a lojban dictionary editing system

Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "manjetu"
[parent] [root]
Comment #7: Re: How does this work?
Curtis W Franks (Thu Dec 10 03:39:40 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> I think it's meant to work something like:
> li re manjetu lo ka raltca lo
So the definition is:
"the (x_1)st (li; natural number) option among those that follow is the
option that correctly satisfies x_2 (abstraction), where the aforementioned
options are: x_3, x_4, ..., x_n"?

In that case, I think that x_2 needs ce'u or something so that x_(x_1 +
2) fills the correct/intended terbri within the abstraction's bridi.

Also, there cannot be an infinite number of terbri. That is mathematically
bad (this word can support an arbitrary number of terbri, not an infinite
number), but it is also linguistically bad. Every unspecified terbri will
get implicitly filled with zo'e; if there are an infinite number of
terbri and if these ellipticals have mutually independent semantic/referent
sets, then things start to get wack. For example, everything (which can be
counted) in the world can become and eventually option for the answer (or
at least all cities). If x_2 has a nonunique answer, then even if only one
correct answer is explicitly given, the later ellipticals can start
referencing it or other options (possibly repeatedly), which can be
problematic for answering some questions. Thus, one could get tons of
extraneous, bad, or redundant options; a question could always be answered
in an entirely unhelpful way. Moreover, a party can utter "le se xi
x_(n+m) manjetu" (for n specified and m being a natural number), which
can be trippy. I may not have convinced you, but it seems like unintended
consequences can arise.
I would propose that the word supports an arbitrary natural number of
terbri (at least two) and that, in context, it has n+3 terbri (except in
one case, which I will state momentarily), where n is the number of
explicitly stated options; in this case, after the last explicitly stated
option (which fills the (n+2)nd terbri of this word), there is always an
implicit option that is constituted of the response "none of the
aforementioned explicit options is correct"; zo'e may fill any of the
terbri of this word after the second, except this implicit last one (the
"no good options" one), but must do so explicitly. The one exception is the
case where zi'o fills the third terbri of this word and no other option
is explicitly stated after it; then this word has just the first two

Comment #8: Re: How does this work?
Curtis W Franks (Thu Dec 10 04:01:31 2015)

What if the question in x_2 is asking about the predicate itself? How does
specify that with sumti (as options)?

Can the question be about which abstractor is to be used for x_2?

Comment #9: Re: How does this work?
Alex Burka (Thu Dec 10 23:10:03 2015)

I'm fairly sure that an arbitrary number of sumti places was the intention.

Comment #10: Re: How does this work?
Curtis W Franks (Fri Dec 11 01:37:18 2015)

durka42 wrote:
> I'm fairly sure that an arbitrary number of sumti places was the

I agree. But it should be said that way.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?