From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:32 2010 Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Dec 18 21:30:55 1995 From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: TECH:opaque (ex mass and le/lo) X-To: lojban list To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199512190115.AA27170@mail.crl.com> Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 18 21:30:55 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > Another example discussed here once was "that is a human head". I would > > say {ta stedu lo'e remna}. You may want to say {ta stedu tu'a lo remna}, > > pc: > > Why would I want to say that? If it is a human head then there is a > > very definite -- though presumably dead -- human whose head it is. > > No opacity problems (basic rule is that the dead are always with > > us, though the not-yet-born may not be). > > I wasn't thinking of dead bodies. Are you really suggesting that there > can be no human heads that were never attached to a human? Suppose that > in the year 3217 arificially produced human heads are sold in stores so > that you may go and buy a new one just as you buy shoes. A human head > is a perfectly conceivable object even in the absence of an instantiation > of a human being. You may want to say "I saw a human head" without > implying that there was a human whose head you saw. > > If you don't like the example of human heads, then how about horse-shoes. > I would say {cutci lo'e xirma jamfu} = "shoe for horse-feet". > > Anyway, you obviously don't approve of my use of {lo'e} for the archetype > rather than for the typical, but I find it much more useful, so until > there is a better solution, I'll keep using {lo'e}. > > Jorge > I've no objection to _lo'e_ as an archetype; I just don't see what it has to do with opaque contexts. I am not hunting an archetype but a lion (or whatever). Maybe with a marker for an instantiation it would serve, but then I fear that it will still be off in another world and so not allow quantification in. As for the horse-shoes (and so for the future human heads, head for humans, the human or the horse does indeed go opaque -- but not archetypal -- the archetypal human would not get a new head -- and the head was, presumably, not custom-made, so there is nobody (snigger!) for whom it the head, but, as usual, any-old human will do. But notice that _stedu_ is the head *of* a human, not *for* one and this, until it is bought, is not even an alienable possession of anyone. And, as soon as it is bought, then there is a human whose head it is. pc>|83