Posts and uploaded files are owned by the poster. jbotcan.org is not liable for the content submitted by the poster. Downloading any poster-submitted files is doing so at your own risk.
Is there any simple way to say, in response to "Do you want the kiwi or the apple", "I would like the kiwi or both, but not just the apple"? Focus primarily on the connectives and necessary logic and clauses.Can one say "xy je'a .e .ybu"?
Is there any simple way to say, in response to "Do you want the kiwi or the apple", "I would like the kiwi or both, but not just the apple"? Focus primarily on the connectives and necessary logic and clauses.
Can one say "xy je'a .e .ybu"?
Well, I don't know what the word for kiwi is in Lojban, so I'll use "pear" instead.{ju} is "whether-or-not". This does what you ask pretty concisely, and simply, too.Take the example sumti connection {lo perli u lo plise} "The pear whether or not the apple", or "The pear, or both, but certainly not the apple".{do djica tu'a le perli ji le plise} "You desire the bridi-implied by the pearl <what logical connection ?> the apple" or: "Do you want the pear or the apple?"And you would then answer with:{ju}: "I want the pear or both, but not just the apple."{ja}: "One of them or both, but not neither."{je}: "Both."{jo}: "Either both, or none."etc.
Well, I don't know what the word for kiwi is in Lojban, so I'll use "pear" instead.
{ju} is "whether-or-not". This does what you ask pretty concisely, and simply, too.
Take the example sumti connection {lo perli u lo plise} "The pear whether or not the apple", or "The pear, or both, but certainly not the apple".
{do djica tu'a le perli ji le plise} "You desire the bridi-implied by the pearl <what logical connection ?> the apple" or: "Do you want the pear or the apple?"
And you would then answer with:
etc.
I have an impression, that using a logical connectives is unlojbanic way to ask such a questions. Both sides must think not about "things", but about their order in previous text. Weird activity.Such a questions frequently means "What things from set (a,b,c...) do you want". And lojban should have a better way of asking that. I don't yet know how.
I have an impression, that using a logical connectives is unlojbanic way to ask such a questions. Both sides must think not about "things", but about their order in previous text. Weird activity.
Such a questions frequently means "What things from set (a,b,c...) do you want". And lojban should have a better way of asking that. I don't yet know how.
>>1214> I have an impression, that using a logical connectives is unlojbanic way to ask such a questions.I actually find it to be the opposite. Lojban is a logical language to begin with. If you want your questions to be precise, then logical connectives are what you want.> Such a questions frequently means "What things from set (a,b,c...) do you want".That would be: do djica tu'a ma be ra'i A ce B ce C ... do djica tu'a ma be sele'a A ce B ce C ...> And lojban should have a better way of asking that.If by "a better way" you mean "a more natlang-ized way", perhaps this: pau do djica lo perli ju'e lo plise{ju'e} is a vague non-logical connective. This might allow you to avoid what you described as "both sides must not think about "things"". By omitting {tu'a} you ignore the official nature of {djica}'s x2 but get it close to the English convention (which I don't think is a good idea though). {pau} marks the sentence to be interrogative (it's analogous to the Spanish opening question mark, "¿").As for "kiwi", you probably need a categorizing rafsi ("grutr-" or "rutr-") if you are to lojbanize the word and use it as a fu'ivla, since "kiwi" can also mean a bird.
>>1214
> I have an impression, that using a logical connectives is unlojbanic way to ask such a questions.
I actually find it to be the opposite. Lojban is a logical language to begin with. If you want your questions to be precise, then logical connectives are what you want.
> Such a questions frequently means "What things from set (a,b,c...) do you want".
That would be: do djica tu'a ma be ra'i A ce B ce C ... do djica tu'a ma be sele'a A ce B ce C ...
> And lojban should have a better way of asking that.
If by "a better way" you mean "a more natlang-ized way", perhaps this: pau do djica lo perli ju'e lo plise{ju'e} is a vague non-logical connective. This might allow you to avoid what you described as "both sides must not think about "things"". By omitting {tu'a} you ignore the official nature of {djica}'s x2 but get it close to the English convention (which I don't think is a good idea though). {pau} marks the sentence to be interrogative (it's analogous to the Spanish opening question mark, "¿").
As for "kiwi", you probably need a categorizing rafsi ("grutr-" or "rutr-") if you are to lojbanize the word and use it as a fu'ivla, since "kiwi" can also mean a bird.
don't forget, that the answerer is free to answer with anything he wants and is not bound to the form of the asker.
>>1215>by "a better way" you mean "a more natlang-ized way"to'e go'i"le perli ji le plise" is too natlangish IMO. It does fits "do you want" case. I think about: how "do you want"(and other pure logical questions) fits real-world uses.That's it: for a bit less logical questions we'll be forced to use some completely different question structure. And pure logic is a quite restrictive setting to be the base for the most of uses. And "which of" question looks like a bit more generic. Is there any fine way of asking it?>do djica tu'a ma be ra'i A ce B ce CMy parser does not like that. What is "be" doing here? And why "ra'i"?
>>1215
>by "a better way" you mean "a more natlang-ized way"
to'e go'i
"le perli ji le plise" is too natlangish IMO. It does fits "do you want" case. I think about: how "do you want"(and other pure logical questions) fits real-world uses.
