<<
The way I understand {tu'a}, {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and
{mi nitcu lo dinko} are not compatible types of expression.
I understand {tu'a lo dinko} as {le du'u lo dinko co'e}, and
it sounds odd that {nitcu} could take either nails or
propositions (or whatever du'u are) as its second argument.
Or maybe we can say {mi nitcu lo dinko a le du'u lo dinko co'e},
but having the same word for "I need x" and "I need that x"
does not sound very Lojbanic to me.
>>
As I say somewhere around here, it's an idiom, but a perfectly transparent one, I think -- the bare {lo dinko} is just like the {tu'a} one, {le du'u lo dinko ce'o} but the absence of the {tu'a} allows extensional moves to proceed, as is occasionally desirable.
<<
On the other hand {mi nitcu lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo'e dinko}
are compatible type of expressions, because both have nails
as the second argument, in one case referred to by extension
and in the other case by intension.
>>
So you say, but since you give no clue about what {lo'e dinko} means, I have no reason to believe it other than my trust in you -- which is wearing thin at the moment. In the only visible sense of "have as the second argument", both {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo dinko} have nails as the second argument, in one case in extension, in the other in intension. And we know how these critters work, unlike {lo'e}.
<<
What I'm suggesting is that all it does in the sumti place is
blot it, just like {zi'o}, but differs from {zi'o} in that
it blots and adds semantic content. Both leave behind a selbri
with fewer places, and neither names a critter.
>>
As I have said before on this, you can't have it both ways. If it blots it is a semantic null. If it not a semantic null then it does not blot but is a sumti which adds some kind of reference in that place. How, exactly, would this {lo'e broda} add semantic content other than by referring (in which case, it is not a blot but merely filling one slot with a particular item).
<<
I don't have a formal proposal, maybe I will adhere to yours.
But the essence is that {broda lo'e brode} should not entail
{broda da}.
>>
This, of course, goes against your own principle that all bridi places are extensional. The nearest thing I have been able to come up with in trying to understand this is {lo'e broda} in a place is part of a disjoint tanru (if it ain't a thing then its a predicate in Lojban) which has some effect on the indicated place -- different from having it filled by a reference to a broda, but distinctly brodaish, so different from what {lo'e brode} would do. I have no idea how that would work-- in particular, how an explanation of what the heck was going on would read, but at least it would make a sort of syntactic sense (though there are not otherwise discontinuous unmarked tanrus and {lo'e} is clearly a gadri, which play no role in tanrus).
<<
Why can't there be meaningful plugs?
>>
A place that isn't there cannot contribute anything (general theory that the meaning of a sentence is a function of its parts).
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.