Re: lojban predicates

[John Cowan <cbmvax!UUNET.UU.NET!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>]

la mark. clsn. cusku di'e

> Bob [Chassell] started out by comparing gismu/selbri to mathematical
 operators,
> drawing lectures from John Cowan on Lojban MEX and exactly how to say
> "2+2=4".  This was NOT his point.

I know it wasn't.  But I wanted to nip that analogy in the bud, as it is
not only bogus but has led to trouble with MEX before.

> Bob's new form of definitions are definitely something to consider.  I
> don't think they should necessarily replace the current form (which aren't
> even intended to be definitions anyway), if only because they're hard to
> read, but they definitely have the right concepts for Lojban.

This form, which Bob has independently reinvented, has always been intended
for use in the dictionary, supplementing the one-sentence format (not
replacing it) somewhat as follows:

        klama:  x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3 via x4 using x5, where:
                x1 is the AGENT,
                x2 is the DESTINATION,
                x3 is the ORIGIN,
                x4 is the ROUTE,
                x5 is the MEANS OF TRANSPORT.

> The role of
> the selbri, as Bob correctly points out, is to indicate a *relationship*
> that supposedly exists among the arguments (sumti).  As Bob puts it, the
> brivla is a *label* for the relationship.  This is a good idea to have in
> the back of your mind, if difficult think with at all times.

There is one point where the model breaks down, and that is the one-place
brivla.  "blanu" does not really express a relationship, because the
English word "relationship" is inherently two-place or more.
I prefer to say, somewhat verbosely, that a brivla labels a "relationship
of two or more sumti, or a property of one sumti".

> One thing that's been bothering me:  I like to think that semantically,
> there should be no difference between using "zo'e" to ellipsize a sumti and
> omitting it altogether.  That is, "mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e" and "mi
> klama" should have the same denotation (though perhaps somewhat different
> connotations, the former being more explicit).

This is correct.

> For this reason, I tend to
> feel a trifle uncomfortable about using "zo'e" for the explicit "something"
> that we use in English, or about putting "poi"-relative phrases after ity.
> Not very uncomfortable, mind you; I still do it.

You should feel uncomfortable.  The English "something" has two translations,
"zo'e" and "da", and some thought is generally needed to know which one is
appropriate.  In particular, "zo'e poi ..." is almost always bogus:  "zo'e"
means "the unspecified thing, the thing I'm not bothering to spell out"
and to qualify that with a "poi" contradicts the intended use.
(Lojban dogma prevents me from branding "zo'e poi" meaningless, but I'd
like to.)  "da poi" is generally the appropriate form.

--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban