[lojban] Re: paradox

[ianek <janek37@gmail.com>]

I assumed so earlier, but now I've looked at http://www.lojban.org/files/history/bothraf.txt
and it says that {sevzi} rafsi was laways {sez}...
sevzi       sez     sei  sevz         sez     se'i sevz
So it's either an error in bothraf.txt or Nick's mistake.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On Sep 7, 3:09 pm, Michael Turniansky <mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   I assume this was before the great rafsi shift, since you correctly stated
> in your original letter that it would now be "sezra'a".
>          --gejyspa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:52 PM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, I see that {sevra'a} has already been used in that meaning in
> >http://www.lojban.org/files/texts/moser
>
> > On Sep 2, 8:47 pm, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://dag.github.com/cll/11/4/
>
> > > Quote:
> > > It is also possible to have more than one “ce'u” in a “ka”
> > > abstraction, which transforms it from a property abstraction into a
> > > relationship abstraction. Relationship abstractions “package up” a
> > > complex relationship for future use; such an abstraction can be
> > > translated back into a selbri by placing it in the x2 place of the
> > > selbri “bridi”, whose place structure is:
>
> > >        “bridi”: x1 is a predicate relationship with relation
> > >              x2 (abstraction) among arguments (sequence/set) x3
> > > End quote.
>
> > > So, {lo ka ce'u ce'u na ckaji} is not right. It should be something
> > > like {lo ka ce'u lo nei na ckaji} unless I'm wrong (not sure whether
> > > {nei} refers to the inner bridi). {vo'a} can't be used here, as it
> > > refers to the x1 of the outer bridi, ie. the full abstraction. {ri}
> > > can't be used also, as it doesn't refer to KOhA.
>
> > > This opens a subject which bugged me for a long time: how are
> > > reflexive relationships handled in Lojban? I've seen lujvo with
> > > {sevzi} to handle them, but this doesn't seem right in general, as the
> > > definition of {sevzi} suggests a concious being (unless I'm wrong), so
> > > it couldn't be used to make eg. {sezra'a} mean "x1 is self-
> > > referential".
>
> > > mu'o mi'e ianek
>
> > > On Sep 2, 4:51 pm, Martin Bays <mb...@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Cute Russel for properties, which translates nicely to lojban:
>
> > > > xu lo ka ce'u ce'u na ckaji ku vo'a ckaji
>
> > > >  application_pgp-signature_part
> > > > < 1KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "lojban" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.