On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote:


> "puba" has been translated as "was/were going to", but
> as you say it is not a good translation. I can't really
> think of any examples where composite tenses like
> puba, pupu, bapu, etc. would be useful.
>

...

> caba'o citka = has now eaten
> puba'o citka = had eaten
> baba'o citka = will have eaten
>
> Before these aspectuals (ca'o, ba'o, pu'o) were introduced
> to the language, these compound English tenses were translated
> by chained Lojban tenses, but doing that now that we have
> the aspectuals is not really a very good idea.


An excellent scheme. But it is an innovation upon the Book, not a
clarification of it.



-----
"You cannot achieve speed by speedy practice. The only way to get fast
is to be deep, wide awake, and slow...pray for the patience of a
stonecutter. Pray to understand that speed is one of those things you
have to give up - like love - before it comes flying to you through
the back window."
('The Listening Book' by W.A. Mathieu)

You're not just thinking English, except for thinking that the subjunctive is
other than a grammatical category.  The English (Latin, ...) subjunctives do
a number of things, which are sorted out in Lojban to a number of cmavo.  So,
decide what you want to say and pick the appropriate device for doing it.
Xorxes has, as usual, given a good starter list: for contrary-to-fact
"conditionals" and past contemplated but undone actions (not, notice, a
subjunctive even in English).

Lojban tenses (ca,pu, ba, and compounds) are best taken as strictly
truth-functional and linear, though there are arguments about the linear part
and that allows for some "subjunctives."  But better not to rely on that
reading.  So, puba *might* mean along some future path from some past time,
and thus probably contrary to fact along the real (for us now anyhow) future
to that past, but it is better to take it as being along the actual future to
that past and thus either before, at, or after the present in the real stream
of time.  The virtues of puba and bapu are just that they don't tell us how
the event is related to now, which is sometimes useful, when we don't know
exactly: "He will have arrived by morning" (and for all I know is arrived
already), etc.  Most of the other compounds mirror the needs of a language
which has obligatory tense, so needs compounds to move about in a narrative,
as Lojban does not -- or not nearly so often.
pc

> > caba'o citka = has now eaten
> > puba'o citka = had eaten
> > baba'o citka = will have eaten
> >
> > Before these aspectuals (ca'o, ba'o, pu'o) were introduced
> > to the language, these compound English tenses were translated
> > by chained Lojban tenses, but doing that now that we have
> > the aspectuals is not really a very good idea.
>
>An excellent scheme. But it is an innovation upon the Book, not a
>clarification of it.

The first paragraph of the Book's chapter on tense explicity
says that it doesn't deal with the question of how best to
translate a given English tense. Here I am suggesting that
the tense+aspectual combination is a better translation
than the tense+tense combination. I agree that this is not
a clarification of anything in the Book, but it is not in
contradiction with it either, is it?

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

la pycyn cusku di'e

>The virtues of puba and bapu are just that they don't tell us how the event
>is related to now, which is sometimes useful, when we don't know exactly:
>"He will have arrived by morning" (and for all I know is arrived already),
>etc.

I would say:

      ko'a baba'o tolcliva ca le cerni
      He will have arrived in the morning.

That says nothing of whether he has already arrived.
I don't think bapu would work at all here, because
of the connection with "ca le cerni". "ca le cerni"
would either have to be the start of the imaginary
journey, which would mean that the arrival could be
later than that, which we don't want. Or "ca le cerni"
would have to coincide with the end of the imaginary
journey, which puts the arrival exactly at the morning,
which again is not the meaning we want.

>Most of the other compounds mirror the needs of a language
>which has obligatory tense, so needs compounds to move about in a
>narrative,
>as Lojban does not -- or not nearly so often.

I don't know... Compounds with "ca" are just redundant.
"capu" means exactly the same as "puca" and as just "pu".
That leaves only "pupu" and "baba". I don't think
there's anything like "baba" in English. The only one
that could be like something in English is "pupu",
but in narratives, which is mostly where this could
come up, the convention is that the tense takes as
reference the time of the previous sentence instead
of the speaker's time, so a double pu is not needed
even there.

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Does anyone know the Lojban for the first person plural inclusive (mi'o)
imperative, like the English «Let's go to the store!» or the Spanish «ˇVamos
al mercado!»?
«ko .e mi klama le zarci» is close, but not exact, as you can see from the
expansion: «ko klama le zarci .ije mi klama le zarci».
I'm thinking something along the lines of «ko joi mi» (which would probably
come to be written «kojoimi»), but I'm not sure.
Any thoughts?

co'omi'e la kinin.

la kinin cusku di'e

>Does anyone know the Lojban for the first person plural inclusive (mi'o)
>imperative, like the English «Let's go to the store!» or the Spanish
>«ˇVamos
>al mercado!»?

      e'u mi'o klama le zarci

In general, the e-series of UI cmavo are useful for translating
imperatives, especially non-second person. They can be used
instead of ko as well of course.

