| In a message dated 8/28/2001 1:17:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: So can I try to outline what I take to Yes. 2. In ka abstractions, the first empty place fills with ce'u and the Yes Exception (or generalization): where context indisputably demands No. Other {ce'u} are explicit, unmarked are {zo'e} Unless there is an explicit {zo'e}, in which case, all {zo'e} appear and {ce'u} are implicit. 3. EITHER (XOR): Wordy but OK: if {ce'u} in the first open (not filled with content sumti) space then all blanks are {ce'u} <A. Empty places and their sequence have to be defined as x1<x2<x3<x4<x5 (because I can't see any other way of defining them). This means that {ka broda .... fa ko'a} will gardenpath people, because they'll misparse as {ka ce'u broda}. There's probably no way round this;you have to wait to the end of tbe clause to know where the ce'u and zo'e go. Your only safe bet to avoid gardenpathing is to use overt ce'u within du'u> No, defined by space: first available space, etc. If first occurrent _expression_ is {fe S} then there is assumed to be a space unfilled before it and so on. We can (and will if need be) establish fixed order to prevent gardenpathing of that sort. <B. Rules 2-3 raise further problems of specification: i. Does an empty place within a nonempty x1 precede an empty x2? ii. If nonempty x3 precedes nonempty x2, does an empty place within x3 precede an empty place within x2?> Now that is interesting. I (nor anyone else that I can find) didn't think of the gaps in a {ka} phrase being within subordinate pharses. I can see that that will generate some problems for interpretation in some cases (if the internal phrase is intensional, for example) but the question of how toapply the conventions -- other than the fact that it opens the possibility for many more that 5 omitted placeholders) can be handled rather easily, whichever ways sems to work best. I tend to favor linear orders, so I wouldgo with "yes" to both your questions (except for being unsure what "x3 precedesx2" means) <C. {ka ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u klama} = {la'e zo klama}, so it may be that Rule 3 doesn't have to be relied on that much.> While I think that what C intends is correct, the grammar is not quite right, for the {ka} phrases is a selbri and the {la'e} is a sumti. So, they do play different roles sometimes. I think doing lambda reduction with {la'e zo klama} would be a serious mistake generally. But the equation does reduce the need for {ka ce'u klama} say. <D. Nor does Rule 2 have to be relied on that much, because {ka ce'uzo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e klama} = {lo'e klama}. > I gather (I have not been following that part of this muddle closely-- keeping tack of the {ce'u} has been quite enough for now) that you and xod have come to this conclusion. I can't think where it comes from (but I will look) nor can I imagine why it would be true on the basis of anyhting in the Book or the history of Lojban (making allowance for the misgrammar again, even). A typical broda is a broda, not a property (though, admittedly, not necessarily an existing broda either). < ko'a ce ko'e simxu loi ka (ce'u) (ce'u) prami could be rendered by something like ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo'e prami be (tu'a) ce'u> While I agree that a {ka} may make more sense than a {nu} in simxu-2 (the consequences need looking at) I can't make much sense out of either of these sentences. What would a mass of properties be, since there is only one property here, le ka ce'u prami. Nor is it clear what that has to do with a typical lover of whatever that all evaluates to (not much at a glance). I have enough trouble with Lojban, without trying to deal with Andban and other Nalgols (I almost miss guaspe!) <Either: I. Revert to my du'u/ka/si'o proposal> Aside from being metaphysicaly and grammatically suspect, it is markedly less efficient than this one in test cases and wastes a good (maybe someday useful) cmavo. <or: II. a. Leave ka grungey, i.e. totally reliant on glorking. b. To avoid relying on glorking, use du'u, lo'e and la'e zo.> Nah. The one is imprecise, the other is unintelligible in the context of Lojban and as taken to deal with {ka} issues. |