[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: noxemol ce'u
la pycyn cusku di'e
> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u}
> > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du
makau}?
>
> Why that presumption? I am not sure.
It's the natural extension of this abuse of notation: using
ce'u itself for the identity function.
> <Or will you insist on using
> {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does
> it depend on {le} to turn it into one?>
> Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self
identical and
> that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out.
But the value of the function will be different for each!
How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case?
In both cases there is one function wich gives different values
for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in
{le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".
> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u}
> creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to
whatever the
> matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into as
a sumti.
Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why
can't ce'u stand for the identity function?
> <In English you can say: "I told him the place" or "I told him
> what the place is". I'm glad we agree (I hope) that in Lojban
> you can say {mi jungau ko'a le du'u makau stuzi}, but you
> can't say {mi jungau ko'a le stuzi}. Not everyone agrees with
> this, some people are quite happy to mimic English here.>
>
> Yes, but I take that to be a feature of {djuno}, not of functions.
I don't think this is only about {djuno}. Is there any predicate
at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}
indifferently?
> Note, there is not {ce'u} function in any case, so not
> relevant to the present discussion.
You really don't see any parallel between the {le broda}:
{le du'u makau broda} pair and the {le broda be ce'u}:{le du'u
makau broda ce'u} one?
mu'o mi'e xorxes