From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 21 09:10:50 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 21 Sep 2001 16:10:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 61332 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2001 16:10:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 21 Sep 2001 16:10:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n15.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.31)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 16:10:49 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com
Received: from [10.1.10.95] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2001 16:10:49 -0000
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:10:45 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: noxemol ce'u
Message-ID: <9ofoq5+jslj@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <54.1b3e6bb4.28dcafb5@aol.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1983
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2
From: jjllambias@hotmail.com


la pycyn cusku di'e

> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u}
> > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du 
makau}?
> 
> Why that presumption? I am not sure. 

It's the natural extension of this abuse of notation: using 
ce'u itself for the identity function.

> <Or will you insist on using 
> {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does 
> it depend on {le} to turn it into one?>
> Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self 
identical and 
> that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out. 

But the value of the function will be different for each!
How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case?
In both cases there is one function wich gives different values
for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in 
{le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".

> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u} 
> creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to 
whatever the 
> matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into as 
a sumti. 

Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why 
can't ce'u stand for the identity function?

> <In English you can say: "I told him the place" or "I told him 
> what the place is". I'm glad we agree (I hope) that in Lojban
> you can say {mi jungau ko'a le du'u makau stuzi}, but you 
> can't say {mi jungau ko'a le stuzi}. Not everyone agrees with
> this, some people are quite happy to mimic English here.>
> 
> Yes, but I take that to be a feature of {djuno}, not of functions.

I don't think this is only about {djuno}. Is there any predicate
at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}
indifferently? 

> Note, there is not {ce'u} function in any case, so not 
> relevant to the present discussion.

You really don't see any parallel between the {le broda}:
{le du'u makau broda} pair and the {le broda be ce'u}:{le du'u 
makau broda ce'u} one?

mu'o mi'e xorxes