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

la adam cusku di'e
>
>la xarmuj cusku di'e
>
> > >     1. About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or
> > > hunger-related
> > >     causes. This is down from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000
> > > twenty years
> > >     ago. Three- fourths of the deaths are children under the age
> > > of five.
> >
> > 1. i ji'i revora'e prenu cu morsi ri'a le nu xagji .a le xagjiki'i rinka
>
>I think you mean ki'o instead of ra'e. Also, to become dead,
>rather than just be dead is mrobi'o. You mean xagjyki'i.

Also, the "every day" is missing. First try:

       ji'irevoki'o prenu cu mrobi'o ca ro djedi
       ri'a le nu xagji a le xagjyki'i rinka

But that says that the same 24000 people die every day!
We need to change the order of the terms:

       ca ro djedi ji'irevoki'o prenu cu mrobi'o
       ri'a le nu xagji a le xagjyki'i rinka

> > i ji'i cimura'e prenu go'i pu lo nanca li pano
>
>For "ten years", etc., you need to say "lo nanca be li pano",
>but I think it's better to just say "pano nanca"

I would say:

     i ji'icimuki'o prenu pu go'i za lo nanca be li pano

"za" is what I use for the size of the offset, ten years
is the size of the interval from now towards te past.
"pu lo nanca" does not really say how long before those
ten years, it could be a long time in the past of those
ten years. And you have to assume that you are talking
of the immediately adjacent past ten years as well, not,
for example, the ten years going from 1679 to 1688.

> > .ije ji'i vopara'e prenu
> > go'i pu lo nanca li reno  .i pizemu lei morsi cu verba lo nanca li
>mume'i
> >
>  I think that normally it's me'imu and not mume'i, but it might not
>matter.

Also there is a problem with the x2 of verba. I would not
put "lo nanca" there. I would probably say:

       i pizemu lei mrobi'o cu verba li me'imu


> > "lo cabnalfarvi gugde" (intended lit. not-currently-developed nation)
>was
> > the best I could come up with for "developing country". I tried to carry
> > over the intended politically correct meaning of the English phrase.
> >
>What's wrong with "favbi'o gugde"? In Lojban there's no swearing
>and no politically correct. :-)

But "farvi" does not mean "developed"! It means "developing",
so "farvi gugde" is best for the translation. Even though
the initial "not currently developing" is a more true description...

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>     4. Besides death, chronic malnutrition also causes impaired
>vision, listlessness, stunted growth, and greatly increased
>susceptibility to disease.
>     Severely malnourished people are unable to function at even a
>basic level.

i vomai
i le nu mrobi'o goi ko'a zo'u le nu ru'i se xladja cu rinka
ko'a e le nu selzu'i viska e le nu ta'irdu'e e le nu seldicra
banro e le nu mutce zenba fa le nu bilma kakne
i lei mutce se xladja prenu na kakne le nu tolpo'u lo sampu ji'a

Anyone has a better idea for "besides death"? I don't like
mine much. How about "function at even a basic level"?

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Jorge to The Edward Blevins
> >Another example, how would I say "If I had a million dollars, I'd
> >be rich." in Lojban?
> >
> >I can say:
> >
> >ganai mi ponse le megdo be le rupnu gi mi ricfu
> >
> >which I would translate as:
> >
> >If I have a million dollars then I am rich.
> >
> >Which is subtlely different.
>
> It is actually radically different, and it doesn't
> really say what you want. I do not have a million dollars,
> and therefore this two sentences are both true and
> utterly uninformative:
>
> ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi ricfu
> "If I have a million dollars then I am rich."
>
> ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi pindi
> "If I have a million dollars then I am poor."
>
> Both true. Both uninformative.
>
> >Do others think this is a useful distinction, or do I just
> >have english on the brain?
>
> What we want to say is something more like:
>
> va'oda'i le nu mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu kei mi ricfu
> "Under the hypothetical conditions that I have (would have)
> a million dollars, I am (would be) rich."
>
> That's how I see it anyway.

Jorge's method is probably the most convenient. But here is a more
logic-based method of doing conditionals (which, as you & Jorge
point out, is not at all the same as logical IF). [I say "more logic-
based" partly because the analysis below gets closer to the 'true'
meaning, and partly because "da'i" is, I think, somewhat too vaguely
understood.]

   For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w,
     in w if I have a million dollars then I am rich.

   =   For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w,
     in w either I am rich or I don't have a million dollars.

"If I had a million dollars then I might be able to retire" (as opposed
to "then I *would* be able to retire"):

   For *some* possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w,
     in w if I have a million dollars then I am able to retire.

