RE: [jboske] Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Lojbab:
> At 03:25 PM 1/6/03 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >la lojbab cusku di'e
> > >resi'e if meaningful would have the place structure
> > >x1 is a 2(-some) portion of mass x2
> > >lo resi'e refers to the x1 of that construct
> > >pa lo resi'e selects one out of however many such 2-some portions of the
> > >unstated x2 as may exist 
> > >
> > >This is nonsense 
> >
> >That's not what the straightforward reading of the ma'oste gives 
> >{zesi'e} from the ma'oste would mean: "x1 is a 7th portion of mass/totality
> >x2" 
> 
> There are examples of si'e in combination, as well as the base definition 
> of si'e in the ma'oste. Both were written/designed at the same time 

We're not saying that {pi mu si'e} is wrong, we're saying that
{re si'e} is also right. If you want to abolish it, you need to
propose it to the BF.

> >The idea that one has to use {fi'uze} rather than plain {ze}
> >in front of {si'e} is probably a later development 
> 
> No. If there is ambiguity in the definition, it is the sloppy wording of 
> the definition, which was probably written after the design 

I don't see an ambiguity. It may have been worded in such a way as to
fail to express the intention, but it is too late to go back and
change without BF approval.

> >If we are going to use {fi'uze}, it is not clear why we
> >couldn't just use {mei} with it 
> 
> Because there was perceived to be a difference between a -mei and a -si'e, 
> and indeed I see very little in common between them other than that they 
> use a number to define their exact meaning 

You should be able to see what half an apple and a pair of apples
have in common: they are each something constituted of some
multiple of a single apple.

> The place structures are VERY different. mei is a 3-placer that converts 
> between masses, sets-as-a-unit, and member-lists. 

It is an awful place structure, because it makes it so difficult to
say "a trio of men" -- so difficult that it's hardly worth bothering
with mei at all.

> Furthermore, you and And correctly provide the best example of si'e in 
> actual usage. Doing a quick usage scan on si'e, I find only 3 usages. One 
> was an example in the Diagrammed summary, an example from between 1990 and 
> 1992 which used pimusi'e for a half portion. One was a usage I haven't 
> puzzled out because it was in a commented exchange between Colin and Cowan 
> on the list. And the other was a usage by And himself in Round 4, which 
> you correctly back-translated. And didn't use -mei and did use -si'e 
> correctly 

Just because I wrote {fi'u re si'e} doesn't mean {re si'e} would have
been wrong. I probably added the {fi'u} to avoid exactly the sort of
response you had to it.

--And.