From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Oct 05 17:41:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 00:41:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 35700 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.29]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011006004043.FTGB710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:40:43 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:39:44 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <37.1bc6c249.28ec9ec0@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11380 pc: > arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > >>> 10/01/01 08:51pm >>> > #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > #> Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established > #> principles you seemed to be threatening to demolish: > #> > #> * Semantics of nonsubordinate bridi should be unchanged if the same > #> bridi were subordinate. > # > #Not a problem. All the cases so far are subordinate and I make no claims > #that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated. But you know that. > > I thought that you are proposing that "le mamta be ce'u" means "the > mother-of function" in nonsubordinate bridi and, by the above principle, > in subordinate bridi. Jorge and I have both complained about the > unhappy implications of that for subordinate bridi. > > Well, no one seems to have any problem with {le du'u ce'u broda} in > nonsubordinate bridi to mean "the property of being broda", the > "is-a-broda" function. How is {le mamta be ce'u} different? In the case of {le du'u ce'u broda} the ce'u is in a subordinate bridi and there is no way it can be in a nonsubordinate bridi. In the case of {le mamta be ce'u} it is not. > No abstractor? Of course not, it is not a function to abstractions. The > {ce'u} is hooked on with {be}? A grammatical accident for which we > could no doubt find an xperimental solution if there were a real > need, but the same relationship for all that. What? > > <#> * Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else > # > #This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false in many > #cases: > #da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc. > > I've addressed this in another message. But I think it's true to say that > it was a generally accepted principle before you expressed dissent. > (As usual, > these generalizations pertain only to people who have views.)> > > You have addressed it but not succeeded in making it true or even > plausible agains obvious counterexamples. You may mean something > special by this claim, but in its plain sense it is just false: > raising {le melba} from {mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} allows > an illegitimate quantification, I don't see what illegitimate quantification is allowed. > fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning. > How does you theory deal with these? I recognize the second objection as prima facie valid, and "my theory" [I am happy for it to be called my theory, but before your dissent I would have taken it for uncontroversial fact] accounts for it thus: da broda le brode = x zo'u da broda ro lu'a x (voi brode) As I said, I'm both flattered and surprised to have this called my theory. > Say they are not real cases? But what would a real look like then? > I admit that I can't find your earlier reply on this, but it > apparently did not seem to me to meet the issues the example raise. > > <#> <* Sumti phrase X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level as > #> sumti Y, > #> and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is > #> not within Y.> > # > #Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama} > it does > #not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la > bil klama} > #within which it lies > > la bil is not at the same bridi level as la djan because la bil is > within a bridi > that does not contain la djan. > > As is usual, the above principle contains an implicit "Other things > being equal....", > and the example you give, where a sumti X contains a bridi which contains > sumti Y, is an case where other things are not equal.> > > Since the weasel was crucial to the cases under discussion, it > probably should have been mentioned, but let that ride. In { ko'a > ko'e frica le mata be ce'u} {ce'u} is in a bridi contained in {le > mamta be ce'u} which contains {ce'u}. So, {ce'u} is not at the same > level as {le mamta be ce'u}. Thanks for your support, even against > yourself. What's that? {le mamta be ce'u} does not contain a bridi? > But it must, since it is a descriptor followed by a selbri and a > selbri is only possible where there is a bridi, they are correlative > terms. To be sure, the bridi is, for grammatical reasons, laid out > differently, but no less there for all of that -- When I accused you of bad faith in recent discussion you protested your innocence, so I had better keep a lid on my incredulity. "Bridi" means, almost always, "grammatical bridi, clause". {le mamta be ce'u} is not a grammatical bridi. These are statements of fact. The principle I expressed says that (I recast it): When sumti phrase X is within sumti phrase Y and every bridi that contains X or Y also contains the other, then the bridi can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is not within Y. --And.