[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:45:19PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >The prototype
> >and the average views of lo'e work fine and we can debate them, but
> >the Unique view and the xorxes do-whatever-the-speaker-wants view
> >are both poorly defined and not true to the intended meaning of the
> >cmavo.
>
> Here is a definition of lo'ei if you are really interested:
>
> http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/lo%27ei
>
> If you don't understand it but you are still interested,
> please ask and I will try to clarify. If you don't
> understand it and don't care, then please don't talk
> about it. If you do understand it and you still think
> it's crap, I'd be interested in your reasoned criticism
> rather than namecalling.
I don't know what "tu'o ka" is supposed to mean, but I'm assuming
the same as leka. I'll retract my statement about "lo'ei" being
poorly defined---it's certainly better defined than And's Unique
stuff at least, though I still maintain that neither have anything
to do with lo'e.
So it looks like lo'ei just fakes that overload-all-the-predicates
idea someone said here? (Where we just overload predicates to take
propositional functions also (e.g. mi djica lekanu mi citka)). This
(lo'ei) may in fact be cleaner, and if you can get it in without
trying to hijack lo'e I think it would probably be useful.
Actually here's another idea for the same problem; we could make a
ka'ai or such cmavo in NU. It creates a lambda expression just
like ka, but the interpretation isn't the expression itself like
ka, but instead any object, if there is any, which would form a
true proposition when placed in the expression. So the box foo:
mi djica leka'ai ce'u tanxe
is the I desire any thing which is a box. This could be a bit
cleaner than your lo'ei in that we get to keep our ce'us (and cleaner
than the simple overloading of djica and everything else to allow
taking ka also).
Anyway, my intent was not namecalling (and I don't think I did).
I apologize if you took it that way. But, lo'ei still falls flat
on the other issue, which is that it is not compatible with the
high-level description of lo'e/le'e given by the book. If you don't
want to push for them to be equivalent to lo'e, I have no problem
with them (and would probably consider using lo'ei, since currently
I don't know a non-tanru way to say "I want a box").
--
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:
bin8xArvF2o6D.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped