bridi to sumti converter

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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.