replies mainly re "ka"
ucleaar
> la djan di'e la and spusku
> > > Is it better to say:
> > > Do mi zmadu lo ni/ka nelci gihe se mamta vau zohe
> > No, I think not. In either case you get "you are more than me in the
> > property of liking (someone) and of having a mother". There is no
connection
> > between the "se nelci" and the "mamta", and the "zo'e" doesn't help, because
> > "zo'e" doesn't preserve identity through splitting up of logical
connectives;
> > it can mean different things in different branches of the logical
connection.
> > Using "da", with or without a lambda indicator, would have the right effect.
> Would it? If da is not in the prenex, then I thought you agreed that the
> scope of its existential quantifier comes after the scope of "gi'e" in this
> case. It would expand to {nelci da ije se mamta de}.
But if gihe is conjoining selbris and vau marks their end,
then da shouldn't be within the scope of gihe - unless it is
just linear precedence that determines such matters.
> On the other hand, {le ka zo'e da nelci gi'e se mamta} would have the right
> effect. Still, a lambda variable (say, ke'a) would be even better:
> {le ka ke'a nelci le ke'a mamta}
************************
> la pedros frica la markos le ka makau cinba ke'a
> Pedro differs from Marcos in who kisses them.
> where I'm using {ke'a} as the lambda variable, i.e. the one that has
> the property, i.e. Pedro and Marcos. {makau} is the indirect question.
(a) I used "dakau", not "makau".
(b) It's not clear to me that your example does involve a property.
What is really meant is
lo cinba be la pedros lo cinba be la markos cu frica
Yes I see the need for something to abbreviate this, but not for ka.
Maybe
la pedros la markos frica lo cinba be py o nai my
Here is my best attempt so far:
Ex: x = M or x = P; Ey, Ez: y and z are the set of all kissers of x,
and y is not equal to z
How does that lojban?
da poi du la marcos a la pietros zohu de e di [end coordination]
poi du lohi cinba be da zohu de di na du
> > Is there at present any offical way of indicating which sumti the ka
> > is the property of?
> No, there isn't.
> In many cases it doesn't matter, because you can just use ordinary
> pro-sumti:
> le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
> The cat increases in property it is big.
> but when there is more than one place in the main selbri for the one
> that has the property (like for zmadu, mleca, frica) then a lambda
> variable is needed. We don't have one yet.
"le ka my barda" doesn't seem right. I see the x1 of ka as a
category (i.e. a sumti slot, a place of a predicate) and the
x2 of ka as a member of the x1 of ka. ("Ka" works like the
predicate "x1 is species of x2".) So it doesn't make sense
to have a full bridi (i.e. having a truth value) as complement
of ka. So by my understanding of ka, it just doesn't make any
sense at all without a "lambda variable", distinguishing, e.g.:
the property of being a mother
the property of having a mother
I'd have thought this ought to be the job of a gadri.
Something like "lo ka mi nelci do" just doesn't make sense to me.
> > Lojbab has opposed your keha suggestion. You
> > mentioned a while back that it was discussed at the last lojfest,
> > and that some proposal involving kau was made (I forget the details).
> At Lojfest it was decided to introduce a lambda variable, but no details
> were discussed. I mentioned that at some point someone had suggested
> using {kau}, but that I thought it didn't work, for the reason I just
> gave.
But your reason is specifically against makau, not against dakau, no?
And makau itself may come under further attack. (Lojbab has averred
that it is malglico, & I have tentatively agreed, offerring "lo ka du
lohi" as a more zabna logji formulation.)
But at any rate, I'd like to see a gadri version of ka, meaning "the
category of": it takes a selbri with all but one sumti saturated and
yields a sumti. Alternatively, if we were to stick with ka, but move
it out of NU, then let it take a selbri with all but one sumti saturated
and let it yield a selbri - "is a member of the [singleton] category of
categories of".
> > > > NU <bridi> is a selbri, and the <bridi> part is not optional.
> > Oh dear. Any idea why the <bridi> is obligatory?
> > Nope. I suppose the bnf rule could be changed from:
> NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... sentence /KEI#/
> to:
> NU [NAI] # [joik-jek NU [NAI] #] ... [sentence] /KEI#/
> Couldn't it?
Well, how about it? There is a use for it, e.g. "mi nu" - "I am a
situation". So are there arguments against it?
> > But yes: you have it. So I think I may give you the original:
> > "An Englishman's taste for whisky is acquired. A Scotsman's is
> > hereditary." [Or it might have been "inherited".]
> > Now what originally caught my attention about this is precisely that
> > "lohe gligicnau/kotnau" is not appropriate here - or at least "lohe
> > gligicnau" is not appropriate. The typical-generic Englishman does
> > not have a taste for whisky - or at any rate, the ad doesn't imply
> > this. Rather, the ad is saying that if the Engman has a taste for
> > whisky than the taste is acquired. And the best way to do this, I
> > felt, is to have "lo gligicnau" within the scope of "naho". On
> > reflection, I am far from convinced this is adequate, but it is too late
> > at night for me to get my head round a solution. I welcome suggestions.
> How about:
> lo'e ka lo gligicnau cu vusnei lo'e bavmyxalselpinxe cu se pucycpa
> i lo'e ka lo kotnau cu co'e cu se cerda
Since I think ka yields a singleton category, the choice of gadri
(lo vs. lohe) doesn't matter. Plus, as I've said, I don't hold with
ka having as complement a fully saturated selbri.
I'd prefer:
suho buha cei vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zohu
loka buha gihe gligicnau cu pruce
Can we have CuV syllables in fuhivla? If so, "xuiski" might be better
(because shorter) than "bavmyxalselpinxe".
I still can't find a satisfactory rendition of "A scotsman's is
heriditary". It plunges us back into the "any" discussion: I want
to say "if you arbitrarily pick x, x kotnau & x buha, then x cerda
lo ka buha". Here's my best attempt:
Naho ku ro lo kotnau gihe buha ku cmicerda lo ka buha
My hope is that with naho scoping over ro, the absoluteness of ro is
diluted.
----
And
jo...@phyast.pitt.edu
> But if gihe is conjoining selbris and vau marks their end,
> then da shouldn't be within the scope of gihe - unless it is
> just linear precedence that determines such matters.
I think it has to be just linear precedence. If it is not, I'd like to know
what is the rule. (I can't think of a simpler one than linear precedence.)
> > la pedros frica la markos le ka makau cinba ke'a
> > Pedro differs from Marcos in who kisses them.
>
> (a) I used "dakau", not "makau".
Is there any difference between them? The grammar papers say they are
synonymous.
> (b) It's not clear to me that your example does involve a property.
Can two things differ in anything but their properties?
> What is really meant is
> lo cinba be la pedros lo cinba be la markos cu frica
In what do they differ? Probably {drata} would work better here.
> Yes I see the need for something to abbreviate this, but not for ka.
> Maybe
> la pedros la markos frica lo cinba be py o nai my
I don't understand why you don't like a property as the x3 of frica,
it would seem the most natural thing. How can they differ in "at least
one kisser of one but not the other"?
> Here is my best attempt so far:
>
> Ex: x = M or x = P; Ey, Ez: y and z are the set of all kissers of x,
> and y is not equal to z
How can y and z be the same thing (the set of all kissers of x) and not
be equal?
> How does that lojban?
> da poi du la marcos a la pietros zohu de e di [end coordination]
> poi du lohi cinba be da zohu de di na du
Contradiction. If de and di are equal to the same thing, then {de di na du}
is false.
> > le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
> > The cat increases in property it is big.
>
> "le ka my barda" doesn't seem right. I see the x1 of ka as a
> category (i.e. a sumti slot, a place of a predicate) and the
> x2 of ka as a member of the x1 of ka.
I'm not sure I understand this use of "member". The x2 would be the
one who exhibits property x1. Is that a member of x1?
> ("Ka" works like the
> predicate "x1 is species of x2".) So it doesn't make sense
> to have a full bridi (i.e. having a truth value) as complement
> of ka.
Does a full bridi for {li'i} make sense to you? I think they are
similar cases.
> So by my understanding of ka, it just doesn't make any
> sense at all without a "lambda variable", distinguishing, e.g.:
> the property of being a mother
> the property of having a mother
> I'd have thought this ought to be the job of a gadri.
> Something like "lo ka mi nelci do" just doesn't make sense to me.
I tend to agree, but I don't think it's a real problem. (I keep
using {ke'a} for the lambda variable, for lack of a better alternative.)
You would say: {lo ka ke'a nelci do kei be mi} = "the property of
liking you which I exhibit" or {lo ka mi nelci ke'a kei be do} = "the
property of being liked by me which you exhibit".
If ke'a is replaced in these cases by the corresponding sumti, it still
makes sense, even if it's not perfectly logical to do so.
The problem arises when the lambda variable is standing for more than
one sumti. In that case, there is no possible value to use.
> > I mentioned that at some point someone had suggested
> > using {kau}, but that I thought it didn't work, for the reason I just
> > gave.
> But your reason is specifically against makau, not against dakau, no?
I'm assuming they mean the same thing, I haven't seen any proposal that
they could mean something different.
> And makau itself may come under further attack. (Lojbab has averred
> that it is malglico, & I have tentatively agreed, offerring "lo ka du
> lohi" as a more zabna logji formulation.)
To me, "the property of being equal to the set ..." doesn't help. I don't
agree that you can use {le ka...} in places where normally you would use
a {le du'u...}.
> But at any rate, I'd like to see a gadri version of ka, meaning "the
> category of": it takes a selbri with all but one sumti saturated and
> yields a sumti.
That pretty much describes {leka broda}, just leaving the x1 vacant.
Usually, that is where the lambda variable is assumed.
> Alternatively, if we were to stick with ka, but move
> it out of NU, then let it take a selbri with all but one sumti saturated
> and let it yield a selbri - "is a member of the [singleton] category of
> categories of".
I don't understand this "category of categories of".
> > How about:
> > lo'e ka lo gligicnau cu vusnei lo'e bavmyxalselpinxe cu se pucycpa
> > i lo'e ka lo kotnau cu co'e cu se cerda
>
> Since I think ka yields a singleton category, the choice of gadri
> (lo vs. lohe) doesn't matter.
That's why I always prefer {le ka}. I agree that ka yields a singleton,
and to me, {le} is the best gadri for such things, but I agree that
{lo} is also acceptable. (Same thing with {le du'u})
> Plus, as I've said, I don't hold with
> ka having as complement a fully saturated selbri.
To me that is not a problem (at least not so far), and in this case, since
you want {lo} to be quantified inside the {ka}, I can't offer a simple
re-wording.
> I'd prefer:
>
> suho buha cei vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zohu
> loka buha gihe gligicnau cu pruce
It is not the property that is a process. It is the acquiring of it.
> I still can't find a satisfactory rendition of "A scotsman's is
> heriditary". It plunges us back into the "any" discussion: I want
> to say "if you arbitrarily pick x, x kotnau & x buha, then x cerda
> lo ka buha". Here's my best attempt:
>
> Naho ku ro lo kotnau gihe buha ku cmicerda lo ka buha
That's not grammatical, you need {kotnau je bu'a}.
> My hope is that with naho scoping over ro, the absoluteness of ro is
> diluted.
To me, na'o means "typically" in the sense of "for most of the time", not
"for most cases". Your sentence says that for each Scotsman the property
is inherited most of the time, but not constantly.
Jorge
ucleaar
> > (a) I used "dakau", not "makau".
> Is there any difference between them? The grammar papers say they are
> synonymous.
I know a question-word can be followed by kau, and that goes into english
as an interrogative pronoun. But how what that work for "da kau"? Is it
just "da kau" that can get this interrogativoid interpretation,, or
does it apply to other non-Q words when followed by kau?
> > (b) It's not clear to me that your example does involve a property.
> Can two things differ in anything but their properties?
No.
If x1 differs from x2 in property x3, whose property is x3's supposed
to be? x1's or x2's? If it's a property they both have, then it's not
one by which they differ.
> > What is really meant is
> > lo cinba be la pedros lo cinba be la markos cu frica
>
> In what do they differ? Probably {drata} would work better here.
How do I know how they differ? I don't know Pedro & Marco. Maybe
one kisser's married and one isn't. There's a zohe in x3. "drata"
wd work, but I don't see a problem here with "frica".
> > Yes I see the need for something to abbreviate this, but not for ka.
> > Maybe
> > la pedros la markos frica lo cinba be py o nai my
> I don't understand why you don't like a property as the x3 of frica,
> it would seem the most natural thing.
