From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Aug 23 06:18:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 13:18:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17791 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 13:16:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 13:16:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 13:16:57 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:55:25 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:22:17 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:21:57 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta The arguments have mostly been about whether empty places are interpreted as containing ce'u or zo'e or either. There are pros to the ce'u option and pros to the zo'e option. I therefore proposed that empty places in du'u contain zo'e and empty places in ka contain ce'u. There is now no ambiguity and everybody has the best of all worlds.=20 It would invalidate some prior usage -- many former kas would need to be read as du'us. But language evolution always invalidates earlier usag= e. --And. >>> 08/22/01 11:38pm >>> I think I've lost the thread of all this shouting here, which seems to ahve= =20 gotten a ong way from fundamentals.=20=20 If we go by the Book (or its clear meaning anyhow) {le ka broda} is the=20 referent of {broda}, a function from n-tuples (for what ever n {broda}=20 happens to have) to truth values. In that sense, all of its places are=20 {ce'u}, corresponding to its canonical form Lx1...Lxn Bx1...xn (read the L as "lambda"). Calling it a property is=20 possibly misleading, if you think of a property as a 1-place function. So,= =20 call it a relation then or a relationship. Or call it a property of n-tupl= es If you fill m places with sumti, you get a new function of n-m places=20 (related to the old one in a systematic way). If you fill all the places,= =20 you get a proposition (a direct reference to a truth value, also related to= =20 the function in a systematic way).=20=20 It seems that we seldom want to talk about the function flat out, but about= =20 certain aspects of it, the roles represented by one place or another or som= e=20 combination of places. So the issue seems to be, how to do this most=20 efficiently, allowing that the uninteresting places are filled with {zo'e}= =20 not {ce'u} and that we want to write as few of these cases as possible.=20 Proposal 2C does that on the assumption that the places more likely to be=20 interesting are the lefter places (the theory behind place structure after= =20 all). I am seeing a counting idea, that explicit {ce'u} be used for {ce'u}= =20 and that the empty places be {zo'e} (I think, but it is hard to say, exactl= y,=20 since all the cases so far have had only a single {ce'u}). What exactly, please, is the problem and what is the argument about beyond= =20 this?