Message-Id: <m0tFR4x-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:24:27 +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:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2196
Lines: 48

Djan
> > I oppose [changes to "ckaji"], for reason (iii) below.
> > (i) A nicer order is {el ka bruna ckaji la djan la djim}
> Agreed, but backward compatibility is important too.  Besides,
> the proposed order of "ckaji" (n1 ka n2 n3 ...) resembles the
> canonical selbri-second order of Lojban bridi.
> > (ii) Even if it is too late to change {ckaji}, a lujvo is always
> > possible.
> Not a dikyjvo, certainly: no finite conjunction of gismu make possible
> a lujvo with an indefinite number of places, unless "jutsi" is involved.
> What naldikyjvo do you propose?

Well, what I actually propose is a BAI for "symmetrical extra".
Assume that its rafsi is -xax-, and assume that I understood the
jax- proposal [NB I am getting some batches of Lojban list mail
THREE WEEKS late!]: then the lujvo would be jaxyxaxyckaji.

> > (iii) Open-ended place structures are objectionable: one can never
> > be sure whether a sumti is omitted, with understood {zoe}. There
> > is no way for the speaker to signal that there are no omitted
> > sumti. Better to have a BAI for supplementary places of this sort:
> > that way, when the BAI is not there we know the sumti is not there.
> > (This objection means {jutsi} should be changed.)
> A good point, but BAIs can't capture an indefinite number of places
> either.

My objection still holds, for the reason given. I suggest that instead
of having x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, etc., we have a BAI that means "x+",
and is used for adding infinitely many extra, symmetrical, places to
selbri that need them.

> The intent here is to have a mechanism for taking a "le ka" which
> describes a non-monadic intension and converting it back into a selbri.

I sort of glork the intent, but I don't see that it answers my objection.

Dilyn:
> If I understand the proposal correctly, it's not open-ended; the number
> of places is just the number of free (omitted) variables in the "ka"
> bridi.  (Or is it?  Does it depend on the interpretations of the "zo'e"?
> In any case, one has an upper bound.)

As far as I can tell you understand it right. But the hearer doesn't
know how many places there are, if unfamiliar with the adicity of
the selbri in the ka clause.

---
And