From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 12 18:37:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 01:37:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 66623 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 01:37:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 01:37:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 01:37:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.162.122d1b4e (4529) for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <162.122d1b4e.2a89bcde@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:37:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_162.122d1b4e.2a89bcde_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_162.122d1b4e.2a89bcde_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/2002 5:54:14 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > The way I understand {tu'a}, {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and > {mi nitcu lo dinko} are not compatible types of expression. > I understand {tu'a lo dinko} as {le du'u lo dinko co'e}, and > it sounds odd that {nitcu} could take either nails or > propositions (or whatever du'u are) as its second argument. > Or maybe we can say {mi nitcu lo dinko a le du'u lo dinko co'e}, > but having the same word for "I need x" and "I need that x" > does not sound very Lojbanic to me. >> As I say somewhere around here, it's an idiom, but a perfectly transparent one, I think -- the bare {lo dinko} is just like the {tu'a} one, {le du'u lo dinko ce'o} but the absence of the {tu'a} allows extensional moves to proceed, as is occasionally desirable. << On the other hand {mi nitcu lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo'e dinko} are compatible type of expressions, because both have nails as the second argument, in one case referred to by extension and in the other case by intension. >> So you say, but since you give no clue about what {lo'e dinko} means, I have no reason to believe it other than my trust in you -- which is wearing thin at the moment. In the only visible sense of "have as the second argument", both {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo dinko} have nails as the second argument, in one case in extension, in the other in intension. And we know how these critters work, unlike {lo'e}. << What I'm suggesting is that all it does in the sumti place is blot it, just like {zi'o}, but differs from {zi'o} in that it blots and adds semantic content. Both leave behind a selbri with fewer places, and neither names a critter. >> As I have said before on this, you can't have it both ways. If it blots it is a semantic null. If it not a semantic null then it does not blot but is a sumti which adds some kind of reference in that place. How, exactly, would this {lo'e broda} add semantic content other than by referring (in which case, it is not a blot but merely filling one slot with a particular item). << I don't have a formal proposal, maybe I will adhere to yours. But the essence is that {broda lo'e brode} should not entail {broda da}. >> This, of course, goes against your own principle that all bridi places are extensional. The nearest thing I have been able to come up with in trying to understand this is {lo'e broda} in a place is part of a disjoint tanru (if it ain't a thing then its a predicate in Lojban) which has some effect on the indicated place -- different from having it filled by a reference to a broda, but distinctly brodaish, so different from what {lo'e brode} would do. I have no idea how that would work-- in particular, how an explanation of what the heck was going on would read, but at least it would make a sort of syntactic sense (though there are not otherwise discontinuous unmarked tanrus and {lo'e} is clearly a gadri, which play no role in tanrus). << Why can't there be meaningful plugs? >> A place that isn't there cannot contribute anything (general theory that the meaning of a sentence is a function of its parts). --part1_162.122d1b4e.2a89bcde_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/2002 5:54:14 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
The way I understand {tu'a}, {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and
{mi nitcu lo dinko} are not compatible types of expression.
I understand {tu'a lo dinko} as {le du'u lo dinko co'e}, and
it sounds odd that {nitcu} could take either nails or
propositions (or whatever du'u are) as its second argument.
Or maybe we can say {mi nitcu lo dinko a le du'u lo dinko co'e},
but having the same word for "I need x" and "I need that x"
does not sound very Lojbanic to me.

>>

As I say somewhere around here, it's an idiom, but a perfectly transparent one, I think -- the bare {lo dinko} is just like the {tu'a} one, {le du'u lo dinko ce'o} but the absence of the {tu'a} allows extensional moves to proceed, as is occasionally desirable.

<<
On the other hand {mi nitcu lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo'e dinko}
are compatible type of expressions, because both have nails
as the second argument, in one case referred to by extension
and in the other case by intension.
>>
So you say, but since you give no clue about what {lo'e dinko} means, I have no reason to believe it other than my trust in you -- which is wearing thin at the moment.  In the only visible sense of "have as the second argument", both {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo dinko} have nails as the second argument, in one case in extension, in the other in intension.  And we know how these critters work, unlike {lo'e}.

<<
What I'm suggesting is that all it does in the sumti place is
blot it, just like {zi'o}, but differs from {zi'o} in that
it blots and adds semantic content. Both leave behind a selbri
with fewer places, and neither names a critter.
>>

As I have said before on this, you can't have it both ways.  If it blots it is a semantic null.  If it not a semantic null then it does not blot but is a sumti which adds some kind of reference in that place.  How, exactly, would this {lo'e broda} add semantic content other than by referring (in which case, it is not a blot but merely filling one slot with a particular item). 

<<
I don't have a formal proposal, maybe I will adhere to yours.
But the essence is that {broda lo'e brode} should not entail
{broda da}.
>>
This, of course, goes against your own principle that all bridi places are extensional.  The nearest thing I have been able to come up with in trying to understand this is {lo'e broda} in a place is part of a disjoint tanru (if it ain't a thing then its a predicate in Lojban) which has some effect on the indicated place  -- different from having it filled by a reference to a broda, but distinctly brodaish, so different from what {lo'e brode} would do.  I have no idea how that would work-- in particular, how an explanation of what the heck was going on would read, but at least it would make a sort of syntactic sense (though there are not otherwise discontinuous unmarked tanrus and {lo'e} is clearly a gadri, which play no role in tanrus).

<<
Why can't there be meaningful plugs?
>>
A place that isn't there cannot contribute anything (general theory that the meaning of a sentence is a function of its parts). --part1_162.122d1b4e.2a89bcde_boundary--