bridi to sumti converter: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 6: Line 6:
**What would the use of a such a device be?  Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing <u>converter</u> is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion.  Which leads one to ask - what's the semantics of these converted bridi?  If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want '''le du'u'''.
**What would the use of a such a device be?  Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing <u>converter</u> is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion.  Which leads one to ask - what's the semantics of these converted bridi?  If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want '''le du'u'''.
***[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
***[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
****The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + '''du'u'' gets you to where '''li ni'e du'u''' would. But (supposing the converter to be '''du'u'u'''), '''du'u'' is defined in terms of '''du'u'u''': '''du'u''' = '''me du'u'u'''. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of '''du'u'u'''. So the <u>point</u> (even if not the "<u>use</u>") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form.
****The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + '''du'u''' gets you to where '''li ni'e du'u''' would. But (supposing the converter to be '''du'u'u'''), '''du'u''' is defined in terms of '''du'u'u''': '''du'u''' = '''me du'u'u'''. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of '''du'u'u'''. So the <u>point</u> (even if not the "<u>use</u>") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form.
*****[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]:
*****[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]:
******Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter?  I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically".
******Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter?  I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically".

Latest revision as of 12:28, 15 May 2017

Syntax: CONVERTER + BRIDI + (KEI)

  • Hello? le su'u anyone?
    • le su'u = each of certain instances of an abstraction of an unspecified kind. This is not a bridi to sumti converter. NU is a bridi to selbri converter. LE is not a selbri to sumti converter. li ni'e du'u might work if the converters are purely syntactic in effect. But saying li ni'e du'u three or four times a sentence, just because the syntax contains no bridi to sumti converter, is rather irksome.
  • .djorden.:
    • What would the use of a such a device be? Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing converter is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion. Which leads one to ask - what's the semantics of these converted bridi? If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want le du'u.
      • And Rosta:
        • The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + du'u gets you to where li ni'e du'u would. But (supposing the converter to be du'u'u), du'u is defined in terms of du'u'u: du'u = me du'u'u. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of du'u'u. So the point (even if not the "use") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form.
          • .djorden.:
            • Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter? I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically".
              • And Rosta:
                • du'u'u could occur wherever le/lo'e/tu'o du'u can, modulo any ongoing uncertainty about where exactly le/lo'e/tu'o du'u can occur. I don't see any difference between their meanings.
                  • I don't think there's any uncertainty about the semantics of du'u; but it sounds like all you really want is du'u, as I had theorized above.
                    • The uncertainty is not about the semantics of du'u but about the semantics of sumti places that accept du'u sumti. As this is a discussion that has not yet happened, I won't harp on about it. All I really want is something that converts a bridi into a sumti, just as du'u converts a bridi into a selbri. If there were already a selmaho for that, this page would be redundant, because du'u'u could exist as an experimental cmavo (which you could happily ignore).
                      • .djorden.:
                        • I'm just pointing out that le du'u already does this, regardless of whether you think it is sexy. It simply takes a proposition and treates as an argument to another relation (which of course is nonsensical if the relation doesn't expect a proposition as the argument, but anyway...)
                          • And Rosta:
                            • Sure. No argument about this. The rationale for this proposal is to have a sexier language with the possibility of a closer correspondence between lexical and logical form.