Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:42:49 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141028024248.GB6097@gonzales>
References: <20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c8JQsr+7zbrdos-9Wm1t8w+sH1SANSO6e_MGV4ZDjcow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141018180946.GF20049@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dUSzYCWm+CNeNugkeU=aO6mWXSY3gn5dc+8XNU3GpasQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eUqpe3AwAY-DxmONhxM3Pj5kyhTm605bAnD3iJEHVgug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c+ObFDqF_TZTQMjGJRZfZxpoY-pFB4_canWM3Lpdgvsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales>
 <544D68A0.8000402@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <544D68A0.8000402@gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: kelci
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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2014-10-26 at 22:33 +0100 - Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:

> On 22/10/2014 02:22, Martin Bays wrote:
> > Is {broda xoi xo'i [tag] ke'a} not equivalent to {[tag] broda}?
> Not really.

Yes, that was wrong in quite a few ways. Thanks.

> {fi'o broda xy} has a rather vague semantic, it's not clear=20
> how the bridi is related to the fact/event of "xy broda".
>=20
> However I think {fi'o xo'i TAG} =3D {TAG}, by definition.

I guess that can't be literally true, since the former is vague as you
say while the latter isn't.

> {xo'i}'s purpose is to allow using directly the predicates that are
> underlying sumtcita whose associated predicate hasn't any Lojban
> predicate word (e.g. {pu'i}, {nu'o}, {za'o} and the like).
> However I'm not fond of {xo'i}, I'd rather prefer the missing sumtcita=20
> predicates to be given a real predicate word and be done with it. :)

It's useful for the kind of formal conversions this thread is mostly
about, though. I don't know how to handle {pe [tag]} without using
{xo'i} (and without having a lookup table to find an appropriate
selbri).

By the way: if we take {broda} to be equivalent to {da fasnu gi'e nu
broda}, is {broda xoi brodu} equivalent to {da fasnu gi'e nu broda kei
gi'e brodu}?

Martin

--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlRPAqgACgkQULC7OLX7LNYqjwCgsmk3//piwBO/Yz+YKnvm6BSj
I6wAn34iMooG6ZogRjkWroAnxGBCr1kB
=DSzP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm--