Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:32:47 EDT

In a message dated 9/17/2001 2:33:38 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> All NU construct a predicate based on a bridi. The general strategy of
> paraphrasing NU-lessly is to express that bridi as a lodu'u sumti that
> is a sumti of a selbri synonymous with the NU.

Hmmm! I think that is a very fruitful insight for defining these critters, a 
clear development of what the lists hint at. I'm not sure it is going to be 
complete and I have a doubt or two about particular cases, but it needs to be 
developed as part of the general understanding of Lojban. Nice job!

> 
> ni1 = x1 is the degree to which x2* is the case; x1 is the degree to which
> the world would have to change for x2 to not be the case
> 
I think that this is more likely {jei}, if I remember my discussions with *B* 
of Peoria rokeach [not a totla blank at least] our leading fuzzyist. I also 
wonder if thesse two are the same. Is this one of the things that xorxes 
keeps trying to distinguish? If so, I never got it from what he said and I 
wonder if it has ever really been used -- although I can imagine someone 
saying something like it in a cond\fused sort of way.

<ni2 = lo du'u broda BAI ma kau [where BAI is the amount BAI>
This looks like {ni} , what ??Steven Belknap?? would call the membership 
function value of broda vis a vis ... Except I think the x1 at least of 
broda needs to be there, and, of course, I am suspcious of {makau}, even 
though it seems right here. xorxes' pair both seem to be in this area 
somewhere, but I don't know just where.

The {si'o} sketch is about as far as can be gone at the moment. Fleshing it 
out seems to be a long task.