From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 28 12:25:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 19:25:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 390 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 19:21:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 19:21:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 19:21:06 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.73.12295c4d (3891) for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <73.12295c4d.28bd491b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:20:59 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_73.12295c4d.28bd491b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_73.12295c4d.28bd491b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/28/2001 1:17:45 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > So can I try to outline what I take to > be an explicit version of your scheme? >=20 > 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e. Yes. > 2. In ka abstractions, the first empty place fills with ce'u and the=20 > rest fill with zo'e. Yes > Exception (or generalization): where context indisputably demands=20 > a ka abstraction expressing an n-adic relation, where the value of=20 > n is certain, the first n empty places fill with ce'u and the rest=20 > with zo'e. No. Other {ce'u} are explicit, unmarked are {zo'e} Unless there is an explicit {zo'e}, in which case, all {zo'e} appear and=20 {ce'u} are implicit. > 3. EITHER (XOR): > 3a. In a ka abstraction, if an overt ce'u fills the x1 then all=20 > following empty places fill with ce'u. > XOR: > 3b. In a ka abstraction, if a ce'u precedes the first empty place >=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 Wordy but OK: if {ce'u} in the first open (not filled with content sumti)=20 space then all blanks are {ce'u} No, defined by space: first available space, etc. If first occurrent=20 expression is {fe S} then there is assumed to be a space unfilled before it= =20 and so on. We can (and will if need be) establish fixed order to prevent=20 gardenpathing of that sort. Now that is interesting. I (nor anyone else that I can find) didn't think = of=20 the gaps in a {ka} phrase being within subordinate pharses. I can see tha= t=20 that will generate some problems for interpretation in some cases (if the=20 internal phrase is intensional, for example) but the question of how to app= ly=20 the conventions -- other than the fact that it opens the possibility for ma= ny=20 more that 5 omitted placeholders) can be handled rather easily, whichever=20 ways sems to work best. I tend to favor linear orders, so I would go with= =20 "yes" to both your questions (except for being unsure what "x3 precedes x2"= =20 means) While I think that what C intends is correct, the grammar is not quite righ= t,=20 for the {ka} phrases is a selbri and the {la'e} is a sumti. So, they do pl= ay=20 different roles sometimes. I think doing lambda reduction with {la'e zo=20 klama} would be a serious mistake generally. But the equation does reduce= =20 the need for {ka ce'u klama} say. I gather (I have not been following that part of this muddle closely--=20 keeping tack of the {ce'u} has been quite enough for now) that you and xod= =20 have come to this conclusion. I can't think where it comes from (but I wil= l=20 look) nor can I imagine why it would be true on the basis of anyhting in th= e=20 Book or the history of Lojban (making allowance for the misgrammar again,=20 even). A typical broda is a broda, not a property (though, admittedly, not= =20 necessarily an existing broda either). <=A0 =A0=A0 ko'a ce ko'e simxu loi ka (ce'u) (ce'u) prami =A0=A0 could be rendered by something like =A0 =A0=A0 ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo'e prami be (tu'a) ce'u> While I agree that a {ka} may make more sense than a {nu} in simxu-2 (the=20 consequences need looking at) I can't make much sense out of either of thes= e=20 sentences. What would a mass of properties be, since there is only one=20 property here, le ka ce'u prami. Nor is it clear what that has to do with a= =20 typical lover of whatever that all evaluates to (not much at a glance). I have enough trouble with Lojban, without trying to deal with Andban and=20 other Nalgols (I almost miss guaspe!)=20 Aside from being metaphysicaly and grammatically suspect, it is markedly le= ss=20 efficient than this one in test cases and wastes a good (maybe someday=20 useful) cmavo. Nah. The one is imprecise, the other is unintelligible in the context of=20 Lojban and as taken to deal with {ka} issues. --part1_73.12295c4d.28bd491b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/28/2001 1:17:45 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


So can I try to outline w= hat I take to
be an explicit version of your scheme?

1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e.

Yes.


2. In ka abs= tractions, the first empty place fills with ce'u and the=20
  rest fill with zo'e.


Yes


  = ;Exception (or generalization): where context indisputably demands=20
  a ka abstraction expressing an n-adic relation, where the = value of=20
  n is certain, the first n empty places fill with ce'u and = the rest=20
  with zo'e.


No.  Other {ce'u} are explicit, unmarked are {zo'e}
Unless there is an explicit {zo'e}, in which case, all {zo'e} appear an= d=20
{ce'u} are implicit.

