[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:20:53PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 04:08:10PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > > 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..
> >
> > I now understand that xod is talking about a haecceity -- the
> > properties that make an individual that indidividual and not some
> > other individual. One way to model this is indeed as the class
> > containing only that thing, so long as the class is defined
> > intensionally
> >
> > I don't think we really need a NU for this, but it's how I choose
> > to interpret {me}. So {me lai xod} = "has the properties that
> > make something xod and not any other individual", "xoddity"
>
> If you're speaking individuals, you should've used "la". "lai" is
> almost useless, because if I name a mass and then refer to it, the
> mass itself is still a single individual. "lai xod" means the mass
> of things named xod---but there's only one..
{la xod} = each member of the category I call 'xod'
{lai xod} = the membership of the category I call 'xod'
Both are correct, but {lai} is preferable because it involves no
redundant quantification and uses a singular term to describe
a single individual.
> {me la xod} still doesn't work for what xod wants, anyway, afaict
Would {ka ce'u me la xod}? I think it would.
> > > "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))
> >
> > I don't think {du'u mi xunre} is the same as {mi xunre} or
> > {mi poi'i ke'a xunre}. So if {ka ce'u xunre mi} means {du'u mi
> > xunre} (and I can see why you think it would), then ka with x2+
> > won't replace poi'i
>
> [ I assume you meant {ka ce'u xunre kei be mi} ]
I didn't. I wasn't aware that there was a semantic difference.
I have only seen {be} used on a nonfinal tanru component before.
> This is the whole point of a lambda expression... If it doesn't
> reduce like it should, what are the additional places supposed to
> do?
>
> It can still replace poi'i, because it doesn't become a du'u
> if you don't fill all the free variables
> le se ka xunre
> is the same as
> le xunre
> and
> mi se ka xunre
> is equivalent to
> mi xunre
Does {mi se ka ce'u xunre kei zo'e} mean {mi xunre} or {zo'e du'u
mi xunre}?
> [...]
> > > [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)
> >
> > These matters were thoroughly thrashed out a couple of months ago,
> > and although I don't think we agreed on a disambiguation of ni,
> > we did agree that, roughly speaking, a jei scale can be projected
> > from a ni scale, or that in some ways the two scales can be seen
> > as two ways of measuring/categorizing the same thing
>
> What do you mean by a disambiguation? I contend that {jei} can be
> defined in terms of {ni} using ni2, and that anyone using it to
> indicate degree or scale of something other than truth is using it
> incorrectly
The two candidate meanings for ni are:
1. du'u se la'u ma kau
2. du da poi se la'u ke'a = jai se la'u
or: jai se la'u jei
(or xorxes's more elegant formulations thereof, which I can't remember).
I think xod and I are of the opinion that ni1 and xukau and ni2 and
jei categorize the same scale -- the degree to which something is
the case -- but that ni1/ni2 and xukau/jei categorize it in different
ways. The idea is that two states of affairs can be the case to
different degrees yet both be true or both be false, so they have
different ni values but the same jei/xukau values. My apologies to
xod if I misrepresent him here.
--And.