Message-Id: <199601142358.SAA22396@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 14 Jan 1996 23:29:17 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: opaque
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1443

i,n:
> > i,n:
> > As for pictures, I think that what is depicted is some sort of
> > abstraction (in the most general sense) of/from the object in
> > question, which might be appropriately represented by a Lojban
> > abstraction (NU), but again probably not involving {lo broda}.
> > pc:
> > _lo broda_ has to get in somewhere if it is a picture of  a(some)
> > broda(s).
> I dispute that it can be a picture of a(some) broda(s) unless
> there is a(some) broda(s) of which it is a picture.

If there is a picture of lo gerku then there is something that
is a gerku. However, I am not sure whether there is something
*in the same world as that in which there is a picture* that is a gerku,
and I am sure that there is something that is in one world depicted
and in a different world a gerku.

The solution requires either (i) specifying, by a syntactic method as yet
unknown, which worlds' individuals variables range over or (ii) assuming
that variables range over individuals of every world, in which case
{pixra lo kae gerku} - "picture of what in some world or other is a
dog" (with {kae} understood nonepistemically/nonsubjectively) - will
do the job.

> I suggest that it is "really" a picture of something-to-do-with-brodas
> (and I would like to be much more specific than that, but I don't have
> all the answers :-).

I've entertained similar ideas, but likewise found myself unable to be
satisfactorily more specific.

coo, mie and