In a message dated 9/29/2001 9:33:33 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
You What do we know for sure about {ce'u}: the accepted wisdom. Firstof all, it occurs in {ka} (and perhaps other NU) to mark the open places in a predicate _expression_, a property. This is in the Refgram right after the explanation of {ke'a} as the specialized anaphora in relative clauses (anaphorizing the head). {ke'a} is anaphoric and is explicitly said to occur only in relative clauses of the sort described. {ce'u} is obviously not anaphoric and is not explicitly restricted in any way, although only examples with {ka} are given. At a later point, in discussing {ka}, we get a thoroughly confused presentation in which first properties are presented without {ce'u} -- and indeed without any place for a mark of what they are properties of, then with one (obligatory?) {ce'u} and then with the possibility of several {ce'u}. {ce'u} is not mentioned anywhere else in Refgram. Thus we have one paradigm case of {ce'u} butno indication of the scope of the paradigm: {ka} only, other NU (this is at least mentioned as a possiblity and uses with {du'u}, at least, have occurred in And's canon), all NU, only NU,..... The other thing we "know" about {ce'u} is that it is a "lambda variable". This is nowhere mentioned in Refgram, even in the short reasonablyaccurate discussion of the lambda calculus in MEX -- which is about how tospeak it in Lojban, not about using it at all. Apparently, Cowan used the notion of a lambda variable in the proposal introducing {ce'u} and has made use of it since on occasion, though I cannot find any messages in which it is employed in any significant way. Clearly the lambda notion does not ahve the same authoritative force as citations from the Refgram. So, the argument for {le mamta be ce'u} and for it not being a main bridi use (aside from direct observation) must look elsewhere. The Refgram evidence is inconclusive: the fact that it is next to {ke'a} and that only one kind of example is given points to restricted applications, but the fact that, unlike {ke'a} and a few other clear cases, there is no explicit restriction on the {ce'u}'s use tends to neutralize that claim. My actual argument for {le mamta be ce'u} come from the way I came to it, namely expanding a generalization that had emerged from dealing with indirect questions: a rule that worked there looked incomplete, so I tested varous ways of extending it, several of which -- including {le mamta be ce'u}-- worke dout jsut as they should. so, I suggested that they be taken in, Only {le mamta be ce'u} caused problems immediately. I think some of the others are more suspect, but I'll not mention which, since I like them all and don't feel like fighting more than one battle at once. But the problem with arguing from this general theory to this aprticular case is that the general theory of indirect questions (all questions, actually) is itself in contention, between a clear and sucessful set-of-answers view (from logic, loosely) and a muddled and failing extension-claims view (from God knows where). So, to make the case for {le mamta be ce'u}, I first need to turn to giving extension-claims indirect questions the appropriate burial (as if anyhting ever died in a Lojban discussion -- there are more ghouls/vampires/ghosts in these messages than in all of literature). <Since I am not clear what you mean by > "function" in this context, esepcially since all of the examples I > have given have not counted as cases, apparently (even though they > are generally your examples with minor modifications), I mean whatever you mean -- whatever it is that you think we have no agreed way of rendering in Lojban.> Clearly you don't mean that, since I have given you a dozen cases by now, each of which you have rejected the Lojbanic version of an propsoed soemthing else which does not fit the case. I have tried to figure out what you take a function to be from the proposed answers you give, but they are not mutually consistent, so I am at a dead loss. <[1]> "Bobby, recite your times tables"? [2]> "Sum is symmetric but power is not"? [3]>"Hyperpower is hard to define, since the 0 case is undetermined."? [4]>"They differ in their mothers"? [5]> "They are interchangeable in their friends"? So if we could find ways to lojban these, we'd satisfy you?> Not necessarily, since these are only examples. But, since you can't do them, the point is moot. <For [1], I'd say the recitee is the extension of tu'odu'u ce'u -timestable. For [2] and [3] I'd render Sum, Power and Hyperpower by tu'odu'u ce'u -sum ce'u, etc. For [4] and [5] I don't yet understand how functions are necessarily involved; certainly you and I have agreed that certain functionless logical renditions are in themselves adequate.> Aside from not knowing what {ce'u - timestable} is -- "is a times table" -- I suppose, so the extensuion of the property (I assume there is only one, so {tu'o} is not misleading, as if often is in these cases) would be what? 3x, 4x, 5x? Clearly not what is wanted. What is wanted is {li ce'u pi'i ceu} for a suitable range of both {ce'u}. In short what is wanted in 1-3 is something that gives a number, not a sentence as all {du'u} do eventually. As for 4 and 5, of course functions are not necessarily involved, any more than properties and indirect questions are in other versions of this same sort of thing. They all come down to case of identity/equivalence or their denial and so involve only fully specified sentences . But if we are to allow one kind of abbreviation (actually it often ends up longer than the original), why not all the others that come under the same rules? <Well give us an indication of how pressing the need is, so we can judge how much baby we can allow to be thrown out with the bathwater in the search for a way to talk about them.> The need is not very pressing, any more than the need to fiddle with {goi} is. And, since nothing is thrown out in adding these, there is noplace to look for the baby except safe in the crib it was in all the time. |