From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 16 22:58:59 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3441 ; Fri, 16 Jun 95 22:58:50 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 16 Jun 95 20:03:22 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa04332; 16 Jun 95 21:02 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4193; Fri, 16 Jun 95 16:00:13 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9683; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:03:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 19:38:28 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 14 Jun 95 21:12:37 EDT.) Message-ID: <9506162102.aa04332@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Jorge: > > > If I can say veridically that {lo rorci be lo jbobau cu smoka lo > > > mapni} then descriptions are utterly useless. > > Why? This is a question of how we conceptualize the world. There is > > no objectivity. I wouldn't conceptualize the world in such a way as > > to consider that sentence accurate, but it is possible to do so. > Well, then you can conceptualize the world to make any sentence > accurate. No. > You can conceptualize it to make sense of {ta blanu} when pointing > to a red thing. On hearing that, I would think that either you don't > understand Lojban or there's something wrong with the eyes of one of > us, but I would probably not consider that you are conceptualizing > the world differently. I agree. > Isn't language a convention for conceptualizing the world? Yes. > We can't use the same language for long and pretend to understand each > other if we are conceptualizing the world very differently. We'd be > speaking different languages. I agree. For something to be blanu its colour must be within a fuzzily defined region of colour space. For something to be mass, it should have properties like a lack of intrinsic boundaries, internal homogeneity, and a number of other factors most illuminatingly discussed, I think, in Langacker's (1986) "Nouns and verbs" in _Language_. So if you refer to a mass of Lojbab, J.Caesar and my sock, you're claiming that the referent has those properties of masshood. A strange claim, of course. And then if you succeed in finding a way in which L, J.C. and my sock form a mass (e.g. on the grounds of their constituting the examplage in our discussion) then you may claim that it satisfies the criteria for being a rorci be lo jbobau. While that doesn't strike me as a likely move, I cannot see that there are clear reasons for saying such a claim would be false. > > > I don't care about truth conditions. Let's just consider meaning. > > > Does {lo djacu} admit your sock as a referent? > > No, I don't think so. I don't think what I've been saying predicts > > it could. > Let me rephrase the question a little. Do you agree that {lo'i solri > be le terdi bei lo'e remna} is a singleton set? Sort of. If you allow for fuzzy categories then the cardinality is going to be fuzzy too. If, say, the moon is 1% a member of {lohi solri be fe loe remna} then the cardinality is less obviously 1. > Is {le solri ku joi le lunra} a (the) member of that set? [Draws breath for foolhardy/foolish answer...] Yes and no; or rather: sort of. It satisfies some but not all criteria for being a member of that set. It is sort-of a member of that set. > > > {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} means > > > something very different than {le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}. > > Yes it does, although I think they can both describe the same state > > of affairs (with from one to a zillion acts of carrying). > I don't see that. Assuming we are talking about a single piano, then > the sentence with {lei} describes one act of carrying, and the one > with {le} describes exactly three acts, one by each man. I don't see > how either may describe a zillion acts. (You might describe the same > act as a zillion acts, but then you have to use some other bridi.) The {lei} version says the man-age is carrier of the piano - doesn't specify number of events. The {le} version says man1 is carrier of the p, man2 is, and man3 is. Again, no specification of the number of events. To disambiguate, you need {fau}, e.g. {fau pa da lei ci nanmu cu bevri...} {le ci nanmu cu bevri fau pa da ...}. > I'm still not sure about the meaning of "bounded". "Doesn't extend as far as the mind's eye can see; the mind's eye can see the edges of it." > > > > In work on English I have recognized > > > > (i) unbounded entities > > > > (ii) extrinsically bounded entities (e.g. {re lo djacu}) > > > > (iii) intrinsically bounded entities (e.g. {lo gerku}) > > > > (in English at least these behave differently from each other in > > > > certain respects). > > {lo} is sometimes (ii) and sometimes (iii), > What is {lo blanu}? Couldn't it even be (1)? Yes. You're right. So {lo} is unspecified for (i-iii). The sense of the selbri determines which of (i-iii) the referent is. > > > But in Lojban we can only distinguish (with gadri, at any rate) > > > individuals and masses (which are also individuals in themselves, > > > but they are masses as seen from the point of view of the components). > > Of course there are two relevant types of gadri; but I'm suggesting > > they don't naturally or consistently capture a genuine semantic > > distinction. > To me, the difference between {lei ci nanmu} and {le ci nanmu} is > quite genuine, and one that seems worth marking. Given that > there are three men in front of us, we may refer to them in two > different ways, taking them as three or as one entity. Yes, you've made me rethink the matter. {lVi} is "not intrinsically bounded", overriding the sense of the selbri, while {lV} is unspecified as to boundedness, conforming to whatever boundedness is dictated by the selbri. So there is a genuine semantic distinction consistently captured by the gadri opposition. > > depending on the sense of the gismu (e.g. djacu versus gerku}. > > {loi} is always unspecified between (i) and (ii). > How about something like {lei ci nanmu cu zmadu le pipno > le ka junta ke'a}. Why is {le pipno} any more intrinsically > bounded than {lei ci nanmu}? If X is intrinsically bounded: - if you divide an X into portions each portion is not an X - X often has internal structure - X often has inherent shape - X is often internally heterogeneous - if you put an X next to another X they remain distinct {le pipno has all these features}. {lei ci nanmu} doesn't, or needn't. > The difference between {lo djacu} and {lo gerku} is more artificial > (from a Lojbanic point of view) given that there are things like > {lo blanu} that can be like both. In English we have nouns, and these > are properties of nouns. English is actually quite similar. There are count nouns and mass nouns, identifiable both by their meaning and by their syntactic behaviour. If some instances of a given lexeme are count nouns, then other instances of that lexeme are mass nouns, and vice versa. Referents of mass nouns are not intrinsically bounded, so these are like {loi}. Referents of count nouns are intrinsically bounded, so there is no Lojban analogue of count nouns, and nor is there an English analogue of {lo}. > In Lojban there are no nouns as such, so we can only refer to things > using the predicates that those things satisfy. The same object might > end up satisfying predicates that would correspond to all your three > categories. That would mean that your categories are not really > categories of objects but rather of referents. Aren't all categories in semantics categories of referents rather than objects? > > > > {loi broda} at present can be (i) or (ii). I think that may be > > > > unhealthy. > > > It can't be (ii). You can take fractions of a mass, but not multiples. > > On what grounds do you say this? I of course don't agree, but maybe > > you have compelling arguments. > I have no compelling arguments, only that {piro loi broda} is the mass > of all broda and therefore you can't have more than one of it. > {re loi broda} would be two masses of all broda, and I don't know what > that would be. Well that's fairly compelling. But can you have {re lei broda}? Ah, you will say no, because that means "the mass of all broda I have in mind" rather than "a certain mass of broda". How do you get "some mass of broda" and "a certain mass of broda"? > Well, I know that what I say is inconsistent with other things that > have been said, especially with the "any property of a component is a > property of the mass" bit. But also what you say is inconsistent with > other things that have been said. That's for sure. > Obviously, the things that have been said are inconsistent with each > other. Your idea of mass is incompatible with fractionators. It's incompatible with *implicit* fractionators. > My idea was formed from trying to make sense of the fractionators, > which requires that the inheritance of all properties be eschewed. I know. If I was trying to make sense of current official situation I'd probably agree with you all the way. > Which one is more useful I don't know. I find that what you could > say with yours is mostly covered by {lo'e}, but I don't know. I want {lei} to mean "a certain (thing which I describe as a) mass of", and {loi} to mean "some mass of". Then it's not covered by {loe}. I don't know how to say these things otherwise. > > > > > > > pimu lei remna poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu le nu ky culno ry > > > > > > > Half of the people in the room are enough to fill it. > > > > > > Well, maybe, in which case {pimu lo remna poi nenri le kumfa > > > > > > cu banzu le nu ky culno ry} or {pimu la ron poi nenri le kumfa > > > > > > cu banzu le nu ky culno ry} should be equally okay. > > > > > How do you say that the people fill > > > > > the room without implying that each of them does? > > > > {pi mu loi remna} - an extrinsically bounded entity. > > > But that's what I said in the first place! > > > (Well, I used {lei remna}, otherwise you get half of all humanity.) > > I know. Did I say somewhere I thought that was wrong? I may well have > > done, thinking foggily. > You said that it meant that {pimu la ron poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu > le nu ky culno ry} should be equally okay. Well I think they are. I don't know what the parser says, but they make equal sense to me. --- And