Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:32:58 -0700 (PDT)

In response to pc:

* We already have a way of going from n-tuples to truth. It's called a
selbri: Lx1Lx2Lx3Lx4Lx5.broda(x1,x2,x3,x4,x5) is the same as
{zo broda selbri ledu'u da broda de di daxi4 daxi5}. I'm happy to admit
this is wrong, but be specific how.

* In a remarkable backflip from my attributed hardlinerism (then again, I
don't think I'm the only one backflipping), I don't want {ka} to mean
'relationship of n-tuples'. I want it to mean 'property', because that's
what I'm going to have much more use for in using Lojban.

* Therefore, maybe we wouldn't just be referring to ce'u as lambda
variables. I like John's formulation of this a lot: you reify the broda
(turn it into du'u), and then let some lambda variables back in (put in
some ce'u slots) --- rather than preserve all the lambda variables of the
original. I think lambda calculus is the bomb, and wonderful, and it would
be great to use it in the metalanguage of Lojban. But I don't want its
progeny hanging like an albatross over me any time I want to speak of a
property of *just one thing*.

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
[email-masked] -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias