WikiDiscuss

On 6/9/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute
> > but merely as a guide in any case.
>
> If they are only meant as guides, why do you keep
> insisting on taking them literally when simpler
> and more direct reading make more sense
> practically? Loosen up and be practical.

I take them literally because I meant them literally.

The "rule" goes something like this: When the underlying
selbri of a BAI has an available place suitable for a bridi, the
most natural interpretation for the added place is given by
the relationship established by the underlying selbri between
that place and the main bridi in the available suitable place.

Not all underlying selbri have a suitable place for a bridi,
so this rule is not always applicable.

Which example do you have in mind where a "more direct" reading
makes more sense? How can you have a more direct reading than
that?

For those cases where the underlying selbri has no available
place for a bridi, I find that the most natural interpretation
for {broda BAI ko'a} is something like {lo nu broda cu nu ko'a BAPLI},
where BAI is fi'o BAPLI.

> > Not sure what definition you're looking at.
> > {NU bridi KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri.
>
> Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS
> STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF BRIDI"
> and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION BRIDI EXPRESSED
> BY X2"

{nu...kei} has a single place and {du'u...kei} has two places,
that's a difference.

> So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the fact
> that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence,
> presumably quoted to make it available for use.

I think you are confused here. A sumti can refer to anything at all,
in particular it can refer to a bridi, just like "proposition" is a noun in
English that refers to a proposition.

> It could be argued that it goes the other way, of
> course, but it must be one or the other to make
> any sense at all (even the bad sense it makes).

The bridi goes in x1 and the sentence in x2, that's how it has
always been and that's what the definition says.

> As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 IS
> THE PROPOSITION THAT BRIDI" and never as
> described.

"x1 is the proposition that bridi as expressed in sentence x2",
yes.

> It has, in fact never been used as a
> relation so far as I can tell.

NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they are almost
always used as descriptions, yes, but "never" is a bit
strong.

>
> > The selbri {du'u bridi kei} has two places,
> > the
> > first one for the proposition and the second
> > one for
> > a sentence that expresses the proposition.
> > For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i}
> > Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e
> > klama"
> > and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed
> > by
> > that sentence.
> >
> Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a bridi
> since it is a replacement for a sumti.

Of course {ko'a} can refer to a bridi, whyever not?

> {di'u} or
> some such thing could be used in the second
> place, since it refers to a sentence.

Yes. And {ko'i} can also be assigned to refer to a sentence.

> I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation
> (definition to the contrary notwithstanding) {se
> du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.

{du'u bridi kei} is a two-place relation, and can be converted
with SE like any other selbri.

Other NU's with more than one place include ni, li'i, pu'u
and probably some other I'm forgetting.

> > You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between
> > "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning
> > x2"?
>
> I'm not sure that I agree it is ambiguous — in
> Lojban, but yes: "say" in the full "ambiguity" of
> the English.

"Say" in English can be used for indirect speech, but not for
the full range of "express". You can say "I express feelings"
but hardly "I say feelings". For indirect speech we already
have {lo se du'u}, so cusku already does cover the full
range of English "say". It doesn't cover "express" though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes