[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A pair of how-do-i-say-it's
- To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>, Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>, Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
- Subject: Re: A pair of how-do-i-say-it's
- From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 19:48:21 GMT
- In-Reply-To: <no.id>; from "Ivan A Derzhanski" at Mar 20, 92 5:22 pm
- Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!C.J.Fine>
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!pucc.Princeton.EDU!LOJBAN>
Ivan to Mark:
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 14:45:01 -0500
> > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
> >
> > <...> the {bu'a} series is like
> > the {da/de/di} series (while {brodX} is like {ko'a/fo'a}). So far so good.
> > Here's an example of a sentence I was plying with:
> >
> > George Bush is to the United States what John Major is to Great Britain.
> >
> > <...> You can use assorted
> > circumlocutions to get this, but I think you ought to be able to use
> > {bu'a}, since this is really what it's for. Just like {da} asserts "There
> > is some sumti/object/concept/whatever that fills this place", {bu'a} should
> > assert "There is some selbri/relationship that relates these sumti".
>
> Suppose we really say something like "GB {bu'a} US & JM {bu'a} UK"
> with whatever connective might be applicable between the two sentences.
>
> And suppose {bu'a} really means that there is some selbri which
> expresses a relation that holds for the given arguments.
>
> So what we get is `exists R [R (g, a) and R (j, b)]'.
I think the problem is mostly with the existential quantifier, and
partly with the choice of logical connective. It's like
su'oda zo'u da danlu .ije da jmive
for some x, x is an animal and x is alive
which is true, but not very illuminating. If you make the
quantifier universal, you get
roda zo'u da danlu .ije da jmive
which is false, but much more interesting. And if you change the
connective to conditional or biconditional, you get
roda zo'u da danlu .inaja da jmive
for all x, if x is an animal then x is alive
or
roda zo'u da danlu .ijo da jmive
for all x, x is an animal if and only if x is alive.
One true, one false, but both non-trivial.
In the Major/Bush case, therefore, if you say
robu'a zo'u la buc. bu'a .ubu sy. .ijo la meidjr. bu'a la britn
for all relationships P, P(GB,US) if and only if P(JM,UK)
You get something which is not strictly true, but is essentially what
you were trying to capture.
kolin