[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
I have pointed it out for each version of your tale, but that always turns out not to be the real tale. I suppose this can be put down to faulty exposition or faulty comprehension -- I am incline to the former view if those are the choices (and, if they are not all, I would put in a word for shifting positions eing expounded).
I will admit to faulty exposition. I have not consciously shifted
position since the beginning of the thread. The program has always
been: Step 1: define {buska} in terms of {sisku}. Step 2: define
{lo'e broda} in the context of {buska}. Step 3: Generalize, by
analogy, to other contexts.
<<
Before even starting to talk about {lo'e broda}, do you think
there is anything at all problematic about definition 1?
>>
We, yes, -- what does {buska} mean? How would we translate it -- into any
langauge but first of all into Lojban?
We use the definition:
\x\y\z buska(x,y,z) = \x\y\z sisku(x, \w du(w,y), z)
Since we know what {sisku} means, and we can always rewrite {buska}
in terms of {sisku}, we know what {buska} means.
How would we determine whether {mi
buska loi blabi} is true?
By rewriting it in terms of sisku:
mi buska loi blabi
= da po'u loi blabi zo'u mi buska da
= da po'u loi blabi zo'u mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du da
And so on -- it seems to be a very incomplete definition (see above).
How is it incomplete? What would constitute a complete definition? Is, in general, \xF(x) = \xG(\yH(x,y)) an incomplete definition? What else is needed to make it complete?
<<
DEFINITION 2: I define {lo'e broda} such that:
buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u broda
That's the definition. Is the definition in itself problematic?
(It may turn out to be be useless, but is it somehow incoherent?)
>>
Well, I can move the expressions back and forth, I suppose (it is not clear
what the definition means since I don't know what an identity sign between
two sentence fragments
I meant them as full sentences, not fragments.
means but I take it as either bertween propositional functions or else as material equivalence between the sentences formed by filling out the fragments in the same way).
Material equivalence, yes.
And, of course, it is not a definition of {lo'e broda} since it deals with itonly in a single context -- and that not a particularly common one (indeed,one that has never occurred outside theis discussion, so far as I can tell).But, as a claim about {lo'e broda} it is not incoherent as it stands.
Good!
The
problems have arisen with its use. Since {lo'e} is already part of the
language, this is not an introductory definition
Ok, now you're getting ahead of me. Before testing my definition against actual usage, we have to agree that it is not incoherent. I will be happy to test it against actual usage once we've settled that it is not nonsensical.
-- or, if it is, must be
checked to see whether it coheres with how {lo'e} already behaves in the
language.
It must be, in due time. But you've been trying to kill it before it gets on its feet.
Unfortunately, such a check is not possible, since the recently
introduced predicate {buska} is not defined for this context.
Nothing is defined for this context, because {lo'e broda} introduces
a new context. We know how {buska} behaves in all normal contexts,
and the introduction of {lo'e} creates a new context (which we will
eventually generalize to other predicates besides {buska}).
So, I takeDefinition 2 to be defining an extension of {lo'e} into a new context, whereit has no established use, since the opportunity has not arisen before.
Exactly.
<< Now, how is that definition useful? It is useful because it permits us to contrast: (A) buska lo broda = da poi broda zo'u sisku tu'o ka ce'u du da (B) buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da >> Was there a problem with these contrasts before or is this a new discovery.
There was no problem with these contrasts before. We were already able to express the contrast in terms of sisku: (A') da poi broda zo'u sisku tu'o ka ce'u du da (B') sisku tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da
I have to admit that this version is novel -- false, but novel.
What is false? I have only used the definitions.
I think the
novelty comes from not having considered the various concepts that are
identical (oof!) to tu'o ka ce'u broda. The falseness just comes from this
not being what {lo'e broda} generally means.
You are saying that my definition of {lo'e} is false because
it does not agree with what {lo'e broda} already means. But you
don't say what it is that it already means. Perhaps you could
give a situation in which the true {lo'e} gives a true sentence
and mine gives a false one, or viceversa.
However, since this is about a
whole new context, it does seem to be the case that, around {buska} and
{sisku} these work out this way.
