replies mainly re "ka"

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> la djan di'e la and spusku
> > > Is it better to say:
> > >    Do mi zmadu lo ni/ka nelci gihe se mamta vau zohe
> > No, I think not.  In either case you get "you are more than me in the
> > property of liking (someone) and of having a mother".  There is no
 connection
> > between the "se nelci" and the "mamta", and the "zo'e" doesn't help, because
> > "zo'e" doesn't preserve identity through splitting up of logical
 connectives;
> > it can mean different things in different branches of the logical
 connection.
> > Using "da", with or without a lambda indicator, would have the right effect.
> Would it? If da is not in the prenex, then I thought you agreed that the
> scope of its existential quantifier comes after the scope of "gi'e" in this
> case. It would expand to {nelci da ije se mamta de}.

But if gihe is conjoining selbris and vau marks their end,
then da shouldn't be within the scope of gihe - unless it is
just linear precedence that determines such matters.

> On the other hand, {le ka zo'e da nelci gi'e se mamta} would have the right
> effect. Still, a lambda variable (say, ke'a) would be even better:
> {le ka ke'a nelci le ke'a mamta}
************************
>        la pedros frica la markos le ka makau cinba ke'a
>        Pedro differs from Marcos in who kisses them.
> where I'm using {ke'a} as the lambda variable, i.e. the one that has
> the property, i.e. Pedro and Marcos. {makau} is the indirect question.

(a) I used "dakau", not "makau".
(b) It's not clear to me that your example does involve a property.
What is really meant is
   lo cinba be la pedros lo cinba be la markos cu frica

Yes I see the need for something to abbreviate this, but not for ka.
Maybe
   la pedros la markos frica lo cinba be py o nai my

Here is my best attempt so far:

Ex: x = M or x = P; Ey, Ez: y and z are the set of all kissers of x,
and y is not equal to z

How does that lojban?
   da poi du la marcos a la pietros zohu de e di [end coordination]
   poi du lohi cinba be da zohu de di na du

> > Is there at present any offical way of indicating which sumti the ka
> > is the property of?
> No, there isn't.
> In many cases it doesn't matter, because you can just use ordinary
> pro-sumti:
>         le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
>         The cat increases in property it is big.
> but when there is more than one place in the main selbri for the one
> that has the property (like for zmadu, mleca, frica) then a lambda
> variable is needed. We don't have one yet.

"le ka my barda" doesn't seem right. I see the x1 of ka as a
category (i.e. a sumti slot, a place of a predicate) and the
x2 of ka as a member of the x1 of ka. ("Ka" works like the
predicate "x1 is species of x2".) So it doesn't make sense
to have a full bridi (i.e. having a truth value) as complement
of ka. So by my understanding of ka, it just doesn't make any
sense at all without a "lambda variable", distinguishing, e.g.:
   the property of being a mother
   the property of having a mother
I'd have thought this ought to be the job of a gadri.
Something like "lo ka mi nelci do" just doesn't make sense to me.

> > Lojbab has opposed your keha suggestion. You
> > mentioned a while back that it was discussed at the last lojfest,
> > and that some proposal involving kau was made (I forget the details).
> At Lojfest it was decided to introduce a lambda variable, but no details
> were discussed. I mentioned that at some point someone had suggested
> using {kau}, but that I thought it didn't work, for the reason I just
> gave.
But your reason is specifically against makau, not against dakau, no?
And makau itself may come under further attack. (Lojbab has averred
that it is malglico, & I have tentatively agreed, offerring "lo ka du
lohi" as a more zabna logji formulation.)

But at any rate, I'd like to see a gadri version of ka, meaning "the
category of": it takes a selbri with all but one sumti saturated and
yields a sumti. Alternatively, if we were to stick with ka, but move
it out of NU, then let it take a selbri with all but one sumti saturated
and let it yield a selbri - "is a member of the [singleton] category of
categories of".

> > > > NU <bridi> is a selbri, and the <bridi> part is not optional.
> > Oh dear. Any idea why the <bridi> is obligatory?
> > Nope. I suppose the bnf rule could be changed from:
>     NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... sentence /KEI#/
> to:
>     NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... [sentence] /KEI#/
> Couldn't it?

Well, how about it? There is a use for it, e.g. "mi nu" - "I am a
situation". So are there arguments against it?

> > But yes: you have it. So I think I may give you the original:
> >    "An Englishman's taste for whisky is acquired. A Scotsman's is
> >     hereditary." [Or it might have been "inherited".]
> > Now what originally caught my attention about this is precisely that
> > "lohe gligicnau/kotnau" is not appropriate here - or at least "lohe
> > gligicnau" is not appropriate. The typical-generic Englishman does
> > not have a taste for whisky - or at any rate, the ad doesn't imply
> > this. Rather, the ad is saying that if the Engman has a taste for
> > whisky than the taste is acquired. And the best way to do this, I
> > felt, is to have "lo gligicnau" within the scope of "naho". On
> > reflection, I am far from convinced this is adequate, but it is too late
> > at night for me to get my head round a solution. I welcome suggestions.
> How about:
> lo'e ka lo gligicnau cu vusnei lo'e bavmyxalselpinxe cu se pucycpa
> i lo'e ka lo kotnau cu co'e cu se cerda

Since I think ka yields a singleton category, the choice of gadri
(lo vs. lohe) doesn't matter. Plus, as I've said, I don't hold with
ka having as complement a fully saturated selbri.

I'd prefer:

  suho buha cei vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zohu
  loka buha gihe gligicnau cu pruce

Can we have CuV syllables in fuhivla? If so, "xuiski" might be better
(because shorter) than "bavmyxalselpinxe".

I still can't find a satisfactory rendition of "A scotsman's is
heriditary". It plunges us back into the "any" discussion: I want
to say "if you arbitrarily pick x, x kotnau & x buha, then x cerda
lo ka buha". Here's my best attempt:

   Naho ku ro lo kotnau gihe buha ku cmicerda lo ka buha

My hope is that with naho scoping over ro, the absoluteness of ro is
diluted.

----
And