Re: [lojban] Re: ralju bangu be le gligu'e

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 5/4/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But {ralju bangu be le gligu'e} is a selbri,
> > not generally a bridi.
>
> No, {ralju bangu} is a selbri; the incidental
> conversion required for fitting the arguments
> into a sumti does not change their status as
> arguments.

The very function of {be} is to incorporate arguments into
a more complex selbri. If they are to remain as arguments in
a full bridi, {be} is never required.

> Well, I suspect you are playing on an ambiguity
> in "logical."  I mean (as does the "logical" in
> "logical language") that the grammar is that of
> First Order Predicate Logic -- as adapted.  Now,
> FOPL doesn't have complex predicates directly,
> but a large number of them can be constructed
> within its framework and from that the pattern
> emerges that all the predicates go together and
> all the arguments together, however they may be
> spread out eventually on the surface form.

If FOPL does not contemplate complex selbri, whether
composed of two selbri or of a selbri plus an incorporated
argument, then it makes no sense to say that FOPL
requieres the operation of selbri composition to be
more tightly binding than the operation of sumti
incorporation.

We have two operations:

(1) Sumti incorporation, whereby a sumti is absorbed by a
selbri resulting in a more complex selbri. (This is what {be}
does.)

(2) Selbri composition, whereby a selbri is juxtaposed to
another selbri resulting in a more complex selbri. (This is
tanru formation.)

In Lojban, operation (1) has precedence over operation (2).
Since ordinary FOPL has neither of them, we can't say that
FOPL requires operation (2) to have precedence over
operation (1).

> > I don't see it. How is one more or less
> > derivative than the other?
>
> Well, as noted the one presupposes the other and
> uses it in its own construction -- a reasonable
> definition of derivative.

Which uses which in its construction? They seem independent
to me. In a tanru like {broda be ko'a brode}, the tanru formation
operation (2) clearly uses a selbri that already incorporated an
argument as the modifier selbri, so in that case (2) uses (1)
in its construction.

There are other parts of Lojban where there is indeed a mismatch
between form and meaning, but this is not one of them. One
very closely related to this one that does have a mismatch is
in how {co} works.

mu'o mi'e xorxes