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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:03:15 +0100

pc:
[email-masked] writes:
#> Much though I rue it, I remain much in the dark about the formals of lambda,
#> but I do believe it is clear that just as
#> 
#> ka ce'u prami ce'u
#> 
#> denotes the relation between x and y such that x loves y, so 
#> 
#> ka ce'u prami le mamta be ce'u
#> 
#> denotes the relation between x and y such that x loves a mother of y, and
#> likewise, just as
#> 
#> ka da prami ce'u 
#> 
#> is the property of being beloved, so
#> 
#> ka da prami le mamta be ce'u
#> 
#> is the property of having a mother who is beloved. Probably Jorge has
#> said all this already, but I am certainly one of those conservatives who 
#> thinks ce'u belongs to the localmost grammatical bridi. (Actually, I
#> think it belongs to the localmost ka/du'u/?si'o and not any old bridi
#> or abstraction, but that's not relevant to the point at issue.)
#> 
#> Anyway, I retain my faith in Jorge as the voice of reason and (tho less
#> immoderately than I would wish) of Reason.
#> 
#
#Well, much as I hate to put Logic up against Reason (I have less worry about 
#yours or xorxes' reason), it does seem to work out diffferently, and the 
#things that you have said actually seem to support that view (not unusual: 
#Quine once wrote a paper that clearly recommended a certain logical device 
#but which he claimed ever after refuted that use definitively). If we shift 
#back to lambda (and I admit I haven't messed with this for thirty odd years), 
#what you want in the first case is ^x^y Lxm<y>, where both lambdas are on the 
#sentence level. I would read your sentence as ^xLx^ym<y>, where one lambda 
#is on the term level, creating the name of a function just as the first does 
#of a property. 

which would mean what? The property of loving the property of having a
mother? I'd do that as 

ka/du'u ce'u prami lo/tu'o ka/du'u da mamta ce'u

#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf<x> in Lojban 

which we uncontroversially have, right?

#and we need an explanation for {le broda be ce'u} in Lojban.  

I'd say that as with ke'a, ce'u is a variable bound within a
determinate grammatical domain -- ke'a within a NOI, ce'u
within certain sorts of NU.

#The analogy with the abstractors other than {ka} suggests that the two 
#problems have the same solution, i.e., that 
#the expression is the way to express the function. Xorxes, I suppose, wants 
#the function to have an initial flag, like {ka}, though of a rather different 
#nature. You want {ce'u} to be transitive over some contexts, though not over 
#others (else the extension-claims explanation of indirect questions will get 
#into trouble -- the set of answers one as well, of course).  

I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or intransitive.

#Maybe the only 
#context involved is bare LE, without NU (but I wonder if the analogies won't 
#render actual cases of {nu} suspect to you too).  

I don't follow.

#Or perhaps your point is 
#that {ce'u} is only sensible in the scope of an abstraction -- 

That was my main point.

#an maybe only certain abstractions at that.  

That was my subsidiary point.

#How do you feel about {la djoun mamta ce'u}, for example, or {nu da mamta 
#ce'u}? They are grammatical and have natural clear interpretations: do you 
#reject them or give them different interpreations or what?

I reject them, just as I would {la djoun mamta ke'a} and {nu da mamta ke'a}.
(Assuming of course that those are main bridi. Ke'a is to be bound within
the localmost NOI and ce'u within the localmost ka/du'u/??si'o. I don't
see that they have natural clear interpretations, and it's important that
they don't, because it seems clear to me that we need 

ka da prami le mamta be ce'u
ka da prami da poi ke'a mamta ce'u

to mean the property of having a beloved mother.

You'll have to excuse my failing to grasp the import of your position on these
issues. It's conceivable that if I did grasp it I'd be agreeing with you, but I
currently perceive no indications that my position is not the Right One.

--And.