Message-Id: <m0qnZ2d-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 21 Sep 1994 20:20:30 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: general response on needing books
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Tue, 20 Sep 94 20:22:57 EDT.)
Content-Length: 5066
Lines: 130

Jorge:
> 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.

"A certain book" would have been a better way of englishing it.

> (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")

You misunderstand my intention behind (1a), which I could rephrase
as "I need there to be a certain book such that I have it (but I
don't necessarily know which book this is)".
I'll return to this below.

> >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.

(1a/b) & (2a/b) were Lojban sentences. It is still in dispute whether
they're ambiguous.

> >(iii) (1a/b) cannot be disambiguated.
>
> Yes they can. (1a) is {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo cukta}

No. See below.

> >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}.

What do they mean, under your proposal?

> >Incidentally, contra Jorge, I think "mi nitcu lo tanxe" is illicit sumti
> >raising:
>
> Then you don't need {xe'e} at all.  :)

I was suggesting a cmavo that marks whether quantification/reference
assignmetn takes place inside or outside the local abstracction.

> > 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".

Right. Or it could be "mi nitcu lenu cukta", which I take to mean
"I need the book to exist".

> 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.

I think they should both be. Needing and wanting both involve a
comparison of the existence/nonexistence of a state of affairs.
For you to persuade me that there isn't illicit raising you need
to givve me a definition of 'needing' & 'wanting' to back up
your view.

> 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.

Right.

> > 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".

No. For 'like' we could paraphrase 'contemplate with pleasure' (roughly),
& one can contemplate an object as well as a book. But a needee can
only be an event.

> 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.

Right, but it should be abjured as sumti raising, & as gobbledygook.

> I think you can't have specific/opaque.)

To evaluate the truth of "Lo cukta cu blanu" you examine every book,
and only if every book turns out not to be blue is the statement
false. To evaluate the truth of "Le cukta cu blanu" you identify
the referent of "le cukta" and then check whether it's blue.

"There is a certain book that I need to have": to evaluate the
truth of this you identify the referent of "a certain book"
(le cukta) & check whether I need to have it.
"I need there to be a certain book that I have": to evaluate the
truth of this you don't have to identify the referent of "a certain
book", but if you wanted to test whether my need had been satisfied
you would have to identify the referent of "a certain book".

This latter case is what I meant by 'specific & opaque': i.e. the
specific referent is established only within the local predication.
I'd be happy to use a term other than 'opaque' if you feel that
I'm misusing it.

Finally, I reiterate my cmavo proposals:
 "xihi" - modifies LO/LE & indicates for LO that quantification
          takes place in local abstraction & for LE that reference
          is assigned in local abstraction. I assume that in the
          absence of "xihi" quantification/ref.assignment takes
          place at sentence level.
 "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.

-----
And