Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

I was thinking of the {co'e}. Must {tu'a ko'a} refer to the same
abstraction every time it appears in a sentence? e.g. in {tu'a ko'a
rinka lo nu mi djica tu'a ko'a}? If not, we can't really model it as
a function.

It need not be always the same function, but I would still call it a function in the same sense I would call "co'e" a predicate and "zo'e" a constant.

Here's why transparency seems simplest to me: once we ignore exceptions
like {tu'a}, and assuming definiteness of {lo}, and considering only
simple sumti, what we've done by defining a binary relation and then
hitting it with {lo} is actually to define a unary function. So we
*could* decide at this point that we're back with the simplest semantics
where each qualifier is interpreted as a unary function; we've just
given a slightly baroque explanation for what that unary function is.
Since in most cases there's a clear choice for the function which
doesn't need {lo} to explain it, this seems very natural to me.

If we think that way, hiding the step with {lo}, transparency is the
only option - because there's no longer a subbridi in sight.

All right, taking LAhE as primitives does make things simpler in one sense. I just think it's simpler in a more fundamental sense to have fewer primitives, and especially fewer primitive types.

> "fa'u" and "ju'e" are exceptions in an opposite sense than "tu'a". Whereas
> "tu'a" constrains the bridi-operators that it takes as arguments to act on
> a subordinate predicate, "fa'u" and "ju'e" are themselves bridi operators
> that act on a superordinate bridi.

I see that for fa'u. Why for ju'e? What does it do?

I don't really know, but what I guess from the definition: <<vague non-logical connective: analogous to plain ".i".>> is:

ko'a ju'e ko'e broda <-> ko'a broda .i ko'e broda

i.e. a watered down version of ".e"

> Also, to give an argument of the kind that And would disapprove of, I think
> that as a general rule sumti-6 should not be bridi operators, and since
> LAhE is in sumti-6, it should generate a logical term, not a pseudo-term.

I'm probably more swayed by this kind of argument than I should be, but
it would indeed be nice for unbound variables to be the only
exception...

(well actually {ma} is something of an exception too, but in a quite
different way)

And "ko" and "zi'o" as well.

> This argument doesn't apply to JOI, which shows up higher up in the grammar.

Interesting point... but I still feel JOI should be opaque if LAhE is.

This has knock-on effects elsewhere, by the way. Currently I have e.g.
{pu je ca bi'o ba nolraitru} <->
{pu bi'o ba nolraitru .i je ca bi'o ba nolraitru}
which fits with transparency for non-logical connectives on sumti.
I don't really know if this is right. Same story for operators (but not
for tanru connectives).

One interesting thing about tag connectives is that they don't allow bo/ke grouping, so that would mean that some expanded forms cannot be condensed. (That could probably be fixed in PEG.)

But in the case of tags, even if we take them as nonprimitive and expand them, we could still go either way, since there's no rule that says that "fi'o se purci je fi'o se cabna" has to be "fi'o se purci je se cabna".

>
> lo djacu cu dunja lo ka kelvo li no

Oops, I meant "jacke'o" (or "celso"), not kelvo. I think it's impossible to reach kelvo li no, isn't it?

> lo cipni cu se farvi lo dinsauru

Should a kind reading be available even if we're in the process of
talking about instances? Even if they're used elsewhere in the sentence?
e.g. is this legitimate, where kinds are intended only within the du'u:

lo djacu cu ba zi spojygau lo botpi noi dy nenri ku ri'a lo du'u ge lo
djacu cu dunja lo ka kelvo li no gi lo sligu djacu cu denmi mleca lo
litki djacu

?

I don't have a problem with it.

If not, maybe \iota is the right thing after all.

Or would you allow this, but only because of a domain shift within the
du'u (so it wouldn't be allowed if both {lo djacu} were at main bridi
level)?

No, I wouldn't even have a problem with:

lo djacu cu dunja lo ka celso li no kei gi'e ba zi bo spojygau lo botpi noi dy nenri

mu'o mi'e xorxes