Subject: Re: selbri vs. bridi (was: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 18:08:50 EDT

In a message dated 9/22/2001 3:20:07 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Does "ce'u" bind to the selbri closest to it or does it have to be an
> entire bridi? Similarly is "mi viska le prami be le nei" "I see the
> one who loves himself" or "I see the one who loves me"? At least with
> "nei", I think it acts with the bridi, and thus the second is correct.
> To get the second you could create a new bridi: "mi viska ko'a poi
> ke'a prami le nei". Likewise, I think, with "ce'u". A function which
> returns sumti instead of bridi may be useful, but I don't think I've
> yet seen an example where it's necessary, or even more elegant, so I
> don't see a reason to tie up the weird looking "le mamta be ce'u",
> etc., for that purpose.
> 
> At any rate, perhaps we could use something like "da poi makau mamta
> ce'u" for that purpose (functions to sumti) if it turns out to be
> necessary, and then we wouldn't have to mess with the scope of "ce'u".
> 

Ah, Lojban terminology! {ce'u} is a bound variable and is bound by the 
shortest possible scope, in this case (since it is a lambda binder, not a 
quantifier), the bridi fragment after the {le}.
When people were getting het up a while ago about the horriosities of {nei}, 
I suggested the same rule for that set, but someone convinced everybody that 
{nei} was closer to a quantifier than not and so should go with the fuller 
bridi. I forget how the problems with {nei} referring to itself were dealt 
with.
The {le mamta be ce'u} move is more cute than useful, though it is shorter 
tha other ways of achieving the same effect, {le du'u makau mamta ce'u}, for 
example. And it is grammatical (why weird looking?), so needs an 
interpretation, of which it gets a useful one in this context. (It was also 
sure to get xorxes' -- and, when he looks at it, &'s -- goat, which makes it 
irresistible). 
I don't quite get what "da poi makau mamta ce'u" means "there is an x such 
that who is mother of ..." I guess I need a context, but a condition on {da} 
that has no place for {da} ("by father" without the {ke'a}? -- oops! Loglan, 
not Lojban; there is NO place for {da}) does not clarify matters at all, even 
if it is grammatical. {da poi mamta ce'u}? It's not a function of course, 
but it gets to the right sort of things. Of course, it also transforms in 
normal Lojban fashion into (right!) {le mamta be ce'u}.