[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
xorxes accuses me of misusing {lo broda} and {lo'e broda} as individual
terms, something he has "never done."
No. I accuse you of misusing {lo broda} as individual term
in your "proofs" that my definitions are wrong/useless.
(I have not misused {lo broda} in such way in my derivations,
and even if I had that would hardly justify misusing it again
to disprove them.)
I have not accused you of misusing {lo'e broda} as an
individual term. {lo'e broda} is not an individual term in
as much as it does not refer. I believe it can otherwise
be manipulated as an individual term in the sense that
it is not affected by the scope of quantifiers and negation,
but my derivation does not depend on this, as I do no manipulation
to {lo'e broda} at all. I just define what {broda lo'e brode}
means in terms of other things. At no point do I need to move
{lo'e broda} from there.
We have that {broda lo'e brode} is to be explained as {kairbroda tu'o ka ce'ubrode}.
Right.
But this is an explanation only if {tu'o ka ce'u brode} is of the
form {tu'o ka ce'u du a} for some individual term {a}, for it is only thus
far that {kairbroda} is defined.
{kairbroda} is not defined at any point. All I ask is that you
take it as a predicate analogous to {sisku}. If you can't make
that analogy, I admit that my explanation of {lo'e} won't help
you.
The plausibility of its being of that form
depends upon its purported equivalence with
{tu'o ka ce'u du lo brode} or {tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e brode}.
Is your problem with {ka ce'u brode} being equivalent to
{ka ce'u du lo brode}, which is also equivalent to
{ka da poi brode zo'u ce'u du da}? I thought you had
accepted that these three are the same property at least
for our purposes. I can't see any difference that matters
among those three.
When neither ofthese give the result wanted -- one merely continues a circle, the other putsthe quantifier in the wrong place and so reduced {lo'e} to something more clearly said without it -- we deny that these are individual terms.
I don't understand what you mean here.
But then, to avoid the point that {kairbroda tu'o ka ce'u broda} is totally unexplained, the analogy with {busku} and {sisku} is brought in -- since{sisku} is perfectly with {tu'o ka ce'u brode} even if it is not reducible toan identity, then so should {kairbroda} be.
Are you saying that my definitions work with {sisku} but not
with any other {kairbroda}? (I don't understand what you mean
by "it is not reducible to an identity".)
But, of course, this line of chat ignores the fat that, compared to a normal predicate, {busku} is onlydefined when {sisku} takes an identity concept, so an ordinary predicate canonly be treated analogously in that case.
{buska} is defined for any pair of values, just like any other
normal predicate.
And the two aspects of this theory (incoherent in yet another sense, note) are then played off alternately, depending on the line of attack.
What two aspects? What is the first sense in which it is incoherent, and what is the other sense in which it is incoherent?
Thus, from Def 1, for defining {busku} in terms of {sisku} , we get that
busku lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda, taking {lo'e} as an
individual term.
I did say that, but I didn't use it anywhere. If that is what bothers you, strike it from what I said. It doesn't change my derivation.
But a few lines later, when the claim is {ro broda cu ckajitu'o ka ce'u lo'e broda}, {lo'e} is not an individual term, since that would mean that every set lo'i broda had at most one member (indeed, the one And'smyopic observer sees, lo'e broda).
{lo'e} is not an individual term. We agree there. It does not refer.
But this claim is rejected, in favorfirst of one that replaces {lo'e ka ce'u du lo'e broda} with {tu'o ka da poibroda zo'u ce'u du da} and when that leads to the result that -- once again -- lo'e broda reduces to lo broda, this consequence is simply rejectedwithout an alternate proposal -- except the obvious one that we can constructfor {lo broda} a form that does not follow directly from that for {lo'e broda}.
At no point do I replace {lo'e ka ce'u du lo'e broda} with
{tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da}. I think they are
equivalent, but no such move is needed.
Messing with these things can get ones head in a terrible twist, as I know tomy detriment, so I assume that xorxes has merely been captured by an intriguing idea and then allowed that idea to guide him -- incorrectly, it turns out this time -- through the maze.
You may assume whatever you like, but you have not shown that my definition is incoherent.
Time to go back to square 1 and either follows xod's suggestion (well, modified, since I think "typical" istoo confining) to use an experimental cmavo for Llamban {lo'e} in Lojban (if there is any purpose thereby served, it being at the moment a non-concept) orget back to work trying to explain Lojban {lo'e} as it is or ought to be.
You're welcome to offer your explanation. I will keep mine
until it is shown to be incoherent, something you claim to have
done but haven't done.
All I have done is
(1) define {buska} in terms of {sisku}:
\x\y buska(x,y) = \x\y sisku( x, \z du(y,z) )
(2) define {lo'e broda} (not an individual term!) such that:
buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u broda
That's all. Definition (1) is as ordinary a definition as
you can get. As far as I can see it is unobjectionable.
The only difficulty with (2) is that it is presented only
for the buska-sisku pair, so if you want to extend it to
the use of {lo'e broda} in other predicates you have to be
able to create analogous pairs. But you seem to be objecting
even to the buska-sisku case. Am I abusing too much of your
patience if I ask you to show step by step how (2) leads to
an incoherence?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.� Join now!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp