From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 19 14:43:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 19 Sep 2001 21:43:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 82132 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 21:43:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Sep 2001 21:43:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Sep 2001 21:43:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.d.1a7c3acc (4324) for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 17:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 17:43:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d.1a7c3acc.28da6b7c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_d.1a7c3acc.28da6b7c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/19/2001 3:34:02 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 nicholas@uci.edu writes: > The first *is* entirely contextual, and Lojbab's pretty mcuh agreed that > his understanding of {ka} is contextual. Bound-ka means that ka is > subcategorised for by the gismu. What I'm calling property/quality is > single/double ce'u versus all-ce'u. End of story. >=20 That is, the old standard difference between a quality or property and a=20 relation? Why -- aside from Lojban/Loglan's habit of misusing terminology = --=20 not just say this then? I don't understand what "{ka} is subcategorized by= =20 the gismu" means exactly, except that different features of function are=20 relevant to different predicates (at a guess). But that doesn't mean much= =20 more than that different predicates are different: {frica} and {cenba} look for certain values to be different, {dunli} looks= =20 for certain values to be the same, {banli} may not care about what the valu= es=20 are, just the function. No adhominem at all, unless you count the implicit stupidity of us all --=20 myself very definitely included -- for carrying on an argument for God know= s=20 how long about somethign that was not even true, namely that these gismu to= ok=20 only {ka} at some specified place and not {ni}. xorxes made (apparently --= =20 he has yet to come back on that) a whole theory of two kinds of {ni} out of= =20 it and you and And seem to have bought the theory and I took it seriously=20 enough to try and figure out how it worked. All gone in two seconds on the= =20 gismu list. No necessary polysemy either: something about x1 changes -- quality,=20 quantity, whatever -- they are all the same (read the beginnings of calculu= s=20 in the medieval treatises on the intension and remission of forms by such=20 charmers as Richard Swineshead).=20=20 Yeah, changing the shirt is a metaphysical mess -- with {le}. But not such= a=20 problem with {lo}. <>Yes, people are not differences, but things differ in the values they >give as arguments to functions, which values may be people.=A0 They differ= , of >course, in the function, not the value of it. Well, yeah, which is why the {te frica} shouldn't be expressed extensionally. You're saying {le mamta be ce'u} is such a function. All I can say is, to me it's still a sumti, so it can't express a relation or function, qua mapping, but only the result of the function. (It *involves* a relation, of course.) {le mamta be ce'u} doesn't have the extension ((Chelsea, Hillary), (Dubya, Babs)); it has the extension (Hillary, Babs). I want the former her, not the latter. So {leka makau mamta ce'u} is the only thing that makes sense to me here.> Who said that te frica was expressed extensionally, it is the function in=20 which they differ, not the value of the function (they don't share those=20 values for one thing -- indeed that is the point in this case) and they=20 differ in that function by having different values. Exactly as they differ= =20 in ka makau mamta ce'u by being true in different properties that fall unde= r=20 it, different values of it, say.=20=20 If {le mamta be ce'u} doesn't contain and , how= =20 do we get to the Hillary or the Babs from the Chelsea or the W? It sure=20 looks like a function to me. If the extension of {le mamta be ce'u} is=20 {Hillary, Babs,...} how can it the be just one of them? In short, if {lek= a=20 makau mamta ce'u} makes any sense at all, then {le mamta be ce'u} makes the= =20 same sense, only simpler, since it involves only one step through functions= ,=20 not two as the former does (makau to a particular mother, ce'u to a=20 particular child).=20 I don't expect xorxes to like it, but that doesn't change its status (being= =20 as good in Lojban as in English). I am a little more surprised that you=20 don't like it. But that doesn't change its status either. this whole mess= =20 has been informative in several ways -- a nice construction (actually=20 several) emerge, with a nice theory for them all and we are all reminded th= at=20 none of us is an infallible expert in Lojban. Nor a pellucid writer of our= =20 views neither. --part1_d.1a7c3acc.28da6b7c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/19/2001 3:34:02 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@u= ci.edu writes:



The first *is* entirely c= ontextual, and Lojbab's pretty mcuh agreed that
his understanding of {ka} is contextual. Bound-ka means that ka is
subcategorised for by the gismu. What I'm calling property/quality is
single/double ce'u versus all-ce'u. End of story.




