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 m0rEjPS-00007GC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 21:49 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8078; Mon, 05 Dec 94 21:49:32 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8074; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:49:32 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6452; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:46:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 14:38:56 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Cowan's sum:opaque X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411192221.AA29390@nfs1.digex.net> from "Gerald Koenig" at Nov 19, 94 02:14:12 pm Content-Length: 1185 Lines: 23 la djer. cusku di'e > Suppose we had a language shift cmavo similar to, for example, the > Greek lerfu shift, "ge'o", which would shift the following expression > prior to its terminator into the language of first order predicate > logic. But predications about predications, i.e, all kinds of complex > sumti, would be illegal then as expressing second order predicate > logic. It would force all following sumpti to be objects. I don't think this says what you mean. Lojban predications are already those of 1st-order logic, if we exclude the bu'a series. "le nu mi klama le zarci" is just as good an "object" as "le mlatu". We don't have predications about predications, but rather predications about (abstract) objects which are derived from the subject-matter of predications. Even "du'u", which talks about propositions and comes perilously near to breaching the walls of 1st-order, can probably be gotten round by treating it (as we do) as always an opaque context, so that "du'u mi klama le zarci" means "the subject-matter of 'mi klama le zarci'". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.