Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- [Xorlo part one and part two (the second one isn't complete), recorded by Ilmen.]
- [19 déc. 12 19:31:44] * tsani * The CLL simply says: {.i ko'a .e ko'e broda lo brode} -> {.i ko'a broda lo brode .ije ko'e broda lo brode}
- [19 déc. 12 19:32:12] * tsani * But in each of those two sentences, the lo brode must have exactly the same referents
- [19 déc. 12 19:32:13] * latro`a * whereas the latter is actually weaker
- [19 déc. 12 19:32:13] * tsani * The CLL doesn't say that though >_>
- [19 déc. 12 19:32:13] * latro`a * than the former
- [19 déc. 12 19:32:13] * xalbo * So, for instance, {fu'e po'o mi .e lo speni be mi fu'o cu se zdani tu}, only my wife and I live in that house.
- [19 déc. 12 19:32:13] * tsani * Indeed.
- [19 déc. 12 19:33:14] * tsani * Now I want some cmavo to attach to connectives to mark them as magic macros :P
- [19 déc. 12 19:33:50] * latro`a * lol
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:07] * latro`a * actually
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:13] * tsani * Simply put, it'd indicate that the expansion is really what you want to say, and that there's no guarantee that implicitly repeated sumti have the same referents.
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:13] * latro`a * interestingly
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:26] * latro`a * that example under CLL-lo is true
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:27] * tsani * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:27] * tsani * but the CLL used le
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:27] * latro`a * since the lo brode doesn't have referents
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:27] * latro`a * oh nvm
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:29] * latro`a * carry on
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:31] * tsani * (iirc)
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:49] * latro`a * it probably did, as it usually does
- [19 déc. 12 19:34:50] * tsani * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 19:35:13] * tsani * When giving examples to nintadni, I have to hold back from saying {.i mi klama le zarci}; the CLL drilled that one into my head.
- [19 déc. 12 19:35:17] * latro`a * .u'i
- [19 déc. 12 19:35:50] * tsani * la djan .e la .alis. klama le zarci
- [19 déc. 12 19:36:02] * tsani * = la djan. klama le zarci .ije la .alis. klama le zarci
- [19 déc. 12 19:36:29] * tsani * Not only may the le zarci be different, it *might not even be a store at all!*
- [19 déc. 12 19:36:29] * latro`a * lol
- [19 déc. 12 19:36:36] * latro`a * though the same is sorta ish true under rigid-xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 19:36:49] * latro`a * incidentally, I always have to catch myself when I say rigid-xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 19:36:54] * tsani * Also, the CLL is funny to read now, because it looks like the things nintadni say when they first come on IRC :s
- [19 déc. 12 19:37:02] * latro`a * because it seems wrong but isn't
- [19 déc. 12 19:37:30] * latro`a * following the text rigidly results in flexible text
- [19 déc. 12 19:37:30] * latro`a * ...
- [19 déc. 12 19:37:30] * latro`a * following the text of the gadri proposal rigidly results in flexible utterances
- [19 déc. 12 19:37:30] * latro`a * ^better
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:09] * tsani * Indeed
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:33] * tsani * as in, {lo broda} might be {lo broda co'e}
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:34] * latro`a * I like {zo'e ne lo ka broda}
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:34] * latro`a * for rigid xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:34] * tsani * it's a nice one, yes
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:37] * latro`a * where the second lo is sane-lo
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:41] * latro`a * :p
- [19 déc. 12 19:38:56] * tsani * couldn't that lo use da instead?
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:00] < esoto has disconnected (Quit: leaving)
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:17] * latro`a * maybe
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:20] * latro`a * da-zo'e interactions are always strange
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:20] * tsani * To avoid circular definition of lo
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:20] * tsani * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:31] * latro`a * it's not circular though, you'd have another word for sane-lo
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:44] * tsani * zo'e noi da poi ka broda cu co'e ke'a
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:52] * latro`a * rather
- [19 déc. 12 19:39:56] * tsani * you get a da local to the noi
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:01] * latro`a * da-zo'e interactions would never be strange if zo'e were never quantified
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:04] * latro`a * the problem is that sometimes it is
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:04] * tsani * right
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:04] * latro`a * and sometimes it's subjected to the da-scope
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:07] * latro`a * which is REALLY weird
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:15] * tsani * zo'e has magic-scope :)
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:33] * tsani * .i ro da poi nanmu cu prami lo ninmu
- [19 déc. 12 19:40:47] * latro`a * (note selpa'i agrees with more or less nothing I just said unless you use outer quantifiers)
- [19 déc. 12 19:41:05] * latro`a * (mostly @ not tsani; tsani already knows this)
- [19 déc. 12 19:41:13] * tsani * Do they love one woman? Do they all love women (as in the abstract concept) ? Do they all love woman goo?
- [19 déc. 12 19:41:22] * latro`a * if it's woman goo, is it the same pile for each?
- [19 déc. 12 19:41:34] * tsani * maybe they love the abstract concept of woman goo
- [19 déc. 12 19:41:40] * tsani * without there actually being any such goo in the universe
- [19 déc. 12 19:41:54] * latro`a * I still can't get a straight answer from selpa'i about tu'o btw
- [19 déc. 12 19:42:20] * latro`a * or rather about whether tu'o is implicit
- [19 déc. 12 19:42:20] * latro`a * everywhere
- [19 déc. 12 19:42:27] * latro`a * I think his answer is that it is, and that weird kind shenanigans account for the cases where I think implicit xo'e would be cleaner
- [19 déc. 12 19:42:33] * latro`a * but he never really acknowledges that kind shenanigans are actually weird -_-
- [19 déc. 12 19:42:38] * tsani * .u'i
- [19 déc. 12 19:43:00] * tsani * Well, assuming lo = zo'e ne lo ka, then kind schenanigans *work*.
- [19 déc. 12 19:43:21] * latro`a * but I don't think anyone wants the definition to be THAT loose
- [19 déc. 12 19:43:23] * latro`a * hell, how the hell do you teach a nintadni that
- [19 déc. 12 19:43:27] * tsani * Right, because then you can't *say* anything.
- [19 déc. 12 19:43:29] * tsani * Also yeah
- [19 déc. 12 19:43:37] * latro`a * I think if I told a nintadni that they'd just leave\
- [19 déc. 12 19:44:01] * tsani * "Okay, you know 'the' in English? When {lo} sort of works that way, but when you get more experienced, I'll tell you that I was lying."
- [19 déc. 12 19:44:11] * latro`a * heavily, not just kinda lying
- [19 déc. 12 19:44:41] > erkin has joined
- [19 déc. 12 19:44:42] * latro`a * saying standard-idiom-lo kind of works like "the" is lying a little but not too much
- [19 déc. 12 19:44:46] > trillioneyes has joined
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:18] * tsani * Also, lo just does everything articles (or lack thereof) do in English: I like a bear, I like bears, I like some bears, I like bear goo, I like the bear goo, I like some bear goos.
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:35] * latro`a * you missed "the bear"
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:38] * latro`a * and "the bears"
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:38] * latro`a * :p
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:38] * tsani * I might like them as a collective or distributively
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:51] * tsani * I do not like lo here or there, I do not like lo anywhere!
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:52] < triliyn has disconnected (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 19:45:55] * latro`a * lol
- [19 déc. 12 19:46:46] * tsani * Hm
- [19 déc. 12 19:47:38] * tsani * A rule: when lo is under the scope of da, there is no guarantee of constancy. ?
- [19 déc. 12 19:47:38] * tsani * Hence, {ro da poi nanmu cu prami lo ninmu} might have distributive lo, might not.
- [19 déc. 12 19:47:38] * latro`a * which basic framework do you mean
- [19 déc. 12 19:47:45] * latro`a * under rigid-xorlo you always have constancy
- [19 déc. 12 19:47:49] * tsani * As in, in {ro da poi nanmu cu prami lo ninmu} it might actually be {ro da poi nanmu cu prami de poi ninmu}
- [19 déc. 12 19:47:54] * latro`a * and this works because the relation is with the kind, which magically extracts for each da
- [19 déc. 12 19:48:12] * latro`a * or...something
- [19 déc. 12 19:48:12] * latro`a * can't even really do that
- [19 déc. 12 19:48:14] * latro`a * because you have no promise that the lo behaves distributively
- [19 déc. 12 19:48:24] * latro`a * extracts-or-doesn't for each da, then
- [19 déc. 12 19:48:55] * latro`a * it could, but the rigid-xorlo perspective is that you're not actually relating men to women in that statement, necessarily
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:03] * latro`a * you're relating individuals that are definitely men to women-ish-things
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:04] * tsani * right
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:13] * tsani * so {de pe lo ka ninmu} ?
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:23] * latro`a * you don't even guarantee that
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:29] * latro`a * again, the lo ninmu might not even exist
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:30] * tsani * hrm
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:32] * latro`a * mi prami lo pavyseljirna
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:32] * tsani * right
- [19 déc. 12 19:49:48] * latro`a * rigid-xorlo makes so few promises it's a nightmare to reason about
- [19 déc. 12 19:50:36] * tsani * lo -- generic article -- makes so few promises that what you say, what you mean to say, and what people understand from what you say might be completely unrelated.
- [19 déc. 12 19:51:33] * tsani * roughly equivalent to zo'e ne lo ka broda (the lo there isn't the one being described), but with extremely context dependent rules for distributivity when in the absence of quantifiers.
- [19 déc. 12 19:51:53] * tsani * Interactions with existential and universal claims are undefined.
- [19 déc. 12 19:52:19] * tsani * (Any attemps to defined them are poor at best.)
- [19 déc. 12 19:52:51] * tsani * -- okay, I think that does it :)
- [19 déc. 12 19:53:18] * tsani * </lo-rant>
- [19 déc. 12 19:53:39] * latro`a * heh
- [19 déc. 12 19:55:05] * selpa`i * What is going on here
- [19 déc. 12 19:55:24] * selpa`i * I was hoping that I wouldn't have to talk about lo again until next year.
- [19 déc. 12 19:55:48] * latro`a * you don't need to, I think I more or less understand your opinion at this point
- [19 déc. 12 19:56:01] * selpa`i * No you don't.
- [19 déc. 12 19:56:03] * selpa`i * Based on what you keep saying, you clearly don't.
- [19 déc. 12 19:56:08] * selpa`i * And I don't comment on tu'o because I don't really get your idea
- [19 déc. 12 19:56:33] * latro`a * you've explained how the tu'o thing interacts with your opinion; lo sumti are constant, but they may be constant in the sense of kinds, enabling superficially distributive behavior
- [19 déc. 12 19:56:44] * latro`a * which isn't actually distributive at the level of kinds
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:11] * selpa`i * No, *you* said "kinds"
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:17] * latro`a * same for general zo'e sumti
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:17] * selpa`i * And there is no tu'o in my opinion
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:17] * latro`a * I know
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:17] * latro`a * but that just means that to you tu'o lo = lo
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:50] * latro`a * also, yes, I introduced the word kinds as a way of explaining what exactly these sumti that may not actually be a thing at all are
- [19 déc. 12 19:57:57] * selpa`i * You first need to define what tu'o means as quantifier in your world
- [19 déc. 12 19:58:19] * selpa`i * tu'o was originally not meant for such things
- [19 déc. 12 19:58:27] * latro`a * I've defined it pretty clearly; to me lo = tu'o lo or xo'e lo depending on context; tu'o is the explicit absence of a quantifier, while xo'e is the explicit presence of an unspecified quantifier
- [19 déc. 12 19:58:29] * latro`a * yes, I know
- [19 déc. 12 19:58:40] < erkin has disconnected (Quit: Ouch! Got SIGABRT, dying...)
- [19 déc. 12 19:58:46] * latro`a * we could have used a different word, tu'o was just available, unused, and has more or less the desired semantics
- [19 déc. 12 19:58:48] * selpa`i * A quantifier that is no quantifier, yes?
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:01] * selpa`i * That's so silly
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:14] * selpa`i * But okay.
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:15] * latro`a * now you're doing the same thing as what you complain about me doing
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:15] * latro`a * please don't do that
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:15] * latro`a * I'll try not to do the same
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:41] * latro`a * the place where I struggle to do so is in coping with the notion of using kinds to get away with everything
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:41] * selpa`i * Why? Didn't you just say some minutes ago that "selpa'i doesn't admit to this weirdness" ?
- [19 déc. 12 19:59:53] * latro`a * it's not that you don't say what you mean, it's that you don't seem to think that it's weird
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:13] * latro`a * which I find strange
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:13] * latro`a * not necessarily wrong or silly
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:14] * latro`a * I find kind shenanigans absolutely bizarre
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:19] * selpa`i * Okay
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:43] * latro`a * finding it strange vs. wrong/silly are quite different
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:45] * selpa`i * Again, kinds do not really come into play unless it helps you to use it as a metaphor to understand xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 20:00:45] * latro`a * strange is not bad; wrong/silly are bad
- [19 déc. 12 20:01:08] * latro`a * they do if you want to give a name to what sort of sumti these non-thing sumti are
- [19 déc. 12 20:01:16] * latro`a * which xorlo introduces
- [19 déc. 12 20:01:23] * latro`a * you could use broda-goo if you wanted, it's the same concept
- [19 déc. 12 20:01:48] * selpa`i * I'm not sure I'm in the mood to discuss xorlo at the moment.
- [19 déc. 12 20:01:57] * latro`a * I didn't really ask you to, so you don't have to; I think I understand your opinion as best as I'm going to
- [19 déc. 12 20:02:14] * selpa`i * I doubt that.
- [19 déc. 12 20:02:45] * latro`a * in fact I think I understand your opinion better than you think I understand it, I'm just using "kind" in a very vague way deliberately
- [19 déc. 12 20:02:46] * latro`a * because it refers to a very vague idea
- [19 déc. 12 20:02:46] * selpa`i * If we started over from scratch, I'm sure I could convey everything more clearly
- [19 déc. 12 20:03:17] * selpa`i * But if we are going to, then I would like you to not always immediately chime in and say "nope" right away and let me finish
- [19 déc. 12 20:03:44] * latro`a * I'd ask the same (I'm not sure you really understand my opinions either)
- [19 déc. 12 20:03:45] > djeimsyxuis_ has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:04:42] * selpa`i * The thing is that it's not so much my opinion as it is just xorlo. And the fact that you make me responsible for xorlo's apparant weirdness is odd
- [19 déc. 12 20:05:07] * latro`a * I haven't seen anyone else adhere as rigidly to the statement of the gadri proposal as you
- [19 déc. 12 20:05:21] * latro`a * even xorxes in the lions and levels thread
- [19 déc. 12 20:05:33] * selpa`i * Could you be more specific?
