[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
But, what if the arguments to {buska} are not individual terms? Then we do
not know what {buska a} means because we do not know how to translate it to
{sisku}.
Then you do as you do with any other predicate. Any predicate is defined only for individual terms. What it means with other terms is not up to the predicate but up to how those other terms work.
so we know what {buska} means on in special (albeit very common)
cases.
Just as for any other predicate. We only know what {catlu}
means with individual terms. What it means with other terms
will depend on how those other terms work. {buska} is just like
{catlu} in this regard. {buska} is just an ordinary predicate.
<< >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 >>As I said, it is the applications that get you into trouble. {loi broda} isNOT an individual term and therefore you cannot use this move (and, indded, said you never used it) .
Which move? {da po'u loi blabi}? Do you prefer
{ko'a goi loi blabi}? Then:
mi buska loi blabi
= ko'a goi loi blabi zo'u mi buska ko'a
= ko'a goi loi blabi zo'u mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du ko'a
Notice that the quantifier of {loi blabi} always remains
outside of the ka.
Now, it may be that there is a way to deal with
{da poi du loi broda} that eventually gets down to the right form and can
then be reconstructed on the other side back to {da po'u loi broda}, but I
don't know of one and you don't offer one.
You got it backwards. It starts on that side, it never moves
in to {ka da poi du lo broda}.
When you you do, I'll withdraw that particular objection and, hopefully, come up with another, until you convince me that this is not just an idle game off in its own playing field somewhere.
Your objection is just wrongheaded. From the definition of
{buska} you cannot just plug {loi broda} inside the ka.
<< 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? >> Well, it depends on the system. In Logic, the lambda calculus is complete. But in Logic the only terms refer to individuals. In Lojban there are a number of terms that do not: {lo broda, lo'e broda, loi broda} to deal withthe ones mentioned so far. Some of these can be reduced to direct referencesto individuals -- {lo broda} for example. Others of them, (lo'e broda} and (loi broda}, for now, cannot be -- or have not yet been shown to be.
{lo'e broda} cannot be so reduced. I thought we had agreed at
some point that {loi broda} can be reduced to direct references
to individuals of the set of all possible masses of broda. If
it cannot, then we have to look into how {loi broda} works, but
as an argument of any predicate, not especially for {buska}.
So, inLojban, the lambda definition is incomplete precisely in leaving those caseswithout a defined meaning.
But that applies equally to any predicate. {buska} is not
special in this regard.
Now, definition 2 fills in the {lo'e} case.
Is there an unmentioned Definition 3 to take care of the {loi} case?
The same definition that tells you how to fill the {loi}
case for an ordinary {broda} should work for {buska}.
Even filling that may not be enough: I have run through all the possible sumti forms yet to see how many are covered.
All forms covered for other {broda} are covered for {buska}.
So far, all we have is a rule that allows us to rewrite some (but by no means all) {sisku} sentences as {buska} sentences, at a significant savings of ink,
Which {sisku} sentence cannot be written in terms of {buska}?
but with other problems within the greater Lojban schme of things (thatunmarked intensional context for one). (Of course, if we could rewrite every{sisku} as a {buska} one and conversely, then one or the other would be superfluous -- and my vote would go for saving {sisku} -- and, since I suspect that you want something more than just a rewrite scheme, so part of the definition of {buska} has got to go outside {sisku} to somehting else.)
In the case of buska/sisku, all I want is a rewrite scheme.
The something more comes when we generalize the use of {lo'e}
from just the x2 of {buska} to any other place.
<< ><< >(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 > >> There was no problem with these contrasts before. We were already able to express the contrast in terms of sisku: >> So, what was worth adding a new predicate to the language?
Nothing. The new predicate is added only as a means of explanation, not because it has any independent usefulness of its own.
The contrast was put forward as a great (well, at least some) advantage, but if the contrast was already available then nothing was gained.
Nothing was gained in terms of expressiveness, indeed, by
introducing {buska}. But most predicates are not like {buska}
in having a convenient partner like {sisku} already defined
in the gi'uste.
I have some nice slogans ("the actual behavior of the typical
man is the typical behavior of men")
How would that go? Something like: lo'e remna ca'a tarti lo'e se tarti be lo'e remna Humans actually behave as humans behave.
Try explaining "the average man" in terms of it. (I must say that if you cando that -- or make a plausible start at it -- I have really misunderstood what you are doing and will apologize all over the place for evcer doubting you. But claim some credit for getting you to expatiate clearly).)
I certainly won't claim that my {lo'e nanmu} is "the average man".
It is "men in general".
<<
. I want to be clear about which step exactly
makes my definitions pointless.
>>
The fact that it never gets out of its closed circle nor explains what
{busku} means other than as a rewrite device.
{busku} is nothing but a rewrite device. But we don't have that
option with most other predicates, since {sisku} is one of a kind.
Of
course, we don't know what {kairbroda} means, any more than we know what
{buska} means -- burt we will know how to rewrite sentences of one sort
(though not all) in terms of sentences of the other sort. That is at least
one of the formal properties of an explanation.
We can write everything in terms of {sisku} but not in terms of
{buska} without {lo'e}.
Similarly we won't be able to write everything in terms of {kalte}
without having to resort to either {lo'e} or {kairkalte}.
{lo'e} is an alternative to {kairkalte}. You can dispose of one,
but not of both. You can explain one in terms of the other.
The nice thing about {sisku} is that you can't claim that I'm
bringing in an undefined predicate, like you will do with
{kairkalte}. You will claim to not understand what {kairkalte}
means, even though you understand {sisku} perfectly well.
So,yes, I can work the analogy. I do, however, have trouble imagining a usefulcase, since it will probably involve {broda} and {kairbroda} on opposite sides of an equation and thus just be the definition of the new terms all over again. And I know those work if the moves are made carefully.
You will claim that in buska:sisku::kalte:kairkalte there are
two unknowns, even though {buska} is fully defined.
<< 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. >>Well, it doesn't seem to: {mi buska la crlakomz} = {mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u dula crlkakomz}
No!
{mi buska la crlakomz}
= {ko'a goi la crlakomz zo'u mi buska ko'a}
= {ko'a goi la crlakomz zo'u mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du ko'a}
You can only move {la crlakomz} in if moving names in is
licit in general. If names have intension then you can't
do it.
, from which you notoriously cannot move to {da zo'u mi sisku
tu'o ka ce'u du da}, since Sherlock Holmes does not exist.
You just misapplied the definition. And don't say that I'm changing the rules. The definition was clear from the start.
But, if {buska}
were a regular predicate, then we could go from the sentence above to {da
zo'u mi buska da}, moving from true ot false by purportedly legal moves.
No. You can never move {la crlakomz} in to start with. It has to
remain outside from the get go.
Themost likely move to be wrong in this case is generalization on {la crlakomz}, since we know tha is illicit for other reasons. So, {buska2} is intensional(I can work an identity case too if you want).
{buska} is not intensional. What would be the identity case,
given that the Sherlock case has not shown any problem with it?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp