* Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 09:56 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> The way I'm thinking about it, "fyno" would have all the values of the
> function as its referents, so it is a plural constant, and "fyno pe da"
> restricts those values to the one(s) associated with da.
Aha. I see what you mean. That does make sense, and I agree this is
a good way to present it in lojban, and certainly much less painful than
using mekso. My only reservation is that it would mean having the
lojbanic form quite separate from the logical form. Really, the lojban
output is, for now, mainly intended as a kind of documentation on the
logical form.
In particular, passing this lojbanic form back through tersmu would
yield something involving {srana} whose equivalence to the original form
involving f(x) is far from immediate. Worse, there wouldn't even be
a fixed point for the lojban form - since {pe} without a quantifier is
taken as effectively introducing a {noi} clause, {ro da zo'u fy pe da
broda da} would become {ro da zo'u ge fyno pe da ge'u srana da gi fyno
pe da ge'u me fy me'u .i ro da zo'u fyno pe da ge'u broda da}, which on
another pass through would blow up those {pe} clauses even further...
> [snip]
> In your output form you don't distinguish the definitions (except when they
> involve "le", which get marked as "ju'o nai") from the assertions. Perhaps
> they could be given different illocutionary force, maybe "ca'e". So the
> output for "[ju'a] ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da" would look
> something like:
>
> ca'e ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u fyno pe da mamta da
> .i [ju'a] ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u da prami fyno pe da
Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} == {zo'e noi broda} as absolute
dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the referent(s) broda(s).
You think a more accurate dogma would be
{lo broda} == {zo'e noi ca'e broda}?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature