On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM, John E= Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

I seem to have missed something here.=A0 Is the question whether d= ifferent sorts of things can be mentioned as objects of desires or portraya= l or evaluation?=A0 To a fairly large extent, the answer is obviously "= ;Yes!".=A0 More readily in some cases than in others: desires and need= s, for example,=A0 are for things that fit into a causal narrative and so p= retty much have to be events; pictures pretty much range over all possible = categories (in a broad sense of "picture" of course, as is usual = in art), seeking is limited (perhaps) to the concrete (although answers see= m to be an exception).=A0
In any case, I doubt that this is the problem.=A0 What is usually the probl= em here is that sometimes the predicates of this sort take arguments that c= reate an intensional context and sometimes not.=A0

Why is this intensionality not made (optionally) explic= it? Is there cmavo that means 'intensionality'?

stevo

And the reason for that is simply that sometimes the arguments involve reference to things in= the external world and sometime not.=A0 A picture of USS Constitution batt= ling HMS Seraphis sets up different logical expectations from a picture of = just two frigates fighting, namely that there are, outside the world of the= picture, two ships who might be in this battle, whereas there is no such c= ertainty in the second case.=A0 And, in a logical language, this needs to b= e reflected, somehow, in the presentation.=A0 The present system doesn'= t do this very well (the inchoate Xorban seems to be a bit better, but it i= s still too illformed to be sure), but it at least warns one to be wary abo= ut the twin no-nos of quantifying in and interchange of identicals.=A0

From: Jacob Errington <= nictytan@gmail.com<= /a>>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 23,= 2012 11:07 AM
Subject: = Re: [lojban] Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
=

I dislike multiple types in pretty much any place. I don't persona= lly believe that love can apply to events, but obviously, that's arguab= le. People are going to use the language the way they want, because at this= point there're no stone tablets with the rules really written onto the= m. I don't even think that it's useful at this point to try convinc= ing people of what's right and wrong with the language. It's like a= religious debate.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 23 September 20= 12 01:12, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:53:23 PM UTC+4, tsa= ni wrote:
The thing about {cirko} is that it may or may not have to deal with possess= ion. It has a sort of possession focus, but if you're using it with pro= perties, then that just falls apart: {.i mi cirko lo ka pampe'o do} Really, it's just co'u, but when used on a concrete sumti, it has t= he implication of losing possession. I'm not too fond of this duality.<= /div>

Are you fond of lo selpa'i = duality being both an object and an abstraction? May be we should say {mi p= rami tu'a do} all the time?

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
On 22 September 2012 12:53, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
I consider {cirko} to have similar issues to {binxo}; if it's going to = have anything to do with properties, it should always have to do with prope= rties, but since properties are just predicates in my usage, {binxo} is ess= entially redundant to {co'a}. {cirko} as only having to do with {co'= ;u ponse} would be fine, but if it has to do with a property then it is aga= in redundant to just {co'u}.

The rest are straightforwardly fine, to me; things like {melbi} fall in= to a general category of "pre-jai'd" gismu, which are a bit o= dd but useful and pe'i consistent.

mu'o mi'e la latro= 9;a

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
=

I should make my point more clear.

Look at the following= .

prami x1 loves/feels strong affectionate de= votion towards x2 (object/state).
dirba x1 is dear/precious/= darling to x2; x1 is emotionally valued by x2;=A0x1 may be a specific ob= ject, a commodity (mass), an event, or a property

pluka x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under c= onditions x3.
melbi=A0x1 is beautiful/pleasant to x2 in asp= ect x3 (ka) by aesthetic standard x4.

And last but= not least

cirko -cri-=A0x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3; x1 loses prope= rty/feature x2 in conditions/situation x3;=A0x2 may be a specific object= , a commodity (mass), an event (rare for cirko), or a property.<= /div>

This last example shows something mutce lo ka = cizra.

If we can easily interchange object= s and abstractions in {lo se prami, lo dirba, lo se cirko} omitting {tu'= ;a} then it would be reasonable to ask:

"What the hell is {tu'a} for?" If lojb= an is not consistent in using it at all, why not omit it all the time?<= /div>

Then we'll get those {mi sisku lo pe= nbi} (in la selpa'i=A0's dialect) and even {mi djica lo plis= e}.

On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:46:15 PM UTC+4, = la gleki wrote:
Again Google Groups didn't let me= resurrect this old discussion. So = please follow the link to follow the whole discussion.

And now it's my turn to ask the community once agai= n after 18 years of disinterest.

{djica}, {nitcu} and {= sisku}, for example, have all been

dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still acc= epts
objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the = x2 place was
directly eliminated and replaced by only a property = of some inaccesible

entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a prope= rty
of said thing.
=A0

=
Why not treat them all the same?

