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

Re: fancu (was: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

la xod cusku di'e

> >1. xuda fancu lo'i selspe be mi lo'i ckana be ne'i le mi zdani
> I don't know. One such function might be given by
> "... is the bed of ...", assuming each of your spouses
> has one and only one bed.

OK, we agree on this usage!

It depends on what you mean by "agree". I agree that this usage is consistent with the domain/range definition (which is also the official one, and the one approved by pc). But I don't agree that it is the best definition.

I would much rather say:

xuda fancu le selspe be mi pa ckana be ne'i le mi zdani
Is there a function that assigns to each of my spouses
a bed in my house?

I have no idea in what context this question might be useful though.
You're not even asking that the function be one-to-one, so more than
one spouse might end up in the same bed.

> >2. fy. fancu le jei lo gerku cu xabju lo mi zdani kei le jei mi bilma
> Here you abandon the domain/range definition and go for a
> value/value one. Presumably you mean something like:

You seem to hastily resolve jei into a single value, whereas I lazily
resolve it.

No, that's not it. {le jei} never refers to a set of values. At most it refers to each of the values.

> >3. da fancu fo lo ka ce'u po'u lo verba be mi cu kelci ce'u

Other than verba/panzi, what else was wrong with #3?

That it has two {ce'u}. So it is a function from (child,toy) pairs into what?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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