From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 25 14:42:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 21:42:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 56577 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 21:28:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 21:28:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 21:28:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.122.4ec63da (3998) for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <122.4ec63da.28e250de@aol.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:27:58 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_122.4ec63da.28e250de_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_122.4ec63da.28e250de_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/25/2001 11:37:53 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > The property of loving the property of having a > #> mother? I'd do that as=20 > #>=20 > #> 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.=20=20 >=20 > 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 mothe= r. > 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. >=20 Both the mother-of function and the property of having a mother are=20 functions, one to mothers and one to propositions. This seems to me a=20 crucial difference, since I don't send propositions mother's day card, for= =20 example, even the proposition that I have a mother. Lojban does, of course= ,=20 grant a special status to item valued functions: they are sumti (just as in= =20 formal logic), though the connection is not as tidy as might be liked, as= =20 witnes the question of {pendo be c'eu} -- a puzzling expression, ill-formed= =20 as it stands. so, presumably what is wanted is this expression with some=20 gadri in front. But what gadri? If {le} we used in this case, the result= =20 would not be unique, unless there some use of the "the ONE I mean" ploy of= =20 {le}; {lo} would be worse; {loi} introduces the dubious "thing" the mass, b= ut=20 otherwise works ok; {lo'i} is safe in some contexts (the ever popular {dunl= i}=20 and {frica} for example) but a total miss in others. And the same applies= =20 for most cases where more than one thing satisfies the first gap for each=20 second filler in {ce'u broda ce'u}. I am not sure what happens in these=20 cases, when the wrong gadri is picked. With the right one, however, you ge= t=20 a nice function that explains a situation succinctly. I am not too sure=20 what happens when you pick the wrong gadri with {ka} or {ni} or ... either,= =20 though there it generally seems to be that there is only one natural and th= at=20 covers all contexts (but I haven't really looks that closely yet).=20 That is indeed the mother-of relation, but not the mother-of function, even= =20 though, in one sense of "extension," they ahve the same extension. The=20 perform different roles and behave distinctly syntactically even in set=20 theory. <#<#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf in Lojban=20 # #which we uncontroversially have, right?> # #Well, you seem to be amking it controversial, unless you have something el= se=20 #in mind that I have forgotten about or don't know of. bigness =3D tu'odu'u ce'u barda is that not an example of ^xFx?> It is indeed. And the point is? The request was for an example of ^xf = (I=20 am writing a paper for my website on the language of Logic and how it relat= es=20 to the logical language to remind or inform people who get into these=20 discussions just what it is we are talking about.) I don't find this particularly persuasive, since it is inside out. We have= =20 these critters well-defined in subordinate positions and not as main clause= s,=20 so we can't say that the main clause meaning stymies the subordinate meanin= g.=20 We might say that it is hard to imagine a main clause meaning that would n= ot=20 stymie the subordinate clause meaning, and that may be true of {kea}. I am= =20 less sure about {ce'u}. And, of course, we know exactly how it works for=20 interrogatives, which are more or less related to {ce'u} (scope aside). Bu= t=20 arguing from what we hard a hard time imagining to "it ain't so" is general= ly=20 an awfully weak argument, since it collapses so easily to someone with a bi= t=20 more imagination. Well, I don't think that is historically accurate about how {ke'a} and {ce'= u}=20 were selected nor do I know of any devices of the sort you mention (other=20 than {zo'u} constructions like the ones I used -- but those give the wrong= =20 sorts of things, as ordinary bound variables seem likely to do), still ther= e=20 could be such a system, and, indeed, the Lojban system may be one such. Bu= t=20 that is not specified anywhere that I can find and the use of "lambda=20 variable" cuts against it in the case of {ce'u} (less so for {kea} where th= e=20 binding is by the gadri -- though this is never said outright).=20=20 <#I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or=20 #intransitive.> # #If it is in a construction within a construction then it is in the outer=20 #construction, rather than being confined to the inner.=A0=20 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.> This presupposes that {ka} et a few cetera bind {ce'u}, but, aside from the= =20 fact that {ka} requires {ce'u} and some others permit it (maybe even requir= e=20 it, but I don't think so -- {ka} really is, as I have said all along,=20 peculiar here), I don't see that it binds {ce'u} in the way that LE binds=20 {ke'a}. On the contrary, {ce'u} seems to contain its own binding operator= =20 (the lambda), as witness the fact that it is different each time it occurs= =20 (cf. {ma}, which is bound by nothing but itself -- and similarly all the=20 interrogatives).=20=20 Well, no, since they are different syntactic categories in Lojban (and do t= he=20 sumti really have to have {be} in poi clauses -- and if so, why doesn't=20 {ke'a}? -- or is this one of the messes with {gi'e}?): one a predicate, th= e=20 other a sumti (or, I would say, sumti function). However, I see that the=20 same situation underlies the two. I don't think they are intertranslatable= ,=20 however.=20=20=20 Neither, of course -- no properties here. What is the rule in general? I= =20 recall that it is that {poi} clauses modify the whole sumti, so it would be= =20 "the mother-of function that is kind" not "the kind-mother-of function." T= o=20 be sure, I suppose that the distinction is hard to make in ordinary cases := =20 the friends of Jerry who are kind are probably Jery's kind friends, and so= =20 on.=20=20 And again, what you are missing is that that is a function which gives=20 propositions (as the {du'u} versions says) while we are talking (well, I am= ;=20 you are confused) about a function that gives individuals. --part1_122.4ec63da.28e250de_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/25/2001 11:37:53 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uc= lan.ac.uk writes:


The property of loving th= e property of having a
#> mother? I'd do that as=20
#>=20
#>    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 mot= her.
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.


