From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Mar 16 03:39:29 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 16 Mar 1993 09:03:36 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1426; Tue, 16 Mar 93 08:39:16 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9666; Tue, 16 Mar 93 08:40:24 EST Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 08:39:29 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Comments from pc on various issues X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: John Cowan's message of Mon, 15 Mar 1993 15:27:42 -0500 Status: OR Message-ID: >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 15:27:42 -0500 >From: John Cowan >1) I bounced the idea of using unbound "da" within "ka" abstractions to >signify a propositional function off pc; he agrees that it is the Right >Thing. Any other scheme, he says, for representing (lambda (x) ...x...) >with an explicit arg-list would be intolerably clumsy. Yes, but I dispute the fine points. It's hard to explain this, but somehow I don't like the idea of using "da" series words for lambda placeholders. It doesn't fit what their job is. If you miss the definitions of "da" in Lojban, generally all that means is that you misunderstand or get lost when someone uses them later, but only in that you might think they mean "something" rather than "something in particular". But with the new method, well, somehow it feels like the change distinction in meaning is more basic. If I missed hearing that "daxipano" is unbound, or for some reason thought it was when it wasn't, I might get a totally different picture. Moreover, people are likely simply to say "da" if it becomes common usage, whether or not "da" has been bound (as we already see). Personally, I'd rather see "ke'a" used for the place-holder. It already partakes of the placeholder nature, and it's unlikely we'll use more than one placeholder in these sentences (lambda-calculus notwithstanding), and there's always ke'axire. Perhaps a better move in general would be to create a cmavo that's sort of a cross between "zo'e" and "da", that would refer to something more definite than "zo'e", but never be bound. So I could say "mi se xadni pada" and not worry whether or not I bound "da" a while ago. Perhaps just convention, reserving "di" and its subscripted variables for such use. ~mark