Re: ka'e

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>As with most such cases, the ellipsized x2 has some value less
>> releavnt to the claim, which is consistent with the predication being
>true.
>> In the case of this example, x2 is probably "da".
>
>So why would we not say {lo remna ka'e vofli} meaning that
> {lo remna ka'e vofli lo vinji}?

OK, zo'e then, or da poi co'e at least.  We obviously have a restriction in
mind on thex2 of vofli in that claim.

But of course some might say that the first is true because of the second
because they have a different in mind set of x2 restrictions.

>>>I'm not comfortable with the concept of innateness.
>>
>>I think it is not a particularly "Western" concept.

>
>What makes me uncomfortable is its seemeingly extreme
>subjectivity.

Is there something wrong with subjectivity?

>And if making human fly is not an innate property of planes, then I don't
>know what is.


Indeed.  And I have no problem with lo remna ka'e vof
li  lo vinji - I just
don't think thatis part of the in-mond set of x2s when x2 is elliptical.

 >>I think that to answer this we have to get used to thinking of properties
>of
>>predications (loi ka broda) instead of properties of sumti.
>
>As an aside, {loi ka broda} are properties of predications only when
>broda is a selbri that accepts a predication as one of its arguments.
>For example: {le ka ce'u jetnu} "being true", {le ka djuno ce'u}, "being
>known", etc.

OK, be picky.  Realtionships described by predications then.  I guess when
I think about Lojban, I think about the relationships woithout worrying
about whether they are claimed to be true or not - unbless the grammar
indicates that it is indeed a claim.


Surely we can talk of properties of functions?

>I've no idea what you're getting at, but let's see if I understand what
>you're
>saying. Consider {mi klama le zarci}. Now, let's say it is John, not me, who
>goes to the market, and that I go to the park. So what is the flaw of the
>bridi,
>is it {mi} because it should be {la djan}, or is it {le zarci}, because it
>should
>be {le panka}?

It is indeterminate.
>> If in turn that particular sumti, out of all
>>the sumti of its "kind" makes the bridi false, while others of the kind
>make
>>it true, then we would see the referent of that sumti as failing to uphold
>>the innate properties of the typical member of that type.
>
>I don't understand. Could you give examples, please?

We can say
Ducks ka'e swim
even if by some chance there is an exceptional duck that cannot swim.

This seems to be an inherent property of the selbri "datka" even though excepti
os exist.

People ka'e walk on sidewal
ks

seems to be an inherent property of both the people and the sidewalks - there
are some people who cannot walk on any surface, and there are some sidewalks t

that cannot be walked on.  But we see in either case that the person who cannot

walk or the sidewalk that cannot be walked on is an exception.

ka'e seems to be useful mostly in making statements of generalities of
this
sort.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.