From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Fri Mar 20 18:07:20 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Fri, 20 Mar 92 18:07 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA06282; Fri, 20 Mar 92 17:08:13 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA27212; Fri, 20 Mar 92 15:57:29 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA03043; Fri, 20 Mar 92 15:07:28 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA15927; Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:43:40 EST Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA23138; Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:00:15 -0500 Message-Id: <9203201900.AA23138@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7164; Fri, 20 Mar 92 13:57:40 EST Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf012) id 0687; Fri, 20 Mar 92 13:57:17 EST Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 13:55:42 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: A pair of how-do-i-say-it's X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski's message of Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:22:24 GMT Status: RO >Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 17:22:24 GMT >From: Ivan A Derzhanski >Now what did we say by stating this? Not much, it seems to me, for it >is evident that there are a lot of possible values for R which make >the sentence true. Say, > `c := lambda x lambda y [is_a_citizen_of (x, y)]', > `d := lambda x lambda y [has_spent_at_least_one_week_in (x, y)]', >and so on. In fact, it should be possible to say `ID {bu'a} UK & GB >{bu'a} US', because the sentence is true for {bu'a} = `d' (`x has >spent at least one week in y'). Yet if someone says in English "Ivan >is to the UK what George Bush is to the US", I'd give him a very >strange look. >What is going on? Since {da} really can mean any object/concept, >{bu'a} should be able to mean any relation, but it obviously doesn't. >Is this a problem similar to the one with the meaning of {na'e}? Youch. Good point, Ivan. {bu'a} really has to mean something like {da}; "just some selbri", thus losing the veridicality, or, in this situation, since it's used twice, retaining a truly laughable quantity of meaning. How about {mezu'i}=="the typical relationship"? For starters, is that a fair thing to do? I sorta like the idea of {mezu'i} myself, and it *is* veridical, if ambiguous. Thus: la djordj. mezu'i le merko gugde .ije la djan. mezu'i le brito gugde. Is more helpful, but doesn't say what we want; {zu'i} is specific to the situation. I guess I was thinking more of la djordj. mezu'i cei broda le merko gugde .ije la djan. broda le brito gugde. With the assignment, I think this nails down the first {mezu'i}. But I'm not sure if {mezu'i} has the right semantics in the first place. {zu'i} is sort of "the typical sumri for this position". In a case like this, it could be argued that {mezu'i} is "the typical selbri for this", but of course "typical" is asking for trouble. It's more like "the one I'm thinking you, you figure it out..." Sigh. I don't know.... ~mark