From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 25 08:49:27 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 15:48:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 32049 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 15:41:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 15:41:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 15:41:59 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.152.18d15a6 (18254)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:41:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <152.18d15a6.28e1ffb1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:41:37 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_152.18d15a6.28e1ffb1_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11026

           
--part1_152.18d15a6.28e1ffb1_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/25/2001 6:55:34 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


> #>   ka da prami le mamta be ce'u
> #>=20
> #> is the property of having a mother who is beloved. Probably Jorge has
> #> said all this already, but I am certainly one of those conservatives w=
ho=20
> #> thinks ce'u belongs to the localmost grammatical bridi. (Actually, I
> #> think it belongs to the localmost ka/du'u/?si'o and not any old bridi
> #> or abstraction, but that's not relevant to the point at issue.)
> #>=20
> #> Anyway, I retain my faith in Jorge as the voice of reason and (tho les=
s
> #> immoderately than I would wish) of Reason.
> #>=20
> #
> #Well, much as I hate to put Logic up against Reason (I have less worry=20
> about=20
> #yours or xorxes' reason), it does seem to work out diffferently, and the=
=20
> #things that you have said actually seem to support that view (not unusua=
l:=20
> #Quine once wrote a paper that clearly recommended a certain logical devi=
ce=20
> #but which he claimed ever after refuted that use definitively).  If we=20
> shift=20
> #back to lambda (and I admit I haven't messed with this for thirty odd=20
> years),=20
> #what you want in the first case is ^x^y Lxm<y>, where both lambdas are o=
n=20
> the=20
> #sentence level.  I would read your sentence as ^xLx^ym<y>, where one=20
> lambda=20
> #is on the term level, creating the name of a function just as the first=
=20
> does=20
> #of a property.=20
>=20
> which would mean what? The property of loving the property of having a
> mother? I'd do that as=20
>=20
>    ka/du'u ce'u prami lo/tu'o ka/du'u da mamta ce'u
>=20

NO, it means the preoperty of loving the mother-of function.  We don't have=
 a=20
good notation for item-item functions, which is one of the reasons for my=20
position -- it fills a gap we may need to fill one day (soon).

<#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf<x> in Lojban=20

which we uncontroversially have, right?>

Well, you seem to be amking it controversial, unless you have something els=
e=20
in mind that I have forgotten about or don't know of.

<#and we need an explanation for {le broda be ce'u} in Lojban.=A0=20

I'd say that as with ke'a, ce'u is a variable bound within a
determinate grammatical domain -- ke'a within a NOI, ce'u
within certain sorts of NU.>

Well, that at least makes sense, although to me it raises the question of=20
what {la djoun mamta ke'a} means in isolation. It is grammatical again (LAL=
R1=20
grammars are lousy on coocrrence restrictions), so needs some interpretatio=
n,=20
even one that makes it nonsense.

<You want {ce'u} to be transitive over some contexts, though not over=20
#others (else the extension-claims explanation of indirect questions will g=
et=20
#into trouble -- the set of answers one as well, of course).=A0=20

I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or=20
intransitive.>

If it is in a construction within a construction then it is in the outer=20
construction, rather than being confined to the inner.=20=20

I agree that we need properties like having a beloved mother, I would just=
=20
insist that the {ce'u} of the property bearer has to be directly, not=20
remotely, in the proeprty d description, so I would say {ka ce'u goi cy zo'=
u=20
da prami le mamta be cy} (and expect that the {cy} would quickly come to be=
=20
automatic here).

I would say that we also need the mother-of function and we do not have a w=
ay=20
of saying that other than {le mamta be ce'u} unless I have missed something=
.=20=20
Please remind me of the uncontroversial way of saying this, and then we can=
=20
collapse to your position without any trouble.



           
--part1_152.18d15a6.28e1ffb1_boundary 
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 9/25/2001 6:55:34 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@ucl=
an.ac.uk writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">#&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;ka da p=
rami le mamta be ce'u
<BR>#&gt;=20
<BR>#&gt; is the property of having a mother who is beloved. Probably Jorge=
 has
<BR>#&gt; said all this already, but I am certainly one of those conservati=
ves who=20
<BR>#&gt; thinks ce'u belongs to the localmost grammatical bridi. (Actually=
, I
<BR>#&gt; think it belongs to the localmost ka/du'u/?si'o and not any old b=
ridi
<BR>#&gt; or abstraction, but that's not relevant to the point at issue.)
<BR>#&gt;=20
<BR>#&gt; Anyway, I retain my faith in Jorge as the voice of reason and (th=
o less
<BR>#&gt; immoderately than I would wish) of Reason.
<BR>#&gt;=20
<BR>#
<BR>#Well, much as I hate to put Logic up against Reason (I have less worry=
 about=20
<BR>#yours or xorxes' reason), it does seem to work out diffferently, and t=
he=20
<BR>#things that you have said actually seem to support that view (not unus=
ual:=20
<BR>#Quine once wrote a paper that clearly recommended a certain logical de=
vice=20
<BR>#but which he claimed ever after refuted that use definitively). &nbsp;=
If we shift=20
<BR>#back to lambda (and I admit I haven't messed with this for thirty odd =
years),=20
<BR>#what you want in the first case is ^x^y Lxm&lt;y&gt;, where both lambd=
as are on the=20
<BR>#sentence level. &nbsp;I would read your sentence as ^xLx^ym&lt;y&gt;, =
where one lambda=20
<BR>#is on the term level, creating the name of a function just as the firs=
t does=20
<BR>#of a property.=20
<BR>
<BR>which would mean what? The property of loving the property of having a
<BR>mother? I'd do that as=20
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;ka/du'u ce'u prami lo/tu'o ka/du'u da mamta ce'u
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>NO, it means the preoperty of loving the mother-of function. &nbsp;We d=
on't have a good notation for item-item functions, which is one of the reas=
ons for my position -- it fills a gap we may need to fill one day (soon).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf&lt;x&gt; in Lojban=20
<BR>
<BR>which we uncontroversially have, right?&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, you seem to be amking it controversial, unless you have something=
 else in mind that I have forgotten about or don't know of.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#and we need an explanation for {le broda be ce'u} in Lojban.=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>I'd say that as with ke'a, ce'u is a variable bound within a
<BR>determinate grammatical domain -- ke'a within a NOI, ce'u
<BR>within certain sorts of NU.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, that at least makes sense, although to me it raises the question =
of what {la djoun mamta ke'a} means in isolation. It is grammatical again (=
LALR1 grammars are lousy on coocrrence restrictions), so needs some interpr=
etation, even one that makes it nonsense.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;You want {ce'u} to be transitive over some contexts, though not ove=
r=20
<BR>#others (else the extension-claims explanation of indirect questions wi=
ll get=20
<BR>#into trouble -- the set of answers one as well, of course).=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or intr=
ansitive.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>If it is in a construction within a construction then it is in the oute=
r construction, rather than being confined to the inner. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>I agree that we need properties like having a beloved mother, I would j=
ust insist that the {ce'u} of the property bearer has to be directly, not r=
emotely, in the proeprty d description, so I would say {ka ce'u goi cy zo'u=
 da prami le mamta be cy} (and expect that the {cy} would quickly come to b=
e automatic here).
<BR>
<BR>I would say that we also need the mother-of function and we do not have=
 a way of saying that other than {le mamta be ce'u} unless I have missed so=
mething. &nbsp;Please remind me of the uncontroversial way of saying this, =
and then we can collapse to your position without any trouble.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_152.18d15a6.28e1ffb1_boundary--