WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 2388
The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one. Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads about structure. On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be nice.
posts: 1912


> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier,
> rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

That's misleading, yes. It would be better to describe it as
"lambda-quantified variable" if lambda is to be mentioned at all.

> Now, it *ought* to
> function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This
> creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the
> same way and also misleads about structure.

When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently
bound variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to
use {ce'u goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first
ce'u.

Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative
clauses, the solution here is to use subindices (but I never remember
which way to count), or to put a {ce'u/ke'a goi ko'a} in the prenex
at the right level.

> On the other hand, the real
> lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be
> nice.

The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice,
since more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than
one (for the x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two
independent variables.

Embedded relative clauses do turn up from time to time, and
subindices are ugly. I don't have a better solution though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

A> I'm not sure what this means; frinstance?

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:


> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier,
> rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

That's misleading, yes. It would be better to describe it as
"lambda-quantified variable" if lambda is to be mentioned at all.

> Now, it *ought* to
> function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This
> creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the
> same way and also misleads about structure.

When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently
bound variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to
use {ce'u goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first
ce'u.

A>Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative
clauses, the solution here is to use subindices (but I never remember
which way to count), or to put a {ce'u/ke'a goi ko'a} in the prenex
at the right level.

> On the other hand, the real
> lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be
> nice.

The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice,
since more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than
one (for the x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two
independent variables.

Embedded relative clauses do turn up from time to time, and
subindices are ugly. I don't have a better solution though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




posts: 1912

pc:
> A> I'm not sure what this means; frinstance?

{lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property of being blue.

{lo ka ce'u carmi lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property
of being intensely blue (more precisely the property
of being intense in the property of being blue).

They are both one-place properties. In the second case,
the second {ce'u} is not bound at the same level as the
first.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

Yes, and ... That is, of course, one of the problems with lambda-bound-variable {ce'u}: it looks the same wherever it turns up and it is hard sometimes to work out the exact scope of an occurrence. (I am not sure that example does mean "the property of being intensely blue," but as McKay points out several times, the logic of adverbs is not well worked out: some say it requires quantification over events (in which case, Lojban is ready) some say over abstractions like properties (in which case Lojban is still ready) and some say neither of these can be right — but can give no positive theory yet (in which case Lojban will limb along doing the best it can — which seems to be enough).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:pc:
> A> I'm not sure what this means; frinstance?

{lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property of being blue.

{lo ka ce'u carmi lo ka ce'u blanu} is the property
of being intensely blue (more precisely the property
of being intense in the property of being blue).

They are both one-place properties. In the second case,
the second {ce'u} is not bound at the same level as the
first.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a
> quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of
ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even
have a definition in Chapter 11.

Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u
is, but I am certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin


posts: 149

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u
> is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

To be exact, ce'u is lambda(x) of the lambda calculus: it's a variable
that is automatically lambda-bound. Use another ce'u, get another
variable.

I wanted to make it just lambda, and have it be followed by da-de-di,
but was outvoted at the time.

> Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

By no means.

>
> -Robin
>
>

--
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it cowan@ccil.org
isn't a man. --Jewish saying http://www.reutershealth.com


posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:23:39PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what
> > ce'u is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda
> > calculus.
>
> To be exact, ce'u is lambda(x) of the lambda calculus: it's a variable
> that is automatically lambda-bound. Use another ce'u, get another
> variable.
>
> I wanted to make it just lambda, and have it be followed by da-de-di,
> but was outvoted at the time.
>
> > Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?
>
> By no means.

Ummm, any expression with lambda(x) in the lambda calculus is a
function, is it not?

And every abstraction clause that's not in a poi has one or more elided
ce'u, does it not?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"


posts: 2388

Only abstraction clauses with {ce'u} in them are functions (but sometimes the {ce'u} are implicit. The rough part is what they are functions from to. Or they (the ones with gaps) are references to general properties (etc.?) and the ones without gaps are to particular properties (etc.) And that is not too easy to deal with either. But, yes, the idea here goes back at least to Churh's lambda calculus and eventually to Russell (and probably further).
Now, whether that is just what {ce'u} is meant to do is less clear; CLL does not seem to envision more than one {ce'u} in an abstraction, for example.

