Re: replies mainly re "ka"

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> And:
> > > >       feature      feature value
> > > > (I)   colour       red, blue, green
> > A feature is a selbri, a function from the possessor to the value.
> I agree that it is a function, but it can't be a selbri if we are going
> to put it in the x3 of frica. It has to be a sumti.
> Let's first agree on what {frica} means. I'm interpreting it like this:
>        ko'a ko'e frica *feature*
>        Koha and kohe differ in *feature*

Right. So the structure should be:

         koha kohe frica lo *feature* be koha e. be kohe

which may be rephrased as

         koha kohe frica lo [feature] be koha beho e. lo
           [feature] be kohe

and

         lo [feature] be koha cu frica lo [feature] be kohe (ziho)

which is free of sumti-raising, and rather to be preferred, in my view.

> Say the feature is colour(). Then:
>        ko'a ko'e frica *colour()*
>        Koha and kohe differ in colour.
> means that colour(koha) is not equal to colour(kohe), i.e. the function
> colour() takes different values for the arguments koha and kohe.

Rather: X is not equal to Y, where colour(X,koha) and colour(Y,kohe).

> This means that x3 is not the actual difference between x1 and x2, but
> the characteristic in which they differ.

Exactly. But since x1 and x2 differ with respect to this characteristic
the x3 has to refer to both the characteristic of x1 and the
characteristic of x2. Certainly this would be the case if we rendered

    koha and kohe differ in colour

as

   koha kohe frica lo se skari be koha e. kohe

> For example I could say that "li 3 frica li 5 in magnitude", but
> not that {li 3 frica li 5 li 2}.
> (The gismu list seems to accept this last possibility, but let's at
> least agree that it corresponds to a different meaning of frica.)

Agreed.

> With that assumption, it is clear that we need a function in x3.
> Then something like:
>        ko'a ko'e frica le se skari
> would be wrong, because what is in x3 is not a function but a specific
> colour (the one the speaker has in mind).

I don't see this as wrong, but it is, as I said above, look like
ugly sumti-raising. Mind you, if you translate it as "colours differentiate
koha and kohe", it doesn't seem at all bad.
However, since "X and Y differ in feature Z" seems a useful place
structure, I go along with you in seeking a way to refer to the feature.

> To get a function, I would use:
>        ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari makau
>        Koha and ko'e differ in what colour they are.
> The {ke'a} is necessary to show which of the many vacant slots is the
> one that corresponds to the argument of the function being evaluated.
> The {makau} is necessary to show the output of the function. Without it
> they could differ in who perceives them with some colour, or under what
> conditions they are perceived to be some colour, or even more generally,
> on having the property of being coloured.

I see how it works. I've already objected to keha and makau in contexts
like these, so I won't go into that again.

How about:
   koha kohe frica lo [selbri abstractor] skari be fi ziho bei fo ziho

> > I don't think redness is a feature: "what is the redness of this
> > book? Answer: crimson" does not exemplify the normal meaning of
> > redness.
> I can think of redness either as a binary function (or feature), taking
> values "red" and "non-red" (then the redness of a blue object would be
> "non-red"), or as a multivalued function with values crimson, vermilion,
> and what have you. I would probably understand this last one in the
> sentence "A and B differ in redness", i.e. the function redness()
> evaluates to something different for A than for B.

Okay. So on the one hand you have red1: red1(X,yes), red1(X,no). And
on the other hand you have red2: red2(X,crimson), red2(X,vermillion).

> I see {le ka ke'a xunre} as the function redness(), where {ke'a}
> simbolizes the variable, so that the function is not evaluated.

I'm not clear what arguments redness() is supposed to have.
Say {le ka keha xunre} is the properties responsible for red things
being categorizable as red. That would mean that

   koha kohe frica lo ka keha xunre

means "the properties responsible for red things being categorizable
as red differentiate koha and kohe". Okay.

> {le ka ko'a xunre} on the other hand, is the value that the function
> redness() takes for the argument koha.

That would be {le ka [keha] xunre kei be koha}.

> > > > "Differ" needs a feature (e.g. size) as x3, not a feature value.
> > > Agreed.
> > Right. So I don't think "lo ka broda" is adequate as x3 of "differ".
> How else can you get an unevaluated function there?

This discussion makes me think (a) we haven't found a way to get the
x3 to refer to a feature (i.e. to a selbri), but (b) I was wrong,
and an x3 referring to feature values work, if we gloss frica as
"x3 is a difference between x1 and x2". {ka [keha] xunre} has the
place structure "x1 is a property responsible for x2 being categorizable
as red".

> > > If you can do that then there is no problem. In the case of {ka}, just
> > > add a rule that if the bridi is all filled, so that there is no room
> > > left for {ke'a}, then a {do'e ke'a} is assumed.
> > That rule is fine. But it doesn't solve a more awkward problem: when
> > more than one syntactic tersumti are unfilled, which is to be filled
> > by keha, and which by zohe?
> I offer two possible rules: 1- The first vacant tersumti is filled with ke'a.
> 2- The obvious tersumti is filled with ke'a.

I prefer (1), because that way the keha ought always to be omissible.

Since noone is going to agree to change the selmaho of ka and lihi, I
would suggest the rule:
  x2 of ka/lihi is identical to the first vacant tersumti, and if no
  tersumti is vacant then it is {dohe}.
To identify x2 of ka/lihi with a modal place, perhaps {lo ka bai fai broda}
- does the grammar allow that?

If this would work, no change would need to be made to the syntax.

> {goi} assigns a value to an assignable  pro-sumti. I don't know how you
> interpret {ta goi ti}, but it has to be some generalization of that which is
> not obvious to me.

I'd interpret it as "you know what {ta} refers to; well, {ti} refers to
the same thing. That thing is this thing."

> {vo'u zunle vo'o} is also meaningless because {zunle} doesn't have x4
> and x5 slots. Of course your rule of taking them as {zo'e} saves us, but
> that is cheating a bit.

I see the problem now.

> > > zi'o poi klama le zarci
> > I see the problem with this, and it could perhaps be fixed by changing
> > the syntactic status of ziho. (Personally I'd have preferred 5 cmavo
> > in SE, meaning "zap the nth place".) But this problem is not too
> > bad, because only the poi clause is uninterpretable; it doesn't affect
> > the bridi it occurs in.
> Maybe a computer can easily discard the clause, for a human being it
> would be much harder to ignore it.

I'm not too bothered about that. (It's pragmatics... ;)

> > > li pipaipi
> > If that ends up uninterpretable then it ought to be fixed.
> The members of PA behave semantically quite differently one from another.
> To achieve syntactic and semantic balance we'd have to split them into
> several selmaho, but I don't really see a need for that.

I'd prefer the balance. But this instance doesn't perturb me too much
- it's only maths, after all.

> > Every grammatical Lojban sentence ought to be interpretable by a
> > computer: that, to me, is at least implicit in the promise of
> > Loglan/Lojban. At the least there should be general rules of
> > repair, such as "if a sumti is uninterpretable, replace it by
> > {zohe}".
> How about a more general rule: if something is uninterpretable, ignore it.
> It covers your rule for sumti.

Yes. That's good. In the worst case the entire sentence would be ignored.
[Most interesting. The grammar would generate sentences formally
equivalent to non-sentences.]

> > By the logic of your "le ni keha clani", one could also have
> > "la djan frica la meris le duhu keha clani" - D & F differ in
> > terms of which of them is tall.
> I would use {le ka ke'a clani} for that, which would be the binary
> function tallness() with values "tall" and "non-tall". Since it
> evaluates differently for each of them, one has to be tall and the
> other non-tall.

I wouldn't use {le duhu keha clani}; I just meant that it seems
consistent with your approach.
I don't see how you restrict {le ka keha clani} to tall/non-tall.
Why can't it be tallish/gigantic?

> > Ka is "the property of being (an) X", and lihi is "the experience of
> > being (an) X", but ni is not "the amount of being (an) X". Rather,
> > ni is "the amount by which Y is (an) X". So I agree ka and lihi
> > should be together (outside NU), but ni should stay with nu.
> That is playing with words, you could equally well say that ka is "the
> property by which Y is (an) X", and li'i "the experience of Y of
> being (an) X".

No. First "the amount of being (an) X" doesn't make sense. Second,
Y possesses the property, and is x2 of ka, and Y has the
experience, and is [I guess without checking the cmavyste] the x2
of lihi. By contrast I would understand {lo ni koha kohe cinba} to
refer to a the quantity or intensity of kisses, and it makes no
sense to have koha or kohe as x2 of ni or to say that this amount
is koha's or kohe's.

This said, I don't see why we need ni. {lo lahu fai} seems to do the
job perfectly well. For that matter, {lo fau fai} could replace nu.
I desist from continuing: ni & nu are going to stay.
--------
And

xamti damti sa tonda vo
xamti damti xa dagre fo
.o da kinzo se zando da kizme
ku danpu xamti tu ge da ra ge