From cowan@ccil.org Sat Aug 18 20:06:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 03:06:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 27023 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 03:06:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 03:06:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 03:06:03 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15YIYn-0001CJ-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:43:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u In-Reply-To: from Nick NICHOLAS at "Aug 17, 2001 02:20:21 pm" To: Nick NICHOLAS Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Nick NICHOLAS scripsit: > 1. Implicit in much of the misunderstandings on that discussion is the > following issue: is it meaningful to speak of an abstraction containing > ce'u, outside a bridi? That is, can ce'u be filled with a value that does > not come from the jufra containing it? I think that ce'u combined with a specific sumti makes no sense, and that nu is proper in this sentence. > and reserving {ka} with filled {ce'u} > slots for bridi where the filler is in the same jufra; e.g. {do fange mi > leka ce'u pinxe loi tcati}. I don't think it needs to be in the same jufra: consider Quine's example lo'i se risna cu du lo'i se rangrnefrosi .iku'i le ka risna ce'u cu na du le ka rangrnefrosi ce'u > As an extension of this, filling {ce'u} slots might even 'be considered > harmful'; something wih an explicit value instead of {ce'u} is no longer a > property at all. I agree. A property is a reification of a function of one variable: the ce'u shows where the variable is. (Likewise, an n-adic relation is a reification of a function of n variables, and the ce'us show where the variables are.) > (As a side note, it has also been proposed on the Wiki that {li'i} > abstractions should contain a {ce'u}. This would make {ka} and {li'i} > behave identically.) I don't agree that li'i can have a ce'u: I think li'i is essentially short for lifri le nu (note that le se lifri is an event). > Cowan has said that the location of {ce'u} should be glorked from context. > (In response to which, Nicholas wants the status of {ce'u} interpretation > to be the same as that of {ke'a}: default and defeasible. Fair enough. > In the Reference Grammar, Examples 11.4.7 and 11.4.8 clearly treat elided > {ce'u} like {ke'a} (Raizen): {le ka mi prami} = {le ka mi prami ce'u} > "the property of (I love X). Example 11.4.4. just as clearly treats elided > {ce'u} as occupying a filled x1 slot (Nicholas): {le ka do xunre} "The > property-of your being-red" = "Your redness". On reflection, I think I should have used du'u in Example 11.4.4, and that the stated relationship with 11.4.3 is a result of pre-ce'u (mis)understanding. It is the *proposition* that you are red that is new to me. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan