Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la veion pu cusku di'e

> >> How about statements involving symmetry, like
> >>
> >>     *do zmadu mi leka xa'eda ctuca xa'ede fo la lojban
> >>     *le gapru cu filmau le cnita leka klama xa'eda xa'ede

>   The idea was to consider xa'eda associating with one sumti of the main
>   bridi and xa'ede with the other to get a reciprocity which I feel cannot
>   satisfactorily be expressed using {soi} (we would have the same problem
>   with the second sumti within the abstraction as we had with the first
>   one before the introduction of {xa'e}) or {simxu} (who would be the
>   second party in the mutuality) in a context like this, i.e. I was after
>   comparing 'you teaching me' to 'me teaching you' and 'going from above
>   to below' to 'going from below to above'. But I guess it doesn't quite
>   work like that. Would be nice, though. If we cannot think of 'real'
>   multi-lambda properties, I think we just might allow a usage like this -
>   it is a matter of definition, and no more far-fetched than the notion
>   of {xa'e} in the first place.

What convention do you propose? It would seem you are using two different
ones in your two examples.

What we want to say is:

le nu klama le cnita le gapru cu filmau le nu klama le gapru le cnita
Going from above to below is easier than going from below to above.

or:

le nu klama le cnita le gapru cu zmadu le nu klama le gapru le cnita kei
le ka [xa'eda/ke'a] frili

How do you propose to go from that to the compact form with two lambdas?


>   co'o mi'e veion

co'o mi'e xorxes