Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

potayto, potahto. This is becoming a genuine philosophical argument, where all the facts (or most of them) are agreed but we go round and round about words.
In Logic, names need to be distinct from descriptions, predicates, variables, connectives, and so on. Does this carry over to Lojban?
cmevla, which play a part in names, are structurally distinct from all other words in Lojban, so could, presumably, play the role of names. They currently play a part in no other Lojban constructions than names.
To be used as names, cmevla must be preceded by {la}, etc., of LE, the class of descriptors, thus making them distinct from descriptions only by the particular descriptor used and the type of word following, i.e., a cmevla rather than a brivla (and ignoring what all comes after that -- and, for the moment, the fact that numerators may intervene).

But {la}, etc., can also be used before anything that the rest of LE can be used before and still produce a name. If this sumti-tail is treated the same after {la} as after {le}, namely as having implicit place fillers in the places not overtly filled, so that {la broda} is the same as {la broda be zo'e}, say -- necessarily refers to the same thing in a given context, then {la} is just another descriptor, of a rather peculiar sort, to be sure, and cmevla are syntactically distinct only by not being allowed to play selbri, which seems pointless.

On the other hand, if {la}+ a particular sumti-tail, is distinct from {la}+ another sumti-tail created by expanding the original in the usual way for missing sumti, then {la} is not a descriptor, but rather a meta device for turning any string of sounds into a name. But then the restriction to sumti-tails seems pointless; why not {broda ko'a}(dot conventions in place of course)? Why not a whole sentence rather than just a sumti-tail (I assume a whole sentence can't be a degenerate case of a sumti-tail)? Why not {la la} and {la ui}? Since any string ending in a consonant can become a name, why not any string at all?

As one way out of this, note that some names do not require {la}: {mi}, {do}, and a few more. They are distinguished out by enumeration. cmevla are distinguished by structure. Maybe they should join the list of {la}-less names. Then {la} snaps back to apply to sumti-tails only and, while slightly odd, is a mere descriptor again, without all the resulting problems of unwelcome {la} phrases.

I think that covers the muck.

From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

There appear to be two choices. One is that {la} functions like {le} etc. making a special kind of description out of a brivla or bridi tail or what have you.

It's called a sumti-tail, a brivla being the simplest case of sumti-tail. "broda brode", "me ko'a", "nu broda", "broda be ko'e", "ci broda", "poi broda ku'o brode", etc are all examples of sumti-tail, which can be names, but they are not (single) brivla. OTOH "broda ko'a" is a bridi-tail and it is not a possible name.

"la", just like any member of LE, turns a sumti-tail into a sumti. But unlike members of LE, it can also turn chains of one or more cmevla into a sumti.

In that case, cmevla are just an odd sort of brivla, requiring {la} to function as names and other wise serving as predicates meaning "x1 is named by this string": {mi pycyn} is well-formed and nothing special.

They aren't with the current grammar, but the argument is that they should be.

On the other hand, {la} is special in that it turns a brivla into a soundstring and then uses that string as a name.

That's what "la" does, except of course when all it does is take something that is already nothing but a soundstring, in which case it doesn't need to turn it into anything, just use it as a name.

In that case, cmevla are a separate category, since they name without the need for {la}

Rather, they are already mere soundstrings. They need "la" (or "doi") in order to name.

(although the rules do require its use). {la}turns a brivla into a cmene.

"la" turns either a sumti-tail (of which brivla are the most basic type) or a chain of one or more consonant-ending soundstrings into a name,

The expansions fairly clearly favor the second view, but are, of course, not strictly official.

The expansion "la broda -> zo'e noi lu broda li'u cmene ke'a" does not particularly favor or oppose the merge of cmevla with brivla. All the merge does is provide a rather obvious meaning to the otherwise meaningless consonant-ending soundstrings, so that they too can be used as brivla, and so that they don't require a special and more restricted syntax.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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