Re: TECH: QUERY re cmene

[Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Names in English are, I think, like variables that have been assigned
values in some onomasticon that accompanies the lexicon. Unlike in
mathematical contexts the variable-value correspondence needn't be
one-one but can be one-many. The variable _bob_ can have several
values - one for each entity that is named _bob_ - but it does not
follow from this that using _bob_ to refer to, say, Bob LeC. involves
any quantification. Another way of looking at it is to say that
the name of Bob [Smith] is a homonym of the name of Bob [Jones].

Of course in English one can then freely convert names into
common nouns meaning "entity named ____" as in _Is there a Bob
here?_. But this is conversion between word classes and involves
a change in meaning.

From: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
> I believe that the rest of your remarks evince a fundamental confusion,
> which is perhaps not sufficiently clarified in our materials, between
> names as an argument-class and names as a word-class.  The word-class called
> "cmene" or "names" need no identifying flag; they are self-identifying
> because they end with a consonant+pause, which is not possible for any
> other word of the language.  It would be more correct to call them
> "cmene valsi", or "name-words".  Although restricted grammatically,
> name-words can be preceded by quite a few other words besides "la".

OK, so I was talking not about cmevla as such but about cmene in general,
including _la gismu_ & _laho la. xxxxooo la._

> > If this is the case, I am confused as to why _la_ belongs
> > to the same selmaho as _le_, _lo_, _loi_ etc.
>
> Your assumption is in fact false:  "la", "lai", "la'i" belong to selma'o
> LA, and "le", "lo", "lei", "loi", "le'i", "lo'i", "le'e", "lo'e" belong
> to selma'o LE.  The difference between LA and LE, grammatically speaking,
> is precisely that LA may precede one or more name-words, whereas LE may not.
> In addition, LA may be used wherever LE is legal.

I get the e/o opposition (sort of) and the _/_i/_'i is individual/mass/set,
(right?) [what are le'e & lo'e?] but I don't see an a/e/o opposition. Why
can't words of the e & o series be descriptors of cmene? And why are the
cmavo structured in a way such that the e/o element is excluded from the
descriptor of cmene?

Are there cmavo meaning la'o+la, la'o+lai, la'o+la'i?

> > It seems to me
> > (whose understanding of Lojban is superficial) that the
> > function of _la_ is to act as a word-class identifier
>
> Not at all, as I explained above.  Semantically, LA cmavo always deliver
> an argument:  "la .and." is equivalent to:
>
>         le se cmene be zo .and.
>         what-I-describe-as-the-thing named-by the-word "And"
>
> which with appropriate adjustments will explain all uses of LA cmavo.

OK, so that makes _.And._ a predicate, and also it makes _gismu_ in
_la gismu_ a predicate, but one with a different meaning from the gismu
_gismu_. Are all cmene unary predicates? Anyway, cmene being predicates
the following ought to be possible, as I said.

> >     mi cu (la) .and.   "I am an-entity-named-And
>
>         mi cu se cmene zo .and.
>         I am-named-by the-word "And"
>
> >     le (la) .and. cu prenu "What is hereby described as
> >                           an-entity-named-And is a person"
>
>         le se cmene zo .and. cu prenu
>
> or just
>
>         la .and. cu prenu

But this is missing the point. I am not disputing that it is possible
to find a way to say something like "My name is _And_" or like
"What is hereby described as an entity named _And_ is a person.

My point is that if _(la) .And._ really does have a sense, & this
sense is "entity-named-_And_", so that the use of _la .And._ to
refer to me involves implicit quantification, then

     mi cu (la) .and.
     le (la) .and. cu prenu

ought to make perfectly good sense.

From: jimc@math.ucla.edu
> > >         ko'a me'e tirxu
> > >         [He] is Tiger
> >
> > Your English translation suggests that this is equative & could
> > equally well be _Tiger is him_. Would "[he] is entity-named-_Tiger_"
> > be a better translation?
>
> "He Tiger; me Tarzan; you Jane" is the really best way to put it in
> English.  Your symbol, "entity-named-_Tiger_", does suggest that the
> sentence is of the form (x1 predicate) rather than (x1 equals x2).

This is my point. Given what names are supposed to mean in Lojban, they
seem to me to inherently be predicates.

John:
> >     loi la .and. cu prenu "The mass-of entities-named-And
> >                            is a person"
>
>         lai .and. cu prenu
>         the-mass-of-those-named "And" is-a-person

And _la'i_ would be the set of those named "And"?

> Since "la lojban." delivers an argument, it may be coerced into a predicate
> by the general method of prefixing "me", which coerces any argument
> into a predicate.

Does me take a single argument, or can it have an open-ended quantity?

> > I would appreciate enlightenment on these points.
>
> "I can >tell< you, but to >enlighten< you is probably beyond my poor
> powers of discussion."  --Norman Spinrad

And for me to be enlightened may well be beyond my powers of cognition.

-------
And