From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 05 06:42:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 82919 invoked from network); 5 May 2006 13:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2006 13:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2006 13:42:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc0VG-0000Zy-6U for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:37:54 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc0Ta-0000Z5-T5; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:36:11 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 05 May 2006 06:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc0T6-0000Yc-Ks for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:35:40 -0700 Received: from web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.122]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fc0T5-0000YT-3R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:35:40 -0700 Received: (qmail 23013 invoked by uid 60001); 5 May 2006 13:35:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20060505133538.23010.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 May 2006 06:35:38 PDT Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560605050541l58711902vfc138e56ca6a15fa@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11389 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: ralju bangu be le gligu'e X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=CTUNtaWk6s_iuYd6TeNLml7phhHAdYv3VXUFWgYMLoLxvOPv4Q X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25805 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/4/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > > > But {ralju bangu be le gligu'e} is a > selbri, > > > not generally a bridi. > > > > No, {ralju bangu} is a selbri; the incidental > > conversion required for fitting the arguments > > into a sumti does not change their status as > > arguments. > > The very function of {be} is to incorporate > arguments into > a more complex selbri. If they are to remain as > arguments in > a full bridi, {be} is never required. The function of {be} is to indicate the attachment of arguments to predicates in roles other than as the main selbri of a bridi, namely in sumti and subordinate selbri. The things attached are still arguments to a selbri. Whether the whole is a then a part of another selbri is not immediately relevant. > > Well, I suspect you are playing on an > ambiguity > > in "logical." I mean (as does the "logical" > in > > "logical language") that the grammar is that > of > > First Order Predicate Logic -- as adapted. > Now, > > FOPL doesn't have complex predicates > directly, > > but a large number of them can be constructed > > within its framework and from that the > pattern > > emerges that all the predicates go together > and > > all the arguments together, however they may > be > > spread out eventually on the surface form. > > If FOPL does not contemplate complex selbri, > whether > composed of two selbri or of a selbri plus an > incorporated > argument, then it makes no sense to say that > FOPL > requires the operation of selbri composition > to be > more tightly binding than the operation of > sumti > incorporation. As I said, in FOPL there is no notation for complex predicates, but as applied there are devices (some version of lambda, say) for inserting a complex of predicates into the place of a single predicate (which is what a tanru does, somewhat more efficiently, though less clearly). Since this does make a single predicate, the relevant arguments are all outside the predicate structure, to be applied to the predicate. Application is a primary and primitive operation, incorporation is -- if allowed at all -- derivative and involving application. If you stick 'Fa' into a complex, it involves application just to be a legitimate expression. Once it is that, it can be incorporated. > We have two operations: > > (1) Sumti incorporation, whereby a sumti is > absorbed by a > selbri resulting in a more complex selbri. > (This is what {be} > does.) > > (2) Selbri composition, whereby a selbri is > juxtaposed to > another selbri resulting in a more complex > selbri. (This is > tanru formation.) > > In Lojban, operation (1) has precedence over > operation (2). This assumes that Fa is a new predicate. It is not; it is a bridi, not a selbri. As noted, application precedes incorporation if something of this sort is to be part of a predicate, but application is not itself a predicate forming device, it is rather a sentence forming one. To be sure, sentences may be incorporated into predicates, but that is secondary. > Since ordinary FOPL has neither of them, we > can't say that > FOPL requires operation (2) to have precedence > over > operation (1). Can, did. > > > I don't see it. How is one more or less > > > derivative than the other? > > > > Well, as noted the one presupposes the other > and > > uses it in its own construction -- a > reasonable > > definition of derivative. > > Which uses which in its construction? They seem > independent > to me. In a tanru like {broda be ko'a brode}, > the tanru formation > operation (2) clearly uses a selbri that > already incorporated an > argument as the modifier selbri, so in that > case (2) uses (1) > in its construction. Well, that assumes that this has the structure /x(Fx * Ga) rather than /x/y(Fx * Gy)a and I don't see that as obviously the case. But even if it is, the whole is still a single predicate presented to receive arguments, not some predicate + argument complex to be taken up by another predicate to make a whatever. Lojban's grammar is trying to do the best it can while staying strictly linear. To do this it has, of course, to ignore the fact that somethings are discontinuous or function out of the surface linear order. It is a pain -- but usually possible -- to reconstruct the underlying structure and get to the meaning, but it may be the best we can do if the language is to be machine pareable (i.e., recognize exactly the grammatical sentences). > There are other parts of Lojban where there is > indeed a mismatch > between form and meaning, but this is not one > of them. One > very closely related to this one that does have > a mismatch is > in how {co} works. Since {broda co brode} is just the same as {brode broda} and you think that is clear and OK, how can the former be a mismatch (are you attributing some logical significance to linear order all by itself)? Actually, since your reading of {ranju bangu} is more naturally {bangu ralju}, the instant case is really {ralju co bangu be le gligu'e}, but I think the uncertaintly remains. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.