So I think we should aim to find a single rule which will handle all
qualifiers but {tu'a}.
Let's think it through from scratch.
The simplest approach, and what is assumed by tersmus in its current
form, is to have each qualifier interpreted as a unary function, and
each non-logical connective as a binary function. This arguably makes
sense for all LAhE and JOI except {tu'a} and {ju'e},
but is a bit
strange for {NAhE bo}, and is marginal for {la'e} and {lu'e}, since the
referent-symbol relation isn't really bijective.
So relaxing that slightly, we can have qualifiers resp non-logical
connectives interpreted as binary resp ternary relations (which in many
cases are graphs of functions, but we don't require that). There's
a reasonably obvious choice for the relation in every case (even {fa'u},
if we're willing to clutter our universe up with a special data type to
handle it, which I think should be fine really).
So {LAhE ko'a} -> LAhE(x,ko'a), and we still have to decide how to
extract a term from this unary predicate. We have the usual options - we
can quantify (universally or existentially, plurally or singularly, with
various possibilities for the scope), we can take the mereological sum
of the extension (with or without a presupposition that this also
satisfies the predicate), we can take the kind, we can have the speaker
pick something(s) in the extension without further specification
(possibly with some restriction like it having to be somehow salient).
I think that's exhaustive (and so ta'o ru'e I think {lo} must be one of
these, or be ambiguous between some of them, cf bottom of this mail).
CLL lojban takes the quantification route. Based on the examples in CLL,
it looks like the implicit quantifier is {su'o}.
With xorlo, the natural choice is {lo}.
So this gets us (back) to {LAhE ko'a} -> {lo [LAhE] be ko'a}.
Maybe even {tu'a ko'a} can be put in that form.
Then there's the question of what to do with quantifiers and logically
connected sumti. Transparency is the simplest option, since it reduces
us directly to the case we've just dealt with, but it doesn't give the
desired semantics to {tu'a}.
Sticking to the model described above, the
only alternative seems to be to have the logical operators operate on
the unary predicate, yielding e.g. {LAhE re da} -> {lo poi'i re da zo'u
LAhE be da}.
But this *still* doesn't give the desired semantics to {tu'a}.
So we give up on including {tu'a}, and handle it separately.
So finally, all we're left with is:
1. defining the binary/ternary relation for each word;
2. deciding between the two options for handling logical operators;
3. deciding whether there should be any other exceptions.
1 is the business of a dictionary, not this thread.
I hope we can agree that the default for 3 should be "no" unless
there's a pressing reason.
For 2: either choice seems reasonable. I'd prefer transparency just
because it's simpler - but if you think, with {tu'a} entirely ignored,
that it's important to have opaqueness, then I'm happy to accept that.
Do you?
> > 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.
I intended no such presupposition. If it's something already named and
analysed, that makes things easier, but it isn't necessary. I really
honestly meant that I don't see what else {lo} could mean. In the
exhaustive-as-far-as-I-can-see list of plausible ways of extracting
a term from a unary predicate I gave above, if we rule out
quantification, require that the predicate determines the term
("definiteness"), and require that the resulting term satisfies the
predicate, then we're left with only these two possibilities:
mereological sum of the extension with a presupposition that this
satisfies the predicate (\iota)
or
the kind corresponding to the predicate (down).
Am I missing some possibilities?