From pycyn@aol.com Tue Dec 25 15:52:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 25 Dec 2001 23:52:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 38071 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2001 23:52:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Dec 2001 23:52:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Dec 2001 23:52:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.183.14a61f2 (3859) for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 18:52:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <183.14a61f2.295a6b22@aol.com> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 18:52:02 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Binary Language To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_183.14a61f2.295a6b22_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_183.14a61f2.295a6b22_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/24/2001 6:54:57 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > 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. > Well, I don't see in what sense a one-place predicate can mean "between" Since the sentence will only be true -- even meaningfull -- if it has the two "tags," this seems to be merely a remarkably inefficient way to show a three-place predicate. I could, using this logic, make all predicates one-place by divvying up bits of the meaning in pieces and then requiring that all the "tags" be there with the "basic meaning" part. I don't see that as in any way informative, merely arbitrarily procrustean. The limit to two-place is in princple the same. More coherent would be just areas and and (one-place) tags: entitlement donor recipient patient, for "give" say. st least each piece really means something that way (the one-place "between" doe not have any meaning without the tags). --part1_183.14a61f2.295a6b22_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/24/2001 6:54:57 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:


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.


Well, I don't see in what sense a one-place predicate can mean "between"  Since the sentence will only be true -- even meaningfull -- if it has the two "tags,"  this seems to be merely a remarkably inefficient way to show a three-place predicate.  I could, using this logic, make all predicates one-place by divvying up bits of the meaning in pieces and then requiring that all the "tags" be there with the "basic meaning" part.  I don't see that as in any way informative, merely arbitrarily procrustean.  The limit to two-place is in princple the same.  More coherent would be just areas and and (one-place) tags: entitlement donor recipient patient, for "give" say.  st least each piece really means something that way (the one-place "between" doe not have any meaning without  the tags). --part1_183.14a61f2.295a6b22_boundary--