Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qnzjO-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 04:47 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8489; Fri, 23 Sep 94 04:45:44 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8486; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:45:44 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0329; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:44:30 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:48:01 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: general response on needing books X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 4100 Lines: 107 > Claxu doesn't suffer from illicit raising, but it does lead to scope > ambiguities. > mi claxu lo cukta > perhaps can mean either: > Ex book(x) & not have(me,x) "There's a book that I lack" > not Ex book(x) & have(me,x) "I don't have any books" > Hopefully this second is not a possible meaning of the Lojban > sentence. Yes. But be prepared to see it often used like that. > Given your not unreasonable interpretation of nitcu and djica as > being kinds of claxu, you are quite right that they don't involve > sumti raising. However I strongly urge that your interpretations > should be rejected. First, in English I can say "I want/need this > book" even if I already have it - I mean that I prefer having the > book over not having it, & am not asserting that I don't have it. > So for English, wanting/needing doesn't entail lacking. > Second, if the x2 of nitcu/djica is an event, we can translate > "I want/need you to go", which mean, roughly, I prefer your going > over your not going. Third, "want/need to have" can then be > rendered "ponse zei djica/nitcu". Fourth, wanting/needing + > lacking can be rendered "djica/nitcu zei claxu". Ok, you've convinced me. It should be an event, then. > > > > I think you can't have specific/opaque.) > > > To evaluate the truth of "Le cukta cu blanu" you identify > > > the referent of "le cukta" and then check whether it's blue. > > > > Exactly. > > > > > "There is a certain book that I need to have": > > > > That "a certain book" sounds non-specific to me. > > I am not trying to translate the English sentence; the English > sentence is merely an attempt to indicate the meaning I'm trying > to describe. I can't use 'that/this/my', because reference of > these is assigned at sentence level, not only in an inner bridi. > There is no way I can think of to say in English what I want to say. > > If you will agree to define specificity as I did above (you do > say "exactly"), You shouldn't take my word so literally :) Besides, I didn't think that was a definition of specificity. Just a way of understanding how to evaluate the truth value of a sentence containing a specific reference. > then would you agree that there is a difference > in meaning according to whether you have to identify the referent > in the local bridi or in the outermost bridi. I don't believe there is anything like "local specificity", or specificity inside an abstraction. Specificity concerns the speaker and the audience, and the only way you have more than one level of these is with quotations. > My point is precisely > that there is a difference, & one worth making expressible in > Lojban. Then please describe a situation where such a use would make sense, and write a Lojban sentence using your proposed xi'i with {le}. > > You mean that for {lo} the xihi-less quantification would be outside > > the abstraction? I think that goes against current usage. > > This is what I mean. I suppose it could be the other way around, > but this would be needed less often. I would have thought that local quantification was the norm, but that's only an impresion. > Alternatively there could > be 2 cmavo, one for 'outermost' and one for 'local', with it > understood that if neither is used there is a potential > ambiguity. I think I don't like it, but I have to think more about it. > > > "xuhu" - "xuhu PA X cu blanu" indicates that PA things selected randomly > > > from the set containing only every X are blue, but no claim > > > is made about whether any additional X is blue. > > > > This is one of the many meanings of "any". Do you think it is the most > > useful? I think that if you change it to "only PA things" then you can > > recover your meaning with {xu'u su'oPA}, and it would be close to what > > I meant by {xe'e} (I think). > > Ok, if you promise that "xehe suhore le cukta cu blanu" means > "at least (any) two of the books are blue" then I'll go along > with you. I promise. > OK: Forget 'xuhu'. I now wholeheartedly accept 'xehe', > and continue to argue for 'xihi'. > > --- > And > Jorge