Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

Well, Lojbab's position is close to incomprehensible to me, too, but he has maintained it for several days now without falter: if {la tsani} is somebody's name, then {la tsani be zo'e} is that person's name as well, just as if {lo tsani} is a correct description of a thing {lo tsani be zo'e} is. I was inclined to think Lb was just being overemphatic at first, meaning that if one could be used as a name, the other could to, even though no one probably would. But he did persist and say, in effect, that they were all names for that person,even if no one named him such.

As for your position, you have said it explicitly several times: {la tsani} refers to the first place of {tsani}. You do manage to wiggle a lot on that, making {la} even vaguer than {le}. The point is that, if you really agree with the view that {la} just uses the word detached from its semantics and syntax as much as may be, you have no ground for talking about the first place of the predicate that word happens most normally to be. But in talking about selpa'i you placed him in the first position and Lb supplied the second.

From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

In the present case, xorxes, while moving toward including cmevla among brivla, takes the fact that LA and LE take the identically specified sumti-tails to infer that they treat them the same way, so the name applies to the first argument just as the description does (though he admits that the application may not be as direct in the LA as in the case of LE -- except, of course, when the sumti-tail is a cmevla, when it is direct and veridical and all those good things.

That doesn't seem to fit my opinion at all. I agree with selpa'i, tsani, and CLL on this.

Lojbab, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails just like LE does; in this case, by including all the implicit {zo'e} (though he admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his name nor anyone use it of him). Finally, selpa'i (having been told collectively by xorxes and Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not)

Huh? I don't have any reason to doubt he is someone's beloved, but I would never infer that from his name.

maintains that LA in fact treats sumti-tails differently from the way LE does, name taking them as mere words without any necessary connection to their normal meaning or grammar.

And that's the only sensible position, and also the official one as presented in CLL. The position you attribute to Lojbab is close to incomprehensible to me.

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.