Re: replies mainly re "ka"

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> 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.

I think it has to be just linear precedence. If it is not, I'd like to know
what is the rule. (I can't think of a simpler one than linear precedence.)

> >        la pedros frica la markos le ka makau cinba ke'a
> >        Pedro differs from Marcos in who kisses them.
>
> (a) I used "dakau", not "makau".

Is there any difference between them? The grammar papers say they are
synonymous.

> (b) It's not clear to me that your example does involve a property.

Can two things differ in anything but their properties?

> What is really meant is
>    lo cinba be la pedros lo cinba be la markos cu frica

In what do they differ? Probably {drata} would work better here.

> 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

I don't understand why you don't like a property as the x3 of frica,
it would seem the most natural thing. How can they differ in "at least
one kisser of one but not the other"?

> 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 can y and z be the same thing (the set of all kissers of x) and not
be equal?

> 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

Contradiction. If de and di are equal to the same thing, then {de di na du}
is false.

> >         le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
> >         The cat increases in property it is big.
>
> "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.

I'm not sure I understand this use of "member". The x2 would be the
one who exhibits property x1. Is that a member of x1?

> ("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.

Does a full bridi for {li'i} make sense to you? I think they are
similar cases.

> 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.

I tend to agree, but I don't think it's a real problem. (I keep
using {ke'a} for the lambda variable, for lack of a better alternative.)
You would say: {lo ka ke'a nelci do kei be mi} = "the property of
liking you which I exhibit" or {lo ka mi nelci ke'a kei be do} = "the
property of being liked by me which you exhibit".
If ke'a is replaced in these cases by the corresponding sumti, it still
makes sense, even if it's not perfectly logical to do so.

The problem arises when the lambda variable is standing for more than
one sumti. In that case, there is no possible value to use.


> > 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?

I'm assuming they mean the same thing, I haven't seen any proposal that
they could mean something different.

> 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.)

To me, "the property of being equal to the set ..." doesn't help. I don't
agree that you can use {le ka...} in places where normally you would use
a {le du'u...}.

> 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.

That pretty much describes {leka broda}, just leaving the x1 vacant.
Usually, that is where the lambda variable is assumed.

> 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".

I don't understand this "category of categories of".

> > 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.

That's why I always prefer {le ka}. I agree that ka yields a singleton,
and to me, {le} is the best gadri for such things, but I agree that
{lo} is also acceptable. (Same thing with {le du'u})

> Plus, as I've said, I don't hold with
> ka having as complement a fully saturated selbri.

To me that is not a problem (at least not so far), and in this case, since
you want {lo} to be quantified inside the {ka}, I can't offer a simple
re-wording.

> I'd prefer:
>
>   suho buha cei vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zohu
>   loka buha gihe gligicnau cu pruce

It is not the property that is a process. It is the acquiring of it.

> 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

That's not grammatical, you need {kotnau je bu'a}.

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

To me, na'o means "typically" in the sense of "for most of the time", not
"for most cases". Your sentence says that for each Scotsman the property
is inherited most of the time, but not constantly.

Jorge