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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:45:33 +0100

>>> <[email-masked]> 09/25/01 04:41pm >>>
[email-masked] writes:
#> #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
#
#NO, it means the preoperty of loving the mother-of function.  

I don't perceive a difference between "the property of loving the
property of having a mother" and "the property of loving the mother-of
function", unless it is somehow essential to your point that 'mother-of'
be a function -- i.e. that if x has a mother then x has exactly one mother.
Can we change the example to "pendo be ce'u" without destroying
your point? We can make that change without affecting my point.
AFAICS, Lojban grants no special status to functions -- they are
treated as ordinary binary predicates.

Oh hang on, I think you mean {tu'odu'u/ka ce'u mamta ce'u} --
*that's* the mother-of relation.

#We don't have a 
#good notation for item-item functions, which is one of the reasons for my 
#position -- it fills a gap we may need to fill one day (soon).
#
#<#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf<x> in Lojban 
#
#which we uncontroversially have, right?>
#
#Well, you seem to be amking it controversial, unless you have something else 
#in mind that I have forgotten about or don't know of.

bigness = tu'odu'u ce'u barda

is that not an example of ^xFx?

#<#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.>
#
#Well, that at least makes sense, although to me it raises the question of 
#what {la djoun mamta ke'a} means in isolation. It is grammatical again (LALR1 
#grammars are lousy on coocrrence restrictions), so needs some interpretation, 
#even one that makes it nonsense.

As a general rule, yes, we seek meanings for grammatical forms that seem
meaningless. 

However, normally a bridi preserves its meaning when subordinated (e.g.
placed within an abstraction), so if {la djoun mamta ke'a} and {la djoun
mamta ce'u} have a certain meaning as main clauses then that meaning
ought to preserved when the bridi is subordinate. And that would then
seem to stymie the meaning that ce'u and ke'a already have when
within ka/du'u and noi bridi.

We also need to remember that ke'a and ce'u were chosen from among
competing implementations of semantically equivalent devices, and not
all devices would have raised the questions you're raising. For example,
if we had an explicit way of binding variables to NOI and to ka/du'u
-- call it "goi'i" then we could replace ke'a and ce'u by da variables:

NOI .... ke'a = NOI goi'i da ... da
ka/du'u ... ce'u = ka/du'u goi'i da .... da

That would have been longerwinded than the current system, but would
have overtly and explicitly expressed the way I understand ke'a and
ce'u to work.

#<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.>
#
#If it is in a construction within a construction then it is in the outer 
#construction, rather than being confined to the inner.  

Okay. Well then, yes, in a sense I want ke'a and ce'u to be sometimes
transitive and sometime intransitive. But I think it is fairer to say that
I want them to always be intransitive relative to the 'operator' that
binds them, and transitive relative to everything else. da-series
variables work exactly the same way.

#I agree that we need properties like having a beloved mother, I would just 
#insist that the {ce'u} of the property bearer has to be directly, not 
#remotely, in the proeprty d description, so I would say {ka ce'u goi cy zo'u 
#da prami le mamta be cy} (and expect that the {cy} would quickly come to be 
#automatic here).

Okay. Well at least I see your position now. In a sense, on your position ka
seems redundant: if {ka ce'u goi cy zo'u da prami le mamta be cy} is
the property of having a beloved mother, then would not {da poi ke'a se prami 
be de gi'e mamta be ce'u} do equally well?

And your position opens many cans of worms. For example, does a
"le mamta be ce'u be'o poi xendo" mean "the property of having a kind mother"
or "the kind property of having a mother"? Do we really want to have to
grapple with all these problems that simply don't exist on the standard story
about ce'u?

#I would say that we also need the mother-of function and we do not have a way 
#of saying that other than {le mamta be ce'u} unless I have missed something.  
#Please remind me of the uncontroversial way of saying this, and then we can 
#collapse to your position without any trouble.

It must be me that is missing something, since, as I say above, I think the
way is {tu'odu'u/ka ce'u mamta ce'u}. This is standard uncontroversial
Lojban.

--And.