[lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla

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

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/9/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >  Of course, the uncertainty about
> > what {me} means (there are at least three so
> far
> > today) doesn't help, but anything like it
> would
> > be subject to similar problems of excessive
> > length.
> 
> According to the current baseline (CLL) {me
> <sumti>}
> means: x1 is/are among the referents of
> "<sumti>".
> 
> The old (ma'oste) definition was: x1 is
> specific to <sumti> in aspect x2
> 
> What's the third possibility?

The generic sumti to selbri converter, which is
very close to the oldest version.  So far as I
can tell, only the "old" definition is official,
though I have seen a lot of (consequently hard to
understand) cases of your private version.
 
> > But obviously some device is needed to
> > use sumti as predicates, else ambiguity
> results.
> 
> In addition to {me <sumti>} there are {me
> <sumti> moi} and all
> the other {me <sumti> MOI}s that convert a
> sumti into a predicate.
>
> The place structure I use for {me <sumti> moi}
> is
> "x1 is/are <sumti>'s x2 by rule/relationship
> x3", which, while not
> exactly the same as the old {me <sumti>}, does
> cover a similar
> ground.
> 
> I haven't found any uses for the rest of the
> MOIs yet.

I don't get this; MOI makes various sorts of
numerical predicates (ordinal, cardinal, etc.)
from number words .  I can imagine using other
things than PA for these various notions -- kinds
of mappings -- but I don't get this general
pattern (nor, probably, understand it).  How is
this ordering anything , i.e., putting something
in a place in an ordering.  I can get as far as a
mapping, but that does not seem to impose an
order unless the things mapped from are ordered
and (GCH not withstanding) that is not generally
the case.  Nor does it help here much, since it
complicates  things even further without
clarifying anything.

> > Whether it needs to be as complex as it often
> now
> > is is less clear. In particular, can cmevla
> --
> > not whole sumti -- be used directly without
> problems?
> 
> Can they be so used with the current gramma?
> No.

I hardly expected that; the question was how much
would allowing it change the grammar.
 
> Could the grammar be modified to allow it? Yes,
> trivially.
> 
> Would it cause problems? It depends what you
> mean by
> "problems". It would require using a {cu} that
> is currently
> allowed but not required. You'd have to say {la
> djan cu klama}
> instead of just {la djan klama}.
> 
Probably not a bad habit anyhow.  Of course this
change does not help with the general problem but
probably gets at  the most commoon desired usage.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.