* Sunday, 2014-10-12 at 17:23 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> 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.
That leads to another possibility: have each occurence of a LAhE be
interpreted as a function f such that for all x, (x,f(x)) satisfies the
binary relation corresponding to the LAhE, with the exact choice of the
function being left up to the speaker and/or context.
(In the typical case, the value of f will only actually be sampled at
one point x, but there are also cases like {ro da la'e da broda}.)
I'm not sure this isn't a better fit than going via {lo}, actually.
(And actually it corresponds to going via the definition I thought {lo}
had, until maximality was introduced earlier in this thread.)
So e.g. {la'e ko'a} would typically be a particular thing referred to by
ko'a according to some particular relevant notion of reference, rather
than being the collection of all possible referents or the kind
"referents of ko'a", or rather than requiring restricting the domain to
exclude all other possible referents.
> > 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.
I see what you mean, and I agree it's a worthwhile exercise to express
the final logical form in lojban using as few constructs as possible;
but I don't see why this should be done greedily, i.e. first translating
to minimalistic lojban and then finding the logical form.
> > > "fa'u" and "ju'e" are exceptions in an opposite sense than "tu'a".
> > 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"
That would make some sense, but how actually would this differ from
{.e}?
In isolation, I don't see a difference between
broda .i brode
and
broda .i je brode
There are differences once other constructs get involved, but I don't
see how to use that to differentiate between {ju'e} and {e} as sumti
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.)
Yes, I don't really see the reasoning on that one. CLL says it's "to
keep the tense grammar simpler"; on a technical level it does, but it
introduces an irregularity which could be confusing.
> > > 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?
Oops! Yes. kelvo li re ze ci.
> > 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
Well OK, but I assume that's because you're taking {lo djacu} to refer
to the kind.
How about:
kukte lo plise .e re lo ci plise noi vi zvati
The idea here is to force some individual apples into the domain, so if
{lo} is really \iota then {lo plise} can't refer to the kind.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature