=20 =20 =20

Am 07.09.2012 02:42, schrieb Jacob Errington:

On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge Llamb=EDas<jjllambias@gmail.com>= wrote:

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:>> latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in that regard and believe> than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action is fully pairwise.
But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more strict? Areyou saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is simply nota possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?=

Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict&qu= ot;, but in general, it means less intuitive interpretation. To a beginner, {lo verba cu simlu lo ka kelci} is probably intuitively correct. Indeed, it is understandable, but it doesn't have that rigid correctness that I adhere to. Similarly, this overall rigidness involves dislike for {kakne lo nu broda} (should be {ka}) and {zmadu fi lo ka broda} (should be {ni}). Although I have little evidence that actually supports this, this interpretation probably makes things simpler to formally define in lojban.

In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u kelci kansa ce'u} is just nonsense, because it simply isn&#= 39;t distributive.

It's not distributive until you add an outer quantif= ier. lo verba is a collection of one or more individual children, how they act on the selbri is not specified.

Yes, I'm alread= y aware of what you (and certainly others like xorxes) believe about {lo}. = What I'm trying to say is that I dislike that (I think I said that alre= ady didn't I..). I use {lo} only for distribution. I enjoy keeping thin= gs separate. Sure you can go for insane genericness, but that's just no= t what I want.
=A0

I strongly dislike that {lo} can produce non-individuals and therefore use loi and lo'i accordingly (please don't supply the gi'e example; a "better&q= uot; solution to that problem in my opinion is either a jai-like LAhE-cast or, if we aren't allowed to make up any new cmavo, to just use {ije} (and if the problem occurs inside an abstraction, it isn't my fault that there isn't an true afterthought bridi connective in the form of {vauJA} or some such)).

A bit off-topic, but I do wonder when and if we'll e= ver get such an afterthought connective for use within abstractions. Who *hasn't* wanted that at least once? (As well as non-logical forethoughts, I want those too.)

Naturally, but don&= #39;t we have joigi...gi... for non-logical forethought? Still, I like A -&= gt; JA, JA -> JOI ;)
=A0

Each individual of the description distributes into the predicate, but it *is not* true that each of the children {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}.

Same as above, they don't distribute.

Same as above, that= 's what you say and use, not what I do or believe.
=A0

In fact, if it's okay to just use definitely separate individuals like that, ignoring distribution completely, then {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka cenba} makes perfect sense, which again in my opinion, it most certainly should not, as {mi simxu lo ka cinba .ije do simxu lo ka cinba} is complete nonsense.

That is definitely nonsense. ".e" produces two= different bridi, the connected sumti are rather unrelated. This is quite a different case from lo verba which is a single sumti, a single collection of individuals.

<= /div>

Of course, I'm exaggerating. It looks like y= ou aren't taking into account my view of it, which is that if {lo} only= produces individuals (which is what I believe and not what you believe, le= t me say that again) and that using individuals is fine in situations like = {lo verba cu kelci kansa simxu} then it implies that it's fine to use {= .e} as well as {.e} clearly implies individuals.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--047d7b33d3468f664e04c91f3f1f--