Re: 'metalogical descriptions'

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>Date:         Sat, 10 Dec 1994 00:19:48 +0000
>From: ucleaar <ucleaar%UCL.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>Thanks,* Mark for dihe:
>[*I daren't risk the thanks UI, because I textually confuse it with the
>textual confusion UI]
>> >How do we say things like
>> >  the predicate Gerku has 2 places [NB NOT the word 'gerku']
>> loi du'u gerku cu bridi fi reda

>Isn't loi duhu gerku a predication, a bridi, rather than a predicate,
>a selbri? Say we took the example "I defined the predicate Flombo":
>we don't want "I defined lo duhu flombo".

Um, I think you're right about loi du'u gerku (maybe loi bridi be zo gerku
would be better), but it may be okay in this situation.  My sentence thus
says "predications over predicate "gerku" are predications among two
arguments.  That's pretty good for what you want, though it doesn't
explicitly call "gerku" a selbri.  Actually, it does; if loi du'u gerku is
a bridi, then gerku must be the selbri of that bridi (moreso if I use the
"loi bridi be zo gerku" construction).  Did I try suggesting "reda cu sumti
la'e zo gerku"?  If not, think about it, too.

>---
>And

~mark