From cowan Mon Nov 27 16:20:27 1995 Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited From: John Cowan To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:20:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511232034.PAA21095@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 23, 95 08:23:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7189 Status: OR Message-ID: <05U2FiC5KgJ.A.OwB.450kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> la .and. joi mi cusku be di'e casnu > > > I was proposing that the official rule be that instead of: > > > tavla fa le nanmu poi cliva fa le ninmu poi kea xi pa cimba kea xi re > > > ("the man such that the woman such that she kisses him leaves spoke") > > > the official guaranteed-unambiguous unvague way of doing it is: > > > tavla fa le nanmu poi kea xi xy zou cliva fa le ninmu poi kea xi zy > > > zou kea xi zy cimba kea xi xy > > This is certainly a satisfactory device; I would tend to use "poi ke'a > > goi ko'a/ko'e zo'u" and then use "ko'a" and "ko'e" thereafter. > > Yes, that is nicer, isn't it: In fact, I have just incorporated it into the relative clause paper as an alternative to the use of subscripts: "more verbose, but some may find it clearer." > Subscripting should, I opined, be at most a mere convention, while my > prenex proposals should be honoured with the status of Grammaticalized > Rule. So they are. But subscripting is sometimes more than a convention, as in "sexixa" (the x1-x6 transposer) and "daxire" (the second in the infinite set of distinct da-cmavo). > > > > PA is a wastebasket category, but the maxim of minimum mutilation > > > > tells me that "xe'u" has to go there, considering how late in the > > > > game it is being introduced. > > > I think that maxim would lead to the use of {kea}, as advocated by > > > Jorge & now by me. > > 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 > > Well if you're that taken by the device, you could alter the grammar > of kea, to allow > > da poi kea nanmu cu cinba la djein > that which is a man who kisses Jane Rather than that, I am now proposing to allow it for "ce'u" (the true name of "xe'u"), but making this its own selma'o, usable where a quantifier_300 is usable but not in MEX. > > > > This fnord is obviously not the way natural fnord fnord languages > > > > operate fnord. > > > Exactly. No grammarians' rules have ever included one for fnord-insertion. > > What about the grammarian Hagbard Celine? > Am I showing my ignorance here? This refers to the sf trilogy >Illuminatus<, in which there is a theory that all English texts are sprinkled with the word (or letter-sequence) "fnord", which we are conditioned not to notice in use (although obviously we can see it when mentioned). We are further conditioned to be made anxious by a text in proportion to the density of fnords in it. Thus the Great International Media Conspiracy controls our stress level by sprinkling in fnords. Hagbard Celine is the mastermind behind a counter-conspiracy. > > > So duu is really a one place predicate, denoting a class of sentences. > > > Or rather, duu is used in a range of one-place predicates, each of > > > which denotes a class of sentences. > > Or rather still, "du'u" is used in a range of two-place predicates, each > > of which relates a class of propositions (not sentences) to the sentences > > which express the proposition. (Again, "proposition" = "0-adic > > intension".) > > This is what I was denying, I think. Here goes again: {duu} is used in > a range of 2-place predicates, each of which relates a proposition to > the sentences that express the proposition. This is tantamount to > a 1-place predicate, just as "cousin of John" is effectively a 1-place > predicate - the x2 of "cousin of John" is of course John, so it seems > a bit pointless to have "le se cousin-of-John" to refer to John. Having read what we said very carefully, I think that you are right and I am wrong, but I am by no means certain. > > > It is very naughty of Lojban to exhibit type-token ambiguity. It of > > > all languages should be well-behaved. It's why I say such-and-such > > > a selbri shd be a sumti, and vice versa. > > Well, consider: > > mi cusku zo djan. > > where "djan." is a token, versus > > mi se cmene zo djan. > > where "djan." is more like a type: I do not mean that my name is a > > specific >instance< of the word "djan." > > I see what you mean. If {zo} were a selbri, I'd say: > > mi cusku suo zo djan > mi se cmene loe zo djan / mi se cmene ro zo djan I suppose we could save the face of Lojban by (artificially) construing the "zo djan." in "mi se cmene zo djan." as the baptizing instance. > > > I think I'd like to argue that "abstraction" has no meaning, at least > > > not beyond the n-adic ka/duu. Why? There are many abstractions reified by Lojban. Numbers are abstractions, sets are abstractions, masses are abstractions: at least, none of them are concrete objects. Quine argues that the concrete objects and the sets are all that is really required, but we need not follow him. > > > I don't know which book you're talking about. > > "The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ Considered As A Downhill Motorcycle Race." > > (Arguably my translation doesn't render the word "considered".) > > 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. > > I think I get it. > > lo suu broda kei be lo ganxo > > is equivalent to > > lo ganxo poi kea duu broda > lo duu broda kei poi kea ganxo No, I don't think so. It's the asshole-abstraction of something-unspecified being a thingummy, whatever that is. But it is not necessarily itself an asshole: "le nu broda kei cu na fasnu" can be true, although not by your reading of "nu". > - Or? Since a bridi is not a fasnu, or a ganxo, or whatever, these would > always fail to refer, unless used with a nonveridical gadri. A bridi is not a fasnu, a ckaji, a klani, ... either. > > > > "Physical" is a sticky notion. There is no problem with "nu" objects > > > > that aren't actualized, like "le nu le djordj. .ualas. cu merko gugde > > > > ralju" even though George Wallace wasn't ever U.S. President. > > > There is every problem with such nu objects. {nu la djordj ualas cu > > > merko gugde ralju} is false. > > I assume that by "false" you meant that it is predicated of {noda}. > > Yes. And since {zoe} can be anything except {noda}, my usage of > "false" was legitimate, right? Yes. I saw your utterance as a selbri, not a bridi, but that was merely my assumption. > > In that case, how do you say "I desire George Wallace to be etc."? > > Certainly "mi djica le nu ..." is traditional here. There is a difference > > between what contingently didn't happen, but could have, and what is > > not a happening at all. > > We've debated this before. I insist that {lo nu} refers to an actual > happening, not something that could have happened but didnt. So I would > say {mi djica lo dahi nu}, here, where {nu} is extensionally the set > of all actual events and {dahi nu} is extensionally the set of all > imaginable events. Here we must agree to disagree, I fear. I read an event as including anything that might happen; I'm willing to be neutral on the legitimacy of {nu li 2 + 2 = 5}. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.