Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc Return-Path: Message-Id: <9104301552.AA14152@euphemia.math.ucla.edu> To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Subject: Interpreting sumti (was: anaphor means what?) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 29 Apr 91 12:14:03 EDT." Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 08:52:41 +0100 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 30 15:24:59 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 12:14:03 EDT > To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com > From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@uunet.UU.NET (John Cowan) > Subject: Re: anaphor means what? (was: oops! correction) > kartr. jim. writes: > > And similarly for other articles in extension (le, le'e). In Lojban an > > easy way to insure this is to define a sumti with to be > > an abbreviation for a restricted variable (da poi ), which > > unquestionably has the same referent everywhere it occurs in the sentence, > > for each member of the sentence's Cartesian expansion. > > This "unquestionably" won't work for "le", which has nothing to do with > "da poi". "le cribe" means "the thing I describe as a bear"; there is > no requirement that it really >be< a bear. "lo cribe" is indeed closer > to "da poi cribe", except for the problem of the empty set I discussed > earlier. Oops, I was not clear. I meant to say " ccvcv" is allegedly an abbreviation for "da poi (something)", where the nature of the restriction varies depending on the article. Yes, "lo" is simplest in that the brivla goes directly from the sumti into the restrictive clause. What I really want to hear about is the "problem of the empty set". When is a sumti veridical -- which I take to mean has a hidden implicit existential quantifier in it? And when is a void referent set simply ignored, producing a vacuously true assertion? Take for an example: The dodo lives on Ascension Island to be translated with "lo". The X1 sumti (all things that really are [alive] dodos) has a void referent set. What problems arise here? -- jimc