From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 06 11:43:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 6 Sep 2001 18:43:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 67419 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 18:24:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Sep 2001 18:24:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2001 18:24:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.a4.1955c5fa (3980) for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:24:39 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a4.1955c5fa.28c91967_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a4.1955c5fa.28c91967_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2001 11:16:47 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > You seem to be saying that {le mamtA be ce'u} = {le ka makau > mamta ce'u}. That's exactly the same type of confusion as between > {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}. > > Even if you take {le mamte be ce'u} as unevaluated, it > No, I am not identifying them. The first is a property properly speaking (some known member of loi ka makau mamta ceu, say le ka la Babras Buc mamta ce'u), a function from individuals to truth values. The second is a function from individuals to individuals. The second can hardly refer to the value of the function, since a function has no value, only a function applied to an argument has a value, and there is no argument application here. Just as in the case of {le ka la Babras Buc mamta ce'u}, it is the function referred to not the value (true or false depending on what name you stick in). The connection between the two forms also does not come to identity because there are surely places where one will aapply and the other not, though I haven't come across any yet in the indirect question business (if some value of {makau} satisfies the problem then that value of some related function will also satisfy the problem, apparently). I think your problem is that, unlike the case of {le ka...}, there is no initial mark to show that what is referred to is a function. But there is a final mark: {ce'u}. Just as a presentation of a proposition can be turned into that of a property by a {ce'u} inserted in a sumti place, so the presentation can be turned into a function to what meets that description by a {ce'u} in a sumti place; that is how logical languages work. Happily, the grammar does not require another flag at this point (there has to be a minimal case of abstraction somewhere). [Note: this means that I am not even recommending the minimalist {ce'u} dropping -- though I never recommended dropping the second {ce'u}; rather I now find it necessary to require all {ce'u} to appear.] --part1_a4.1955c5fa.28c91967_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2001 11:16:47 AM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


You seem to be saying that {le mamtA be ce'u} = {le ka makau
mamta ce'u}. That's exactly the same type of confusion as between
{le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}.

Even if you take {le mamte be ce'u} as unevaluated, it
does not refer to the function but to the value of the function.


No, I am not identifying them.  The first is a property properly speaking
(some known member of loi ka makau mamta ceu, say le ka la Babras Buc mamta
ce'u), a function from individuals to truth values.  The second is a function
from individuals to individuals.  
The second can hardly refer to the value of the function, since a function
has no value, only a function applied to an argument has a value, and there
is no argument application here.  Just as in the case of {le ka la Babras Buc
mamta ce'u}, it is the function referred to not the value (true or false
depending on what name you stick in).

The connection between the two forms also does not come to identity because
there are surely places where one will aapply and the other not, though I
haven't come across any yet in the indirect question business (if some value
of {makau} satisfies the problem then that value of some related function
will also satisfy the problem, apparently).

I think your problem is that, unlike the case of {le ka...}, there is no
initial mark to show that what is referred to is a function.  But there is a
final mark: {ce'u}.  Just as a presentation of a proposition can be turned
into that of a property by a {ce'u} inserted in a sumti place, so the
presentation can be turned into a function to what meets that description by
a {ce'u} in a sumti place; that is how logical languages work. Happily, the
grammar does not require another flag at this point (there has to be a
minimal case of abstraction somewhere).
[Note: this means that I am not even recommending the minimalist {ce'u}
dropping -- though I never recommended dropping the second {ce'u}; rather I
now find it necessary to require all {ce'u} to appear.]
--part1_a4.1955c5fa.28c91967_boundary--