egality

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Xorxe:
> > I've always understood it as paradoxical (as reflected in my rendition),
> > with "equal" being perverted in meaning, but on your reading it allows
> > for the mass of humanity to be on a fairly equal level, but for some
> > parts of humanity to be further away from that average level - "people
> > are on a par with each other to a greater or lesser extent".
> Which is still perverted in meaning. I didn't mean to say that the way
> I interpreted makes more sense. I think that the idea is to use
> the pattern "Everybody is X, but some are more X than others", which
> makes perfect sense for some properties, but not for "equal".

But it does make sense - e.g. "these lines are of equal length more
than those lines are of equal length" - fine.

> In any case, you have to stretch "some are more equal than others"
> in order to get it to mean that some are such that their equality to
> another is more that that one's equality to the first. I just can't
> get that meaning from "some are more equal than others".

"The degree to which each member of group1 is equal to each other
member is nearer to the "equal" end of the equality-inequality
scale than the degree to which each member of group2 is equal
to each other member of group2."

> > The English version uses "equal" as a two-place, not a one-place
> > predicate.
> Not on the surface: It says "all people are equal", and not "all
> people are equal to everyone else".

"On the surface" we have sounds. These correspond to words. And the
words correspond to meanings. Only on the plane of meaning are there
predicates, and this plane isn't on the surface. The construction
means "all people are equal to each other".

> > "Equality" is meaningless unless its a suore-place predicate.
> Not really. Just like "...are brothers" is not meaningless as a one
> place predicate. The x1 has to be a mass, but it is still one-place.

I maintain that "equality" must be suore place, but I accept that
it is possible to define new predicates, e.g. you could have one
place simklama meaning "x1 is a mass/set, one part/member of which
is le klama, another part of which is le se klama, another part of
which is le te klama,... etc.".

> > The adjective has no prepositional complement (to); instead it is
> > used in a "reciprocal" construction which requires the subject to
> > refer to a set such that Ax,Ay if x and y are in the set & x is not y,
> > then predicate(x,y). (I am highly skeptical that the equivalent job
> > should be done by a predicate, simxu, in Lojban.)
> Why not?

Because it swallows up the logic into the definition of the brivla.
I think the logical workings should be out in the open, clear for
all to see, reflected iconically in the syntax.
The semantics of cmavo are well-defined, while the semantics of
brivla are ill-defined. Thus, I think that cmavo should be preferred
to brivla.

We needn't get back into our Convenience vs. Logical Purity debate.
We know we have different attitudes.

> What else could {simxu} be used for?

Whatever use is fitting.

And