[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| Llamban turns out to be a stranger language than I ever imagined. It has sumti that don't refer to anything, which is not unprecedented, since that is what I think {lo'e broda} is in Lojban. But these sumti can enter into identity expressions and further give rise to properties which nothing has, including the things mentioned in the properties. It appears that although there is a property tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda, lo broda does not have it, that is, {lo broda du lo broda} is false -- and similarly with {lo'e broda}. This previously unnoted feature of Llamban needs a good deal more explanation, but this is what we have so far: In a message dated 10/20/2002 6:56:17 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << >Well, everything has the property of being what it is, but the critters in. >> No, but if it has any meaning at all, it means that for each broda, a, a du lo broda and a du lo'e broda and thus lo broda du lo'e broda, whatever these may mean (since it is not clear what tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda is). << >But since these properties are the same, the first, lo >broda, has the property tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda. Therefore, lo broda du >lo'e broda. That's crazy. lo broda and ro broda have the property tu'o ce'u du lo broda, and that does not mean that lo broda cu du ro broda! >> Well, actually it does -- and you said it does just above. Now, it needs some unpacking, to be sure, but you have not explained how to unpack what you have said about, for example, {lo'e broda}. << ><< >The two expressions are not identical. The underlying set is >the same for both expressions. > >> >See immediately above. By the "underlying set" I suppose you mean lo'i >broda. This is obvious, but beside the point. It is the central point, I think. >> Would you care to explain further (this seems to be my constant issue with you -- your cryptic remarks never get developed and we are left to trust that they really do mean something. So far, your reputation for being on to something has kept us going, but the checking account to running dry). << ><< >It leads to a false result only if you apply {lo'e broda} = >{lo broda}, which is false and not entailed by my definitions. > >> >Alas, it is entailed by your definitions and is false. It is not entailed by my definitions. >> See above and the other cases as well. If you are going to make claims using technical terminology (not that {du} and {ka} really count as such) then you have to put up with the consequences. If you are using the terrminology in odd ways (normal, perhaps, in loCCan), then you owe us an explanation of the oddities. << >And, if you don't >like the proof above, consider the next one: that {brode lo broda} is >materially equivalent to {brode lo'e broda}, No it is not. One can be true and the other false. >> Yes, exactly. But the equivalence follows from your claims above. (The move that what you say does not mean what it says is useful to avoid blame, but ahrdly advances the interest of truth here). << >so that, even if {lo broda} were >not identical to {lo'e broda}, sentences involving {lo'e} -- in your sense >-- >would be redundant. Or the last proof, that your system makes {da poi >broda >zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du da} is materially equvalent to {mi sisku le ka >da >poi broda zo'u ce'u du da}, My system makes them explicitly different. One is {mi buska lo broda} and the other is {mi buska lo'e broda}. >> Yes, precisely. But those are already stated to be equivalent, since both are equivalent to {mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}. << >which is demonstrably false in real cases. Of course. The whole point of using {lo'e broda} is to separate {brode lo broda} from {brode lo'e broda}. >> Then it has failed. |