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a
> quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of
ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even

  • have* a definition in Chapter 11.


Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u
is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin



posts: 2388

{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.

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:23:39PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what
> > ce'u is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda
> > calculus.
>
> To be exact, ce'u is lambda(x) of the lambda calculus: it's a variable
> that is automatically lambda-bound. Use another ce'u, get another
> variable.
>
> I wanted to make it just lambda, and have it be followed by da-de-di,
> but was outvoted at the time.
>
> > Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?
>
> By no means.

Ummm, any expression with lambda(x) in the lambda calculus is a
function, is it not?

And every abstraction clause that's not in a poi has one or more elided
ce'u, does it not?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"




posts: 1912


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. What I would say is that they are in a
relationship with each other:

la mimis ckini la si,amis lo ka ce'u mlatu ce'u
Mimi is related to Siamese by the ...is a cat of race... relationship.

Or that each has a different property:

la mimis cu ckaji lo ka ce'u mlatu la si,amis
Mimi has the property '...is a Siamese cat'.

la si,amis cu ckaji lo ka la mimis mlatu ce'u
Siamese has the property 'Mimi is a ... cat'.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Ummm, any expression with lambda(x) in the lambda calculus is a
> function, is it not?

Yes.

> And every abstraction clause that's not in a poi has one or more elided
> ce'u, does it not?

Not that I can see. I think you are confusing ce'u and ke'a.

--
What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
that they applaud me thus? http://www.reutershealth.com
--Phocion, Greek orator http://www.ccil.org/~cowan


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


posts: 2388

Well, what we have is not really a property, for all we say it, but a relation. And both Mimi and Siamese cats (or the breed) are both in that relation. But they are in it in different ways, as first argument and as second. Now from this there is a derivate property for each, but it is a different one for each: "is a cat of Siamese breed" and "is a breed of which Mimi is a cat." I was being a little (too) shorthandy to go directly to the issue whether every {ka} expression contained a {ce'u}.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
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. What I would say is that they are in a
relationship with each other:

la mimis ckini la si,amis lo ka ce'u mlatu ce'u
Mimi is related to Siamese by the ...is a cat of race... relationship.

Or that each has a different property:

la mimis cu ckaji lo ka ce'u mlatu la si,amis
Mimi has the property '...is a Siamese cat'.

la si,amis cu ckaji lo ka la mimis mlatu ce'u
Siamese has the property 'Mimi is a ... cat'.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com




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




posts: 1912


pc:
> I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s.

What's an example where they differ? I mean, where would you use
a {lo ka ...} without any {ce'u}s?

> A
> proposition is not a property,

We agree about that. A property has an open slot, whereas a
proposition does not. And a relation has more than one open slot.

> a function to properties (a more abstract
> property) is not a function to a propositions.

Agreed.

> Joan's beauty is not that
> Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value).

Joan's beauty is {lo nu la djon cu melbi}.
That Joan is beautiful is {lo du'u la djon cu melbi}.

> There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple
> identity doesn't seem to hack it.

We have a tendency of using {ka} instead of {nu} when the selbri
corresponds to an adjective (or a noun). But there's no reason
to do that, is there? As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like
Joan's running, {lo nu dy melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is
more or less atemporal should not matter. Or is there something
about her beauty that is crucially different from her running?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:05:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like Joan's running, {lo nu dy
> melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is more or less atemporal should
> not matter. Or is there something about her beauty that is crucially
> different from her running?

zo'o ru'e ga nai dy xamgu lo ka ce'u bajra gi na frica .i ku'i ga nai dy
na xamgu gi lo nu melbi vau .e nai lo nu bajra vau cu cinse se cinri mi

