From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 03 10:03:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 17:01:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 91028 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 17:01:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 17:01:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 17:03:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.37.1bc6c249 (3949) for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37.1bc6c249.28ec9ec0@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:02:56 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_37.1bc6c249.28ec9ec0_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_37.1bc6c249.28ec9ec0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:56:01 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > >>> 10/01/01 08:51pm >>> > #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > #> Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established=20 > principles > #> 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 claim= s=20 > #that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated. But you know that. >=20 > I thought that you are proposing that "le mamta be ce'u" means "the > mother-of function" in nonsubordinate bridi and, by the above principle, > in subordinate bridi. Jorge and I have both complained about the >=20 Well, no one seems to have any problem with {le du'u ce'u broda} in=20 nonsubordinate bridi to mean "the property of being broda", the "is-a-broda= "=20 function. How is {le mamta be ce'u} different? No abstractor? Of course= =20 not, it is not a function to abstractions. The {ce'u} is hooked on with {be= }?=20 A grammatical accident for which we could no doubt find an xperimental=20 solution if there were a real need, but the same relationship for all that.= =20=20 What? <#> * Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else # #This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false in man= y=20 #cases: #da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc. I've addressed this in another message. But I think it's true to say that it was a generally accepted principle before you expressed dissent. (As usu= al, these generalizations pertain only to people who have views.)> You have addressed it but not succeeded in making it true or even plausible= =20 agains obvious counterexamples. You may mean something special by this=20 claim, but in its plain sense it is just false: raising {le melba} from {m= i=20 senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} allows an illegitimate quantification,=20 fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning. How does y= ou=20 theory deal with these? Say they are not real cases? But what would a rea= l=20 look like then? I admit that I can't find your earlier reply on this, but = it=20 apparently did not seem to me to meet the issues the example raise. <#> <* Sumti phrase=A0 X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level a= s=20 #> sumti Y,=20 #> and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X i= s=20 #> not within Y.> # #Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama}=A0 it= =20 does=20 #not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bil=20 klama}=20 #within which it lies=20 la bil is not at the same bridi level as la djan because la bil is within a= =20 bridi that does not contain la djan. As is usual, the above principle contains an implicit "Other things being=20 equal....", and the example you give, where a sumti X contains a bridi which contains sumti Y, is an case where other things are not equal.> Since the weasel was crucial to the cases under discussion, it probably=20 should have been mentioned, but let that ride. In { ko'a ko'e frica le mat= a=20 be ce'u} {ce'u} is in a bridi contained in {le mamta be ce'u} which contai= ns=20 {ce'u}. So, {ce'u} is not at the same level as {le mamta be ce'u}. Thanks= =20 for your support, even against yourself. What's that? {le mamta be ce'u}=20 does not contain a bridi? But it must, since it is a descriptor followed b= y=20 a selbri and a selbri is only possible where there is a bridi, they are=20 correlative terms. To be sure, the bridi is, for grammatical reasons, laid= =20 out differently, but no less there for all of that -- and the rewriting=20 mentioned earlier would bring it completely into view, without changing=20 meaning, you say. --part1_37.1bc6c249.28ec9ec0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:56:01 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@ucl= an.ac.uk writes:


>>> <pycyn@ao= l.com> 10/01/01 08:51pm >>>
#arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
#> Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established = principles
#> you seemed to be threatening to demolish:
#>=20
#> * Semantics of nonsubordinate bridi should be unchanged if the sa= me
#> bridi were subordinate.
#
#Not a problem.  All the cases so far are subordinate and I make n= o claims=20
#that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated.  But you know th= at.

I thought that you are proposing that "le mamta be ce'u" means "the
mother-of function" in nonsubordinate bridi and, by the above principle= ,
in subordinate bridi. Jorge and I have both complained about the
unhappy implications of that for subordinate bridi.


Well, no one seems to have any problem with {le du'u ce'u broda} in non= subordinate bridi to mean "the property of being broda", the "is-a-broda" f= unction.  How is {le mamta be ce'u} different?  No abstractor? &n= bsp;Of course not, it is not a function to abstractions. The {ce'u} is hook= ed on with {be}?  A grammatical accident for which we could no doubt f= ind an xperimental solution if there were a real need, but the same relatio= nship for all that.  What?

<#> * Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything e= lse
#
#This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false in= many=20
#cases:
#da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc.

I've addressed this in another message. But I think it's true to say th= at
it was a generally accepted principle before you expressed dissent. (As= usual,
these generalizations pertain only to people who have views.)>

You have addressed it but not succeeded in making it true or even plaus= ible agains obvious counterexamples.  You may mean something special b= y this claim, but in its plain sense it is just false: raising  {le me= lba} from {mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} allows an illegitimate quan= tification, fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning.=  How does you theory deal with these?  Say they are not real cas= es?  But what would a real look like then?  I admit that I can't = find your earlier reply on this, but it apparently did not seem to me to me= et the issues the example raise.

<#> <* Sumti phrase=A0 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 t= hat X is=20
#> not within Y.>
#
#Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama}= =A0 it does=20
#not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bil= klama}=20
#within which it lies=20

la bil is not at the same bridi level as la djan because la bil is with= in a bridi
that does not contain la djan.

As is usual, the above principle contains an implicit "Other things bei= ng equal....",
and the example you give, where a sumti X contains a bridi which contai= ns
sumti Y, is an case where other things are not equal.>

Since the weasel was crucial to the cases under discussion, it probably= should have been mentioned, but let that ride.  In { ko'a ko'e frica = le mata be ce'u} {ce'u} is in a bridi contained in {le mamta be ce'u}  = ;which contains {ce'u}.  So, {ce'u} is not at the same level as {le ma= mta be ce'u}.  Thanks for your support, even against yourself.  W= hat's that? {le mamta be ce'u} does not contain a bridi?  But it must,= since it is a descriptor followed by a selbri and a selbri is only possibl= e where there is a bridi, they are correlative terms.  To be sure, the= bridi is, for grammatical reasons, laid out differently, but no less there= for all of that -- and the rewriting mentioned earlier would bring it comp= letely into view, without changing meaning, you say.
--part1_37.1bc6c249.28ec9ec0_boundary--