Received: from mail-ia0-f183.google.com ([209.85.210.183]:54510) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TtiYH-0001vs-Hx; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:38:07 -0800 Received: by mail-ia0-f183.google.com with SMTP id j25sf998514iaf.10 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=Q7lVihZszoqXJqFNvz58cFkW/dy0+vrNskmPVIqTddE=; b=oFwEmKHV3K14mjC82K6bbdxWess2np2EjVcAt2UQSDqzmrzV5PISv4zz9swb9MCnS0 nSk3EHL16/5joaFXLYpbytlxKhQrY82ZiqdaqogjwunJCECFIXtBDjDtHWIYkaT+Hkta 6rbgmzvZ+nvTL/oiO1XzP+V/8W3IeBle4gP8HFpwnu2W3A0bem7cCSSlPmgNzQCBuuag gSh7GY0fF4iVxOwo/ZSkKvxcLLbdNYSlv5p+5yO1laVAquQD13bMr1lT9aXj138M2oEJ mH9jXjre1ehzISzOuHIyXdMFEPVwSBpEc8MRoExwDnSIOV8b7taD60udmZbkti4g4rHx 5/tw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=Q7lVihZszoqXJqFNvz58cFkW/dy0+vrNskmPVIqTddE=; b=KdfXDsy0L4Jf7/QV+9zpQyQx2D085ikNlBvHjY//3pk0P2/E50tpGcvcpk0IMJ5AQ5 EtAPKNQC6DSaH36I6RUcb4BaN6mnv6ipBH7GWiexLRqPAf5F8KjoxOlYf/jbgJOMH8XW gua8ZOnfIQYN/G/N3MKeuciXZ7Q9V9P5SYFko8x1X0eJAS/GJiK6aPxpgi4v7pQaXaFF yFoPblpwzGpNUtDfzHTYdh4h4ToFTO4SBiCZ5t58L0NlpgqiwypjOc8WpggIC/Q9skmg Wbxf8EqnOjnPkLBDrsMdy0DsondmuWAB5er+zPYQn9TVNJMamm13E7C+QtCz387GqdfB pBaA== X-Received: by 10.49.72.169 with SMTP id e9mr14211058qev.3.1357925870342; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.2.105 with SMTP id 9ls2205277qet.50.gmail; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.188.106 with SMTP id fz10mr32067440vec.37.1357925868767; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.188.106 with SMTP id fz10mr32067438vec.37.1357925868745; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2si630343vdi.2.2013.01.11.09.37.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.54; Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l1so1692925vba.27 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.44.74 with SMTP id c10mr98080064vem.10.1357925868615; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.13.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1357921456.64440.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <50EC7334.8040607@gmx.de> <50ECB7C1.2020501@gmx.de> <20130109124414.GD14601@samsa.fritz.box> <20130111001919.GA17367@samsa.fritz.box> <1357872173.57379.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20130111104236.GB17367@samsa.fritz.box> <1357921456.64440.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:37:48 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] searching From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cc40807b7c004d306c1a5 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e013cc40807b7c004d306c1a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Here's an idea I just had. I don't actually like it, but the fact that it works seems to say something about the issue. If {sisku} were defined as "x1 is searching among x3 and x1 would be satisfied if they found x2", then {mi sisku lo ckiku} does what was originally wanted while {mi sisku ro crino} does what {mi sisku lo ka crino} is defined to do. So this definition basically solves the problem (I think using {joi} you can specify that you would only be satisfied if you found several different sumti, in that (rather common) case. {.e} frustratingly doesn't work.) This definition feels highly nonprimitive (though so does current {sisku}). In particular (in this regard unlike current {sisku}) it induces hidden quantifier/subjunctivity scope, which is rather important to what is actually meant. I'm pretty sure hiding such things is one of the major things we'd like to get away from with this language. Perhaps we should just derail this into a discussion of how best to handle subjunctivity? mi'e la latro'a mu'o On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > Sorry, standard (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation: A for > universal quantifier, S fo particular (L for salient, ? for interrogative, > but thosedon't turn up here). Quantifiers take two wffs and a variable, AxFxGx > is AllFsareGs, that universality restricted to the (non-null) extension > of F. or [x:Fx]Gx. I suppose one could avoid the problem here by using > (x)(Green x => Seek I, x), but that doesn't really help. > > I would be happy to have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, one > that allowed for quantifiers to be placed properly without question, but I > don't see it anywhere. Much of the problem is in how we deal with > intensional phrases. Of the two usual approaches, having certain places > specified as such in the lexicon or having all places transparent but some > phrases labelled as intensional, Lojban has chosen a position in the > middle. All places are transparent, but some have recommended or required > intensional phrase structures for filling. Unfortunately, these cases > don't cover all the intensional cases (and cover a number which are not > intensional as well), so we are left with thing like thing {sisku} (which > is not actually in Lojban, after all, but is popularly uses as though it > were), where the transparent place yields unwanted