How do you do an if-else in Lojban using ga nai and friends?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"


posts: 2388

As I said, there are interrelations that need to be worked out. My main sources close to hand (after Raghunatha and his ilk, which doesn't help much here) tends to wander off into modalities and stay there — or into semantics. I'm chasing down some more remote work.
A> I just gave you {lo ka la djon melbi}, which is different from {lo du'u la djon melbi} — and also {lo nu la djon melbi} (an event, not a property)

B> Not necessarily; some properpties — very individual ones like the blue of this house {lo ka levi zdani cu blanu} — have no gaps. More abstract properties are covers for the particular ones, just as propositional functions ({du'u} with {ce'u}) cover propositions — and so on for the whole list (though we don't have good names for many of these things, other than "---al function.")

C> No, that is Joan('s) being beautiful, something else again. You can't (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}). As i say, they are interrealated and yet distinct, but neither feature is very clear.

D> I would think that both are atemporal; abstracts tend to be even when their manifestations (various words here, I'm not sure which is best for a given abstraction) tend to be temporal. I think the fact that one is a property and the other an event is a crucial difference, but I am not sure in just what that difference consists.
s <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s.

A>What's an example where they differ? I mean, where would you use
a {lo ka ...} without any {ce'u}s?

> A
> proposition is not a property,

B>We agree about that. A property has an open slot, whereas a
proposition does not. And a relation has more than one open slot.

> a function to properties (a more abstract
> property) is not a function to a propositions.

Agreed.

> Joan's beauty is not that
> Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value).

C>Joan's beauty is {lo nu la djon cu melbi}.
That Joan is beautiful is {lo du'u la djon cu melbi}.

> There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple
> identity doesn't seem to hack it.

D>We have a tendency of using {ka} instead of {nu} when the selbri
corresponds to an adjective (or a noun). But there's no reason
to do that, is there? As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like
Joan's running, {lo nu dy melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is
more or less atemporal should not matter. Or is there something
about her beauty that is crucially different from her running?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



posts: 1912


> How do you do an if-else in Lojban using ga nai and friends?

One possibility:

ge ga nai X gi Y gi ga X gi Z
(If X then Y) and (if not X then Z)

I don't know if it can be done without repeating a term.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 1912


I would say a property is a mapping from individuals to propositions.
The property P maps individual x into proposition Px. We say that
an individual x "has" property P when the proposition Px is true.
In Lojban, for an individual (or individuals) {ko'a} and a property
{lo ka ce'u broda}, we say that {ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} when
{lo du'u ko'a broda cu jetnu}, i.e. when {ko'a broda}.

pc:
> You can't
> (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her
> beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}).

That would be {la djon mutce lo ka ce'u melbi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

1>Well, before we decide what these things are, let's try to figure out how they interrelate. As far as I am concerned, beyond sentences (or maybe claims) and events (and even those are shaky) these things are all terra incognita. With at least three types of thesories about each (and half-a-dozen subtheories in each case), making an ontological claim seems premature (an maybe not even necessary for what we are about). What you describe is a propositional function, which we would write with {du'u} and a {ce'u}. One theory (I use it myself sometimes — but always feel bad about it later) is that this is the same as a property ({ka} and {ce'u}) but another holds that predicating a property of an object (concept) is different from applying a function to an argument. And further, functions are not obviously intensional and properties (but propositions too) are (identity failure). But you are right, that snow is white is true just in case snow is white (one of the certainties — aside
from the question whether it is propositions or claims that are true).

2> No, it would not. What you give is a claim about Joan, not about her beauty, which is (intensionally surely, but probably extensionally too) something else. {le ka la djon melbi cu mutce} though I feel the need to fill in at least one more place. They might eventually come to the same thing, but that would take some argument (which I certainly am not ready to engage in, given the problems I am having in these areas at the moment).

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

1>I would say a property is a mapping from individuals to propositions.
The property P maps individual x into proposition Px. We say that
an individual x "has" property P when the proposition Px is true.
In Lojban, for an individual (or individuals) {ko'a} and a property
{lo ka ce'u broda}, we say that {ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} when
{lo du'u ko'a broda cu jetnu}, i.e. when {ko'a broda}.

pc:
> You can't
> (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her
> beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}).