   =   For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w,
     in w either I am able to retire or I don't have a million dollars.

To Lojbanize this, you'd need a predicate meaning "x1 is a world (relevantly
similar to this one) in which x2 is true/obtains)". {da} as x1 would
give you "if ... might". To get "if ... would" you'd have to have {ro da poi
world} or something equivalent. But a plain {ro da} as x1 would work if
you had another predicate defined as "either x1 is a world in which x2
obtains or x1 is not a world".

It would be nice if we could do this by forming a lujvo in selma'o NU,
where x2 (the state of affairs that obtains) is the contents of the NU
phrase, and where x1 is the x1 of the NU, but I am pretty certain that
NU is not extensible.


Changing topic: English has indicative/subjunctive contrasts such as:

    I insist that he go.  [= I order it to be the case that he goes]
    I insist that he goes. [= I vigorously assert it to be true that he goes]

In Lojban both subordinate clauses would be translated with (I guess)
{le du'u}, but you'd have to use different main brivla. The semantics
of the brivla specifies whether or not "broda X" is true only if X is
true.

--And.

la and cusku di'e

>   For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, in
>w if I have a million dollars then I am rich.
>
>   =   For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
>w, in w either I am rich or I don't have a million
>dollars.

But how do I determine which worlds are relevantly similar?
Obviously I have to admit some worlds where I have a million
dollars, but I also have to exclude all worlds where most
people have a million dollars. In other words, I have to
admit only those worlds where my having a million dollars
means I am rich. But then there is no content in the
expression, all the content is in the selection of relevant
worlds. Isn't it?

>"If I had a million dollars then I might be able to retire" (as opposed to
>"then I *would* be able to retire"):
>
>   For *some* possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w,
>in w if I have a million dollars then I am able to retire.
>
>   =   For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
>w, in w either I am able to retire or I don't have a million dollars.

But this one fails even worse. Since I don't have a million
dollars, "If I had a million dollars then I might buy Microsoft
from Bill" is true, according to your expansion, because
indeed in some worlds relevantly similar to this one
(in all of those in which I don't have a million dollars
in fact, including this one) "If I have a million dollars
then I am able to buy Microsoft" is true.

You have to restrict it to worlds where I do have a million
dollars. Then you are just saying: "In some worlds where
I have a million dollars, I am able retire."


>Changing topic: English has indicative/subjunctive contrasts such as:
>
>    I insist that he go.  [= I order it to be the case that he goes]
>    I insist that he goes. [= I vigorously assert it to be true that he
>goes]
>
>In Lojban both subordinate clauses would be translated with (I guess)
>{le du'u}, but you'd have to use different main brivla. The semantics
>of the brivla specifies whether or not "broda X" is true only if X is
>true.

If "I insist that he go" is something like "mi minde fi le du'u
ko'a klama" then the truth value of "ko'a klama" doesn't really
enter into it, does it?

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

At 01:18 PM 01/23/2000 -0500, la kinin wrote:
>Does anyone know the Lojban for the first person plural inclusive (mi'o)
>imperative, like the English «Let's go to the store!» or the Spanish «ˇVamos
>al mercado!»?
>«ko .e mi klama le zarci» is close, but not exact, as you can see from the
>expansion: «ko klama le zarci .ije mi klama le zarci».
>I'm thinking something along the lines of «ko joi mi» (which would probably
>come to be written «kojoimi»), but I'm not sure.

In addition to Jorge's suggestion, there is also "doi mi'o ko klama"  You
can use "doi" to define the referent of do or ko just like you use mi'e to
define "mi".

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@...
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
    see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.

Just in case anyone's curious ....

Lessons 4 - 6 have at last been revised in line with Nora's comments. No
major changes, except that in Lesson 5 I now incline to the convention
of taking Monday rather than Sunday as {la padjed.} (though I mention
both versions) and towards the end of Lesson 6 I have added {mo'i} and
{to'o}.

This means that Lessons 1 - 6 are now _nihil obstat_, I hope. Lessons 7
is probably OK now, Lesson 8 is beta (and therefore not linked to from
the contents page) and I've lost the draft of Lesson 9.

