From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 25 04:55:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 11:54:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 69237 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 11:54:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 11:54:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 11:55:07 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:32:40 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:03:36 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:03:15 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: #> Much though I rue it, I remain much in the dark about the formals of lam= bda, #> but I do believe it is clear that just as #>=20 #> ka ce'u prami ce'u #>=20 #> denotes the relation between x and y such that x loves y, so=20 #>=20 #> ka ce'u prami le mamta be ce'u #>=20 #> denotes the relation between x and y such that x loves a mother of y, an= d #> likewise, just as #>=20 #> ka da prami ce'u=20 #>=20 #> is the property of being beloved, so #>=20 #> ka da prami le mamta be ce'u #>=20 #> 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= =20 #> 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.) #>=20 #> Anyway, I retain my faith in Jorge as the voice of reason and (tho less #> immoderately than I would wish) of Reason. #>=20 # #Well, much as I hate to put Logic up against Reason (I have less worry abo= ut=20 #yours or xorxes' reason), it does seem to work out diffferently, and the=20 #things that you have said actually seem to support that view (not unusual:= =20 #Quine once wrote a paper that clearly recommended a certain logical device= =20 #but which he claimed ever after refuted that use definitively). If we shi= ft=20 #back to lambda (and I admit I haven't messed with this for thirty odd year= s),=20 #what you want in the first case is ^x^y Lxm, where both lambdas are on = the=20 #sentence level. I would read your sentence as ^xLx^ym, where one lambd= a=20 #is on the term level, creating the name of a function just as the first do= es=20 #of a property.=20 which would mean what? The property of loving the property of having a mother? I'd do that as=20 ka/du'u ce'u prami lo/tu'o ka/du'u da mamta ce'u #Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf in Lojban=20 which we uncontroversially have, right? #and we need an explanation for {le broda be ce'u} in Lojban.=20=20 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=20 #problems have the same solution, i.e., that=20 #the expression is the way to express the function. Xorxes, I suppose, wan= ts=20 #the function to have an initial flag, like {ka}, though of a rather differ= ent=20 #nature. You want {ce'u} to be transitive over some contexts, though not o= ver=20 #others (else the extension-claims explanation of indirect questions will g= et=20 #into trouble -- the set of answers one as well, of course).=20=20 I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or intransi= tive. #Maybe the only=20 #context involved is bare LE, without NU (but I wonder if the analogies won= 't=20 #render actual cases of {nu} suspect to you too).=20=20 I don't follow. #Or perhaps your point is=20 #that {ce'u} is only sensible in the scope of an abstraction --=20 That was my main point. #an maybe only certain abstractions at that.=20=20 That was my subsidiary point. #How do you feel about {la djoun mamta ce'u}, for example, or {nu da mamta= =20 #ce'u}? They are grammatical and have natural clear interpretations: do yo= u=20 #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=20 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 th= ese issues. It's conceivable that if I did grasp it I'd be agreeing with you, b= ut I currently perceive no indications that my position is not the Right One. --And.