3. EITHER (X= OR):
  3a. In a ka abstraction, if an overt ce'u fills the x1 the= n all=20
      following empty places fill with c= e'u.
  XOR:
  3b. In a ka abstraction, if a ce'u precedes the first empt= y place
      then all following empty places fi= ll with ce'u

Wordy but OK: if {ce'u} in the first open (not filled with content sumt= i)=20
space then all blanks are {ce'u}

<A. Empty places and their sequence have to be defined as x1<x2&l= t;x3<x4<x5
=A0=A0 (because I can't see any other way of defining them). This means= =20
=A0=A0 that {ka broda .... fa ko'a} will gardenpath people, because the= y'll
=A0=A0 misparse as {ka ce'u broda}. There's probably no way round this;= you
=A0=A0 have to wait to the end of tbe clause to know where the ce'u and= =20
=A0=A0 zo'e go. Your only safe bet to avoid gardenpathing is to use ove= rt
=A0=A0 ce'u within du'u>
No, defined by space: first available space, etc.  If first occurr= ent=20
expression is {fe S} then there is assumed to be a space unfilled befor= e it=20
and so on.  We can (and will if need be) establish fixed order to = prevent=20
gardenpathing of that sort.

<B. Rules 2-3 raise further problems of specification:

=A0=A0 i.=A0 Does an empty place within a nonempty x1 precede an empty = x2?

=A0=A0 ii. If nonempty x3 precedes nonempty x2, does an empty place wit= hin
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 x3 precede an empty place within x2?>
Now that is interesting.  I (nor anyone else that I can find) didn= 't think of=20
the gaps in a {ka} phrase being within subordinate pharses.   = ;I can see that=20
that will generate some problems for interpretation in some cases (if t= he=20
internal phrase is intensional, for example) but the question of how to= apply=20
the conventions -- other than the fact that it opens the possibility fo= r many=20
more that 5 omitted placeholders) can be handled rather easily, whichev= er=20
ways sems to work best.  I tend to favor linear orders, so I would= go with=20
"yes" to both your questions (except for being unsure what "x3 precedes= x2"=20
means)

<C. {ka ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u klama} =3D {la'e zo klama}, so it m= ay=20
=A0=A0 be that Rule 3 doesn't have to be relied on that much.>
While I think that what C intends is correct, the grammar is not quite = right,=20
for the {ka} phrases is a selbri and the {la'e} is a sumti.  So, t= hey do play=20
different roles sometimes.  I think doing lambda reduction with {l= a'e zo=20
klama} would be a serious mistake generally.  But the equation doe= s reduce=20
the need for {ka ce'u klama} say.

<D. Nor does Rule 2 have to be relied on that much, because {ka ce'u= zo'e
=A0=A0 zo'e zo'e zo'e klama} =3D {lo'e klama}. >
I gather (I have not been following that part of this muddle closely--= =20
keeping tack of the {ce'u} has been quite enough for now) that you and = xod=20
have come to this conclusion.  I can't think where it comes from (= but I will=20
look) nor can I imagine why it would be true on the basis of anyhting i= n the=20
Book or the history of Lojban (making allowance for the misgrammar agai= n,=20
even).  A typical broda is a broda, not a property (though, admitt= edly, not=20
necessarily an existing broda either).

<=A0 =A0=A0 ko'a ce ko'e simxu loi ka (ce'u) (ce'u) prami

=A0=A0 could be rendered by something like

=A0 =A0=A0 ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo'e prami be (tu'a) ce'u>

While I agree that a {ka} may make more sense than a {nu} in simxu-2 (t= he=20
consequences need looking at) I can't make much sense out of either of = these=20
sentences.  What would a mass of properties be, since there is onl= y one=20
property here, le ka ce'u prami. Nor is it clear what that has to do wi= th a=20
typical lover of  whatever that all evaluates to (not much at a gl= ance).
I have enough trouble with Lojban, without trying to deal with Andban a= nd=20
other Nalgols (I almost miss guaspe!)=20

<Either:

=A0 I. Revert to my du'u/ka/si'o proposal>
Aside from being metaphysicaly and grammatically suspect, it is markedl= y less=20
efficient than this one in test cases and wastes a good (maybe someday= =20
useful) cmavo.
<or:

=A0 II. a. Leave ka grungey, i.e. totally reliant on glorking.
=A0 =A0 =A0 b. To avoid relying on glorking, use du'u, lo'e and la'e zo= .>
Nah.  The one is imprecise, the other is unintelligible in the con= text of=20
Lojban and as taken to deal with {ka} issues.

--part1_73.12295c4d.28bd491b_boundary--