[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lojban duplications
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, Ken Taylor <taylor@gca.com>, List Reader <ghsvax!hal>
- Subject: Re: Lojban duplications
- From: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Oct 91 15:54:44 EDT." <9110092027.AA02136@julia.math.ucla.edu>
- Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
Is it our current doctrine that, for each predicate, besides the
numbered places, the predicate relation includes every <BAI> case
whether or not specified by words? In other words, every bridi
includes a (often unspecified, likely useless in practice, but
doctrinally important) tense, speaker, listener, language of
expression, cause (4 kinds), consequence (4 kinds), exemplar, etc. etc.
ad infinitum? Note that fi'o <bridi> can make a <BAI> case out
of every selbri in the language, so "ad infinitum" is to be taken
literally.
If not, just what is the status of the <BAI> cases?
In case anyone cares, I support this interpretation, and I believe that
both JCB and Lojbab have made statements of this form though not so
extreme. But I acknowledge that this doctrine has very heavy
philosophical consequences, which I am not able to fathom.
-- jimc