Message-Id: <m0qnFSl-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:22:57 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: general response on needing books
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 6770
Lines: 194

And:
>> How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
>> (1a).  I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
>> (1b).  There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
>> (2a).  I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
>> (2b).  There  exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
>
>None of the replies wholly answered my intended query (because my
>intention was not in the least apparent from my wording).
>
>Let me explain, with an altered example:  "I need you to have a book",
>instead of "I need to have a book".  My idea was that the +/- specific
>distinction (LE v. LO) cuts across the transparent/ opaque distinction.

I agree with that. But I don't think your examples really show that.

>(1a-b) are +specific, (2a-b) are -specific, (1a,2a) are opaque, (1b,2b)
>are transparent.

The way I (mis?)understood the Quine excerpt, all your examples are
transparent.

"I need that there be a book such that I have it" is the
transparentisation of "I need a book" in its opaque sense.

"There is a book such that I need it" is a simple re-wording of
"I need a book" in its transparent sense.

Also, you didn't make very clear the +/- specific distinction.
"A specific book" is a non-specific reference, just as "that nondescript
book" is specific.

>One of (1a-b) (or maybe, ambiguously, both) is, in Lojban:
>   (1a/b) Mi nitcu le/lo nu do ponse le cukta

I would say:

        Mi nitcu le nu do ponse le cukta
        I need that you have the book.

        Mi nitcu lo nu do ponse le cukta
        There is an event of you having the book that I need

I would say that bringing "lo nu" into this discussion will complicate
things unnecessarily.

(1a) and (2a) are very similar

>> (1a).  I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
>> (2a).  I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.

I would translate both as

        mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo cukta

(Or maybe {lo steci cukta} for "a specific book")


>One of (2a-b) (or maybe, ambiguously, both) is, in Lojban:
>   (2a/b) Mi nitcu le/lo nu do ponse lo cukta

I disagree, of course. The quantification does not go outside the "le nu".
So:

>> (2b).  There  exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.

Has to be:

        da poi cukta zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da

The simple {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo cukta} never implies the existence
of a book, and I think even lojbab will agree with that.

>I should clarify what I mean by (1a) (specific & opaque):  I don't
>necessarily have the referent of 'le cukta' in mind, but were it to come
>to evaluating the truth of the lenu clause I would have a specific
>referent of 'le cukta' in mind.  "I need there to be a specific book
>such that you have it" -

Can we change "a specific book" to a truly specific reference like
"that book"? Otherwise, it is confusing to translate it with {le}.

Then, do you really mean to say "I need there to be that book such
that you have it". With a truly specific reference it doesn't make that
much sense.

>Further remarks.
>(i) My impression so far is that (1a/b) and (2a/b) really are ambiguous
>in Lojban. (This is currently being disputed on the List.)

Lojban is perfectly capable of distinguishing between them, if you are
as wordy as you are being in English in those examples.

The question is whether {mi nitcu lo cukta} is as ambiguous as
"I need a book", which can mean both. I hold that it has to have the
transparent meaning.

(And I am also certain that no matter what we end up deciding, it will
be happily used by everyone, including myself when I'm not paying
attention, with the opaque meaning.)

>(iii) (1a/b) cannot be disambiguated.

Yes they can. (1a) is {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo cukta}

For (1b), if you think {zo'u} is pedantic, you can say something like
{lo cukta cu zasti ije mi nitcu le nu mi ponse ra} = "A book exists,
and I need to have it".

>A new suggested solution:  LE & LO are transparent (wide scope, with
>quantification/reference assignment outside their clause).  But when
>combined with a certain cmavo (e.g.  Jorge's xehe) they are opaque
>(narrow scope, with quantification/reference assignment outside their
>clause).  Note that under my proposal "xehe" is used in tandem with
>LE/LO, not instead of them.

This is exactly my proposal. {xe'e} is a PA, so {xe'e cukta} means
exactly the same as {xe'e lo cukta}, and you can of course say
{xe'e le xukta}.


>Incidentally, contra Jorge, I think "mi nitcu lo tanxe" is illicit sumti
>raising:

Then you don't need {xe'e} at all.  :)

> what you really need is some state of affairs to be the case,
>such that its not being the case would be disadvantageous.

So you say that "I need that book" doesn't have any meaning, other
than "I need the state of affairs where I have that book".

I agree that {nitcu} is like {djica}, so if one is illicit sumti raising,
the other is as well. I don't think either of them should be.

Is asking for a book also sumti raising? You really are asking for some
state of affairs to be the case where you have a book.

> A "less
>wordy" locution would require us to not say what we mean.

I disagree. {mi nitcu le vi cukta} = "I need this book" is as precise
as {mi nelci le vi cukta} = "I like this book".

The fact that "I need a book" usually has the opaque meaning is no reason
to prohibit {mi nitcu lo cukta} in its transparent meaning.


>My proposals don't solve the "any whatsoever" problem.  Some but not all
>of these problems are solved by using wide scope universal
>quantification:
>
>     You may read all of the books.
>           It is permitted that for all x such that x is one of the books
>            you read x.
>     You may read any of the books.
>           For all x such that x is one of the books it is permitted
>            that you read x.

Right, but you have to be pedantic and quantify outside the abstraction.
{xe'e} saves you from having to do that in this case.

>But this, I feel, doesn't handle "You may read any three of the books"
>(i.e. a total of three books, selected freely from the set of all of the
>books).  So maybe here a new quantifier is needed, as Jorge has been
>arguing.

This is how I would make the specific/non-specific and transparent/opaque
distinctions:

non-specific/transparent

        mi nitcu re lo cukta
        I need two books (only two books exist that I need).

non-specific/opaque

        mi nitcu rexe'e lo xukta
        I need any two books.

specific/transparent

        mi nitcu le vi cukta
        I need this book.

specific/opaque

        mi nitcu rexe'e le ci cukta
        I need any two of the three books.

(The last one is cheating, since it really is non-specific/opaque.
I think you can't have specific/opaque.)

Jorge