From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Feb 17 22:05:34 1995 Message-Id: <199502180305.AA22856@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Fri Feb 17 22:05:34 1995 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: ago24 & replies Jorge: > And: > {lo bridi} > > My gihuste says "x1 (du'u) is a predicate". Is this out of date? > Mine says: > x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among arguments > I think I prefer your version, though. These are clearly incompatible. My gihuste is older, I'm fairly sure. I'm not sure I have preference between. What I do wish is that a strict distinction be made between terms like "sumti" and "bridi" when they refer to words, and when they refer to ideas. They get used with systematic & deleterious ambiguity. > > I don't agree that the properties of the archetype have to do with > > the properties of the instances. To me, {lohe mlatu cu xekri} means > > "typical instances of the cat archetype are black", but not "the > > cat archetype is black". I don't know of any way to attribute properties > > to the cat archetype rather than its instances. > So according to you {lo'e mlatu} refers to the instances of the archetype? > To extramental objects? Or are the instances mental objects? I think {lohe mlatu cu broda} means Ax x is a typical instance of cat archetype -> x is broda On a view whereby referents are usually things in the extramental world, typical instances of cats are things in the real world. > > > I suppose you couldn't say {mi pensi lo'e mlatu} with your definition. > > It would mean "the typical instance of the cat archetype is thought > > about by me". Indeed not the meaning you wished to express. > "The" typical instance? Is there only one? Why were they many when they > were black? And I wasn't thinking of many cats. Sorry - read that as "every typical instance". I was using generic "the", which is hardly a helpful thing to be doing in this discussion! > > > > What sort of properties does an archetype > > > > (as opposed to its instances) have? > > > I can think about {lo'e mlatu}, I can need {lo'e mlatu}, I can want > > > {lo'e mlatu}, I can look for {lo'e mlatu}, all without there being > > > a single {lo mlatu} with those properties. > > You don't look for or need the archetype. You look for a typical > > instance of the archetype, which, as you say, needn't exist. > But is a typical instance being looked for by me? Are more than one > typical instances being looked for by me? I think that the relationship > is with a single thing, not with a multitude of instances. > When you say "you look for a typical instance of the archetype" you > are falling back on English opaque usage. I wasn't offering a translation of "I seek a cat". I meant that a cat-archetype just isn't the sort of thing that you're likely to seek - it's some kind of abstract entity located within the mind. But typical instances of the archetype are things you might well seek. > Whether you call it "the archetype" or "the typical instance of > the archetype", what I'm looking for is one thing If you mean that what you wish to end up with is one thing, then {lohe broda pamei}. But if you mean that there is some identifiable (albeit abstract) individual that you seek, I don't see {lohe} as filling that role. I'm not reading your mind properly, but I wonder if your idea might be something like the Mr Cat stuff brought up by Bob Chassell last year vis a vis massifiers. The Mr Cat idea is that you do not distinguish one cat from another - all cats count as the same cat. It turned out that this is not what massifiers do, but it sounds a bit like what you're saying about {lohe}. > (or I would happily add a {re} in front if I was looking for two > cats, but I know you don't like that). No. But I'd be happy with {lohe mlatu remei}. > > I suspect we agree after all, so long as you agree that we are > > not now discussing lahe lu lohe mlatu lihu, but rather > > le duhu kau du lihu lu lohe mlatu lihu. [NB placatory {kau}.] > ~ma > Did you mean {le du'u makau du _la'e_ lu lo'e mlatu li'u}? Yes. > That's equivalent, I think, to {le du'u makau du lo'e mlatu}? > But I don't see what distinction you are making. It might be equivalent to {le duhu lohe mlatu ku du makau} (I'm a bit worried about quantifier scope in your version.) I wanted to say in effect "we are asking what is it that {lohe mlatu} means", as opposed to "{lohe mlatu} means x, & we are discussing x". > > I would still hold that {lohe} implies universal quantification: > > mi nitcu lohe mlatu > > Ax x is a typical instance of the cat archetype -> I need x > How can you tell whether x is a typical instance? If it has enough of the properties attributed to {lohe mlatu}. > Suppose I need a box, and there's one fairly ordinary (even typical, > one might say) box right beside me. Is it true that {mi nitcu le vi > tanxe}? I say no, not necessarily this one, I need any box. > But this one will do fine, even though I can't claim that it is > needed by me. Yes and no. {mi nitcu le vi tanxe} would not express your intended meaning, but on the other hand, le vi tanxe would satisfy your need, so in some sense it is needed, even if {nitcu} isn't quite the right predicate for this sort of need. Note that I'm not advocating {nitcu lohe tanxe} as a rendering of "need a box". I think you can only get the opaque reading by having an overt subordinate bridi.. > > Good point. This would be fixed if all or most gismu automatically > > came with an event place fillable by zohe. > > The tense of broda is the time at which le nu broda occurs. > > If there were a sumti place (tersumti) for the event, then it > > could be filled by a specific or non-specific (implicit) sumti. > I must be missing something because I still have no idea what you are > talking about. {klama} has no place for an event, while {zvati} does. I propose {klama} gets an extra tersumti, for the activity of going. If you go twice (along same path), then this tersumti could be filled by {re da}. If you go in the present then this tersumti could be filled by {lo cabna}. {Zvati} would similarly have an extra place, for the occasions of zvatiing. > How does that help, or otherwise, in determining the tense in > {ko'a cusku le se du'u klama} or {ko'a cusku le se du'u zvati}. > They seem totally analogous cases. And there are many (probably most) > selbri without event places, I don't see why you would want most > of them to have one. At present no selbri have these "event places". I say I want most rather than all to have one, because a few, like {du} and the mathematical ones are hard to construe as events - {lo nu da du de} is odd. If klama, zvati have this "event place", then {le se duhu zvati/klama} has an implicit {zohe} in that place. This {zohe} could be specific, in which case {le se duhu klama} is true iff the going happened at a specific in-mind time. --- And