[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2


On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Saturday, 2014-10-11 at 08:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> > (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
> > LAhE should get it...)
>
> Well...

By which you mean it kind of still is, because it's best to minimise
what irregularity we're forced into? Perhaps so. No longer a strong
argument, anyway.

It's still the case that "tu'a" places the operators at the minimum of the three scopes available to it, so it's reasonable for the others to place them at the minimum of the two scopes they have available. Also for "na'e bo" and for "lu'a" the minimum scope seems to be the more useful one. If based just on usefulness LAhE would have to be split into different classes with different logical behaviors. 

Or perhaps we need to reevaluate the definition of some of these LAhEs. I wouldn't mind for example making "lu'i A .e B" the set of those things that are both among A and among B, which would require redefining "lu'i" as "lo selcmi be ro me", with three potential scope levels just as "tu'a" has, and with the minimum being the correct one.

Regarding {lo}: could it be the "down" operator which extracts a kind
from a predicate? I'm not seeing any other options, if it is "definite"
and if \iota is out.

That kind of presupposes that among all the various operators that linguists/logicians/etc have defined, described, explored there has to be one that matches "lo". I don't know enough about the subject to give an opinion one way or the other.

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.