Lojban duplications - again.

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!91909372>]

bob:
> Wait a minute!  You are missing the point of a predicate language!
> The  idea is that `klama' is word that means you are talking about
> some relationship among a traveler, a destination, a departure point,
> a route and a means.  The word says you are making a veridical claim
> of some sort about a relationship among those five entities.  You may
> be making an incomplete claim, but that is a different issue.  (It
> may not matter that the claim is incomplete--whether it matters is a
> different issue.)

I don't like this assertion at all. The problem is similar to the
one with 'essential' arguments that I addressed in a note yesterday: it
makes it critical that we have got the 'right' argument places in the
definition of each bridi (or do I mean gismu - I haven't got these
straight yet) - and I don't believe there is any such animal.
I agree that you are making a veridical claim of a relationship among
the expressed arguments, but I would suggest this applies to all
expressed arguments including those introduced by BAI.

>
> If you want to talk about a traveler without making any claim about
> destination, then you need a different word, one that only talks about
> traveling.

This really is cluttering up predicate word space to no end.

>
> The reason I think it is interesting is that I agree with the idea
> that there should be a gismu relating
>
>       <traveler> <destination> <departure> <route> <means>
>
> I think that that five part relationship really is a powerful notion,
> more powerful than the one part relationship of <traveler>.  (My
> reason for liking `klama' may not be the designers reason, but it
> suffices for me.)
>

I agree, but I don't see a conflict. If you use 'klama' with the first
argument only, you are focussing on <traveller>, and there is an
implicature that the other arguments exist in some way, but they are not
material, and indeed the implicature could be explicitly overturned
(what about explicitly 'travelling to no destination'?)

> If I want to specify the one part relationship of <traveler>, I feel I
> should say that I don't know anything about destination, route, etc.

No, not knowing about them is not the criterion - you may know about
them but regard them as immaterial.

> I think the five part relationship really is more basic and the every
> traveller, by the very notion of traveling, has a relationship to
> known or unknown, expressed or unexpressed among:
>
>     <destination> <departure> <route> <means>

Actually, I think we may be in agreement.

                        Colin Fine
                        c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk