From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:53 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 1993 22:53:47 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7592; Thu, 18 Mar 93 22:52:37 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3885; Thu, 18 Mar 93 22:53:48 EST Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 21:15:14 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: Re: TECH: QUERY re cmene X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, jimc@math.ucla.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-From-Space-Date: Thu Mar 18 21:15:14 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: <36nhufWng8N.A.b4.920kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Names in English are, I think, like variables that have been assigned values in some onomasticon that accompanies the lexicon. Unlike in mathematical contexts the variable-value correspondence needn't be one-one but can be one-many. The variable _bob_ can have several values - one for each entity that is named _bob_ - but it does not follow from this that using _bob_ to refer to, say, Bob LeC. involves any quantification. Another way of looking at it is to say that the name of Bob [Smith] is a homonym of the name of Bob [Jones]. Of course in English one can then freely convert names into common nouns meaning "entity named ____" as in _Is there a Bob here?_. But this is conversion between word classes and involves a change in meaning. From: John Cowan > I believe that the rest of your remarks evince a fundamental confusion, > which is perhaps not sufficiently clarified in our materials, between > names as an argument-class and names as a word-class. The word-class called > "cmene" or "names" need no identifying flag; they are self-identifying > because they end with a consonant+pause, which is not possible for any > other word of the language. It would be more correct to call them > "cmene valsi", or "name-words". Although restricted grammatically, > name-words can be preceded by quite a few other words besides "la". OK, so I was talking not about cmevla as such but about cmene in general, including _la gismu_ & _laho la. xxxxooo la._ > > If this is the case, I am confused as to why _la_ belongs > > to the same selmaho as _le_, _lo_, _loi_ etc. > > Your assumption is in fact false: "la", "lai", "la'i" belong to selma'o > LA, and "le", "lo", "lei", "loi", "le'i", "lo'i", "le'e", "lo'e" belong > to selma'o LE. The difference between LA and LE, grammatically speaking, > is precisely that LA may precede one or more name-words, whereas LE may not. > In addition, LA may be used wherever LE is legal. I get the e/o opposition (sort of) and the _/_i/_'i is individual/mass/set, (right?) [what are le'e & lo'e?] but I don't see an a/e/o opposition. Why can't words of the e & o series be descriptors of cmene? And why are the cmavo structured in a way such that the e/o element is excluded from the descriptor of cmene? Are there cmavo meaning la'o+la, la'o+lai, la'o+la'i? > > It seems to me > > (whose understanding of Lojban is superficial) that the > > function of _la_ is to act as a word-class identifier > > Not at all, as I explained above. Semantically, LA cmavo always deliver > an argument: "la .and." is equivalent to: > > le se cmene be zo .and. > what-I-describe-as-the-thing named-by the-word "And" > > which with appropriate adjustments will explain all uses of LA cmavo. OK, so that makes _.And._ a predicate, and also it makes _gismu_ in _la gismu_ a predicate, but one with a different meaning from the gismu _gismu_. Are all cmene unary predicates? Anyway, cmene being predicates the following ought to be possible, as I said. > > mi cu (la) .and. "I am an-entity-named-And > > mi cu se cmene zo .and. > I am-named-by the-word "And" > > > le (la) .and. cu prenu "What is hereby described as > > an-entity-named-And is a person" > > le se cmene zo .and. cu prenu > > or just > > la .and. cu prenu But this is missing the point. I am not disputing that it is possible to find a way to say something like "My name is _And_" or like "What is hereby described as an entity named _And_ is a person. My point is that if _(la) .And._ really does have a sense, & this sense is "entity-named-_And_", so that the use of _la .And._ to refer to me involves implicit quantification, then mi cu (la) .and. le (la) .and. cu prenu ought to make perfectly good sense. From: jimc@math.ucla.edu > > > ko'a me'e tirxu > > > [He] is Tiger > > > > Your English translation suggests that this is equative & could > > equally well be _Tiger is him_. Would "[he] is entity-named-_Tiger_" > > be a better translation? > > "He Tiger; me Tarzan; you Jane" is the really best way to put it in > English. Your symbol, "entity-named-_Tiger_", does suggest that the > sentence is of the form (x1 predicate) rather than (x1 equals x2). This is my point. Given what names are supposed to mean in Lojban, they seem to me to inherently be predicates. John: > > loi la .and. cu prenu "The mass-of entities-named-And > > is a person" > > lai .and. cu prenu > the-mass-of-those-named "And" is-a-person And _la'i_ would be the set of those named "And"? > Since "la lojban." delivers an argument, it may be coerced into a predicate > by the general method of prefixing "me", which coerces any argument > into a predicate. Does me take a single argument, or can it have an open-ended quantity? > > I would appreciate enlightenment on these points. > > "I can >tell< you, but to >enlighten< you is probably beyond my poor > powers of discussion." --Norman Spinrad And for me to be enlightened may well be beyond my powers of cognition. ------- And