Subject: Re: Binary Language

From: "thinkit41" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:54:17 -0000

--- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/24/2001 1:36:10 AM Central Standard Time, 
> rob@t... writes:
> 
> 
> > How about concepts like "between" or
> > "combine" where the x2 and x3 are interchangeable? Or would you 
simply
> > leave those out of your language?
> > 
> 
> Well, thinkit would say that "between" (and probably "combine") is 
easy. "a 
> is between b and c" is just "a is to the side of b with a to the 
side of c" 
> and if you said that this would allow all sorts of arrangements 
where a is 
> NOT between b and c, he would claim that those all required some 
other 
> condition but that "between" was the natural reading of the 
simplest one. If 
> you strike that down, then he may eventually be driven to the 
place binarists 
> usually end up, making arguments of pairs of objects -- ordered or 
unordered 
> as the need may be (and pairs of pairs or of a pair and an object, 
and so on, 
> as needed). 

As I said, "between" would be a one argument verb. Try A between 
(tag) B has location (tag) C has location. Since tags aren't 
ordered anyway, this makes sense.

> thinkit:
> <It's just a matter of saying it differently. In this case, one 
way 
> is, man attempts to (sentence) man give book to cat (end sentence) 
> (tag) thwarted by (sentence) dog take book from man. The sentence 
I 
> gave could have no other reasonable meaning than the man giving a 
> book to a dog (assuming no other tags are given). The second 
> mention of the book (in the tag) isn't even necessary>
> 
> Well, but the first solution requires a way to make sentences into 
arguments 
> -- which ought to be interesting in this system -- and then a way 
of saying 
> that the man gave the book to the cat, which is just the original 
problem 
> again, not solved by saying that it is part of the solution to 
some other 
> problem (ditto that the dog takes the book from the man). I think 
that 
> dropping the second reference to the book requires a convention 
that one 
> probably does not want to use: that the missing argument is the 
nearest 
> extrasentential reference or the one in the same place or some 
such. The 
> exceptions will be more numerous than the cases and the 
possibility for error 
> rather large (e.g., taking the gap to mean there is nothing there -
- a very 
> real case -- or that it is an unspecified something -- also a 
real case). 
> since there has to be something in the 2nd argument place, it 
might as well 
> be what is intended.

If there is a reasonable way you could be misunderstood, the option 
is always there to use a reference.

> <It would just be a single true sentence. Man, dog, and book are 
> identified as objects. >
> 
> But it sure seems to be two sentences both of which (and more 
beside, I 
> think) have to be true for the intended meaning. If either part 
fails then 
> the whole fails: a clear case of conjunction, not subordination.
> HOW are the man, dog and book identified as arguments rather than 
predicates? 
> (Lord, your terminology is getting even me talking nonsense).

It's one sentence that has a sentence contained in it.