Assuming your "something" = is indefinite (i.e. you'd be satisfied by whatever green thing), this is so= mewhat true, though I think xorlo makes it more slippery than your example.= That is, {lo crino} could just be a blob of all the green things and could= interact with sisku in such a way that you're satisfied by finding any of = them.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Su= n, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <= ;felipeg.assis= @gmail.com> wrote:

John has already made a very careful logical= analysis of the topic,
so let 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 to 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 between me and the number 4:
{mi djuno li vo}.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 11 January 2013 15:37, Joh= n E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.c= om> wrote:
> Not sure how this helps, but there are two different issues here. &nbs= p;On the
> one hand, we need to deal with opaque phrases in the ordinary run of t= hings;
> on the other hand we need to deal with contrary-to-fact situations as = not
> ordinary run of things (though far more common than appears in most Lo= jban
> -- mainly 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 bac= k into
> the definition of words involved, so still available to surprise us). = But
> not all opaque cases are contrary-to-fact, we have the cases with {du'= u} and
> {nu} and the like already (and regularly screw them up anyhow -- see > raising). The difficult cases are where we are not sure what abs= traction is
> appropriate -- or even that one is, like thing {sisku} and {djica} and= so
> on. These very often are buried contrary-to-facts and for them w= e do have
> {tu'a}, stripped of its connection to (unspecified) buried abstraction= s and
> nebulous predicates, as a mark that the following term 1) cannot be mo= ved 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 worl= ds
> which represent the working out of the predicate to which the term is<= br> > attached as argument.
> The matter of contrary-to-fact or hypothetical sentences seems to invo= lve
> just working out the rules on scope and the like for {da'i}. I d= o not
> include the problems with truth conditions here, of course, since, so = far as
> I can tell, no one has come up with a good answer to questions like "I= f
> Socrates were a 17th century Irish washerwoman, would Plato still have= been
> gay?"
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ian Johnson <blindb= ravado@gmail.com>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com=
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [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", the= n {mi
> sisku lo ckiku} does what was originally wanted while {mi sisku ro cri= no}
> does what {mi sisku lo ka crino} is defined to do. So this definition<= br> > 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<= br> > (rather common) case. {.e} frustratingly doesn't work.)
>
> This definition feels highly nonprimitive (though so does current {sis= ku}).
> In particular (in this regard unlike current {sisku}) it induces hidde= n
> 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 ha= ndle
> 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, standard (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation:= A for
> universal quantifier, S fo particular (L for salient, ? for interrogat= ive,
> 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 he= lp.
>
> I would be happy to have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, o= ne
> that allowed for quantifiers to be placed properly without question, b= ut I
> don't see it anywhere. Much of the problem is in how we deal wit= h
> 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 m= iddle.
> 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} (wh= ich 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 th= e
> present UD) is required, since it expands to the more satisfying "I ha= ve a
> goal which would be satisfied just in case I were to have something gr= een",
> with the quantifier tucked in the right place. The standard expl= anation 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 po= i
> 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, ho= wever, 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 positio= n of
> the external quantifier (which we never did really leave, if the slot = was
> transparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, not jus= t any
> old thing at all. Or, taking the broader view, I am really seeki= ng every
> green thing individually. Not what is wanted.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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:
>> 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) =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 sen= se,
>> not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fu= lfilled
>> 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 confu= sing.
>
> What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I think, is the<= br> > following.
>
> There exists a goal G1 which I have in mind, such that for all green t= hings
> it is true that if I have such a green object, the goal G1 is fulfille= d.
>
> 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) =3D> 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 ma= p
> 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<= br> > 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 t= he 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 Gro= ups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubs= cribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubs= cribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubs= cribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://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@googlegroups.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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.