Re: [lojban] Specifying sumti types: another revision of gimste is complete

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote

2014-05-31 18:48 GMT+04:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:

2014-05-31 18:27 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

I don't have an issue with "lo mlatu ka'e fasnu".

If so why not consider objects as assertions or even properties? This will quickly destroy the whole system of variable types leaving only their interactions relevant.

I don't see how cats could be properties, since they don't have any open argument places, and I'm not sure what it would mean for them to be assertions. How do you assert a cat? What's the truth value of a cat?

The difference between objects and events is the focus on spatial or temporal properties, but both have both. What properties of events do cats lack? They have position, they have duration, they can be seen, they can cause other things to happen. I'm not saying you can never distinguish objects from events, I'm saying that they have more in common than not.

So we've got a new type/subtype (whetever you call it) "relation". Such place contains two {ce'u} inside:

porsi2, lanzu3, ckini3, jilra3, simxu2, rimni4.

porsi, ckini and simxu I agree with. I'm not at all clear on jilra, rimni and lanzu.

It seems that jilra3 could be a property of jilra2, one which jilra1 would like to have but doesn't, or does but not in the manner in which jilra2 has it. I can see how a relation between them could also be used there, so perhaps both property of x2 or relation between x1 and x2 should be allowed.

The order of the two ce'u is sometimes relevant for these (i.e. which ce'u is for x1 and which one for x2). Should we assume that it's always the first for x1 and the second for x2 when there are two?

Shouldn't rimni4 be a property that both rimni1 and rimni2 share? "zo rimni zo cimni cu rimni lo ka zoi ke imni ke cu fanmo ce'u"

(x3 dropped on purpose).

For lanzu3, I don't really have much of a clue how to use it.

If "property" is a subclass of "assertion" (I'd prefer "proposition")

"assertion" was chosen because it has higher frequency in English. Don't forget that this is to be meant "Simple English gimste" (it is still part of "teach simple lojban" project) although we can have any number of columns for developers.

But these things are not always asserted. Asserting them is just one of the things you can do with propositions.

"assertion" is du'u. property is {ka}. Isn't {ka} the same as {du'u} but with at least one ce'u inside? [See http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=ka,_du%27u,_si%27o,_ce%27u,_zo%27e]

Properties are neither assertions nor propositions. A "ka" is an incomplete "du'u". It's fine if we allow "du'u" to be incomplete, but in such cases they are not complete propositions. I agree that it's sometimes difficult to combine "simple" with "correct".

I think place order is relevant. (thing-with-property, thing-with-property, property), e.g. "zmadu", (thing-with-property, property, thing-with-property), e.g. "mupli". and (property, thing-with-property, thing-with-property), e.g. "steci" (the only one?) are three different classes, although clearly they can all be grouped in one superclass.

Let's not mix "klesi" and "structure" columns then. "klesi" is about semantics, "structure" is about interaction of places and variable type declaration.

Further development and evolution will give those columns more precise definitions.

Good!

mu'o mi'e xorxes