[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > >do prenu fi'o rebla zo'e .i do prenu fi'o rebla noda .i la'edi'u cfipu fi > >ma > > i le du'u le remei jufra cu natfe le pamei .i ku'i noda rebla lo'e prenu .i ja'o .a'o zo'e rebla do > > >Anyway, whatever is in the 4th place of fancu needs to be interpreted as a > >function. If I stick "1" in there, it can only mean a function that > >returns "1" for all arguments, right? After all, if I had put "sin" in the > >4th place, wouldn't that mean that the function was described by "sin"? > > You mean the word "sin"? zo sin? By analogy that would be a function > that returns the word "sin" for every argument. But of course you > don't mean the word "sin", the name of the function, you mean the > sine function. In Lojban: le sinso ve fancu. (lo fancu is not a > function, it is a word, a name. The place structure of fancu is > really crazy.) I understand about lo fancu. But surely in discourse, the lo fancu is a symbol for (and substitutes for) its lo velfancu. What other purpose does a name serve? But back to the lo velfancu. I don't understand what's troubling you. Given that we must interpret the lo velfancu as a function's expression, what is wrong with attempting to stick a polynomial in there? In a more general level, I think my Lojban has weaker type casting then some of you, and this is a recurring issue. Lack of ambiguity is as far as I feel we need to go in type strictness. Really, how many ways, for instance, can "1" be interpreted, when the reader knows that it should be interpreted as a function? -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.