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

Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

la pycyn cusku di'e

You do want the device for specifying a function to specify the
right function after all and also to be informative.

You can do that in more standard ways than having two places for the same argument. Using {po'u} for instance. I take it that using the name in x4 and the more informative expression in x1 of fancu is as acceptable as the other way around?

I dsuppose that {smuni}
works more or less the same way, and there are probably others with this kind
of role to play.

No, {smuni} is precisely the opposite: If {ko'a smuni ko'e}, then normally not {ko'a du ko'e}.

Actually there are two tendencies in the use of {smuni}, neither
of which has x1=x2. In one use, {smuni} is used as "word/expression
x1 has the same meaning as word/expression x2", where x1 and x2 are
different texts, so not the same arguments at all. The other tendency
(which I think is more correct) has a text in x2, and a du'u
("the meaning") in x1. With this tendency, the "is a synonym of"
relationship is simply {smuni mintu} or {smuni dunli}.

<(And having domain and range instead of values belonging to
the domain and range in x2 and x3 is even more objectionable.)>

Now here I worry about whether we are in a terminological muddle. Why is it
better to say, for fancu2 fancu 3, {ro da poi numcu ku'o de poi numcu} than
{lo'e numcu lo'e numcu}?

I take it you mean {lo'i numcu}. {lo'e numcu}, the archetype number, is perfectly fine in my preferred way.

I can, of course, see the advantage of saying (ro
da poi numcu ku'o le sumji be da bei li pa}, but, as I have said, I think
this complicates things and and muddles two things together that I would want
to keep separate (mainly because I want to talk about ranges even when I have
no idea how to do the computations).

You gave one possibility above: using {lo'e}. And who says you can't talk about ranges unless you have a place for the range in the place structure of {fancu}? The difficulties come when you don't have a place for the values. I said in a previous post that {lo'i te fancu} was the range in my interpretation, but that's not necessarily so, it is the image of the domain, which only has to be a subset of the range. How do you talk about the image in your interpretation?

Instead of {fy fancu lo'i namcu lo'i namcu} you can say
{fy fancu ro namcu pa namcu}. Which also allows you to say
{fy fancu li pa li cici} if you need to single out that value.
How do you say that with the domain/range definition?

I would think that the mapping metaphor
naturally applied to regions, not points. In any case, I don't find the
present arrangement objectionable.

I do, but in any case I'm very glad the different approaches are becoming more clear. So far every use of {fancu} seemed to come up with a different understanding of the place structure.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com