Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Tue, 24 Mar 92 08:58 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA28712; Tue, 24 Mar 92 06:09:51 EST Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA12600; Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:15:21 -0500 Message-Id: <9203241015.AA12600@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8483; Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:14:42 EST Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf012) id 4340; Tue, 24 Mar 92 05:13:18 EST Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 19:48:21 GMT Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: A pair of how-do-i-say-it's X-To: iad@cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: ; from "Ivan A Derzhanski" at Mar 20, 92 5:22 pm Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Mar 24 08:58:51 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Ivan to Mark: > > > > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 14:45:01 -0500 > > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > > > > <...> the {bu'a} series is like > > the {da/de/di} series (while {brodX} is like {ko'a/fo'a}). So far so good. > > Here's an example of a sentence I was plying with: > > > > George Bush is to the United States what John Major is to Great Britain. > > > > <...> You can use assorted > > circumlocutions to get this, but I think you ought to be able to use > > {bu'a}, since this is really what it's for. Just like {da} asserts "There > > is some sumti/object/concept/whatever that fills this place", {bu'a} should > > assert "There is some selbri/relationship that relates these sumti". > > Suppose we really say something like "GB {bu'a} US & JM {bu'a} UK" > with whatever connective might be applicable between the two sentences. > > And suppose {bu'a} really means that there is some selbri which > expresses a relation that holds for the given arguments. > > So what we get is `exists R [R (g, a) and R (j, b)]'. I think the problem is mostly with the existential quantifier, and partly with the choice of logical connective. It's like su'oda zo'u da danlu .ije da jmive for some x, x is an animal and x is alive which is true, but not very illuminating. If you make the quantifier universal, you get roda zo'u da danlu .ije da jmive which is false, but much more interesting. And if you change the connective to conditional or biconditional, you get roda zo'u da danlu .inaja da jmive for all x, if x is an animal then x is alive or roda zo'u da danlu .ijo da jmive for all x, x is an animal if and only if x is alive. One true, one false, but both non-trivial. In the Major/Bush case, therefore, if you say robu'a zo'u la buc. bu'a .ubu sy. .ijo la meidjr. bu'a la britn for all relationships P, P(GB,US) if and only if P(JM,UK) You get something which is not strictly true, but is essentially what you were trying to capture. kolin