The lessons are also being translated into Swedish (not by me!) for a
new Lojban site which will be up soon at http://www.logik.nu

co'o mi'e robin.

http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin/lojbancourse.html

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words

I can't check with the Book right now, but my memory of how the tense and
aspects were intended to work is as follows.
1) tense and aspect are separated (and from mood and the like as well, all of
which are jumbled together in English and, historically at least, in most
familiar languages)
2) tense is based on axis and vector reference, though not restricted to the
four axes implicit in most natural systems (though never fully realized in
any).
3) The same cmavo are used for retro vector and past axis, for simultaneous
vector and present axis, and for pro vector and future axis.  The differences
are positional and/or determined by context.  Thus, pu might be either past
vector to the current axis or establishing a new axis prior to the current
one.  Where the difference is too important to be left to context to decide,
capu would indicate the vector (brief glance back without chaning the focus
of the narrative) and puca the new axis (or maybe it is the other way 'round
-- I ermember this got argued and I forget which one, this seems most natural
to me at the moment).
4)  Only axes are points, so that punctile clauses, like ca..., must apply to
axes, making  bapu ca... unambiguous "event before the future event indicated
by ca..."
Of course, with a clearly future event, maybe even capu would work.
5) Aspects carry temporal implications but are not completely temporal.
Thus, the perfective of an event does entail that the event occurred in the
past (though even this can be doubted, since some maintain that the
inchoative does not entail that the event takes place in the future) but the
converse does not quite follow, for not all past events still throw their
aspectual shadows into the present (effects from causes, continued existence
of participants, ... -- the list varies in some unclear ways) as the
perfective seems to indicate.
6) So, in Lojban, past axis, retro vector and perfective aspect are all
slightly different and in different ways.   But in English they tend to fall
together, certainly away from present tense, and thus sorting out which one
is meant by a given Englsh sentence is not subject to clear rules, except
that one must think what one means to say, both in the given sentence and in
those around it.

The perfective seems to involve relevance conditions, which are one of the
hairiest problems in possible world games (of which tense is one in the logic
business).  For the contrary to fact cases being discussed, the best course
is to say every world exactly like this one except for the condition named in
the protasis (if....) and whatever is required by that change.  So, clearly,
changing the world by having me possess a million just requires that I also
be shifted into the class of rich folk (I think -- a million just ain't what
it was anymore) and maybe nothing or very little else.  Or does it: can I
have a million and still be a retired professor from a really cheap
university?  Don't have to have had some source for that million and if so
what?  So maybe the worlds can vary on the ways I got the million.  But if
they vary too much, I come to doubt that this is still me they are talking
about.  And, if I start to vary too much, does this not affect others around
me (wives and childen, etc., at least and students and colleagues and....).
Where does it end?  Cut it off too soon and the world so little changed is
greatly changed (a retired professor gets a mill out of the blue); let it run
too far and it no longer seems to apply to me (or to be about this sort of
world at all).
Probably all that the original really means is that anyone with a million is
rich, perhaps with the added wish that I were one such.  (And, of course, if
I were as rich as Rothschild, I'd be richer than Rothschild.)
Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and
everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification.  As
Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world in
which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
this world.  On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a
muillion -- and says that there are some.  Clearly the latter is much closer
to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the
means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose).
pc

In a message dated 1/23/00 6:45:53 AM CST,
C.D.Wright@... writes:
<<
  From: Pycyn@...

  > The English (Latin, ...) subjunctives do a number of
  > things, which are sorted out in Lojban to a number of
  > cmavo.  So, decide what you want to say and pick the
  > appropriate device for doing it.


  I feel that I have a good grasp of the majority of the
  grammar, but my vocabulary is only expanding slowly.
  As a result, I can't find a way of saying:

      If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
          then I'd be rich.

  I guess what I want to say is:

      Regardless of the truth value of A,
          (A => B)  is a valid assertion.

  Where:   A = ( I have a million million pounds )
  and  :   B = ( mi ricfu )


  Yes?

  --
  \\//  ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada>>





[This message contained attachments]

Pycyn@... wrote:
>
>      If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
>          then I'd be rich.

why is this a complicated issue, doi jbopre?

is there something wrong with lu
"ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
li'u?

co'o mi'e bret.

SwiftRain wrote:
>
> From: SwiftRain <swiftrain@...>
>
> Pycyn@... wrote:
> >
> >      If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
> >          then I'd be rich.
>
> why is this a complicated issue, doi jbopre?
>
> is there something wrong with lu
> "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
> li'u?

While the discussion of counterfactuals has been interesting, I
agree with this. {ganai ... gi} is a logical IF, not an English
"if", and whether I really have a million squeebies, or the
potential to aquire them, is not relevant.

zo'o mi ponse lo megdo rupnu .i ku'i mi na ricfu ni'i lenu
panononononono lo gugdrturki,e rupnu cu jbivamji re lo merko
rupnu

co'o mi'e robin.

(1,000,000 Turkish Lira is apporoximately equal to $2.00)

> >      If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
> >          then I'd be rich.
>
> why is this a complicated issue, doi jbopre?
>
> is there something wrong with lu
> "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
> li'u?

The point is that a logical if/then is always true if
the first part is false, and the whole issue about a
subjunctive is that the first part is always false.
The logical if/then simply does not carry the same
implications that the English does, and the question
is - how can the following be translated accurately:

     If I were to be given a million pounds
         then I'd be rich.

Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same
implication concerning the implausibility of the first
part of the statement.


cdw.
--
\\//  ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada

la robin cusku di'e
>SwiftRain wrote:
> > Pycyn@... wrote:

[actually pycyn was forwarding somebody else's post]

> > >
> > >      If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
> > >          then I'd be rich.
> >
> > is there something wrong with lu
> > "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
> > li'u?
>
>While the discussion of counterfactuals has been interesting, I
>agree with this. {ganai ... gi} is a logical IF, not an English
>"if", and whether I really have a million squeebies, or the
>potential to aquire them, is not relevant.

What do you agree with? If you agree that there is nothing
wrong with that translation, you are contradicting yourself.

You say {ganai ... gi} is a logical IF, not an English "if",
and yet you agree that {ganai ... gi} is a good translation
of English "if"?

It is not a good translation in this case.

(1) ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu
     "Either I don't have a million dollars, or I am rich."

That is true.

(2) ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi pindi
     "Either I don't have a million dollars, or I am poor."

That is also true. I don't have a million dollars, so
no matter what I put as the second term the sentence
will be true.

But the English sentence: "If I had a million dollars then
I'd be rich" says more than (1). It is not a sentence about
how things are just for me in this world, as Lojban (1) and
(2) are.

The English sentence means something like: Anyone in this world
can truthfully say "either I don't have a million dollars or
I am rich". You need to make the sentence apply to everyone
in this world, or alternatively, apply just to myself in
many possible worlds, but you cannot translate it as just
a statement about me in this world. If it is just about
me in this world without counterfactuals it has very little
content.

>zo'o mi ponse lo megdo rupnu .i ku'i mi na ricfu ni'i lenu
>panononononono lo gugdrturki,e rupnu cu jbivamji re lo merko
>rupnu

Remember the dogs biting the men? You are saying that each of
a million Turkish lira has the value of each of two US$.

Obviously that is not what you mean, you want to talk about
one single amount of a million lira and one single amount
of two dollars, not a million single amounts of 1 lira and
two single 1 dollar amounts taken separately.
{lo rupnu be li paki'oki'o} or at least {lei paki'oki'o rupnu}

This is a very common mistake, just as talking of {re nanca}
for "two years", when what is meant is not two separate time
periods of one year, but one single two-year period.

I don't know whether it is worth pointing it out every time.
The problem is that Lojban treats numbers as quantifiers
in the purest logical way, individual or distributive, but
in everyday use we normally want the collective sense.

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

la xorxes cusku di'e

>
> Also, the "every day" is missing. First try:
>
>       ji'irevoki'o prenu cu mrobi'o ca ro djedi
>       ri'a le nu xagji a le xagjyki'i rinka
>
> But that says that the same 24000 people die every day!
> We need to change the order of the terms:
>
>       ca ro djedi ji'irevoki'o prenu cu mrobi'o
>       ri'a le nu xagji a le xagjyki'i rinka
>

I didn't think that the position of seltcita sumti made any difference.
Does the book mention this? Maybe this is a more useful way to
do it. Is there a general rule for other sentences and other sumti
tcita?

>
> Also there is a problem with the x2 of verba. I would not
> put "lo nanca" there. I would probably say:
>
>       i pizemu lei mrobi'o cu verba li me'imu
>

How do we know that we're not talking about children under 5
months? It's just possible enough that would be the case.


Adam Raizen
araizen@...
-------------------
"Oom, Shmoom!"
--David Ben-Gurion

la adam cusku di'e

> >       ji'irevoki'o prenu cu mrobi'o ca ro djedi
> >       ri'a le nu xagji a le xagjyki'i rinka
> >
> > But that says that the same 24000 people die every day!
> > We need to change the order of the terms:
> >
> >       ca ro djedi ji'irevoki'o prenu cu mrobi'o
> >       ri'a le nu xagji a le xagjyki'i rinka
>
>I didn't think that the position of seltcita sumti made any difference.
>Does the book mention this?

Probably not explicitly, but tagged terms behave just as
regular terms, so the order of quantification should work
just as for regular terms.

> >       i pizemu lei mrobi'o cu verba li me'imu
>
>How do we know that we're not talking about children under 5
>months? It's just possible enough that would be the case.

My personal interpretation is that x2 of verba is in years.
I don't know of any logical way in Lojban of filling a slot
with dimensioned numbers, so I take all places that require
a number as dimensionless.

co'o mi'e xorxes





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I think my mail is probably FAQ, but haven't seen
that. I have mixed two different topics, sorry for
that. The first is request for guidance how to learn
and the second one is need for information about
status of electronic resources (and hopefully polite
complaints).

So could people recommend some (tested:) good ways to
learn lojban?

1) What is the material I should dig?

