Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

The name-others distinction in logic is not about function (although that, too) but about form. Could Lojban names look just like other expressions? They don't, but that is not the issue.

What kind of a predicate is {djan zei pol}? It is said to have lujvo glue, but does not appear to be any sort of lujvo (not that I can remember all nine-and-ninety rules for lujvo, but they all seemed to end up with something with an early CC and a final vowel). In any case, the role that {djan} and {pol} seem to play here is precisely that of names, indicating the autonymy of cmevla (adding to the list that includes vocatives and probably other special uses of names, as, apparently, here).

Ah, yes, LE can't be used with cmevla so LA is special. Since the point here is that, even applied to sumti-tails, LA is special, the merger doesn't seem a particularly good idea.

The ambiguity is the reason -- as always -- for dotside.

The problem is the one-hand, other-hand just mentioned.

Two things. I suspect that we have different understandings from the volumes on the topic of the nature and power of dotside. So I would allow compound names, just have the total demarcated. And I am not suggesting doing away with {LA CMEVLA}, since that would ruin too much archival material. The point is just that it could be done (and, retrospectively, should have been).

From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

In Logic, names need to be distinct from descriptions, predicates, variables, connectives, and so on. Does this carry over to Lojban?

I assume the question is rhetorical, but of course, those functions are distinct in Lojban. Those are different functions that a word may have. The same word can have different functions depending on its context.

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.

Not quite true. "djan zei pol", for example, is a predicate in which cmevla play a constitutive part. Lojban predicates are, for the most part, not single words. And the same can be said of Lojban names.

To be used as names, cmevla must be preceded by {la}, etc., of LE, the class of descriptors,

("la" is in selmaho LA, not currently a member of LE, although the merge of BRIVLA and CMEVLA would also merge LE and LA.)

[...]

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?

Because it would be ambiguous. Would "mi klama la broda ko'a" mean "I go to the one named "broda ko'a", or "I go to the one named "broda", from ko'a?

As one way out of this, note that some names do not require {la}: {mi}, {do}, and a few more.

I'm not sure what you are looking for a way out of, at this point.

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.

If I understand what you are proposing, you would want:

mi klama paris rom

to mean "I go to Paris from Rome", and you would disallow compound names, such as is currently "la paris rom". I don't really see the point though.

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.