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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:01:38 EDT

In a message dated 9/27/2001 6:40:39 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> So I do understand where your {le mamta be ce'u} is coming from, and
> I do see why {tu'odu'u ma kau mamta be ce'u} seems inconsistent.
> However, I would make 3 further observations:
> (1) Inconsistent or not, that is the current standard lojban way of saying
> it, I believe.

Whereas I think that a) Lojban doesn't have a way of saying this at the 
moment and, if it did, it sure can't be {tu'o du'u makau mamta be ce'u} (do 
we need the {be} here?), since that is a propsoitional function (a property) 
of some sort -- or a set of them, depnding on context. Not a function to 
individuals.

<> (2) I dispute the logical correctness of {tu'odu'u ma kau mamta be ce'u} 
> in at least some environments where it typically occurs (e.g. x3 of
> frica).>

Now that has some possibilities, except for the fact that this seems to be a 
paradigm case of its use, after {djuno2}. What should go there: a name of 
property obviously and that is just what we seem to have. But do develop 
this one, it may be a way out for both of us.

> (3) I'm not clear about how the mother-of function 'ultimately' gives a
> woman, and the key thing, it seems to me, is that the mother-of function is 
> not a woman but a function (from things to their mothers) just as a 
> property,
> tho expressed by a ka/du'u phrase is not a proposition but a function from
> things to propositions. We could say, then, that ka/du'u is basically a
> device for expressing unapplied functions, but that when 0-adic serves
> to express propositions.
> 
Yes, nicely put. "Ultimately gives a woman" just means that it is a function 
whose values are women. that is how it differs from {du'u/ka} functions.

<It's safest to avoid relying on notation.>
True, but using notation general use is a convenient shorthand for long 
discussions, It seems to ahve failed this time for lack of a common 
background. f<a> is an expression to refer to the value of the function f 
for the argument a when used as an argument to some further function or 
predicate. ^xf<x> then refers to the function itself as an argument is some 
further context.

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

Sorry; I agreed with you overhastily. My argument is simply that any proposed
main clause meaning must be one that doesn't stymie the subordinate
meaning. Your proposed main clause meaning did stymie the subordinate
meaning. And, though it is not part of my argument, I indeed can't imagine
an adequate mainclause meaning.>

I wasn't aware that I had proposed a main clause reading for anything: I'm 
fairly sure I said I had no idea what {ke'a broda} or {ce'u broda} means in 
isolation -- I certainly do't know now: lambda expressions are inherently 
sumti. But I see your problem: you take {ko'a broda le brode be ce'u} as a 
main clause occurrence, which I explicitly deny. In your terminology, {ce'u} 
is here bound to the {le} just as in {ka makau mamta ce'u} it is bound to the 
{ka} (thought the binding is rather different.