[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 04:08:10PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:46:54PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > [...]
> > > A few hours ago, Jorge wrote
> > >
> > > i na vajni fa le du'u makau catra la lauras
> > > It doesn't matter who killed Laura.
> > >
> > >
> > > Had we an identity abstractor Q, with lambda ce'u, then we could have said
> > > {na vajni fa le Q ce'u catra ly.} We weren't given one, which is why I use
> > > {su'u ce'u broda keibe lo kamse'i}.
> >
> > That would mean "The person who killed laura is not important". It
> > would not mean "It is not important who killed laura".
>
> su'u...kamse'i is not supposed to return the person, but the identity of
> the person. If it returns the person, it's useless! My self-ness is my
> uniqueness, but it's not me. I have hair, my self-ness doesn't.
I see; So I was confused over what you mean by identity (I was
thinking in the math sense where the identity just returns itself
(1 * 4 = 4, etc)).
So; what *is* the identity of something, if not the thing itself?
In some logics it is viewed as the class containing only that thing,
but I don't think that works here...
> > Identity abstract is nice (and we apparently have 3 proposed ways
> > to do it: seka, poi'i, jaika), but it's not what you mean.
> >
> > [...]
> > > So jaika is like the seka, which is actually pretty useless, since it does
> > > not provide identity (at best it, like every selbri, allows us to
> > > narrow-down the range of possibly sumti) and usually is used by people
> > > desiring jei. (I can expound on that last point if needed.)
> >
> > I don't understand that at all. What does se/te/ve ka have to do
> > with jei?
>
>
> My redness gets rendered as ka mi xunre (lacking a ce'u: no good) or ka
> ce'u xunre kei be mi (redness, and stick mi in the ce'u). It should be
> rendered either as jei mi xunre (the amount of my redness) or li'i mi
> xunre (experience of my redness)
No.
"ka mi xunre" is precisely the same as "du'u mi xunre", because
there's no places for ce'u to go (it would normally be "ka mi xunre
ce'u" but there is no x2 for xunre).
"ka ce'u xunre kei be mi" is precisely the same as "du'u mi xunre" because
you reduced the lambda variable. (it is (\x: xunre(x))[mi] == xunre(mi)).
"jei mi xunre" is the truth value of "I am red". In a lot of
contexts this will simply be a T or an F. This is the same as "ni
mi xunre kei be lesi'o jetnu". This is *not* affected by any
concerns as to how red you are.
What you *actually* want is "ni mi xunre". "ni" is a more general
version of "jei" which allows you to use whatever scale makes sense
instead of just the scale of truth of the proposition (in this case
it's probably a scale of luminousity or whatever). To be frank 90%
of the usage of "jei" which I see from you should be "ni", because
you're almost never actually talking about truth values, but rather
the extent or degree of whatever it is (which has nothing to do
with the truth of a proposition[1]).
[1] even in fuzzy logics this has nothing to do with anything. My
understanding is that a logic with infinite truth values ranging
0-1 considers the value of the expression to be a measure of our
certainty of its truth (or whatever). It has nothing to do with
whether the thing is 10lumens brighter or whatever. (I have no
idea how much a lumen is, btw).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
bin24QPEobIyE.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped