LLG 2001 Annual Meeting Minutes

From Lojban
Revision as of 16:56, 4 November 2013 by Gleki (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1. du'u, ka and si'o are logically identical. They all express n-adic relations, where n is the number of overt or covert ce'u within the abstraction. A proposition is a 0-adic relation. A property is a 1-adic relation.

2. The difference between du'u, ka and si'o is purely grammatical, and concerns the interpretation of elided sumti.

3. In du'u abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as zo'e.

4. In ka abstractions that contain one or more overt ce'u, all elided sumti are interpreted as zo'e.

5. In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, the default interpretation is that exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e. If contextual factors are sufficiently strong, the default can be overridden, and more than one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u according to the demands of the discourse context.

  • Original version: In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e.

6. In a ka abstraction in which an elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u, the sumti is normally the leftmost empty sumti, unless this default is overridden by strong contextual factors.

7. In si'o abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as ce'u.

-- mi'e And Rosta

With the modification proposed on the list by xorxes (5: at least one ce'u, except where context strongly indicates more than one, as in simxu), I think this is eminently sensible, and does not break existing usage. -- nitcion.

  • It arguably even makes sense of Michael's use of si'o. That is, it makes formerly iffy usage valid. -- And Rosta

But is an egregious waste of cmavo space for no purpose whatsoever. Assuming for the nonce that {ce'u} is actually meant to be used in the way typically done here (the list calls it a pseudo-quantifier -- whatever that means -- not a bound variable, after all), then the only logical way to deal with it is to make it everywhere explicit and then fudge back as context allows, not to have a passle of rules using up cmavo like peanuts at a beer party.

So, I suggest that {du'u} is the standrad form for propositions and thus putting {ce'u} in it creates properties and relation, depending on how many you put in. {ka} on the other hand is the the qualitative version of {ni}, giving properties of the enclosed event (another way to do adverbs, if you will). {si'o} seems to be about mental or mentalistic critters, complete thoughts or ideals or the corresponding partials related to properties and relations. On Zipfean ground, {ka} and {du'u} might well be interchanged, though that might affect some mnemonics. pc>|8}

  • This scheme is logically consistent but breaks existing usage too much to get adopted now. --xod

There are problems with number five. First, it breaks existing usage (which is unfixably broken) because the Book itself shows that ka without ce'u could mean there is one implicit ce'u, or alternatively that there is no ce'u at all and the intended relationship is an abstraction of a quality fulfilled by a given sumti (not "height", but "my cat's height"), which should really be expressed using jei, not ka. Agreeing upon an accepted tradition for the interpretation of ka without ce'u will only encourage people to perform that abomination. Instead, we should do what we can to discourage it and advise people to be explicit. --xod

  • When it was discussed in that massive Lojban list thread, (5) seemed to be the best compromise between past usage, current usage, and the need to have something that wouldn't break down too badly. Purists can avoid ka altogether; And Rosta no longer use it.

And secondly, look how ni has been forgotten. It's almost completely neglected in the above discussion because it's redundant, only providing a quantitative mirror for ka. Well, sufficiently determined nerds like us can and usually do think of qualities as quantities, so we really don't need both. --xod

  • I've just thrice rewritten a paragraph trying to work out what you're trying to say, but I give up. Can you explain? Maybe move explanation to a separate wiki page & link to it from here? --And Rosta