Re: diversity

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la djer cusku di'e

> Again, I don't know the design history.  But under my proposal you
> *could* say { mi nitcu xa'a ti}.  Then "ti" would have to be an object,
> person, etc. and not an event or a predicate.  In any case the
> xa'a-xu'u method provides a general solution to temporarily re-defining
> selbri so they can be used in a concrete way as they normally are in
> first order logic.  I havn't seen the ramifications of the  change on
> opacity as I just got this idea a few days ago.

If I understand your proposal, what would be the difference between it
and allowing objects in every slot (which the grammar already does anyway)
and saying that when a slot is filled with an object, the meaning is
the one you would get with your xa'a-xu'u?

Why not just say that every sumti that is an object is already surrounded
implicitly by xa'a-xu'u? Wouldn't this achieve the same effect without
the need for the extra cmavo?


> Both these sentences are, well, understandable English.
> The current parser sees both these sentences as error-free.
> Why not allow both these sentences?

Good question, but why do you need the xa'a-xu'u at all for this to
work? Can you give an example where without it there could be any
ambiguity of meaning?

[I don't think it will be accepted. Sumti raising is one of Lojban's
sacred cows and you are essentially proposing to do away with it.]

>From your qoute of Quine:
>"...  But bound variables for classes or relations or
> numbers, if they occur in existential quantifiers or in universal
> quantifiers within subordinate clauses, must be renounced by the
> nominalist in all contexts in which he cannot explain them away by
> paraphrase.  He must renounce them when he needs them."

I think that is what would happen if we didn't have lo'e for opaque
reference: we'd have to renounce them in all contexts in which we
cannot explain them away by paraphrase.


> Try xa'a, you'll like it.

I don't dislike it in principle, because it always seemed to me that
it is not clear when is it that object and event are allowed in the
same slot and when they are not. Being of absolutist tendencies,
(only as far as the definition of Lojban is concerned, not in real
life, not even when I'm actually using Lojban :) I'd like that either
always both were accepted, or never, or at least to have a reason for
when they are or aren't, other than "it feels right".

What I'm not convinced about is that the marking you propose is at
all necessary. You could just say that when you use an object where
you shouldn't, then you are using "low Lojban". There is no possibility
of confusion, because in "high Lojban" you wouldn't be able to use
an object there.

Jorge