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.
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. 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)). Each individual of the description distributes into the predicate, but it *is not* true that each of the children {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}. 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.
> {mi
> ce do simxu lo ka cinba} therefore has the obvious meaning. Likewise, {lo'i
> nanmu ce lo'i ninmu cu simxu lo ka cinba} (I'm using ce as a cheap set
> addition because I can't be bothered to really look up how to do it)
Set union is "jo'e" (but maybe that's not what you want either). "ce"
would create a set whose two members are each a set.
Right. I do know what the real effect of {ce} is in that situation, which is why I specified the laziness. It also happens to be why I have an issue with {ce}-strings.
>doesn't
> mean that all the men kissed all the women and vice-versa; it means that
> each of the men kissed each of the women and also *was kissed* by each of
> them. That would be my intended interpretation of that, for instance.
And also each men kissed and was kissed by each of the other men,
right? Otherwise you don't want the union there but something more
complicated. If you don't include the same sex kissing pairs, that
wouldn't match ianek's interpretation.
Uh, yes, of course. Too tired at this point I guess. Naturally it includes the same-sex kissing as well. That's exactly what I meant to say.
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o