I did first bump into
http://www.animal.helsinki.fi/lojftp/draft-textbook/lesson02
.
I did print it and I have started to study.

Then I found
ftp://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/pub/lojban/draft-textbook/lesson02
.
I made comparison and found no differences in content,
other was just wrapped into HTML and <XMP>, probably
just saved in Microsoft Explorer.

In the end I browsed
http://www.animal.helsinki.fi/lojban/refgr_f/refgr.html
what seems to be a little bit similar to
draft-textbook lessons, but not quite the same.

What should I read? Or should I by the book at once,
and concentrate on it?

2) What is the list I should use?

There is still few confusing details, like this
mailing list I'm using now compared what
http://www.animal.helsinki.fi/lojftp/roadmap.html
recommends: "To subscribe, send a message
containing 'subscribe lojban Firstname Lastname' to
<listserv@...>. " So what is this
lojban@onelist.com for?

===

Actually, now I was surfing addresses for this mail I
did notice something interesting at
ftp://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/pub/lojban/lojban-list/
directory. The FAQ!

Being dated 'Dec 7, 1995' I assume it contains quite a
few errors, just because time has passed.

3) Is there any plans to "update everything on the
net" :)?

How about updating, possibly rewriting, www.lojban.org
pages and the FAQ? I would like to see it being
written for the people starting up the language -
veterans know where to surf anyway :).

In any case, I would like to see clear separation of
outdated material and new, correct material. That
could be basic page with same structure as before -
page with links like:

* Reasonable new and usable stuff
* Archives
   * Reasonable usable little bit older stuff
   * Archived memories
     * email lists
     * word lists
     * web pages
     * other archives

Now it's very hard to know what's valid now and what I
should look when I want to know where have we came?

4) Are LogFests still held?

Ps. I have already many questions I have wondered, but
I'm saving those until I know I'm not questionating
things which are decades old :).


=====
- Bug Athlon, new insect processor
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

la pycyn cusku di'e

>I can't check with the Book right now, but my memory of how the tense and
>aspects were intended to work is as follows.
>1) tense and aspect are separated (and from mood and the like as well, all
>of
>which are jumbled together in English and, historically at least, in most
>familiar languages)

Yes, tense: ca, pu, ba; aspect: ca'o, ba'o, pu'o, etc.

>2) tense is based on axis and vector reference, though not restricted to
>the
>four axes implicit in most natural systems (though never fully realized in
>any).

What is the fourth axis of natural systems, besides past,
present and future?

>3) The same cmavo are used for retro vector and past axis, for simultaneous
>vector and present axis, and for pro vector and future axis.  The
>differences
>are positional and/or determined by context.  Thus, pu might be either past
>vector to the current axis or establishing a new axis prior to the current
>one.

I think this is not the way pu is presented in the Book.
If I understand what you are saying (maybe I don't, because
I am not at all familiar with that terminology) then the
Book says that pu always establishes a new axis prior
to the current one. (Except in its function after ZEhAs,
but I don't think that's what you're talking about.)

>Where the difference is too important to be left to context to decide,
>capu would indicate the vector (brief glance back without chaning the focus
>of the narrative) and puca the new axis (or maybe it is the other way
>'round
>-- I ermember this got argued and I forget which one, this seems most
>natural
>to me at the moment).

This is definitely not in the Book. According to the Book, puca,
capu and pu by itself are all the same, and they all shift the
axis to the past.

>4)  Only axes are points, so that punctile clauses, like ca..., must apply
>to
>axes, making  bapu ca... unambiguous "event before the future event
>indicated
>by ca..."
>Of course, with a clearly future event, maybe even capu would work.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that in bapu
ba establishes the axis and pu is a vector, and then the
{ca le cerni} clause must indicate the axis. That does not
agree with the Book. According to the Book's rules,
{ca le cerni} could not indicate a point at the middle
of the "imaginary journey" represented by bapu.

>5) Aspects carry temporal implications but are not completely temporal.
>Thus, the perfective of an event does entail that the event occurred in the
>past (though even this can be doubted, since some maintain that the
>inchoative does not entail that the event takes place in the future) but
>the
>converse does not quite follow, for not all past events still throw their
>aspectual shadows into the present (effects from causes, continued
>existence
>of participants, ... -- the list varies in some unclear ways) as the
>perfective seems to indicate.

Right. Perfective and inchoative are not fully symmetrical,
so I don't see a problem with one entailing that the event
occurred and the other not entailing that it will occur.

>6) So, in Lojban, past axis, retro vector and perfective aspect are all
>slightly different and in different ways.   But in English they tend to
>fall
>together, certainly away from present tense, and thus sorting out which one
>is meant by a given Englsh sentence is not subject to clear rules, except
>that one must think what one means to say, both in the given sentence and
>in
>those around it.

