[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/21/2002 11:01:37 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << >Llamban turns out to be a stranger language than I ever imagined. It has >> The use is not at all surprising, it is the meaning (if anything special) that is the problem. << >But these sumti can enter into >identity expressions and further give rise to properties which nothing has, >including the things mentioned in the properties. I'm not sure which properties you're thinking of here. {ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda} should be true. >> Well, I don't really think so, but what is interesting here is that, according to you, {lo'e broda cu du lo'e broda} appears not to be true, even though {lo'e broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda} is true. Is {ro broda cu du lo'e broda} true? << I never said anything like that. ro broda have the property tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda, so if there is any broda, some broda indeed has it. >> As noted, ro broda also have tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda and, of course, tu'o ka ce'u broda -- and no non-broda has any of them, so the the three properties are materially equivalent << > > - ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda > > - lo'e broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda > > - ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda > > - lo'e broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda > > > > That doesn't mean that {lo'e broda} refers to some critter. > >> >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). You're right, {lo broda cu du lo'e broda} is normally true. (When there are broda.) What does not follow is that {lo'e broda} can be substituted by {lo broda}. >> That is, of course, what needs explaining. I am assuming that you mean by {ro broda cu ckaji} the Lojban form {ro da ganai da broda gi da ckaji} so that the general claims hold even when there are no broda. But then you have been manipulating {lo broda} and {lo'e broda} like individual terms, so -- continuing that -- {lo broda} can be substituted everywhere (outside intensional contexts) for {lo'e broda} and conversely. If you want to deny this now, then you ahve to unpack {lo broda} (fairly easy) and (lo'e broda} (apparently very hard, since you have refused to do it for months) and show both that the substitutions sometimes fail and als that the earlier moves made treating them as individual terms also still go through. I have my doubts about both projects. << ><< >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. No. {ro broda cu du lo broda} is true, but {lo broda cu du ro broda} is false unless there is only one broda. >> Yup, I caught that one when I woke out of my (unfortuantely incomplete) attack of xorxes-think. << I'm sorry if my remarks appear cryptic to you. It is not intentional. Many of your remarks appear cryptic to me as well. >> Sorry about that; most of what I say is standard stuff and I hope I have explained where I deviate -- but I have assumed that, since you have been wielding these devices fairly confidently and well for some time, you know how they work and what presuppositions, etc., are built in to them. If I could figure out where that assumption is wrong, I would happily go back and filll you in. << >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}. They are not. Only {mi buska lo'e broda} is equivalent to that. {mi buska lo broda} is equivalent to {su'o da poi broda zo'u mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}, from the definition of {buska}. You can't move the quantifier in. >> Actually, you can generally move the quantifier in, just not back out. But more to the point << and from DEF2 we know that: buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda >> so, presumably, mi buska lo'e broda = mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda But by definition 1, for busku (using minimal application rules) that latter is just mi busku lo broda. The move treating {lo} as an individual term is the same you used in your earlier derivations in the same message. |