From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 20 06:03:05 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 13:03:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 51892 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 13:02:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 13:02:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.94)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 13:02:45 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:02:45 -0700
Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:02:43 GMT
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:02:43 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F94ofRVvd5X00lfepHj00001883@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2002 13:02:45.0510 (UTC) FILETIME=[033F1A60:01C260A6]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2]
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15874


la pycyn cusku di'e

>Your {kairsisku} applied to
>old {sisku} does not obviously give modern {sisku}, partly because modern
>{sisku}, while messy, dseems to be coherent, while {kairbroda} does not, at
>least in connection with {broda}.

Ok, let me try a different tack. Forget about old {sisku}.
Let's consider modern {sisku} only, messy but coherent.

Now I will define a new predicate {buska} like this:

le ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
                        ko'a buska ko'e
cu du
le ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
                 ko'a sisku le ka ce'u du ko'e

[As an aside: in a Lojban-Lojban dictionary I would expect to
find this definition written as:

         buska: ko'a sisku le ka ce'u du ko'e

The rest is superfluous given that we know it is a definition.
ko'a, ko'e, ko'i, etc will always stand for x1, x2, x3, etc
of the brivla being defined.]

To me, this {buska} is just like old {sisku}, but you don't
have to accept that, just take {buska} as defined above in
terms of modern {sisku}.

Now I can say things like {mi buska le mi santa},
{mi buska lo santa} instead of using the longwinded
modern-sisku forms.

I now define {lo'e} so that

  mi buska lo'e broda

is an abbreviated form of:

  mi sisku le ka ce'u broda

Which can also be written as:

  mi sisku le ka lo broda zo'u ce'u du by

This way of writing is convenient to see clearly the
difference between {mi buska lo broda} and {mi buska lo'e broda}:

mi buska lo broda   = lo broda zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du by
mi buska lo'e broda = mi sisku le ka lo broda zo'u ce'u du by

So far I have only defined {lo'e broda} when it appears in a
particular place of a particular predicate (x2 of buska), but
it is trivial to generalize it to any place of any predicate.
All you need is a proto-predicate like {sisku} is to {buska}.

>t does not say so, of course, because no one thought up these kinds of 
>weird
>cases back then, but the assumption was that the property involved was a
>nuclear one, not one that derives indirectly from something else, like" 
>being
>thought of by Frank" or "being identical to Charlie."  Once the nuclear
>proeprties are in hand, I suppose we can work out how the others work, but 
>it
>is certainly notov\bvious that they are the same.

How do you define nuclear properties? {le ka ce'u broda} is
nuclear for any broda except {du}, or something like that?
Would it help if instead of {du} I used {me}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com