From lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBDEvvPvBBoE8pg9Hg@googlegroups.com Sat Jun 18 10:24:32 2011 Received: from mail-pv0-f184.google.com ([74.125.83.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QXzG2-0008TN-Fh; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:32 -0700 Received: by pvg18 with SMTP id 18sf1677035pvg.1 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YkVU2zVaQTeI1XULgdAhTdUoqLiRB6QToSeFBFPI1qM=; b=1k5QGMCCWMcyV6WkJomcZwlCM8c91x8JGiKl9Kd2ilBERJDzeFq5gJnL2uUVk4dkhH nr8w3T7SvDAnN1Ldr20VH5KdB8GfBvfBxHFXWy8q2fxvv0TFv0KFRDSAxqmS8e2OP2lP Jkc1+ZoBsLu9BauKQgxgJhwSgYL0kqFt1h/D4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=17YHnKZYPXyqgtlxyB9rBkFFVhtPyJG3784t06BEDHjd4cuymJFK1L4JjAJNanegnQ zK4s+G9Ecao2pXJPVrWIObpSiMk0cFUX3/7I9WuetbNV0BF6ibj3d/JmwTmDMUstodEJ XSm7n7438tnw0Zl641cYHfjRvlKkdCaTkA5Bs= Received: by 10.68.44.200 with SMTP id g8mr81041pbm.10.1308417860790; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.15.3 with SMTP id t3ls1130964pbc.1.gmail; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.7.230 with SMTP id m6mr619993pba.24.1308417859795; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.7.230 with SMTP id m6mr619992pba.24.1308417859782; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f170.google.com (mail-pv0-f170.google.com [74.125.83.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8si8258239pbc.0.2011.06.18.10.24.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.170; Received: by mail-pv0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 10so2888292pvh.15 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.21.129 with SMTP id v1mr1509215pbe.413.1308417858605; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.48.102 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:24:18 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] non-ka properties From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable doi xorxes 2011/6/18 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > 2011/6/18 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis : >> >> These non-ka properties are then just lambda expressions >> which return different kinds of values. It appears only logical >> that {ce'u} should be used. > > "ce'u" is not used for the return value, it is used to mark the slot > of the property holder. The slot for the return value is marked with > "ma kau". > Clarifying: I was not marking the return value with {ce'u}, I understand it marks the argument. I was expressing the return value as the x1 of {broda} when saying {lo broda be ce'u}. Anyway, that was just a guess. {kau} would be my second one. My basic consideration was that, even in English, "property" in the sense of "X has property ka-P when P(X) holds" is understood as different from "Y is the/a P-property of X when P(X,Y) holds". In the first definition, a property is an abstraction, while in the second one, a property is really just a simple object, so I felt like avoiding {ka= } or any abstractor. These were semantic considerations. Now to the syntactic ones, which only now have I been making. 1. The syntax of abstractions requires less BE, BEI. It can also avoid SE and {ce'u} at the cost of deferring the {kau}, and possibly confusing the receiver about what is being referred to. {lo xe klama be ko'e bei ko'i bei ko'o bei ce'u} (non-ka) vs {lo ka klama ko'e ko'i ko'o makau} (ka-kau) (note the difference in meaning when the {makau} is removed) {lo se stuzi be ce'u} (non-ka) vs {lo ka stuzi makau} (ka-kau) 2. The non-ka approach fits more naturally the use of the full power of descriptors, including quantifiers. {loi panzi be ce'u} (non-ka): "One's children, considered collectively" {lo pa panzi be ce'u} (non-ka): "One's single child" {le panzi be ce'u} (non-ka): "The thing I describe as one's child/childre= n" Of course, {loi ka makau panzi ce'u} and friends can be given the same interpretation. This is actually the semantic issue written above. Were it not for the {kau}, {loi ka} would be a very unusual construction. This highlights the semantic difference between the x1 of a regular ka-abstraction and a non-ka/ka-kau one. 3. When nesting properties, ka-kau requires indexing for disambiguation, while non-ka works out-of-the-box. {lo ka ce'u traji lo ka ce'u zmadu makau fo makau} (ka-kau, ambiguous) is ambiguous between {lo ka ce'u traji lo ka ce'u zmadu makauxipa fo makauxiro} (ka-kau-xi, plausible) {lo ka ce'u traji lo ka ce'u zmadu makauxiro fo makauxipa} (ka-kau, implausible) Note the clear difference between {lo se zmadu poi ce'u traji lo ve zmadu be ke'a be fo ce'u} (non-ka, plausible) {lo ve zmadu poi ce'u traji lo se zmadu be ce'u be fo ke'a} (non-ka, implausible) Of course, the same problem already happens with {du'u}. The bridi {ko'a djuno lo du'u ko'e djuno lo du'u makau prami makau} has four plausible interpretations. Things get even messier when you mix {du'u} and ka-kau. ni'o doi rodo I would very much appreciate if you commented on the above, so I can feel more confident in using the language. Also, I would be very content if any of you could point uses of this in texts. Thanks. mu'o mi'e .asiz. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.