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

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2




On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

But the rule for logically connected sumti at top level is the same rule
as for logical connectives in various other places, e.g. bridi tails,
abstractions, tags, operators, operands. Roughly, that rule is: you
substitute in each of the connected possibilities, yielding two
propositions, then logically connect those propositions.

Yes, but that rule doesn't automatically apply to all constructs. You can't for example apply it directly to "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brode". Therefore it is effectively a separate rule for each construct it applies to.

For sumti-tail there's an obvious choice: {lo [quantifier] [sumti]}
could be equivalent to {lo [quantifier] me [sumti]} for complex sumti as
well as for simple sumti.

LE [quantifier] [sumti] is interesting. I think I never actually gave much thought to "lo re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku" having such a very unintuitive parse.

In any case, I wouldn't introduce an additional rule to interpret "lo ci ko'a .a ko'e":

lo ci ko'a .a ko'e
=lo poi'i ci mei gi'e me ko'a .a ko'e
=lo poi'i ci mei gi'e ga me ko'a gi me ko'e

I assume you are not interpreting it in that way, but rather as "lo ci ko'a ku .a lo ci ko'e"? 

For {me}, I'm not sure... is there something {ko'a me ko'e .e ko'i}
could mean other than {ko'a me ko'e .i je ko'a me ko'i}?

For "me [sumti]", the predicate "menre" was proposed, such that "me [sumti]" = "menre (be) [sumti]". "me ko'a .e ko'e" doesn't require a new rule since: 

me ko'a .e ko'e
= menre ko'a .e ko'e
= ge menre ko'a gi menre ko'e
= ge me ko'a gi me ko'e


As for {mo'e}, I suppose we could use a relation "is the value
corresponding to"? But it really does seem to me much simpler to just
have {mo'e ko'a .e ko'e} be equivalent to {mo'e ko'a .e mo'e ko'e}.

I have no idea what the rules for mekso are in detail, so I don't know whether for example "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" is supposed to be equivalent to "lo sinso be ko'a .e ko'e" or to "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a lo'o .e li na'u sinso mo'e ko'e". I would like to say (not too adamantly) that it's the first, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e", but you are probably interpreting as the second. 

 > Do we even know what "na ku zo'u broda .i bo brode" means?

I believe it's the same as "na ku ge broda gi brode".

I suppose that's one choice, although it's not a necessity that juxtaposition be equated with conjunction, or that the negation of two separate propositions has to be the negation of their conjunction.
 
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.