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 m0qmPCp-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 19:35 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1749; Sun, 18 Sep 94 19:33:44 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1746; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 19:33:44 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3642; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 18:32:31 +0200 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 09:33:38 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: needing books X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3875 Lines: 89 GK> I am going to take a fling at these, I hope it doesn't add to the confusion which I definitely share. I'm going to number them too. ------------------------ And> How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage): (1). I need there to be a specific book such that I have it. (2). There is a specific book such that I need to have it. (3). I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x. (4). There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x. Yours in more than usual confusion, And ---------------------- GK> For a specific book I want one of a kind. I hope that's what you meant. I've never read it but it's a one word title. I choose the original manuscript of Beowulf. I call it Beoualf. Another way of talking about a specific book is to call it "the" book where "the" is part of what is known as a definite description. Bertrand Russell is the author of this version of things. I'll do this both ways. "The crucial feature of Russell's account is that if a description 'the P' is being correctly used-that is, if there exists a P and only one-then it achieves the same effect as a proper name, in singling out a unique thing in the world" ( courtesy of Richard Smith). (1a). First try to put it in language that is closer to the language of predicate logic and lojban: I need the state of: both Beowulf is a book and I possess it. mi cu nitcu lo za'i ge la zoi gy. beoualf gy. goi ko'e cukta gi me ponse ko'e I need the state: both [forethought and] the thing named [quote nonlojban] beoualf, to which I assign the pronoun it2, is_a_book, and I own it2. Without the parser I would never have gotten this straight. It may not be yet. (1b). I need there to be a specific book such that I have it. I need the state: I have "the" book. This is Russell's "the". It means there is just one such book [of its kind]. It is equivalent to a name, here the manuscript Beowulf. mi nitcu lo za'i mi ponse lo pa cukta I need the state: I possess what really is the one and only book.[of its kind] What I am trying to say by [of its kind] is that there is some universe of discourse. When Richard Nixon used to say "I am 'the' President", as he was so fond of doing, he didn't mean he was the one and only president in the world. He meant he was the only current one in the United States. Likewise lo pa cukta means something like original book about Beowulf. All this is just my idea of how it ought to work. There is an explanation of "paboi sumti" where the pa is adjacent to the sumti in the lessons. I don't think it has been used this way, again its my idea of how it ought to work. (2.) There is a specific book such that I need to have it. I need to possess the specific book. .i mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo pa cukta I need to possess "the" book. Russell's "the" again. Our "lo" is close to the logical "description operator", known as TAU, which is an equivalent form of Russell's "the". lo pa [broda]= "the" [broda]. You will have to look these things up to see where I'm coming from. This is definitely not consensus lojban, but I don't see how else to do it. (3). I need there to be an x, such that x is a book & I have x. I need the state: x exists, and x is a book and I have x. .i mi nitcu lo za'i su'o pa da zu'o ge da cukta gi mi ponse da I need the state: at least one object x exists and both x is_a_book and I possess it. (4). There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x. .i su'o da zu'o ije da cukta ije mi nitcu da There exists some x [end prenex] and that x is_a_book and I need it. Maybe "need to have" should be nitcu ponse or some such. If I have worked these examples correctly, and. you owe me something. This has got to get easier. I am going on vacation for about two weeks so I won't be able to respond for a while but I would appreciate feedback. djer jlk@netcom.com