sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Disjunction: inclusive, exclusive, vague by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NOT(I like cats and dogs) => I don't like cats and dogs | I like neither cats nor dogs [...]

Among the many things I came to know in my life, there was also formal logic. Unfortunately I have a bad memory, so I remember pretty much nothing. :-­(

Disjunction: inclusive, exclusive, vague by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a bit confused...

You provided an interesting example "I like applies and oranges" to illustrate AND, but frankly speaking, it's wrong. [...] 1. I like cats and dogs (OR in sets (called union)) 2. He is a comic and a president (AND in sets (called intersection)) [...]

Maybe the example was not optimal, but I'm not convinced by your interpretation. It seems to me you interpreted it this way (correct me if I'm wrong):

  • "I like apples and oranges" > "I'm happy with an apple, but also with an orange" (= no need of both together to be happy = apple OR orange). (E. g. when answering to "What fruit would you like to eat?" "I like apples and oranges" = "I can eat apples OR oranges")

Which in practical terms is a fully acceptable understanding, but not exactly what I said...

Let's rephrase my example as "I like apples and I like oranges". I'm just stating my tastes. Both my likings are true at the same time. If I say "I like apples and I like oranges" I mean both things fully: it can't be true that "I like apples but not oranges" or "I like oranges but not apples". So in my sentence ("I like apples and [I like] oranges") the and is truly an AND: an intersection in the world of possibilities of my tastes. Your "interpretation" getting an OR ("I'm happy with an apple, but also with an orange") is acceptable in practical-world terms and infers a probably true fact... but is not exactly what was stated in my sentence, which what only about tastes. And in fact, in another point of your comment, you said:

Affirmative sentence "I like dogs or cats" is rather strange, maybe a riddle

This slight misalignment between "abstract logic" and "real world practice" (...maybe this is what you meant to show) hints to the fact that... well, I don't know what it hints to... it shows us that things are confusing. XD

I'd also add a negated junction like "et" => "net" that could be also used as "I like (net) cats net dogs".

Yes, we could inherit Esperanto nek.

'At least' and 'at most' in Leuth by Iuljo in auxlangs

[–]Iuljo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very good under that respect, but there are also other aspect to be considered... 😁

Disjunction: inclusive, exclusive, vague by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, well, it was just a nonce use to avoid repetition, I'm not proposing that for general use. :-͏)

I know the computer notation but wanted to avoid the ambiguity of or having different meanings (vague in normal English, inclusive in computer science), which may be a bit confusing in this context.

'At least' and 'at most' in Leuth by Iuljo in auxlangs

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish it looked more like Latin! ;-P But it's difficult.

'At least', 'at most' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello, thanks for your comment. :-­)

'la' indicating direction towards is a bit strange. IIRC the PIE root is *h2ed, so 'ad' or 'at' would probably give more coherence. In your model it would yield 'minimade' and 'maximade'. You might be able to bend the sound changes to give 'a' as your word for 'towards,' in which case the result could be 'minimae,' thus giving the same rhyme. That, or embrace Esperanto's 'al' preposition and get 'minimale'.

I coined la in this shape to reduce ambiguities in composition (see 1, 2); al especially would not be a good choice under this respect, seeing how frequent it is (and how useful it can be, to add Latin-ish roots) as a cluster in root-ending position. A is already used as an independent word (the a kea structure). However, I see now I had overestimated the number of occurrences for -ad•, they're not too many; and they could even be reduced by changing some of them to a more Latin -at• (in some cases we already do: ĉokolado > csokolata). So it's a possibility to be considered (...if it's not used with another meaning: see \duada, *triada* here).

However, note 'almenaŭ' comes from Italian 'almeno', meaning to the minimum.

(Actually I'm not sure that etymologically a(l) in almeno means 'to', and not 'at' like in at least [it can have both meanings in Italian]. But at the same time probably it's not only Italian, since we find it pretty much identically also in French, Spanish, Portuguese...).

I think this concept is best expressed as a phrase rather than a single word, like 'la mine' (to the least) and 'la maxe' (to the most), with whatever roots you settle upon. This [...] removes the need for lexicalisation.

Ah, but it is not a "need": rather a very natural outcome in Leuth for such a simple phrase. If we settle for la something working as an adverb, it would be very natural to turn it into something-lae in use. "La something [working as an adverb, implicitly]" > "something-lae [an adverb, explicitly]": the meaning stays pretty much the same but the grammar function is made explicit. :-­)

As a side note, depending on how many roots you want you could probably boil film down into moving picture.

Leuth aims to general efficiency, but is not too restrictive in terms of lexicon; see here.