That is, the old standard difference between a quality or property and = a relation?  Why -- aside from Lojban/Loglan's habit of misusing termi= nology -- not just say this then?  I don't understand what "{ka} is su= bcategorized by the gismu" means exactly, except that different features of= function are relevant to different predicates (at a guess).  But that= doesn't mean much more than that different predicates are different:
{frica} and {cenba} look for certain values to be different, {dunli} lo= oks for certain values to be the same, {banli} may not care about what the = values are, just the function.

<Ad hominem crap notwithstanding, what emerges from your subsequent = reply
to xod (God, but you don't make yourself clear) is that the gismu list
should not be taken as saying {ni} is intersubstitutable with {ka} beca= use
they're the same thing semantically, but rather that {cenba} is
polysemous, with cenba-1 taking a property, and cenba-2 taking a quanti= ty.>

No adhominem at all, unless you count the implicit stupidity of us all = -- myself very definitely included -- for carrying on an argument for God k= nows how long about somethign that was not even true, namely that these gis= mu took only {ka} at some specified place and not {ni}.  xorxes made (= apparently -- he has yet to come back on that) a whole theory of two kinds = of {ni} out of it and you and And seem to have bought the theory and I took= it seriously enough to try and figure out how it worked.  All gone in= two seconds on the gismu list.
No necessary polysemy either: something about x1 changes -- quality, qu= antity, whatever -- they are all the same (read the beginnings of calculus = in the medieval treatises on the intension and remission of forms by such c= harmers as Richard Swineshead).  

<I was about to yell about xod's point, because I think that's makin= g a bug
into a feature. But if this is what you're saying (and even if it isn't= ),
I might accept it. It still looks messy to me, though, particularly as = it
opens the door for things like {cenba le creka}: if you can put in a
quantity, why not put in any atomic variable?>

Yeah, changing the shirt is a metaphysical mess -- with {le}.  But= not such a problem with {lo}.

<>Yes, people are not differences, but things differ in the value= s they
>give as arguments to functions, which values may be people.=A0 They= differ, of
>course, in the function, not the value of it.

Well, yeah, which is why the {te frica} shouldn't be expressed
extensionally. You're saying {le mamta be ce'u} is such a function. All= I
can say is, to me it's still a sumti, so it can't express a relation or
function, qua mapping, but only the result of the function. (It
*involves* a relation, of course.) {le mamta be ce'u} doesn't have the
extension ((Chelsea, Hillary), (Dubya, Babs)); it has the extension
(Hillary, Babs). I want the former her, not the latter.
So {leka makau mamta ce'u} is the only thing that makes sense to me her= e.>

Who said that te frica was expressed extensionally, it is the function = in which they differ, not the value of the function (they don't share those= values for one thing -- indeed that is the point in this case) and they di= ffer in that function by having different values.  Exactly as they dif= fer in ka makau mamta ce'u by being true in different properties that fall = under it, different values of it, say.  
If {le mamta be ce'u} doesn't contain <Chelsea, Hillary> and <= W, Babs>, how do we get to the Hillary or the Babs from the Chelsea or t= he W?  It sure looks like a function to me.  If the extension of =  {le mamta be ce'u} is {Hillary, Babs,...}  how can it the be jus= t one of them?  In short, if {leka makau mamta ce'u} makes any sense a= t all, then {le mamta be ce'u} makes the same sense, only simpler, since it= involves only one step through functions, not two as the former does (maka= u to a particular mother, ce'u to a particular child).=20

I don't expect xorxes to like it, but that doesn't change its status (b= eing as good in Lojban as in English).  I am a little more surprised t= hat you don't like it.  But that doesn't change its status either. &nb= sp;this whole mess has been informative in several ways -- a nice construct= ion (actually several) emerge, with a nice theory for them all and we are a= ll reminded that none of us is an infallible expert in Lojban.  Nor a = pellucid writer of our views neither.
--part1_d.1a7c3acc.28da6b7c_boundary--