From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 23:00:06 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 1 Dec 1992 12:07:48 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9698; Tue, 01 Dec 92 12:04:21 EST Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id 0186; Tue, 01 Dec 92 12:04:13 EST Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 11:50:00 EST Reply-To: protin@USL.COM Sender: Lojban list From: protin@USL.COM X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 1 06:50:00 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: To: lojban Subject: The Distribution Problem: An Ambiguity? Folks, (I am not really getting active again but I have had a few moments to read the mail lately and feel like I need to comment on this one.) The distributive property does not derive from the meanings of the words being grouped but from the meaning(s) of the connectors. >From a mathematical perspective, 'and' distributes over compounding. I think that the problem is that people do not have a pure definition (or is that purely mathematical/logical definition) of the 'and' connector. Since I am not current in my studies and lack my reference material here, I am not sure what the "meaning of je" is. I can think of at least two distinct meanings that would yield the confusion I saw in John's posting: 1) parallel assertions, as in "melbi je cmalu ckule" where I would interprete the 'je' as keeping the 'melbi' from modifying (compounding with) the 'cmalu' yielding a reference to a school that was both pretty and small. 2) some equal weighted combining instead of compounding, as in "labno je remna dapma" where John tells me that "labno je remna" translates into 'werewolf', a thing that is simultaniously both a man and a wolf. I see the problem as being fundamental to the very nature of the Loglan project: a language whose focus is relations and things are described by those relations, verses our native languages that start us with things and extrapolate out to some of those relationships. >From a mathematian's perspective: operations on functions are different from operations on variables because, while we can sometimes ignore it, functions include variables. This is especially a problem when working with functions of multiple variables (inputs). Relations are more often than not among many things (read 'variables' (the situation gets messy when terminologies collide)). I suspect that we need to work these ugly little issues out (issues of the arguments to these functions, or from a more project orient view (and terminology), issues of the place structure when combining (with or without 'je')) in all the gorry detail before distributing (new usage here) the specifications of our language for people to use. [< Ok, now throw those rotting vegetables and old cans at me >] thank you all, Arthur Protin