From adam@pubcrawler.org Wed Jan 26 14:55:03 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.14]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1Ctw3s-0007sY-9m for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:54:56 -0800 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0QMsNnv021562; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:54:23 -0600 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id j0QMsNEa021559; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:54:23 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:54:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: minimal lojban In-Reply-To: <20050126222649.GO20235@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: References: <20050126132740.61853.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> <20050126194142.GT20235@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <41F80A9A.6020106@eubot.com> <20050126213417.GL20235@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <6862c94d793e32d6c4fd70874e40074c@online.fr> <20050126222649.GO20235@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-archive-position: 9360 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >>>>> 2. Reduce each Lojban utterance into a collection of binary >>>>> (2-sumti) predicates. >>>> >>>> Can you tell me how that works with, say, "da klama de di mi do" >>>> ? >> >> Why wouldn't it just be something like >> >> A isa klama-instance >> A first-sumti B >> A second-sumti C >> A third-sumti D >> A fourth-sumti E >> A fifth-sumti F > > Because "Reduce each Lojban utterance into a collection of > binary(2-sumti) predicates." would preclude that. Hence my > question. Why they're doing it that way, I don't know. I can see how it would work the other way, but I don't think that rules out what I wrote. Translating my example into (probably slightly broken) lojban. .i abu. du'u klama .i by. pavyselsu'i abu. .i cy. relselsu'i abu. .i dy. cibyselsu'i abu. .i ebu. vonselsu'i abu. .i fy. mumselsu'i abu. where {ko'a pavyselsu'i ko'e} is basically {ko'e sumti ko'a li pa}, and is the the same as "first-sumti" relationship given above. So "A" is the entire klama instance, and we relate it to each of the sumti that fill in places in it. Notice that in the "tavla" example, even though we were filling in two places, we never said "A tavla B", but rather that "A isa tavla-instance", "A's first sumti is B", etc. At least, I thought I understood, for a brief moment there... -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide. -- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)