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


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

RE: [jboske] RE: fundamentalism as fundamental (RE: Re: gadri paradigm:2 excellent proposals



Jordan:
> I'll retract my statement about "lo'ei" being
> poorly defined---it's certainly better defined than And's Unique
> stuff at least, 

Which definition did you find poorly done, and which particular
elements of the definition did you have trouble with?

> though I still maintain that neither have anything
> to do with lo'e 

I take it then, that you do understand Unique, and just are
dissatisfied with the definition; otherwise you would not have
grounds for saying Unique has nothing to do with lo'e. [I'm
being disingenuous there; in reality I do believe you capable
of not understanding it yet dismissing it as the meaning of
lo'e.] Feel free to suggest a definition of Unique that more
satisfactorily captures the essential idea of it.

It might also be helpful for you to spell out the reasons
with in Standard Lojban lo'e must be Prototype rather than
Unique. (Or if not Prototype, then whichever notion you think
CLL ascribes to 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) 

Why "le" ka'ai? 

mi djica leka'ai ce'u tanxe
= Ax, either x is not in le'i ka'ai ce'u tanxe or mi djica x

I don't see how that helps. Perhaps if you could state the logical
formula you want to do in Lojban, then we could see how to say it
in Lojban.

--And.