No, it's fine for x3 to be a property. The problem is if the property
is supposed to be both x1's and x2's, as in your example. I was seeking
another way to express your meaning.
> How can they differ in "at least one kisser of one but not the other"?
I'm having trouble reconstructing my idea... Let's not waste time, and
pass on instead to:
> > Here is my best attempt so far:
> > Ex: x = M or x = P; Ey, Ez: y and z are the set of all kissers of x,
> > and y is not equal to z
> How can y and z be the same thing (the set of all kissers of x) and not
> be equal?
For a start, I worded it badly, as usual: y and z are a set of all kissers
of x.
If it needs to be made explicit: M is not P.
Then y and z can be either (i) the set of all kissers of M, or (ii)
the set of all kissers of P. Since y and z are different, one must be
(i), and the other must be (ii).
> > How does that lojban?
> > da poi du la marcos a la pietros zohu de e di [end coordination]
> > poi du lohi cinba be da zohu de di na du
> Contradiction. If de and di are equal to the same thing, then
> {de di na du} is false.
De and di aren't supposed to be equal to the same thing. But I do
discern contradiction. Okay, let's try again.
de e di [end coord] poi du lohi cinba be da poi du la marcos a la
pietros zohu de di na du
De is the set of kissers of da. Da is M or P. So either
de is the set of kissers of M, or de is the set of kissers of P.
Same goes for di. Since de is not di, one must be the set of kissers
of P, and the other must be the set of kissers of M.
> > > le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
> > > The cat increases in property it is big.
> > "le ka my barda" doesn't seem right. I see the x1 of ka as a
> > category (i.e. a sumti slot, a place of a predicate) and the
> > x2 of ka as a member of the x1 of ka.
> I'm not sure I understand this use of "member". The x2 would be the
> one who exhibits property x1. Is that a member of x1?
Yes. "Mi se ka keha nanmu" iff "mi nanmu" - both to me mean "I am
a member of the category: x1-of-nanmu".
> > ("Ka" works like the
> > predicate "x1 is species of x2".) So it doesn't make sense
> > to have a full bridi (i.e. having a truth value) as complement
> > of ka.
> Does a full bridi for {li'i} make sense to you?
Yes. "Mi se lihi [zohe] carvi" makes sense to me as "I experience rain".
> I think they are similar cases.
"Mi se ka zohe carvi" makes no sense to me at all. "Mi se ka keha carvi"
means "I am rain".
But "I experience rain" can be "Mi lifri lo carvi", and the tricky
thing to say is "I experience being a man". So I would like to see
ka and lihi parallel, as you suggest. In that case, "Mi se lihi [zohe]
carvi" ought ideally to be ungrammatical, and "Mi se lihi keha nanmu"
means "I experience being a man".
I am here using your keha for purposes of clarity only. I believe
the need for it shows that ka, and, I am persuaded, lihi, are lodged
in the wrong selmaho.
> > So by my understanding of ka, it just doesn't make any
> > sense at all without a "lambda variable", distinguishing, e.g.:
> > the property of being a mother
> > the property of having a mother
> > I'd have thought this ought to be the job of a gadri.
> > Something like "lo ka mi nelci do" just doesn't make sense to me.
> I tend to agree, but I don't think it's a real problem. (I keep
> using {ke'a} for the lambda variable, for lack of a better alternative.)
> You would say: {lo ka ke'a nelci do kei be mi} = "the property of
> liking you which I exhibit" or {lo ka mi nelci ke'a kei be do} = "the
> property of being liked by me which you exhibit".
> If ke'a is replaced in these cases by the corresponding sumti, it still
> makes sense, even if it's not perfectly logical to do so.
If keha is replaced in these cases by a non-corresponding sumti, then
you get syntactically fine garbage that is semantic garbage (real junk,
not just something surreal [=pragmatic "nonsense"]).
You advocate a grammar change to allow use of keha.
I instead advocate a grammar change whereby ka and lihi move out of
NU. Ka could move into LE, but a more conservative move would be
to set up a new selmaho for ka and lihi, such that:
as a syntactic head it behaves like LE
is a syntactic dependent it is a selbri
This better maintains the pleasing homomorphism between syntax and
semantics in Lojban.
