Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:44:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712031444.JAA01506@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: What the *%$@ does "nu" mean? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199711261554.KAA04225@cs.columbia.edu> (message from John Cowan on Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:14:06 -0500) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1569 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 3 09:44:39 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:14:06 -0500 >From: John Cowan >Organization: Lojban Peripheral > [thus And:] >> > ni'o >> > I think you are correct that in general the Lojban quotation words >> > refer to types rather than tokens, although the notions "type" >> > and "token" are problematic when one refers to complex objects: >> > the token "John loves only John" contains two tokens of "John", >> > but the corresponding type , does it contain >> > two distinct types of , or is there (as intuition asserts) only >> > one type of ? >> >> That depends on your view of names. > >Sorry, I didn't mean to drag in names. Very well: in the sentence-type >, are there two distinct >word-types , or is that nonsense because there is only >one word-type ? Presumably types should contain sub-types, >as tokens unquestionably contain sub-tokens. If not, what do >complex types contain? Just a quickie here... Not like I've actually been able to follow much of the rest of the discussions going on with this, but I have been gamely reading and trying. I got a little lost with this type/token stuff you're using here, and I thought I sort of understood how texts worked in Lojban. Do you mean "type" and "token" sort of like non-terminal and terminal in a formal grammar? Or like a terminal and the specific instance? (e.g. KOhA-type, with the token "da" instantiating it) Or something else entirely? Just trying to keep up with the Rostas... ~mark