Hmmm! Yes. = Sorta. The right referent but the wrong sense, light pointing to Ven= us shining just after sunset and saying "Lo, the Morning Star!"

From: Feli= pe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:2= 8 PM
Subject: Re: [loj= ban] searching

John has already made a very careful logical analysis of the topic,
so l= et me try something more concrete:

Saying that "I look for something= green", in the sense that any green
thing will do, can be rendered as {= mi sisku lo crino} for a convenient
definition of {sisku} is analogous t= o saying that "I know the result of
2+2" can be rendered as {mi djuno lo= sumji be li re bei li re}, which
is actually expressing a relation betw= een me and the number 4:
{mi djuno li vo}.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 11 January 2013 15:37, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yaho= o.com> wrote:
> Not sure how this helps, but there are two dif= ferent issues here. On the
> one hand, we need to deal with opa= que phrases in the ordinary run of things;
> on the other hand we nee= d to deal with contrary-to-fact situations as not
> ordinary run of things (though far more common than appears in most Lojban
> -- m= ainly because we are not sure how to do it). Your suggestion is to> reduce the first problem to the second (and then make it disappear ba= ck into
> the definition of words involved, so still available to sur= prise us). But
> not all opaque cases are contrary-to-fact, we = have the cases with {du'u} and
> {nu} and the like already (and regul= arly screw them up anyhow -- see
> raising). The difficult case= s are where we are not sure what abstraction is
> appropriate -- or e= ven that one is, like thing {sisku} and {djica} and so
> on. Th= ese very often are buried contrary-to-facts and for them we do have
>= {tu'a}, stripped of its connection to (unspecified) buried abstractions an= d
> nebulous predicates, as a mark that the following term 1) cannot = be moved or
> quantified out of its place (identified with things outside) and 2) at some
> point in an analysis will take its = place in one or more alternate worlds
> which represent the working o= ut of the predicate to which the term is
> attached as argument.
&= gt; The matter of contrary-to-fact or hypothetical sentences seems to invol= ve
> just working out the rules on scope and the like for {da'i}.&nbs= p; I do not
> include the problems with truth conditions here, of cou= rse, since, so far as
> I can tell, no one has come up with a good an= swer to questions like "If
> Socrates were a 17th century Irish washe= rwoman, would Plato still have been
> gay?"
>
>
> _= _______________________________
> From: Ian Johnson <blin= dbravado@gmail.com>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>= ; Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] sea= rching
>
> 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 on= ly be satisfied if you found several different sumti, in that
> (rath= er common) case. {.e} frustratingly doesn't work.)
>
> This def= inition 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 t= o 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 ho= w 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, standa= rd (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation: A for
> uni= versal quantifier, S fo particular (L for salient, ? for interrogative,
= > but thosedon't turn up here). Quantifiers take two wffs an= d 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 =3D> Seek I, x), but that doesn't really help.
>
> I would= be happy to have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, one
> t= hat 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 w= ith
> intensional phrases. Of the two usual approaches, having = certain places
> specified as such in the lexicon or having all place= s transparent but some
> phrases labelled as intensional, Lojban has = chosen a position in the middle.
> All places are transparent, but so= me have recommended or required
> intensional phrase structures for f= illing. Unfortunately, these cases don't
> cover all the intens= ional 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.
> Ultimat= ely, 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}.&n= bsp; 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 (o= r 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 cas= e I were to have something green",
> with the quantifier tucked in th= e 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 inde= ed transparent and the occurrence there of {da poi crino} may
> change the UD by adding an object to guarantee that the extens= ion of {crino}
> is non-null. If the extension of {crino} is al= ready 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 exter= nal quantifier (which we never did really leave, if the slot was
> tr= ansparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, not just any> old thing at all. Or, taking the broader view, I am really see= king every
> green thing individually. Not what is wanted.
&= gt;
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: = v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
> To: lojba= n@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:42 AM
&g= t; Subject: Re: [lojban] searching
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at = 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
>> Howsabout going back t= o the basics of "any" in English?
>>
>> It is a context l= eaper, 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 day= s ago to explain your notation, please.
> Does this mean something li= ke "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 t= hing sense,
>> not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which = would be fulfilled
>> if I were to have (in whatever the appropria= te sense is) x" and so every
>> green thing fits and none is speci= al ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would
>> have").
>
>= I'm not sure I like that "goal driven" analysis of seek.
> Especiall= y, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather confusing.
><= br>> What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I think, is t= he
> following.
>
> There exists a goal G1 which I have i= n mind, such that for all green things
> it is true that if I have su= ch a green object, the goal G1 is fulfilled.
>
> I very much pr= efer the analysis I described in my last mail,
> because if you try t= o apply quantifiers here, you have to be explicit about
> the existen= tial goal quantification.
> Else you could end up searching for _all_ green things:
>
> forall x. there exists g. have(I, = x) =3D> satisfied(g)
>
> (I just invented the "satisfied" fo= r the lack of a better notation)
>
> Again, I prefer to say tha= t {mi sisku da poi crino} adds an
> object to the universe of discour= se which satisfies {crino} and can map
> to a number of physical obje= cts, therefore creating the feeling of
> a restricted universal quant= ification.
>
> We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looking for= a shirt.",
> "I'm searching for something green.", "Ich suche eine K= uh.",
> "Je cherche une vache.", ...
>
> Just to point th= is out again: This is an analysis which I proposed in
> my last mail = and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore,
> I'm stil= l waiting for criticism and comments.
>
>> This still suppos= es, of course, that there is something green in the UD,
>> so the property sense is still better.
>
>> Of course, spellin= g out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make
>> the qua= ntifier scope points clearer would be nice, too,
>> but no one see= ms to like {tu'a}
>> and it is a little iffy around the edges anyh= ow.
>
> I don't really get, what you try to point out here.
= >
>
> v4hn
>
>
> --
> You received t= his message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban= " group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@goo= glegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>= For more options, visit this group at
> h= ttp://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>
> -= -
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl= e Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email = to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this= group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googl= egroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> htt= p://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>
> --<= br>> 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 grou= p, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http:/= /groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received thi= s 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 gro= up at h= ttp://groups.google.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.
--1009959307-837315209-1358091576=:2626--