definitions: bridi and sumti

[jongausib]

coi,

what's the difference, if any, between

{lo sumti} and {lo terbri},

and

{lo selsu'i} and {lo selbri}

?

I would appreciate a good answer about this matter.

a'o ki'emu'omi'e jongausib

[.arpis.]

The difference is in focus and in relation; {lo sumti} refers to a sumti in any context, but {lo terbri} refers to the sumti of a particular bridi.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/mcDpoMfv2jAJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jacob Errington]

Equally, the terbri is a list of sumti, as they fill the selbri to produce the bridi. Using the functional definition of bridi,

bridi = x1 (du'u) is a predication with relationship type x2 (ka) produced from sumti x3

You can think of it like this: take the selbri with its ce'u-place "holes" and fill them in order with sumti from the list in the x3. The result is the bridi1, namely a du'u.

e.g. {.i lo du'u mi klama lo zarci cu bridi lo ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u kei mi ce'o lo zarci}

(In practice, ce'u-places can be left out because they're implicit.)

I used the non-logical connective {ce'o} for the terbri, but this can cause problems when the selbri expects a list, which can be produced from {ce'o}. For that purpose, there's an experimental cmavo, {ce'oi}, that exists just for these "argument lists".

As for the actualy difference between {sumti} and {bridi}, sumti1 is a single exact sumti that fills the sumti3-th place of sumti2, whereas bridi3 is a list of sumti that when applied to the function in bridi2 yields the predication bridi1.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o