From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu  Sat Mar  6 22:55:49 2010
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:26:51 -0400
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 8137; Sun, 11 Oct 92 01:16:58 EDT
Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 4230; Sun, 11 Oct 92 01:16:57 EDT
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:10:14 EST
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      TECH.ADV Generalising MAhO (was Re: TEXT.ADV la me ge'o ly.               velkanji
X-To:         "(Lojban Mailing List)" <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK" at Oct 5,               92 12:57 pm
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Oct 11 10:10:14 1992
X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET
Message-ID: <D8e5IcVSieF.A.dKB.130kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Quoth I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK:

>        cy. goi (me'o ma'o ge'o ly. boi xy. ma'o fy. ma'o xy. boi xy. lo'o)
>        ga'e .ybu goi (li ma'o ge'o ly. boi fy. ma'o cy. boi cy. lo'o)
>        ro fy. zo'u

>I'm not sure whether to propose a cmavo {xa'u} which turns a
>mex operand into an operator, which would require a grammar
>change, or a cmavo {xe'i} (in ma'okle ME) which means
>"the selbri _identified by_ <sumti>", so that {xe'i di'u}
>would be (approximately) equivalent to {go'i}, and
>{xe'i li ma'o ge'o ly. boi xy. ne'o xy.} would be the same as
>{nu'a ne'o} - "x1 is the factorial of x2".

I think that in this case, all that is needed (and it is surprising this
hasn't already taken place) is to replace <mex-operator>=MAhO <operand-3>
with <mex-operator>=MAhO <mex> /TEhU/. After all, there is an algebra of
functions; they can be composed of other functions, inverted, exponentiated,
and returned from higher order functions.

I suspect this will be problematic, possibly introducing ambiguities and
inconveniences --- it is desirable that the unmarked form have its operators
work at the operand level, rather than on functors; but I also think it is
well and truly needed. I leave the mechanics to John on his return.

Given the proposed rule, Iain's piece becomes:

ga'e.ybu goi li ma'o ge'olynau boi fy boi ma'o(ma'ofy(ma'oxy(ma'oxy te'u)
te'u)te'u) (ma'ofy(ma'oxy(ma'oxy))) ro fy zo'u...

or in the usual notation
Y={lambda}f.(f(x(x)))(f(x(x))) {ALL}f:
where the second (f(x(x))) is an argument of the function denoted by the
first (f(x(x))).

Recall that {ga'e} hold effect until explicitly cancelled, or unless
temporarily brought into effect (for one letteral) with ma'okle LAU.

Incidentally, le {ma'oste} est mort, vive le {ma'okle}!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia.  nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au
"Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's
number one killer"       --- Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie.
______________________________________________________________________________