Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9110102236.AA24412@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Thu Oct 10 22:06:28 1991
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc
Subject:      Re: Lojban duplications
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, Ken Taylor <taylor@gca.com>,
        List Reader <ghsvax!hal>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Wed,
              09 Oct 91 15:54:44 EDT." <9110092027.AA02136@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 10 22:06:28 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

Is it our current doctrine that, for each predicate, besides the
numbered places, the predicate relation includes every <BAI> case
whether or not specified by words?  In other words, every bridi
includes a (often unspecified, likely useless in practice, but
doctrinally important) tense, speaker, listener, language of
expression, cause (4 kinds), consequence (4 kinds), exemplar, etc. etc.
ad infinitum?  Note that fi'o <bridi> can make a <BAI> case out
of every selbri in the language, so "ad infinitum" is to be taken
literally.

If not, just what is the status of the <BAI> cases?

In case anyone cares, I support this interpretation, and I believe that
both JCB and Lojbab have made statements of this form though not so
extreme.  But I acknowledge that this doctrine has very heavy
philosophical consequences, which I am not able to fathom.

                -- jimc