results. > Ultimately, of course, what we want is a particular quantifier in the > scope of the subjunctive, which is my informal summary of the role of > {tu'a}. So, for me, at least, {mi sisku tu'a da poi crino} means "I am > looking for something green" with no hint that a particular one (or even > one in the present UD) is required, since it expands to the more satisfying > "I have a goal which would be satisfied just in case I were to have > something green", with the quantifier tucked in the right place. The > standard explanation of {tu'a} gets close to this but gets bogged down in > technicalities. > Your solution, as I understand it (if at all), is that {mi sisku da poi > crino} is indeed transparent and the occurrence there of {da poi crino} may > change the UD by adding an object to guarantee that the extension of > {crino} is non-null. If the extension of {crino} is already non-null, > however, this object is to be identified with some already present object, > which one depending on which one I actually find (more or less). But that > kind of anonymous object isn't allowed in the semantics game, nor does it > help, since, as soon as its identity is revealed we fall back to the > position of the external quantifier (which we never did really leave, if > the slot was transparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, > not just any old thing at all. Or, taking the broader view, I am really > seeking every green thing individually. Not what is wanted. > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* v4hn > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 4:42 AM > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] searching > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > > Howsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English? > > > > It is a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context > > with scope over the whole in which the context is subordinate. > > > So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x. > > I already asked you two days ago to explain your notation, please. > Does this mean something like "forall x : Green(x).(seek(I, x))" > or "A(x) => Green(x) => seek(I, x)" or "forall x. Green(x) => seek(I, x)" > ... > > > Not, notice, {mi sisku ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense, > > not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled > > if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every > > green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I > would have"). > > I'm not sure I like that "goal driven" analysis of seek. > Especially, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather confusing. > > What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I think, is the > following. > > There exists a goal G1 which I have in mind, such that for all green things > it is true that if I have such a green object, the goal G1 is fulfilled. > > I very much prefer the analysis I described in my last mail, > because if you try to apply quantifiers here, you have to be explicit about > the existential goal quantification. > Else you could end up searching for _all_ green things: > > forall x. there exists g. have(I, x) => satisfied(g) > > (I just invented the "satisfied" for the lack of a better notation) > > Again, I prefer to say that {mi sisku da poi crino} adds an > object to the universe of discourse which satisfies {crino} and can map > to a number of physical objects, therefore creating the feeling of > a restricted universal quantification. > > We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looking for a shirt.", > "I'm searching for something green.", "Ich suche eine Kuh.", > "Je cherche une vache.", ... > > Just to point this out again: This is an analysis which I proposed in > my last mail and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore, > I'm still waiting for criticism and comments. > > > This still supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD, > > so the property sense is still better. > > > Of course, spelling out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make > > the quantifier scope points clearer would be nice, too, > > but no one seems to like {tu'a} > > and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow. > > I don't really get, what you try to point out here. > > > v4hn > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --089e013cc40807b7c004d306c1a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's an idea I just had. I don't actually like it, but the fact t= hat it works seems to say something about the issue. If {sisku} were define= d as "x1 is searching among x3 and x1 would be satisfied if they found= x2", then {mi sisku lo ckiku} does what was originally wanted while {= mi sisku ro crino} does what {mi sisku lo ka crino} is defined to do. So th= is definition basically solves the problem (I think using {joi} you can spe= cify that you would only be satisfied if you found several different sumti,= in that (rather common) case. {.e} frustratingly doesn't work.)

This definition feels highly nonprimitive (though so does cu= rrent {sisku}). In particular (in this regard unlike current {sisku}) it in= duces hidden quantifier/subjunctivity scope, which is rather important to w= hat is actually meant. I'm pretty sure hiding such things is one of the= major things we'd like to get away from with this language.=A0

Perhaps we should just derail this into a discussion of= how best to handle subjunctivity?=A0

mi'= e la latro'a mu'o

On Fri, Jan 11,= 2013 at 11:24 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>= wrote:
Sorry, standard (in at l= east some groups I write in) logical notation: A for universal quantifier, S fo particular = (L for salient, ? for interrogative, but th= osedon't turn up here).=A0 Quantifiers=A0 take two wffs an= d a variable, AxFxGx is AllFsareGs, that universa= lity restricted to the (non-null) extension of F.=A0 or= [x:Fx]Gx.=A0 I suppose one could avoid the problem here by using=A0 (x)(Green x =3D> Seek I, x), but that doesn= 9;t really help.
I would be happy t= o have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, one that allow= ed for quantifiers to be placed properly without question, but I don't = see it anywhere.=A0 Much of the problem is in how we deal with intensional = phrases.=A0 Of the two usual approaches, having certain places specified as= such in the lexicon or having all places transparent but some phrases labe= lled as intensional, Lojban has chosen a position in the middle.=A0 All pla= ces are transparent, but some have recommended or required intensional phra= se structures for filling.=A0 Unfortunately, these cases don't cover all the intensional= cases (and cover a number which are not intensional as well), so we are le= ft with thing like thing {sisku} (which is not actually in Lojban, after al= l, but is popularly uses as though it were), where the transparent place yi= elds unwanted results.
Ultimately, of course, w= hat we want is a particular quantifier in the scope of the subjunctive, whi= ch is my informal summary of the role of {tu'a}.=A0 So, for me, at leas= t, {mi sisku tu'a da poi crino} means "I am looking for something = green" with no hint that a particular one (or even one in the present = UD) is required, since it expands to the more satisfying "I have a goa= l which would be satisfied just in case I were to have something green"= ;, with the quantifier tucked in the right place.=A0 The standard explanation of {tu'a} gets close to this = but gets bogged down in technicalities.
Your solution, as I understand it (if at all), is that {mi sisku da poi cri= no} is indeed transparent and the occurrence there of {da poi crino} may ch= ange the UD by adding an object to guarantee that the extension of {crino} = is non-null.=A0 If the extension of {crino} is already non-null, however, t= his object is to be identified with some already present object, which one = depending on which one I actually find (more or less).=A0 But that kind of = anonymous object isn't allowed in the semantics game, nor does it help,= since, as soon as its identity is revealed we fall back to the position of= the external quantifier (which we never did really leave, if the slot was = transparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, not just any old thing at all.= =A0 Or, taking the broader view, I am really seeking every green thing indi= vidually.=A0 Not what is wanted.=A0
=A0 =



From: v4hn= <me@v4hn.de>
= To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January= 11, 2013 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> Ho= wsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English?
>
= > It is a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context
> with scope over the whole in which the context is subordinate.

= > So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x.

I already asked you two= days ago to explain your notation, please.
Does this mean something lik= e "forall x : Green(x).(seek(I, x))"
or "A(x) =3D> Green(x) =3D> seek(I, x)" or "forall x. = Green(x) =3D> seek(I, x)"
...

> Not, notice, {mi sisku= ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense,
> not the property se= nse) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled
> if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and s= o every
> green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were= fulfilled, I would have").

I'm not sure I like that "= goal driven" analysis of seek.
Especially, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather = confusing.

What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to= mean, I think, is the following.

There exists a goal G1 which I hav= e in mind, such that for all green things
it is true that if I have such a green object, the goal G1 is fulfilled.
I very much prefer the analysis I described in my last mail,
becaus= e if you try to apply quantifiers here, you have to be explicit about
the existential goal quantification.
Else you could end up searching for= _all_ green things:

forall x. there exists g. have(I, x) =3D> sa= tisfied(g)

(I just invented the "satisfied" for the lack o= f a better notation)

Again, I prefer to say that {mi sisku da poi crino} adds an
object t= o the universe of discourse which satisfies {crino} and can map
to a num= ber of physical objects, therefore creating the feeling of
a restricted = universal quantification.

We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looki= ng for a shirt.",
"I'm searching for something green."= ;, "Ich suche eine Kuh.",
"Je cherche une vache.", .= ..

Just to point this out again: This is an analysis which I proposed inmy last mail and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore,I'm still waiting for criticism and comments.

> This still = supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD,
> so the property sense is still better.

> Of course, spelling= out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make
> the quantifi= er scope points clearer would be nice, too,
> but no one seems to lik= e {tu'a}
> and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow.

I don't r= eally get, what you try to point out here.


v4hn


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--089e013cc40807b7c004d306c1a5--