From - Tue Feb 27 12:18:33 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id LAA22766 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:46:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199602271646.LAA22766@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 995CEEC6 ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:10:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:15:41 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: short intemperate response to Lojbab on {duu} X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1035 >> There is more than one value for the x2 of a du'u selbri for any given >> x1 - if nothing else, there are multiple languages that the claim can be >> expressed in. So even if the x1 is an inherent singularity, there is >> still a purpose to du'u in relating truth claims to the relationship >> they claim. > >That's {jufra}. Perhaps. But I am not sure. A bridi may not be itself a standalone jufra but may be subordinate inside another. The problem is that "jufra" has a definition that is specific to languages and may have nothing to do with logic or logical predication. du'u on the other hand is intended to be used for logico-mathematical purposes. The problem is that without du'u, we have no construct that expresses the derived function "meaning(bridi)", and hence have nothing to put into the appropriate place of "jufra" that is not circular. (Let me amend "meaning" by "relationship" in that function name, to avoid confusion by change in terminology: relationship('textual bridi') lojbab