From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Aug 25 18:48:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 01:48:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 85194 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 01:48:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 01:48:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 01:48:47 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.45]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010826014844.LVZC23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:48:44 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >Clearly (?) if lo'e gerku actually means "the typical", i.e. "lo fadni be > >tu'o ka gerku", then it won't do what you want it to. And anyway, > >it'd be annoying to have 2 gadri for le/lo fadni. > > Indeed. It's more like "the archetype". The default quantifier > of {lo'e} should be {tu'o}. > > >Now, you tell me that lo'e gerku is the intension. To me, then, that > >would be "tu'o ka ce'u zo'e gerku" or "tu'o ka ce'u ce'u gerku". > > Wow, I think I'm having an epiphany. It's definitely not the latter, > because {lo'e gerku} clearly selects the x1 of gerku. But the former, > yes, I think I'm starting to like it. Let's see how it would work: > > ta mutce le ka barda = ta mutce lo'e barda > That is much in bigness, that is much as a big thing. > > ti ta frica le ka ce'u viska makau = ti ta frica lo'e viska be makau > This and that differ in what they see, this and that differ as seers > of whatever they see. What I like about this is firstly that it would settle what lo'e and le'e mean: lo'e gerku (be zo'e) = lo(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e = lo(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals] le'e gerku (be zo'e) = le(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e = le(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals] and secondly that it handles monadic properties in a simpler way. [Wistful thinking: If only it could be agreed that {lo'e gerku} would be used instead of {lo(i) ka gerku} construed as {lo(i) ka ce'u gerku}, then {lo(i) ka gerku} would be freed up for the all-ce'u construal, {lo(i) ka ce'u gerku ce'u}, and then pc could have his si'o back...] > Yes, it seems to work. This has a very interesting consequence: I don't > need to keep carping on about the place structure of {sisku}. > > mi sisku lo'e tanxe = mi sisku le ka ce'u tanxe > I look for a box, I look for that which has the property of > being a box. > > Of course, it is still weird that {sisku} is singled out the > way it is in the wording of the definition, but now we can treat > all such predicates the same way: > > mi nitcu lo'e tanxe = mi nitcu le ka ce'u tanxe > > mi cpedu lo'e tanxe = mi cpedu le ka ce'u tanxe > > mi djica lo'e tanxe = mi djica le ka ce'u tanxe > > And of course we can use these predicates in the normal way > with non-opaque references: > > mi nitcu le mi karce > mi cpedu ta > > >I don't see how {tu'o ka ce'u nu} is going to solve > >the erroneous {le nu}s, > > At least some of them: > > mi nitcu lo'e nu do ti mi dunda > mi djica lo'e nu mi klama Hmm. My first hunch was that {mi nitcu ta} and {mi nitcu lo'e pendo} are using "nitcu" in two different senses, and hence should use two different brivla (as I've been saying for years). But... let's see: Suppose {mi sisku lo ka gerku} is satisfied by my finding {lo ka gerku} -- that is, suppose that one can *find* lo ka gerku, which obviously would be done by finding a manifestation of it, i.e. something that has the property. Then we could also say {mi sisku do}, meaning "I'm trying to find you", and not claiming that you are a property. And, fingers crossed and holding our breath, hopefully this would generalize to djica, nitcu et al. And so, I think I at long last see how and that your long-standing solution works. Either we're both deluded, or this is something of a breakthrough (-- not that anybody else gives a shit!). --And.