Am 24.10.2012 23:23, schrieb John E. Clifford:
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 3:46 PM, "Mike S." <
maikxlx@gmail.com
> <mailto:
maikxlx@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>
> Or more simply lo ka lo fagri cu glare cu pluka mi. (apparently you
> can't do that in X).
You can't do that in modern Lojban either. A ka without a ce'u is not
well-formed by today's standards (at least according to most people).
Like most people, I cherry pick Lojban rules to do what I want. In the case of ka, I cite CLL p. 259 ex. 4.4 and 4.5 and 4.6 on the next page. The invasion of ce'u into ka ha come about from the confusion of properties with propositional functions, which seems to have become epilojbic. In the instant case, the cmavo should have been ni not ka in any case.
That would be "lo nu lo fagri cu glare cu pluka mi". I don't see how a
property is necessary in this particular case.
Being pleased by the fact that the fire is hot is not obviously the same thing as being pleased by the heat or the fire (I don't even think they are materially equivalent, though a cute case doesn't spring to mind). (Later: in the first case, becauseI have some moose steaks ready to grill, in the second case because I am frozen through from being out hunting moose).
I think I made a suggestion about properties indirectly in some thread,
and I think the idea was to have a variable that works somewhat like
ce'u, then you can just do something like "glre'u" (I know e'u has been
used as "someone"), which means pretty much "hotness". It's the abstract
idea of something being hot. "e'u" wouldn't be bound by anything in the
sentence, it would stay vacant all the time to allow for those general
"-ness/dom" expressions.
This looks like the propositional function version of properties (well, instead of properties). I suppose, like ce'u as a lambda-bound variable, they are self-bound. But. of course, they don't work like properties a lot of the time. People don't enjoy lambda functions. And you can't do relations this way.
I think you can usually use normal events for things like the above
sentence, and in the less common cases where you can't, you might just
say something equivalent to "the fire's hotness" ~ "la fgra le'u glre'u
psake'u" (how to say this using the new p- operator?), and now I see the
problem with this approach; there is only one e'u variable, and you
might want more than one ce'u in a sentence. Clearly, this idea isn't
entirely sound..., but I hope I could get it across. I wonder how
terrible "le glre'u" would be instead of "le'u glre'u", that way we'd at
least have infinitely many ce'u to work with, but the binding looks bad.
I'm really not convinved that properties need a new ka-like abstraction
to be added. Gua\spi also has only a single abstractor for everything
(plus one for direct speech).
Yeah, I often go off to think about whether we couldn't just do with propositions or, maybe better, the sense of propositional functions. I rather think we could cover everything with those (but as I look that the list of abstractors in CLL I get discouraged).
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku
.