Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:54:30 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEFNEMAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <e.133689fc.28e49952@aol.com>
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
Content-Length: 2597
Lines: 65

pc:
> arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
>   So I do understand where your {le mamta be ce'u} is coming from, and
>   I do see why {tu'odu'u ma kau mamta be ce'u} seems inconsistent.
>   However, I would make 3 further observations:
>   (1) Inconsistent or not, that is the current standard lojban way of saying
>   it, I believe.
>
> Whereas I think that a) Lojban doesn't have a way of saying this at
> the moment and, if it did, it sure can't be {tu'o du'u makau mamta be
> ce'u} (do we need the {be} here?), since that is a propsoitional
> function (a property) of some sort -- or a set of them, depnding on
> context.  Not a function to individuals.

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).

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

> <Sorry if I've missed something, but what exactly, given your argument and
> your agreement of my version above?
> >>>
>
> Sorry; I agreed with you overhastily. My argument is simply that any proposed
> main clause meaning must be one that doesn't stymie the subordinate
> meaning. Your proposed main clause meaning did stymie the subordinate
> meaning. And, though it is not part of my argument, I indeed can't imagine
> an adequate mainclause meaning.>
>
> I wasn't aware that I had proposed a main clause reading for
> anything:  I'm fairly sure I said I had no idea what {ke'a broda} or
> {ce'u broda} means in isolation -- I certainly do't know now: lambda
> expressions are inherently sumti.

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.

--And.