Both the mother-of function and the property of having a mother are fun= ctions, one to mothers and one to propositions.  This seems to me a cr= ucial difference, since I don't send propositions mother's day card, for ex= ample, even the proposition that I have a mother.  Lojban does, of cou= rse, grant a special status to item valued functions: they are sumti (just = as in formal logic),  though the connection is not as tidy as might be= liked, as witnes the question of {pendo be c'eu} -- a puzzling expression,= ill-formed as it stands.  so, presumably what is wanted is this expre= ssion with some gadri in front.  But what gadri?  If {le} we used= in this case, the result would not be unique, unless there some use of the= "the ONE I mean" ploy of {le}; {lo} would be worse; {loi} introduces the d= ubious "thing" the mass, but otherwise works ok; {lo'i} is safe in some con= texts (the ever popular {dunli} and {frica} for example) but a total miss i= n others.  And the same applies for most cases where more than one thi= ng satisfies the first gap for each second filler in {ce'u broda ce'u}. &nb= sp;I am not sure what happens in these cases, when the wrong gadri is picke= d.  With the right one, however, you get a nice function that explains= a situation succinctly.   I am not too sure what happens when yo= u pick the wrong gadri with {ka} or {ni} or ... either, though there it gen= erally seems to be that there is only one natural and that covers all conte= xts (but I haven't really looks that closely yet).=20

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

That is indeed the mother-of relation, but not the mother-of function, = even though, in one sense of "extension,"  they ahve the same extensio= n.  The perform different roles and behave distinctly syntactically ev= en in set theory.

<#<#Clearly, we need a way of saying ^xf<x> in Lojban=20
#
#which we uncontroversially have, right?>
#
#Well, you seem to be amking it controversial, unless you have somethin= g else=20
#in mind that I have forgotten about or don't know of.

bigness =3D tu'odu'u ce'u barda

is that not an example of ^xFx?>

It is indeed.  And the point is?  The request was for an exam= ple of ^xf<x> (I am writing a paper for my website on the language of= Logic and how it relates to the logical language to remind or inform peopl= e who get into these discussions just what it is we are talking about.)

<However, normally a bridi preserves its meaning when subordinated (= e.g.
placed within an abstraction), so if {la djoun mamta ke'a} and {la djou= n
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.>

I don't find this particularly persuasive, since it is inside out. &nbs= p;We have these critters well-defined in subordinate positions and not as m= ain clauses, so we can't say that the main clause meaning stymies the subor= dinate meaning.  We might say that it is hard to imagine a main clause= meaning that would not stymie the subordinate clause meaning, and that may= be true of {kea}.  I am less sure about {ce'u}.  And, of course,= we know exactly how it works for interrogatives, which are more or less re= lated to {ce'u} (scope aside).  But arguing from what we hard a hard t= ime imagining to "it ain't so" is generally an awfully weak argument, since= it collapses so easily to someone with a bit more imagination.

<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:

=A0=A0 NOI=A0 .... ke'a =3D NOI goi'i da ... da
=A0 ka/du'u ... ce'u =3D 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.>

Well, I don't think that is historically accurate about how {ke'a} and = {ce'u} were selected nor do I know of any devices of the sort you mention (= other than {zo'u} constructions like the ones I used -- but those give the = wrong sorts of things, as ordinary bound variables seem likely to do), stil= l there could be such a system, and, indeed, the Lojban system may be one s= uch.  But that is not specified anywhere that I can find and the use o= f "lambda variable" cuts against it in the case of {ce'u} (less so for {kea= } where the binding is by the gadri -- though this is never said outright).=  

<#I don't understand what it would mean for ce'u to be transitive or= =20
#intransitive.>
#
#If it is in a construction within a construction then it is in the out= er=20
#construction, rather than being confined to the inner.=A0=20

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 t= hat
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.>

This presupposes that {ka} et a few cetera bind {ce'u}, but, aside from= the fact that {ka} requires {ce'u} and some others permit it (maybe even r= equire it, but I don't think so -- {ka} really is, as I have said all along= , peculiar here), I don't see that it binds {ce'u} in the way that LE binds= {ke'a}.  On the contrary, {ce'u} seems to contain its own binding ope= rator (the lambda), as witness the fact that it is different each time it o= ccurs (cf. {ma}, which is bound by nothing but itself -- and similarly all = the interrogatives).  

<Okay. Well at least I see your position now. In a sense, on your po= sition 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=20
be de gi'e mamta be ce'u} do equally well?>

Well, no, since they are different syntactic categories in Lojban (and = do the sumti really have to have {be} in poi clauses -- and if so, why does= n't {ke'a}? -- or is this one of the messes with {gi'e}?): one a  pred= icate, the other a sumti (or, I would say, sumti function).  However, = I see that the same situation underlies the two.  I don't think they a= re intertranslatable, however.   

<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 m= other"
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?>

Neither, of course -- no properties here.  What is the rule in gen= eral?  I recall that it is that {poi} clauses modify the whole sumti, = so it would be "the mother-of function that is kind" not "the kind-mother-o= f function."  To be sure, I suppose that the distinction is hard to ma= ke in ordinary cases : the friends of Jerry who are kind are probably Jery'= s kind friends, and so on.  

<It must be me that is missing something, since, as I say above, I t= hink the
way is {tu'odu'u/ka ce'u mamta ce'u}. This is standard uncontroversial
Lojban.>

And again, what you are missing is that that is a function which gives = propositions (as the {du'u} versions says) while we are talking (well, I am= ; you are confused) about a function that gives individuals.
--part1_122.4ec63da.28e250de_boundary--