* Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 22:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > 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...
>
> Yes, I see what you mean. I take it then that the parser doesn't touch
> li-expressions, or at least some of them?
It handles matching operands with operators and so on, but quickly
arrives at a fixed point.
> > 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}?
>
> No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the new auxiliary variables
> introduced by the parsing.
I wouldn't say it's a definition exactly. That it brodas need not be
enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don't see that we can
take it as a definition.
> But I do think that noi-clauses in general, and
> the noi-clause used in the espansion of "lo" in particular, have an
> illocutionary force different from assertions. I'm now thinking "zo'e noi
> sa'a broda" could be it.
Hmm. Could you spell out a bit more what this means? I'd interpret that
as "zo'e brodas, but this isn't the main point of my text", just making
explicit what's already implicit in relegating the assertion to
a noi-clause. I would take that kind of subtlety to be extralogical.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature