is the operand counterpart of the sumti zi'o. #It is plausible that the only uses of tu'o in CLL could be replaced by #mo'ezi'o, but even that is arguable since there is no formal definition of #the combination mo'ezi'o - it must be inferred. That tu'o = mo'ezi'o can be deduced, since we know from CLL what each of tu'o, mo'e and zi'o mean. #But in addition, lack of other examples is not a definition. If retu'o, "twentysomething", existed in CLL then tu'o would be contradictorily defined. I think it is therefore legitimate to deduce that retu'o cannot mean "twentysomething". #> > li re #> #>= "each of the one thing that is the number 2", according to John. # #That is NOT in evidence. CLL says: # #><cx "article, number"><cx "the, for talking about numbers themselves"><lx #>"li"><cx "number article, explanation of use"><cx "numbers, talking about #>contrasted with using for quantification"><cx "numbers, using for #>quantification contrasted with talking about">The cmavo liis the number #>article. It is required whenever a sentence talks about numbers as #>numbers, as opposed to using numbers to quantify things. For exam?ple: #> #><p> #> #><pre><a name=e5d2>5.2) le ci prenu #> #> the three persons #> #></pre>requires no liarticle, because the ciis being used to specify the #>number of prenu. However, the sentence #> #><p> #> #><ex "3 grams"><pre><a name=e5d3>5.3) levi sfani cu grake li ci #> #> This fly masses-in-grams the-number three. #> #> This fly has a mass of 3 grams. #> #></pre><cx "measurements, expressing"><cx "units of measurement, #>expressing">requires libecause ciis being used as a sumti. Note that this #>is the way in which measurements are stated in Lojban: all the predicates #>for units of length, mass, tem?pera?ture, and so on have the measured #>object as the first place and a number as the sec?ond place. Using lifor #>lein <a href=#e5d2>Example 5.2 </a>would produce #> #><p> #> #><pre><a name=e5d4>5.4) li ci prenu #> #> The-number 3 is-a-person. #> #></pre>which is grammatical but nonsensical: numbers are not persons. # #It is not translated in CLL as "each of the one thing that is the number 3" No, because CLL is a reference grammar, aiming to provide a comprehensive but accessible explanation of all that was definite about Lojban at the time. If CLL had been intended to simply provide the detailed prescription then it would have been much clearer (as a record of the detailed prescription) and much shorter. I am sure that whatever goal John has, he would accomplish it well, and the reason that CLL is such a fiasco as a record of detailed prescription is that that was not John's goal. John has recently told us that somewhere or other CLL says that the default quantifier for li is ro(pa). The key point being that it does have a default quantifier. #not that I see any difference between that and "the number 3", but I #ssume you do in order to make your claim). It's an ontological difference, not a truth-conditional one. #Furthermore, your excessive interpretation of default quantifiers in #contradicted by CLL. to wit: #>There are rules for each of the 11 descriptors specifying what the #>implicit val?ues for the inner and outer quantifiers are. They are meant #>to provide sensible default values when context is absent, not necessarily #>to prescribe hard and fast rules. # #In other words, the default quantifiers are NOT definitional. But there is some implicit value, not no implicit value. That is my main objection. The syntax doesn't make it mandatory to have a quantifier there, and it is (onto)logical bias that makes it impossible to avoid having one there, except by means of inserting veimo'ezi'o. Cowanian logicosemantics, which underlies CLL Lojban, is rather like Switzerland -- orderly but conservative. --And.