From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 28 18:08:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 29 Jul 2001 01:08:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 73820 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2001 01:08:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2001 01:08:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jul 2001 01:08:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id r.a.10473e10 (8392) for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:08:14 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a.10473e10.2894bbfe_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_a.10473e10.2894bbfe_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/27/2001 5:37:18 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >< > >In {da goi la alfas} la alfas cannot have a previous referent. > >If it does, then it is gobbledygook.> > > > >Under which set of rules? Why can this not (under the present rules) no= t > >just be the namely rider on {da}, "there is an x, namely Alpha?" >=20 > That's {no'u}. {goi} might end up meaning that when there is nothing > to assign, but strictly it does not. >=20 >=20 > >< > >That's what I thought. You will have to correct you demonstration > >then, as you leave xy dangling unassigned in the middle of it:> > > > >Ummm!=A0 I thought that was your example; it isn't mine (who else was in= this > >discussion?) >=20 > You used it in actual usage, not as an example now but some 800 > messages back, in the demonstration that no number is the highest > number. That's what I remembered when And asked for a way to use > names as bound variables. I found your {da goi xy} back then very > elegant and useful, but you can't do a general da'o so as to recycle > da, and then keep using xy with its original binding. >=20 ahso: noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node=A0 numcu gi'e balzma da da'o.i .i ni'ibo da'i= ge=20 da goi xy numcu gi node balzma xy .i ku'i rodi ganai di numcu gi le sumji b= e=20 di bei li pa cu numcu da'o .iseni'ibo le sumji be xy bei li pa cu numcu .i= =20 ji'a rodi zo'u le sumji be di bei li pa cu balzma di da'o .iseni'ibo le sum= ji=20 be xy bei li pa cu balzma xy .iseni'ibo di no'u le sumji be xy bei li pa zo= 'u=20 ge di numcu gi di balzma xy .i ku'i di'u natfe le se sruma .iseni'ibo da'in= ai=20 noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node gu'e numcugu'i balzma da .i di'u je'urja'o te= =20 zukte I said I overused {goi}. Here what I have done is use {goi} like the=20 mathematicians' "call it x" with a (still) bound variable. xy now has that= =20 value, the theory goes, even if the bound variable is deleted. I realize n= ow=20 that there is another possibility for this, namesly that, as da varies, so= =20 does xy, but I find that less useful or likely even. Of course, you don't= =20 believe in the selective power of quantifiers (I keep getting my two teache= rs=20 who fought this fight in the 70's confused, so I don't remember whose camp= =20 that puts you in), so you deny that the first step here is legitimate --=20 handing off the value of the variable at the beginning. But mathematicians= =20 and logicians have been doing it for 2500 years at least. Still, it may no= t=20 be {goi}. Well, we have two options: find a work-around within current lojban (the ma= in=20 route, except when we can show that the problem isn't real -- the ideal=20 situation) or keep a file until the freeze is off (and keep the file hidden= ,=20 of course). So far, plan one seems to be working OK (from most people's=20 point of view), except sometimes esthetically. [later] Of course, but that works specifically by not using quantified variables=20 (explicitly anyhow) and so is not a solution to the problem as presented. = =20 But IS the sensible way to write anything but the most pedantic Lojban (I=20 would drop the last but one sumti to just {pa le re nanmu} unless there was= a=20 real danger of confusion -- as we do in English).=20=20 =20 --part1_a.10473e10.2894bbfe_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 7/27/2001 5:37:18 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

><
>In {da goi la alfas} la alfas cannot have a previous referent.
>If it does, then it is gobbledygook.>
>
>Under which set of rules? Why can this not (under the present= rules) not
>just be the namely rider on {da}, "there is an x, namely Alpha?"

That's {no'u}. {goi} might end up meaning that when there is nothing
to assign, but strictly it does not.

><
>That's what I thought. You will have to correct you demonstration
>then, as you leave xy dangling unassigned in the middle of it:>
>
>Ummm!=A0 I thought that was your example; it isn't mine (who else w= as in this
>discussion?)

You used it in actual usage, not as an example now but some 800
messages back, in the demonstration that no number is the highest
number. That's what I remembered when And asked for a way to use
names as bound variables. I found your {da goi xy} back then very
elegant and useful, but you can't do a general da'o so as to recycle
da, and then keep using xy with its original binding.

ahso:
noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node=A0 numcu gi'e balzma da da'o.i .i ni'ibo = da'i ge=20
da goi xy numcu gi node balzma xy .i ku'i rodi ganai di numcu gi le sum= ji be=20
di bei li pa cu numcu da'o .iseni'ibo le sumji be xy bei li pa cu numcu= .i=20
ji'a rodi zo'u le sumji be di bei li pa cu balzma di da'o .iseni'ibo le= sumji=20
be xy bei li pa cu balzma xy .iseni'ibo di no'u le sumji be xy bei li p= a zo'u=20
ge di numcu gi di balzma xy .i ku'i di'u natfe le se sruma .iseni'ibo d= a'inai=20
noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node gu'e numcugu'i balzma da .i di'u je'urja'= o te=20
zukte

I said I overused {goi}. Here what I have done is use {goi} like = the=20
mathematicians' "call it x" with a (still) bound variable. xy now= has that=20
value, the theory goes, even if the bound variable is deleted. I = realize now=20
that there is another possibility for this, namesly that, as da varies,= so=20
does xy, but I find that less useful or likely even. Of course, y= ou don't=20
believe in the selective power of quantifiers (I keep getting my two te= achers=20
who fought this fight in the 70's confused, so I don't remember whose c= amp=20
that puts you in), so you deny that the first step here is legitimate -= -=20
handing off the value of the variable at the beginning. But mathe= maticians=20
and logicians have been doing it for 2500 years at least. Still, = it may not=20
be {goi}.

<My question was meant to be rhetorical. I cannot believe you and
Lojbab can seriously expect us to put logic on hold for five years,
I must be missing something.>

Well, we have two options: find a work-around within current lojban (th= e main=20
route, except when we can show that the problem isn't real -- the ideal= =20
situation) or keep a file until the freeze is off (and keep the file hi= dden,=20
of course). So far, plan one seems to be working OK (from most pe= ople's=20
point of view), except sometimes esthetically.

[later]
<One way of saying this without getting into trouble is:

le ci nanmu cu nerkla le barja i le re le ci nanmu cu klama
le barjyjbu i le pa le re le ci nanmu cu cpedu lo'e ladru>

Of course, but that works specifically by not using quantified variable= s=20
(explicitly anyhow) and so is not a solution to the problem as presente= d.
But IS the sensible way to write anything but the most pedantic Lojban = (I=20
would drop the last but one sumti to just {pa le re nanmu} unless there= was a=20
real danger of confusion -- as we do in English).
--part1_a.10473e10.2894bbfe_boundary--