Message-Id: <199511221831.NAA12140@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:21:27 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

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 <p> 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 <bridi> kei be ko'a = ko'a pe le du'u <bridi>


Jorge