Date:  Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712171258.HAA20681@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: la'e
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1862
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 07:58:47 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lojbab:
> >> ledu'u xukau ko'a badri cu du'u lesedu'u xukau ko'a badri
> >> by the definition of descrriptors and se.
> >
> >No. A du`u is a proposition: something that is true or false.
> >{xukau ko'a badri} is not true or false. In itself it does
> >not express a bridi.
>
> Grammatically, du'u takes a bridi.

You mean between {du`u .... kei}? That's a syntactic bridi, and
that has no bearing on the properties of x1.

> By definition, that which is in a du'u is a bridi.

Are you talking about syntactic bridi or semantic bridi?

At any rate, it is the case that the text between {du`u...kei}
expresses a semantic bridi.

> If a du'u + bridi is well defined, then by definition the
> sedu'u+bridi must be equally well-defined,

You have repeatedly asserted this, even though I have already
explained why it is false.

> even if logical jargon does
> not have a term for it.  What is the relationship between the x2 of du'u and
> the x1 of du'u for a normal bridi?  That same relationship applies to a
> du'u+xukau bridi.  This seems so obvsious that I find it hard to believe
> that5 it is arguable.

It is not arguable. You are correct. You are just missing the
point.

Look, it works like this.

  T is text between {du`u} and {kei}.
  P is proposition expressed by T.
  x1 = P
  x2 = some text that expresses P.

If T includes Q-kau, then you cannot know what P is unless you
know more about the larger sentence, S, containing T. Properties
of P are dependent on properties of S. If you vary S, then
P may alter, or there may even be no P at all.

> The relationship between the x2 and the x1 is that the x2 is a text (not
> necessarily in Lojban, if I recall) which expresses x1.

Right.

> WE know how to express the contents of x1, whether or not it is
> a "proposition", and that x2 is any such expression.

I'm not clear about what you mean.

--And