From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Feb 16 15:44:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 16 Feb 2001 23:44:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 48126 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2001 23:44:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2001 23:44:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.202) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2001 00:45:35 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:44:30 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:44:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.38] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Meaningless talk Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:44:30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2001 23:44:30.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[681E6510:01C09872] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5506 la xod cusku di'e > > >2: .i ro bu'a cu'u da zo'u di cipra le ka fatci le bu'a > > > > i di'u gendra i ku'i na se smuni le do se skudji > >ma ja'o smuni fi do .i mi tcidu jimpe va'o mi krefu tcidu (...va'o le nu mi krefu tcidu...) I think you meant to say something like: For every predication expressed by (sentence) X there is some way of testing its factuality. But the lojban sentence does not mean that at all. First you need to close {le ka fatci} with {kei} so as not to absorb the next sumti into the abstraction, but that's not the problem. The main problem is {bu'a}. {ro bu'a} means "for every predicate". This is probably one of the ugliest conventions of the language, but that's how it is. But in any case you don't want to talk about predicates, functions, you want to talk about predications, claims. (ro bu'a cu'u da zo'u} means "for every predicate F(), there is some expressor X such that". It's a prenex with two terms, {ro bu'a} and {cu'u da}. Also, {le bu'a} means neither "the predicate F()" nor "the predication F(zo'e)". It means "the one who F's". Not at all what you want. Another point to discuss is whether the x1 of {cusku} can be a sentence or whether it must be a person. I think it is supposed to be a person. >.xu do na'e tugni le sidbo i mi do na tugni le sidbo i pe'i so'i se smuni na ka'e te cipra le ka fatci co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.