And mine is, what function (if any) is the ka-kau? All o= f the usual functions around this area seem to have specific expressions, s= o is this another way of saying one (or another) of these (and, if so, whic= h) or is this a new function (some new functions) altogether?

<= /div>

<= span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">From: Ian Johnson <blindbra= vado@gmail.com>
To: = lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 22, 2011 3:34:22 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] non-ka properties

Perhaps the underlying issue is that we're trying to do too much with just = {ka}? (Then again, this could be my tendency to statically type Lojban scre= wing things up again.)

mu'o mi'e latros

2011/6/22 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
2011/6/22 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:

> 2011/6/21 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>> 2011/6/20 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> From the gimste, I would describe a se cipra as a pure ka, non= -kau,
>>> property.
>>
>> I consider a ka-kau a pure property, just not fully specified.
>>
>
> I consider a pure-ka a predicate with a variable argument, and a
> ka-kau a function. At least, this is what I was asking for in my first=
> message. Perhaps you mean that the {kau} thing means "whatever
> fits here"?
>

By the way, this is my main point of investigation. Some bridi appear=
to require a function in a specific place, others appear to ask for a
predicate with a free argument.

For example, in {zmadu}, it makes the most sense that the x3 should be
a function with an ordered set as a codomain. In {mutce}, it makes the
most sense that the x2 should be a function for whose codomain there
is a notion of extremeness. Similarly for {mleca}, {traji}, {jibni}, etc.
In these cases, a pure-ka could be understood as a shorthand for a
kamakaujei.

On the other hand, the x2 of {ckaji}, {cipra}, {sisku} and {simlu} is
clearly just a predicate with a free argument.

Stating a {ckaji} is just an indirect way to state the bridi obtained
by applying the predicate to the x1.

In a {cipra} you test how the predicate is true after substituting the x3.<= br>
In a {sisku} you search the set x3 for an element that makes the
predicate true, which certainly involves one or more {cipra}.

Finally, a {simlu} is just the subjective version of {ckaji}.

In all these cases. I can make no sense of the bridi when the x2 is
a function. All the interpretations of a ka-kau there hereon given
appear to be in a direction contrary to ka-kau expressing a function.

I hope I could make my point clear now.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.