That's it: for a bit less logical questions we'll be forced to use some completely different question structure. And pure logic is a quite restrictive setting to be the base for the most of uses. And "which of" question looks like a bit more generic. Is there any fine way of asking it?
>do djica tu'a ma be ra'i A ce B ce C
My parser does not like that. What is "be" doing here? And why "ra'i"?
>>1222> "le perli ji le plise" is too natlangish IMO.Does English, for instance, have any equivalent of "ji"?> And pure logic is a quite restrictive setting to be the base for the most of uses.In natlangs, yes.> And "which of" question looks like a bit more generic. Is there any fine way of asking it?do djica tu'a ma po'u lo perli a lo pliseWhich of a pear or an apple do you want?>>do djica tu'a ma be ra'i A ce B ce C> My parser does not like that. What is "be" doing here? And why "ra'i"?"ra'i" because the provided set is the source from which an object gets selected."be" attaches the term "ra'i A ce B ce C" to "ma". Without "be", the term goes to the main bridi itself, which is not what we want, because "A ce B ce C" is not the origin of "do djica-ing ma".
>>1222
> "le perli ji le plise" is too natlangish IMO.
Does English, for instance, have any equivalent of "ji"?
> And pure logic is a quite restrictive setting to be the base for the most of uses.
In natlangs, yes.
> And "which of" question looks like a bit more generic. Is there any fine way of asking it?
do djica tu'a ma po'u lo perli a lo pliseWhich of a pear or an apple do you want?
>>do djica tu'a ma be ra'i A ce B ce C> My parser does not like that. What is "be" doing here? And why "ra'i"?
"ra'i" because the provided set is the source from which an object gets selected.
"be" attaches the term "ra'i A ce B ce C" to "ma". Without "be", the term goes to the main bridi itself, which is not what we want, because "A ce B ce C" is not the origin of "do djica-ing ma".
>>1223 > Does English, for instance, have any equivalent of "ji"?"ji" basically corresponds to the use of English "or" in questions.> "be" attaches the term "ra'i A ce B ce C" to "ma". "be" attaches a term to a selbri (or rather to a tanru unit), not to another term, so "ma be ra'i A ce B ce C" is ungrammatical. "pe" would be grammatical there.>>1222 > And "which of" question looks like a bit more generic. Is there any fine way of asking it?I like presenting the options in the prenex, and then asking a simple "ma" question:la london la paris la romas zo'u do pu vitke ma"London, Paris, Rome: which did you visit?"
>>1223
> Does English, for instance, have any equivalent of "ji"?
"ji" basically corresponds to the use of English "or" in questions.
> "be" attaches the term "ra'i A ce B ce C" to "ma".
"be" attaches a term to a selbri (or rather to a tanru unit), not to another term, so "ma be ra'i A ce B ce C" is ungrammatical. "pe" would be grammatical there.
I like presenting the options in the prenex, and then asking a simple "ma" question:
la london la paris la romas zo'u do pu vitke ma"London, Paris, Rome: which did you visit?"
> I have an impression, that using a logical connectives is unlojbanic way to ask such a questions. Both sides must think not about "things", but about their order in previous text. Weird activity.Where did you get that impression? It's a logical language. It's very lojbanic.
> I have an impression, that using a logical connectives is unlojbanic way to ask such a questions. Both sides must think not about "things", but about their order in previous text. Weird activity.
Where did you get that impression? It's a logical language. It's very lojbanic.
>>1223>source from which an object gets selectedNever thought "krasi" can mean that. Can it?>>1225>presenting the options in the prenexThank you. That's nice. I'll hope it have "correct" semantic -- the concept of "prenex zo'u bridi" is quite foreign for me (math background is lost in action:).
>source from which an object gets selected
Never thought "krasi" can mean that. Can it?
>>1225
>presenting the options in the prenex
Thank you. That's nice. I'll hope it have "correct" semantic -- the concept of "prenex zo'u bridi" is quite foreign for me (math background is lost in action:).
>>1226>Where did you get that impressionAll the pre-lojban languages, i know, (not many)does allow "and/or" to be used as logical, set and mass construction (and, probably, some others as well). Only after learning some lojban the difference started to disturb me (hi, mr. Whorf). And 'le perli ji le plise' is painfully similar to every natlang, i know (just move '?' closer to 'or'). Also, most of time, you ask such a questions, you really have a "set" of "things", you are asking about, and (no proof, just my experience) want to get a subset as an answer. So, the remains of programmer in me cries for the "right" abstraction type.
>>1226
>Where did you get that impression
All the pre-lojban languages, i know, (not many)does allow "and/or" to be used as logical, set and mass construction (and, probably, some others as well). Only after learning some lojban the difference started to disturb me (hi, mr. Whorf). And 'le perli ji le plise' is painfully similar to every natlang, i know (just move '?' closer to 'or'). Also, most of time, you ask such a questions, you really have a "set" of "things", you are asking about, and (no proof, just my experience) want to get a subset as an answer. So, the remains of programmer in me cries for the "right" abstraction type.
>>1228Be more specific in your original question next time.