From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 12:52:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 19:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 77124 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 19:50:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 19:50:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 19:52:04 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.8a.d4efd04 (3926) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a.d4efd04.28ea2353@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:47 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8a.d4efd04.28ea2353_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8a.d4efd04.28ea2353_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:57:14 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established principl= es > you seemed to be threatening to demolish: >=20 > * Semantics of nonsubordinate bridi should be unchanged if the same > bridi were subordinate. Not a problem. All the cases so far are subordinate and I make no claims=20 that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated. But you know that. >=20 > * Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false in many= =20 cases: da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc. >=20 > <* Sumti phrase X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level as=20 > sumti Y,=20 > and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is= =20 > not within Y.> Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama} it do= es=20 not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bil klam= a}=20 within which it lies nor do I see how to paraphrase it out except by extern= al=20 identification, leaving the identified form still subordinated. So, I don't see myself as threatening any of these principles, they are dea= d=20 already. Well, my memory is probably not so good as yours, but I took the lambda tal= k=20 seriously and have used it as a guideline from time to time, though not too= =20 thoroughly until recently. I'm going to drop it for a while until I can=20 restore it in full use by justifying its general application. So problems you have with it linguistically, I suppose. Linguistically per= =20 se there don't seem to be any. I think we are both getting a bit annoyed by what seems to each of us a=20 tendency on the other's part to go off in obscurantist and shifting=20 bloviation rather than simply answering fundamental questions. I think tha= t,=20 in so far as i have done what you take to be that, it is merely a matter of= =20 not being able to write very clear sentences even when things are very clea= r=20 in my head. I suspect you ahve the same problem. So, rather than=20 continuing this discussion (which has gone round Brown's barn at least thre= e=20 times now wihtout any visible progress) we retire to get a good=20 short-sentence exposition of just what indirect questions and {ce'u} do on= =20 our repsective theories, with step by step explanations of the meanings of= =20 each phase of the game. If you are like me, you think that you have done=20 this time and again, but Ican assure that you have not, at least not in a w= ay=20 that came to me as coherent or consistent or even to the point (and I imagi= ne=20 you have the same assurance for me). May be it would help to have a third= =20 party (xorxes? cowan -- who has avoided this discussion like the plague?)=20 suggest a set of questions to be answered and a format for answering that=20 would draw us into simple speech (and perhaps a bit more honesty too). --part1_8a.d4efd04.28ea2353_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:57:14 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uc= lan.ac.uk writes:


Some examples of what I h= ad in mind, as instances of established principles
you seemed to be threatening to demolish:

* Semantics of nonsubordinate bridi should be unchanged if the same
bridi were subordinate.


Not a problem.  All the cases so far are subordinate = and I make no claims that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated.  = ;But you know that.


* Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else=


This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonsta= bly false in many cases:
da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc.



<* Sumti phrase  X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi l= evel as sumti Y,=20
and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X = is=20
not within Y.>


Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la = bil klama}  it does not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi leve= l as {le du'u la bil klama} within which it lies nor do I see how to paraph= rase it out except by external identification, leaving the identified form = still subordinated.

So, I don't see myself as threatening any of these princip= les, they are dead already.

<Clearly the lambda notion does not ahve the same=20
#authoritative force as citations from the Refgram.=A0=20

I agree with the last sentence.=20

Those of us involved in the inception of {ce'u} (which includes you &am= p; me) know=20
perfectly well what it was intended to do. We don't really need to scru= tinize the=20
Book or the Mahoste glosses. This is not to say that {ce'u} is well-def= ined or
that you are wrong to pursue your indagations into the further properti= es of
{ce'u}.>

Well, my memory is probably not so good as yours, but I took the lambda= talk seriously and have used it as a guideline from time to time, though n= ot too thoroughly until recently.  I'm going to drop it for a while un= til I can restore it in full use by justifying its general application.

<It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, noth= ing) -- that=20
{le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main
clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and
I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.>

So problems you have with it linguistically, I suppose.  Linguisti= cally per se there don't seem to be any.

<It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, noth= ing) -- that=20
{le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main
clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and
I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.>

I think we are both getting a bit annoyed by what seems to each of us a= tendency on the other's part to go off in obscurantist and shifting blovia= tion rather than simply answering fundamental questions.  I think that= , in so far as i have done what you take to be that, it is merely a matter = of not being able to write very clear sentences even when things are very c= lear in my head.  I suspect you ahve the same problem.   So,= rather than continuing this discussion (which has gone round Brown's barn = at least three times now wihtout any visible progress) we retire to get a g= ood short-sentence exposition of just what indirect questions and {ce'u} do= on our repsective theories, with step by step explanations of the meanings= of each phase of the game.  If you are like me, you think that you ha= ve done this time and again, but Ican assure that you have not, at least no= t in a way that came to me as coherent or consistent or even to the point (= and I imagine you have the same assurance for me).  May be it would he= lp to have a third party (xorxes? cowan -- who has avoided this discussion = like the plague?) suggest a set of questions to be answered and a format fo= r answering that would draw us into simple speech (and perhaps a bit more h= onesty too).



--part1_8a.d4efd04.28ea2353_boundary--