Received: from mail-ig0-f186.google.com ([209.85.213.186]:60879) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XYGQ8-0002di-1F for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:30:00 -0700 Received: by mail-ig0-f186.google.com with SMTP id uq10sf424012igb.3 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=I/fmoMpXfdtCIXJ1ET0/GTReeDOt4lhnCgwjZBL6thE=; b=IjFxBVWNBzIU9gICX+dqfvc87LsS7IcCc88jUFR4q4nDPmH6h5ILb9U3PhzGx3+MjO tgCORyYFJftde501oePb/71igheAfp4gfvq+YlciEYyHwabYL8EG+9B+2nP6MQ317qSi P5L5s0mo88IZ2Ejx+h0SY+E03PvQLJozSBrSySI+WuPpKD7NVct0LuvHXiUJK+6TVGIa ifY9q6iXb1yNaf48umJwfFwQuQAWgIRS6k0BtNb+YtXS3ZqBjk3Ka0PiqnndPLNy2J2k R0jMmX4S+fSO74OdMvHtJfEDGLTvlkr+Ym5xf2HKj1/+LrHOcRcQZdwLqSLLgRRAkenk c2+g== X-Received: by 10.50.43.196 with SMTP id y4mr676159igl.13.1411918189580; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.225.8 with SMTP id rg8ls1667680igc.15.gmail; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.248.232 with SMTP id yp8mr28427141pac.22.1411918189272; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.24]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pk7si631184pbc.2.2014.09.28.08.29.49 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24; Received: from thegonz.net (d24-141-9-29.home.cgocable.net [24.141.9.29]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8SFTkH4026442 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO) for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:29:47 GMT Received: from martin by thegonz.net with local (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XYGPT-0004SO-FU for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:29:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:29:15 -0400 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 Message-ID: <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> References: <20140927163121.GO28734@gonzales> <3c3b1c5e-cac2-42df-9d67-553a849789d3@googlegroups.com> <20140927192952.GS28734@gonzales> <20140927195841.GT28734@gonzales> <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: carmi User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 09:56 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > The way I'm thinking about it, "fyno" would have all the values of the > function as its referents, so it is a plural constant, and "fyno pe da" > restricts those values to the one(s) associated with da. Aha. I see what you mean. That does make sense, and I agree this is a good way to present it in lojban, and certainly much less painful than using mekso. My only reservation is that it would mean having the lojbanic form quite separate from the logical form. Really, the lojban output is, for now, mainly intended as a kind of documentation on the logical form. In particular, passing this lojbanic form back through tersmu would yield something involving {srana} whose equivalence to the original form involving f(x) is far from immediate. Worse, there wouldn't even be a fixed point for the lojban form - since {pe} without a quantifier is taken as effectively introducing a {noi} clause, {ro da zo'u fy pe da broda da} would become {ro da zo'u ge fyno pe da ge'u srana da gi fyno pe da ge'u me fy me'u .i ro da zo'u fyno pe da ge'u broda da}, which on another pass through would blow up those {pe} clauses even further... > [snip] > In your output form you don't distinguish the definitions (except when th= ey > involve "le", which get marked as "ju'o nai") from the assertions. Perhaps > they could be given different illocutionary force, maybe "ca'e". So the > output for "[ju'a] ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da" would look > something like: >=20 > ca'e ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u fyno pe da mamta da > .i [ju'a] ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u da prami fyno pe da Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi broda} as absolute dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the referent(s) broda(s). You think a more accurate dogma would be {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi ca'e broda}? Martin --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlQoKUsACgkQULC7OLX7LNYuLgCfQtkkK2hCbHIEipvX1J39ETQC wxoAn3OD7Onbp9GyoOmWgTo/kZu8p6r5 =boDM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aVD9QWMuhilNxW9f--