[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/16/2002 5:02:19 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes: << Ergo, since I mean "proposition" strictly (I think), the interrogativoid, >> I suppose you meant "should NOT be expressed," though I don't see why. {du'u makau broda} is the predicate that applies to all propositions that fit the form of {makau broda} (NOT just the true ones), so {le du'u la djan broda cu du'u makau broda} is transparently true -- assuming {la djan} has a referent -- event if {la djan broda} is false. It is thus different from {du'u ce'u broda} which is the characteristic function of {broda} or the proerty of all true propositions that amount to propositions of the form given (I never have worked out which is tidier). << 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. >> It seems to me that {du'u ce'u} is the most deviant, though in a systematic way(i.e., the other abstractors work in the same way). << 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. >> Why {loi}? If it is a function, then the notion of a cooperation is out of place; if a predicate, then just {lo} is enought -- again, no cooperation is needed, just the cases that apply (with {mi} in for {ce'u} or amounting to that). And, of course, {le} is best of all, since you can make truth the deciding factor. As for 5, equations in two unknowns are not easy to solve either. I suppose that you can define these things this time so that 5 is correct, but doubt that that definition will cohere with the next one or the last one befoe now. << 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? >> Well, I have serious doubts about defining {makau} in terms of {ce'u} (and conversely) because I think that ultimately they have both different scope and different quantity ({ce'u} is universal and transcendental, {makau} is particular and, if not immannent, then at least less transcendent. |