Message-Id: <199511191954.OAA04953@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 19 Nov 1995 16:01:33 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> la lojbab. cusku di'e
> > What is not clear in this proposal, is whether you expect that xe'u
> > is going to be normally needed, or normally ellipsized, based on your
> > new understanding of Quine.
> I think that it will be normally ellipsized, but that there needs to be
> a way to distinguish between a place that's bound by the abstraction
> and one that's just plain {zo'e}, in critical cases. The default is that
> if x1 is empty, the {xe'u da} goes there, so "le ka dunda" is normally
> the property of being a giver/of giving, and "le ka se dunda" is normally
> the property of being a gift, but that doesn't HAVE to be so.

* This is already how {kea} is treated, right?
* kea and xeu outside NOI or {ka..kei} contexts will yield 100% nonsense
   (but be deemed grammatical). Is that right?
* kea and xeu are both liable to need subscripts for when a relative
  clause is contained within a relative clause or a ka within a ka.
  How exactly does that subscripting work? - How do you know which
  ka or NOI which kea/xeu match up with? I would propose that the
  kea/xeu belongs to whichever NOI/ka has it in the prenex of the
  main bridi within it.

John to Chris:
> > >3)      le ka da de xe'u da gerku de
> > How would we use this in a sentence?  The property refers to two
> > entities; would it be something like {lei re nanmu cu ckaji leka da
> > de xe'u da pendo de}?  I think {lei} must be wrong here because
> > there's only one entity (consisting of 2 men); but {le} would be wrong
> > too, because it would be decomposable into {le pa nanmu cu ckaji leka
> > da de xe'u da pendo de} and {le drata nanmu ...}.
> I agree.  But you could use the shadowy "jo'u" (of JOI) which connects
> two entities while leaving them two:
>        la djan. jo'u la djim. ckaji le ka [xe'u da] bruna [xe'u de]
>        John and-jointly Jim have-the-property-of brotherhood

That seems okay, because bruna, at least here, is symmetrical. But
what about:
         la djan jou la djim ckaji le ka xeu da cimba xeu de
? O well - I suppose it says theyre related by a relationship of
kissing, and if you want to say who kisses who, you'd just say
{la djan cimba la djim} without fafffing around with {ka}.

But be that as it may, what does it mean to say {la djan ckaji
le ka xeu da cimba xeu de}?

> (though the current language doesn't seem to have any selbri that
> naturally demand other than 1-place (ka) or 0-place (du'u) intensions),

x2 of {bridi} does.

---
And