From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:58:00 2010 Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:49:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511102132.QAA28570@locke.ccil.org> from "Logical Language Group" at Nov 9, 95 01:50:59 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1998 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 13 14:49:55 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: la lojbab. joi mi cusku be di'e casnu > >> What if you have da, de, and le nanmu, and wish to lambda on > >> le nanmu. > > > >Again, that makes no sense: lambdacated sumti should be semantically > >empty, or at most a "da poi", which is a variable ranging over a restricted > >scope ("da poi broda" is a kind of "da" that can only refer to something > >that broda's). > > So I guess I should have used da, de and "di voi nanmu"? When you put it that way, then you are clearer, but I do think "xe'u di voi nanmu" is clearer then "xe'u le nanmu". Unless the non-veridicality of "nanmu" is critical here, though, "xe'u nanmu" does the job. > OK, let me present a practical, if contrived, problem or two. > > Team A is better (xagmau) than Team B in leka Their running backs' speed > which I would have done as "leka le kelcnraninbeka cu sutra" > > (I was going to say le mela runin. bek. , buit am unsure if that fits your > new version of "me" %^) No, it doesn't. > I don;t see how to even elicit the required lambda variable, unles it is > "leka le xu'eda kelcnraninbeka cu sutra". Is this what you intend? I had to think about this a bit. I think the answer is le ka da poi se bende be xe'u de gi'e kelcnraninbeka cu sutra the property-of (X which is-a-team-member of Y and is-a-running-back) is-fast where X is a purely local variable, but Y is the lambdacated one. In symbolic English that is: being a y such that(there exists x : x is a team-member of y & x is a running back & x is fast) This assumes that the place structure of "kelcnraninbeka" is just "x1 is a running back". If it's "x1 is a running back for team x2" then we can get rid of the explicit "se bende" in favor of: le ka da poi kelcnraninbeka xe'u de cu sutra the property-of-being-Y such-that-the-X who is-a-running-back-for Y is fast. or in notation: being a y such that (there exists X: X is a running back for Y & X is fast) -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.