2>That would be {la djon mutce lo ka ce'u melbi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



posts: 14214

If there's anything I need to understand in:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=ke%27a

which appears to have mostly been written by xod, someone please explain it to me.

-Robin

posts: 14214

I don't understand

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=ka%2C+du%27u%2C+si%27o%2C+ce%27u%2C+zo%27e

terribly well, but I will attempt to abide by it. Please let me know if I'm confused.

-Robin

posts: 14214

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 07:06:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> > Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound
> > vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where
> > more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads
> > about structure.
>
> When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound
> variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u
> goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.

Has this *ever* come up? What would it mean if it did? Why would it?

> Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative
> clauses,

I'll handle that as with ke'a.

> > On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see
> > LISP). Some compromise would be nice.
>
> The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice, since
> more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than one (for the
> x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two independent variables.

Explain the whole "two ce'u in simxu" thing, please.

-Robin


posts: 2388

Well, since I think that {du'u} and {ka} are two entirely different things — though related more or less as a proposition is to an event, my view may not be worth much. The problem seems to be that we have two conventions about empty places in abstractions; filled with {ce'u} or filled with {zo'e}. For the first place, we have decised that the unfilled space is {ce'u}, but when that space is filled already we are left with what to do with the first unfilled space. Appparently what has been worked out is that in {ka} the first unfilled space is {ce'u} but in {du'u} all unfilled spaces are {zo'e} (or have it got that backward?), i.e., every {ce'u} must be explicit. Then the question is, does {ke'a} follow the rule for {ce'u} in {ka} or the rule that it can be omitted in the first place only. The answer seems to be that it follows the {ks} {ce'u} rule, omission in the first empty place — though xod does not like this in spite of usage. Personally, I would go for either that
rule or the {du'u} {ce'u} rule thoughout.

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
If there's anything I need to understand in:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=ke%27a

which appears to have mostly been written by xod, someone please explain it to me.

-Robin





posts: 2388

I seem to have done a 180, but I'll stick with where I am now on the {du'u}-{ka} issue. Practically, {ka} is more likely to be a function (we talk more about beauty than Joan's beauty) (though I do miss the adverb idea) and possibly more about beauty than being beautiful. So, I think I agree that {du'u} is less likely to contain {ce'u} than {ka} is and so get require all to be explicit. {ke'a} is always going to be called for in relative clauses, so we can drop the first one with assurance.

wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
I don't understand

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=ka%2C+du%27u%2C+si%27o%2C+ce%27u%2C+zo%27e

terribly well, but I will attempt to abide by it. Please let me know if I'm confused.

-Robin





posts: 2388

Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder", and {le ka ce'u catra cy}, "suicide".

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 07:06:06AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> > Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound
> > vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where
> > more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads
> > about structure.
>
> When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound
> variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u
> goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.

Has this *ever* come up? What would it mean if it did? Why would it?

> Another related problem is embedded properties. Just as with relative
> clauses,

I'll handle that as with ke'a.

> > On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see
> > LISP). Some compromise would be nice.
>
> The current scheme for {ce'u} seems to work fine in practice, since
> more than one ce'u is rare, and when we do need more than one (for the
> x2 of {simxu} basically) we do want them as two independent variables.

Explain the whole "two ce'u in simxu" thing, please.

-Robin




posts: 2388
{le ka ce'u brod} is not "the property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda} but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so. The other is more nearly {le du'u ce'u broda} but is not quite that eitehr.
posts: 143

John E Clifford wrote:

> Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder"


Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?


