[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> la xod cusku di'e
> >Can bai broda mean "with a certain known, understood level of compulsion"?
> That's how I understand it, yes.
> >Which the context might imply is actually total freedom?
> I can't think of any such context. Can you?

mi puza cilre bai noda .i ji'a mi puzi speni bai noda .i ji'a mi ca'o bai

> >Why do you say tagging with fi'o jdima could mean the price is
> >unimportant?
> I don't think I said that. On the contrary, it seems to call
> attention to the price.

You wrote:

"In other words, {fi'o jdima} tags a price obvious from context or

> >And yet if that's a possible interpretation, then it works
> >with that I originally said.
> >
> >I was using it to mean sort of:
> >"I am aware it has a price; I certainly buy it anyway".
> But that doesn't say that I would still buy it if the
> price were something else, the way "whatever the price" does.


> >As far as I can tell:
> >
> >le fancu: the name of the function
> >le selfancu: the independent variable, set or axis)
> >le terfancu: the dependent one, specified by the function
> >le velfancu: the actual relationship that specifies the function
> Yes. The first oddity is having a place for the name. Why doesn't
> for example {klama} have a place for the name of the goer in
> addition to a place for the goer? Why is it necessary to
> incorporate the {cmene} notion into the notion of function?
> That's extremely weird, but I suppose we can mostly ignore
> the x1.

I agree that it's nonstandard. Maybe they thought the name of a function
is very useful.

> For x2 and x3 the gi'uste speaks of domain and range. You speak
> of the variables. But a price (which is what you had in x2),
> for example $3, is neither a domain nor a variable: it is a
> value. Indeed if you ignore things like {ce'u} and {makau} there
> is no easy way to use variables as such (unbound) in Lojban. The
> way you use those places is not as variables but as values:

Prices are a domain. The price of an object is a variable. Both are
appropriate for le selfancu.

> le selfancu: a value in the domain
> le terfancu: a value in the range

A function that only maps one point to another is not very useful! Do you
want me to state a new bridi for every point in the domain?

> As for x4, you just put {li pa} there, which suggests that
> you are also using it for the value in the range. Something
> like "the function called x1 maps x2 (a value in the range)
> to x3=x4 (a value in the domain)". Unless you meant to use
> {li pa} not to refer to the number 1, but rather to the
> function that maps any value of the range to the number 1.

Yes, that's how lipa should be interpreted when in the le velfancu place.

> >And I use jei where previous folk have used ce'u-less ka when they want to
> >mean the quality of a particular sumti/tergismu pair.
> Huh? I thought you used {jei} for the truth value.

Yes, they are the same: the amount of (da is broda)-ness. The second place
of ka is just a tergismu inside jei. Had this been realized any sooner, it
could have saved us some time during the ka discussions.

The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.