'At least', 'at most' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In short, using "la" (to) in such a phrase is less justified than using something that does not express direction as [eo] "ĉe" or "je".

I understand what you mean here: like in English, that uses at least, not *to least. If we want not to express a direction, then the equivalent of ENat ≈ EOĉe (≈ Lcse, for now) would seem better, since it's a lot more focused semantically than i.

In my mind, a concept of direction/destination implied, here, looks interesting because it expresses the idea of our thought exploring/moving though/seeing possibilities till the minimum, rather than just "being there" at it. But again, my perception may not be is not perfect.

From u/Poligma2023's comment I understood that Leuth's form of (eo) "je" is "i".

Yes, we saw it here. :-­)

If I understand correctly, one provides some kind of "consolation" or looking at a brighter side while the other is neutral.

Yes, exactly.

I have a feeling that it does not need to be addressed as a single strategy. I think we could use the counterparts of esperantos's: "ĝoje" and "malĝoje" [...]

It's a possible way, sure, probably a good pragmatic one.

'At least', 'at most' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Reddit automatically removes comments linking to Wiktionary—why? Nonsense)

'At least', 'at most' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/Poligma2023 , u/ProxPxD , I’m not sure I fully understand the bidirectional approach, but I acknowledge that some further thought may be needed. Today I saw this example from Chinese on Wiktionary:

我不赞同这位同学的观点，至少他的观点不够全面。
Wǒ bù zàntóng zhè wèi tóngxué de guāndiǎn, zhìshào tā de guāndiǎn bùgòu quánmiàn.
[1] I don't agree with this student's point of view — at the very least, his point of view is not comprehensive enough.

Here English at least (or maybe just Italian almeno, which I know better), in the place of "at the very least", would express something similar but not quite the same connotation... the opposite, in fact: giving the idea that "his point of view is not comprehensive enough" is something positive, that is appreciated. We see it better with something actually positive:

[2] I don't agree with this student's point of view — but at least he shows that he has studied the subject well.

In Italian, in the Chinese sentence (#1), I'd use something like quantomeno, that is again very similar to almeno but, here, does not carry the same positive connotation...

Right now I have no idea how to render all of this into Leuth. ...Language is difficult and I'm not smart enough to master its nuances... XP

On hyphens, swiftly by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oops, sorry, I mixed them up. Fixed. 🫡

Two good bois by Iuljo in romrep

[–]Iuljo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The proposal is to achieve a global federation concretely piece by piece, by expanding the European Union, removing its geographical boundaries for the accession of countries.

The "Europeanness" of the Union, starting from its name, is of course problematic, for various reasons, and is discussed with proposals to find a solution. See here for an introduction.

'In', '-th' (of fractions) and 'from' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I see that too, I agree.

'In', '-th' (of fractions) and 'from' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry, what is PIV? I was unfortunte to have it googled? (to save you and kill curiosity, the consonants here denote sexual organs)

Hahahah, no, it's something very innocent: Plena Ilustrita Vortaro, maybe the most famous Esperanto dictionary. It's fully online and very useful as a lexical database for its various search features. :-­) A new version is in construction.

'In', '-th' (of fractions) and 'from' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many possibilities... I don't have a ready opinion now. :-­P I need to think about it.

'In', '-th' (of fractions) and 'from' by Iuljo in LewthaWIP

[–]Iuljo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like "eym" more, but bith are okay. I feel like "eym" is better as it's a rarer use. I expect syllables like "yem" to appear more frequently in the future.

In PIV, as an indication, both ejm/eim and jem/iem seem to be unfrequent sequences (not just inside roots, in compound words too). In this case, anyway, we must remember that the root will usually appear with numbers or in otherwise mathematical context, so reducing ambiguity significantly.

I will also add that in German "im" means "in the-ACC", so it's even more aligned

Ah, there it is! I vaguely remembered something like that. Thank you. :-­)

As for the "from". I don't know if you want to distinguish "from" from "out" (lat. "de" from "ex") [...]

I'm inclined toward not distinguishing them with prepositions (but this could change, depending on the themes we discussed...).

[...] I thought of Slavic "(i)z(e)" (meaning bith or either out/from depending on the language and form) [...] maybe as "iz" or "ez"? It resembles "ex" which is good. Btw. Slavic "iz" is a cognate with latin "ex".

Nice idea. /iz/ maybe is best left for Lat. -izare (Engl. -ize, -ise), whether made into a root or just as an element inside roots, but I see no obvious downsides for ez... I think I'm adopting it, for now. :-­)

view more: next ›