--
"This historic ground in New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth...gave the most effective answer today to Japanese propaganda that radiations were responsible for deaths even after the day of the explosion, Aug. 6, and that persons entering Hiroshima had contracted mysterious maladies due to persistent radioactivity." — NY Times, 12 Sep 45




posts: 1912


Robin Lee Powell:
> > When more than one ce'u is used, they are taken as independently bound
> > variables. To bind more than one place together, we have to use {ce'u
> > goi ko'a ... ko'a} or other pronouns that point to the first ce'u.
>
> Has this *ever* come up? What would it mean if it did? Why would it?

pc already gave an example. To expand:

ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u ri catra
ko'a has the property of killing herself.

ko'a ko'e ckini lo ka ce'u ce'u catra
ko'a is related to ko'e by the relationship ... kills ...

Presumably the x1 of ckini fills the first place of the
relationship and the x2 fills the second place.

We don't have a gismu for 3-adic ka's the way we have
{ckaji} and {ckini} for 1 and 2-adic. We probably should
have at least a lujvo for an n-adic terckini.

> Explain the whole "two ce'u in simxu" thing, please.

le so'i prenu cu simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u catlu
The many people were looking at one another.

Each of them looks and is looked at by some of them.
In order to do something "mutually", you need two places in the
relationship.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

The point is exactly that two explicit }ce'u} are two different bound variables and thus generally refer to different things, while {ce'u} and a pronoun that picks it up must refer to the same thing.

xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

> Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder"


Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?


--
"This historic ground in New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth...gave the most effective answer today to Japanese propaganda that radiations were responsible for deaths even after the day of the explosion, Aug. 6, and that persons entering Hiroshima had contracted mysterious maladies due to persistent radioactivity." — NY Times, 12 Sep 45






posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 12:27:09PM -0400, xod wrote:
> John E Clifford wrote:
>
> >Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder"
>
>
> Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?

In fact they never do; one must bind them explicitely to equal each
other if that is what is desired.

I think I will explicitely mention that my proposal leads to being able
to do {le ka ce'u catra ce'u pa xi pa}, and mention the cy thing as
well.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"


xod scripsit:
> John E Clifford wrote:
>
> >Consider the difference between {le ka ce'u catra ce'u}, "murder"
>
>
> Do 2 ce'us always refer to the same thing?

On the contrary.

--
"No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com
internal links in forms which are hideously jcowan@reutershealth.com
over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev


posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:20:16AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti {le ka ce'u broda} is not "the
> property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda}
> but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so.

I am not aware of a difference between those statements.

-Robin


posts: 2388



Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:20:16AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti {le ka ce'u broda} is not "the
> property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda}
> but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so.

I am not aware of a difference between those statements.

-Robin



Well, roughly, the first is linguistically oriented, the second metaphysical. Propositional functions are closely allied with language, properties are meant to be more independent of language — what language seeks to represent as it were (and both are different from qualities-- for want of a better word — which are ways the world is or might be). This is all tentative and a result of too much reading in this subject of late. I have to say that no one hold that all these things exst — and they are all things accoring to their supporters — but no one has done a convincing job of reducing all of them (or even two of them) to one thing, so I am going with a maximum ontology for now. Lojaban, notice, clearly distinguishes between these two (or two somethings anyhow, whether this pair or another of the possibles in this mess I am not sure).

Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one. Now, it *ought* to function like a quantifier and take a bound vriable, but it does not. This creates problems for cases where more than one place is to be bound in the same way and also misleads about structure. On the other hand, the real lambda format is painfully lengthy (see LISP). Some compromise would be nice.



Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
If there's anything I need to understand in:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=ke%27a

which appears to have mostly been written by xod, someone please explain it to me.

-Robin



Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
I don't understand

http://www.lojban.org/tiki//tiki-index.php?page=ka%2C+du%27u%2C+si%27o%2C+ce%27u%2C+zo%27e

terribly well, but I will attempt to abide by it. Please let me know if I'm confused.

-Robin



Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
{le ka ce'u brod} is not "the property of being somehting that can go in the first place of broda} but simply the property of being a broda, brodaness or so. The other is more nearly {le du'u ce'u broda} but is not quite that eitehr.



BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a
> quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of
ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even
have a definition in Chapter 11.

Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u
is, but I am certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin