Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 09:31:47 EDT

In a message dated 9/21/2001 5:59:34 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Well, it seems to be a pointful enough thing to say that it
> got its own gismu. Or am I too wrong in thinking that 
> drata = frica fi le ka makau du'u ce'u (in my terms)
> = frica fi le du be ce'u (in your terms)
> = frica fi ce'u (in my 'natural' extension of your terms)
> 
I always worry about these kinds of equations between gismu, but your first 
two look ok. The third doesn't because it gives a predicate that has nothing 
to do with {drata} that I can see and, of course, has nothing to do with the 
identity function, your "natural extension" (which is like the Holy Roman 
Empire) notwithstanding (confusing a function with its values). 
Using {le du be ce'u} is pointless with {frica} since any two things that 
differ in any way at all differ in this (and {le ka makau du ce'u}). Or, 
putting it another way, if you don't know W and Chelsea are different, 
pointing to their self identities won't help, since they do not indicate that 
difference by themselves.

<I want to be able to say things like:

ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau
This one and that one differ in where their mothers go.

But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to
always be an argument of ka.>

Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is minimal 
scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow. For this you need {le 
ka ce'u goi cy zo'u 
le mamta be cy ...}. So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u} isn't your 
problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a few days ago)

<Would you accept {le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}?
Is that a function into destinations, or is it the
destination of a function, assuming functions can go
places?>

Accept as what? It appears to be a destination of a function, but I need to 
see some context as to what I would make of it, since it might behave 
differently as a sumti to a different selbri -- or with a different prenex.

<What about {le frica be fi le mamta be ce'u}?
Is it a function into differents, or is it someone 
who differs (from someone else) in their mothers?>

Different from what? (I suppose it doesn'rt matter too much under {le}) . 
It is someone who differs from someone else in their mothers, the 
nominalization of the sentence we started out with, more or less.

<Nope. Talking about {le mamta} is different from talking
about {le du'u makau mamta}. In the first case, the talkers 
might not even be aware that {le mamta} is a mother.>
I apparently misunderstood the question; I thought you wanted a case where it 
made sense to have either a concrete sumti and an abstract one in the same 
place. Now I am not sure what you mean.

<My point is that just as some places require propositions
and don't admit a concretum, other places ask for a function
into propositions, not for a function to individuals.>
I agree: {djuno} is clearly an example. Now, is it clear that {frica} and 
{dunli} are? I obviously don't think so, since I can explain such usage as 
part of a general scheme explaining these two words and {ce'u} and {makau}. 
You as obviously do think so, though the arguments (aside from pointing to 
the gismu list and the Refgram) are not too clear to me yet. Shall we focus 
on that issue for a moment, rather than on whether {le mamta be ce'u} is a 
function?