From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 29 13:03:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 29 Sep 2001 20:03:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 659 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2001 20:03:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Sep 2001 20:03:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Sep 2001 20:03:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.110.61b7355 (658) for ; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 16:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <110.61b7355.28e78323@aol.com> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 16:03:47 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_110.61b7355.28e78323_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11193 --part1_110.61b7355.28e78323_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/2001 4:56:24 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > ce'u is in the main clause in {broda le mamta be ce'u}. I thought you > were wanting to say that that meant "broda the mother-of function". > > > But I see your problem: you take > > {ko'a broda le brode be ce'u} as a main clause occurrence, which I > > explicitly deny. > > Right. I'm pretty certain that you're the one out on a limb here... > > > In your terminology, {ce'u} is here bound to the > > {le} just as in {ka makau mamta ce'u} it is bound to the {ka} > > (thought the binding is rather different. > > I know that's how you want it to be. But you're inventing rules that > conflict with a lot of established canon, and for no good reason > that I can see. Hopefully if you will follow steps (a) and (b) above, > we will all find it easier to reach agreement. > I can't find this established canon you speak of. To be sure, I can't find any {ce'u} not in a NU clause of one sort or another, but I also can't find any rule prohibiting it -- and they are called lambda variables. As for the [ce'u} in {le mamta be ce'u} not being in the main clause, it is more thoroughly subordinated the the {kea} in {poi mamta kea}, so that {ke'a} is presumably a mainclause usage. It is totally compatible with its subordinate usage -- if it has one -- and so not a problem. The same should then apply to {le mamta be ce'u} I don't see that I need to show that we NEED to talk about functions -- I don't think we do, anymore than we NEED to talk about properties or relations or things, come to that. But we do want to from time to time and it is handy to have devices for doing this. As for a corpus of example sentences -- I assume you mean in English, although you do shift around on this a lot. Since I am not clear what you mean by "function" in this context, esepcially since all of the examples I have given have not counted as cases, apparently (even though they are generally your examples with minor modifications), I don't know how to answer. "Bobby, recite your times tables"? "Sum is symmetric but power is not"? "Hyperpower is hard to define, since the 0 case is undetermined."? "They differ in their mothers"? "They are interchangeable in their friends"? b) goes against my basic philosophy in Lojban and I see yet no reason for changing: why invent a new device when we have an unused one handy? I know you would rather invent a new one for every quirky variant than dig for a way to do it in the given, but that is not my choice. Sounds like a useful predicate, once corrected: "from x2 to x3" , but what does it have to do with your following line -- the vacuous {da} and {ke'a} make it hard to interpret so I am not even sure what it was *meant* to mean. Is this suppose to be the mother-of function? da poi ke'a function ro de le mamta be de? It seems you have something else in mind, but it keeps back to things like the mother of the function. --part1_110.61b7355.28e78323_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/2001 4:56:24 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


ce'u is in the main clause in {broda le mamta be ce'u}. I thought you
were wanting to say that that meant "broda the mother-of function".

> But I see your problem: you take
> {ko'a broda le brode be ce'u} as a main clause occurrence, which I
> explicitly deny.

Right. I'm pretty certain that you're the one out on a limb here...

> In your terminology, {ce'u} is here bound to the
> {le} just as in {ka makau mamta ce'u} it is bound to the {ka}
> (thought the binding is rather different.

I know that's how you want it to be. But you're inventing rules that
conflict with a lot of established canon, and for no good reason
that I can see. Hopefully if you will follow steps (a) and (b) above,
we will all find it easier to reach agreement.


I can't find this established canon you speak of.  To be sure, I can't find any {ce'u} not in a NU clause of one sort or another, but I also can't find any rule prohibiting it -- and they are called lambda variables.  As for the [ce'u} in {le mamta be ce'u} not being in the main clause, it is more thoroughly subordinated the the {kea} in {poi mamta kea}, so that {ke'a} is presumably a mainclause usage.  It is totally compatible with its subordinate usage -- if it has one -- and so not a problem.  The same should then apply to {le mamta be ce'u}

<Okay. Rather than quibble, I'll say this: You need to (a) come up with a
small corpus of example sentences that show that we need to be able to
talk about functions, and (b) propose a provisional method for talking
about functions that doesn't interfere with existing grammar (i.e. it
should use experimental cmavo or lujvo or whatever).>

I don't see that I need to show that we NEED to talk about functions -- I don't think we do, anymore than we NEED to talk about properties or relations or things, come to that.  But we do want to from time to time and it is handy to have devices for doing this.  As for a corpus of example sentences -- I assume you mean in English, although you do shift around on this a lot. Since I am not clear what you mean by "function" in this context, esepcially since all of the examples I have given have not counted as cases, apparently (even though they are generally your examples with minor modifications), I don't know how to answer.  "Bobby, recite your times tables"?
"Sum is symmetric but power is not"?  "Hyperpower is hard to define, since the 0 case is undetermined."?  "They differ in their mothers"?  "They are interchangeable in their friends"?
b) goes against my basic philosophy in Lojban and I see yet no reason for changing: why invent a new device when we have an unused one handy?  I know you would rather invent a new one for every quirky variant than dig for a way to do it in the given, but that is not my choice.

<For (b), I will start you off by suggesting a lujvo:

x1 is a -function from x1 to x2

e.g.

da poi ro da ke'a se -function ro mamta be ro nei>

Sounds like a useful predicate, once corrected: "from x2 to x3" , but what does it have to do with your following line -- the vacuous {da} and {ke'a} make it hard to interpret so I am not even sure what it was *meant* to mean.  Is this suppose to be the mother-of function?  da poi ke'a function ro de le mamta be de?  It seems you have something else in mind, but it keeps back to things like the mother of the function. --part1_110.61b7355.28e78323_boundary--