- [19 déc. 12 20:05:49] * latro`a * there's nothing to be specific about, if you look at his posts in there he talks about induced functions and such as actually being a good way to reason about this
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:22] * selpa`i * There are many metaphors you can use to understand how xorlo works
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:30] < infoscav has disconnected (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:54] * selpa`i * Use whichever one is the most natural to you
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:58] * latro`a * there are no reasonable functions in rigid-xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:59] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:59] ^ djeimsyxuis_ is now known as djeimsyxuis
- [19 déc. 12 20:06:59] * latro`a * because there's basically no promises made by rigid-xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 20:07:38] * selpa`i * That's the point of xorlo. It makes no promises, all it does is give you a sumti.
- [19 déc. 12 20:07:40] * latro`a * you have to have promises to talk about things like quantifier interactions
- [19 déc. 12 20:07:40] * selpa`i * lo won't add anything
- [19 déc. 12 20:07:43] * latro`a * yes, I know that's the philosophy, I'm saying that that philosophy is borderline useless
- [19 déc. 12 20:07:48] * selpa`i * neither distributivity, nor anything else
- [19 déc. 12 20:07:52] * Ilmen * coi
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:05] < trillioneyes has disconnected (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:11] * latro`a * it's an extreme reaction to an extreme previous policy
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:11] * selpa`i * How can you say that
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:11] * selpa`i * Practice shows the opposite
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:12] * selpa`i * It works perfectly fine
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:23] * latro`a * no, practice shows that people don't internalize the no-promise definition
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:33] * selpa`i * What's so bad about context doing things for you?
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:39] * latro`a * when it does EVERYTHING, everything
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:50] * selpa`i * The rest of lojban is full of context dependecy
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:50] * selpa`i * le'ai
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:51] * latro`a * lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai is a terrible hack that is convenient for IRC
- [19 déc. 12 20:08:56] * selpa`i * ..
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:01] * selpa`i * I used le'ai to correct my typo
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:06] * latro`a * oh
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:12] * latro`a * point stands anyways
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:18] > triliyn has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:26] * Ilmen * valsi le'ai
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:28] * valsi * le'ai = replace recent mistakenly uttered text
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:42] * Ilmen * valsi lo'ai
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:52] * valsi * lo'ai = start quote of recent mistakenly uttered text to be replaced
- [19 déc. 12 20:09:53] * selpa`i * Look, it's not *lo* that does everything, it's context that does
- [19 déc. 12 20:10:19] * selpa`i * The lo sumti is just an empty shell
- [19 déc. 12 20:10:51] * latro`a * but it's a shell that you know nothing about a priori
- [19 déc. 12 20:10:52] * latro`a * which is worse than old-le
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:08] * triliyn * {lo'ai ... sa'ai ... le'ai} is like "s/.../.../"
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:23] * selpa`i * All you know is that 1) it fits the x1 of broda, and 2) it is relevant somehow because otherwise the speaker wouldn#t have said it
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:26] * latro`a * no, it doesn't even fit the x1 of broda
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:31] * latro`a * that's what we've been saying
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:38] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:44] * latro`a * it has something loose to do with the x1 of broda
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:48] * triliyn * (or at least I think that's the order)
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:49] * latro`a * but lo ninmu needn't be a woman, and makes sense even if no women exist
- [19 déc. 12 20:11:54] * latro`a * under rigid-xorlo
- [19 déc. 12 20:12:44] * selpa`i * If you look at a boat from far above, and see some dark spot on it, you say lo prenu and you can't possibly see from that distance whether it's a group of living people or a bunch of squashed sailors
- [19 déc. 12 20:12:59] * latro`a * lo cribe again needn't be a bear, or any number of bears, considered distributively or otherwise
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:02] * selpa`i * It's not as extreme as the lo broda co'e you've been using
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:02] * latro`a * no, it is
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:07] * latro`a * because you're not making any promises about whether it actually IS a broda
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:23] * latro`a * if you just think it might be a broda, as in the sailor example, you should SAY that
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:23] * latro`a * instead of forcing everyday discussion to be vague
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:24] * selpa`i * But it looks like sailors
- [19 déc. 12 20:13:33] * selpa`i * I can't run around and doubt every sumti i use
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:16] * selpa`i * Am I supposed to take every object I want to talk about to the lab first
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:16] * latro`a * sure you can; you could build lojban in fuzzy logic, force every description sumti to have a probability marker
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:17] * latro`a * but that's an extreme case
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:17] * latro`a * my point is if you aren't pretty sure, i.e. willing to make a promise that you might be wrong about
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:24] * latro`a * then you shouldn't use something that promises to provide an x1
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:32] * latro`a * which xorlo does NOT
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:38] * latro`a * explicitly does NOT
- [19 déc. 12 20:14:45] * latro`a * or rather, it does not under a model of predication which is actually restrictive
- [19 déc. 12 20:15:05] * latro`a * it does under a model of predication that I still can't understand (as it must, given the gadri proposal lojban definition)
- [19 déc. 12 20:15:18] * selpa`i * Again, if you use a lo broda that fails to communicate, then that's the speakers fault for failing at pragmatics
- [19 déc. 12 20:15:32] * latro`a * we're talking past each other again, so we should just stop
- [19 déc. 12 20:15:50] * tsani * The problem with xorlo is that it clearly violates referential transparency; it can provide referents that definitely aren't the x1 of broda.
- [19 déc. 12 20:17:15] * latro`a * again, under a model of predication that actually makes *PREDICATION* provide any promises
- [19 déc. 12 20:17:15] * latro`a * having lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda causes predication itself to provide no promises
- [19 déc. 12 20:17:15] * latro`a * if lo broda also makes no promises
- [19 déc. 12 20:17:15] * selpa`i * Fine, you have a problem with bear goo, that'S legit, now what if bear goo weren't a thing, I guess there are more things you dislike
- [19 déc. 12 20:17:16] * selpa`i * More important things
- [19 déc. 12 20:17:46] * latro`a * I don't *insist* on distributivity by default; I think it should be that way, but that doing so would require additional refactoring that I don't think is necessary
- [19 déc. 12 20:18:09] * latro`a * I do insist that once you throw out anything having to do with bear goo you have to make a call on constancy vs. non-constancy as default
- [19 déc. 12 20:18:16] * latro`a * erm
- [19 déc. 12 20:18:20] * latro`a * whether there is a default, rather
- [19 déc. 12 20:18:25] * latro`a * and if so which one
- [19 déc. 12 20:18:44] * latro`a * providing constancy as the default *in the absence of anything to do with bear goo* breaks established usage
- [19 déc. 12 20:18:57] * latro`a * not just things that are written down but even things that are said everyday
- [19 déc. 12 20:19:01] * Ilmen * What is constancy?
- [19 déc. 12 20:19:22] * selpa`i * It can't be distributive by default because lo's purpose is to add *nothing*. Adding distributivity would be adding something, which is against lo's philosophy.
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:07] * latro`a * the point of that statement was that I philosophically disagree with the notion that lo should go in neither direction but do not think that doing so is a broken idea
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:21] * selpa`i * You can force distributivity by adding ro, and you can force mass-ness by using lu'o
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:22] * latro`a * in other words, you were prompting me
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:22] * latro`a * and I responded to the first obvious question
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:31] * latro`a * with basically "yes, I think this, but I don't mind if it doesn't happen"
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:49] * latro`a * so there's really no reason for you to respond to that point
- [19 déc. 12 20:20:55] * selpa`i * huh? I'm just saying my opinion here
- [19 déc. 12 20:21:46] * latro`a * not really sure why, given the above where you started asking for what I don't like
- [19 déc. 12 20:22:20] * latro`a * ilmen--do you know any predicate logic?
- [19 déc. 12 20:22:21] * latro`a * constancy is easiest to explain in that framework
- [19 déc. 12 20:22:32] * latro`a * if not I can give a somewhat more vague explanation
- [19 déc. 12 20:23:01] * latro`a * (using lojban as the notation instead)
- [19 déc. 12 20:23:20] * selpa`i * I thought that was how a conversation worked, one person says something, the other answers. Do you not want a conversation? It's fine with me if you don't, but I'm confused
- [19 déc. 12 20:23:27] * Ilmen * Hem, I never studied deeply predicate logic, I did read a little about on Wikipedia
- [19 déc. 12 20:23:47] * latro`a * maybe I misinterpreted your statement as a prompt; the point of my statement was basically "this is probably the first thing you have in mind, and I don't see any reason to talk about it, because ..."
- [19 déc. 12 20:24:14] * latro`a * then I moved on
- [19 déc. 12 20:24:44] * latro`a * hence the parallel "I don't insist" vs. "I do insist", as in, I'm pressing this issue over that one
- [19 déc. 12 20:24:59] * Ilmen * With ?, ? and all that stuff
- [19 déc. 12 20:25:12] * latro`a * that's sufficient
- [19 déc. 12 20:25:12] < triliyn has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 20:25:45] * selpa`i * Ah alright, sorry. Then I should be addressing the "I do insist" part
- [19 déc. 12 20:26:15] * selpa`i * xorlo clearly says yes to constants
- [19 déc. 12 20:26:46] * latro`a * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 20:27:43] * latro`a * ilmen--a constant variable's referents are unaffected by quantifier scope; for example, if {ko'a} is constant, and {ro da broda ko'a}, then every object brodas the same thing
- [19 déc. 12 20:28:13] * Ilmen * je'e
- [19 déc. 12 20:28:44] * selpa`i * {ko'a broda ro da} == {ro da broda ko'a}
- [19 déc. 12 20:28:44] * latro`a * *se
- [19 déc. 12 20:28:45] * latro`a * but yes
- [19 déc. 12 20:28:45] * selpa`i * Yes.
- [19 déc. 12 20:29:04] * selpa`i * The same applies to negation.
- [19 déc. 12 20:29:06] * latro`a * my point in introducing this was that, barring bear goo, {ro lo nanmu cu prami lo ninmu} probably makes ninmu non-constant
- [19 déc. 12 20:29:24] * latro`a * *lo ninmu
- [19 déc. 12 20:29:56] * selpa`i * This is really the core of the debate.
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:00] < Suprano has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:04] * Ilmen * .a'u
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:16] > Suprano has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:18] * latro`a * the more important point is whether lo even promises to give you an x1, but I think we ultimately agree on that point
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:35] * selpa`i * It does.
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:49] * latro`a * if it gives you bear goo then it doesn't, but we've moved on from that point
- [19 déc. 12 20:30:51] * selpa`i * Yes, please no more bear goo
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:04] * Ilmen * When you say "gives an x1", you mean "a specific instance that fit x1"?
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:07] * latro`a * but the question is what sort of thing is an x1
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:11] * Ilmen * *fits
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:22] * latro`a * no
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:23] * latro`a * something that actually is in the x1
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:23] * latro`a * rather than something vaguely having to do with the position
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:24] * latro`a * which is where the whole "bear goo" thing comes from
- [19 déc. 12 20:31:52] * latro`a * {lo cribe} under the strict statement of the gadri proposal could mean "bear goo"
- [19 déc. 12 20:32:33] * Ilmen * As for {cribe}, do it stats that x1 is a biological bear?
- [19 déc. 12 20:33:08] * latro`a * it does; use le/skicu/fukpi/etc. to get at teddy bears and such
- [19 déc. 12 20:33:17] * Ilmen * je'e
- [19 déc. 12 20:33:51] * latro`a * but under rigid-xorlo a teddy bear could probably be a referent of {lo cribe}
- [19 déc. 12 20:33:51] * Ilmen * Can a death bear be said to be {cribe}?
- [19 déc. 12 20:34:11] * selpa`i * As an aside, I do not find it weird to call a run-over dog a gerku, especially not if I'm a detective and telling my assistant wattson {ta gerku .i simlu lo ka pu zi mrobi'o}
- [19 déc. 12 20:34:19] * selpa`i * Leaving out tense.
- [19 déc. 12 20:34:44] * latro`a * a dead bear probably, but now you start getting into ontological issues that the BPFK explicitly said it will not address universally
- [19 déc. 12 20:34:47] * latro`a * also, that issue is subtle
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:05] * latro`a * and gets into issues about what {ta} can be
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:05] * latro`a * there I probably agree with you, but the distinctions get blurry
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:06] * selpa`i * Sure.
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:11] * latro`a * the notion that that corpse WAS a dog
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:21] * latro`a * is sketchy in some ways
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:26] * Ilmen * A "was-bear" is probably safer :p
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:26] * selpa`i * But here I trust people to not use bad lo broda when they shouldn't
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:57] * latro`a * even the notion that it was a dog at some point is amiss
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:58] * latro`a * in some ways
- [19 déc. 12 20:35:59] * latro`a * because once you allow that it's rather hard to draw the line anywhere else
- [19 déc. 12 20:36:07] * latro`a * but we're not going to try
- [19 déc. 12 20:36:15] * latro`a * and people will probably understand if you call a corpse lo gerku
- [19 déc. 12 20:36:57] * Ilmen * Well, gotta go. co'o rodo
- [19 déc. 12 20:37:30] * latro`a * the thing is, once you've rejected bear goo, it starts getting hard to figure out where the line actually is
- [19 déc. 12 20:37:32] * Ilmen * Although this was an interesting discussion :)
- [19 déc. 12 20:37:47] * latro`a * it obviously isn't sharp, as the BPFK isn't going to answer ontology questions in general
- [19 déc. 12 20:38:19] * latro`a * but for example whether it can be "bears in general"
- [19 déc. 12 20:38:25] * selpa`i * Back to the heart of the issue
- [19 déc. 12 20:38:36] * latro`a * this is that
- [19 déc. 12 20:38:40] * selpa`i * Yes
- [19 déc. 12 20:38:52] * latro`a * it's having to do with what {lo ninmu} is
- [19 déc. 12 20:38:53] * latro`a * in a sentence like that
- [19 déc. 12 20:39:01] * selpa`i * Meh, I was hoping to explain everything in a video, so "spoiling" everything now seems terrible .u'i
- [19 déc. 12 20:39:21] * latro`a * if it's constant, but actually {la bab prami la karol .i la djan prami la djein .i ...}
- [19 déc. 12 20:39:33] * latro`a * then...what exactly is it
- [19 déc. 12 20:39:35] * latro`a * in what sense does each man love "it"
- [19 déc. 12 20:39:41] > triliyn has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:39:59] * latro`a * because it's unambiguous that each man loves {lo ninmu} whatever {lo ninmu} means, that comes from straightforward expansion
- [19 déc. 12 20:40:00] * latro`a * (assuming lo ninmu is constant for the moment)
- [19 déc. 12 20:40:10] * latro`a * so in what sense does {la djan prami lo ninmu}, with the same referent
- [19 déc. 12 20:40:37] * selpa`i * I'm in a dilemma. Should I explain everything now and then have a boring video or wait and have people actually find the video useful?
- [19 déc. 12 20:40:49] * latro`a * do what you want
- [19 déc. 12 20:41:04] < Suprano has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 20:41:29] > Suprano has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:44:11] * selpa`i * Are you even interested enough in what I have to say?
- [19 déc. 12 20:44:39] * tsani * I've been listening this whole time, and I'd like to see what your opinion on the heart of this matter is, selpa'i.
- [19 déc. 12 20:44:41] * latro`a * depends what "enough" means obviously; I'm interested to hear your opinion, but I strongly doubt it will change mine
- [19 déc. 12 20:45:14] < zugz has disconnected (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 20:45:14] * selpa`i * Hrm
- [19 déc. 12 20:45:15] * tsani * I think that a video is nonetheless a good idea, to explain your views to others later.
- [19 déc. 12 20:45:35] * latro`a * having something permanent and clean would be good
- [19 déc. 12 20:45:58] * tsani * indeed.
- [19 déc. 12 20:46:41] * latro`a * whether a video or a few paragraphs written in non-IRC-english
- [19 déc. 12 20:46:41] * tsani * Anyway, I must eat, but I will read anything that gets said.
- [19 déc. 12 20:46:42] * selpa`i * A video is good because it works well for how I visualize {me}
- [19 déc. 12 20:46:42] * selpa`i * .a'o kukte do
- [19 déc. 12 20:46:42] > erkin has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:46:43] * selpa`i * mi ji'a xagji
- [19 déc. 12 20:47:44] * selpa`i * So let's see. There are two (three? how many) main points, what {lo broda} is, what {me} does, and how {lo broda} *acts*, and also some related things concerning certain pro-sumti and connectives-
- [19 déc. 12 20:47:52] * selpa`i * Anything else I forgot?
- [19 déc. 12 20:48:14] * latro`a * I think that's pretty much everything
- [19 déc. 12 20:48:19] * selpa`i * Right, and how {lo broda} is a constant
- [19 déc. 12 20:48:31] * latro`a * also how {me} acts when NOT dealing with zo'e, and whether it's the same thing
- [19 déc. 12 20:48:31] * selpa`i * I can explain all the above.
- [19 déc. 12 20:48:54] * selpa`i * Not with zo'e?
- [19 déc. 12 20:49:12] * selpa`i * Example?
- [19 déc. 12 20:49:30] * selpa`i * I'm really in a bad mental state at the moment, had a tough day.
- [19 déc. 12 20:49:48] * selpa`i * So if you could make things concrete it would a lot
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:00] * selpa`i * help*
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:05] * latro`a * any case, really; obviously {me da} doesn't make sense, but to me the meaning of {PA lo broda} when {lo broda} isn't actually made up of individuals requires {me} to behave in a way other than actually being a "referent"
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:35] * latro`a * unfortunately most of the examples I can think of have the same problem; PA mi'o for example does too
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:48] * selpa`i * Alright.
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:53] * latro`a * so maybe it's more just "in what sense does {me} provide a "referent""
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:53] * selpa`i * Sure sure, I will adress those
- [19 déc. 12 20:50:57] * selpa`i * How long will you be here ?
- [19 déc. 12 20:51:20] * latro`a * do you have a time scale in mind?
- [19 déc. 12 20:51:25] * latro`a * like....I'm gonna take a shower in a minute, and I need to get dinner in a few hours
- [19 déc. 12 20:51:53] * selpa`i * Well I'm hungry and would like to eat a little bit, but if you have to leave soon then that would kinda ruin the convo
- [19 déc. 12 20:52:15] * latro`a * I'm not leaving for an extended period within at least the next hour or so
- [19 déc. 12 20:52:22] * latro`a * at least that's ot planned
- [19 déc. 12 20:52:23] * latro`a * *not
- [19 déc. 12 20:52:50] * selpa`i * Let's see if that is enough time :)
- [19 déc. 12 20:53:11] * selpa`i * I'll be back in a minute
- [19 déc. 12 20:54:51] > Hugglesworth has joined
- [19 déc. 12 20:56:58] * selpa`i * Hmm
- [19 déc. 12 20:57:22] * selpa`i * Where to begin
- [19 déc. 12 20:58:32] * selpa`i * The most whorfy part is what lo broda is, but I can also get to {me} and the related questions first
- [19 déc. 12 20:58:59] * selpa`i * They are somewhat unrelated on a large scale
- [19 déc. 12 21:01:27] * selpa`i * Okay, maybe even before that, let us agree on terminology, an invidual can be anything from a person, a number, a set, a predication, a mass etc. All those are things that Lojban calls individuals.
- [19 déc. 12 21:01:46] * selpa`i * individual*
- [19 déc. 12 21:02:05] * selpa`i * Probably obvious, but who knows
- [19 déc. 12 21:04:45] * selpa`i * A "referent" is always one of those (or a collection of individuals of those kinds, since number is not specified, Lojban has plural reference)
- [19 déc. 12 21:07:18] * selpa`i * All these different kinds of referents are mutually distinct, they differ in what x1 of which broda they satisfy.
- [19 déc. 12 21:07:58] * selpa`i * A mass (which is a terrible term, I will henceforth call it gunma) is always the x1 of gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:08:19] * selpa`i * The referent is therefore a gunma. (and nothing else)
- [19 déc. 12 21:08:19] * selpa`i * (again plural is possible)
- [19 déc. 12 21:09:16] * selpa`i * A gunma is special in that its members don't matter anymore, they are not "on the outer shell" anymore, they are not referents of lo gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:09:38] * selpa`i * So they all melted into one blob.
- [19 déc. 12 21:09:58] * selpa`i * (not literally of course)
- [19 déc. 12 21:10:00] * selpa`i * I will wait here.
- [19 déc. 12 21:11:20] > trillion has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:12:26] < snanu has disconnected (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 21:13:56] < triliyn has disconnected (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 21:17:21] * latro`a * di'a
- [19 déc. 12 21:17:27] * latro`a * .i co'u lumci
- [19 déc. 12 21:17:33] * selpa`i * je'e
- [19 déc. 12 21:19:59] > djeimsyxuis has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:22:34] < weab_ has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 21:23:04] * selpa`i * (I'm waiting for feedback btw, to make sure we're on the same page)
- [19 déc. 12 21:23:04] < Suprano has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 21:23:30] > weab has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:23:30] > Suprano has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:23:56] * latro`a * oh
- [19 déc. 12 21:24:20] * tsani * di'a jundi
- [19 déc. 12 21:24:20] * selpa`i * :P
- [19 déc. 12 21:24:24] * latro`a * pretty much fine, though you should probably also introduce "individual-collection" as opposed to mass
- [19 déc. 12 21:24:58] * latro`a * it's implicit in what you've said, sorta, but it's still a pertinent definition
- [19 déc. 12 21:25:27] * selpa`i * Right, it's somewhat implicit. I was just testing more general things like "what is an individual"
- [19 déc. 12 21:25:30] * selpa`i * Good
- [19 déc. 12 21:25:46] * selpa`i * So the "x1 of broda" will yield one of the above referent-types, depending on what the particular broda is.
- [19 déc. 12 21:25:50] * latro`a * the only thing you haven't clarified is how exactly a referent relates to the syntactic sumti
- [19 déc. 12 21:25:54] < carado has disconnected (Remote host closed the connection)
- [19 déc. 12 21:25:58] * latro`a * but you'll get to that when you get to {me}
- [19 déc. 12 21:26:04] * selpa`i * Right.
- [19 déc. 12 21:26:48] * selpa`i * There are two sides to {lo} in a way. Let's first look at the one that leads to {me}
- [19 déc. 12 21:27:13] * selpa`i * The other direction will lead to how {lo broda} is constant and why it works.
- [19 déc. 12 21:27:55] * selpa`i * An individual collection is one or more invididuals together.
- [19 déc. 12 21:27:59] < weab has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 21:28:11] * selpa`i * This is what {lo} creates (on this side of the journey)
- [19 déc. 12 21:28:19] * selpa`i * Here is a way to visualize what kind of individual collection {lo} creates.
- [19 déc. 12 21:28:31] * selpa`i * Take some random one, say tadni.
- [19 déc. 12 21:28:39] * selpa`i * (not random, I know :) )
- [19 déc. 12 21:29:01] * selpa`i * Have lo tadni refer to a couple of students
- [19 déc. 12 21:29:14] * selpa`i * Three should be enough
- [19 déc. 12 21:29:26] * selpa`i * Now place these three students in a spot
- [19 déc. 12 21:29:28] * selpa`i * and draw a circle around them
- [19 déc. 12 21:29:39] * selpa`i * This is your individual collection.
- [19 déc. 12 21:29:57] * latro`a * (try to avoid "your", if possible)
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:18] * selpa`i * Noted.
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:19] * latro`a * (sorry for pedantry, but it's ambiguous, especially in sentences like that)
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:19] * selpa`i * Oh
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:22] * selpa`i * This is *a* ind coll
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:28] * selpa`i * *an*
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:30] * selpa`i * even
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:49] * selpa`i * The line of the circle should not be bold, because it's penetratable
- [19 déc. 12 21:30:54] * selpa`i * And it should be elastic
- [19 déc. 12 21:31:23] > weab has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:31:26] * selpa`i * The students can spread on your mental canvas, but the circle (which will by now by some sort of weird shape) won't rip
- [19 déc. 12 21:31:57] * selpa`i * Still this is important, because these three studends (or however many you are picturing for this example) are a unit
- [19 déc. 12 21:32:03] * selpa`i * students*
- [19 déc. 12 21:33:10] * selpa`i * That is, They are not three seperate individuals
- [19 déc. 12 21:33:51] * selpa`i * But there invidualness still exists, because they have access to the outer-most shell
- [19 déc. 12 21:33:52] * latro`a * "have access"?
- [19 déc. 12 21:33:53] * selpa`i * The outer-most shell of a sumti is where the individuals reside
- [19 déc. 12 21:33:56] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:21] * selpa`i * I hope this will become clear soon
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:22] * latro`a * seems to me that they "can be accessed"
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:25] * latro`a * from outside
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:25] * selpa`i * A sumti can have more than one circle around it
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:32] * selpa`i * Yes
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:40] * latro`a * that seems like a clearer metaphor
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:40] * selpa`i * Okay.
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:40] * selpa`i * Sure.
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:47] * latro`a * continue, sorry, will try not to interrupt too much
- [19 déc. 12 21:34:49] * selpa`i * No problem
- [19 déc. 12 21:35:14] * selpa`i * The most useful example for multiple circles is probably a use of gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:35:15] * selpa`i * lo gunma be lo tadni
- [19 déc. 12 21:35:40] * selpa`i * First there are the same students we had earlier
- [19 déc. 12 21:36:00] * selpa`i * (tell me if "we" is bad)
- [19 déc. 12 21:36:15] * latro`a * that's fine
- [19 déc. 12 21:36:16] * selpa`i * and around that, we draw yet another circle
- [19 déc. 12 21:36:42] * latro`a * is a gunma definite? i.e. can you unambiguously determine whether an individual is in it?
- [19 déc. 12 21:36:44] * selpa`i * Now under the outer-most shell, we have a single thing
- [19 déc. 12 21:36:49] * latro`a * as described it sounds like it is, but my understanding is that it isn't
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:10] * selpa`i * This should become clear later
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:14] * latro`a * alright
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:28] * selpa`i * I hope this current step makes sense the way I try to explain it.
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:44] < trillion has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:46] * selpa`i * If the outer shell is now opened, under it lies a circle
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:50] < Silverfish has disconnected (Quit: Leaving)
- [19 déc. 12 21:37:55] * selpa`i * and not the students
- [19 déc. 12 21:38:08] * latro`a * pretty much, the issue is what exactly the outer circle obstructs
- [19 déc. 12 21:38:09] * latro`a * or indeed what exactly these circles obstruct in general
- [19 déc. 12 21:38:38] * latro`a * you can get at the individuals from the inner shell, but presumably the outer shell can't be broken, or if it can the result doesn't let you get at the inner circle
- [19 déc. 12 21:38:47] * latro`a * oslt
- [19 déc. 12 21:38:57] * selpa`i * In general, the outer-most shell is right above the referents of the sumti. If you open that outer shell, you find under it the individual that lo broda is talking about
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:04] * selpa`i * (or the collection)
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:12] * latro`a * can you always do that?
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:21] * latro`a * or is the possibility that you can't on the "other branch"
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:30] * latro`a * that we haven't talked about yet
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:31] * selpa`i * Hmm
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:50] * selpa`i * I'll let you decide later, for now you always can.
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:53] * latro`a * alright
- [19 déc. 12 21:39:58] * selpa`i * Great.
- [19 déc. 12 21:40:05] * selpa`i * Now, keeping this circle metaphor, it is very easy to explain {me}. All that {me} does is pierce through exactly one shell (one circle). This will lead to the contained referants to "fall out" or "be accessible" (pick any metaphor that helps you).
- [19 déc. 12 21:40:27] * latro`a * erm
- [19 déc. 12 21:40:56] * selpa`i * From outside
- [19 déc. 12 21:41:17] * selpa`i * Comments?
- [19 déc. 12 21:41:38] * latro`a * sorry, got a phone call
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:31] * selpa`i * Oh
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:39] > zugz has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:39] * latro`a * does this mean {lo me loi broda} == {lo broda}
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:39] * latro`a * ?
