|
Am 07.09.2012 02:42, schrieb Jacob
Errington:
On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge
Llambías <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? Are
you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is
simply not
a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?
Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict", 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't
distributive.
It's not distributive until you add an outer quantifier. lo
verba is a collection of one or more individual children, how they
act on the selbri is not specified.
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" 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 ever 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.)
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.
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.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
fi'o co'e ko'a ki'e soi la'e vei jo'i pe'o su'i by
lo nu lu tu'e ne zu'i zi'e noi toldi
nu'i li rau ke me dei to be zi'o ce'u du zo'e bu'a
--
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=en.
|