[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > What is the difference between an incomplete proposition like
> > "___ klama" or "___1 klama ___2" and a property or relation like
> > "ce'u klama" and "ce'u klama ce'u"? I don't know. I don't know
> > whether there is a difference.
>
> If you mean "proposition" strictly, there isn't any. If you are using it
> as a synonym for "sentence", then it is the difference between a sentence
> expressing a relation and the relation itself. The latter is an abstract
> object, the former is a syntactic form.
Ergo, since I mean "proposition" strictly (I think), the interrogativoid,
qkau, variety of du'u abstraction -- call it du'u1 -- should be
expressible on the basis of the variety of du'u -- du'u2 -- that
expresses properties/relations/incomplete propositions.
1 {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
2 {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation
3 {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}
= x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}
I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.
So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.
4 mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
"Who I love is a flaw in me"
5 {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}
{du'au} has to be in NU because it must have its own prenex; a lujvo
wouldn't suffice.
I know I'm the only one who cares whether we can say (5), but
setting that aside, would you agree that (5) serves to express
explicitly the logical form that (4) is shorthand for?
--And.