> > But at any rate, I'd like to see a gadri version of ka, meaning "the
> > category of": it takes a selbri with all but one sumti saturated and
> > yields a sumti.
> That pretty much describes {leka broda}, just leaving the x1 vacant.
> Usually, that is where the lambda variable is assumed.
That's not the *syntax* of "leka broda". The syntax is "leka [zohe]
broda". I advocate making changing the syntax to fit the appropriate
semantics.
> > Alternatively, if we were to stick with ka, but move
> > it out of NU, then let it take a selbri with all but one sumti saturated
> > and let it yield a selbri - "is a member of the [singleton] category of
> > categories of".
> I don't understand this "category of categories of".
Well, say a category is a set. "da ka gerku" would give "da is a member
of the set that contains every set that contains every dog". (There is
only one set that contains every dog, so there is only one member of
the set that contains every set that contains every dog.)
"da lihi gerku" would give "da is a member of the set that contains
every experience of being a dog". (There are lots of experiences of
being a dog, so "lkihi gerku", unlike "ka gerku", is not a singleton.)
> > And makau itself may come under further attack. (Lojbab has averred
> > that it is malglico, & I have tentatively agreed, offerring "lo ka du
> > lohi" as a more zabna logji formulation.)
> To me, "the property of being equal to the set ..." doesn't help. I don't
> agree that you can use {le ka...} in places where normally you would use
> a {le du'u...}.
My key point is that a locution meaning "the identity of the set" is the
zabna logji solution. "lo ka du lohi" was my best shot at saying that
in lojban, but maybe a new cmavo in LAhE meaning "the identity of" might
be more satisfactory.
> > > How about:
> > > lo'e ka lo gligicnau cu vusnei lo'e bavmyxalselpinxe cu se pucycpa
> > > i lo'e ka lo kotnau cu co'e cu se cerda
> > Since I think ka yields a singleton category, the choice of gadri
> > (lo vs. lohe) doesn't matter.
> That's why I always prefer {le ka}. I agree that ka yields a singleton,
> and to me, {le} is the best gadri for such things, but I agree that
> {lo} is also acceptable. (Same thing with {le du'u})
That's interesting. I mean about duhu. I reckon ni is the same.
But not lihi or siho or nu.
Pity that can't be grammaticalized, e.g. by making:
duhu and ni take a bridi and yield a sumti
siho and nu take a bridi and yield a selbri [i.e. no change]
ka take what LE takes and yield a sumti
lihi take what LE takes and yield a selbri
However, after making this delightful-to-me-but-surely-noxious-to-Lojbab
suggestion, I realize that duhu has an x2 for the sentence expressing
the bridi and ni has an x2 for the scale the amount is measured on,
so "seduhu" and "seni" aren't singleton categories, and making duhu
and ni yield sumti would lose "seni" and, worse, "seduhu".
> > I'd prefer:
> > suho buha cei vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zohu
> > loka buha gihe gligicnau cu pruce
> It is not the property that is a process. It is the acquiring of it.
No I did mean the property is a process. But I see now for the first
time a problem.
This is what I meant: A property is a category, which is basically
like a set. The set is a process: it comes into being in stages.
But that's not right: what is a process is "being a member of the
category". So instead I shall say:
Naho ku lo nu ro lo gligicnau buha cu pruce
or
Naho ku pruce fa ro lo nu cmima loka buha gihe gligicnau
> > I still can't find a satisfactory rendition of "A scotsman's is
> > heriditary". It plunges us back into the "any" discussion: I want
> > to say "if you arbitrarily pick x, x kotnau & x buha, then x cerda
> > lo ka buha". Here's my best attempt:
> > Naho ku ro lo kotnau gihe buha ku cmicerda lo ka buha
> That's not grammatical, you need {kotnau je bu'a}.
> > My hope is that with naho scoping over ro, the absoluteness of ro is
> > diluted.
> To me, na'o means "typically" in the sense of "for most of the time", not
> "for most cases". Your sentence says that for each Scotsman the property
> is inherited most of the time, but not constantly.
That looks like ro scoping over naho.
What I want is "In general, if you examine the world you will find that
each scotsman inherits the property", "the world is generally such that
each scotsman inherits the property", "it is generally the case that
each scotsman ....".
----
And