I agree there are no strict rules. All I can say is that
I have not found examples where composite tenses (bapu, puba,
etc) would be useful.

[...]
>Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and
>everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification.  As
>Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
>then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world
>in
>which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
>this world.  On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
>million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a
>muillion -- and says that there are some.  Clearly the latter is much
>closer
>to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the
>means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose).

And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible
world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not
use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o}
solution:

     va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
     Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
     In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.

co'o mi'e xorxes






______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

answer: "buy the book at once"! (they need the money).

suggest trying to follow jbosnu as an exercise; also, any
archived lojban-list that's not by me (my translations tend
to be confusingly non-literal)...

also, i have found wanting & attempting to express something in
lojban is more interesting than trying to simply memorize heaps
of textbook all at once.

co'omi'e maikl.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

At 12:03 PM 01/26/2000 -0800, Joirin Couwe wrote:
>I think my mail is probably FAQ, but haven't seen
>that. I have mixed two different topics, sorry for
>that. The first is request for guidance how to learn
>and the second one is need for information about
>status of electronic resources (and hopefully polite
>complaints).
>
>So could people recommend some (tested:) good ways to
>learn lojban?
>
>1) What is the material I should dig?
>
>I did first bump into
>http://www.animal.helsinki.fi/lojftp/draft-textbook/lesson02
>.
>I did print it and I have started to study.
>
>Then I found
>ftp://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/pub/lojban/draft-textbook/lesson02

Those two are essentially the same site.  "xiron" has been superseded by
"animal" for reasons local to the Finland site manager, but most sites
still point to xiron.  The "lojftp" means that the particular file is a
mirror of the main archive at www.lojban.org

>I made comparison and found no differences in content,
>other was just wrapped into HTML and <XMP>, probably
>just saved in Microsoft Explorer.
>
>In the end I browsed
>http://www.animal.helsinki.fi/lojban/refgr_f/refgr.html
>what seems to be a little bit similar to
>draft-textbook lessons, but not quite the same.

The reference grammar is quite different from the draft textbook (and was
written by a different person).  However, chapter 2 of the reference
grammar is a rewritten version of older material.

>What should I read? Or should I by the book at once,
>and concentrate on it?

If you are seriously studying the language, then you will need the
reference grammar book at some point not too far off.  It is in effect our
"bible".  The draft textbook lessons, written some 10 years ago, were an
attempt to teach, but people found it less useful than I intended.  It is
at a lower level than the reference grammar, though, so some may find it
easier to understand for what it covers.

Many people now starting off are using Robin Turner's introductory article
and lessons - start at:

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/lojban.html

and after reading it, follow the links to the first 7 lessons of his course.

Chapter 2 of the reference grammar is the next more sophisticated language
introduction.  You may also find on the Lojban sites references to a
"Lojban minilesson" and a "diagrammed summary of the language".  These are
also worth looking at, and were combined into the reference grammar chapter.

The textbook is reasonably good as a follow-on to these introductions, but
does not cover the whole language, and being 10 years old has a small
number of obsolescence errors.

The reference grammar is comprehensive and good, but may be hard for a
newcomer to jump right into.  The book version is especially useful because
it has an extensive index.

>2) What is the list I should use?
>
>There is still few confusing details, like this
>mailing list I'm using now compared what
>http://www.animal.helsinki.fi/lojftp/roadmap.html
>recommends: "To subscribe, send a message
>containing 'subscribe lojban Firstname Lastname' to
><listserv@...>. " So what is this
>lojban@onelist.com for?

The columbia list is dead, but is still around on a lot of older Lojban web
sites as well as elsewhere on the net.  We moved Lojban List to "onelist"
because the columbia site was going to stop offering listserve capability,
but it is the same list with the same core of subscribers.  You can
technically still subscribe to the old list, but I send you a message
telling you to subscribe to the onelist as soon as I notice it, and no one
posts to that list anymore.

There is now also a second email list on onelist for posting only in
Lojban.  the keyword is "jbosnu" instead of "lojban"

>===
>
>Actually, now I was surfing addresses for this mail I
>did notice something interesting at
>ftp://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/pub/lojban/lojban-list/
>directory. The FAQ!
>
>Being dated 'Dec 7, 1995' I assume it contains quite a
>few errors, just because time has passed.

Yes, it has errors, but not too many.

>3) Is there any plans to "update everything on the
>net" :)?

Yes.

>How about updating, possibly rewriting, www.lojban.org
>pages and the FAQ? I would like to see it being
>written for the people starting up the language -
>veterans know where to surf anyway :).
>
>In any case, I would like to see clear separation of
>outdated material and new, correct material. That
>could be basic page with same structure as before -
>page with links like:
>
>* Reasonable new and usable stuff
>* Archives
>   * Reasonable usable little bit older stuff
>   * Archived memories
>     * email lists
>     * word lists
>     * web pages
>     * other archives
>
>Now it's very hard to know what's valid now and what I
>should look when I want to know where have we came?

