Re: Cowan's sum:opaque

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la djer. cusku di'e

> Suppose we had a language shift cmavo similar to, for example, the
> Greek lerfu shift, "ge'o", which would shift the following expression
> prior to its terminator into the language of first order predicate
> logic.  But predications about predications, i.e, all kinds of complex
> sumti, would be illegal then as expressing second order predicate
> logic.  It would force all following sumpti to be objects.

I don't think this says what you mean.  Lojban predications are already those
of 1st-order logic, if we exclude the bu'a series.  "le nu mi klama le zarci"
is just as good an "object" as "le mlatu".

We don't have predications about predications, but rather predications about
(abstract) objects which are derived from the subject-matter of predications.
Even "du'u", which talks about propositions and comes perilously near to
breaching the walls of 1st-order, can probably be gotten round by treating it
(as we do) as always an opaque context, so that "du'u mi klama le zarci"
means "the subject-matter of 'mi klama le zarci'".

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.