Re: replies mainly re "ka"

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> But colour(,) *is* a selbri.

If you define it as a selbri, then it's a selbri. When you give it two
arguments, you get a truth value. That object, wich has a truth value,
is not useful to put in the x3 of frica.

> > >    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?

I think so.

> How would you say "the mothers of Jorge and And"?

Perhaps {lei mamta be la xorxes a la and}.

If you want to be precise, I don't see any way of shortening {le mamta
be la xorxes be'o e le mamta be la and}.

> > 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.

Well, this is where we disagree. To me, {le te frica} is not a property
of only one of {le frica} and {le se frica}. {le te frica} has to be
something with a slot, such that when I put {le frica} in that slot,
I get something different than what I get when I put {le se frica} there.

> > 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}?

I can try:

ke'a is a place keeper for the things that have the property in question.

makau shows which of the other tersumti is the one that varies with ke'a.
The ones without makau are kept constant for the different values that
ke'a takes.

> 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?

The tersumti of {skari} are filled with zo'e, which is some obvious
or default but fixed value, but the tersumti that has makau is the
one that changes when for different fillers of the ke'a place, thus
contributing to make the whole {ka} different.

> I don't yet see a principled reason for it.

I'm making it up as I go, I don't really have a principled reason... :)


> > 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)?

No, there isn't, because {pluka} doesn't require it. Only certain tersumti,
like the x3 of frica, zmadu, mleca, dunli, simsa, do require it. These
selbri require in x3 a sumti with an open slot to make sense (to me).

{le ka ko'a skari *red*} and {le ka ko'e skari *blue} are the things
that are not equal when I say that {ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari makau}.


> 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.)

        gy bridi fi ci da

(to mu'a gy goi <<lu ta zunle ti li'u>> toi)


> 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.

You can have the assignable sumti either side of goi, so in {ta goi ti}
there wouldn't be a way of knowing which is the one being assigned.


> Dear me. I do think you're excessively infatuated with flexibility.

Indeed I value it highly, especially in a relatively inflexible
language like Lojban.

> What about virtues like consistency, or homomorphism?

Of course I'm all for consistency, even though Lojban is inconsistent
in some cases. I don't think {ka} being in NU is particularly
inconsistent, though.

To have a homomorphism between syntax and semantics I'm afraid is
rather impossible, but I have nothing against trying.

> - How come
> {lo jai lahu} is granted the variant {lo ni} when none of the
> other BAI places get such a variant?

It would be justifiable if the occurence of it was much more frequent
than of the others.

> And how come this variant of
> {lo jai lahu} gets put in the same selmaho as {duhu}, which has a
> wholly different function?

You could say {lo du'u} is a variant of {lo jai fi'o fatci}. Why is it
wholly different? And {lo nu} as you said of {lo jai fau}.

Jorge