History: SE ka

Source of version: 2 (current)

A proposal by ((djorden.|djorden)) on Jboske, which ((And|I)) like (unsurprisingly): * "modify the place structure of ka so that x2-xn are places for filling in lambda variables. Which variables are filled by which place could be specified by subscripts (ce'uxipa is x2, ce'uxire is x3, etc) or assumed left to right otherwise." This proposal would replace ''((poi'i))''. ---- This is not originally my proposal. The only part that I added to the current stuff floating around about seka was to have N places for the N variables instead of just x2. --jrd ;: (Now I know who jrd is!) Anyway, it __is__ surprising that And likes it, since I distinctly recall him having objected to it before. Oh, well, it's And :-). I am sympathetic to the proposal, but the problem that I see is that it would mean that all properties must be instatiated by something or other. Under the current difinition, there's nothing wrong with ''ka ce'u broda gi'enai broda'', which is a property which nothing can have, just as there's nothing wrong with the phrase ''du'u da broda gi'enai broda'', even though it's a contradiction. If ''ka'' had an x2, then ''ka broda gi'enai brode'' would mean ''ka broda gi'enai brode kei zo'e'', and there's nothing that actually can instatiate such a property. It also breaks ''ka''s parallel with ''du'u'', but that can probably be fixed. -- ((Adam)) ** The n-place predicates have only as many places as you use. When you say "du", you aren't claiming equivalence to an infinity of zo'es---the unused places aren't part of it. Same with xn ka. --mi'e ((.djorden.)) *** But the number of places of ''ka'' isn't really variable here like it is with ''du''; the number of places is fixed by how many ''ce'u''s the ''ka'' contains. You're proposing that an unfilled/unmentioned place need not even exist in the place structure (which I might support, but it would be a __huge__ change to lojban semantics). --Adam **** It can't be a huge change to lojban semantics, because ''ka'' doesn't have other places right now; nothing old will be invalidated, etc etc. --jrd ***** It would be a huge change if it were applied to all selbri consistently. Selbri would have a variable number of places based on how many places are actually filled in the sentence. --Adam ****** No one suggested application to all selbri. ;: I don't remember objecting to se ka other than because it is baseline-violating. I did, however, object to poi'i+ce'u instead of poi'i+ke'a, and my reasons for that also comprise my sole reservation to SEka. --((And)) See [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10206|10206]. As for ''ce'u'' instead of ''ke'a'', 9999 out of 10000 cases in which the same place is mentioned more than once can be handled by ''le [[se] nei'' or ''cy.'' --Adam ;: How on earth did you find that message? But it jogs my memory, and I think that, thanks to your reminder, I'll have to oppose SE ka, because it changes the meaning of ka from the property itself to a claim that the property/relation applies to the non-x1 arguments of ka. This objection didn't apply to xorxes's original {se ka} proposal, because the idea there was that ka is monadic *except* when ''se ka'', whereupon it becomes like poi'i. Regarding ''le nei'' and ''cy'', the latter relies on glorking, and the former works only in a very restricted set of structural contexts. --((And))