From pycyn@aol.com Wed Apr 10 12:21:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 10 Apr 2002 19:21:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 85330 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2002 19:21:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2002 19:21:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2002 19:21:26 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 5.130.c7b7503 (17380) for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <130.c7b7503.29e5e9e9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:18:01 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_130.c7b7503.29e5e9e9_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_130.c7b7503.29e5e9e9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/2002 1:46:41 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > I agree that logically the two constructions are identical, but this > is a grammatical rule dictated by the grammatical structure, and not a > logical rule But of course one expects that the grammatical structure of a Logical Language is dictated by the logic, not by whatever it is that leads to these anomalies. It is to be expected that, for example, nominal bridis have (I would say "retain") some marks that sentential and predicate bridis have lost (or conversely, of course), but beyond that, it is hard to see the point of the distinctions and for the different restrictions applied. <. In particular, since you can say 'ko'a poi broda gi'e brode' but not 'le broda gi'e brode', I think that the two structures are significantly different.> Why, so it does work out! They are certainly different (we have two cases so far today) but what is the significance of the difference? That is -- minimally -- what forces these differences to be a part of the grammar rather than allowing the apparently simpler direct rule (I have been asking this question in one form or another for 26 years now, without ever getting a reasonable answer, so don't worry if you can't think of one)? Well, we would leave off (or replace with LE) the first term (or a selected term,, using {ke'a} or the like). I know it can't be changed (it is perhaps the deepest point in Lojban) and don't really want it changed. I just want it explained. --part1_130.c7b7503.29e5e9e9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/2002 1:46:41 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


I agree that logically the two constructions are identical, but this
is a grammatical rule dictated by the grammatical structure, and not a
logical rule

But of course one expects that the grammatical structure of a Logical Language is dictated by the logic, not by whatever it is that leads to these anomalies.  It is to be expected that, for example, nominal bridis have (I would say "retain") some marks that sentential and predicate bridis have lost (or conversely, of course), but beyond that, it is hard to see the point of the distinctions and for the different restrictions applied.

<. In particular, since you can say 'ko'a poi broda gi'e
brode' but not 'le broda gi'e brode', I think that the two structures
are significantly different.>

Why, so it does work out!  They are certainly different (we have two cases so far today) but what is the significance of the difference?  That is -- minimally -- what forces these differences to be a part of the grammar rather than allowing the apparently simpler direct rule (I have been asking this question in one form or another for 26 years now, without ever getting a reasonable answer, so don't worry if you can't think of one)?

<If we were designing Lojban from scratch,
I would support putting an entire bridi after 'le', but we're not and
that can't be changed now.>

Well, we would leave off (or replace with LE) the first term (or a selected term,, using {ke'a} or the like).  I know it can't be changed (it is perhaps the deepest point in Lojban) and don't really want it changed.  I just want it explained.


 --part1_130.c7b7503.29e5e9e9_boundary--