From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 03 14:56:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 21:56:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 58521 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 21:56:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 21:56:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 21:56:31 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.106.68ac9b5 (4257) for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <106.68ac9b5.28ece37d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:56:13 EDT Subject: On functions to various types of things. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_106.68ac9b5.28ece37d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_106.68ac9b5.28ece37d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The discussion of {le mamta be ce'u} has gone on rather too long, so a modest proposal (that just messes up a few years of text) seems in order. Since no one seems to mind {ce'u} in the bridi following an abstractor, when the whole stands for a function whose values are abstractions of the kind indicated, {du'u, ni, nu} so far for sure, and since those who have opinions other than mine do object the same structure without any abstractor present, I suggest that we use the now redundant {ka} (just {du'u} with {ce'u} in it and with the disadavantage that it doesn't say what it leads to) to warn of impending {ce'u} in all cases: {le ka du'u ce'u broda}, {le ka ni ce'u broda}, {le ka nu ce'u broda} and (taDA) {le ka broda be ce'u} . The last might takes some fiddling, since it is not always a function to individuals. On the other hand, we could presumably simplify the form down to {le ka broda ce'u}. --part1_106.68ac9b5.28ece37d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The discussion of {le mamta be ce'u} has gone on rather too long, so a modest proposal (that just messes up a few years of text) seems in order. Since no one seems to mind {ce'u} in the bridi following an abstractor, when the whole stands for a function whose values are abstractions of the kind indicated, {du'u, ni, nu} so far for sure, and since those who have opinions other than mine do object the same structure without any abstractor present, I suggest that we use the now redundant {ka} (just {du'u} with {ce'u} in it and with the disadavantage that it doesn't say what it leads to) to warn of impending {ce'u} in all cases: {le ka du'u ce'u broda}, {le ka ni ce'u broda}, {le ka nu ce'u broda} and (taDA) {le ka broda be ce'u} . The last might takes some fiddling, since it is not always a function to individuals. On the other hand, we could presumably simplify the form down to {le ka broda ce'u}. --part1_106.68ac9b5.28ece37d_boundary--