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:40] * latro`a * (ignoring re-binding blah blah)
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:40] * selpa`i * Now you introduced loi. But we can easily answer this
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:42] * selpa`i * loi broda = lo gunma be lo broda
- [19 déc. 12 21:42:45] * selpa`i * Which I explained above
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:18] * latro`a * sure
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:18] * selpa`i * The outer shell contains a gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:18] * selpa`i * {me} grabs that gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:23] * latro`a * then you remove a shell and you have a shell around the individuals
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:33] * latro`a * which is {lo broda} yes?
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:40] * selpa`i * No!
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:41] * latro`a * hm, OK
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:41] * selpa`i * well what is broda her?
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:42] * selpa`i * here*
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:46] * latro`a * shouldn't matter
- [19 déc. 12 21:43:58] * latro`a * but deal with the tadni for simplicity
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:22] * selpa`i * I think there is a misunderstanding because I think you would agree with me here
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:22] < Suprano has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:22] * selpa`i * Ok
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:22] * latro`a * I agree with you about the inner shell
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:22] * latro`a * it's the outer shell that is throwing me off
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:23] * latro`a * when you remove it, you get....what
- [19 déc. 12 21:44:23] > Suprano has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:45:22] * selpa`i * loi tadni == (lo gunma be (lo tadni)), without removing any shells, we find a individual collection of gunma's (or of a single gunma)
- [19 déc. 12 21:45:45] * selpa`i * removing one shell reveils the gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:45:46] * xalbo * {lo me loi broda} = {lo me lo gunma be lo broda}; the {me} removes the outermost circle, but the {lo} immediately to its left creates a new one. So it's the same as {lo gunma be lo broda} = {loi broda}
- [19 déc. 12 21:45:54] * latro`a * hm
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:02] * selpa`i * We cannot access the actual tadni
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:14] * zahlman * I agree with xalbo's interpretation.
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:23] * latro`a * OK, I think I see
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:28] * latro`a * supposing you have a mass with only one individual collection inside
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:39] * latro`a * you put {lo me} in front
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:45] * latro`a * this removes the mass-shell
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:55] * latro`a * and then immediately adds a new shell around the only possible referent inside the mass-shell, namely the inner individual collection
- [19 déc. 12 21:46:57] * latro`a * and hence does nothing
- [19 déc. 12 21:47:14] * selpa`i * Good.
- [19 déc. 12 21:47:19] * latro`a * supposing you have an individual collection on the other hand, you put {lo me} in front, you remove the outer shell and now have access to the individuals and can regroup them arbitrarily
- [19 déc. 12 21:47:27] * latro`a * potentially retrieving a subcollection
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:04] * selpa`i * There is still a step we can look at with just {me} (without a lo before it)
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:13] * selpa`i * Because there were questions about it
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:33] * selpa`i * But so far everything is clear?
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:38] * latro`a * on this branch I think I get it
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:40] * selpa`i * Cool
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:41] * latro`a * though
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:42] * latro`a * there is one catch
- [19 déc. 12 21:48:58] * latro`a * what type are the plural KOhA?
- [19 déc. 12 21:49:25] * latro`a * if they are masses with one individual collection inside as above then {re mi'o} is nonsensical
- [19 déc. 12 21:49:33] * selpa`i * You're thinking of mi'o ma'a mi'a do'o yes?
- [19 déc. 12 21:49:33] * latro`a * if they are of lo-type then we're fine
- [19 déc. 12 21:49:33] * latro`a * yes
- [19 déc. 12 21:49:56] * selpa`i * To answer this, I must first explain how I understand jo'u
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:23] * selpa`i * jo'u:lo::joi:loi::e:ro
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:30] * selpa`i * Is this readable?
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:42] * latro`a * yeah
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:46] * selpa`i * Okay.
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:48] * selpa`i * So jo'u creates a lo-type
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:52] * selpa`i * While joi creates a gunma
- [19 déc. 12 21:50:54] * selpa`i * or loi
- [19 déc. 12 21:51:18] * selpa`i * Now using this jo'u, I define mi'o as mi jo'u do, and so on
- [19 déc. 12 21:51:47] * selpa`i * That is, it gives us a sumti that does not commit to anything.
- [19 déc. 12 21:51:54] * latro`a * mi/do plurals are also jo'u-built?
- [19 déc. 12 21:52:06] * selpa`i * We can force different readings by using ro or lu'o
- [19 déc. 12 21:52:19] * selpa`i * mi = lo cusku, do = lo tersku
- [19 déc. 12 21:52:38] * latro`a * fair enough
- [19 déc. 12 21:52:49] * selpa`i * ro forces a distributive reading of ma'a et al, lu'o the non-distributive reading
- [19 déc. 12 21:53:01] * selpa`i * While we get the neutral version if we don't do anything special
- [19 déc. 12 21:53:27] * selpa`i * With this, {mi me mi'o} makes sense-
- [19 déc. 12 21:53:34] * latro`a * sure
- [19 déc. 12 21:54:28] * latro`a * (hereafter "sure" means "this is functional" while "sure, cool" means "this is functional and also how I think things should work")
- [19 déc. 12 21:54:59] * selpa`i * Noted.
- [19 déc. 12 21:55:25] * latro`a * (a few of the agreements above were "sure, cool" type)
- [19 déc. 12 21:55:25] * selpa`i * Cool
- [19 déc. 12 21:56:08] * selpa`i * :P
- [19 déc. 12 21:56:08] * selpa`i * This should remove any issues with xorlo's formal definitions
- [19 déc. 12 21:56:09] * selpa`i * That involve {me}
- [19 déc. 12 21:56:21] * latro`a * I don't think this is how they're stated, but sure, that works
- [19 déc. 12 21:56:39] * selpa`i * The page is not explicit enough
- [19 déc. 12 21:56:47] * latro`a * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 21:57:35] < xunatai has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 21:57:42] * selpa`i * Does anyone have any questions so far?
- [19 déc. 12 21:57:50] * xalbo * For clarification, does {lo tadni [ku] jo'u lo plise} create a lo-type circle with the individuals directly inside it, or still within their own circles labeled {lo tadni} and {lo plise}?
- [19 déc. 12 21:58:18] > djeimsyxuis has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:58:22] > carado has joined
- [19 déc. 12 21:59:44] * selpa`i * Interesting question.
- [19 déc. 12 22:00:10] * selpa`i * Maybe I can answer it using a formula
- [19 déc. 12 22:00:30] * selpa`i * lo tadni .e lo plise cu me lo tadni jo'u lo plise
- [19 déc. 12 22:01:12] * latro`a * that kinda answers his question, I think the point is whether you can test whether each individual that you've extracted is in {lo tadni} or {lo plise}
- [19 déc. 12 22:01:14] * tsani * It seems to me, from that formula, that it grows the circles to encompass both.
- [19 déc. 12 22:01:32] * latro`a * with that example it's trivial
- [19 déc. 12 22:01:37] * latro`a * but with {lo nanmu jo'u lo nanmu}?
- [19 déc. 12 22:01:40] > djeimsyxuis_ has joined
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:07] * selpa`i * Same thing.
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:07] * selpa`i * But weird.
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:08] * selpa`i * Especially after looking at branch 2
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:16] * latro`a * that didn't really answer the question
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:17] * selpa`i * Uhm
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:33] * latro`a * you also haven't really answered what exactly {cu me} means, since you haven't gotten to how {lo} acts yet
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:41] * latro`a * but we'll get to that
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:44] * xalbo * So that formula does seem to me to read that {lo tadni jo'u lo plise} has another circle around the circles we've been calling {lo tadni} and {lo plise}. I almost didn't use the word "labeled" there, but I couldn't think of a better alternative
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:44] * selpa`i * Wait
- [19 déc. 12 22:03:50] * selpa`i * I thought I had talked about {me}
- [19 déc. 12 22:04:09] * latro`a * you've clarified what {me} means, but not how referents come out of {lo broda} to define {lo broda cu me lo broda jo'u lo brode}
- [19 déc. 12 22:04:28] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 22:04:29] ^ djeimsyxuis_ is now known as djeimsyxuis
- [19 déc. 12 22:04:39] * latro`a * at any rate, I can read selpa'i's formula either way
- [19 déc. 12 22:04:55] * latro`a * but it ultimately depends on how the referents come out of {lo tadni} and {lo plise}
- [19 déc. 12 22:05:02] * selpa`i * Ah, I thought I had. Again, the outer-most shell is immediately above the referents
- [19 déc. 12 22:05:07] * selpa`i * So lo broda has brodas in it
- [19 déc. 12 22:05:07] < Suprano has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [19 déc. 12 22:05:29] > Suprano has joined
- [19 déc. 12 22:05:34] * latro`a * sure, but it's possible that the actual nature of the interaction isn't defined, and that instead you could have {lo broda cu me lo broda joi lo brode}
- [19 déc. 12 22:05:48] * latro`a * if you see what I mean
- [19 déc. 12 22:06:09] * latro`a * the right me removes a shell, and one of the referents is the lo-type-sumti {lo broda}
- [19 déc. 12 22:06:12] * selpa`i * Remember, the reason there even *is* a shell around lo tadni (and I told you to make it non-bold and flexible) is that there is a unit
- [19 déc. 12 22:06:18] * selpa`i * This type of {lo}-circle-line does not remove access to what's below
- [19 déc. 12 22:06:59] * latro`a * that's fine, but it doesn't address the question; in short, in {lo broda jo'u lo brode}, is there any internal structure, or merely everything thrown together into one collection
- [19 déc. 12 22:07:12] * latro`a * ^is the question
- [19 déc. 12 22:07:32] * selpa`i * I think there is a structure
- [19 déc. 12 22:07:33] * selpa`i * The one xalbo outlines
- [19 déc. 12 22:07:37] * latro`a * then we have a question of how lo acts when it is a me1
- [19 déc. 12 22:07:47] * selpa`i * Otherwise, we'd be removing circles without any warning
- [19 déc. 12 22:07:53] * selpa`i * Wouldn't we?
- [19 déc. 12 22:08:05] * latro`a * that is, then it's possible that {lo broda cu me lo broda jo'u lo brode} is actually saying "the individual collection {lo broda} is a referent of ..."
- [19 déc. 12 22:08:13] * latro`a * since there's two layers of circles
- [19 déc. 12 22:08:39] * latro`a * you remove the circle that joins together {lo broda} and {lo brode} and you get access to two referents, one of which is {lo broda} as a unit
- [19 déc. 12 22:08:46] * selpa`i * The referents of an invidual collection are the indivuals of the collection
- [19 déc. 12 22:08:52] * latro`a * so it works, but in the wrong way
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:04] * latro`a * I didn't say the referents of it, that is I didn't say {lo me lo broda cu me ...}
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:05] * xalbo * So then if {mi'o} is {mi jo'u do} with a plural {do} (addressing a lecture hall of students, for instance), {ta me mi'o} pointing at a single student isn't true; {ta me do} is, but we're at a higher level.
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:05] * latro`a * I said {lo broda cu me ...}
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:24] * Ilmen * Hiya!
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:29] * selpa`i * You can apply this everywhere, unless I misunderstand you
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:31] * Ilmen * ack I am. ?
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:35] * Ilmen * *Back
- [19 déc. 12 22:09:40] * latro`a * I think you really need to not have the internal structure, or else things get weird
- [19 déc. 12 22:10:59] * xalbo * ping is me
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:00] * selpa`i * No, xalbo. The outer shell is merely for making the referents behave in a unit (which we have yet to look at)
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:00] * selpa`i * It does not remove access to them
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:00] * selpa`i * (with lo)
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:02] * selpa`i * Or with jo'u sumti
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:03] * latro`a * lemme try and find some kind of collaborative drawing thing
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:09] * latro`a * because I think I see what xalbo means, and I think it breaks things
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:22] * xalbo * So does {me} strip through all layers to the ultimate individuals, then?
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:37] * latro`a * it can't do that if there are any mass-shells
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:38] * latro`a * as we noted earlier
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:38] * selpa`i * There is no ultimate individual, we've seen that masses can be invididuals
- [19 déc. 12 22:11:53] * selpa`i * i keep typoing that
- [19 déc. 12 22:12:01] * xalbo * I may be reading too much into the structure and circles, and too little into your warning that they're soft and permeable
- [19 déc. 12 22:12:21] * latro`a * does it go down to the lowest mass-shell, or individuals if there is none?
- [19 déc. 12 22:12:29] * selpa`i * It should always go trough exactly one shell.
- [19 déc. 12 22:12:29] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
- [19 déc. 12 22:12:42] * latro`a * but then we get xalbo's issue if there are internal shells
- [19 déc. 12 22:12:45] * selpa`i * But there are none with a plural {do}
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:11] * latro`a * {do} certainly makes a lo-type shell if it's plural
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:17] * selpa`i * Yes.
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:18] * latro`a * even if it doesn't, just consider a lo broda jo'u lo brode
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:21] * xalbo * So do = (selsku), a circle around those spoken to. {ta me do} is true.
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:21] * latro`a * OK yeah
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:32] * latro`a * *tersku
- [19 déc. 12 22:13:40] * xalbo * Yeah, sorry
- [19 déc. 12 22:14:49] * xalbo * But {mi'o} = mi jo'u do = ( (cusku) (tersku)) a circle containing within it the circles we got from {mi} and {do}. {ta} is not one of those.
- [19 déc. 12 22:14:50] * selpa`i * Again, the reason for the original outer lo shell has yet to be explained
- [19 déc. 12 22:15:26] * latro`a * the motivation and what it actually does should be separate pe'i
- [19 déc. 12 22:15:30] * selpa`i * Maybe I phrased it poorly :)
- [19 déc. 12 22:15:43] * latro`a * I don't think you're going to be very clear leaving this dangling until justified :/
- [19 déc. 12 22:15:59] * selpa`i * I meant I still need to show how this outer shell behaves
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:02] * xalbo * If you think that will help understanding, I could hold off until then.
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:03] * selpa`i * No, it's not very related.
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:03] * latro`a * I think we're still explaining how {me} works
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:03] * xalbo * (and the collaborative white board does seem like it might be handy)
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:12] * selpa`i * I've never been able to find one
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:24] * latro`a * http://flockdraw.com/gallery/view/1620026
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:38] * selpa`i * Only google docs paint, and it's terrible, tsani probably remembers :P
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:41] * latro`a * this is also pretty terrible
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:43] * tsani * dear god, indeed it was awful
- [19 déc. 12 22:17:59] * selpa`i * But what came out wasn't soo bad
- [19 déc. 12 22:18:00] * tsani * Right.
