[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited

la .and. joi mi cusku be di'e casnu

> > > I was proposing that the official rule be that instead of:
> > >   tavla fa le nanmu poi cliva fa le ninmu poi kea xi pa cimba kea xi re
> > >   ("the man such that the woman such that she kisses him leaves spoke")
> > > the official guaranteed-unambiguous unvague way of doing it is:
> > >   tavla fa le nanmu poi kea xi xy zou cliva fa le ninmu poi kea xi zy
> > >   zou kea xi zy cimba kea xi xy
> > This is certainly a satisfactory device; I would tend to use "poi ke'a
> > goi ko'a/ko'e zo'u" and then use "ko'a" and "ko'e" thereafter.
> Yes, that is nicer, isn't it:

In fact, I have just incorporated it into the relative clause paper as an
alternative to the use of subscripts:  "more verbose, but some may find it

> Subscripting should, I opined, be at most a mere convention, while my
> prenex proposals should be honoured with the status of Grammaticalized
> Rule.

So they are.  But subscripting is sometimes more than a convention, as in
"sexixa" (the x1-x6 transposer) and "daxire" (the second in the infinite
set of distinct da-cmavo).

> > > > PA is a wastebasket category, but the maxim of minimum mutilation
> > > > tells me that "xe'u" has to go there, considering how late in the
> > > > game it is being introduced.
> > > I think that maxim would lead to the use of {kea}, as advocated by
> > > Jorge & now by me.
> > Using "ke'a", though, disallows the neat form "xe'u broda" for "xe'u da
> > poi broda", as in:
> >        le ka xe'u nanmu cu cinba la djein.
> >        the property of being a man who kisses Jane
> Well if you're that taken by the device, you could alter the grammar
> of kea, to allow
>         da poi kea nanmu cu cinba la djein
>         that which is a man who kisses Jane

Rather than that, I am now proposing to allow it for "ce'u" (the true name
of "xe'u"), but making this its own selma'o, usable where a quantifier_300
is usable but not in MEX.

> > > > This fnord is obviously not the way natural fnord fnord languages
> > > > operate fnord.
> > > Exactly. No grammarians' rules have ever included one for fnord-insertion.
> > What about the grammarian Hagbard Celine?
> Am I showing my ignorance here?

This refers to the sf trilogy >Illuminatus<, in which there is a theory
that all English texts are sprinkled with the word (or letter-sequence)
"fnord", which we are conditioned not to notice in use (although obviously
we can see it when mentioned).  We are further conditioned to be made
anxious by a text in proportion to the density of fnords in it.  Thus the
Great International Media Conspiracy controls our stress level by sprinkling
in fnords.

Hagbard Celine is the mastermind behind a counter-conspiracy.

> > > So duu is really a one place predicate, denoting a class of sentences.
> > > Or rather, duu is used in a range of one-place predicates, each of
> > > which denotes a class of sentences.
> > Or rather still, "du'u" is used in a range of two-place predicates, each
> > of which relates a class of propositions (not sentences) to the sentences
> > which express the proposition.  (Again, "proposition" = "0-adic
> > intension".)
> This is what I was denying, I think. Here goes again: {duu} is used in
> a range of 2-place predicates, each of which relates a proposition to
> the sentences that express the proposition. This is tantamount to
> a 1-place predicate, just as "cousin of John" is effectively a 1-place
> predicate - the x2 of "cousin of John" is of course John, so it seems
> a bit pointless to have "le se cousin-of-John" to refer to John.

Having read what we said very carefully, I think that you are right and
I am wrong, but I am by no means certain.

> > > It is very naughty of Lojban to exhibit type-token ambiguity. It of
> > > all languages should be well-behaved. It's why I say such-and-such
> > > a selbri shd be a sumti, and vice versa.
> > Well, consider:
> >        mi cusku zo djan.
> > where "djan." is a token, versus
> >        mi se cmene zo djan.
> > where "djan." is more like a type: I do not mean that my name is a
> > specific >instance< of the word "djan."
> I see what you mean. If {zo} were a selbri, I'd say:
>      mi cusku suo zo djan
>      mi se cmene loe zo djan / mi se cmene ro zo djan

I suppose we could save the face of Lojban by (artificially) construing
the "zo djan." in "mi se cmene zo djan." as the baptizing instance.

> > > I think I'd like to argue that "abstraction" has no meaning, at least
> > > not beyond the n-adic ka/duu.

Why?  There are many abstractions reified by Lojban.  Numbers are abstractions,
sets are abstractions, masses are abstractions: at least, none of them are
concrete objects.  Quine argues that the concrete objects and the sets are
all that is really required, but we need not follow him.

> > > I don't know which book you're talking about.
> > "The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ Considered As A Downhill Motorcycle Race."
> > (Arguably my translation doesn't render the word "considered".)
> > The point is that every other abstraction can be expressed as a "su'u"
> > with an appropriate x2:  "nu" is "su'u ... kei be lo fasnu", "jei" is
> > "su'u ... kei be lo niljetnu", etc.
> I think I get it.
>    lo suu broda kei be lo ganxo
> is equivalent to
>    lo ganxo poi kea duu broda
>    lo duu broda kei poi kea ganxo

No, I don't think so.  It's the asshole-abstraction of something-unspecified
being a thingummy, whatever that is.  But it is not necessarily itself an
asshole:  "le nu broda kei cu na fasnu" can be true, although not by your
reading of "nu".

> - Or? Since a bridi is not a fasnu, or a ganxo, or whatever, these would
> always fail to refer, unless used with a nonveridical gadri.

A bridi is not a fasnu, a ckaji, a klani, ... either.

> > > > "Physical" is a sticky notion. There is no problem with "nu" objects
> > > > that aren't actualized, like "le nu le djordj. .ualas. cu merko gugde
> > > > ralju" even though George Wallace wasn't ever U.S. President.
> > > There is every problem with such nu objects. {nu la djordj ualas cu
> > > merko gugde ralju} is false.
> > I assume that by "false" you meant that it is predicated of {noda}.
> Yes. And since {zoe} can be anything except {noda}, my usage of
> "false" was legitimate, right?

Yes.  I saw your utterance as a selbri, not a bridi, but that was merely
my assumption.

> > In that case, how do you say "I desire George Wallace to be etc."?
> > Certainly "mi djica le nu ..." is traditional here. There is a difference
> > between what contingently didn't happen, but could have, and what is
> > not a happening at all.
> We've debated this before. I insist that {lo nu} refers to an actual
> happening, not something that could have happened but didnt. So I would
> say {mi djica lo dahi nu}, here, where {nu} is extensionally the set
> of all actual events and {dahi nu} is extensionally the set of all
> imaginable events.

Here we must agree to disagree, I fear.  I read an event as including anything
that might happen; I'm willing to be neutral on the legitimacy of
{nu li 2 + 2 = 5}.

John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.