This definition is so full of slang, even I can’t understand it. xD

Comment #2: Re: ???

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Mon Apr 14 16:43:16 2014)

Wuzzy wrote: > This definition is so full of slang, even I can’t understand it. xD poi'i is a NU. Inside the abstraction you place a bridi in which any appearance of ke'a refers back to the x1 of poi'i. Think of it as a NOI in form of a NU. mi poi'i ke'a remna "I am such that I'm a human." lo gerku cu poi'i ke'a jersi lo rebla be ke'a "Dogs are such that they chase their own tail." mi ctuca lo poi'i ke'a na'o krici lo du'u ke'a fliba "I teach those that always believe that they will fail." It's extremly powerful, so I want people be aware of this as an *option*. If it turns out many people like it, I would rather have a different word for it (one with non-experimental shape), but first there needs to be a period of testing. The examples should speak for themselves.

Comment #3: Re: ??? gleki (Tue Apr 15 05:41:09 2014) > mi poi'i ke'a remna > "I am such that I'm a human." > > lo gerku cu poi'i ke'a jersi lo rebla be ke'a > "Dogs are such that they chase their own tail." > > mi ctuca lo poi'i ke'a na'o krici lo du'u ke'a fliba > "I teach those that always believe that they will fail." mi poi da'inai remna i le gerku cu ca'a na'o jersi da'inai lo rebla be lo nei i mi ctuca lo da'inai na'o krici lo du'u lo no'a cu fliba i doi la selpa'i mi na jimpe lo smuni vau u'u Comment #4: Re: ??? Wuzzy (Tue Apr 15 13:10:35 2014) Thanks for you answer. Would you be so kind to update the definition accordingly? Since “poi'i” can also be used as a brivla (selma'o NU), the x1, x2, etc. places should be explicitly defined as well. So people have at least a chance to know what this is all about. ;) Anyways, you said this: > I would rather have a different word > for it (one with non-experimental shape), Okay, I try to rephrase your examples. Let’s start with the easy one: > mi ctuca lo poi'i ke'a na'o krici lo du'u ke'a fliba It looks difficult at the first glance, but then … “lo poi'i (…)” is just a sumti. So “da” can do the trick, and the rest (“ke'a na'o krici lo du'u ke'a fliba”) can be simply put into a relative phrase: “mi ctuca da poi ke'a na'o krici lo du'u ke'a fliba” > mi poi'i ke'a remna > "I am such that I'm a human." Now there’s no sumti here. This is a bit more difficult. But “me” comes to the rescue: “mi me da poi ke'a remna” Of course I could also just say “mi remna” ;-) but I think this is besides your point. > lo gerku cu poi'i ke'a jersi lo rebla be ke'a > "Dogs are such that they chase their own tail." With “me”, “da” and “poi” “lo gerku cu me da poi ke'a jersi lo rebla be ke'a” Again, such a complicated phrase is not neccessary: “lo gerku cu jersi lo rebla be vo'a” It seems to me that almost any use of “poi'i” can be replaced by “me da poi”. If “poi'i” is in a sumti that starts with “lo”, it can, alternatively, be replaced with “da poi”. Here are some rephrase rules I have come up with. I am not sure wheather they always work. “poi'i” as sumti: “lo poi'i <CLAUSE>” → “da poi <CLAUSE>” OR “lo me da poi <CLAUSE>” “le poi'i <CLAUSE>” → “le me da poi <CLAUSE>” “poi'i” as brivla: “poi'i <CLAUSE>” → “me da poi <CLAUSE>” I challenge you to give me an example usage of “poi'i” which I am unable to rephrase correctly. Comment #5: Re: ??? Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Tue Apr 15 20:07:57 2014) You cannot replace lo with da and expect a reasonable result. Your sentences break because of that. If you are looking for an alternative expansion, it would be ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u (and then each ko'a does what ke'a does with poi'i). Introducing a da (even if you were to find a way to make it work) has the additional drawback of wasting a variable. But here it simply doesn't work. Not only does it have the wrong semantics, it also breaks as soon as the x1 is plural. Also, only because something can be expressed otherwise doesn't mean it is bad not to, or to look for different ways which have other advantages. A lot of cmavo in Lojban are shortcuts, but they are still good because they are so convenient and so commonly needed. Comment #6: Re: ??? Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Tue Apr 15 20:11:07 2014) Due to formatting mistake, here is the equivalence again: poi'i = "ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u" Comment #7: Re: ??? Wuzzy (Tue Apr 15 23:10:13 2014) > poi'i = "ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u" This does not look like grammatically correct Lojban to me. How could you possibly place a “be” after a brivla? Please give an example, maybe I misunderstood something. > You cannot replace lo with da and expect a reasonable result. > Your sentences break because of that. > Not only does it have the wrong semantics, it also breaks as soon as the x1 is plural. I don’t see what’s wrong here. Please elaborate. I don’t see how my rewrites differ in meaning from the poi'i examples. If you think my sentences differ in meaning, then tell me please what they mean to you. To me my rewrites mean the same as the “poi'i” examples. Maybe it could also be the case that I simply did still not grasp how “poi'i” works (or how it is supposed to work). :( Comment #9: Re: ??? Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Wed Apr 16 20:28:26 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > > poi'i = "ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u" > This does not look like grammatically correct Lojban to me. How could you > possibly place a “be” after a brivla? be *only* works after brivla. It's a selbri operation. "broda be X [be'o]" is a selbri with the broda2 prefilled with X. I might answer your other questions later. Comment #10: Re: ??? Curtis W Franks (Thu Dec 25 02:17:13 2014) selpahi wrote: > Wuzzy wrote: > > > poi'i = "ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u" > > This does not look like grammatically correct Lojban to me. How could > you > > possibly place a “be” after a brivla? > > be *only* works after brivla. It's a selbri operation. > > "broda be X [be'o]" is a selbri with the broda2 prefilled with X. > > I might answer your other questions later. Ding! (Just a reminder) Comment #8: Re: ??? gleki (Wed Apr 16 05:35:06 2014) selpahi wrote: > Due to formatting mistake, here is the equivalence again: > > poi'i = "ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u" uasai i e'u do jmina lo lojbo ve ciksi JVS Comment #11: Re: ??? Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Thu Dec 25 14:43:15 2014) krtisfranks asked me to come back to this. A few months ago, I claimed that the rewrites in terms of "me da poi" do not work. Let me try again to explain why. Wuzzy wrote: > > lo gerku cu poi'i ke'a jersi lo rebla be ke'a > > "Dogs are such that they chase their own tail." > With “me”, “da” and “poi” > “lo gerku cu me da poi ke'a jersi lo rebla be ke'a” The problem in your paraphrase has not much to do with poi'i, but with the differences between da and lo, which are not equivalent. da is a singular variable, and lo is a referring plural expression. We can see how the kind of paraphrase you propose breaks even without poi'i. Let J be the (distributive) predicate "to chase one's own tail". Let G be "to [be a] dog". Let <= denote the among relation. lo gerku is the constant g. J(g) would denote "lo gerku cu jersi lo rebla be vo'a". If you replace jersi with "me da poi jersi", your logic changes to: [∃x : J(x)] g <= x which is false for example when g is plural, and is not the same kind of statement anyway. It is an existential statement, while the original phrase makes a claim about certain referents. So you can't rewrite "lo poi'i" as "da poi" either. lo is plural, da is singular. lo is a constant, da is a variable and creates scope. They are not interchangeable. poi'i (see also: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=new_voi) is very useful and allows for more flexibility (see the examples on the page I linked). Again, while you can try to come up with paraphrases (I already showed "ckaji be lo ka ce'u goi ko'a zo'u", which is equivalent but way too long), it's like trying to prove, say, poi useless by showing that it's redundant to je.