From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 26 16:44:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 26 Sep 2001 23:43:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 92545 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2001 23:43:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 26 Sep 2001 23:43:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 23:44:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.a.13374615 (25715) for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:44:29 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a.13374615.28e3c25d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a.13374615.28e3c25d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/26/2001 12:57:37 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > give some examples from ordinary English > where we refer to functions. Or is it something that comes up only in > technical logical and mathematical discussion? For example, are > 'age', 'height', 'place of birth' functions? If so, then I think I can > see how you ended up talking about functions, for it does seem > that in current Lojban, {tu'odu'u ma kau mamta ce'u} would be the=20 >=20 I think all of the cases you cite and the rest of the lines on a typical=20 personnel form are good examples of functions of the sort I have in mind. = =20 But in the process of doing that, I realized where (perhaps) the snarl is -= -=20 back at indirect questions. You think that {tu'o du'u makau mamta ce'u}=20 ultimately gives a woman (or a name of a woman); I think it gives a=20 proposition. So we may be talking about the same thing and merely=20 disagreeing about what says it and how. I think that your view (if I am=20 being fair to it, as your cases suggest) is inconsistent, since it would ha= ve=20 the wrong sorts of things in places like {djuno2}, but I am not sure. I'll= =20 think on it more, once I am sure I have figured this out right. notation didn't correspond to any notation I am familiar with.> What notations do you know? I can usually translate. # #I don't find this particularly persuasive, since it is inside out.=A0 We h= ave=20 #these critters well-defined in subordinate positions and not as main=20 clauses,=20 #so we can't say that the main clause meaning stymies the subordinate=20 meaning.=20 # We might say that it is hard to imagine a main clause meaning that would= =20 not=20 #stymie the subordinate clause meaning, and that may be true of {kea}.=A0=20 Put it that way, then. It's what I meant. #But arguing from what we hard a hard time imagining to "it ain't so" is=20 generally=20 #an awfully weak argument, since it collapses so easily to someone with a b= it=20 #more imagination. That is not how my argument works.> Sorry if I've missed something, but what exactly, given your argument and=20 your agreement of my version above? # #Well, I don't think that is historically accurate about how {ke'a} and=20 {ce'u}=20 #were selected=20 ke'a predates my involvement in Lojban, but throughout my era it has=20 always been well understood as a resumptive pronoun, in which case my representation seems appropriate. 'Binding' here does not mean quantifier-variable binding or coreference-binding; it means that NOI is the intermediary whereby its modificand is coreferential to the ke'a. As for ce'u, that was inceived well into my era, so I think I can safely assert that ce'u was seen as one of the arguments of the relation denoted by the ka phrase. I concede that my use of the term 'binding' was a bit loose.> Yeah, but quite comprehensible. {ke'a}, you are saying, is the way that=20 relative clauses in Lojban mark the connection with the sumti to which they= =20 attach, where it is anaphorized. And that is clearly right. Analogously, = I=20 suppose you are saying that {ce'u} marks the places where arguments are to be inserted in {ka} phrases = to=20 create whatever it is they create (propositions in the {ka} case, right?). = I=20 agree again, except that I don't see the use of {ce'u} limited to {ka} or=20 even NU, as the lambda variables are not limited to predicates. Whereas I take it as a definition and the limitation to NU as a mere=20 introductory -- because relatively clear -- example, to be gneralized upon= =20 along lambda lines. Another case of the fuzziness of Refgram, though=20 pperhaps it could not have been foreseen as a problem back then. Well, I would say "argument places" because the whole point is that the=20 actual arguments aren't expressed -- its a function to propositions or=20 whatever, not a proposition. And, of course, {ce'u} is a sumti=20 syntactically, as is {ke'a}; otherwise how could they perform thaeir=20 function? Maybe not one semantically, though. --part1_a.13374615.28e3c25d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/26/2001 12:57:37 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uc= lan.ac.uk writes:



give some examples from o= rdinary English
where we refer to functions. Or is it something that comes up only in
technical logical and mathematical discussion? For example, are
'age', 'height', 'place of birth' functions? If so, then I think I can
see how you ended up talking about functions, for it does seem
that in current Lojban, {tu'odu'u ma kau mamta ce'u} would be the=20
normal way of talking about the mother-of function.




I think all of the cases you cite and the rest of the lines on a typica= l personnel form are good examples of functions of the sort I have in mind.=  But in the process of doing that, I realized where (perhaps) the sna= rl is -- back at indirect questions.  You think that {tu'o du'u makau = mamta ce'u} ultimately gives a woman (or a name of a woman); I think it giv= es a proposition.  So we may be talking about the same thing and merel= y disagreeing about what says it and how.  I think that your view (if = I am being fair to it, as your cases suggest) is inconsistent, since it wou= ld have the wrong sorts of things in places like {djuno2}, but I am not sur= e. I'll think on it more, once I am sure I have figured this out right.

<Okay. That could be helpful. Your < > notation didn't corresp= ond to any
notation I am familiar with.>
What notations do you know?  I can usually translate.

<However, normally a bridi preserves its meaning when subordinated (= e.g.
#placed within an abstraction), so if {la djoun mamta ke'a} and {la djo= un
#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.=A0 = We have=20
#these critters well-defined in subordinate positions and not as main c= lauses,=20
#so we can't say that the main clause meaning stymies the subordinate m= eaning.=20
# We might say that it is hard to imagine a main clause meaning that wo= uld not=20
#stymie the subordinate clause meaning, and that may be true of {kea}.= =A0=20

Put it that way, then. It's what I meant.

#But arguing from what we hard a hard time imagining to "it ain't so" i= s generally=20
#an awfully weak argument, since it collapses so easily to someone with= a bit=20
#more imagination.

That is not how my argument works.>

Sorry if I've missed something, but what exactly, given your argument a= nd your agreement of my version above?

<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}=20
#were selected=20

ke'a predates my involvement in Lojban, but throughout my era it has=20
always been well understood as a resumptive pronoun, in which case
my representation seems appropriate. 'Binding' here does not mean
quantifier-variable binding or coreference-binding; it means that
NOI is the intermediary whereby its modificand is coreferential to the
ke'a.

As for ce'u, that was inceived well into my era, so I think I can safel= y
assert that ce'u was seen as one of the arguments of the relation
denoted by the ka phrase.

I concede that my use of the term 'binding' was a bit loose.>

Yeah, but quite comprehensible.  {ke'a}, you are saying, is the wa= y that relative clauses in Lojban mark the connection with the sumti to whi= ch they attach, where it is anaphorized.  And that is clearly right. &= nbsp;Analogously, I suppose you are saying that
{ce'u} marks the places where arguments are to be inserted in {ka} phra= ses to create whatever it is they create (propositions in the {ka} case, ri= ght?).  I agree again, except that I don't see the use of {ce'u} limit= ed to {ka} or even NU, as the lambda variables are not limited to predicate= s.

<I am not competent to extrapolate the consequences of defining '"ce= 'u"
as "lambda variable". But I would take that as a rough description, not= as
a definition. >

Whereas I take it as a definition and the limitation to NU as a mere in= troductory -- because relatively clear -- example, to be gneralized upon al= ong lambda lines.  Another case of the fuzziness of Refgram, though pp= erhaps it could not have been foreseen as a problem back then.

<ce'u is an argument of ka (tho not a
syntactic sumti). That is, ce'u is the way that arguments of ka are
expressed linguistically>
Well, I would say "argument places" because the whole point is that th= e actual arguments aren't expressed -- its a function to propositions or wh= atever, not a proposition.  And, of course, {ce'u} is a sumti syntacti= cally, as is {ke'a}; otherwise how could they perform thaeir function? &nbs= p;Maybe not one semantically, though.
--part1_a.13374615.28e3c25d_boundary--