From thinkit8@lycos.com Mon Dec 24 16:25:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 25 Dec 2001 00:25:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 96018 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2001 00:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Dec 2001 00:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n16.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.66) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Dec 2001 00:25:57 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.115] by n16.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Dec 2001 00:25:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:25:53 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Binary Language Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20011224072906.GA1216@twcny.rr.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1786 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "thinkit41" X-Originating-IP: 12.224.27.33 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=71054096 X-Yahoo-Profile: thinkit41 This is a good change--you are addressing my ideas instead of attacking me. I appreciate it. --- In lojban@y..., Rob Speer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:10:15AM -0000, thinkit41 wrote: > > Decary? 10 arguments? I'm pretty unconvinced after 2, although > > there may be a true ternary operator (none have given an example). > > You have chosen to ignore the example. Certainly you can get out of > anything if you invent the appropriate words, but as pycyn points out, > all you're doing is avoiding the fact that 'give' has three places > (giver, gift, reciever) by making one word for 'give' and another for > 'recieve', which between them cover the three places. > > You would also need separate idea words for "talk to" and "talk about", > and "go to" and "go from", etc. How about concepts like "between" or > "combine" where the x2 and x3 are interchangeable? Or would you simply > leave those out of your language? No, talk and go would both be one argument concepts. That's how they are in english--the "to" and "about" can both be represented by sentence tags (modals). Between would end up as a one argument concept "is between". Combine would be two arguments, with the second one elaborated on in a further sentence. > What you would end up doing, it seems, is creating a separate idea for > each combination of x1 and some other place, which is just a really > inefficient way of doing tags. Hence I maintain that if you're not going > to bother to use complete place structures, you shouldn't use them at > all. Well, we're end up stuck on efficiency. I think it's just two different ways of doing things. As long as I can represent the meaning, I'll stick with the 2 argument paradigm. > -- > la rab.spir > noi se zdile