Re: (kau) and (du'u) and (jei)

[i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk]

la xorxes. spuda tu'a mi no'u la .i,n. di'e

> > No, the property disambiguator is just plain {da}.

> That was my understanding a while back, but the last version
> of John's paper on abstractions says otherwise.

Ouch!  I haven't kept up with the latest grammar papers.
I'll have to check this one out.

> > (Is it time to revisit my "Desperately seeking properties"
> > rant from way back at the end of August?  John Cowan threatened
> > to respond to the "properties" half, but to the best of my
> > knowledge never did.)

> Yes, please do! I think at the time I was in anti-nationality-gismu
> mode, and probably wasn't reading all that was posted.

You asked for it. :-)

============>
  Subject:  TECH:  Desperately seeking properties

zoi glibau.

Another longish technical rant.
This one's in two parts, one on properties,
and another on {sisku}.
The latter may result in some modification or clarification
of the place structure, in which case I'll pass the outcome
on to lojbab.

glibau.

.i loi ka co'e zo'u

mi ji'isku zoi glibau.

Some thoughts on properties.

Round about March we decided that a property
was a predicate function, a function returning a truth value,
so that e.g.

    lo ka da blanu
is
    lambda x:  blue(x)

As it stands, this only handles boolean properties -
either it's blue or it's not.
Some of the things I think about as properties are
quantitative rather than boolean.
The obvious first thought is to use {ni} for these.

    lo ni tuple da

There are two problems-to-me with this as it stands,
the vagueness of {ni}, and the distinction between
function and predicate.

To take the latter point first, in the boolean case we have
a distinction between

    le du'u da blanu
    The predication some-x is-blue
and
    le ka da blanu
    the property (of-x):  x is-blue

but we don't appear to have a corresponding way of distinguishing
quantities if we use {ni} for both.

The second problem is that {ni} is quite vague about what
quantity it means, which is fine in simple cases,
and useful in certain other cases (e.g. {leni mi nelci ko'a}),
but there are times when it would be useful to be more specific.

By analogy with {du'u}, I propose that we allow {kau} to be
used to specify the particular quantity of interest.
(It may also have other related uses.)
In fact we can already do this with {du'u}.

    ledu'u tu'okau da tuple mi
    The number of legs I have.

So we could simply use a parallel construction with {ka}.

    lo'e kanba cu zmadu mi leka tu'okau da tuple de
    Goats have more legs than me.

where we might want to clarify the identity of the "bound variable"
with a {de zo'u} prenex.
Another example, where the ability to clarify is more important.

    la kolin. zmadu mi leka da cmima tu'okau te mrilu liste
    Colin is on more mailing lists than me.

I suppose this could be {leni te mrilu liste lo se cmima be da},
but it's a bit strained.

If we allowed {ka ... kau ...} to denote specified quantitative
properties in this way,
it would leave {ni} free for the less-well-defined quantities.

I think I prefer this to the other alternative I can see, which is
to use {ni} irrespective of whether we mean a concrete quantity

    leni [tu'okau da] tuple mi

or a functional one

    leni [de zo'u] [tu'okau da] tuple de

and rely on a combination of context and the inclusion of
some of the optional bits to help the audience understand
what we mean.
And of course these possibilities don't have to be mutually exclusive.

.glibau

.i pe'udo'u pinka .e'o fi ko

<=================

(stuff about {sisku} omitted)

co'o mi'e .i,n.