- [19 déc. 12 22:18:15] * tsani * If we all had handwriting inputs it'd be easier, of course.
- [19 déc. 12 22:18:34] * selpa`i * Okay I'm looking at your drawing
- [19 déc. 12 22:19:01] * latro`a * sorry the shapes keep changing
- [19 déc. 12 22:20:03] * xalbo * "61,457 people like this. Sign Up to see what your friends like." I thought the drawing wasn't bad, but that's a bit extreme!
- [19 déc. 12 22:20:17] * selpa`i * .u'i sai
- [19 déc. 12 22:21:12] * latro`a * lemme make another version that I think makes more sense
- [19 déc. 12 22:21:18] * selpa`i * Okay.
- [19 déc. 12 22:21:47] * selpa`i * Maybe use actual things
- [19 déc. 12 22:21:47] * selpa`i * like people and apples
- [19 déc. 12 22:22:12] * latro`a * I think that actually obscures the issue more than helps
- [19 déc. 12 22:22:13] * latro`a * because this is something that should always always always work the same
- [19 déc. 12 22:22:17] * latro`a * whereas actual predication (the next topic) maybe not so much
- [19 déc. 12 22:23:43] * selpa`i * Sure, it should. But if you have individuals that look like circles, and then circles that *are* circles, it can get confusing
- [19 déc. 12 22:23:44] * selpa`i * Maybe it's just me
- [19 déc. 12 22:23:55] * latro`a * I didn't have any individuals except ta
- [19 déc. 12 22:24:03] * xalbo * So with that diagram, we could label the big circle on the left (the {lo broda jo'u lo brode} one), {mi'o}, and the dot {ta} (a particular person). A = {do}. {ta me do}, and {do me mi'o}, but {ta na me mi'o}
- [19 déc. 12 22:24:03] * latro`a * which was a filled point
- [19 déc. 12 22:24:10] * selpa`i * Then I didn't understand the picture
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:15] * selpa`i * I think the individuals where lo broda and lo brode
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:23] * xalbo * The circles labeled A and B are lo-type circles, but for the present we don't care about what individuals are within them, except for {ta}.
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:24] * latro`a * no
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:24] * latro`a * not at all
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:25] * latro`a * yeah
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:25] * latro`a * that
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:28] * selpa`i * thought*
- [19 déc. 12 22:25:29] * selpa`i * sorry
- [19 déc. 12 22:26:27] > M4renz has joined
- [19 déc. 12 22:27:43] * latro`a * http://flockdraw.com/gallery/view/1620030
- [19 déc. 12 22:28:26] * latro`a * the yellow and sky blue ones are to clarify that these are definitely plural, and nothing else
- [19 déc. 12 22:28:47] * latro`a * in short now we have that {ko'a me lo broda jo'u lo brode}
- [19 déc. 12 22:28:53] * latro`a * whereas in the previous diagram we didn't
- [19 déc. 12 22:29:28] * latro`a * this is entirely dependent on whether jo'u with things that are already lo-type preserves the internal structure of the lo-type things
- [19 déc. 12 22:29:33] * selpa`i * Right.
- [19 déc. 12 22:29:53] * latro`a * my previous interpretation was that it didn't, and that the plural KOhV were actually masses anyways
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:03] * latro`a * (this not being of xorlo but of latro'a-lo)
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:04] < Suprano has disconnected (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:11] * latro`a * erm
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:13] * latro`a * sorry
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:24] * latro`a * it *did*, but plural KOhV in particular were masses already
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:36] * latro`a * .....gah
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:53] * latro`a * the first thing was correct
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:54] * latro`a * keeping track of negations ftl
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:54] * latro`a * anyway
- [19 déc. 12 22:30:55] * latro`a * do you understand the question now?
- [19 déc. 12 22:31:12] * tsani * That last drawing there is how I have been understanding it.
- [19 déc. 12 22:31:26] * tsani * (yay)
- [19 déc. 12 22:31:31] * selpa`i * :)
- [19 déc. 12 22:31:36] * selpa`i * Yes, I think so
- [19 déc. 12 22:31:47] * selpa`i * wrt the question
- [19 déc. 12 22:31:54] * tsani * This talk about outer shells and lo-circles had been throwing me off a bit.
- [19 déc. 12 22:32:11] * tsani * But these drawings helped; a video will be a good reference for the future, ja'o.
- [19 déc. 12 22:32:58] * xalbo * latro`a: Can you please state your current opinion again with as few negations as you can? I think I got lost.
- [19 déc. 12 22:33:18] * selpa`i * If {mi jo'u ko'a cu broda}=>{lo broda} and say {do jo'u ko'e}=>{lo brode}, the question is whether or not ko'a me lo broda jo'u lo brode
- [19 déc. 12 22:34:56] * latro`a * where'd do come from
- [19 déc. 12 22:34:58] * latro`a * oh nvm
- [19 déc. 12 22:35:00] * latro`a * I see
- [19 déc. 12 22:35:02] * selpa`i * Just random
- [19 déc. 12 22:35:02] * xalbo * Yes, I think that's the question I asked.
- [19 déc. 12 22:35:35] * latro`a * xalbo: my opinion on jo'u was basically the same as this picture, except my opinion on lo for the *most* part was basically that the circles never existed
- [19 déc. 12 22:35:59] * latro`a * (I know that they definitely existed under xorlo; this is most definitely latro'a-lo)
- [19 déc. 12 22:36:34] * latro`a * but because the circles didn't exist, avoiding lu'o all the time forced the plural KOhV to be masses, which creates an "impenetrable shell" to me that is penetrable by lu'a
- [19 déc. 12 22:36:39] * latro`a * or equivalently {lo se gunma be}
- [19 déc. 12 22:36:47] * latro`a * *to {me}
- [19 déc. 12 22:36:58] * latro`a * anyway
- [19 déc. 12 22:37:35] * latro`a * onto how the hell jo'u works
- [19 déc. 12 22:38:31] * tsani * It looks like jo'u simply merges two lo-circles into a new lo-circle.
- [19 déc. 12 22:38:48] * tsani * rather than placing a new circle around everything.
- [19 déc. 12 22:38:54] * latro`a * that's the second drawing
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:00] * tsani * Right.
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:03] * latro`a * but it might be the first one
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:09] * latro`a * are there any actual benefits to the first one?
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:32] * latro`a * other than perhaps keeping {lo broda} atomic (which means {lo broda jo'u lo brode} always actually makes sense)
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:34] * selpa`i * I don't know
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:47] * selpa`i * Yes
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:51] * selpa`i * But at the same time ko'a is now not among them
- [19 déc. 12 22:39:55] * selpa`i * which is not that weird
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:00] * latro`a * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:00] * latro`a * eh
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:13] * latro`a * it's pretty weird
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:13] * selpa`i * But not that useful either
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:15] * latro`a * it makes {mi me mi'o} only sometimes true
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:27] * latro`a * eh, more frequently {do me mi'o} is untrue
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:35] * xalbo * In the second interpretation, I'm not sure what {ko'a me lo broda} would mean.
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:41] * selpa`i * Yes it's weird, but not *that* weird if you consider how the lo-circle behaves
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:44] * selpa`i * But do me mi'o must always be true
- [19 déc. 12 22:40:47] * latro`a * it's pretty weird, even if it can be explained
- [19 déc. 12 22:41:34] * latro`a * what do you mean xalbo? there's only one circle in any given stage
- [19 déc. 12 22:41:34] * latro`a * if you insist on {do me mi'o} always being true then the second interpretation is automatic
- [19 déc. 12 22:41:35] * latro`a * you CANNOT do anything differently in different situations with this
- [19 déc. 12 22:41:45] * xalbo * So we get a single circle encompassing {ko'a} and whatever was in the circle of {lo broda}?
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:03] * latro`a * ?
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:05] > lukys has joined
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:26] * latro`a * in what situation
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:29] * selpa`i * The red circle?
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:29] * latro`a * also, what happens when you jo'u with something that doesn't carry around a circle?
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:35] * latro`a * ko'a jo'u lo broda
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:42] * latro`a * erm
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:48] * latro`a * ko'a jo'u lo brode
- [19 déc. 12 22:42:49] * latro`a * sticking with the notation of the picture
- [19 déc. 12 22:43:06] * xalbo * Oh shit. *that* is what I meant to say, and typed {me} instead of {jo'u}. No wonder I confused everyone.
- [19 déc. 12 22:43:14] * zahlman * ... it seems to me that a speaker has to be pretty gluteal for any of this to matter :/
- [19 déc. 12 22:43:25] * latro`a * it matters more on the other side than here
- [19 déc. 12 22:43:46] * latro`a * in particular it heavily impacts what the hell PA lo broda means
- [19 déc. 12 22:43:55] * zort- * other side?
- [19 déc. 12 22:44:02] * zort- * oh
- [19 déc. 12 22:44:27] * xalbo * So yes, I can picture what {ko'a jo'u lo broda} would look like in the first drawing, but not necessarily in the second.
- [19 déc. 12 22:45:31] > TND has joined
- [19 déc. 12 22:47:28] > Suprano has joined
- [19 déc. 12 22:48:58] * Ilmen * «keeping track of negations ftl» --> FTL = what?
- [19 déc. 12 22:49:09] * Ilmen is reading the logs
- [19 déc. 12 22:49:29] * selpa`i * for the loss
- [19 déc. 12 22:49:36] * xalbo * For the loss (opposite of the more common FTW = For the win)
- [19 déc. 12 22:49:38] * Ilmen * ki'e
- [19 déc. 12 22:49:55] * Ilmen * Never saw FTW either :p
- [19 déc. 12 22:50:03] * Ilmen * Thank you!
- [19 déc. 12 22:50:43] * xalbo * Not sure exactly how to explain that one.
- [19 déc. 12 22:50:58] * Ilmen * «wrt the question» ---> what is WRT?
- [19 déc. 12 22:51:13] * zort- * ua lei me la no na lojbo cu jbojbo sisku
- [19 déc. 12 22:51:14] < M4renz has disconnected (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
- [19 déc. 12 22:51:14] * zort- * (there's something poetic to me about "jbojbo seekers")
- [19 déc. 12 22:51:14] * selpa`i * with regard to
- [19 déc. 12 22:51:29] * zahlman * xalbo, how to explain 'for the win'?
- [19 déc. 12 22:51:34] * zahlman * it derives from the 80s game show 'hollywood squares'
- [19 déc. 12 22:52:13] * selpa`i * I would say {jo'u} joins the referents of each sumti into a new sumti, which makes sense based on how the lo-shell is permeable.
- [19 déc. 12 22:52:14] * latro`a * so second drawing
- [19 déc. 12 22:52:19] * selpa`i * I can see drawbacks to either interpretation, but this is definelty more useful
- [19 déc. 12 22:52:30] * selpa`i * Yes.
- [19 déc. 12 22:53:22] * latro`a * one more thing on this side
- [19 déc. 12 22:53:23] * latro`a * supposing there's exactly one broda
- [19 déc. 12 22:53:23] * latro`a * (weird, but roll with it)
- [19 déc. 12 22:53:23] * latro`a * suppose that broda is ko'a
- [19 déc. 12 22:53:32] * latro`a * are {lo broda} and {ko'a} *EXACTLY* interchangeable?
- [19 déc. 12 22:53:42] * latro`a * more precisely, {xu ko'a du lo broda} and {xu ko'a mintu lo broda}
- [19 déc. 12 22:54:27] * selpa`i * If they weren't then interpretation 1 wouldn't ruin mi me mi'o since then you couldn't just replace mi with lo cusku.
- [19 déc. 12 22:54:59] * selpa`i * But they should mintu
- [19 déc. 12 22:55:11] * latro`a * I'm basically trying to get at the significance of the circle
- [19 déc. 12 22:55:20] * latro`a * sure, if there's several of them it makes a unit, but if there's just one does it actually do anything?
- [19 déc. 12 22:55:28] * selpa`i * Not really.
- [19 déc. 12 22:55:33] * xalbo * "WRT" = "with regards to" or "with respect to", roughly "concerning" or "about" or "in re:"
- [19 déc. 12 22:56:48] * selpa`i * But I think the significance becomes apparent in {lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju}
- [19 déc. 12 22:58:02] * latro`a * I meant if it has any significance beyond making plural things into a unit
- [19 déc. 12 22:58:11] * latro`a * we'll get to the significance of the last bit...well, now, I guess
- [19 déc. 12 23:00:31] * Ilmen * «oh nvm» --> NVM?
- [19 déc. 12 23:00:43] * tsani * "nevermind"
- [19 déc. 12 23:00:47] * Ilmen * :p
- [19 déc. 12 23:00:51] * Ilmen * ki'e
- [19 déc. 12 23:01:04] * selpa`i * ko'a cu me lo broda jo'u lo brode == ko'a cu me mi jo'u ko'a jo'u lo brode == ko'a cu me mi jo'u ko'a jo'u do jo'u ko'e
- [19 déc. 12 23:01:15] * selpa`i * So this way it works too, doesn't it?
- [19 déc. 12 23:01:48] * latro`a * this is a problem in the first interpretation, since then the associativity of jo'u matters
- [19 déc. 12 23:02:10] * selpa`i * Right.
- [19 déc. 12 23:02:15] * selpa`i * So it seems everyone likes the 2nd interpretation
- [19 déc. 12 23:02:48] * latro`a * *nod*
- [19 déc. 12 23:03:01] * selpa`i * What's next?
- [19 déc. 12 23:03:10] * Ilmen finally managed to read the whole disussion thus far
- [19 déc. 12 23:03:21] * latro`a * the other branch :)
- [19 déc. 12 23:03:26] * selpa`i * Oh goodness
- [19 déc. 12 23:03:28] * latro`a * we have these units, what do they do
- [19 déc. 12 23:03:58] * selpa`i * Well the other branch is quite another thing
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:06] * selpa`i * And is just about what lo broda is
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:22] * latro`a * well, no, we know what it is
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:30] * selpa`i * No!
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:30] * selpa`i * Not at all
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:30] * latro`a * oh?
