[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

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

> On 6/5/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Very nice.  But, since the terms might be
> > differently predicated on the two brivla, we
> > would have to place the markers on the
> predicate
> > not the term.
> 
> Yes. Or, we can do things like:
> 
>  le tadni cu ckaji lo ka ro ce'u dasni lo mapku
> kei .e
>  lo ka lu'o ce'u sruri le dinju
>  "The students have the properties that each of
> them wears a
>  hat and that they together surround the
> building."
> 
> This effectively separates the term (le tadni)
> from the slots (ce'u),
> and so we may mark the slots directly, at the
> cost of having to
> introduce the {ckaji} predicate, of course.
> 
> > This seems to mean that these
> > markers would themselves be strung out like
> terms
> > with the predicate, to be properly
> correllated
> > with the terms in the term list, probably
> > something like (using d and c for distrib and
> > collect)
> > ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u broda d c c d c *
> brode
> > c d d c d  (* because I suspect the
> conjunction
> > at this point will change since we are
> connective
> > bridi tails not selbri).  Not yet a very
> comely
> > system, though it would be rare that we would
> > need to show all the markers.  Still, it does
> > circumvent the problem you not (and, no doubt
> > creates other for the parser or interpreter).
> 
> Yes, that would be quite doable, but it forces
> you to mark
> all terms up to the one you are interested in
> marking. For example,
> if you wanted to mark the distributivity of the
> third slot, you
> would be forced to mark the distributivity of
> the first and second
> slots too. You could also just use a subscript
> or something like
> fa/fe/fi/fo/fu to choose which slot was being
> marked.


I think I had fee-fi-fo-fum in mind.

> In any case, it would seem that any system
> would require some
> wordiness, so it is not obvious to me that the
> current one is
> particularly inefficient.

Well, precision does require some wordiness.  I
don't expect that this system would be used all
that often, certainly not for 10 places.  On the
other hand, the present system leaves some cases
not expressible at all or at least I don't see
how to do it in a regular way.  How do you
distinguish in "The carriers of the pianos wore
green hats" between individual carriers and a team?


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.