Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:28:20 EST

In a message dated 2/13/2002 3:07:57 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >Some minor points: {finpe je mirli} is a single selbri, as far as the 
> grammar 
> >is concerned, and {mi e do} is a single sumti.
> 
> Here's where I think it's easy to confuse the text that represents a
> concept and the concept itself. "mi e do" as text doesn't refer to a
> single thing that is an argument of a predicate relation, although it
> may be used in the same place as text that does. In the grammar we call
> the structures that are used to specify sumti "sumti", even though the
> structures themselves are not sumti. Sumti are the things that are
> arguments to predicate relations, referred to by text. Similarly, the
> selbri is not the text used to specify the selbri, and a bridi isn't the
> text used to express the bridi.
> 

I think this is occasionally a necessary distinction to make and we should 
have some terminology for doing so (I'm less sure it is really a problem 
here). The dictionary seems to favor the text version: it is explicitly a 
text that is the predicate relation {bridi}, though {selbri} might be taken 
to be the relation itself rather than the predicate that expresses it. 
Similarly, {sumti} is said to be the argument (ambiguous) of a predicate 
(text) or function (object) filling place number (text)/type (object?). We 
don't have -- in either Lojban or the technical English of Lojbanitry a good 
det of words to distinguish them. For now, let's use l-sumti (from {la'e}) 
for the things and s-sumti ({sa'e}) for the words. So, {mi e do} is one 
s-sumti but stands for two l-sumti -- or more. (Question: does {mi'o} stand 
for one l-sumti or two -- or more?) Well, {le mlatu} is an s-sumti and stands 
for a/some l-sumti.

<Subj: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? 
Date: 2/13/2002 3:07:57 PM Central Standard Time 
From: <A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> 
To: <A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> 
Sent from the Internet (Details) 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:49 EST, [email-masked] wrote:

>Some minor points: {finpe je mirli} is a single selbri, as far as the 
grammar 
>is concerned, and {mi e do} is a single sumti.

Here's where I think it's easy to confuse the text that represents a
concept and the concept itself. "mi e do" as text doesn't refer to a
single thing that is an argument of a predicate relation, although it
may be used in the same place as text that does. In the grammar we call
the structures that are used to specify sumti "sumti", even though the
structures themselves are not sumti. Sumti are the things that are
arguments to predicate relations, referred to by text. Similarly, the
selbri is not the text used to specify the selbri, and a bridi isn't the
text used to express the bridi.

"mi e do" in "mi e do klama" doesn't refer to a sumti, it's a
grammatical construction that's shorthand for another grammatical
construction, namely "mi klama. ije do klama". There's the text, the
meaning of that text, and the grammatical rules and word definitions
that get you from one to the other. It's a problem that there's not
much vocabulary to distinguish grammatical constructions from what they
refer to. "le mlatu" isn't a sumti; it refers to sumti. Just like the
word "dog" is a noun but a dog is not a noun.

Of course, I may be the only one trying to use "sumti" to refer to the
things referred to by the text and it's entirely my fault. But how else
would one say that in "mi klama do" the relationship of "klama" is being
claimed between the referents of "mi" and "do", if not with "'mi' and
'do' are sumti of 'klama'" or "It claims, 'I go to you'"? Excluding, of
course, saying "'mi klama do' means 'mi klama do'". So in English how
does one distinguish between the grammatical category of "sumti" and the
things referred to by the same?>

But, but! I was with you til this. Then you turn around and go against your 
own principle. In " But how else would one say that in "mi klama do" the 
relationship of "klama" is being claimed between the referents of "mi" and 
"do", if not with "'mi' and
'do' are sumti of 'klama'" or "It claims, 'I go to you'"?" you start off 
fine: in the sentence {mi klama do} the relationship of (i.e., expressed by) 
{klama} is claiimed between the referents of {mi} and {do}. But then you say 
{mi} and {do}, two words, as the quote marks show, are sumti (and I assume 
that l-sumti is meant here) of {klama}, a word again. What I assume you 
meant was that mi and do are sumti of klama, that is that I go to you, using 
word that refer to the things, not to other words. And similarly, {mi klama 
do} means mi klama do. ("Snow is white" is true just in case snow is white, 
as the material condition says.) Or, assuming that English is being used as 
a metalanguage to Lojban here, {mi klama do} means I go to you.

So, one way to keep the levels separate is to be very careful with quotation 
marks, which always give words, s-sumti (even though in a metalinguistic 
discussion they may also be l-sumti). The other things we do in English is 
shoot for separate vocabularies --which has not been carried through too 
well -- and put warning tags in when problems seem likely to emerge: "the 
words in the sumti stand for things that occupy the sumti places in the 
relationship."