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:31] * selpa`i * :)
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:31] * latro`a * depends what "is" means I guess
- [19 déc. 12 23:04:46] * latro`a * afaict we know what it is but nothing else about it
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:00] * latro`a * just that it is a little unit with brodas in it, where the boundary is flexible
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:10] * latro`a * seems enough to identify what it is rather than what it does
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:20] * selpa`i * Hmm
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:33] * latro`a * (@ ilmen: afaict = as far as I can tell)
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:38] * selpa`i * But nothing that has been said so far explains constants or why ro mi'o te vecnu lo cukta
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:43] * latro`a * (while I'm at it: afaik = as far as I know)
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:56] * latro`a * indeed
- [19 déc. 12 23:05:56] * Ilmen * latro`a: Yeah, you already taught me this one ;-)
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:17] * latro`a * but that's "does"
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:17] * latro`a * rather than "is"
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:17] * selpa`i * Ok.
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:24] * latro`a * except arguably constants
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:58] * selpa`i * Things went quite well so far, things might change now
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:59] * selpa`i * (though I think it's awesome)
- [19 déc. 12 23:06:59] * selpa`i * Quite whorfy, as I said
- [19 déc. 12 23:07:39] * Ilmen * Whorfy? :p
- [19 déc. 12 23:07:41] * latro`a * this much was pretty straightforward, actually; the only thing I'm a little skeptical about, based on previous experience, is the idea that you can always pull the referents out precisely
- [19 déc. 12 23:07:48] * latro`a * i.e. the predicate {me lo broda} is decidable
- [19 déc. 12 23:07:52] * latro`a * also, .ei cliva ba zi ku .u'u
- [19 déc. 12 23:08:05] * selpa`i * oh
- [19 déc. 12 23:08:05] * latro`a * .i lo pendo cu jikca cpedu
- [19 déc. 12 23:08:36] * selpa`i * If you can show some examples where {me lo broda} is doubtful in that regard, I'd like to see them
- [19 déc. 12 23:08:57] * selpa`i * Doesn't have to be now
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:00] * latro`a * the bear goo examples are the trivial ones
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:13] * latro`a * but the nontrivial ones are basically less blatant variations on that idea
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:28] * selpa`i * ba zi ma ta'o
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:40] * latro`a * .i ba'a do sipna ca lo nu mi di'a iric
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:40] * latro`a * si irci
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:48] * selpa`i * ju'o
- [19 déc. 12 23:09:56] * latro`a * .i cacra li su'o ci
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:05] * selpa`i * .i ku'i ba zi ma cliva
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:07] * latro`a * ua
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:10] * latro`a * lo mentu be li so'o
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:17] * latro`a * si su'e so'o
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:21] * selpa`i * je'e
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:25] * selpa`i * .i ja'a tordu
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:26] * latro`a * ie
- [19 déc. 12 23:10:57] * selpa`i * Then it would be weird to start with a new topic now
- [19 déc. 12 23:11:05] * latro`a * ie
- [19 déc. 12 23:11:13] * Ilmen * .ie
- [19 déc. 12 23:11:13] * latro`a * .u'u
- [19 déc. 12 23:11:30] * latro`a * though feel free to talk to tsani, we can go back over it later
- [19 déc. 12 23:11:30] * tsani * Indeed.
- [19 déc. 12 23:11:44] * Ilmen * Yeah
- [19 déc. 12 23:12:16] * Ilmen * I hope I could be there for the next part of this discussion
- [19 déc. 12 23:12:31] * Ilmen * Not today obviously
- [19 déc. 12 23:13:22] * Ilmen * selpa`i: Any idea of when you might carry on on this topic? I wouldn't like to miss this :p
- [19 déc. 12 23:13:47] * selpa`i * Not sure. I thought maybe now
- [19 déc. 12 23:13:59] > filen has joined
- [19 déc. 12 23:14:11] * selpa`i * If tsani wants me to continue, otherwise I can wait for you two
- [19 déc. 12 23:14:18] * Ilmen * It's 23:14 at my place :p
- [19 déc. 12 23:14:36] * selpa`i * Same here
- [19 déc. 12 23:14:37] * latro`a * you're not that far apart
- [19 déc. 12 23:14:37] * latro`a * few hundred km
- [19 déc. 12 23:14:48] * latro`a * actually
- ==========
- [15 janv. 13 23:00:02] * Ilmen * BTW the discussion about gadri and xorlo hasn't been carried on?
- [15 janv. 13 23:00:24] * hufman * http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php
- [15 janv. 13 23:00:39] * Ilmen * the explanations of selpa'i
- [15 janv. 13 23:01:04] * latro`a * no
- [15 janv. 13 23:01:13] * Ilmen * je'e
- ==========
- [02 mars 13 22:17:51] * latro`a_ * .i mi ca merli jundi milxe .i xu do djica lo nu mi'o casnu la xorlo doi la selpa'i
- [02 mars 13 22:18:01] * fpcalep * .y
- [02 mars 13 22:18:13] * fpcalep * ii zo'o mi na birti
- [02 mars 13 22:18:23] * fpcalep * .i xagji pa mai
- [02 mars 13 22:18:24] * latro`a_ * .u'i
- [02 mars 13 22:18:49] * fpcalep * .i xu do banzu jundi kakne
- [02 mars 13 22:19:14] * latro`a_ * .i ba'a do tavla zmadu mi
- [02 mars 13 22:19:19] * latro`a_ * .i se ki'u bo ba'a banzu
- [02 mars 13 22:19:25] * fpcalep * ie jetnu
- [02 mars 13 22:20:07] * fpcalep * .e'a pei mi pu citka
- [02 mars 13 22:20:13] * latro`a_ * y
- [02 mars 13 22:20:15] * latro`a_ * ua
- [02 mars 13 22:20:18] * fpcalep * .u'i
- [02 mars 13 22:20:20] * latro`a_ * .e'a sai
- [02 mars 13 22:20:43] * fpcalep * ua vrude fa do
- [02 mars 13 22:20:45] * fpcalep * ki'e sai
- [02 mars 13 22:21:30] * fpcalep * .i ta'o do fo ma ctuca
- [02 mars 13 22:23:01] > kumul has joined
- [02 mars 13 22:25:08] * latro`a_ * lo datni cmaci
- [02 mars 13 22:25:10] * latro`a_ * .i tolzdi
- [02 mars 13 22:25:24] * fpcalep * ua ie
- [02 mars 13 22:26:11] < kumool has disconnected (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
- [02 mars 13 22:39:02] > jey_ has joined
- [02 mars 13 22:39:15] < jey has disconnected (Disconnected by services)
- [02 mars 13 22:39:16] ^ jey_ is now known as jey
- [02 mars 13 22:49:53] > kumool has joined
- [02 mars 13 22:49:58] * Ilmen * .i di'a jundi
- [02 mars 13 22:50:55] * Ilmen * .i .ua .u'i
- [02 mars 13 22:51:01] > djeimsyxuis has joined
- [02 mars 13 22:51:45] * Ilmen * .i do zukte fi lonu tavla fi la xorlo vau .ua
- [02 mars 13 22:52:01] * Ilmen * .i mi jundi .ei ca zo'e
- [02 mars 13 22:52:09] < kumul has disconnected (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
- [02 mars 13 22:52:57] * latro`a_ * .i .ei mi me'oi reboot
- [02 mars 13 22:53:04] * latro`a_ * ki'u lo nu lo sance co'e cu nabmi
- [02 mars 13 22:53:15] * Ilmen * .i .y mi de'a jundi za'u roi
- [02 mars 13 22:53:21] > rossi has joined
- [02 mars 13 22:53:34] * Ilmen * i co'o
- [02 mars 13 22:53:53] * latro`a_ * .i ba zi di'a
- [02 mars 13 22:53:59] < fluzios has disconnected (Read error: Operation timed out)
- [02 mars 13 22:54:48] < latro`a_ has disconnected (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
- [02 mars 13 22:56:42] > fluzios has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:02:52] > latro`a has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:03:17] * latro`a * coi
- [02 mars 13 23:10:05] * Ilmen * coi
- [02 mars 13 23:15:00] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
- [02 mars 13 23:24:15] * latro`a * .i ju'i la fpcalep
- [02 mars 13 23:25:52] > djeimsyxuis has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:25:57] * fpcalep * re'i
- [02 mars 13 23:25:58] * fpcalep * !
- [02 mars 13 23:26:01] * Ilmen * .i xlali fa lonu tepi'o lo sepygau pe zo zoi, lo zanymle voksancrklik naku .i'enai jai se curmi vau .uinai zo'o
- [02 mars 13 23:26:16] * Ilmen * <_<
- [02 mars 13 23:26:26] * fpcalep * I'm about ready to start
- [02 mars 13 23:26:36] * Ilmen * .i .a'a bu'o
- [02 mars 13 23:26:47] * Ilmen * .i .a'u
- [02 mars 13 23:26:59] * fpcalep * Though it may come out a little ... jumbled :) I'll try my best though
- [02 mars 13 23:28:37] * fpcalep * xu la'ei latro'a cu bredi
- [02 mars 13 23:30:36] > tsani has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:31:15] * Ilmen * .i coi la tsani
- [02 mars 13 23:34:20] > kumul has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:37:27] < djeimsyxuis has disconnected (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
- [02 mars 13 23:37:45] < kumool has disconnected (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
- [02 mars 13 23:38:13] > kumool has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:39:05] * fpcalep * latro`a: ping
- [02 mars 13 23:39:36] < kumul has disconnected (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
- [02 mars 13 23:40:17] * Ilmen seizes the bat
- [02 mars 13 23:40:48] * fpcalep * do kavbu lo volratcu
- [02 mars 13 23:41:41] * Ilmen * In my dictionnary I've the word "bat" for 'raquette' .iacu'i
- [02 mars 13 23:42:23] * triliyn * "bat" means both of those things
- [02 mars 13 23:42:40] * fpcalep * tttttttttttttttriliyn0rzzz
- [02 mars 13 23:42:59] * Ilmen * .i .ua
- [02 mars 13 23:43:17] * fpcalep * Baseball bat
- [02 mars 13 23:43:26] * Ilmen * .ie
- [02 mars 13 23:44:29] * fpcalep * jan Ilemen o, mi kute e ni: sina wile kama sona e toki pona. ni li pona mute tawa mi :)
- [02 mars 13 23:45:22] ^ fpcalep is now known as selpa`i
- [02 mars 13 23:45:37] > DEMien has joined
- [02 mars 13 23:45:38] < zahlman1 has disconnected (Quit: Leaving.)
- [02 mars 13 23:46:54] * Ilmen * .i ki'ai .xexe. ma cusku fi do fe lo du'u mi tadni lo bangrtokponas vau .u'iru'e
- [02 mars 13 23:47:36] * selpa`i * mi zgana lo nu do cusku
- [02 mars 13 23:47:49] < Stefan100 has disconnected
- [02 mars 13 23:47:57] ^ selpa`i is now known as fpcalep
- [02 mars 13 23:50:36] * latro`a * coi
- [02 mars 13 23:50:42] * latro`a * do'u .u'u pu na'e jundi
- [02 mars 13 23:51:13] * Ilmen * .i sa'u je'u gau da noi mi na djuno fi ke'a ku'o mi co'a jundi lonu casnu lo bangrtokponas
- [02 mars 13 23:51:17] * fpcalep * I have a problem, I own the Ithkuil channel as fpcalep, so when I turn back to selpa`i, I lose op, and I'm the only op there.
- [02 mars 13 23:51:25] * fpcalep * So I'll have to stay fpcalep for now.
- [02 mars 13 23:51:29] * fpcalep * no'e vajni
- [02 mars 13 23:51:39] * latro`a * you can log in on two clients
- [02 mars 13 23:51:47] * triliyn * Is fpcalep an ithkuil word?
- [02 mars 13 23:51:48] * latro`a * you can also link your usernames I think
- [02 mars 13 23:51:53] * fpcalep * Yes doi la toldi
- [02 mars 13 23:51:56] * latro`a * it means butterfly in ithkuil, apparently
- [02 mars 13 23:52:03] * fpcalep * It means Caterpillar
- [02 mars 13 23:52:06] * Ilmen * caterpillar
- [02 mars 13 23:52:06] * latro`a * oh right
- [02 mars 13 23:52:07] * latro`a * derp
- [02 mars 13 23:52:13] * kantu * whoah, ithkuil has an active irc?
- [02 mars 13 23:52:16] * latro`a * mixed it up with toldi mayhaps -_-
- [02 mars 13 23:52:29] * Ilmen * fpçalep?
- [02 mars 13 23:52:32] * Ilmen * IIRC
- [02 mars 13 23:52:44] * fpcalep * Yes, it becomes "butterfly" if you remove the eph
- [02 mars 13 23:52:56] * latro`a * anyway
- [02 mars 13 23:52:56] * Ilmen * .ua je'e
- [02 mars 13 23:52:59] * Ilmen * ta'o
- [02 mars 13 23:53:01] * fpcalep * Yes, anyway.
- [02 mars 13 23:53:32] * Ilmen * xorlo saga, episode II
- [02 mars 13 23:53:37] * Ilmen * \o/
- [02 mars 13 23:53:39] * fpcalep * So I'll begin if you like. I might forget some things, so make sure to catch anything i overlook
- [02 mars 13 23:53:44] * latro`a * go ahead
- [02 mars 13 23:53:56] * fpcalep * Alright, it may take more than one try to find a way that properly manages to convey the following ideas to you. You're welcome to ask as many questions you like. I'll just keep talking until you interrupt. So you can also wait for me to finish my monologue and ask questions then.
- [02 mars 13 23:54:21] * fpcalep * Imagine, if you will, that all the cats in the universe are the same cat. There is only one cat, and it can appear in different places and at different times.
- [02 mars 13 23:54:41] * fpcalep * The cat I have, the cat you have (if you have one) and the cat that sadly lost a leg in a car accident in 1987 in France are all manifestations of the one and only cat.
- [02 mars 13 23:54:55] * Ilmen * .a'u re'i
- [02 mars 13 23:55:14] * fpcalep * There are many different ways one can call this single, big cat. JCB called it a mass-individual, and he liked to refer to it as Mr. Cat. You can also call it a myopic singular (a fancy word, but quite fitting). It doesn't matter much what you call it, only that you understand how it works, call it cat god if you want.
- [02 mars 13 23:56:06] * fpcalep * You can catch a glimpse of Mr. Cat, or Mr. Shark in all sorts of places. You can come across Mr. Shark when swimming in the ocean, in the local aquarium or in your Sushi (hopefully not though).
- [02 mars 13 23:56:17] * fpcalep * Note that there is a fundamental difference between Mr. Lion and the archetypical lion or the average lion.
