Re: replies mainly re "ka"

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

Goran:
> > > lo ka lo glipre cu vusnei la uiskis. cu toljinzi
> > > Property of (an Englishman having taste for whiskey) is non-inherent.
> > I don't understand this ka clause. Whose property is it?
> Ah, yes, I see the problem. I believe Englishman's. But I would also
> say that I see all properties as exhibited by x1 of their bridi:
> le ka ko'a crino = his greenness
> mi nelci le ka na gunka = I like (ellipsized my) not working

This is what Jorge & me have been banging on about. Neither of us would
go for a "the property is the x1 of ths subordinate bridi's" rule.

Jorge:
> > 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.

(a) I do think a sumti of the bridi colour(da,de) can be x3 of frica.
(b) I haven't been wondering how to put a bridi in x3 of frica; I've
been wondering how to get the x3 of frica to refer to a predicate.

> > > >    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.

Because it expands to {lo mamta be koha beho ge mamta be kohe}.

> > How would you say "the mothers of Jorge and And"?
> Perhaps {lei mamta be la xorxes a la and}.

That could refer to just your mum.

> 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}.

I see another way, though not always a shorter one:

Ax, x is a member of {Xorxe, And}: I met the mother of x.

(Ax, x is a member of {Xorxe, And}, Ey, y is mother of x: I met y.)

(I hope that works. If not I can rely on you to spot the error.)
There might be a way to do that without using a prenex.

   I met lo mamta be xohu ro luha luhi la xorxes ce la and

(I've guessed at the syntax of that.) Xohu is the UI indicating
scope leaping.

If that works it's dead neat.

Goran:
> > How would you say "the mothers of Jorge and And"?
> Perhaps {lei mamta be la xorxes a la and}.

> If you want to be specific, perhaps
> {role jizmamta/cabmamta be la xorxes. .a la .and.}? :)

Why jiz-, cab-?

Jorge:
> > > 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.

So you wouldn't accept

   mi do frica lo duhu zo xorxes cmene do

then? I guess not.

> > >       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.

How does that work for keha in relative clauses, and makau in duhu
abstractions? (That's what I meant by construction-independent - rules
not specific to ka abstractions.)

> > 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 understand, but it seems very ad hoc. It seems to me that you are
innovating in a radical way, and my worry is you're straying beyond
the well-understood logical basis of Lojban, though I'm not competent
to say whether my worry is justified.

It should be possible to do what you want by using the prenex:

 Ew, w skari koha; Ex, x skari kohe; Ay y is member of {koha, kohe};
 Ez z is member of {w,x}: koha kohe frica lo ka [keha] se skari z kei be y

> > 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).

It is *ka* that requires an explicit or implicit keha as one of the sumti
of its complement bridi, with this sumti being identified with x2 of ka.
This is to avoid the problem John called "crosstalk" (I distantly recall),
as in

   lo mamta be fa lo ninmu

where the one sumti gets specified twice.

Is there a word that means "bridi with one empty tersumti" - i.e. what
the complement of LE is? This is what the complement of ka is.

> {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}.

It should be {le ka (keha) skari *red* kei be fe koha}.

> > How would you translate "the predicate G has 3 places"? (Where G is
> > how we're naming this predicate.)
>        gy bridi fi ci da

How about "I described the predicate G"? {gy poi se bridi}, I suppose.
"I described the predicate Xunre"? Maybe {lahe zo xunre}?

> > Dear me. I do think you're excessively infatuated with flexibility.
> Indeed I value it highly, especially in a relatively inflexible
> language like Lojban.

I go along with that only if a very firm and clear conceptual distinction
is made between grammatical devices motivated by logical necessity
(making things otherwise inexpressible expressible), on the one hand,
and, on the other hand, devices motivated by a need for flexibility
or concision. Furthermore, I would like the devices for flexibility
and concision to be optional add-ons to a basic structure consisting
only of logically necessary devices.

> 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.

{ka} being in NU is consistent, but only because NU itself is thoroughly
inconsistent, made up of a ragbag of logically heterogeneous items.

> > - 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.

There you go. That view is anathema to me. I don't object to the
abbreviatory device itself, but I do object to it going in to duhu's
selmaho. (And anyway, I very much doubt that {lo jai lahu} would be
more frequent than {lo jai some-other-BAI}.)

> > 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}.

The semantic relationship between duhu and its complement clause is
identity; duhu is not a sumti (of a "modal" variety) of the complement
bridi.

The members of NU fall into 4 logical types:

(1) siho, duhu [logically requires a complete bridi as complement]
(2) ni, nu, muhe, puhu, zahi, zuho [an abbreviation of {lo jai lahu},
    {lo jai fau}, {lo pruce ge jai fau} etc.]
(3) ka, lihi [logically requires as complement an incomplete bridi, as
    LE does]
(4) jei [an abbreviation of {lo truth-value be lo duhu}]

------
And