Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tIJoN-0000ZUC; Wed, 22 Nov 95 20:22 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 4FD59E0D ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:22:22 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:21:27 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Content-Length: 1909 Lines: 55 la djan cusku di'e > Using "ke'a", though, disallows the neat form "xe'u broda" for "xe'u da > poi broda", as in: > > le ka xe'u nanmu cu cinba la djein. > the property of being a man who kisses Jane Right, you'd have to say: le ka ke'a nanmu gi'e cinba la djein or: le ka ke'a poi nanmu cu cinba la djein But I don't see that as a big loss. A property is a property of an argument, and the best way to reserve a place for an argument is to use a KOhA. > In addition, a special rule for binding "ke'a" implicitly in a prenex would > be needed, rather than piggybacking on the existing rules for da-series. Why a special rule? The same rule should apply to all bindables. > Lambda quantification binds variables, after all, and we already have > machinery for bound variables. Exactly. {ke'a} in a relative clause is a bound variable too, that's why And's rules for prenexing it work nicely. > > > What exactly ["su'u"] means is specified by its x2 place, so you get > > > "x1 is an abstraction of

of-type x2 (e.g. an asserter, {lo xusra})". Does that mean that x1 and x2 are the same object, in this case a person? Is what goes in x2 simply another su'ivla for the same sumti? > > > Less mundanely, we have the book titled "Abstraction of (Jesus Christ > > > is crucified) of-type a downhill-motorcycle-race". "su'u" allows for > > > expansion of the abstraction set. > "The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ Considered As A Downhill Motorcycle Race." > (Arguably my translation doesn't render the word "considered".) Would the x1 of that su'u be a downhill motorcycle race? > The point is that every other abstraction can be expressed as a "su'u" > with an appropriate x2: "nu" is "su'u ... kei be lo fasnu", "jei" is > "su'u ... kei be lo niljetnu", etc. Would it be correct to say that: le su'u kei be ko'a = ko'a pe le du'u Jorge