Message-Id: <199411221221.AA17982@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 22 Nov 1994 14:15:49 +0200
Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

mi 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

la xorxes cusku di'e

> Date:         Mon, 21 Nov 1994 19:30:40 EST
> From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban

> And what would these mean? Do you exceed me in the property of being
> the teacher or the one taught? Does the up exceed the down in being
> the gone to or the gone from? I think you want to leave only one of
> the lambda variables in each of those examples.

  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.

> co'o mi'e xorxes

--

  co'o mi'e veion

---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------