Subject: Re: [lojban] properties vs. relationships

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 03:37:00 +0200

la .xorxes. cusku di'e

> I suppose it could be defined like that, but then x3 of cnino,
> instead of being more or less any one-ce'u property, would be
> restricted to be a very special subset of 2-ce'u relationships,
> those where the second argument is an evaluator or something
> like that. What do we gain by complicating so much this place?

I can go with that, since we can say that it's a part of the
definition of 'cnino' that x2 is aware of or evaluates x1 having the
property x2; but,

> >Likewise with "ko'a pamoi lei nanmu le ka ce'u clani". Shouldn't it
be
> >
> > ko'a pamoi lei nanmu le ka ce'u clamau ce'u
>
> Again it is possible, but it gives to moi a far more complicated
> meaning.

This one is better motivated, I think. "le ka ce'u clamau ce'u" is the
exact relationship which holds between every two adjacent members of
the sequence, and thus defines it. When I see "...le ka ce'u clani", I
wonder why ascending order should be the default.

> >Otherwise, how would you get ascending order vs. descending order?
>
> {pamoi fi le ka clani} vs. {pamoi fi la ka tordu}.

This works for 'clani' because it's easy to reverse the property. But
what about something like "ko'a pamoi lei dacti le ka ce'u kelvo" vs.
"ko'a pamoi lei dacti le ka le se kelvo be ce'u cu zmadu/mleca le se
kelvo be ce'u"

mu'o mi'e .adam.