Re: TECH: Comparisons

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la lojbab spusku di'e la veion

> Your comments on comparison are quite astute, especially when talking from
> a pure Lojbanic perspective.  The choices that are commonly made in
> comparisons, are, however, generally based on the native language version.

Even basing it on the English version, I find Veijo's suggestions preferable.

> If I am translating "I like A more than B" into Lojban, then the form
> I choose ideally should be your ii or iii since there is little implicature
> tyhat I like B at all.  Only context will indicate whether I like A at all.

This is extremely subjective, and probably depends a lot on context, but to me
it implies that I like B to some degree, as much as it implies that I like A
to some degree. The more important point, in any case, is that A and B are
at the same level in the structure of the sentence.

> Another option besides your suggestions, to blend the two forms is
>
> mi nelci ti(XX) nesemau ta (XX)
>
> where XX is an attitudinal indicating preference (the a'u scale, .oinai
> scale, .ui scale and .iu scale among others could apply -or we might just
> use the scalar ranging from "cai" to "naicai" and be non-specific).

The problem with that for me is its lopsidedness. {ti} and {ta} play
significantly different roles in that sentence. A simple structure like

        mi nelci maugi ti gi ta

is much better, and it would be even better to have the possibility of
that in afterthought form. Since it is a non-logical connective, it is not
implied that {mi nelci ti} or {mi nelci ta} are true, because we cannot
expand like with logical connectives. I find this form much closer to
the English expression, because it puts ti and ta at the same level.


> Since most Lojban thus far is translated from other languages, the forms
> chosen will tend to be more mechanical translations of what is said and
> its possibly unknown implicatures.  Lojbanists writing fresh stuff in Lojban
> may indeed want to use more 'logical' forms that express what they really
> mean.

The {nesemau} form is used because that's what is suggested in various places,
not because it reflects any other language. A more mechanical translation
requires a connective, not a relative clause, for the "more than" construct.
In the absence of such connective (in afterthought), the {nesemau} form is used.

Jorge