From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:55:29 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 4 Mar 1993 00:22:59 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5157; Thu, 04 Mar 93 00:19:17 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6826; Thu, 04 Mar 93 00:25:10 EST Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 00:21:39 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: Properties X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Mar 3 19:21:39 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: I've had very little time the last few weeks to even think about Lojban, with the whole family (including me) down with bad cases of the flu. I did talk briefly with Nora about this problem, though. If it is agreed that there is a problem, then we are constrained in solving it by the closeness of book publication and the long history of usage of "ka". We cannot make wholesale changes in this area. Nora therefore believes that a kloodgy solution is "good enough". Since I won't pretend to understand even what lambda calculus is, much less what you-all are saying it implies, I 'll let others argue about what is good or not good about Nick's proposal, for example (on the surface it sounds plausible, I will admit). My initial feeling, on reading what Chassell wrote as well as the quotes of JCB and the comments of Gerald K., is that there is a meaningful interpretation of a property abstractor that takes a bridi, and that therefore there is a presumtion against changing the grammar of "ka" in addition to our basic conservatism against change. I suspect from my readings, though, that the normal use of "ka" as seen by JCB would be in the form of "loika" or even "piro loi ka" - the mass of properties involving a particular relation, and supplying for all ellipsized places, members of the bound variables da/de/di... On the other hand, it seems likely that there is a need to talk about p properties from the point of view of one of the places of a predicate, hence Nick's idea of "kau" which would specify which one. The similarities with sumti-raising seem manifest - we are dealing with the use of an abstract p predicate and one argument of that predicate as it relates to the whole. In sumti-raising, of course, we use "tu'a" to let the sumti stand for an implied abstraction, whereas we seem in "leka" abstraction used in place struyctures to be letting an abstraction stand for a particular place of that abstracted predicate - the reverse situation. Does this insight help anyone? (Nick, does this relate to your "xe'e" in any way?) It does seem to me that the use of "kau" in indirect discourse, its preceding application, is also a case where we are using an abstraction to talk about one of the places of the abstraction as well, hence my initial reaction that "kau" may work at least as the ad hoc solution that we need to not think of this as a crisis (which John clearly thinks it is, and indeed a major flaw in something this fundamental would be if it could not be resolved). Moving beyond this approach though, we may want to consider adding a new grammar operation to the language which does accomplish directly what we seem to be trying to do with "kau" in both of these situations: to talk about a particular sumti as part of an abstraction. We would use new cmavo and a grammar that is appropriate, and this would become an ALTERNATE, and in the long-term PREFERRED solution to the problem, but we preserve the simpler, kloodgy "kau", and perhaps even the conventional interpretation of ellipsis in abstractions that we apparently have been doing all along, for the sake of backwards compatibility with the language history. This possible new construct sounds like it may resemble "me" in grammar, since it takes a sumti as its core, but it also needs to tie in the predicate that that sumti is forming a part of, which sounds like a description-related construct. THus I see a "xu'u broda (be ... bei ...)" construct, or in grammar terms, a selbri that is formed from "xu'u + description", as being the new kind of "property" (and possibly "amount" if one of these is also needed). There might need to be an appropriate closing delimiter, which might or might not be able to be MEhU, shared with ME. If we consider adding a new construct, though, we may also want to think about whether we want or need to be able to talk about more that one place at a time, which I think Colin raised as an issue a few months ago - there might be a need for that in this situation too (or not - any opinions?), and the use of a construct that focuses attention on specific sumti within a predicate may be generalizable beyond a focus on only one IFF we plan for it at the time we are devising such a construct. It would certainly make me (and Nora) feel more at ease about the issue if solutions to the problem use only existing constructs in ways that are consistent with the past, and new constructs that can be seen as enhancements to the expressive power of the language, but are not obligatory. Reactions, anyone??? lojbab