[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] RE: Llamban


la pycyn cusku di'e


<<
     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
>>
I think you have failed to understand the symbolism you are using. "\x" can be replaced only by a sigular term, one meant in context to refer to a single 
individual.


Yes, that's what I'm taking loi blabi to be, some mass of white
things. I really thought you and I had agreed about this last
time we discussed {loi}.


<<
Which {sisku} sentence cannot be written in terms of {buska}?
>>
Well, the current case seems to be {mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du loi broda}.


That's {mi buska lo'e du be loi broda} or equivalently
{mi buska lo'e poi'i ke'a du loi broda}.


<<
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.
>>
But what do they need them for.  You say that there is nothing new added by
using {buska} rather than {sisku}.


But {sisku} does add something to {buska}. The same thing
that {kairbroda} adds to {broda}. Another way of making that
gain is using {lo'e} with {broda} instead of using {kairbroda}.


What would be added by using {kairbroda}
rather than {broda}? {lo'e} ought at least do something that can't be done
otherwise or do what it does remarkably more efficiently than the other way. 

Precisely. We need either {lo'e} or {kairbroda}. Either one
makes the other redundant.
I don't see doubling every predicate by at least one other one as efficiency. 

Nor am I proposing to do that.


<<
You will claim to not understand what {kairkalte}
means, even though you understand {sisku} perfectly well.
>>
My problem is always with what {buska} means when it cannot be used to (or it 
is not clearly spelled out how it is used) to rewrite {sisku} senences.


Any {buska} sentence can be written as a {sisku} sentence, and
conversely, once we have defined {lo'e}, any {sisku} sentence
can be written as a {buska} sentence.


>Well, it doesn't seem to: {mi buska la crlakomz} = {mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u
>du
>la crlkakomz}

No!
>>
Yes! {la crlakomz} is a paradigm case of an individual term and so just what 
can replace a lambda'd variable.


As long as you make the replacement correctly, at the right level.


<<
{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.
>>
This would only be a problem if the name were first movced OUT. But there is 
no reason to do so here -- and it was never done with any other singular
term.  This is rampant adhocery to save you from an embarassment.
Unfortunately, it undercuts all the rest you have done, because we now do not 
have a rule for lambda'd variable replacement either.


This is the definition:

tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e ce'u goi ko'i zo'u
     ko'a buska ko'e ko'i
cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e ce'u goi ko'i zo'u
     ko'a sisku tu'o ka ce'u du ko'e kei ko'i

Let us now apply this relationship to the threesome
(zo'e, la cerlakomz, zo'e). We get:

  la cerlakomz goi ko'e zo'u buska ko'e
=  la cerlakomz goi ko'e zo'u sisku tu'o ce'u du ko'e

We can simplify the LHS to {buska la cerlakomz}.
We cannot do the same to the RHS if names have intension.


<<
You just misapplied the definition. And don't say that I'm
changing the rules. The definition was clear from the start.
>>
Yes, the definition is clear from the start and your adhoc rule change
violates it.


No rule change.


As I said earlier, don't use technical stuff if you don't know
how.


I try not to. In this case I'm pretty confident I'm using
it correctly.


And don't try to change it if you don't like what it does.  Use
something that works your way insteda (but do explain it first).


I am not changing it. I'm using the same definition I started
with.


<<
No. You can never move {la crlakomz} in to start with. It has to
remain outside from the get go.
>>
Where was it outside?  My move is a paradigm application fo Def 1.


In def 1, all three arguments of the relationship are outside.
As an afterthought, consider {mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du la crlakomz} . Either 
this is, as it seems, a perfect case for Def 1, allowing the move to {mi
buska la crlakomz}, or it cannot be translated into {buska} language,


It is {mi buska lo'e du la cerlakomz}, by Def 2.
Def 1 does not apply if {la cerlakomz} can't be moved to the top level.


in
which case, {buska} is incomplete as a rewrite rule -- and at a crucial point 
to.  So, either {buska2} is intensional or {buska} fails to explain many
interesting cases -- and so can only be considered as partially explaining
{lo'e}.


Neither. You were perhaps misunderstanding Def 1.
It is an ordinary definition, so the variables are
all at the top level.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp