<<
But I do not want to trigger again a discussion you had before: maybe
you could just give me a reference in the list archive. Or maybe pc
wrote a summary of this discussion issues, like some others I found
in the archives.
>>
pc wrote several tentative summaries of the discussion, all of which were rejected by a large part of the discussants -- including one which exactly met the conditions the discussants claimed to have agreed about. The result is that {du'u} and {ka} are used in at least three different ways each (though I think there were four parties in the discussion) and, if you don't know the party of your interlocutor, you can get a wrong reading occasionally. By and large, though, if you see a {ce'u} in either context, it is a property being talked about. If you see no {ce'u} in a {du'u} clause, it is likely not to be a property, with a small but significant margin of error. {ka} is always some property of something, but which property and of what is not always clear, since {ce'u}s appear and disappear in the same context with amazing dexterity. So, for use, whatever you do, put in all your {ce'u}s.
<<
A property abstraction is not the same as a predication abstraction.
(an indication of this seems to be that a useful x2 place has be given
to du'u and not to ka).
And on the other hand I see no reference in the book for the use of ce'u
with du'u.
>>
CLL is very quiet about {ce'u}, talking about it only in terms of {ka}, but also talking about {ka} without {ce'u} or any place for it. The use with {du'u} -- and eventually with any abstraction --, while allowed for in CLL, was developed from the post-book discussion that took off from the understanding of {ce'u} as a lambda'd variable in the lambda calculus (the one about abstractions, not the one about probabilities). {ce'u} doesn't work well in that role if you have occasions to want to bind two places the same way -- and pretty scary if you want to do that twice: \x\yFxyyx, is just hard to say in Lojban, though it can be done.
That a property abstraction is not the same as a propositonal function is a contentious claim, though, amazingly, not one that was raised in the earlier discussion (I think). [I don't have reference numbers for the discussion but it seems to have stretch from August last year to April this, with a couple score of entries] The second place on {du'u} seems to have a certain use in mind, which is not this one, but is compatible with it (but almost never used, for obvious reasons).
| 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.