Date:  Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:07:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710152007.PAA19711@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      forward from Greg Higley
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2622
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 15 15:07:29 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

From ghigley@en.com Wed Oct 15 10:53:32 1997
Date:  Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
 <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-ID: <3444D840.F06028F0@en.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:50:40 -0400
From: Gregory Higley <ghigley@en.com>
Reply-To: ghigley@en.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Problems with Abstraction
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO

Bob,

I've been lurking on this list for quite some time now, and I have to
confess I don't know how to send e-mail to the whole group.  In any
case, please forward my little essay to the group as a whole.  Feel free
to snip everything before the word 'ABSTRACTION.'

ABSTRACTION

I have been out of the Lojban loop for some time, but something that has
bothered me for years is the use of abstraction in Lojban, particularly
the particles {ka} and {ni}.  My problem deals with interpretation of
{ka} and {ni} abstractions, but not in the sense in which they have been
debated recently in this list.

As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE
does not change the meaning of a bridi.  Each sumti place is 'equal'.
Thus

{le prenu cu klama le zdani}
the person goes to the house

is Lojbanically the same as

{le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
the house is-the-destination-of the person

I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis
between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point.  The
sentences have the same _essential_ meaning.  If this is true, what can
we make of the following two abstractions?

{ka le prenu cu klama le zdani}

{ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu}

I have not offered translations because I don't know how to translate
them.  You see, {ka} is supposed to abstract _the bridi as a whole_
(regardless of SE), and not the relationship between the 'physically'
first sumti and the selbri.  According to this rule, the above two
sentences must be equivalent in meaning.  If they aren't, then the rule
that sumti places are 'equal' must be tossed out the window.

I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way.  It is
being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would
argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the
relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri.  Most
lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different
ways.  But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we
are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others.

Gregory Higley
ghigley@en.com