Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/25/2001 6:55:34 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

#>   ka da prami le mamta be ce'u
#>
#> is the property of having a mother who is beloved. Probably Jorgehas
#> said all this already, but I am certainly one of those conservatives who
#> thinks ce'u belongs to the localmost grammatical bridi. (Actually, I
#> think it belongs to the localmost ka/du'u/?si'o and not any old bridi
#> or abstraction, but that's not relevant to the point at issue.)
#>
#> Anyway, I retain my faith in Jorge as the voice of reason and (tho less
#> immoderately than I would wish) of Reason.
#>
#
#Well, much as I hate to put Logic up against Reason (I have less worryabout
#yours or xorxes' reason), it does seem to work out diffferently, and the
#things that you have said actually seem to support that view (not unusual:
#Quine once wrote a paper that clearly recommended a certain logical device
#but which he claimed ever after refuted that use definitively).  If we shift
#back to lambda (and I admit I haven't messed with this for thirty odd years),
#what you want in the first case is ^x^y Lxm<y>, where both lambdas are on the
#sentence level.  I would read your sentence as ^xLx^ym<y>, where one lambda
#is on the term level, creating the name of a function just as the first does
#of a property.

which would mean what? The property of loving the property of having a
mother? I'd do that as

  ka/du'u ce'u prami lo/tu'o ka/du'u da mamta ce'u

NO, it means the preoperty of loving the mother-of function.  We don't have a good notation for item-item functions, which is one of the reasons for my position -- it fills a gap we may need to fill one day (soon).

<#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf<x> in Lojban

which we uncontroversially have, right?>

Well, you seem to be amking it controversial, unless you have somethingelse in mind that I have forgotten about or don't know of.

<#and we need an explanation for {le broda be ce'u} in Lojban. 

I'd say that as with ke'a, ce'u is a variable bound within a
determinate grammatical domain -- ke'a within a NOI, ce'u
within certain sorts of NU.>

Well, that at least makes sense, although to me it raises the question of what {la djoun mamta ke'a} means in isolation. It is grammatical again (LALR1 grammars are lousy on coocrrence restrictions), so needs some interpretation, even one that makes it nonsense.

<You want {ce'u} to be transitive over some contexts, though not over
#others (else the extension-claims explanation of indirect questions will get
#into trouble -- the set of answers one as well, of course). 

I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or intransitive.>

If it is in a construction within a construction then it is in the outer construction, rather than being confined to the inner.  

I agree that we need properties like having a beloved mother, I would just insist that the {ce'u} of the property bearer has to be directly, not remotely, in the proeprty d description, so I would say {ka ce'u goi cy zo'uda prami le mamta be cy} (and expect that the {cy} would quickly come to be automatic here).

I would say that we also need the mother-of function and we do not havea way of saying that other than {le mamta be ce'u} unless I have missed something.  Please remind me of the uncontroversial way of saying this, and then we can collapse to your position without any trouble.