The transparent case:

{mi djica lo tanxe} =3D &qu= ot;There is a box wanted by me"

{mi nitcu lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box needed by me"
<= div>{mi sisku lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box sought by me"

One more moment. Are there any other gismu t= hat have the same "problem"?=A0

On Tuesday, November 22, 1994 4:03:33 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wro= te:
la lojbab cusku di'e
> Of course there is nothing strange about = a brivla relating two objects - a
> seeker and the thing known-and-so= ught-after, and having a certain predicate
> relating them. =A0The pr= oblem that I see is that there is more than one such
> predicate, and the choice is dependent on the specificity =A0(or is th= at
> definiteness %^) of x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the desir= e is of the
> seeker for the final state after finding.
The problem is transparency vs opacity. Transparent references can be
specific or nonspecific, and that can be marked with the appropriate
qua= ntifiers, but we don't have any way to mark explicitly opaque reference= s.
The other properties that you mention, like desires of the see= ker for what
to do after (or rather if) the sought after thing is found, are not really<= br>to the point. If you want a place for them I guess you do need a lujvo.<= /div>
Also, in English, the meaning of "seek an object" has b= een generalized
to "seek knowledge", where by "finding it", we mean tha= t we get to
know the truth value of some utterance. (I suppose that'= s what you call the
seeking of science.) I don't have a problem with= letting this metaphorical
extension into Lojban, but in any case this is not part of the opaque probl= em.
An interesting property of sisku as it is defined now, is tha= t the lambda
variable of its property really never takes a value. Normal= ly, the lambda
variable of a property corresponds to one or more of the places of the
s= elbri (for example for {zmadu}, it's the x1 and x2) but for sisku, ther= e
is no place for the thing being sought, so there is no place that fits= the
lambda variable.
> WE have other cases in Lojban where the Loj= ban word covers a misleading
> subset of the English meanings of the = keywords ("old" and "know" being two
> cases that= come to mind).

BTW, because of my mail problems a month or so ago I never found out w= hether
{citno} means "young", so that it only refers to living= things, or whether
it is more general. Would an "old car" in = lojban be a {tolcitno karce} or
a {tolcnino karce}?
> In all such casesa we have learned to li= ve with the
> fact that the English word is tto broad and have come u= p with lujvo for the
> alternative meanings. =A0Such lujvo can always= exist, and if this whole
> issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away. the numb= er of distinctions we need
=A0to
> make may be reduced. =A0But I r= emain unconvinced of this - as pc said a while
> back in this discuss= ion - there are some predicates that embody a hidden
> abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this<= /div>
What do you mean by "some predicates"? English verbs, l= ike "want", "need",
"look for", etc, or Lo= jban predicates like {djica}, {nitcu}, {sisku}, etc.?

I totally agree that the English verbs can accept opaque references as= direct
objects, without any marking. They also, in other contexts, can = take transparent
direct objects.
Because of the logical aspect= of Lojban, this can't work like that in Lojban,
and so the arguments are always transparent.
But, the fact is tha= t the opaque meaning is often very useful for these
predicates, so what = do we do?
I propose to find one solution for all such predicates,= rather than patches
for each of them. {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been<= br>dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still accep= ts
objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place = was
directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible
= entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a propertyof said thing.
Why not treat them all the same?
The transparent case:

{mi djica lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box wanted by me"
{mi= nitcu lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box needed by me"
{mi sisku l= o tanxe} =3D "There is a box sought by me"
and the opaq= ue case:

{mi djica xe'e lo tanxe} =3D "I want a box (I don't care = which)"
{mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe} =3D "I need a box (I don&= #39;t care which)"
{mi sisku xe'e lo tanxe} =3D "I seek a = box (I don't care which)"

(I don't mind using {lo'e} instead of {xe'e lo}, I think i= t makes sense
as well.)
As things stand now, for the transpare= nt case I have to say:
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi djica tu'a d= a}
{mi nitcu lo tanxe}
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi sisku le ka du da}
Why so complicated?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0mi'e la lojbab noi= sisku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u nabmi
> =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 cu mansa roda

That doesn't make much sense to me. You probably mean {noi sisku l= o ka danfu
le me zo sisku me'u nabmi gi'e mansa roda}, otherwise= you are saying that
you are looking for something with property an answ= er satisfies everyone,
but what is it that you look for? the answer, everyone? I think this is an<= br>unnecessarily complicated way to deal with {sisku}.
Jorge
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/aTfTDbKnrqUJ.
<= div>
=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroup= s.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un= ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroup= s.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un= ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.