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 m0qlStc-00005LC; Fri, 16 Sep 94 05:19 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6023; Fri, 16 Sep 94 05:18:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6020; Fri, 16 Sep 1994 05:18:00 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0699; Fri, 16 Sep 1994 04:16:50 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 19:17:15 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3974 Lines: 94 Here is some text from Quine, WORD AND OBJECT, that I took from article 32 on Opacity in Certain Verbs. I just read this this morning, its part of a larger whole on opacity, and I'm heavily editing it. "Just as looking for is endeavoring to find, so hunting is endeavoring to shoot or capture. The difference between the two cases of 'Earnest is hunting lions' is *prima facie a difference in scope: (7) Ernest is endeavoring that some lion is such that Ernest shoots it, (8) Some lion is such that Earnest is endeavoring that Ernest shoots it.. (Deletions and he boils the above sentences down to: (11)Ernest is endeavoring (-to cause) himself to shoot a lion, (12) Ernest is endeavoring (-to cause) himself and a (certain) lion to be related as shooter and shot. When 'Ernest is hunting lions' is construed as (12), 'hunt' qualifies as a straightforward relative term. 'Hunt' is so used in 'man-hunting', as applied to the police; not as applied to man-hunting lions. 'Hunt in the latter use, and in 'unicorn-hunting' and in the commonest use of 'lion-hunting' is not a term; it is an opaque verb whose use is clarified by the paraphrase (11). What we have been remarking of 'hunt' or 'look for' applies *mutis mutandis to 'want' and 'wish'; for to want is to wish to have. 'I want a sloop' in the opaque sense is parallel to (11): 'I wish myself to have a sloop' (to be a sloop owner)'; 'I want a sloop' in the transparent sense, 'There is a sloop I want', comes out parallel to (12). Only in the latter sense is 'want' a relative term, relating people to sloops. In the other or opaque sense it is not a relative term relating people to anything at all, concrete or abstract, real or ideal. It is a shortcut verb whose use is set forth by 'I wish myself to have a sloop',wherein 'have' and 'sloop' continue to rate as general terms as usual but merely happen to have an opaque construction 'wish to' overlying them. This point needs to be noticed by philosophers worried over the nature of objects of desire. (Deletions) In general it is a good rule thus to try by paraphrase to account for non-referential positions by explicitly opaque constructions..... it exposes a structure startling unlike what one usually associates with the grammatical form of 'Ernest is hunting lions' and 'I want a sloop' (deletions) Our paraphrases, aimed at bringing out the distinction between referential and non-referential positions, have been cumbersome at best, but the most cumbersome ones are the ones least needed. " End Quine quote. I do not pretend to understand all the above yet, but it is clear that we are traversing mapped territory, looking for boxes instead of sloops. I took a walk, and now I am going to try to put Quine's sloop examples into lojban, but I'll substitute box for sloop. His example again: I want a sloop. Quine's translations: Opaque case: I wish myself to have a sloop (to be a sloop owner). Transparent case: There is a sloop I want. Chris Bogart's example: "I need a box [any box whatever]." My translations: Opaque case: want(I, X), &X=have_box(I). OR djica mi da ije da du le nu mi cu tanpo'e OR mi djica le nu mi cu tanpo'e I want the event of being a box-owner. Transparent case: exists(X), &X=box,&want(I,X ). OR da du tanxe ije mi djica da OR mi djica da poi tanxe I want something which is a box. I don't know if either of these answer to what Chris has in mind. I rather liked my first suggestion, as corrected by jorge: mi nitcu le su'u me le taxpu'i me'u da kei I want the in-mind abstracton about boxing things. And now I am beginning to be haunted by a Beatles lyric: "Something in the way she walks.." How do you say that "something" in lojban when you don't really want it instantiated to anything known? djer jlk@netcom.com