| With apologies to Nick, who only wanted snap judgements, not thirty-day
debates. lojbab: [on {de'i}]<> Thanks; that seems to best solution all around. And so, in the case of letters, we usually go for the date written (the ambiguity here remains). [on {me}]<>The alternative I suppose is {ta me la ford karce} instead >of {ta me la ford}. Or maybe also {ta karcrforde}. ta srana/steci la ford also works. A question is whether one really needs a predicate that totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a FordIt refers to a date associated with the letter. What exactly the date has to do with the letter is ellipsized, associated with another place of detri and/or a sumti-raising therefrom.As to why the reasons for the change -I was of the opinion that pc at the time accepted the change, which was based on an argument from formal logic by Randall Holmes, then serving as pc's "replacement" as TLI's resident logician.> Well, "accept" isn't "agrees with" or even "understands." Does anyone remember what RH's reasoning was? The main point, as I recall, for starting the discussion back then was that JCB's original notion had gotten (quel surprise!) pretty amorphous as he fit more and more things into his original good idea. But the original idea was not so bad and I see that there is not a replacement for it yet (xorxes' makes no coherent sense and lojbab's is not a replacement). xorxes: <Probably the main one to avoid is {du lo broda}, which is logically sound but means about the same as plain {broda}.> Actually, as one or the other Sir Wm. Hamilton showed, it means exactlythe same (with suitable modifications for langauge). It is bad style, but pretty good logic (no too bad even logic, cf. Lesniewski). That aside (incompetence, surely -- why will people take up a logical language andnot learn logic?), just why has identity, of all the logical primitives, fallen into disfavor? (I suppose that it is, as in the case of {ganai}, some massive confusion of the sort dealt with in week 1 and again just after midterm.) <It should be noted that they are different though in one important respect: {me ko'a} means "x1 is at least one of ko'a", whereas {du ko'a} means "x1 is equal to (each) ko'a". When ko'a is a singleton they are about the same, when it isn't, they aren't.> Is this certified? It seems that there are a variety of interpretations available, depending on what {ko'a} goes back to. And taken literally, the intended interpretation here would force {ko'a} to refer to a single object each time <IRight. {me} is the only way to incorporate the definiteness of {le} into the selbri.> mi du le morsi mlatu (but that was already mentioned) -- and, as only a referent of the phrase, {me} is inspecific (or indefinite or whatever). <>Perhaps a better example would be the Walt Kelly quote, "We have met the >enemy, >and he is us." Is there any better way to translate that than {mi'opuzi >penmi >le bradi .ije ri du mi'o}? That's strictly equivalent to: {mi'o le bradi puzi penmi gi'e du}> Logically correct and yet totally wrong (not all that rare a situation,alas). |