On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Mike S. <
maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we wished to use this, I would reorder the argument places of "ckj" and allow it to take a variable number of arguments.
I had proposed the same thing in a previous discussion with And, but
reducing it to ck-, which covers both "ckaji" and "ckini" (and all the
rest that Lojban doesn't have).
> la fa glro'e ckja.
> "The situation in which something is hot is true."
> "It's true that something is hot."
>
> la fake glre li fgri ckjaki.
> "The property of hotness makes a true proposition when applied to the fire."
> "Being hot is true for fire".
Yes.
English f'Christ's sake! Or Spanish or Lojban or something. Situations aren't true. And how do you get from ckj "characterizing" to "true", which doesn't even come close semantically. And what, exactly, does "application" mean when connecting a property and an object? And, for that matter, since we are not mucking about in semantics, why are we going through all this? You don't need it to lay out your language nor explain how it works (and when you do do it, it shows that something is not working at the moment).
> I also think "bridi" can also be absorbed; that would be just a fV ckj-, would it not?
I think with "bridi" the speaker is not actually claiming that the x1
of bridi is true, just that it is a proposition with such and such as
selbri and such and such as arguments. So I don't think bridi is
equivalent to ckaji/jetnu/fasnu.
I have to go back to the original on this, the sentence here is too tangled to unpack, since it seems to say that an argument is true, but the level shifting may just be peculiarly opaque (well, not so peculiarly, alas).
co ma'a xrxe