- [02 mars 13 23:56:42] < tsani has disconnected (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
- [02 mars 13 23:57:01] * fpcalep * The archetypical lion is a carnivore and lives in Africa in the wild. A statement like "The archetypical lion lives in the zoo." is false, whereas it is not false of Mr. Lion, who *does* at some place/time live in a zoo (and maybe has a rare condition that makes him despise meat!).
- [02 mars 13 23:57:21] * fpcalep * Similarly, the typical bird can fly, but Mr. Bird is not at all times able to fly, for example when he is a penguin.
- [02 mars 13 23:58:13] * fpcalep * You (doi la latro'a) might call this a Kind, but I personally prefer not to use that term. To me, a Kind is an abstract thing, and I cannnot touch an abstract thing (but I *can* though {lo mlatu}. However, if you are more comfortable using the Kind analogy, then by all means us it, as long as it lets you understand what {lo broda} is and how it behaves when scope and quantification is in play.
- [02 mars 13 23:58:41] * latro`a * you can't touch the full entity, you can only touch a piece of it
- [02 mars 13 23:58:44] * latro`a * the full entity doesn't even exist
- [02 mars 13 23:58:48] * latro`a * it's an abstraction
- [02 mars 13 23:59:15] * fpcalep * It bears some resemblence to how uncountable nouns (mass-nouns) are used in English. There is Water in your cup and Water in mine. There is Elephant in Africa and there is Elephant in Asia. In China, Dog is put into Food, and in 1957, Dog was in Space (and her name was Laika).
- [02 mars 13 23:59:46] * fpcalep * Well, I can touch you here and now, and then I have only touched one spatio-temporal part of you, not the all of you.
- [03 mars 13 00:00:18] * fpcalep * When a hunter shoots three moose, he also shoots Mr. Moose (three times, in fact!).
- [03 mars 13 00:00:23] * latro`a * true enough, but still, time issues aside this full entity doesn't exist and isn't involved in almost any relations
- [03 mars 13 00:00:30] < kantu has disconnected (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
- [03 mars 13 00:00:49] * latro`a * anyway, go ahead, I'm still with you
- [03 mars 13 00:01:01] > kantu has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:01:20] * Ilmen * .i .a'a bu'ocu'i
- [03 mars 13 00:01:33] * latro`a * my only point here was that this is more abstract than the "you touch Mr. Cat" or "you shoot Mr. Moose" description actually suggests
- [03 mars 13 00:02:13] * kantu * (can someone olease put his explanation up until now into pastebin? freenode lost connection just now, and it happens to politely nuke your chat log when it loses connection -.-)
- [03 mars 13 00:02:49] * Ilmen * I'll try to do so provided I'm not disconnected either :)
- [03 mars 13 00:03:16] * Ilmen * (doi la kantu)
- [03 mars 13 00:03:27] * fpcalep * A short tangent on specificity:
- [03 mars 13 00:03:36] * fpcalep * The reason why we can use {lo broda} to talk about specific situations is not because {lo broda} itself refers to anything in particular (specific), but because it gets embedded in a meaningful context:
- [03 mars 13 00:03:49] * fpcalep * {lo gerku cu va nenri lo tanxe}
- [03 mars 13 00:03:54] * fpcalep * "Dog is in Box there."
- [03 mars 13 00:03:59] * fpcalep * "There is dog-being-inside-box-ing going on there."
- [03 mars 13 00:04:09] * kantu * ki'e
- [03 mars 13 00:04:34] * fpcalep * It may take some rewiring of one's way of thinking to fully internalize and appreciate this way of looking at the world. Note that there are reports of natural languages that works like this. I found it very interesting to make this mental shift.
- [03 mars 13 00:04:52] * fpcalep * (it's simple, but different)
- [03 mars 13 00:05:07] * Ilmen * interesting
- [03 mars 13 00:05:12] * fpcalep * {lo} cannot be wrong when {loi} is correct, because {loi} adds something. {lo} cannot be wrong when [a veridical use of] {le} is correct, because {le}, too, adds something.
- [03 mars 13 00:05:37] * fpcalep * If I see a house and want to describe it to you via phone, instead of {le vi zdani cu melbi .i .au mi te vecnu le vi zdani}, I can also use {lo vi zdani},
- [03 mars 13 00:06:03] * fpcalep * because when a specific house is beautiful to me, then Mr. House, too, is beautiful to me at that time/place. And it's also true that I want to live in Mr. House even if I have a particular one in mind. That's why {lo} is able to replace all other gadri (able to, not inevitably does so). It is the most basic way to refer to something, no adornments, no restrictions one way or another, an empty gadri that adds nothing.
- [03 mars 13 00:06:49] * fpcalep * If you find yourself actually unable to live without a specificity-gadri, {le} is there, ready to be used by you.
- [03 mars 13 00:07:08] * fpcalep * Personally, I find it cool that you can convey specific things without making very specific claims, just by providing sufficient context.
- [03 mars 13 00:07:45] * fpcalep * There are also things that {lo} can do that are either impossible or very difficult to do otherwise. For instance, imagine a world in which all doctors on the planet have died. With {lo} you can say:
- [03 mars 13 00:07:57] * fpcalep * {mi nitcu lo mikce}
- [03 mars 13 00:08:05] * fpcalep * There is no specific doctor you need, you need any doctor. You can even need a doctor when no doctors are alive.
- [03 mars 13 00:08:27] * fpcalep * On the other hand, {mi nitcu da poi mikce} doesn't do what we want. This is one of the gaps {lo} has filled.
- [03 mars 13 00:08:32] < mlatylorxu has disconnected (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
- [03 mars 13 00:09:02] * fpcalep * (I recently gave a similar example on the mriste, involving sisku: {mi sisku lo mirli} is true although {na ku da mirli} (they had gone extinct in the hypothetical world there)}
- [03 mars 13 00:09:21] * latro`a * there's a problem there that we've encountered already
- [03 mars 13 00:09:58] * latro`a * namely that by introducing {lo mikce} in the first place, you now have an object such that {lo mikce cu mikce} which you're in some way talking about, which means that that object gives you a valid value of {da poi mikce} in the universe of discourse even if not the actual universe
- [03 mars 13 00:10:43] * latro`a * there's still the problem that there's no particular one you need, and lo does help with that, but it doesn't help with existential problems, only adopting a sane policy about universes of discourse will do that
- [03 mars 13 00:10:48] * Ilmen * anyway who the hell can really know what actuallt is in the real universe :P
- [03 mars 13 00:11:05] > kumul has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:11:07] * Ilmen * *runs*
- [03 mars 13 00:11:14] * fpcalep * I'm not sure I follow.
- [03 mars 13 00:11:16] * Ilmen * zo'o ru'e
- [03 mars 13 00:11:20] * latro`a * well, that point aside, the universe of discourse trivially contains more objects than actually exist
- [03 mars 13 00:11:31] * latro`a * in particular it contains more objects than exist on earth
- [03 mars 13 00:11:44] * latro`a * because {lo mikce}, this abstract essence of doctorness that has no actual referents, exists
- [03 mars 13 00:11:47] * fpcalep * {mi sisku lo mirli} means "I am looking for Moose." There is no existential claim involved
- [03 mars 13 00:12:03] * fpcalep * Deer*
- [03 mars 13 00:12:08] * fpcalep * .u'i
- [03 mars 13 00:12:10] * latro`a * there doesn't have to be, any constant exists
- [03 mars 13 00:12:19] * latro`a * not necessarily in the usual epistemology
- [03 mars 13 00:12:22] * v4hn_ * ba'e that discussion again?
- [03 mars 13 00:13:07] * fpcalep * That's why I said {lo} is an intensional article.
- [03 mars 13 00:13:14] * latro`a * that doesn't fix it either
- [03 mars 13 00:13:20] * latro`a * if you can talk about it, it exists in some epistemology
- [03 mars 13 00:13:23] * fpcalep * You don't introduce any instances of {lo mirli}
- [03 mars 13 00:13:39] * latro`a * and in fact in some pertinent epistemology, since you want to talk about it
- [03 mars 13 00:14:11] * v4hn_ * latro`a: {lo zasti befi noda}
- [03 mars 13 00:14:29] < kumool has disconnected (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
- [03 mars 13 00:14:34] * Ilmen * what happens with {lo bi'unai co'e}?
- [03 mars 13 00:14:39] * latro`a * that's not a problem either, v4hn_
- [03 mars 13 00:14:50] * latro`a * the blob of nonexistence in any epistemology exists as a blob unto itself
- [03 mars 13 00:15:08] * v4hn_ * yeah, just wanted to throw it in
- [03 mars 13 00:15:18] * latro`a * nothing is in it, no matter what the epistemology, but the blob itself exists
- [03 mars 13 00:15:23] * v4hn_ * zasti has nothing to do with uds anyway
- [03 mars 13 00:15:24] * fpcalep * I really doN't see a problem with {mi nitcu/sisku lo mirli}. It is very different from {mi nitcu/sisku da poi mirli}
- [03 mars 13 00:15:59] * fpcalep * (and from su'o lo mirli)
- [03 mars 13 00:16:13] * latro`a * with this model of lo, which really isn't what I think anyone actually has in mind when they speak (and which in particular makes usage of {bi'u nai} essentially garbled nonsense), that works fine, sure
- [03 mars 13 00:16:25] * fpcalep * Thank you.
- [03 mars 13 00:16:32] * fpcalep * So we can return to this later. Let me continue.
- [03 mars 13 00:16:42] * fpcalep * About constants:
- [03 mars 13 00:16:46] * fpcalep * (yay!?)
- [03 mars 13 00:17:11] * v4hn_ * fpcalep: I agree in that there is not really a problem. The problem John sees though, is that {mi sisku lo mirli} introduces an object/set of objects into the universe of discourse which can still change it's identity afterwards
- [03 mars 13 00:17:28] * fpcalep * Recapping just in case other people are following along that don't know this: Every unquantified sumti acts as a constant (and no sumti has default/implicit quantifiers except {da} where it is {su'o}). In fact, even {da} can be observed to behave like a constant
- [03 mars 13 00:17:32] * v4hn_ * and that's a problem for current theories of formal semantics
- [03 mars 13 00:17:43] * fpcalep * when it is under the scope of its quantifier, for example:
- [03 mars 13 00:17:53] * fpcalep * {ro da zo'u mi na ku broda da} == {ro da zo'u mi da na ku broda}
- [03 mars 13 00:18:05] * fpcalep * (nothing controversial in that i hope)
- [03 mars 13 00:18:21] * latro`a * uhh...
- [03 mars 13 00:18:22] * fpcalep * the right {da} has no quantifier, and moving it around withint the scope of its quantifier (the one in the prenex) won't change anything. The same is true fo every other quantified sumti, too, though one could say they are all just cases of {da}.
- [03 mars 13 00:18:53] * latro`a * I'm not sure it's considered advisable to use non-prenex naku with prenex quantifiers
- [03 mars 13 00:18:58] * latro`a * I certainly wouldn't do it
- [03 mars 13 00:19:19] * fpcalep * Doesn't seem problematic to me.
- [03 mars 13 00:19:27] * fpcalep * The {da} simply scopes over the non-prenex.
- [03 mars 13 00:19:31] * latro`a * the first one definitely seems like a problem to me
- [03 mars 13 00:19:32] * fpcalep * Whatever is in there.
- [03 mars 13 00:19:44] * latro`a * in particular I don't think the CLL specified what the former means
- [03 mars 13 00:20:15] * fpcalep * I you wish, I can use another example that shouldn't upset *anyone*
- [03 mars 13 00:20:32] * fpcalep * {ro da zo'u da de broda} == {ro da zo'u de da se broda}
- [03 mars 13 00:20:46] * fpcalep * Same point applies.
- [03 mars 13 00:21:17] * fpcalep * Anyway, I think the general idea is clear?
- [03 mars 13 00:21:24] > kumool has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:21:24] * fpcalep * Here are some things that are always true for the constant {lo broda} (and all other consants):
- [03 mars 13 00:21:38] * fpcalep * {lo broda cu brode lo brodi} == {lo brodi cu se brode lo broda}
- [03 mars 13 00:21:42] * fpcalep * (duh)
- [03 mars 13 00:21:48] * fpcalep * {da broda lo brode} == {lo brode da se broda}
- [03 mars 13 00:21:48] < erkin has disconnected (Quit: Ouch! Got SIGABRT, dying...)
- [03 mars 13 00:21:55] * latro`a * now you're fine, yeah
- [03 mars 13 00:21:55] * fpcalep * And important:
- [03 mars 13 00:22:04] * fpcalep * {na ku lo broda cu brode} == {lo broda na ku brode}
- [03 mars 13 00:22:06] > erkin has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:22:14] * fpcalep * (i except some people to protest)
- [03 mars 13 00:22:17] * fpcalep * expect*!
- [03 mars 13 00:22:34] * fpcalep * In short, scope - be it negation or quantification - does never affect a constant term like {lo broda} (or any of the other gadri)
- [03 mars 13 00:22:51] * fpcalep * This is explicitly so under xorlo.
- [03 mars 13 00:23:27] * latro`a * I think in practice people do some things wrong where existentials sneak in, becasue in practice a lot of things are (under a model of lo which actually deals with entities instead of massive abstract Mr. Cat objects) are existential in the background
- [03 mars 13 00:23:39] * DEMien * I'll just throw this out there. I'm not a logician or philosopher, but it seems like 'lo' tries to convey something like Plato's Theory of Forms.
- [03 mars 13 00:23:40] * latro`a * or at least existentialish
- [03 mars 13 00:23:50] < kumul has disconnected (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
- [03 mars 13 00:24:05] * latro`a * and I think that model influences people's intuition, which is why they object to moving naku around completely freely
- [03 mars 13 00:24:31] * latro`a * I don't think this is *correct* under what xorlo actually says, but as we've seen I don't think what xorlo actually says is particularly intuitive/useful (and I also don't think this is what is in the proposal, either; it is far more specfiic)
- [03 mars 13 00:24:56] * fpcalep * Weird, I find it both intuitive and useful.
- [03 mars 13 00:25:04] * fpcalep * Generics were previously entirely absent from the langauge
- [03 mars 13 00:25:19] * latro`a * I don't find it useful as the default
- [03 mars 13 00:25:21] * fpcalep * What is not correct?
