From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 08 13:50:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 8 Oct 2001 20:50:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 20200 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 20:26:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2001 20:26:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 20:26:35 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.ba.1ad73e8a (4505) for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:26:30 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ba.1ad73e8a.28f365f6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11468 --part1_ba.1ad73e8a.28f365f6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2001 11:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > I should have learned from last time I attempted to argue with pc; you > can't contradict something that he believes, you can only make him raise > it to a higher level of abstraction. > Well, as I recall, it was you all that came out with abstract sentences and sumti that weren't there but somehow were what did the referring in a sentence and with grandiose generalities that have not been backed up. I have just asked about a single simple construction, {le mamta be ce'u}, that fits into a greater class of similar constructions and should, therefore, have a certain meaning. I've heard that it is an impossible construction -- though jbofi'e and the old grammar disagree -- and that it doesn't mean any such thing and that it violates old established rules made up that moment and that fall to the first case cited. This is abstraction on my part? How pray might I be concrete then? What, Lojban slipshod terminology aside, does "bind to arbitrary things" mean? {ce'u} is a bound variable that can occur, so far as the data goes, just about anywhere any sumti can. It is essentially self boudn, and unlike an otherwise similar {da} takes absolutely shortest scope, except that it may inidcate a longer one with subscripts. I gather that the idea is that that scope has always to be inside and coincide with an abstraction phrase or, at least, a bridi. So the question may be "what is a bridi in this case?" Well, we have one definition (and only one, sentence_40 defines "sentence"). Of course, letting me establish usage is no permission at all, since that is mine by right. Indeed, it was trying to do this that started the whole thing off. Does this "permission" mean that you will not kick up any more ruckuses if I proceed? i rahter thought not. --part1_ba.1ad73e8a.28f365f6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2001 11:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


I should have learned from last time I attempted to argue with pc; you
can't contradict something that he believes, you can only make him raise
it to a higher level of abstraction.


Well, as I recall, it was you all that came out with abstract sentences and sumti that weren't there but somehow were what did the referring in a sentence and with grandiose generalities that have not been backed up.  I have just asked about a single simple construction, {le mamta be ce'u}, that fits into a greater class of similar constructions and should, therefore, have a certain meaning.  I've heard that it is an impossible construction -- though jbofi'e and the old grammar disagree -- and that it doesn't mean any such thing and that it violates old established rules made up that moment and that fall to the first case cited.  This is abstraction on my part?  How pray might I be concrete then?

<If pc wants to make ce'u bind to arbitrary things, he can establish it
through usage.>

What, Lojban slipshod terminology aside, does "bind to arbitrary things" mean?  {ce'u} is a bound variable that can occur, so far as the data goes, just about anywhere any sumti can.  It is essentially self boudn, and unlike an otherwise similar {da} takes absolutely shortest scope, except that it may inidcate a longer one with subscripts. I gather that the idea is that that scope has always to be inside and coincide with an abstraction phrase or, at least, a bridi.  So the question may be "what is a bridi in this case?"  Well, we have one definition (and only one, sentence_40 defines "sentence").
Of course, letting me establish usage is no permission at all, since that is mine by right.  Indeed, it was trying to do this that started the whole thing off.  Does this "permission" mean that you will not kick up any more ruckuses if I proceed?  i rahter thought not.
--part1_ba.1ad73e8a.28f365f6_boundary--