Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:


> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >Can bai broda mean "with a certain known, understood level of compulsion"?
>
> That's how I understand it, yes.
>
> >Which the context might imply is actually total freedom?
>
> I can't think of any such context. Can you?


mi puza cilre bai noda .i ji'a mi puzi speni bai noda .i ji'a mi ca'o bai
gunka



> >Why do you say tagging with fi'o jdima could mean the price is
> >unimportant?
>
> I don't think I said that. On the contrary, it seems to call
> attention to the price.


You wrote:

"In other words, {fi'o jdima} tags a price obvious from context or
unimportant...."



> >And yet if that's a possible interpretation, then it works
> >with that I originally said.
> >
> >I was using it to mean sort of:
> >"I am aware it has a price; I certainly buy it anyway".
>
> But that doesn't say that I would still buy it if the
> price were something else, the way "whatever the price" does.


True.


> >As far as I can tell:
> >
> >le fancu: the name of the function
> >le selfancu: the independent variable, set or axis)
> >le terfancu: the dependent one, specified by the function
> >le velfancu: the actual relationship that specifies the function
>
> Yes. The first oddity is having a place for the name. Why doesn't
> for example {klama} have a place for the name of the goer in
> addition to a place for the goer? Why is it necessary to
> incorporate the {cmene} notion into the notion of function?
> That's extremely weird, but I suppose we can mostly ignore
> the x1.



I agree that it's nonstandard. Maybe they thought the name of a function
is very useful.



> For x2 and x3 the gi'uste speaks of domain and range. You speak
> of the variables. But a price (which is what you had in x2),
> for example $3, is neither a domain nor a variable: it is a
> value. Indeed if you ignore things like {ce'u} and {makau} there
> is no easy way to use variables as such (unbound) in Lojban. The
> way you use those places is not as variables but as values:



Prices are a domain. The price of an object is a variable. Both are
appropriate for le selfancu.



> le selfancu: a value in the domain
> le terfancu: a value in the range


A function that only maps one point to another is not very useful! Do you
want me to state a new bridi for every point in the domain?



> As for x4, you just put {li pa} there, which suggests that
> you are also using it for the value in the range. Something
> like "the function called x1 maps x2 (a value in the range)
> to x3=x4 (a value in the domain)". Unless you meant to use
> {li pa} not to refer to the number 1, but rather to the
> function that maps any value of the range to the number 1.


Yes, that's how lipa should be interpreted when in the le velfancu place.



> >And I use jei where previous folk have used ce'u-less ka when they want to
> >mean the quality of a particular sumti/tergismu pair.
>
> Huh? I thought you used {jei} for the truth value.



Yes, they are the same: the amount of (da is broda)-ness. The second place
of ka is just a tergismu inside jei. Had this been realized any sooner, it
could have saved us some time during the ka discussions.



-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.