Message-Id: <m0r9UYe-00007CC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 21 Nov 1994 03:54:40 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 5264
Lines: 96

JL>la lojbab cusku di'e
JL>
JL>> We can solve the "look for object" problem most simply by just creating a
JL> lujvo
JL>> for this meaning.
JL>
JL>Ok, then that proves that there is nothing strange about a brivla meaning
JL>"x1 looks for x2".
JL>
JL>I find "x1 looks for something with property x2" more intricate, and so
JL>I would prefer that this last one be handled with a lujvo based on the
JL>first one, but that is of course my subjective judgement.

Of course there is nothing strange about a brivla relating two objects - a
seeker and the thing known-and-sought-after, and having a certain predicate
relating them.  The problem that I see is that there is more than one such
predicate, and the choice is dependent on the specificity  (or is that
definiteness %^) of x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the desire is of the
seeker for the final state after finding.

x1 seeks a specific (lost) x2 in order to know its location possibly, but not
necessarily to use it for some particular reason (I can get into a tizzy
looking for my checkbook, even though I have no particular use for it at the
moment - I just want to have the security of knowing where it is).

x1 is seeking that x2 specifically to use it for a purpose x3 (I distinguish
this from the former simply because x3 isn't always a part of the picture,
and thus cannot be generalized to all inst5ances of "seek", but needs to be
added as a lujvo in some circumstances.

x1 is seeking an opaque instance of x2
  a. with desirer to know its location
  b. with desire to learn more about x2, without realluy caring about its
     location
  c. with desire to possess x2
  d. with desire to use x2

x1 is seeking an x2, such that he does not know that it exists, but rather
he is searching for an x2 based on the properties that it manifests.  This
is the seeking of science, for example.

A variation on the latter is when x1 is seeking for a phenomenon rather than
an object.  This phenomenon, if opaque, seems more clearly indicated by its
properties (lo ka) than by its eventness or stateness (lonu).

Within the opaque meanings, it is possible to express objects in terms of
the properties they manifest.  It seems difficult to express abstract
properties in terms of objects (unless the predicate for the object somehow
evokes the property sought, e.g. in its description: I seek lo bardymau be lo
nanba tanxe be'o dacti).

Now let me complicate things by observing that my own concept of troci is
colored by the need to have a specific "nu troci" - if there is no specific
"attempt", then you aren;t really "trying".  So "troci" to me cannot be used
in all seekings, specifically seekings after knowledge that are not broken
down into attempts, nor are an ongoing single attemmpt-state.  "djica" also
seems limited to me, in that the speaker has to actually WANT to find what he
is looking for.  I imagine a scientist seeking suspected evidence that the
sun will explode in the next 6 months doesn't really want to find it.

We changed the x2 of sisku in response to Iain's raising this whole issue
of opacity and existence, and I agreed based on my realizing that English
"Seek" has really a broad, non-Lojbanic range of meanings, and figuring that itr
 would be possible to go from the abstract to the specific more easily than
in the other direction.  So far this seems to be the case.

In addition to Iain's argument, rthough, there is the longstanding issue of
the translation of "John seeks a bicycle or a fish", a problem in intensionality
(speaker, vs. John)  coupled with possible interpretation of the "or" as a
connective unknown.  The unstaisfactory nature of previous discussions of this
has led me to be more accepting of a broader, more vague, sisku, that might
be more likely to cover any particular intended interpetation of the above
statement.  I guess there is also a possible opaqueness issue as well - since
John may be seeking for one of these things ("or" either of them) but the
speaker may not know the definiteness of the seeking.  (I hope this makes
some kind of sense - trying to keep the technical sense of "definite" and
"specific" spearate is not working for me and at 330 am, I am not going to
try ot find the deifnition.)


WE have other cases in Lojban where the Lojban word covers a misleading
subset of the English meanings of the keywords ("old" and "know" being two
cases that come to mind).  In all such casesa we have learned to live with the
fact that the English word is tto broad and have come up with lujvo for the
alternative meanings.  Such lujvo can always exist, and if this whole
issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away. the number of distinctions we need to
make may be reduced.  But I remain unconvinced of this - as pc said a while
back in this discussion - there are some predicates that embody a hidden
abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this (it
is possible that "opacity" is nothing more nor less than the existence of
such a hidden abstraction, in which case a "tu'a"-like mark in LAhE seems
appropriate to me even if I have trouble figuring out whether it would ever
be used or useful)

       mi'e la lojbab noi sisku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u nabmi
                          cu mansa roda