[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



On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 08:01:13PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> 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?

The definition for Unique makes sense, but it's not a very precise
way of looking at things.  Under the way you define it, the exact
properties of the Unique-thing are completely up to the speaker---basically
anything can be predicated of it.

So the problem wouldn't be the definition, so much as the meaning.

[...]
> > 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? 

Because it doesn't matter.  We could also create a new selma'o and
a new rule in sumti-tail for this which takes KAhAI subsentence
/KEI/.

> 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.

I don't even know how to do "I want a box" in logic, if it is
possible.

The approach that xorxes' lo'ei does, is to use the predicate rather
than coding it into the logical structure.  So Want(mi, \x: box(x))
with no quantifications.  I suggested in another mail a while back
that maybe "I want a box" means (x)(Box(x) -> I want x), but I don't
think that's accurate because I could want two boxes, or three
boxes.

-- 
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: binEsCdH44xzH.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped