Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales>
References: <20140927163121.GO28734@gonzales>
	<3c3b1c5e-cac2-42df-9d67-553a849789d3@googlegroups.com>
	<20140927192952.GS28734@gonzales>
	<bf1a257f-4b62-4d03-ad77-5bbfb1b91870@googlegroups.com>
	<20140927195841.GT28734@gonzales>
	<5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2c5fi5d+1Rc=1eXJEG_1a8QMeGe6Uy5psMYAWqkTO3ciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2ds0RxZnHoUSodwty5hjWk+6hpKPj_Y8NoVy+paOc44sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 22:00:10 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eST7Fj3qQa2DKrmfPP8pYQPToCQL7x7v8xWUqAn5FARQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34d94e43c81050429c910
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c34d94e43c81050429c910
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

>
> 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...
>

Yes, I see what you mean. I take it then that the parser doesn't touch
li-expressions, or at least some of them?


> Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} == {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} == {zo'e noi ca'e broda}?
>

No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the new auxiliary variables
introduced by the parsing. But I do think that noi-clauses in general, and
the noi-clause used in the espansion of "lo" in particular, have an
illocutionary force different from assertions. I'm now thinking "zo'e noi
sa'a broda" could be it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a11c34d94e43c81050429c910
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
In particular, passing this lojbanic form back through tersmu would<br>
yield something involving {srana} whose equivalence to the original form<br=
>
involving f(x) is far from immediate. Worse, there wouldn&#39;t even be<br>
a fixed point for the lojban form - since {pe} without a quantifier is<br>
taken as effectively introducing a {noi} clause, {ro da zo&#39;u fy pe da<b=
r>
broda da} would become {ro da zo&#39;u ge fyno pe da ge&#39;u srana da gi f=
yno<br>
pe da ge&#39;u me fy me&#39;u .i ro da zo&#39;u fyno pe da ge&#39;u broda d=
a}, which on<br>
another pass through would blow up those {pe} clauses even further...<br></=
blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I see what you mean. I take it then tha=
t the parser doesn&#39;t touch li-expressions, or at least some of them?</d=
iv><div>=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hmm. I&#39;ve been=
 adopting {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo&#39;e noi broda} as absolute<br>
dogma, so it&#39;s really making a side-claim that the referent(s) broda(s)=
.<br>
You think a more accurate dogma would be<br>
{lo broda} =3D=3D {zo&#39;e noi ca&#39;e broda}?<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>No, I was thinking of &quot;ca&#39;e&quot; as defining the new au=
xiliary variables introduced by the parsing. But I do think that noi-clause=
s in general, and the noi-clause used in the espansion of &quot;lo&quot; in=
 particular, have an illocutionary force different from assertions. I&#39;m=
 now thinking &quot;zo&#39;e noi sa&#39;a broda&quot; could be it.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes =C2=A0</div><div><br></div></div>=
</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a11c34d94e43c81050429c910--