Message-Id: <199308301501.AA03614@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Mon, 30 Aug 1993 10:27:12 -0400
Reply-To: John Cowan <snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: John Cowan <snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Desperately seeking [properties]
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  <9308271728.AA13506@relay2.UU.NET> from "Iain Alexander" at Aug
              27, 93 08:45:33 am
Status: O

la .i,n cusku di'e

> If we _have_ to use {le} or the equivalent when we have
> someone or something specific in mind, then we _can't_ also
> have the additional implication that I expect you to know
> which I mean.

Why not?  If I don't have something specific in mind, then I certainly
can't expect you to know which I mean, but I don't see the problem with the
converse.

> (Well, we _could_ make a distinction between {le} and {voi},
> but I don't think that was the intention when {voi} was
> introduced.  I'm not sure what other equivalents you
> @had in mind@ (oops).)

No, there is no such distinction.

> But then that's why Colin persuaded us to have {bi'u}.

Well, sort of.  "bi'u" discriminates between the introductory and the
retrospective use of "le".

> So, "I'm looking for something" (specific, although unspecified :) )
> would have to be
> .glico ce'o lu
>
>         mi sisku tu'a le co'e
>
> li'u ce'o zoi glico.
> right?

Well, actually "zo'e" does well there, since "zo'e" and "le co'e" mean much
the same thing.  Both of them refer to something specific-but-unspecified.
There is the difference that "le co'e" keeps the force of "le": one or more
individuals, probably not a set or mass.

> And "I'm looking for a princess", meaning I'm looking for a specific
> person, and I start the process of describing that person to you,
> to help you identify who I mean, by saying she's a princess,
> would be
> .glico ce'o lu
>
>         mi sisku tu'a le pa da ku noi nolraixli
>
> li'u ce'o zoi glico.

I think your example means "I'm looking for one thing (BTW, it's a princess)."
The force of it is that you are looking for one thing, not more; the
princesshood of the thing is incidental information.

> or possibly just
> .glico ce'o lu
>
>         mi sisku tu'a le bi'u nolraixli
>
> li'u ce'o zoi glico.

This form is probably best.  You are looking for a specific individual
(or individuals -- this version doesn't say anything about number),
described by you as a princess, who is not to be identified with any
previously-mentioned princesses.  If you have not mentioned any princesses,
or any individuals who might reasonably be described as such, the "bi'u"
is superfluous.

> And my rant about {djica} earlier in the year was totally misguided.
> .glico ce'o lu
>
>         mi djica lo plise
>
> li'u ce'o zoi glico.
> means something like "There are some apples which I desire", leaving
> open the possibility that there might be some kinds of apple which
> I wouldn't want.

Yes, exactly.  The form "lo plise" can be transformed into "da poi/noi plise",
given that apples exist.

> This still doesn't feel right with {djica}.  I still think the x2 of
> {djica} ought to be an event.

I agree with you.

> It's all right with {nelci}, and I can't even see any difficulty
> allowing the x2 of {nelci} to be either an object or an event,
> but there's something about the semantics of {djica} which causes
> a problem unless there's an event there.

Yes.  I think you can like >things< (abstract or otherwise), but you
desire >that< something be the case, which demands an abstraction.

> .glico .i la djan. cusku zoi glico.
> > Back when we introduced "tu'a" to settle the sumti-raising question, we
> > decided not to allow polymorphic place structures, because they easily lead
> > to bad reasoning.  If you aren't very careful, you end up substituting
> > abstract sumti for concrete ones at the wrong moments and destroying your
> > chain of reasoning.
> .glico .i mi spuda fi zoi glico.
>
> But of course the gimste people are using still has several
> gismu with polymorphic places, and in fact so does the one
> lojbab's working on, as his recent posting showed.

Well, of course some brivla (like "nelci") can apply to either, because both
+ABSTRACT and -ABSTRACT objects are relevant to it.  The idea is not to have
brivla that apply to abstract objects in one sense and to concrete objects
in a different sense.

> BTW, am I right in thinking that the parser takes '/'
> to be a synonym for {fa'o}?

No.  Actually, material between slashes is ignored by the parser.  This
makes it possible to parse material with interlinear translations or the
like, or to slash out obsolete syntax when parsing old material.

--
John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.