I don't think "za'u" in the 2nd & 3rd sentences makes much sense there. Maybe "so'o"?

For the "syllogism", I would go with:

ro zipcpi cu xekri joi blabi
.i su'o tolci'o seltivni cu xekri joi blabi
.i ja'o su'o zipcpi cu tolci'o seltivni

simply because that's the normal form for the premises and conclusion of a syllogism.

For the comment, I might go with:

lo logji zo'u za'umoi lo na'e se stati be lo zipcpi

Eventually "lo nu pilno lo logji" or "lo nu lojypli" instead of "lo logji", but that doesn't seem necessary. "le lojypli" would require the speaker to have some logic user in mind, but who would that be? Not the penguin that states the "syllogism", since the comment is not specifically about that penguin.

>>986

za'u, "more than", by default means za'upa, "more than one", just as su'o means "at least one". So I think it makes sense as a translation of "some", the English plural indefinite article. I would use "some" when talking about two indefinite things in English. I also don't think "some" rules out "all" the way so'o does.

>>987

The penguin in the cartoon isn't strictly (or correctly) following a logical form, so I didn't bother to match the form in the translation either. I suppose it's just a matter of style. I did choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the penguin when choosing whether to translate "penguins" as "ro zipcpi" or "lo'e zipcpi".

http://king-penguins.com/king-penguin-chick.jpg
lo tolmle citno zipcpi noi na xekri joi blabi
(Someone may guess I meant "tolmle ke citno zipcpi". I didn't, although that's true too.)

> lo logji zo'u za'umoi lo na'e se stati be lo zipcpi

You're right, I should have used "lo lojypli" instead of "le lojypli". But you need to use lo'i in the x2 place of za'umoi (x1 is the more-than-one-th member of set x2).

I think your version implies "lo logji cu na'e se stati lo zipcpi", "A penguin is not skilled at doing/being a logic [rules/methods]." Since one "does" an event, and "lo logji" is not an event, it must mean "A penguin is not skilled at being a logic." So that's why "lojypli" is necessary. "lo'e zipcpi" or "ro zipcpi" instead of "lo zipcpi" also makes more sense to me, although I understand you have a non-standard interpretation of "lo".

I was trying to mimic the English "thing that ..." with "zo'e poi ...", although I'm not certain zo'e can simultaneously be a set and have its members filtered by a poi clause. Maybe "lu'i zo'e poi ..."? I agree that your version is more lojbanic.

I was also trying to capture the English understatement "not very good at" by using "mutce".

>>988

The penguin is attempting (and failing) to make a valid syllogism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

As the wikipedia article says, the premises and conclusion of a syllogism can be any of four types:

A: ro broda cu brode
E: no broda cu brode
I: su'o broda cu brode
O: me'i broda cu brode

The penguin ends up with an invalid one, but the argument is nonetheless in the form of a syllogism.

lo'i: I never use it. All places that ask for a set I simply take as just requiring an ordinary (usually plural) reference. Using sets only brings complications, and no benefits whatsoever.

"lo logji zo'u ..." does not say what role "lo logji" plays in the matrix bridi. That's why I don't think it's a problem to say:

lo logji zo'u [lo nu pilno ri cu] za'umoi lo na'e se stati be lo cipcpi

But one could also put the whole "lo nu pilno lo logji" there for more clarity.

I think the x2 of stati has to be an event: "lo zipcpi cu na'e stati lo nu pilno lo logji".

>>989

Despite what Wikipedia says, the more general definition of 'syllogism' refers only to the structure of the logical argument, and doesn't restrict itself to particular quantifiers. Besides, the penguin is, as you said, failing, so there's no need to slavishly follow the form in the translation when it isn't being followed in the English.

> lo'i: I never use it.

Alright. Do you have a list somewhere of all the non-CLL things you do in your version of Lojban, so that I can avoid tripping over them so often?

> "lo logji zo'u ..." does not say what role "lo logji" plays in the matrix bridi.

I'm fairly sure zo'u, when used to make a topic-comment sentence, isn't as vague as a tanru, in that it implies the sumti on the left, whole and unchanged, fills one of the places of the bridi on the right, whereas with a tanru extra structure (such as "lo nu pilno _") could have been elided. The only thing left unspecified with topic-comment is which place, exactly, the sumti fills. http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c19/s4.html

> I think the x2 of stati has to be an event

What? So you think one couldn't say "le labno cu na'e stati lo rirmamta" to mean "The wolf is untalented at being a grandmother."? The wording of the gimste definition of stati seems to me to imply otherwise. In particular, x2 isn't labelled "(event/activity)" the way certu's x2 is; and the word "being".

>>990

>> What? So you think one couldn't say "le labno cu na'e stati lo rirmamta" to mean "The wolf is untalented at being a grandmother."?

ta'a

"Being a grandmother" is an event, just like "being a rock climber" is. "lo rirmamta" is not. You want either "lo NU rirmamta" or "tu'a lo rirmamta".

>> The wording of the gimste definition of stati seems to me to imply otherwise. In particular, x2 isn't labelled "(event/activity)" the way certu's x2 is; and the word "being".

The difference as I see it is that "stati" is about native abilities (talent) and "certu" about acquired abilities (expertise). Both are about the fact that one is able to do something (kakne). Their x2 have to belong to the same category if not "event/activity"-ness.

>>990

I didn't say your translation was wrong, I was just explaining why I would translate it differently. If the penguin had reversed the order of the last two sentences, the syllogism would be valid:

ro zipcpi cu xekri joi blabi
.i su'o zipcpi cu tolci'o seltivni
.i ja'o su'o tolci'o seltivni cu xekri joi blabi

The way I understand the joke, the penguin is just confused about basic syllogisms. It is of course possible to make logical arguments with other quantifiers such as "za'u", but then you lose part of the reference to the Aristotelian tradition.

I haven't made a list of my issues with CLL, but perhaps I should, it's not as long as it may seem. One general rule is: if what CLL says doesn't make sense, then I don't follow it. It may happen that something doesn't make sense to me but does make sense to you, in which case I'm prepared to hear the reasoning and eventually change my mind.

zo'u: I don't see any clear statement there saying that the topic has to be one of the arguments of the main selbri (though certainly that will often be the case). If there was such a statement, I would have to add that to my list. Here's an example sometimes given where the topic is not a direct argument:

lo xanto zo'u lo nazbi cu clani
"As for elephants, the nose is long."

The wording of the definition of stati is not ideal, but I think the intention was to have a NU in x2. Consider this situation: John and Mary are both talented at logic. Are they both talented at the same thing? If we say "la djan .e la meris cu stati lo nu lojypli" then yes, they are both talented at the same thing, namely "lo nu lojypli". But if you say "la djan .e la meris cu stati lo lojypli", especially with "lo" = "su'o lo", then no, they are talented at different things, John is talented at one lojypli (namely himself), and Mary is talented at another lojypli (namely herself).

>>991
>>992

Alright, you've convinced me that stati's x2 is meant to be an event.

>>992

The elephant's nose example is also compelling.

The reason I made the "le lojypli" error was that I'd originally had "le logji", and then convinced myself that it needed to be a logic-user, but failed to correct the gadri. So I guess we're back to "le logji zo'u za'umoi zo'e poi lo'e zipcpi na mutce stati".