| Cowan:
<IIRC when you quantify a variable that has already been bound,it is just a normal quantifier, so the second {su'o da} means "one or more of (the existing) da", not very useful.But ro da poi .... re da would mean "two of those which etc."> Well, those are remarkably UNnormal quantifiers in logic, but right for that part of lojban that has the standard sumti as quantifier-gadri-bridi.i.e., quantifier-sumti. The point is also correct. &: <I hold that any specific referent can beintroduced into the discourse by means of a ko'a, and that{le broda} = {ko'a noi je'u cu'i ke'a broda}. Veridical specifics,which are common in English, cannot be rendered in Lojban bya gadri and so for these ko'a is the only usage option.> A solution to one of our ongoing problems, I suppose, but that does not mean it requires retrofitting all the rest of the grammar around {ko'a}, as indeed it doesn't. <(Note btw that I take 'incidental' clauses to be nonrestrictive but not parenthetical; i.e. as if 'incidental' is a bit of a misnomer.)> A piece of Lojban technical terminology a misnomer! What a shocking idea! (Is there one in English that really fits?) adam: <Another possible way to do this, without using "ko'a", would be with"makau". It seems that, in addition to its regular function (or maybethis is another way to describe its regular function), "kau" indicatesa large amount of specificity. For example, in "mi djuno le du'u makauklama le zarci", "da" is a referent of "makau& quot; in many (probably most)cases, but it's not what is meant by the person saying the sentence.Thus, I think that "le broda" is basically equivalent to "makau poike'a broda" (ignoring your veridicality issues, though I'm sure youcan get them back if you want). In addition, a phrase like "how Ilearned Lojban" should sometimes be something like "makau poi ta'ike'a mi cilre fi la lojban" and not "ta'i makau mi cilre fi lalojban", since the English sometimes refers to a method, and not aproposition. For example "He learned Lojban how I learned Lojban" ->"ko'a cilre fi la lojban ta'i makau poi ta'i ke'a mi cilre fi lalojban". At least it avoids "ko'a", which most people want to look fora previous referent for.> (God I hate what to things when they go through my machine) This is ingenious but I am not sure it is coherent. It is another use of what is loosely called "indirect question," but are they similar enough logically to be uttered in these ways. I hope someone will examine this further. For now, I dodge because I am hunting {goi}. Problem: Although {goi} is usually introduced as device for assigning a more convenient sumti to carry the freight for a more complex one -- a KOhA for a long name or a highly particularized abstract, for example -- often using the analogy of the legal "hereinafter called 'the Company,'" the Book assigns it another role and writers have used it in still others, with the result that its "primary" role gets lost. Further, even in that role, the way {goi} has been used has allowed for unclarity: which of the terms connected is to be identified with which, assuming that one or the other or both eventually get established. While in practice this is usually clear, in theory -- and often enough to worry in practice -- it is not. Proposal (clarification?): {goi} is always defining and always takes the form {x goi y}, where y is assigned the value of x. Support: This agrees with the elementary introduction of {goi} and answers the question of which identification to seek when both are lacking or to follow when they appear to be inconflict. Other uses of {goi} are covered by {no'u}. Objection. (I really need help here, since the one objection seems to be that we sometimes want to do the defining in the reverse order and so need {goi} not {no'u}, which is only factual, not defining. This seems to trivial to bother with -- and can {goi} take {se} if it really makes a difference?) Summary. This looks like a trivial and acceptable clarification, to be agreed to. |