WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita

posts: 2388


> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:19:36 -0800 (PST), John
> E Clifford wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > A relationship F'(a,b,c) can always be
> defined
> > > as a composition
> > > G(F(a,b), c), can't it?
> > >
> > > All I'm doing is trying to figure out what
> G is
> > > in terms of the
> > > underlying selbri of the BAI that adds
> argument
> > > c to F(a,b)
> > > to give F'(a,b,c)
> >
> > The issue is rather whether F'(a b G*(c))
> need
> > bear any relation to G(F(ab) c).
>
> What's G*(c)? c is an ordinary argument of F'.

Oops! You have folded the Gness already into F',
which makes it harder to make the point, which is
that even if a compound predicate could be
analyzed, its components need not be any of the
pieces that are overtly present in the compound
case — F and G in the examples.

> > The functor for
> > which the composition rules hold are a very
> > limited sort, rarely met with in BAI, I
> think.
> > For normal predicates it seems that rewriting
> its
> > expansion will be much more complex and
> > idiosyncratic.
>
> Not sure what you mean, but I find that cases
> that are
> hard to transform are the exception rather than
> the rule.

It may be that the brivla picked to go with BAI
(or the BAI that are picked to go with brivla --
I'm not sure which way it goes) gnerally lend
themselves to being at least intelligible under
your transformations, even if not exactly
translatable into those transformation. If so,
they seem a special set among predicates,
possibly just the set of predicates for which
such added places make sense. But the fact that
the transformation makes sense need not say
anything about what the prepositional form means.