Subject: Re: [lojban] Meaningless talk

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:44:30

la xod cusku di'e

> > >2: .i ro bu'a cu'u da zo'u di cipra le ka fatci le bu'a
> >
> > i di'u gendra i ku'i na se smuni le do se skudji
>
>ma ja'o smuni fi do .i mi tcidu jimpe va'o mi krefu tcidu

(...va'o le nu mi krefu tcidu...)

I think you meant to say something like:

For every predication expressed by (sentence) X there is
some way of testing its factuality.

But the lojban sentence does not mean that at all. First
you need to close {le ka fatci} with {kei} so as not to
absorb the next sumti into the abstraction, but that's not
the problem.

The main problem is {bu'a}.

{ro bu'a} means "for every predicate". This is probably one of the
ugliest conventions of the language, but that's how it is. But in any
case you don't want to talk about predicates, functions, you want to
talk about predications, claims.

(ro bu'a cu'u da zo'u} means "for every predicate F(), there
is some expressor X such that". It's a prenex with two terms,
{ro bu'a} and {cu'u da}.

Also, {le bu'a} means neither "the predicate F()" nor "the
predication F(zo'e)". It means "the one who F's". Not at all
what you want.

Another point to discuss is whether the x1 of {cusku} can be
a sentence or whether it must be a person. I think it is
supposed to be a person.

>.xu do na'e tugni le sidbo

i mi do na tugni le sidbo i pe'i so'i se smuni na ka'e te cipra
le ka fatci

co'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.