From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 20 06:03:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 13:03:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 51892 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 13:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 13:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.94) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 13:02:45 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:02:45 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:02:43 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:02:43 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2002 13:02:45.0510 (UTC) FILETIME=[033F1A60:01C260A6] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Your {kairsisku} applied to >old {sisku} does not obviously give modern {sisku}, partly because modern >{sisku}, while messy, dseems to be coherent, while {kairbroda} does not, at >least in connection with {broda}. Ok, let me try a different tack. Forget about old {sisku}. Let's consider modern {sisku} only, messy but coherent. Now I will define a new predicate {buska} like this: le ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u ko'a buska ko'e cu du le ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u ko'a sisku le ka ce'u du ko'e [As an aside: in a Lojban-Lojban dictionary I would expect to find this definition written as: buska: ko'a sisku le ka ce'u du ko'e The rest is superfluous given that we know it is a definition. ko'a, ko'e, ko'i, etc will always stand for x1, x2, x3, etc of the brivla being defined.] To me, this {buska} is just like old {sisku}, but you don't have to accept that, just take {buska} as defined above in terms of modern {sisku}. Now I can say things like {mi buska le mi santa}, {mi buska lo santa} instead of using the longwinded modern-sisku forms. I now define {lo'e} so that mi buska lo'e broda is an abbreviated form of: mi sisku le ka ce'u broda Which can also be written as: mi sisku le ka lo broda zo'u ce'u du by This way of writing is convenient to see clearly the difference between {mi buska lo broda} and {mi buska lo'e broda}: mi buska lo broda = lo broda zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du by mi buska lo'e broda = mi sisku le ka lo broda zo'u ce'u du by So far I have only defined {lo'e broda} when it appears in a particular place of a particular predicate (x2 of buska), but it is trivial to generalize it to any place of any predicate. All you need is a proto-predicate like {sisku} is to {buska}. >t does not say so, of course, because no one thought up these kinds of >weird >cases back then, but the assumption was that the property involved was a >nuclear one, not one that derives indirectly from something else, like" >being >thought of by Frank" or "being identical to Charlie." Once the nuclear >proeprties are in hand, I suppose we can work out how the others work, but >it >is certainly notov\bvious that they are the same. How do you define nuclear properties? {le ka ce'u broda} is nuclear for any broda except {du}, or something like that? Would it help if instead of {du} I used {me}? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com