From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 20= 13 11:37 AM
Subject: R= e: [lojban] searching

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 d= o. So this definition basically solves the problem (I think using {joi} you= can specify that you would only be satisfied if you found several differen= t 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 maj= or 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 <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry, stand= ard (in at least some groups I write in) lo= gical notation: A for universal quantifier, S fo = particular (L for salient, ? for interrogative, but thosedon't turn up here). Quantifiers&nb= sp; take two wffs and a variable, AxFxGx is AllFsareGs,= that universality restricted to the (non-null) extensio= n of F. or [x:Fx]Gx. I suppose one could avoid the problem here by using (x)(Green x =3D> Seek I, x), but that doesn= 't really help.

I would be hap= py 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 any= where. Much of the problem is in how we deal with intensional phrases= . Of the two usual approaches, having certain places specified as suc= h in the lexicon or having all places transparent but some phrases labelled= as intensional, Lojban has chosen a position in the middle. All plac= es are transparent, but some have recommended or required intensional phras= e 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 lef= t 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 yie= lds unwanted results.

Ultimately, of cours= e, 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 l= east, {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 requ= ired, 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 quantifie= r tucked in the right place. The standard explanation of {tu'a} gets close to this b= ut 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. If the extension of {crino} is already non-null, however= , this object is to be identified with some already present object, which o= ne depending on which one I actually find (more or less). But that ki= nd of anonymous object isn't allowed in the semantics game, nor does it hel= p, 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 wa= s 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 i= ndividually. Not what is wanted.
=

=

From: v4h= n <me@v4hn.de>
To: loj= ban@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, Januar= y 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 sense) is short for "h= as a goal which would be fulfilled
> if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so eve= ry
> 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 t= hink, 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,
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 of 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 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 inmy last mail and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore,I'm still waiting for criticism and comments.

> This still supp= oses, 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 reall= y 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@googlegro= ups.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 "= 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.