From sentto-44114-15865-1032442359-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Sep 19 06:35:32 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n32.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.100]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17s1Sp-0003Gt-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:35:27 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15865-1032442359-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 20675 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.21.2436a39c (18707) for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <21.2436a39c.2abb2be6@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:32:22 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] ka versus du'u Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_21.2436a39c.2abb2be6_boundary" X-archive-position: 1353 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_21.2436a39c.2abb2be6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 5:52:43 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@free.fr writes: << But I do not want to trigger again a discussion you had before: maybe> > you could just give me a reference in the list archive. Or maybe pc > wrote a summary of this discussion issues, like some others I found > in the archives. >> pc wrote several tentative summaries of the discussion, all of which were rejected by a large part of the discussants -- including one which exactly met the conditions the discussants claimed to have agreed about. The result is that {du'u} and {ka} are used in at least three different ways each (though I think there were four parties in the discussion) and, if you don't know the party of your interlocutor, you can get a wrong reading occasionally. By and large, though, if you see a {ce'u} in either context, it is a property being talked about. If you see no {ce'u} in a {du'u} clause, it is likely not to be a property, with a small but significant margin of error. {ka} is always some property of something, but which property and of what is not always clear, since {ce'u}s appear and disappear in the same context with amazing dexterity. So, for use, whatever you do, put in all your {ce'u}s. << A property abstraction is not the same as a predication abstraction. (an indication of this seems to be that a useful x2 place has be given to du'u and not to ka). And on the other hand I see no reference in the book for the use of ce'u with du'u. >> CLL is very quiet about {ce'u}, talking about it only in terms of {ka}, but also talking about {ka} without {ce'u} or any place for it. The use with {du'u} -- and eventually with any abstraction --, while allowed for in CLL, was developed from the post-book discussion that took off from the understanding of {ce'u} as a lambda'd variable in the lambda calculus (the one about abstractions, not the one about probabilities). {ce'u} doesn't work well in that role if you have occasions to want to bind two places the same way -- and pretty scary if you want to do that twice: \x\yFxyyx, is just hard to say in Lojban, though it can be done. That a property abstraction is not the same as a propositonal function is a contentious claim, though, amazingly, not one that was raised in the earlier discussion (I think). [I don't have reference numbers for the discussion but it seems to have stretch from August last year to April this, with a couple score of entries] The second place on {du'u} seems to have a certain use in mind, which is not this one, but is compatible with it (but almost never used, for obvious reasons). --part1_21.2436a39c.2abb2be6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 5:52:43 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@free.fr writes:

<<
But I do not want to trigger again a discussion you had before: maybe

you could just give me a reference in the list archive. Or maybe pc
wrote a summary of this discussion issues, like some others I found
in the archives.

>>
pc wrote several tentative summaries of the discussion, all of which were rejected by a large part of the discussants -- including one which exactly met the conditions the discussants claimed to have agreed about.  The result is that {du'u} and {ka} are used in at least three different ways each (though I think there were four parties in the discussion) and, if you don't know the party of your interlocutor, you can get a wrong reading occasionally.  By and large, though, if you see a {ce'u} in either context, it is a property being talked about.  If you see no {ce'u} in a {du'u} clause, it is likely not to be a property, with a small but significant margin of error.  {ka} is always some property of something, but which property and of what is not always clear, since {ce'u}s appear and disappear in the same context with amazing dexterity.  So, for use, whatever you do, put in all your {ce'u}s.

<<
A property abstraction is not the same as a predication abstraction.
(an indication of this seems to be that a useful  x2 place has be given
to du'u and not to ka).
And on the other hand I see no reference in the book for the use of ce'u
with du'u.
>>
CLL is very quiet about {ce'u}, talking about it only in terms of {ka}, but also talking about {ka} without {ce'u} or any place for it.  The use with {du'u} -- and eventually with any abstraction --, while allowed for in CLL, was developed from the post-book discussion that took off from the understanding of {ce'u} as a lambda'd variable in the lambda calculus (the one about abstractions, not the one about probabilities). {ce'u} doesn't work well in that role if you have occasions to want to bind two places the same way -- and pretty scary if you want to do that twice: \x\yFxyyx, is just hard to say in Lojban, though it can be done.
That a property abstraction is not the same as a propositonal function is a contentious claim, though, amazingly, not one that was raised in the earlier discussion (I think). [I don't have reference numbers for the discussion but it seems to have stretch from August last year to April this, with a couple score of entries]  The second place on {du'u} seems to have a certain use in mind, which is not this one, but is compatible with it (but almost never used, for obvious reasons).
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_21.2436a39c.2abb2be6_boundary--