From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 09 14:09:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 9 Sep 2001 21:09:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 57586 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2001 21:09:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Sep 2001 21:09:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2001 21:09:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.14c.bb9f85 (4068) for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2001 17:09:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14c.bb9f85.28cd347b@aol.com> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 17:09:15 EDT Subject: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14c.bb9f85.28cd347b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_14c.bb9f85.28cd347b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ce'u (KOhA) {ce'u} may occur in any sumti position, creating an expression of a function from objects (represented by sumti replacing {ce'u}) into whatever type is represented the type of the bridi in which it immediately occurs, with three exceptions: 1. main bridi (unsubordinated) The problem here is to figure out what a function from objects to claims might be when it is apparently asserted. This exception would disappear with an agreed on semantics/pragmatics for such forms. 2. bridi subordinate to {ka}. This most common type of {ce'u} usage is in fact a function to propositions, {du'u}, not to properties, {ka}. The use of {ka} rather than {du'u} for these structures (and of {du'u} at least primarily without {ce'u}), is to ease descriptions of the uses of properties and propositions in the language and to warn of the coming of {ce'u} or not. [In fact, the difference dates to before the development of {ce'u} and the recognition that {du'u} and {ka}differ only in {ce'u}. Once the difference was acknowledged, the question arose whether {ce'u} could be omitted in {ka} bridi -- as they had regularly been up to that point -- and, if so how. After several attempts to find a reasonable set of rules for such omissions that would allow unique reconstruction, it was decided to require that all {ce'u} in {ka} (and {du'u}, if used) be explicit. For older usage, reconstruction had to be by trial and error, with the first assumption being (cf {ke'a}) that the missing {ce'u} was in the first place. At risk of misunderstanding, etc., some people will certainly continue to omit {ce'u}, especially in the first place, in {ka}] 3. (indirect) questions {kau}. The set of answers is sorted first by the replacement of the {kau}ed interrogative, rather than first replacing the {ce'u}, which then acts as normal with the resulting {kau}less expression. A distinction has been suggested between "bound" {ce'u} and "free" {ce'u}. With the"free" cases, the range of replacements for {ce'u} is essentially unlimited (that is, limited only be Gricean conventions about what sorts of things are appropriate in the context), whereas in "bound" cases, only the replacements with explicitly mentioned or indicated arguments are considered. On inspection, it appears that these are not different cases but differnt uses of the same broad-range objects. In the latter, "bound," cases, only the selected objects make a difference, but the whole function is nonetheless referred to. In {le ka ce'u barda cu kampu}, the property of being large (largeness) is said to be common, meaning, I suppose something like many things have it (many arguments in the {ce'u} place map onto true claims) so all the (acceptable) replacements need to be considered. On the other hand, in {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda}, only the arguments {la djumbos} and {la tamtum} need be considered to evaluate that present sentence, which is true if one results in a true claim, the other a false one (or otherwise significantly different truth values). The use of {ce'u} with subordinate bridi other than {ka} (and {du'u}) is still exploratory and largely involved in finding out how other abstractions work: there are test cases for {li'i}and {ni} and some analogical arguments about {jei} and {si'o}. One use with LE alone and a particular version with {li'i} have been disputed. Both of these are "bound" cases so far. The LE is in {la dubia frica la tclsys le mamta be ce'u}, which is claimed to work like the {frica} example above, only giving different mothers rather than different truth values ultimately. The objection is that the {ce'u} is evaluated immediately giving something like {la dubias frica la tclsys le mamta be la dubias} = {...fi la babras buc}. This objection seems to reject the whole pattern of the use of {ce'u}, but is still in discussion. The usage with {li'i} requires that {ce'u} be restricted to the second argument of {li'i} and thus indicate the role that the observer plays in the experience described. The question here is whether, in fact, the experiencer must play a described role in the experience described, whether, for example, I can experience a sunset and describe that experience in Lojban without mentioning in the description what my role is (and what is it in a sunset, after all?). Should it be decided that I cannot (to distinguish my direct experiences from events I merely observe, say), that every experience description has to contain a reference to the experiencer in some role in the event, then the {ce'u} convention seems a convenient way of dealing with it, barring that more general direct functions to experiences are wanted (unexplored territory, I think). {ce'u} (cf {ma}) is a new pointer each time it occurs, but it is sometimes necessary to identify two or more places in function of some sort: self-love or some kind of incest, for example. In the simple case, both {c'eu} at the same level, the ordinary anaphora systems will often work straightforwardly: {le ka ce'u prami ri} for self-love. It is less clear whether these work when the two occurrences are on different levels: is {ce'u} the last sumti before the gap in {le nu le patfu be ce'u cu gletu ...} or is it {le patfu be ce'u} (nevermind the sense resolving this case). But one can always fall back on either {cy} or {lac} if only one {ce'u} is involved or some subscript to pick out {ce'u} in some order (but which one?) if there are several. This example also points to a possible (but largely unexplored) question of whether {ce'u} in subordinate phrases in a structure may be taken as part of the overall structure or have to be evaluated separately before the overall structure is revealed. The intended reading here is clearly that they may be taken into the overall structure; it is unclear whether the other order of evaluations would give a different result. This appliies also to the rule about the order in questions, where the opposite position is taken. The assumption underlying both these decisions is that it does not really matter in the end, but these conventions are most convenient for the particular (sorts of) cases. Experiments and models and formalizatiosn remain to be approved and worked though to decide these issues. --part1_14c.bb9f85.28cd347b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ce'u  (KOhA)
{ce'u} may occur in any sumti position, creating an expression of a function
from objects (represented by sumti replacing {ce'u}) into whatever type is
represented the type of the bridi in which it immediately occurs, with three
exceptions:
1. main bridi (unsubordinated)  The problem here is to figure out what a
function from objects to claims might be when it is apparently asserted.  
This exception would disappear with an agreed on semantics/pragmatics for
such forms.
2.  bridi subordinate to {ka}.  This most common type of {ce'u} usage is
in fact a function to propositions, {du'u}, not to properties, {ka}.  The use
of {ka} rather than {du'u} for these structures (and of {du'u} at least
primarily without {ce'u}), is to ease descriptions of the uses of properties
and propositions in the language and to warn of the coming of {ce'u} or not.
[In fact, the difference dates to before the development of {ce'u} and the
recognition that {du'u} and {ka}differ only in {ce'u}.  Once the difference
was acknowledged, the question arose whether {ce'u} could be omitted in {ka}
bridi -- as they had regularly been up to that point -- and, if so how.  
After several attempts to find a reasonable set of rules for such omissions
that would allow unique reconstruction, it was decided to require that all
{ce'u} in {ka} (and {du'u}, if used) be explicit.  For older usage,
reconstruction had to be by trial and error, with the first assumption being
(cf {ke'a}) that the missing {ce'u} was in the first place. At risk of
misunderstanding, etc., some people will certainly continue to omit {ce'u},
especially in the first place, in {ka}]
3. (indirect) questions {kau}.  The set of answers is sorted first by the
replacement of the {kau}ed interrogative, rather than first replacing the
{ce'u}, which then acts as normal with the resulting {kau}less expression.

A distinction has been suggested between "bound" {ce'u} and "free" {ce'u}.  
With the"free" cases, the range of replacements for {ce'u} is essentially
unlimited (that is, limited only be Gricean conventions about what sorts of
things are appropriate in the context), whereas in "bound" cases, only the
replacements with explicitly mentioned or indicated arguments are considered.
 On inspection, it appears that these are not different cases but differnt
uses of the same broad-range objects.  In the latter, "bound," cases, only
the selected objects make a difference, but the whole function is nonetheless
referred to.  In {le ka ce'u barda cu kampu}, the property of being large
(largeness) is said to be common, meaning, I suppose something like many
things have it (many arguments in the {ce'u} place map onto true claims) so
all the (acceptable) replacements need to be considered.  On the other hand,
in {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda}, only the arguments {la
djumbos} and {la tamtum} need be considered to evaluate that present
sentence, which is true if one  results in a true claim, the other a false
one (or otherwise significantly different truth values).

The use of {ce'u} with subordinate bridi other than {ka} (and {du'u}) is
still exploratory and largely involved in finding out how other abstractions
work: there are test cases for {li'i}and {ni} and some analogical arguments
about {jei} and {si'o}.  One use with LE alone and a particular version with
{li'i} have been disputed.  Both of these are "bound" cases so far.  The LE
is in {la dubia frica la tclsys le mamta be ce'u}, which is claimed to work
like the {frica} example above, only giving different mothers rather than
different truth values ultimately. The objection is that the {ce'u} is
evaluated immediately giving something like {la dubias frica la tclsys le
mamta be la dubias}  = {...fi la babras buc}.  This objection seems to reject
the whole pattern of the use of {ce'u}, but is still in discussion. The usage
with {li'i} requires that {ce'u} be restricted to the second argument of
{li'i} and thus indicate the role that the observer plays in the experience  
described.  The question here is whether, in fact, the experiencer must play
a described role in the experience described, whether, for example, I can
experience a sunset and describe that experience in Lojban without mentioning
in the description what my role is (and what is it in a sunset, after all?).  
Should it be decided that  I cannot (to distinguish my direct experiences
from events I merely observe, say), that every experience description has to
contain a reference to the experiencer in some role in the event, then the
{ce'u} convention seems a convenient way of dealing with it, barring that
more general direct functions to experiences are wanted (unexplored
territory, I think).

{ce'u} (cf {ma}) is a new pointer each time it occurs, but it is sometimes
necessary to identify two or more places in function of some sort: self-love
or some kind of incest, for example.  In the simple case, both {c'eu} at the
same level, the ordinary anaphora systems will often work straightforwardly:
{le ka ce'u prami ri} for self-love.  It is less clear whether these work
when the two occurrences are on different levels: is {ce'u} the last sumti
before the gap in {le nu le patfu be ce'u cu gletu ...} or is it {le patfu be
ce'u} (nevermind the sense resolving this case).  But one can always fall
back on either {cy} or {lac} if only one {ce'u} is involved or some subscript
to pick out {ce'u} in some order (but which one?) if there are several.  This
example also points to a possible (but largely unexplored) question of
whether {ce'u} in subordinate phrases in a structure may be taken as part of
the overall structure or have to be evaluated separately before the overall
structure is revealed.  The intended reading here is clearly that they may be
taken into the overall structure; it is unclear whether the other order of
evaluations would give a different result.  This appliies also to the rule
about the order in questions, where the opposite position is taken.  The
assumption underlying both these decisions is that it does not really matter
in the end, but these conventions are most convenient for the particular
(sorts of) cases.  Experiments and models and formalizatiosn remain to be
approved and worked though to decide these issues.
--part1_14c.bb9f85.28cd347b_boundary--