TECH: Properties

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

I've had very little time the last few weeks to even think about Lojban, with
the whole family (including me) down with bad cases of the flu.  I did talk
briefly with Nora about this problem, though.

If it is agreed that there is a problem, then we are constrained in solving it
by the closeness of book publication and the long history of usage of "ka".
We cannot make wholesale changes in this area.  Nora therefore believes that
a kloodgy solution is "good enough".  Since I won't pretend to understand
even what lambda calculus is, much less what you-all are saying it implies,
I 'll let others argue about what is good or not good about Nick's proposal,
for example (on the surface it sounds plausible, I will admit).  My initial
feeling, on reading what Chassell wrote as well as the quotes of JCB and the
comments of Gerald K., is that there is a meaningful interpretation of a
property abstractor that takes a bridi, and that therefore there is a
presumtion against changing the grammar of "ka" in addition to our basic
conservatism against change.  I suspect from my readings, though, that the
normal use of "ka" as seen by JCB would be in the form of "loika" or even
"piro loi ka" - the mass of properties involving a particular relation, and
supplying for all ellipsized places, members of the bound variables da/de/di...

On the other hand, it seems likely that there is a need to talk about p
properties from the point of view of one of the places of a predicate, hence
Nick's idea of "kau" which would specify which one.  The similarities with
sumti-raising seem manifest - we are dealing with the use of an abstract p
predicate and one argument of that predicate as it relates to the whole.
In sumti-raising, of course, we use "tu'a" to let the sumti stand for an
implied abstraction, whereas we seem in "leka" abstraction used in place
struyctures to be letting an abstraction stand for a particular place of
that abstracted predicate - the reverse situation.  Does this insight help
anyone?  (Nick, does this relate to your "xe'e" in any way?)  It does seem
to me that the use of "kau" in indirect discourse, its preceding application,
is also a case where we are using an abstraction to talk about one of the
places of the abstraction as well, hence my initial reaction that "kau" may
work at least as the ad hoc solution that we need to not think of this as a
crisis (which John clearly thinks it is, and indeed a major flaw in something
this fundamental would be if it could not be resolved).

Moving beyond this approach though, we may want to consider adding a new
grammar operation to the language which does accomplish directly what we
seem to be trying to do with "kau" in both of these situations: to talk
about a particular sumti as part of an abstraction.  We would use new cmavo
and a grammar that is appropriate, and this would become an ALTERNATE, and
in the long-term PREFERRED solution to the problem, but we preserve the
simpler, kloodgy "kau", and perhaps even the conventional interpretation of
ellipsis in abstractions that we apparently have been doing all along, for the
sake of backwards compatibility with the language history.

This possible new construct sounds like it may resemble "me" in grammar, since
it takes a sumti as its core, but it also needs to tie in the predicate
that that sumti is forming a part of, which sounds like a description-related
construct.  THus I see a "xu'u broda (be ... bei ...)" construct, or in
grammar terms, a selbri that is formed from "xu'u + description", as being the
new kind of "property" (and possibly "amount" if one of these is also needed).
There might need to be an appropriate closing delimiter, which might or might
not be able to be MEhU, shared with ME.

If we consider adding a new construct, though, we may also want to think about
whether we want or need to be able to talk about more that one place at a time,
which I think Colin raised as an issue a few months ago - there might be a
need for that in this situation too (or not - any opinions?), and the use of
a construct that focuses attention on specific sumti within a predicate may
be generalizable beyond a focus on only one IFF we plan for it at the time we
are devising such a construct.

It would certainly make me (and Nora) feel more at ease about the issue if
solutions to the problem use only existing constructs in ways that are
consistent with the past, and new constructs that can be seen as enhancements
to the expressive power of the language, but are not obligatory.

Reactions, anyone???

lojbab