Re: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

>>    le vi karce cu klani li pasexa le ka la djan litru lo ki'otre [be
>>ce'uxire] [ce'uxipa]
>>    This car is quantified as 176 in the scale of kilometers
>>travelled by John driving it.
>
>I haven't the vaguest idea how you determine the links of those two ce'u
>terms.  I mean I can see it using careful word-analysis, but it seems
>unwieldy to resolve.  Might I suggest that pe vo'a and pe vo'e would be
>clearer than the subscripts?

But vo'a and vo'e don't leave the slots open, which is crucial.
We no longer have a scale if you fill the slots. To see why we
can't use vo'a consider this case:

        i abu klani li no le ka lo mitre be ce'uxire cu sirji vo'a ce'uxipa
        A is 0 in the scale of meters from A.

        i by go'i ma
        What is B in the same scale?

        i by go'i li re
        B is 2 (in the scale of meters from A).

If we use vo'a instead of ce'uxipa in the first sentence, then we
cannot use the same scale to measure B that we used to
measure A. I want to be able to say that A is 0 and B is 2
in the _same_ scale. I definitely need open slots for that.

> You are putting the focus on the objects, whereas I think
>the essence of Lojban is to focus on the relationships as
>gestalts, insofar as it is possible.

I can use a scale that assigns a number to an object, or
a scale that assigns a number to a relationship. I don't
see why we would want to deny the possibility of doing
the first case. Indeed, mitre, grake, snidu, etc, are actually
used like that, relating the object and the number, so I'm
not introducing any new concept here.

>>                la djan cenba le ka djuno makau
>>                John changes in what he knows.
>>
>>                la djim cenba le ka te djuno makau
>>                Jim changes in what is known about him.
>
>Well you are using makau here instead of ce'u, I note, so there is some
>difference.  I am never entirely sure why you do one instead of the other.

I did not make ce'u explicit, but it is definitely not the same as makau:

                la djan cenba le ka ce'u djuno makau
                John changes in what he knows.

                la djim cenba le ka ce'u te djuno makau
                Jim changes in what is known about him.

{ce'u} marks the open slot. {makau} is a place whose value is
dependent on the value that fills the open slot.

 > You seem to have
>settled on ka for solely that relationships with open slots, and it isn't
>even clear you really care about the property nature of the abstraction,
>merely the openslottedness.

What is the property nature of the abstraction other than the
openslottedness?

>>Just like it is not the property of knowing that changes,
>>but John that changes in that property, or Jim that changes in the
>>property of being known about, or the event (nu) of John knowing
>>about Jim that changes in what is known.
>
>But it is not the event that changes because then it is not the same event.

What can be a cenba then in your opinion? A person can be a cenba and
remain the same person. An event can also be a cenba and remain
the same event. If the change is large enough it might mean that the
person is no longer the same person, or the event is no longer the
same event. Is that a problem?

>It is indeed the values (but not the nature) of the abstract relationships
>between the various places that is changing when a value changes.  At least
>this is what I envisioned "property abstract" to mean.

Yes, but that goes in the x2 of cenba! In the x1 goes the object that
has that property.

 >If the event of John being blue changes then he is no longer blue, or at
least
>there is a change in the time signature (maybe he is intermittently blue?).
>If the ka of John being blue changes, then something about the relationship
changes which could include a variation in one or more of the values.
>If the ni of John being blue changes then I would expect that the degree to
>which he is blue is changing (how much of him is blue, or perhaps how close
>to the archetype of blue that he achieves).
>And if the si'o of John being bliue changes, then I suspect that means that
>something about the nature of what it means to have John be blue that is
>changing.
>
>How you say all of these with cenba, I do not expect to resolve to Jorge's
>satisfaction %^)

Why, won't you even try? I can tell you how I would say them:

        la djan cenba le ka ce'u cu'ekau blanu
        John changes in the time/tense signature of his being blue.

        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu sela'u makau
        John changes in the degree to which he is blue.

        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu fi'o sidbo makau
        John changes in what is the idea of his being blue.

I don't understand very well your characterization of the ka-change,
maybe something like:

        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu do'e makau
        John changes in something related with his being blue.

>>If you put the property in the x1,
>>then the change has to be in a property of properties,
>
>I don't think that should have to be the case.

What would you put in the x2 of cenba in that case, then?

co'o mi'e xorxes