Message-Id: <m0rBjae-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 27 Nov 1994 03:20:20 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: lohe, lehe & ka
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 26 Nov 94 20:05:06 EST.)
Content-Length: 2905
Lines: 72

Jorge:
> > The property of being a dog is "lo ka kau gerku" [I think the kau
> > goes in that way; I can't find the message that gave the details].
>
> No! {kau} is the indirect question marker!  :)

My memory is deceiving me. I thought I recalled you posting a message
saying that such a constructionn, using kau, had been mooted at
Lojfest. Sorry!

> The proposed way is {lo ka xa'eda gerku}. I would prefer
> {lo ka ke'a gerku}.

The "keha" one makes good sense.

> > The property of being a breed of dog is "lo ka gerku kau", or
> > "lo ka kau se gerku".
> > I take it that "the property of being X" means the properties any
> > X will have by virtue of being X.
> >
> > I can see no essential difference between "lohe gerku" and
> > "lo ka kau gerku", or between "lohe se gerku" and "lo ka kau se gerku".
> > The properties of lohe gerku are properties a gerku may be expected
> > to have by virtue of its being a gerku.
>
> This seems to be converging with my view that {lo'e} is the opaque
> marker, especially considering that the 'solution' for sisku was to
> make its x2 a property. If {ka} is thought of as the generic bearer
> of the property, rather than the property itself, it indeed starts
> to resemble {lo'e} a lot.

If you agree that "lohe" works as a kind of default universal quantifier
(i.e. not falsified by exceptions), and you still think "lohe" will
serve for your "xehe", then I would be glad to go along with you
for the time being.

But I foresee problems: "I'm looking for a book (to prop open the
door with". If you use "mi sisku lohe cukta", I would interpret
this as implying "every average unexceptional nondeviant book is
sought by me". But this is not so: there are zillions of books
not sought by me, and it would be inappropriate to insert in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for Book the information that I
was looking for one to prop open my door.

[For what it's worth, I'd prefer "mi xxxxx zei sisku lo siho lo cukta
props open the door".]

> > Still to be resolved is how we get:
> >   The dodo lived for seven years. The dodo ate figs.
> > versus
> >   The dodo existed for seven million years. The dodo is extinct.
> >
> > The former is how I understand "lohe".
>
> I agree.
>
> > For the latter, "loi" will
> > not suffice, since (a) lo dodo can't be extinct, & (b) "loi
> > dodo existed for 7m years" would be true if but a single dodo
> > existed for 7m years, which is not the meaning we want.
>
> I'm still not sure about this, but I don't think the properties of
> {loi} are properties of each of its members. Most of its properties
> are emergent ones, and not all the properties of the members (if any)
> are inherited. I would go with {loi} for this meaning.

The problem is that *all* the properties of class generics are emergent.
If lo dodo was called Fritz, then loi dodo was called fritz, but
class-generic dodo wasn't called Fritz.

-----
And