As a matter of fact, this is being done, though not quite along the lines
of what you say, though I will be moving obsolete stuff to a separate
directory.  Other than net addresses, not much is *totally* obsolete unless
it is more than 11 years old - the language has been stable that long, and
older stuff was replaced by newer versions long ago.

I will be uploading and announcing a major revision to the www.lojban.org
website within a day or two, as I am spending a lot of time checking and
resolving old links.  I'm working on the last file now, the roadmap you
mentioned, but it is the biggest.

>4) Are LogFests still held?

Yes.  Still at my house in Fairfax VA.  We have not set the date for this
year's meeting yet, but it will probably be in July or August.

>Ps. I have already many questions I have wondered, but
>I'm saving those until I know I'm not questionating
>things which are decades old :).

The stuff you are questioning is not decades old in the first place, and
since the language hasn't had many significant changes in 10 years or so
(most changes have been additions), answers to questions will largely be
the same now as they were then (maybe fewer "I don't knows").

lojbab

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@...
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
    see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.

la lojbab cusku di'e

>  You may also find on the Lojban sites references to a
>"Lojban minilesson" and a "diagrammed summary of the language".  >These are
>also worth looking at, and were combined into the reference grammar
>chapter.

Definitely a good place to start. I remember that seeing
those diagrams that showed the basic structure of the
Lojban sentence:

      sumti selbri sumti sumti sumti ...

is what made me understand the whole grammar. Then you start
learning about the different adornments to the selbri and
to the sumti, more complex terms, etc, but once you understand
that one basic pattern everything makes sense.

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@...>
>
> (2) ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi pindi
>     "Either I don't have a million dollars, or I am poor."
>
> That is also true. I don't have a million dollars, so
> no matter what I put as the second term the sentence
> will be true.


It's not true in the general case; it does not fit TFTT, as a conditional
should, because in reality, millionaires are not called poor.

Specifically:

A:"I am a millionaire"  B:"I am poor"   A-->B  (is A-->B really)

          T                   T            T          F
          T                   F            F          T





-----
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct
economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few
years back."     --  John Maynard Keynes

unsubscribe


___________________________________________________________________
Marshall Armintor/mojo@.../Grad.English Dept. Rice University/
Fondren IT Guy x5833 <<"Rock music is mostly about moving big black
boxes from one side of town to the other in the back of your car."
  - John Thompson, of Pere Ubu>>
___________________________________________________________________

la xod cusku di'e

> > (2) ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi pindi
> >     "Either I don't have a million dollars, or I am poor."
> >
> > That is also true. I don't have a million dollars, so
> > no matter what I put as the second term the sentence
> > will be true.
>
>It's not true in the general case; it does not fit TFTT, as a conditional
>should, because in reality, millionaires are not called poor.

What are you calling the "general case"? There is nothing
general about that sentence, it is about one definite
person and a definite amount of money.

What you seem to be thinking about is something like
"for all x, either x does not have a million dollars
or x is poor". I agree that sentence is false. But
sentence (2) above is true, there is no "general case"
of that sentence unless you start talking about
quantifying over possible worlds or things like that.

>Specifically:
>
>A:"I am a millionaire"  B:"I am poor"   A-->B  (is A-->B really)
>
>          T                   T            T          F
>          T                   F            F          T

A is false, so A->B is true. That's that.

If you are considering cases where A is true, then you are
either talking of a different "I", not me, and therefore
not the same sentence, or you are talking of a different
world, not this real one, where I do have a million dollars.
In either case you need to do something more than the bare
true statement: ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi pindi

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Issue 1:
I think the problem is the glossing of TFTT as "if, then". If this does
not really correlate to the English meaning, why is it taught that way?

Issue 2:
If the proper way to express the millionaire concept is by va'o, what
actual use does ganai, gi have?


-----
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct
economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few
years back."     --  John Maynard Keynes

As I indicated in an earlier message, I am in the process of updating the
lojban.org web pages.  One outstanding item is the desire of having
downloadable archives of Lojban List for the time period since John Cowan
last added to the directory (4/98).  Findmail/egroups has all traffic since
5/98 archived, but they are in individual messages and HTML format.  We
would like to have the master archive up to date.  Does anyone have usable
archives with full headers, ideally grouped by month, that we can put on
our site?  If so, can we arrange to transfer them in the next couple of
days before I finish the web page update?

(My own personal archives are damaged - I accidentally saved a few months
worth deleting the headers, which of course makes the archive useless
except as a repository of some Lojban text).

lojbab
----
lojbab                     ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS***           lojbab@...
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA               703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
    see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.