From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 05 05:41:49 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 05:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fbzcc-000829-ON for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:41:26 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.225]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbzcY-000822-Cl for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:41:26 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so595101wra for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:41:19 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UTKcUCE8F6geYVoAziQXZ8aAEgirWb2PzK4Fes4aoReqxy18bF+z0veI3ja1olFKbs8L2wxNr9p1dSYFuUj9VbklyjdIp2RYVgzXPESdTTpwQgF/iGXfxHUJsOhYgB8ooUPC4y8QfAMe6fO2BpF2w4DowT5Mb2hT5MGkQxEv/OE= Received: by 10.54.106.5 with SMTP id e5mr1070717wrc; Fri, 05 May 2006 05:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2006 05:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605050541l58711902vfc138e56ca6a15fa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:41:18 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ralju bangu be le gligu'e In-Reply-To: <20060505022829.51486.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605041732mbf111b5i9eb7342feac25a89@mail.gmail.com> <20060505022829.51486.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11386 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/4/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > But {ralju bangu be le gligu'e} is a selbri, > > not generally a bridi. > > No, {ralju bangu} is a selbri; the incidental > conversion required for fitting the arguments > into a sumti does not change their status as > arguments. The very function of {be} is to incorporate arguments into a more complex selbri. If they are to remain as arguments in a full bridi, {be} is never required. > Well, I suspect you are playing on an ambiguity > in "logical." I mean (as does the "logical" in > "logical language") that the grammar is that of > First Order Predicate Logic -- as adapted. Now, > FOPL doesn't have complex predicates directly, > but a large number of them can be constructed > within its framework and from that the pattern > emerges that all the predicates go together and > all the arguments together, however they may be > spread out eventually on the surface form. If FOPL does not contemplate complex selbri, whether composed of two selbri or of a selbri plus an incorporated argument, then it makes no sense to say that FOPL requieres the operation of selbri composition to be more tightly binding than the operation of sumti incorporation. We have two operations: (1) Sumti incorporation, whereby a sumti is absorbed by a selbri resulting in a more complex selbri. (This is what {be} does.) (2) Selbri composition, whereby a selbri is juxtaposed to another selbri resulting in a more complex selbri. (This is tanru formation.) In Lojban, operation (1) has precedence over operation (2). Since ordinary FOPL has neither of them, we can't say that FOPL requires operation (2) to have precedence over operation (1). > > I don't see it. How is one more or less > > derivative than the other? > > Well, as noted the one presupposes the other and > uses it in its own construction -- a reasonable > definition of derivative. Which uses which in its construction? They seem independent to me. In a tanru like {broda be ko'a brode}, the tanru formation operation (2) clearly uses a selbri that already incorporated an argument as the modifier selbri, so in that case (2) uses (1) in its construction. There are other parts of Lojban where there is indeed a mismatch between form and meaning, but this is not one of them. One very closely related to this one that does have a mismatch is in how {co} works. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.