Message-ID: <925d17560606051256w3156487av80d74d597acdc3c0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:56:22 -0300
In-Reply-To: <20060605192419.85413.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <925d17560606051049u7402ef53oee9f1a79625a6983@mail.gmail.com>	 <20060605192419.85413.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
Content-Length: 2042
Lines: 53

On 6/5/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Very nice.  But, since the terms might be
> differently predicated on the two brivla, we
> would have to place the markers on the predicate
> not the term.

Yes. Or, we can do things like:

 le tadni cu ckaji lo ka ro ce'u dasni lo mapku kei .e
 lo ka lu'o ce'u sruri le dinju
 "The students have the properties that each of them wears a
 hat and that they together surround the building."

This effectively separates the term (le tadni) from the slots (ce'u),
and so we may mark the slots directly, at the cost of having to
introduce the {ckaji} predicate, of course.

> This seems to mean that these
> markers would themselves be strung out like terms
> with the predicate, to be properly correllated
> with the terms in the term list, probably
> something like (using d and c for distrib and
> collect)
> ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u broda d c c d c * brode
> c d d c d  (* because I suspect the conjunction
> at this point will change since we are connective
> bridi tails not selbri).  Not yet a very comely
> system, though it would be rare that we would
> need to show all the markers.  Still, it does
> circumvent the problem you not (and, no doubt
> creates other for the parser or interpreter).

Yes, that would be quite doable, but it forces you to mark
all terms up to the one you are interested in marking. For example,
if you wanted to mark the distributivity of the third slot, you
would be forced to mark the distributivity of the first and second
slots too. You could also just use a subscript or something like
fa/fe/fi/fo/fu to choose which slot was being marked.

In any case, it would seem that any system would require some
wordiness, so it is not obvious to me that the current one is
particularly inefficient.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.