lojban predicates

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!shoulson>]

Much has been bruited about regarding Bob Chasell's point of view on
"incomplete" bridi.  At least some of it, I think, stems from failing to
understand Bob's excellent points.

Bob started out by comparing gismu/selbri to mathematical operators,
drawing lectures from John Cowan on Lojban MEX and exactly how to say
"2+2=4".  This was NOT his point.  His more recent letter, I think, spelled
things out much better.

Bob's new form of definitions are definitely something to consider.  I
don't think they should necessarily replace the current form (which aren't
even intended to be definitions anyway), if only because they're hard to
read, but they definitely have the right concepts for Lojban.  The role of
the selbri, as Bob correctly points out, is to indicate a *relationship*
that supposedly exists among the arguments (sumti).  As Bob puts it, the
brivla is a *label* for the relationship.  This is a good idea to have in
the back of your mind, if difficult think with at all times.

One thing that's been bothering me:  I like to think that semantically,
there should be no difference between using "zo'e" to ellipsize a sumti and
omitting it altogether.  That is, "mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e" and "mi
klama" should have the same denotation (though perhaps somewhat different
connotations, the former being more explicit).  For this reason, I tend to
feel a trifle uncomfortable about using "zo'e" for the explicit "something"
that we use in English, or about putting "poi"-relative phrases after ity.
Not very uncomfortable, mind you; I still do it.

~mark