Great! <<
(B) is just definition 2 of {lo'e broda} written in a way easier to compare with (A). >>Well, it also involves the (not obvious) identities among \x(x broda), \x(dapoi broda zo'i x = da), \x(x du lo broda)
Yes. I don't really see why they are not obvious. You seem to keep accepting them grudgingly though.
and \x(x du lo'e broda) The last ofthese works on your theory but has not been justified in it, so far as I canremember.
It is not involved in the move to (B), but it will turn out to
be true. To show you how it is true though, we first need the full
kairbroda theory. So far we only know how {lo'e broda} behaves
in the x2 of {buska}. We don't yet know how it behaves as an
argument of {du}.
It is a nice differentiation, as I noted, though not quite the right one, I think, outside this novel situation.
Ok. How does it differ from the "right one"? It is one valid differentiation. I don't see what could be "wrong" about it.
<<
The RHS's of (A) and (B) clearly make a useful distinction,
and the LHS's are a convenient shorthand for making that
distinction, so my definitions, if coherent, are useful.
>>
The RHSs are clearly different and if that difference is of some use later
on, then it is handy. I personally don't intend to use {buska} much so I
don't see it as very useful.
I personally don't intend to use {buska} at all. I will keep using
{sisku} with the meaning of {buska}. But retaining the official
meaning of {sisku} is useful in this discussion, which is not
about what is better or preferrable in usage but rather in trying
to understand whether the definition I offer for {lo'e} is workable
or not.
If this is somehow meant to say something about {lo'e} in more familiar situations -- with a normal predicate, {broda} for{busku} and {kairbroda} for {sisku}, then, again, I can say that it appearsto work out that these moves work,
Great!
but that tells me nothing about {lo'e}
with familiar predicates only
I agree. But I can't proceed to the next step until we've cleared up the first one. I want to be clear about which step exactly makes my definitions pointless.
-- and, indeed, seems to suggest that the
difference between {lo} and {lo'e} is just quantifier scope, which does not
otherwise seem to be right.
Maybe it is not the right one, but at least you agree that there is a difference.
<< If definition 2 is somehow incoherent or leads to incoherence, I would like to understand why. >> Again, what are going to do with these? That has been where the problem is all along.
For the moment, just notice that they are different and that
there is nothing incoherent about it. Once that is admited, we
can move to the next step which is to generalize the buska-sisku
relationship to any broda-kairbroda pair by analogy. Does this
step introduce an incoherence? I don't think so. If it doesn't,
we can start to analyze what this gives for {lo'e broda} with
different predicates.
Oh, nice rhetorical turn! But ignoring the move, yes, I really want you or someone to come up with a good way of dealing with {lo'e}. So far in thisexposition -- i.e., without using the definitions at all actively -- there isnothing incoherent.
That's a start. Can I take the following step? Can you figure out
what {kairbroda} is from the kairbroda:broda::sisku:buska analogy?
If so, then I'm prepared to start looking at useful cases. If not,
what is the problem with making the analogy?
It deals almost exclusively with an area that is totallynew to Lojban and thus not already determined, so it can't even conflict withusage or meaning.
Right.
But, by the same token, it can't explain any of the older usage or meaning either. So, so far it is a pretty little closed exercise without any particular use
I agree. It is just the preliminaries. But we need to agree on what we're talking about before moving on to more useful stuff.
-- unless we suddenly develop aneed for {buska},
which seems inherently unlikely (it has an unmarked intensional slot, for
example, which would be really a bad idea in Lojban).
Huh? Which intensional slot? All slots of {buska} are ordinary
slots. {buska lo broda} behaves identically to any other
{brode lo broda} as far as quantifiers and intensionality is
concerned.
I won't try to convince you that you are wrong, because so far you are not -- you've invented the game and made the rules and so far you are playing by them.
Good!
It just has no relevance to Lojban.
We can determine that if we can get to the useful cases. I can't
move on though until we've agreed that a predicate like
{kairbroda}, analogous to {sisku}, is not incoherent.
[Yes, you should be insulted: AFAMs are Masons originally and by extension people who innocently or ignorantly spread codswallop, AMORCs are Rosicrucians, i.e., those who do it knowingly and to fleece the gringos.]
Well, if I were to spread codswallop, I think I would prefer to do it knowingly though, so I will not be offended. :) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Surf the Web without missing calls!�Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp