Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>>> <pycyn@aol.com> 10/01/01 05:11pm >>>
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
#> You
#> could then press on with your indagations into ce'u, while Jorge and
#> I strive to make sure you don't demolish more than you add.
#
#Nice word; thanks. That is exactly what I was doing and still am, despite 
#many helpful suggestions about what I might be doing, but am not.  Since I 
#have added very little and tossed nothing out, I feel fairly secure from any 
#intervention from &&X.  

Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established principles
you seemed to be threatening to demolish:

* Semantics of nonsubordinate bridi should be unchanged if the same
bridi were subordinate.

* Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else

* Sumti phrase  X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level as sumti Y, 
and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is 
not within Y.

You needn't feel obliged to deny threatening these things, if I was mistaken 
about your demolition threats...

#What do we know for sure about {ce'u}: the accepted wisdom.  First of 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} but no 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 reasonably accurate 
#discussion of the lambda calculus in MEX -- which is about how to speak 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.  

I agree with the last sentence. 

Those of us involved in the inception of {ce'u} (which includes you & me) know 
perfectly well what it was intended to do. We don't really need to scrutinize the 
Book or the Mahoste glosses. This is not to say that {ce'u} is well-defined or
that you are wrong to pursue your indagations into the further properties of
{ce'u}.

#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.  

As I've acknowledged several times, I'd only skimmed the discussion up to
that point. But I think I perceived how you got to {le mamta be ce'u}.

It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, nothing) -- that 
{le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main
clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and
I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.

#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).

I think you won't be able to bury it, because if you persist with the rhetorical
strategy employed in this passage, and if you persist in ignoring what I say
to explain and justify my views -- which can be summed up as: if you persist in 
employing an impossibly uncooperative manner of debate -- then I won't be 
participating in the debate, and the best you can do is just declare it buried.

Maybe I'd better be charitable and read that passage truly as a statement
of what you intend to do at some later point in time, rather than as a 
rhetorical move in that debate. 

#<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, 

Do me a favour and list the dozen cases (apart from the 5 below). I did mean 
what I said I meant. 

Would you prefer that I ignored your messages like everybody does? Or
shall we in good faith take each other to be making their best effort to
engage in constructive debate? Or is it really the case that I haven't made
myself clear: can you not see, from statements like "I mean whatever you 
mean -- whatever it is that you think we have no agreed way of rendering in 
Lojban", along with other statements where I say that I don't know what
'function' means, that I am simply trying to get a grasp on what you are talking
about?

#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.

You're right to be, because I'm still at the stage of trying to figure out what you
mean. For all I know, you are being a paragon of consistency, but so far that
hasn't led me to grasp what functions are (or at least, what are the functions
that we have no agreed way to talk about are). You could also say to me "Well if
you don't  know what functions are then you shouldn't be in this discussion",
which is okay.

#<[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, 

yes

#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?  

"two twos are four .... twelve twelves are 144 ..."

#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.

Why is it a *number* that is recited?

Anyway, I think I see your general point, at last. Or at least I glimpse it.

--    "{mamta} is to {tu'odu'u ce'u mamta ce'u} is as {pi'i} is to what?",
would be a question you're asking.

I don't yet grasp the full rationale for {le mamta be ce'u}, though, given that
"mamta" is a predicate rather than a function to mothers.

#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?

OK. But examples where there is no obvious alternative way of expressing
the same meaning are always a bit more persuasive.

#<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 no place to 
#look for the baby except safe in the crib it was in all the time.

See top of this reply for the sort of thing I had in mind, babywise.

--And.