WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti

posts: 2388

I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s. A proposition is not a property, a function to properties (a more abstract property) is not a function to a propositions. Joan's beauty is not that Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value). There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple identity doesn't seem to hack it.

John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> pc
> > {le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis} is a perfectly good property abstraction,
> > naming the unique property Mimi has as being a Siamese cat.
>
> Which is also the same unique property that Siamese has?
>
> Can we say:
>
> la mimis .e la si,amis cu ckaji le ka la mimis mlatu la si,amis
> Both Mimi and Siamese have the property that Mimi is a Siamese cat.
>
> That sounds odd to me, because I wouldn't say that Mimi and Siamese
> have the same property.

Indeed. Truly lambda-free ka-abstractions are really du'u-abstractions;
indeed, du'u could be replaced by ka, but has the advantage that it
signals that there are no elided ce'u markers.

--
BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU jcowan@reutershealth.com
BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan