Re: replies mainly re "ka"

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge, noi ca zvati lo gento gugde:
> > (a) I used "dakau", not "makau".
> Is there any difference between them? The grammar papers say they are
> synonymous.

I know a question-word can be followed by kau, and that goes into english
as an interrogative pronoun. But how what that work for "da kau"? Is it
just "da kau" that can get this interrogativoid interpretation,, or
does it apply to other non-Q words when followed by kau?

> > (b) It's not clear to me that your example does involve a property.
> Can two things differ in anything but their properties?

No.
If x1 differs from x2 in property x3, whose property is x3's supposed
to be? x1's or x2's? If it's a property they both have, then it's not
one by which they differ.

> > What is really meant is
> >    lo cinba be la pedros lo cinba be la markos cu frica
>
> In what do they differ? Probably {drata} would work better here.

How do I know how they differ? I don't know Pedro & Marco. Maybe
one kisser's married and one isn't. There's a zohe in x3. "drata"
wd work, but I don't see a problem here with "frica".

> > Yes I see the need for something to abbreviate this, but not for ka.
> > Maybe
> >    la pedros la markos frica lo cinba be py o nai my
> I don't understand why you don't like a property as the x3 of frica,
> it would seem the most natural thing.

No, it's fine for x3 to be a property. The problem is if the property
is supposed to be both x1's and x2's, as in your example. I was seeking
another way to express your meaning.

> How can they differ in "at least one kisser of one but not the other"?

I'm having trouble reconstructing my idea... Let's not waste time, and
pass on instead to:

> > Here is my best attempt so far:
> > Ex: x = M or x = P; Ey, Ez: y and z are the set of all kissers of x,
> > and y is not equal to z
> How can y and z be the same thing (the set of all kissers of x) and not
> be equal?

For a start, I worded it badly, as usual: y and z are a set of all kissers
of x.
If it needs to be made explicit: M is not P.
Then y and z can be either (i) the set of all kissers of M, or (ii)
the set of all kissers of P. Since y and z are different, one must be
(i), and the other must be (ii).

> > How does that lojban?
> >    da poi du la marcos a la pietros zohu de e di [end coordination]
> >    poi du lohi cinba be da zohu de di na du
> Contradiction. If de and di are equal to the same thing, then
> {de di na du} is false.

De and di aren't supposed to be equal to the same thing. But I do
discern contradiction. Okay, let's try again.

  de e di [end coord] poi du lohi cinba be da poi du la marcos a la
  pietros zohu de di na du

De is the set of kissers of da. Da is M or P. So either
de is the set of kissers of M, or de is the set of kissers of P.
Same goes for di. Since de is not di, one must be the set of kissers
of P, and the other must be the set of kissers of M.

> > >         le mlatu cu zenba le ka my barda
> > >         The cat increases in property it is big.
> > "le ka my barda" doesn't seem right. I see the x1 of ka as a
> > category (i.e. a sumti slot, a place of a predicate) and the
> > x2 of ka as a member of the x1 of ka.
> I'm not sure I understand this use of "member". The x2 would be the
> one who exhibits property x1. Is that a member of x1?

Yes. "Mi se ka keha nanmu" iff "mi nanmu" - both to me mean "I am
a member of the category: x1-of-nanmu".

> > ("Ka" works like the
> > predicate "x1 is species of x2".) So it doesn't make sense
> > to have a full bridi (i.e. having a truth value) as complement
> > of ka.
> Does a full bridi for {li'i} make sense to you?

Yes. "Mi se lihi [zohe] carvi" makes sense to me as "I experience rain".

> I think they are similar cases.

"Mi se ka zohe carvi" makes no sense to me at all. "Mi se ka keha carvi"
means "I am rain".

But "I experience rain" can be "Mi lifri lo carvi", and the tricky
thing to say is "I experience being a man". So I would like to see
ka and lihi parallel, as you suggest. In that case, "Mi se lihi [zohe]
carvi" ought ideally to be ungrammatical, and "Mi se lihi keha nanmu"
means "I experience being a man".

I am here using your keha for purposes of clarity only. I believe
the need for it shows that ka, and, I am persuaded, lihi, are lodged
in the wrong selmaho.

> > So by my understanding of ka, it just doesn't make any
> > sense at all without a "lambda variable", distinguishing, e.g.:
> >    the property of being a mother
> >    the property of having a mother
> > I'd have thought this ought to be the job of a gadri.
> > Something like "lo ka mi nelci do" just doesn't make sense to me.
> I tend to agree, but I don't think it's a real problem. (I keep
> using {ke'a} for the lambda variable, for lack of a better alternative.)
> You would say: {lo ka ke'a nelci do kei be mi} = "the property of
> liking you which I exhibit" or {lo ka mi nelci ke'a kei be do} = "the
> property of being liked by me which you exhibit".
> If ke'a is replaced in these cases by the corresponding sumti, it still
> makes sense, even if it's not perfectly logical to do so.

If keha is replaced in these cases by a non-corresponding sumti, then
you get syntactically fine garbage that is semantic garbage (real junk,
not just something surreal [=pragmatic "nonsense"]).

You advocate a grammar change to allow use of keha.
I instead advocate a grammar change whereby ka and lihi move out of
NU. Ka could move into LE, but a more conservative move would be
to set up a new selmaho for ka and lihi, such that:
   as a syntactic head it behaves like LE
   is a syntactic dependent it is a selbri

This better maintains the pleasing homomorphism between syntax and
semantics in Lojban.

> > But at any rate, I'd like to see a gadri version of ka, meaning "the
> > category of": it takes a selbri with all but one sumti saturated and
> > yields a sumti.
> That pretty much describes {leka broda}, just leaving the x1 vacant.
> Usually, that is where the lambda variable is assumed.

That's not the *syntax* of "leka broda". The syntax is "leka [zohe]
broda". I advocate making changing the syntax to fit the appropriate
semantics.

> > Alternatively, if we were to stick with ka, but move
> > it out of NU, then let it take a selbri with all but one sumti saturated
> > and let it yield a selbri - "is a member of the [singleton] category of
> > categories of".
> I don't understand this "category of categories of".

Well, say a category is a set. "da ka gerku" would give "da is a member
of the set that contains every set that contains every dog". (There is
only one set that contains every dog, so there is only one member of
the set that contains every set that contains every dog.)
"da lihi gerku" would give "da is a member of the set that contains
every experience of being a dog". (There are lots of experiences of
being a dog, so "lkihi gerku", unlike "ka gerku", is not a singleton.)

> > And makau itself may come under further attack. (Lojbab has averred
> > that it is malglico, & I have tentatively agreed, offerring "lo ka du
> > lohi" as a more zabna logji formulation.)
> To me, "the property of being equal to the set ..." doesn't help. I don't
> agree that you can use {le ka...} in places where normally you would use
> a {le du'u...}.

My key point is that a locution meaning "the identity of the set" is the
zabna logji solution. "lo ka du lohi" was my best shot at saying that
in lojban, but maybe a new cmavo in LAhE meaning "the identity of" might
be more satisfactory.

> > > How about:
> > > lo'e ka lo gligicnau cu vusnei lo'e bavmyxalselpinxe cu se pucycpa
> > > i lo'e ka lo kotnau cu co'e cu se cerda
> > Since I think ka yields a singleton category, the choice of gadri
> > (lo vs. lohe) doesn't matter.
> That's why I always prefer {le ka}. I agree that ka yields a singleton,
> and to me, {le} is the best gadri for such things, but I agree that
> {lo} is also acceptable. (Same thing with {le du'u})

That's interesting. I mean about duhu. I reckon ni is the same.
But not lihi or siho or nu.

Pity that can't be grammaticalized, e.g. by making:
  duhu and ni take a bridi and yield a sumti
  siho and nu take a bridi and yield a selbri [i.e. no change]
  ka take what LE takes and yield a sumti
  lihi take what LE takes and yield a selbri

However, after making this delightful-to-me-but-surely-noxious-to-Lojbab
suggestion, I realize that duhu has an x2 for the sentence expressing
the bridi and ni has an x2 for the scale the amount is measured on,
so "seduhu" and "seni" aren't singleton categories, and making duhu
and ni yield sumti would lose "seni" and, worse, "seduhu".

> > I'd prefer:
> >   suho buha cei vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe zohu
> >   loka buha gihe gligicnau cu pruce
> It is not the property that is a process. It is the acquiring of it.

No I did mean the property is a process. But I see now for the first
time a problem.
This is what I meant: A property is a category, which is basically
like a set. The set is a process: it comes into being in stages.
But that's not right: what is a process is "being a member of the
category". So instead I shall say:

   Naho ku lo nu ro lo gligicnau buha cu pruce
or
   Naho ku pruce fa ro lo nu cmima loka buha gihe gligicnau

> > I still can't find a satisfactory rendition of "A scotsman's is
> > heriditary". It plunges us back into the "any" discussion: I want
> > to say "if you arbitrarily pick x, x kotnau & x buha, then x cerda
> > lo ka buha". Here's my best attempt:
> >    Naho ku ro lo kotnau gihe buha ku cmicerda lo ka buha
> That's not grammatical, you need {kotnau je bu'a}.
> > My hope is that with naho scoping over ro, the absoluteness of ro is
> > diluted.
> To me, na'o means "typically" in the sense of "for most of the time", not
> "for most cases". Your sentence says that for each Scotsman the property
> is inherited most of the time, but not constantly.

That looks like ro scoping over naho.
What I want is "In general, if you examine the world you will find that
each scotsman inherits the property", "the world is generally such that
each scotsman inherits the property", "it is generally the case that
each scotsman ....".

----
And