From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Mar 3 09:05:13 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:05:31 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8808; Wed, 03 Mar 93 04:01:49 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9641; Wed, 03 Mar 93 04:07:32 EST Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 09:05:13 GMT Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: TECH: Properties: what do they mean? X-To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: cu'u la djan. > How are we to know that this "le ka" > phrase does not refer to the property of being a set of conditions under > which something unspecified becomes a wall? Ellipsis in ka-sentences > serves both to indicate the variables in the lambda abstraction, and also > the normal zo'e places which are to be understood. (The nit-picking objection > that "le ka" covers a multitude of sins because "le" is not veridical > breaks down when we consider the less familiar "lo ka", that which really > is a property. I don't think this is a problem in practice. Ellipses normally default to the first unsatisfied place. This isn't a rule of the language as such, but appears to be a pretty good rule of thumb. You can always make any given sumti place occupy the first empty position using SE, which pragmatically emphasises that argument role as being the one of interest. Nick's {kau} suggestion is interesting, but I'm not convinced it's the right answer, for reasons I can't completely explain. I think it's partly that I don't agree that {le du'u ... kau ...} is a (lambda (x) ...) situation. {le du'u dakau broda} has more to do with the set {x: broda(x)} than the function (lambda (x) (broda x)). > Just what is the property by which four exceeds three? > Number-greaterness (ka namcu zmadu)? Hardly, as this circularly drags in > "zmadu" again? We gave up the separate cmavo for "<" and ">" as predicates, > believing that "zmadu" and "mleca" would do the work. But with what x3 > place? If we are to reduce comparison of things (by some property) to > comparison of numbers (ni-abstractions), by what property do we compare > those numbers? I'm not too excited about this either. We can use a lujvo ({namterzma}?) or a lehavla ({cmacrmaio}, or should that be something like {cmacrmaiore}?), or we can cobble together something like {me la'e zo za'u}. We could even define the longstop default ({lo'e te zmadu}) to be numeric (i.e. algebraic) comparison. (Of course, a gismu would be _nice_.) :) co'o mi'e .i,n.