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

Re: [lojban-beginners] Repeating specific sumti within the same bridi



There are a number of options. If you're using the same sumti twice in a row, {ri} is perfect for the job; they carry the referent, not the symbol. The counting rule for {ri} is a little weird: it refers to the most recent sumti which is fully closed, where we are counting in order of beginnings. So in {lo nu broda ko'a cu brode ri}, {ri} refers back to {ko'a}, as it is the most recently-begun sumti which is fully closed. This rule is slightly confusing because it does not mean that it refers back to the most recently-closed sumti, which in my example is {lo nu broda ko'a}.

The most flexible option is to perform variable assignment with {goi}, using the ko'V/fo'V series as your variables. A slightly more volatile but perhaps easier to follow option is to assign to letterals like {by}; this is technically less precise because the letteral variables are allowed to have their referent change from context, whereas ko'V/fo'V are really not allowed to do so.

A brief, useful, but imprecise way is to use letterals. {lo gerku} for example is often referred back to as {gy}. This obviously does not work for large sumti like abstractors.

In your particular case, the problem is probably best fixed by a scope trick:

.i na ku ro da zo'u lo du'u da barda narju bo bolci cu nibli lo du'u da
najnimre

"It is not the case that for every X, the proposition "X is a big orange-sphere" implies the proposition "X is an orange [citrus fruit]"."

mi'e la latro'a mu'o


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 8:37 PM, lolkomcu <marimbasfz@gmail.com> wrote:
I might be overthinking this considerably, but is there a way to specify that a an entity referred to multiple times in a bridi is the same exact entity each time it is referred to? For instance,

le du'u lo dacti cu barda narju bo bolci na nibli le du'u lo dacti cu najnimre

"The fact that an object is a large, orange sphere does not imply the fact that an object is an orange." is what this appears to say to me, though what I mean to say is more like "Just because *something* is big, round and orange doesn't mean [the same *something*] is an orange."

In other words, how do I prevent myself from saying something like "the fact that one thing (e.g. a basketball) is big, round and orange does not imply the fact that some *other* thing (which may not be big, round, or orange at all e.g. a potato) is an orange," which seems kind of pointless to state.

Also: Do pro-sumti like ri, ra, and ru (and others) imply the same referent as their first incarnation, or could a "ra" referring to "lo dacti" be referring to an entirely different entity which is also a "dacti"? Can those even refer to internal sumti?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.