[lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

By dawn's surly light (and after finding some CL
notes) this whole thing seems confused, beginning
with a conflation of C and B. So skip it; C is
exactly {se}: Cabc is acb, {se tavla fa do mi} is
{tavla fa mi do} and so on.  {te,ve,xe} are a bit
more complicated (are not primitives anyhow), but
I can't find a work out for them off hand.
 
--- John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Well, I translated Schoenfinkel for my German
> comp, so I don't work as well with Curry et al.
> 
> But, as I think about it, none of this really
> quite works in any case: (C a b c) gives (a(c
> b)), that is the two "arguments" after a are in
> fact one argument, the application of c to b,
> not
> two separate arguments as the application of a
> to
> both c and b or to c and b together.  So
> nothing
> much works right here, but at least with
> normalized syntax (which is perfectly legal in
> Lojban:  {tavla fa mi do} (the {fa} is not
> strictly required but is much clearer than
> without)) {se} function like C in the ordering,
> but not in the grouping: {tavla fa mi do} is
> either {(tavla fa mi) do} or {tavla <fa mi do>}
> (where the <> is another function -- whose
> standard version I forget -- for creating an
> ordered pair out of a 2-sequence of functors). 
> Neither of these is something that is easily
> given in CL (I think) but in there somewhere
> since computable. I wish I could remember more
> of
> what happeened in that old paper (or who wrote
> it, for that matter) since I remember it as
> being
> pretty straightforward on various kinds of
> tanru
> and only slightly nonstandard (left
> associating? 
> -- I can't remember the function for that
> either).
> 
> - Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > ****
> > Hoops!  C converts <abc> into <acb>, not
> <bac>,
> > so {se} is fairly complex too.  C is Lojban's
> > (never used) {setese}.
> > 
> > ****
> > 
> > Yes, you're right; I was thinking of the
> > normalized predicate-logic rather than
> > syntactic-string representation of Lojban
> > semantics ;)  [although I failed to say so --
> > oops]
> > 
> > E.g., 
> > 
> > mi tavla do
> > 
> > is equivalent to the predicate logic formula
> > 
> > (tavla) (mi) (do)
> > 
> > (using combinatory-logic curried notation)
> > which is equivalent to
> > 
> > (C tavla) (do) (mi)
> > 
> > using the C combinator.
> > 
> > Using combinators on the syntactic-string
> > representation of Lojban is a bit screwy
> > because of the arbitrariness of the placement
> > of the predicate in the argument list
> according
> > to Lojban syntax.
> > 
> > -- Ben
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>