From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Nov 23 17:47:27 1994
Message-Id: <199411232247.AA10528@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Wed Nov 23 17:47:27 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: existential quantification
Status: RO

la and cusku di'e

> "want" means "the existence of situation x2 pleases x1 and the nonexistence
> of situation x2 displeases x1".

On the other hand, it can also mean "the possession of object x2 pleases x1
and the nonpossession of object x2 displeases x1".

And many other things, according to context. You argue that it is not a good
idea to let {djica} be a relationship between sentient being x1 and
object x2. I argue that it would be a good idea, because it allows to
say many things in a simple manner.

"I want a box" should not in general be translated as {mi djica lo tanxe},
nobody argues with that. But that is because "a box" there is an opaque
reference to boxes, not because "want" can't meaningfully accept objects
as its x2. I find "I want that box" to be a very valid relationship
between "I" and "that box", both of which have clear referents.

> All I'm suggesting is altering this
> to: "the realization of x1's idea x2 pleases x1 and the nonrealization
> of x2 displeases x1". It's a very slight change, and probably an
> improvement, since the intentionality is reflected by the explicit
> use of "siho".

Ok, let me start from a different position. Let's say {djica} meant
"x1 (person) wants x2 (object, transparent)".

This allows us to say "I want that apple" without problems.

There are other things that we'd like to say, like "I want an apple"
(opaque) or "I want that you come" (an abstraction instead of an object).

For the first one I already gave my proposed solutions. Either
{mi djica lo'e plise} or {mi djica xe'e lo plise}.

Now for the second one, the traditional way would be to use an event
abstraction instead of an object: {lo nu do klama}, "at least one
of all the events of you coming". But, as you point out, what if you
never come? How can I say that there is a relationship (namely djica)
that holds between the referents of {mi} and of {lo nu do klama} when
this last one has no referents?

I think {mi djica xe'e lo nu do klama} works for this, just as in
the case of apples.

Another option is to go to something like you propose, but I would
say {mi djica le du'u do klama}, similar to {mi jinvi le du'u do klama}.
I don't have anything against {si'o} other than that I don't really
understand what it means (not that I understand nu and du'u thoroughly,
but I feel more comfortable with them).

> The comparison with "sisku" I take as a gross slight.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way.   :)

> As presently
> defined it makes no sense to me, and I think it is a candidate
> for euthanasia. It won't get abolished, but I commend total
> desuetude as a fitting fate for it.

I predict that it will be used as I propose, i.e. someone looking
for their umbrella will simply say {mi sisku le mi santa}.

> I wonder whether the meanings of "want" and "seek" are in fact
> more complex than you believe them to be.

I have no doubt about it, but so are the meanings of any other verb
that you care to mention. I believe that a solution that works for
all cases of opaque reference is better than individual solutions
for each predicate that can take opaque references.

> ---
> And

Jorge