Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 03:25:15 +0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

<<
>ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e
> >>
>That works out all right, but I would resent calling RHS a *definition* of
>LHS; if any thing, the defining goes the other way -- as the status of the
>words involved quite rightly suggest.

But the RHS is not fully defined by that expression. I think you
can't express what {ko'a kairbroda ko'e} means in terms of {broda}.
At least I don't see an easy way to do it.

In any case, it doesn't matter. All that matters for our purposes
is that the two expressions be equivalent.

<<
>ko'a broda lo brode = da poi brode zo'u ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u
> ce'u du da
>
>It is clear that we cannot remove {da poi brode} from the
>prenex in the right hand side expression, because that would
>put it inside of du'u, and the sense of the whole expression
>would change.
> >>
>This is not obvious and I am inclined at first glance to think it false.

Then this is where we part. To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes
a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification
of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how
you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts
if you don't think so.

>Quantifying in -- moving a quantifier from outside an intensional context 
>to
>inside -- is rarely a problem, though some information information may be
>lost.

If some information is lost then you can't do it and keep the
same meaning. I said nothing about one way entailment. You have
to be able to move in and out for them to be equivalent.

Well, at least we don't need to argue anymore. You have my precise
definition, and we know exactly where we disagree. This is my
definition of {lo'e}:

ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode

And {kairbroda} is an ordinary jvajvo from {ckaji broda}, with
place structure b1 (b2=c1) c2 b3 b4 b5 ...

>Your move is somewhat like the one in getting to the present {sisku}

Yes, as I said, the official {sisku} would correspond to {kairsisku}
if {sisku} was defined as I favour, so that I can say {mi sisku
le mi santa} for "I am looking for my umbrella". With that definition
{mi sisku lo'e santa} is {mi kairsisku tu'o du'u ce'u santa}, which
is exactly how the official definition (my {kairsisku} here) is
supposed to be used, to say "I'm looking for an umbrella" without
claiming that there is an umbrella being sought by me.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx