On Fri, Jan 1= 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John E Clifford <kali9...@y= ahoo.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). Quantifiers take two wffs = and a variable, AxFxGx is AllFsareGs, that univer= sality restricted to the (non-null) extension of F.&nbs= p; 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 happy t= o have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, one that allowed for qua= ntifiers to be placed properly without question, but I don't see it anywher= e. Much of the problem is in how we deal with intensional phrases.&nb= sp; 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 a= re transparent, but some have recommended or required intensional phrase st= ructures 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 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}. So, for me, at least= , {mi sisku tu'a da poi crino} means "I am looking for something green" wit= h 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 sat= isfied just in case I were to have something green", with the quantifier tu= cked 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: v4hn= <m...@v4hn.de>
To:= loj...@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 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 loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googl= egroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.