Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>> Looking at things this way, then, {le [ka da de xe'u da pendo de]} would be
>> identical in meaning to {le pendo}, and {le SE [ka da de xe'u da pendo de]}
>> would mean {le SE pendo}, which strongly conflicts with my current
>> understanding of how {leka} is used.
>
>Not at all.

OK, as you said "modulo the syntax of lambda" -- then I should have said:

   le anti-ka-thingy [ka da de xe'u da pendo de] <--> le pendo

>> Don't we have the same problem with {ke'a}:
>>
>>   la djan. poi ga ke'a xirma gi lo xirma cu citka ke'a
>> [or would it be something like:]
>>   la djan. poi ga ke'a goi da xirma gi lo xirma cu citka da
>
>That works fine because "poi" is only ever attached to one sumti, so
>we only need to be able to refer to that sumti,

Suppose I said {da jo'u de poi broda broda} and wanted to pick the two items
apart.  Why are we allowing two individuals to skip hand-in-hand together
through a {ka} abstraction but not through {poi}?

>"jei" is probably 0-adic also, and is related to "du'u", which is now
>understood as a subtype of "ka" that is always 0-adic.

I'd propose we define {jei} as {du'u xukau}.  AFAIK it would be consistent
with usage, at least my usage before xorxes convinced me to switch over to
{du'u xukau} :-)

>I still don't have a good understanding of "ni", and anyone who does is
>urged to explain it to me; the discussion in the abstraction paper is
>skating on thin ice.

Here's a shot in the dark: I used to use {ni} and {jei} and don't anymore;
when I did, in my mind they were more or less synonymous except that {jei}
suggested that the implied {xukau} would have a binary value, and {ni}
emphasized a fuzzy value:

   mi djuno ledu'u le tsali cu blanu
        I know that the sky is blue
   mi djuno lejei le tsali cu blanu
        I know whether or not the sky is blue
   mi djuno leni le tsali cu blanu
        I know how true it is that the sky is blue  --> how blue the sky is

I stopped doing this because xorxes convinced me it was wrong; but let's
define it that way, shall we?

.i pe'ipei doi rodo mi'e xris.