From xod@sixgirls.org Sat Feb 17 14:40:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 17 Feb 2001 22:40:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 97677 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2001 22:40:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Feb 2001 22:40:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2001 22:40:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1HMeUX28363 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:40:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:40:29 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Meaningless talk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > 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 > > > 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. What's the difference? A claim is a function performed on sumti. I am trying to say every relationship (function) in the sentence can be tested. I wonder why you think it's ugly. I found it rather elegant. > (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}. bu'a is of cmavo go'a, acting like a selbri, so the cu'u should apply as a place of bu'a. > 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. True, it's iffy. Is there a better cmavo bai for that? The first place of cu'u can be an attribution. How about 2: .i ro bu'a cu'u da zo'u di cipra fi le jei bu'a > >.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 go'i mu'a ma ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!