Re: replies mainly re "ka"

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

Jorge:
> > > 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).
> But you are using color(,) as a selbri, and we need a sumti to put in x3.

But colour(,) *is* a selbri. The issue is how to transform it into a sumti
(even though I no longer think the x3 of frica need refer to a feature).
Surely Lojban ought to possess a way for a sumti to refer to a selbri.

> > 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
> but {lo se skari be ko'a e ko'e} is a colour that they share.

Really? So "lo mamta be koha .e kohe" means koha and kohe are siblings?
How would you say "the mothers of Jorge and And"?

> You are putting a value in x3, not an open function. I think we can't
> escape from having a place holder in x3, to never be replaced by what is
> in x1 and x2. What goes in x3 must keep the place open, you can't
> actually fill it with either x1 or x2 or anything else.

x3 of which selbri? I don't understand.

> > > 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.
> What do you mean "colours differentiate"? Say ko'a is blue and ko'e red.
> Does "red" differentiate ko'a and ko'e?

Yes. If you want to distinguish koha from kohe, then it is sufficient to
inspect the class of red-things, since it contains kohe and not koha.

> > > 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.
> > 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.
> Do you at least agree that we need an unevaluated function there?

Not any longer. But I'm still interested in seeeing how to do it.

> > How about:
> >    koha kohe frica lo [selbri abstractor] skari be fi ziho bei fo ziho
> and how do you know which is the input (i.e. where ko'a and ko'e would go)
> and which the output (the values that are not equal). Unless it is order
> (first input then output) then you couldn't distinguish "ko'a and ko'e
> differ in colour" from "ko'a and ko'e differ in what they are colours of".

Yes. Alas. I remember spotting the problem, but I must have been too lazy
to do anything about it. Oh well - on to your version:

> In my notation:
>       ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari makau
>       ko'a ko'e frica le ka makau skari ke'a

Can you give construction-independent rules for interpreting
{keha} and {makau}?
If not, can you (for my benefit) give the rules for interpreting them
in this construction? (referent of) Keha = (referent of) x2 of ka, and
what about makau?
I don't yet see a principled reason for it.

> > > 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).
> You insist on using selbri when I want to use a sumti. Your red1(X,yes) is
> a statement with a truth value. My red1(X) is a function, that can take
> two values. This is the type of thing we need to put in the x3 of frica.
> We can't do anything with a statement.

I understand that the x3 of frica is a sumti. But that sumti is derived
from some selbri like "redness" & I'm trying to work out what sort of
a selbri you think it is.

> > > 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.
> Objects that can have that property or not. Basically, anything that
> can sensibly fill the x1 slot of xunre. It is NOT a statement.

So where do the values "non-red", "vermillion", "crimson" fit in?
I still don't understand. I'd have thought these predicates should
have 2 arguments, as in sex(Bill, maleness), where maleness is derived
from the tersumti of male(x).

> I think {le ka ko'a xunre} is still valid, but it can't be used for places
> like the x3 of frica, where an unevaluated function is required. I wouldn't
> have a problem with things like {le ka ko'a xunre cu pluka mi} because
> the x1 of pluka does not require an unevaluated function

What does {le ka koha xunre} mean? Is there an omitted keha (as would be
the case under the interpretation rules we've been discussing)?

> > > > > > "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),
> It has to be a sumti. There's no way you can put a selbri there.

I say "a way to get the x3 to ***refer*** to a selbri". I agree it
has to be a sumti. But a sumti that refers to a selbri (rather than
to, say, a beetle).
How would you translate "the predicate G has 3 places"? (Where G is
how we're naming this predicate.)

> > 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".
> Referring to feature values, but not being the values themselves, because
> you can't put a value there.

Yes you can. A value is a sumti of the feature.

  koha kohe frica lo se jutcmi

means "some species allow you to discriminate between koha and kohe".
The x3 of frica is a value of the feature se jutcmi (is-the-species-of).

Are we talking at cross-purposes?

> > 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?
> I think you want {lo ka jai bai broda}, which brings the bai place to
> the x1.

So I do. Is it grammatical?

> > If this would work, no change would need to be made to the syntax.
> That works, but using {ke'a} (or any other lambda variable) is equivalent,
> and allows a bit more flexibility.

The point is that it changes the status of the keha proposal: the case
for it would just be enhanced flexibility.

> > > {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
 i
s
> > > 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."
> But ta and ti already refer to the things I'm pointing to, which normally
> are different things. It's like {lo gerku goi lo mlatu}, it's meaninglesss.

This is merely pragmatically odd - it is logically well-formed but fails
to square with our knowledge of the world. It's not semantic junk.

> {goi} requires one of the sumti to be assignable. What you give as the
> meaning of {ta goi ti} is really the meaning of {ta no'u ti}.

I was assuming the {goi} forces us to treat {ti} as assignable. If this
is forbidden then yes, we end up with real junk, and lord knows why the
grammar allows it.

> > I don't see how you restrict {le ka keha clani} to tall/non-tall.
> > Why can't it be tallish/gigantic?
> This depends on something else. What is the truth value of {ko'a clani}?
> If it can only be 0 or 1, then {le ka ke'a clani} can only be tall/non-tall.
> If it can have any value between 0 and 1, then {le ka ke'a clani} also
> has a range of possible values matching the truth values.

I said before that {lo ka xunre} refers to the properties responsible
for something being categorizable as xunre (e.g. pigmentation), and
you agreed. Now you say something totally different that I don't
understand at all.

> > This said, I don't see why we need ni. {lo lahu fai} seems to do the
> > job perfectly well.
> I think you mean {lo jai la'u}.

I do.

> I agree it works (except for things like the x3 of frica where you
> need open functions) but you lose flexibility:
> you are forced to use be-beis and you are forced to have all the sumti
> after the selbri. It is a more awkward re-writing of {lo ni}.

Dear me. I do think you're excessively infatuated with flexibility.
What about virtues like consistency, or homomorphism? - How come
{lo jai lahu} is granted the variant {lo ni} when none of the
other BAI places get such a variant? And how come this variant of
{lo jai lahu} gets put in the same selmaho as {duhu}, which has a
wholly different function? I think I've taken against NU as much as
I have against Lojban morphology. And there's no point in me ranting
about either of these.

> > For that matter, {lo fau fai} could replace nu.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^
                    lo jai fau
> > 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
> It doesn't parse...

How sublime it would be if it did!

-----
And