Re: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

>>It does make sense if {le ni} is a number, as Cowan also says.
>
>But what does it mean to say that it is a "number" semantically?

Something like {li nopire} for example.

> Is "five inches" a number?  It is - a dimensioned number, but not a pure
>number.

Right. But {le ni}, under the number definition,  would have to be a
pure number, like {le se grake} or {le se klani}, not a dimensioned
number like "five inches". Lojban doesn't make much use of
dimensioned numbers in any case. Most place structures that take
numbers take them dimensionless.

 >Virtually everything that has been written about "leni" came about
>therefore as Cowan's attenpt to define something comaptible with this
>history, the examples that we had coined, and the place strcuture usages
>of leni.  I think he did a most exceelent job,

I agree with that, of course.

>but I don't thin kit is
>going to stand up to the kind of word-twisting semantic0-logical
>analysis that you seem to apply to every word of the text.

Why word twisting? I find example 5.3 to show very clearly {le ni}
used as a number and example 5.5 shows a clear case of it being
used as a xokau-property. It is you who's twisting words to get
5.3 to mean something different than what it obviously means.

Also, you can look at the next section about {jei} where exactly
the same issue resurfaces with examples 6.1 and 6.3.
6.1 shows the use of {jei} as a truth value and 6.3 shows its
use as a xukau indirect question.

>>>le ni ko'a sutra lenu broda cu cenba

The way I would say it is:

    le nu ko'a sutra le nu broda cu cenba [le ka ce'u klani li xokau]
    Koha's speed at brodaing varies [in how much it is].

Of course, if broda was more specific we could be more
specific about le se cenba. For example if broda was
travelling by car, le se cenba could be kilometers per hour.

And of course, we also have the simpler forms:

    ko'a cenba le ka ce'u sutra le nu broda kei sela'u li xokau
    Koha varies in the extent to which it is fast at brodaing.

    le nu broda cu cenba le ka ko'a sutra ce'u kei sela'u xokau
    The brodaing varies in the extent to which koha is fast at it.


>OK, let's try it a different way.  Assume that the book was not yet
>written.  We have a place structure of klani which I hope makes sense to
>us in terms of relating 3 sumti - a measureable property, ascale and a
>measurement on that scale.

Let's see if we agree on how {klani} works first. Are these acceptable
uses to you:

(1)        le birka be la djan cu klani li pa le ka mitre
             John's arm is 1 in meters.

{le ka mitre} here is a two-argument property: {le ka ce'uxipa
mitre ce'uxire}. The {te klani} always needs to have two arguments,
one for {le klani} and one for {le se klani}. Fortunately, they are
in general easily identified, so that there's no need for the clumsy
{ce'uxipa} and {ce'uxire} to be made explicit.

Other examples:

(2)    lei va plise cu klani li mu le ka mi kancu
         Those apples there are 5 by my reckoning.

(3)    le gugde cu klani li ciciki'oki'o le ka namcu pe lei xabju
         The country is 33,000,000 in number of inhabitants.

 >What then SHOULD the place structure of the underlying ni abstraction be
>such that this works - that le ni broda fits in the x1 of klani, and if
>a le se ni broda exists, that it be wwll-defined.

I don't know. I didn't invent {ni}, nor do I have much use for it.

>How do I love there? Let me count the ways ... (Browning)
>I love you very much.
>
 > They seem to have a natural affinity
>for a (le)ni abstraction.  How do you make it work?

    i mi do prami ta'i ma paunai i e'e mi kancu lei tadji
    How do I love thee? Let me count the ways ...

    i mi mutce le ka prami do
    I am much in loving you.

Of course, there are lots and lots of possible variations, especially
for the last one:

    i mi do prami sela'u li piso'i
    I love you in quantity a lot.

    i mi klani li piso'i le ka prami do
    I amount to a lot in loving you.

    i do klani li piso'i le ka mi prami
    You amount to a lot in being loved by me.

    i le nu mi do prami cu klani li piso'i
    My loving you amounts to a lot

>Or do you simply maintain that the time relationship in the two cases
>that leads us in English to use the word "old" is simply too distinct
>and that there needs to be two separate brivla?

That's my point, yes. At least as distinct as the difference between
cnino and citno. If the difference is irrelevant in the case of  old1/old2
why is it relevant in the case of new/young?

>I believed that the concepts were compatible and attempted to find a
>wording that worked.  Obviously I failed.  But I don't want my failing
>to limit the usage of the word if it is merely a failing of words and
>not an irrationality of idea. can youi do better?

I already proposed my solution: use tolci'o for "old" in the sense
of many-yeared and keep slabu for the sense of familiar/well known.
If you want slabu for both meanings then glossing it as "old"
suffices. But then why keep two words for the equally related
concepts of young/new? (Let me guess: JCB had two words.)

>>Well, I don't understand how an idea can be a scale either.
>
>If you don't like it, how would YOU propsoe to fill in the scale places
>of these various predicates, and in the generic sense, ckilu and gradu.
>If you don't think a "si'o" fits, what would you prefer instead.

{ka}, as I showed above. A scale is a two place relationship
between the thing being measured and the resulting measurement.

>Well.  I think I have turned the tables on you this time.

You're welcome to it.

>You seem to
>love analyze every decision I/we made to the point of breaking it,

That's not my goal. I just want to learn how to use the language.
I just don't see how an idea can be a scale. If you have a good
argument why it can be, I want to hear it so that I can make sense
of it when I see it used.


> But that lack of
>rigor doesn't also mean that the decisions are arbitrary and that you
>have to get into Lojbab's head in order to understand each one.  Other
>people seemed to understand what I was saying, so long a they did not
>try to overanalyze it.

Well, I welcome other people's explanations of their understanding
as well, of course.

> If you would overanalyze my decisions, I want
>you to tell me what your decisions would have been to a level of
>precision that would withstand your own scrutiny, and of course in
>"unambiguous English" that is not so verbose that it can't fit in 90
>columns in a gismu list or a paragraph or two of lightly written prose
>in the Book.

Certainly. My decision for {ni}, as far as I now understand it, would be
to ditch it, since it is never really needed. As it is, I simply avoid its
use. If I see others using it, and using it with different meanings in
different occasions, then I try to point it out.

co'o mi'e xorxes