- [03 mars 13 00:25:33] * latro`a * previously lo'e could've been commandeered into generics if that was necessary
- [03 mars 13 00:25:36] * fpcalep * Moving na ku around?
- [03 mars 13 00:25:40] * latro`a * instead of the default gadri for that purpose
- [03 mars 13 00:26:04] * fpcalep * {lo} was semi-superfluous though, and lo'e is the previously mentioned archetypical lion
- [03 mars 13 00:26:06] * latro`a * sorry, "this" in the "I don't think ..." was "not being able to move naku around"
- [03 mars 13 00:26:24] * fpcalep tries to reparse...
- [03 mars 13 00:26:37] * latro`a * it was {la'e di'u} in context
- [03 mars 13 00:27:14] * fpcalep * And xorlo makes things much easier to use - harder to mess things up accidently
- [03 mars 13 00:27:24] * fpcalep * {lo} was redundant to su'o
- [03 mars 13 00:27:32] * latro`a * old-lo is worse
- [03 mars 13 00:27:37] * fpcalep * And {lo} in Loglan was actually our current xorlo {lo} more or less
- [03 mars 13 00:27:57] * fpcalep * Well sure, old lo has an additional {ro} inner quantifier
- [03 mars 13 00:28:17] * latro`a * even then, the default as you're describing it is far more generic than is commonly desired
- [03 mars 13 00:28:27] * latro`a * in particular it really makes a lot of our common constructs completely absurd
- [03 mars 13 00:28:30] * latro`a * {lo ninmu goi ko'a} makes no sense
- [03 mars 13 00:28:42] * latro`a * you don't take a woman, or any particular woman, and put her in ko'a, you put Woman in ko'a
- [03 mars 13 00:28:51] * latro`a * which is useless, you could just say {lo ninmu} again
- [03 mars 13 00:28:56] * latro`a * {bi'u nai} similarly is nonsensical
- [03 mars 13 00:29:28] * Ilmen * then we could consider {lo co'e goi X} as taking an instance of co'e?
- [03 mars 13 00:29:32] * fpcalep * {lo gerku cu va nenri lo tanxe .i lo gerku cu vi na nenri lo tanxe
- [03 mars 13 00:29:34] * fpcalep * }
- [03 mars 13 00:29:58] * latro`a * selpa'i has explicitly objected to instantiations in bridi
- [03 mars 13 00:30:17] * fpcalep * These Dogs are both Dog sure, but they are in different places or times
- [03 mars 13 00:30:25] * Ilmen * even with KOhA family?
- [03 mars 13 00:30:30] * fpcalep * The goi'd sumti can be that particular glimpse
- [03 mars 13 00:30:34] * latro`a * ...
- [03 mars 13 00:30:38] * latro`a * you explicitly objected to that idea earlier
- [03 mars 13 00:30:42] * latro`a * yesterday sa'e
- [03 mars 13 00:30:45] * fpcalep * Hm?
- [03 mars 13 00:30:57] * latro`a * this is plucking referents out and using them to make instantiations
- [03 mars 13 00:31:00] * latro`a * *EXACTLY* the same idea
- [03 mars 13 00:31:02] * fpcalep * No
- [03 mars 13 00:31:04] * fpcalep * look at the bridi
- [03 mars 13 00:31:12] * latro`a * "These Dogs"
- [03 mars 13 00:31:15] * fpcalep * it's two independent dogs
- [03 mars 13 00:31:16] * latro`a * is plucking referents
- [03 mars 13 00:31:18] * fpcalep * one is here, one there
- [03 mars 13 00:31:28] * fpcalep * ok, replace on of them with lo mlatu then
- [03 mars 13 00:31:33] * fpcalep * Or with lo rokci
- [03 mars 13 00:31:39] * Ilmen * lo djacu
- [03 mars 13 00:31:43] * Ilmen * =D
- [03 mars 13 00:31:48] * latro`a * my point was not that it was talking about the same entity
- [03 mars 13 00:31:52] * fpcalep * They are not the same sumti
- [03 mars 13 00:31:58] * latro`a * ...sure they are
- [03 mars 13 00:32:03] * fpcalep * what?
- [03 mars 13 00:32:06] * fpcalep * You are confused.
- [03 mars 13 00:32:10] * latro`a * the sumti itself is always the global Dog
- [03 mars 13 00:32:16] * fpcalep * {lo mlatu cu nenri lo tanxe .i lo rokci cu na nenri lo tanxe}
- [03 mars 13 00:32:32] * latro`a * then there is some mechanism resembling referent removal that "instantiates" and reduces it to concrete events
- [03 mars 13 00:33:14] * latro`a * it's not true that the same dog is being talked about in the two sentences, but that's not what the sumti is
- [03 mars 13 00:33:22] * latro`a * the sumti is the entire entity Dog in every instance, by what you describe earlier
- [03 mars 13 00:33:30] * fpcalep * Yes.
- [03 mars 13 00:33:37] * latro`a * consequently it's the same sumti in every usage
- [03 mars 13 00:33:40] * latro`a * it just participates in different ways
- [03 mars 13 00:34:09] > cntrational has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:34:16] * fpcalep * That is true. You have to use implicit space-time to make this work (or else I think you're right about goi being weird)
- [03 mars 13 00:34:18] * latro`a * but since it's the same sumti, you can't convert it into different entities; you can't think of {lo ninmu} as any particular woman in a given context, which means that actually assigning the sumti to a variable is useless (unless perhaps the predicate is really really long and you don't want to say it twice)
- [03 mars 13 00:34:39] * latro`a * (in which case cei broda is as good up to one syllable)
- [03 mars 13 00:35:23] * fpcalep * It works if you consider the space-time component I mentioned, e.g. {lo gerku} in that one situation is actually {lo va gerku} (plus aspect and tense etc)
- [03 mars 13 00:35:36] * fpcalep * There are some things I haven't mentioned, like quantification and lo
- [03 mars 13 00:35:43] * latro`a * that seems horrifyingly hackish
- [03 mars 13 00:36:07] * fpcalep * Not my fault .u'i
- [03 mars 13 00:36:10] * latro`a * and in fact basically contradicts what you've already said, that {lo gerku} is the generic
- [03 mars 13 00:36:20] * latro`a * you're saying that {lo gerku} is the generic and then shrinks or something
- [03 mars 13 00:36:29] * latro`a * and that the shrinking is used to do everything afterward
- [03 mars 13 00:36:55] * latro`a * in which case why did you go via the generic in the first place? why not explicitly have something that stays generic, and explicitly something that never goes via the generic in the first place?
- [03 mars 13 00:36:55] * fpcalep * I concede that this might be weird. But it's not my invention. We can return to this later.
- [03 mars 13 00:37:15] * fpcalep * We do have {le}
- [03 mars 13 00:37:21] * fpcalep * You can use it if you want.
- [03 mars 13 00:37:24] * latro`a * that does something rather different
- [03 mars 13 00:37:27] * latro`a * which isn't what was desired
- [03 mars 13 00:37:34] * fpcalep * There is also {da}
- [03 mars 13 00:37:43] * latro`a * {lo ninmu} by itself, under the description you gave earlier, can never be a particluar woman
- [03 mars 13 00:37:43] * latro`a * *particular
- [03 mars 13 00:37:48] * latro`a * or any group of 3 women, or any such thing
- [03 mars 13 00:38:11] * latro`a * consequently it can't be used to refer to such groups, even if they're not ones you have in mind or the listener has in mind
- [03 mars 13 00:38:56] * latro`a * what I have in mind here is the third, weak, sort of definiteness: where there's some group of entities out there, particular ones, but you don't really care what they are, but you can refer to them repeatedly
- [03 mars 13 00:39:08] * latro`a * the sort of definiteness that is occuring in "a dog bit the boy. the dog went into the house"
- [03 mars 13 00:39:10] * fpcalep * Yes, I know what you mean.
- [03 mars 13 00:40:40] * fpcalep * lo gerku cu batci lo nanla .i gy klama lo nenri be lo zdani
- [03 mars 13 00:40:48] * fpcalep * Is supposed to work under xorlo.
- [03 mars 13 00:41:12] * latro`a * right, and it doesn't under what you described above, or at least, it's far weaker than is desired
- [03 mars 13 00:41:28] * latro`a * {gy} being the same sumti as {lo gerku} doesn't guarantee that the same dog goes in the house
- [03 mars 13 00:41:41] * fpcalep * I can see a way how it would work though
- [03 mars 13 00:42:09] * fpcalep * Because when you use anaphora, it's like pulling a huge chain of relative clauses behind you
- [03 mars 13 00:42:15] * fpcalep * the gy there for example
- [03 mars 13 00:42:21] * fpcalep * picks up the previous bridi event
- [03 mars 13 00:42:43] < erkin has disconnected (Quit: Ouch! Got SIGABRT, dying...)
- [03 mars 13 00:42:44] * latro`a * I question how you would implement this
- [03 mars 13 00:42:47] * fpcalep * So gy = lo gerku poi [whatever.tense.previous.bridi.had] batci lo nanla
- [03 mars 13 00:43:05] * latro`a * that makes poi essentially magic
- [03 mars 13 00:43:16] * latro`a * because I can think of a dog that did it
- [03 mars 13 00:43:17] * latro`a * Dog
- [03 mars 13 00:43:20] * latro`a * that one always does it
- [03 mars 13 00:43:31] > erkin has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:43:36] * latro`a * and there's no particular reason why you can't put that one as the referent of the poi, too
- [03 mars 13 00:43:38] * fpcalep * Not exactly
- [03 mars 13 00:43:45] > carvi has joined
- [03 mars 13 00:44:05] * fpcalep * In this case it is Mr. Just-bit-a-boy-over-there-Dog
- [03 mars 13 00:44:17] * fpcalep * That's what the poi does
- [03 mars 13 00:44:30] * latro`a * oh, so that changes when you add the ku?
- [03 mars 13 00:44:32] * fpcalep * And the tenses
- [03 mars 13 00:44:34] * latro`a * it sounds like it does
- [03 mars 13 00:44:48] * fpcalep * I thought of that too
- [03 mars 13 00:44:58] * latro`a * it sounds like when you add the ku you get what I said
- [03 mars 13 00:45:02] * latro`a * since it is true that Dog bit the boy
- [03 mars 13 00:45:09] * fpcalep * I think xorxes either likes to forget about the different ku placements, or he simply dislikes them
- [03 mars 13 00:45:18] * fpcalep * So I don't think this is defined in xorlo
- [03 mars 13 00:45:46] * latro`a * really though, I think this approach is trying very hard to hide the fact that its generics are objects in its universe of discourse of their own rigth
- [03 mars 13 00:45:47] * latro`a * *right
- [03 mars 13 00:45:49] * fpcalep * (things like la broda noi)
- [03 mars 13 00:46:14] * latro`a * and that consequently you can be a jerk and have poi's that don't do anything, since the generic object itself satisfies the relative clause
- [03 mars 13 00:46:42] * fpcalep * The jerk arguments don't impress me much.
- [03 mars 13 00:46:58] * latro`a * this isn't nearly as jerkish as bear goo, though
- [03 mars 13 00:47:16] * latro`a * if the generic object satisfies the predicate, why can't it be the referent?
- [03 mars 13 00:47:24] * latro`a * especially if it's the "natural" object, the "default choice"
- [03 mars 13 00:47:37] * latro`a * I also think it hides meaning, which is something I've been saying for ages: for example it makes anaphora, as we noticed earlier, rather subtle
- [03 mars 13 00:47:43] * latro`a * it=this definition of lo
- [03 mars 13 00:48:08] * fpcalep * Can you give an example of the generic obejct satisfying the predicate?!
- [03 mars 13 00:48:13] * fpcalep * (getting late here)
- [03 mars 13 00:48:15] * latro`a * you already did
- [03 mars 13 00:48:18] * latro`a * {lo gerku cu batci}
- [03 mars 13 00:48:24] * latro`a * says the generic object does it
- [03 mars 13 00:48:27] * latro`a * it's built into the syntax
- [03 mars 13 00:48:27] * fpcalep * Yes
- [03 mars 13 00:48:33] * fpcalep * And?
- [03 mars 13 00:48:39] * latro`a * the generic object has all the properties of the particular object
- [03 mars 13 00:48:54] * latro`a * consequently {lo gerku poi batci lo nanla} can just be {lo gerku}, since the generic Dog bites the boy too
- [03 mars 13 00:49:09] * latro`a * if it didn't you couldn't have said {lo gerku cu batci} in the first place
- [03 mars 13 00:49:49] * fpcalep * Right. You need contextual spatio-temporal considerations
- [03 mars 13 00:50:16] * fpcalep * But please let me talk about quantification really fast
- [03 mars 13 00:50:39] * fpcalep * There are possibly helpful things in there
- [03 mars 13 00:51:12] * fpcalep * First of all, there isn't just one possible Mr Broda, there are many different ones for different tenses and numbers etc
- [03 mars 13 12:16:42] # The topic is 'Main Site: http://lojban.org/ | Lojban Only Channel: #jbosnu | Classes for beginners: #ckule | Word Lookup: http://vlasisku.lojban.org/ | Parse Checkers: http://www.lojban.org/jboski/ and http://camxes.lojban.org/ | Asking Questions: http://lojban.shapado.com/' (set by [email protected])
- [03 mars 13 12:17:08] ? Notice from ChanServ: [#lojban] Welcome to #lojban (http://www.lojban.org/). Here you can talk in Lojban about anything, or about Lojban in any language. Please familiarize yourself with http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Lojban+IRC. PLEASE NOTE: Everything you say in the language of Lojban is logged publically at http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/.
- [03 mars 13 12:18:38] * Ilmen * coi
- ===============
- [03 mars 13 15:32:21] * Ilmen * The last sentence I recorded before disconnecting was «fpcalep * First of all, there isn't just one possible Mr Broda, there are many different ones for different tenses and numbers etc»
- [03 mars 13 15:32:22] > menturi has joined
- [03 mars 13 15:32:50] * Ilmen * when he started talking about quantification
- [03 mars 13 15:35:09] * Ilmen * Anyway did Selpa'i have time enough to finish his demonstration?
- [03 mars 13 15:35:19] * Ilmen * probably not
- [03 mars 13 15:35:40] * Ilmen * it was getting pretty late then
- [03 mars 13 15:46:38] * latro`a * no, he pretty much did
- [03 mars 13 15:46:46] * Ilmen * .i .ua
- [...]
- ===============
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment