History: du'au

Source of version: 1 (current)

From jboske xelmri:

     John:
     > And Rosta scripsit:
     >
     > > What is the difference between an incomplete proposition like
     > > "___ klama" or "___1 klama ___2" and a property or relation like
     > > "ce'u klama" and "ce'u klama ce'u"? I don't know. I don't know
     > > whether there is a difference.
     >
     > If you mean "proposition" strictly, there isn't any.  If you are using it
     > as a synonym for "sentence", then it is the difference between a sentence
     > expressing a relation and the relation itself.  The latter is an abstract
     > object, the former is a syntactic form.

     Ergo, since I mean "proposition" strictly (I think), the interrogativoid,
     qkau, variety of du'u abstraction -- call it du'u1 -- should be
     expressible on the basis of the variety of du'u -- du'u2 -- that
     expresses properties/relations/incomplete propositions.

     1  {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
     2  {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation

     3  {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}
        = x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}

     I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
     cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
     would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
     to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.

     So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.

     4  mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
        "Who I love is a flaw in me"

     5  {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
        fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}

     {du'au} has to be in NU because it must have its own prenex; a lujvo
     wouldn't suffice.

     I know I'm the only one who cares whether we can say (5), but
     setting that aside, would you agree that (5) serves to express
     explicitly the logical form that (4) is shorthand for?

     --And.
-----
     xorxes:
     > la and cusku di'e
     >
     > >1  {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
     > >2  {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation
     > >
     > >3  {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}
     > >    = x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}
     > >
     > >I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
     > >cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
     > >would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
     > >to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.
     > >
     > >So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.
     > >
     > >4  mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
     > >    "Who I love is a flaw in me"
     > >
     > >5  {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
     > >    fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}
     >
     > Don't you mean:
     >
     >   mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
     >   fa lo'e du'au ko'a prami ce'u

     Maybe; my mind was boggling to a degree, & I when I wrote it I was
     more than a little febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot
     that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith in the benignancy of
     vegetables. Anyway, let me see...

     I did mean it the way I said, but maybe your way round is better.

     > The thing in x1 of jetnu has to be completion, not a property.

     Hmm. A completion would be {lo'e du'u jetnu fa lo'e du'u ce'u
     prami la djan}, which can mean in standard Lojban: "the property of
     being such that it is true that one is broda".

     Of course, as you noticed, in that reading, the ce'u belongs to
     the outer bridi, not the inner. So that's a problem for my
     version.

     > The thing in x1 of cfila has to be a property, not a completion.

     But the completion is a property. In standard {du'u ce'u broda makau},
     each thing that is a du'u ce'u broda makau is of the form
     {du'u ce'u broda la djan}.

     > And thing in x2 of cfila has to be the one in x1 of prami, and the
     > holder of the property in x1 of cfila.

     Eh? Come again? Oh I see, I read that as "and the holder of the
     property has to be in x1 of cfila", but you mean "x2 has to be the
     holder of the property that is in x1 of cfila".

     Okay. So the ce'u bound to x2 of cfila has to belong to the
     outermost bridi in x1 of cfila.

     So let's try it your way (with gadri switched).

        mi se cfila lo'e du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
        fa loi du'au ko'a prami ce'u

     A completion gives:

        mi se cfila lo'e du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
        fa lo'e du'uu ko'a prami la djan

     ... which is exactly right. Fuck me. I've never known anybody
     as on the ball as you. It's extraordinary. u'e cai. io cai.

     --And.
History: du'au

Source of version: 1 (current)

Search Lojban Resources
