Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rA4S0-00007CC; Wed, 23 Nov 94 01:16 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5304; Wed, 23 Nov 94 01:16:54 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5302; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 01:16:54 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6248; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:13:39 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 15:52:34 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1546 Lines: 39 la veion pu cusku di'e > >> How about statements involving symmetry, like > >> > >> *do zmadu mi leka xa'eda ctuca xa'ede fo la lojban > >> *le gapru cu filmau le cnita leka klama xa'eda xa'ede > The idea was to consider xa'eda associating with one sumti of the main > bridi and xa'ede with the other to get a reciprocity which I feel cannot > satisfactorily be expressed using {soi} (we would have the same problem > with the second sumti within the abstraction as we had with the first > one before the introduction of {xa'e}) or {simxu} (who would be the > second party in the mutuality) in a context like this, i.e. I was after > comparing 'you teaching me' to 'me teaching you' and 'going from above > to below' to 'going from below to above'. But I guess it doesn't quite > work like that. Would be nice, though. If we cannot think of 'real' > multi-lambda properties, I think we just might allow a usage like this - > it is a matter of definition, and no more far-fetched than the notion > of {xa'e} in the first place. What convention do you propose? It would seem you are using two different ones in your two examples. What we want to say is: le nu klama le cnita le gapru cu filmau le nu klama le gapru le cnita Going from above to below is easier than going from below to above. or: le nu klama le cnita le gapru cu zmadu le nu klama le gapru le cnita kei le ka [xa'eda/ke'a] frili How do you propose to go from that to the compact form with two lambdas? > co'o mi'e veion co'o mi'e xorxes