Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tE0wv-0000ZTC; Fri, 10 Nov 95 23:25 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E506AE8F ; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 22:25:25 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 14:47:36 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2067 Lines: 51 >> Looking at things this way, then, {le [ka da de xe'u da pendo de]} would be >> identical in meaning to {le pendo}, and {le SE [ka da de xe'u da pendo de]} >> would mean {le SE pendo}, which strongly conflicts with my current >> understanding of how {leka} is used. > >Not at all. OK, as you said "modulo the syntax of lambda" -- then I should have said: le anti-ka-thingy [ka da de xe'u da pendo de] <--> le pendo >> Don't we have the same problem with {ke'a}: >> >> la djan. poi ga ke'a xirma gi lo xirma cu citka ke'a >> [or would it be something like:] >> la djan. poi ga ke'a goi da xirma gi lo xirma cu citka da > >That works fine because "poi" is only ever attached to one sumti, so >we only need to be able to refer to that sumti, Suppose I said {da jo'u de poi broda broda} and wanted to pick the two items apart. Why are we allowing two individuals to skip hand-in-hand together through a {ka} abstraction but not through {poi}? >"jei" is probably 0-adic also, and is related to "du'u", which is now >understood as a subtype of "ka" that is always 0-adic. I'd propose we define {jei} as {du'u xukau}. AFAIK it would be consistent with usage, at least my usage before xorxes convinced me to switch over to {du'u xukau} :-) >I still don't have a good understanding of "ni", and anyone who does is >urged to explain it to me; the discussion in the abstraction paper is >skating on thin ice. Here's a shot in the dark: I used to use {ni} and {jei} and don't anymore; when I did, in my mind they were more or less synonymous except that {jei} suggested that the implied {xukau} would have a binary value, and {ni} emphasized a fuzzy value: mi djuno ledu'u le tsali cu blanu I know that the sky is blue mi djuno lejei le tsali cu blanu I know whether or not the sky is blue mi djuno leni le tsali cu blanu I know how true it is that the sky is blue --> how blue the sky is I stopped doing this because xorxes convinced me it was wrong; but let's define it that way, shall we? .i pe'ipei doi rodo mi'e xris.