Subject: Re: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:20:59 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/2001 1:17:45 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> So can I try to outline what 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 abstractions, the first empty place fills with ce'u and the 
> rest fill with zo'e.

Yes

> Exception (or generalization): where context indisputably demands 
> a ka abstraction expressing an n-adic relation, where the value of 
> n is certain, the first n empty places fill with ce'u and the rest 
> 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 
{ce'u} are implicit.

> 3. EITHER (XOR):
> 3a. In a ka abstraction, if an overt ce'u fills the x1 then all 
> following empty places fill with ce'u.
> XOR:
> 3b. In a ka abstraction, if a ce'u precedes the first empty place
>        
Wordy but OK: if {ce'u} in the first open (not filled with content sumti) 
space then all blanks are {ce'u}

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

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

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

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

<C. {ka ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u klama} = {la'e zo klama}, so it may 
   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, 
for the {ka} phrases is a selbri and the {la'e} is a sumti. So, they do play 
different roles sometimes. I think doing lambda reduction with {la'e zo 
klama} would be a serious mistake generally. But the equation does reduce 
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
   zo'e zo'e zo'e klama} = {lo'e klama}. >
I gather (I have not been following that part of this muddle closely-- 
keeping tack of the {ce'u} has been quite enough for now) that you and xod 
have come to this conclusion. I can't think where it comes from (but I will 
look) nor can I imagine why it would be true on the basis of anyhting in the 
Book or the history of Lojban (making allowance for the misgrammar again, 
even). A typical broda is a broda, not a property (though, admittedly, not 
necessarily an existing broda either).

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

   could be rendered by something like

     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 
consequences need looking at) I can't make much sense out of either of these 
sentences. What would a mass of properties be, since there is only one 
property here, le ka ce'u prami. Nor is it clear what that has to do with a 
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 
other Nalgols (I almost miss guaspe!) 

<Either:

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

  II. a. Leave ka grungey, i.e. totally reliant on glorking.
      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 context of 
Lojban and as taken to deal with {ka} issues.