From pycyn@aol.com Thu Apr 04 05:42:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 13:42:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 4559 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 13:42:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 13:42:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 13:42:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.f6.1936d3bc (3957) for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:42:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:42:51 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f6.1936d3bc.29ddb25b_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_f6.1936d3bc.29ddb25b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/2002 12:35:33 AM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > I think 'gasnu' is the most general predicate for causation, and it > works with all kinds of things. However, if you disagree, change it to > 'rinka', it's not the important point. > gasnu: x1 [person/agent] is an agentive cause of event x2; x1 does/brings about x2 rinka: x1 (event/state) effects/physically causes effect x2 (event/state) under conditions x3 It's not a matter of generality, but rather of types of causation: {gasnu} needs agents, {rinka} states. <> > le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka ce'u blegau > > le bilma be le nei >In the first it seems to be > the disease but comes out as a symptom 'nei' refers to the current bridi, and so 'le nei' refers to the x1 of blegau in each case. Selbri are not bridi, but if you want to be obstinate and insist that they are, change 'le nei' to 'cy.'> OK, what you meant was {le bilma be fi le nei}, as several other places. The problem with {nei} is that it is in three bridi (in some sense of that term) and there is then the question of which is the "current" one. You say it is the middle one of the three and the closest one that is not an immediate sumti, so I take it that your definition of "current" comes down to that specification. That seems a good choice, but not an obvious one. I don't understand the remark about selbri -- they are obviously not bridi, but you can scarcely have bridi without them -- or them without bridi. <> I suppose you mean {la fred la djordj cu zmadu le du'u ce'u ralju le cecmu be > cy}, which is technically a 1-place predicate. If you do mean the second > {ce'u} then it is a free floating variable that makes the whole rather > obscure, being essentially universal (relevance conditions assumed) -- but > what I had in mind. What is the trick it is supposed to cutely do? No, I meant that it would imply the predicate 'la fred ralju le cecmu be la djordj.'; however, as you say, a 2-place property with 'zmadu' is obscure. I still don't know what you had in mind. Sticking to 1-place in x3 of 'zmadu' would certainly be best.> It would imply that predication -- among countless others. So, yes, {zmadu} is easiest to interpret with a one-place predicate, but it is not restricted to that to the point requiring it. --part1_f6.1936d3bc.29ddb25b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/2002 12:35:33 AM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


I think 'gasnu' is the most general predicate for causation, and it
works with all kinds of things. However, if you disagree, change it to
'rinka', it's not the important point.


gasnu: x1 [person/agent] is an agentive cause of event x2; x1 does/brings about x2
rinka: x1 (event/state) effects/physically causes effect x2 (event/state) under conditions x3

It's not a matter of generality, but rather of types of causation: {gasnu} needs agents, {rinka} states.

<> > le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka
ce'u blegau
> > le bilma be le nei

>In the first it seems to be
> the disease but comes out as a symptom

'nei' refers to the current bridi, and so 'le nei' refers to the x1 of
blegau in each case. Selbri are not bridi, but if you want to be
obstinate and insist that they are, change 'le nei' to 'cy.'>

OK, what you meant was {le bilma be fi le nei}, as several other places.  The problem with {nei} is that it is in three bridi (in some sense of that term) and there is then the question of which is the "current" one.  You say it is the middle one of the three and the closest one that is not an immediate sumti, so I take it that your definition of "current" comes down to that specification.  That seems a good choice, but not an obvious one.  I don't understand the remark about selbri -- they are obviously not bridi, but you can scarcely have bridi without them -- or them without bridi.

<> I suppose you mean {la fred la djordj cu zmadu le du'u ce'u ralju le
cecmu be
> cy}, which is technically a 1-place predicate.  If you do mean the
second
> {ce'u} then it is a free floating variable that makes the whole
rather
> obscure, being essentially universal (relevance conditions
assumed) -- but
> what I had in mind.  What is the trick it is supposed to cutely do?

No, I meant that it would imply the predicate 'la fred ralju le cecmu
be la djordj.'; however, as you say, a 2-place property with 'zmadu'
is obscure. I still don't know what you had in mind. Sticking to
1-place in x3 of 'zmadu' would certainly be best.>

It would imply that predication -- among countless others.  So, yes, {zmadu} is easiest to interpret with a one-place predicate, but it is not restricted to that to the point requiring it.





 --part1_f6.1936d3bc.29ddb25b_boundary--