From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 17 16:07:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 17 Sep 2002 23:07:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 51217 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2002 23:07:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2002 23:07:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 23:07:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.177.ebd0c23 (4320) for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <177.ebd0c23.2ab90fca@aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:07:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_177.ebd0c23.2ab90fca_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15776 --part1_177.ebd0c23.2ab90fca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/17/2002 1:37:45 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > I think any translation of {lo'e broda} that starts with "the" > will be misleading, as English "the" is hardly ever used for > this sense. >> Lacking an answer to the question what {lo'e broda} means, I can't comment. "The" has seemed an appropriate gadri for many of the things that we have talked about on this thread -- unique things and obliquely referring expressions a like: they are presumably unique and specific. << For a given {broda}, we define the predicate {kairbroda}, so that it means "x1 is broda to something that has property x2". (Let's assume broda has only two places, other places would remain for kairbroda the same as for broda). We can now give a precise definition of {broda} in terms of {kairbroda}: ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e ko'a is broda to ko'e = ko'a is broda to something that has the property of being ko'e >> That works out all right, but I would resent calling RHS a *definition* of LHS; if any thing, the defining goes the other way -- as the status of the words involved quite rightly suggest. ({broda} is primitive, {kairbroda} is derived from it). I'll skip over the question of whther there is suc a *property* du'u ce'u du ko'e, since the existence of the Lojban phrase is all that is called for here. I don't see any gain in doing this -- other than longwindedness and obscurity. I tend, by the way, to ve VERY suspicious of any maneuver that involves burying a quantifier inside a predicate. This is a favorite trick of philosophical snake-oil salesmen to get you to treat the predicate as a normal one and then they pull the "something" out, to the amazement of all (and the confounding of the actual situation). I don't suppose you are doing this deliberately with that intent, but be aware that there is a danger here that can get even snake-oil men occasionally to buy their own 'panacea.' << Now if we introduce quantifiers: da zo'u ko'a broda da = da zo'u ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du da The same for {da poi brode}, which is {lo brode}, and which can be moved away from the prenex, but only in the first expression: ko'a broda lo brode = da poi brode zo'u ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du da >> Yeah, but this is getting more and more complicated without gaining anything. Given the definition of {kairbroda}, all of these follow from -- and mean the same as -- the natural Lojban expressions they *explicate* How will this help? << It is clear that we cannot remove {da poi brode} from the prenex in the right hand side expression, because that would put it inside of du'u, and the sense of the whole expression would change. >> This is not obvious and I am inclined at first glance to think it false. Quantifying in -- moving a quantifier from outside an intensional context to inside -- is rarely a problem, though some information information may be lost. In this case, a thing such that there is a brode to which it is identical will also be a thing that has the property of there being a brode to which it is identical. They look to be materially equivalent, though I suppose the meanings ar slightly different -- just not enough to make a practical difference.There may be a catch somewhere, but I don't see it now. << Now, what about the expression {ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du lo brode}? Is there no way to express it with broda as the selbri? Let's define {lo'e brode} such that: ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du lo brode But {ce'u du lo brode} is just {ce'u brode}, so we can simplify a bit more: ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode >> I smells snake. To the first question, the answer is yes: {ko'a broda lo brode}. So, not to my complete surprise (but to my considerable disappointment) {lo'e broda} turns out to be a messy way of saying {lo broda}, so far as I can see. << This can be repeated for {lo'e brode} in x1 or any other place just by defining the appropriate corresponding selbri. >> With {selkairbroda} : "something with property x1 bears the relation broda to x2" Looks like the same problem. << I think this analysis works for all the "intensional context" selbri (indeed the redefinition of {sisku} was an attempt to do something like this, the gi'uste {sisku} corresponds to the {kairsisku} that one has to define in order to give the expansion of {sisku lo'e brode} with original {sisku}. >> I don't see the intensional predicates in here at all. If {broda} is intensional, then x2 will be a property of intensions {... du'u ce'u du le/lo/tu'o nu/du'u ... brode} and, since all intensions always exist there will be even less problem with the collapse. I don't see how -- as you clearlly intend -- this move even looks like it gets rid of or inside an intension, unless ther is another predicate here that buries the intension along with the quantifier, an even riskier procedure. Your move is somewhat like the one in getting to the present {sisku} (I knew there was an objective reason for disliking that move), but not enough to get any advantage from it -- {sisku} needs the property and cannot shift back to the object at all, while this {lo'e} never gets off the object level for all its locutions to the contrary. << But the same expansion applies to every selbri, not just the "intensional context" ones. For example: ko'a viska lo'e broda = ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u broda He sees-something-with-the-property-of being broda (No claim that there is something such that it is seen, the "something" of the English gloss is part of the predicate. Normally of course there will be something that is seen, but this is not part of what is claimed.) >> The salesman's hook. It is exactly what is claimed, wherever the quantifer is buried (and we did not even look at what negation does here) and burying the quantifier is correspondingly uninformative, misleading, or just a plain cheat. How is {ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u broda} going to be true if there is not something there to have the property of being a broda. {sisku} is not a good model here, because it always took an intensional place -- and {viska} never does (you can't see what ain't there) << I don't think I could give a canonical list. The examples we've been using are things like {nelci lo'e cakla}, {nitcu lo'e tanxe}, {pixra lo'e sincrboa}, {simsa lo'e sfofa}, {claxu lo'e rebla}, etc. those are useful, but {lo'e} makes sense in any position where {lo} does. What do you think of the explanation of {broda lo'e brode} in terms of {kairbroda}? >> Since {lo'e broda} apparently is just {lo broda} in all practical situations, the same list will do for both. --part1_177.ebd0c23.2ab90fca_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/17/2002 1:37:45 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
I think any translation of {lo'e broda} that starts with "the"
will be misleading, as English "the" is hardly ever used for
this sense.

>>
Lacking an answer to the question what {lo'e broda} means, I can't comment.  "The" has seemed an appropriate gadri for many of the things that we have talked about on this thread -- unique things and obliquely referring expressions a like: they are presumably unique and specific.

<<
For a given {broda}, we define the predicate {kairbroda}, so
that it means "x1 is broda to something that has property x2".
(Let's assume broda has only two places, other places would
remain for kairbroda the same as for broda).

We can now give a precise definition of {broda} in terms
of {kairbroda}:

ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e
ko'a is broda to ko'e = ko'a is broda to something that
              has the property of being ko'e
>>
That works out all right, but I would resent calling  RHS a *definition* of LHS; if any thing, the defining goes the other way -- as the status of the words involved quite rightly suggest. ({broda} is primitive, {kairbroda} is derived from it).  I'll skip over the question of whther there is suc a *property* du'u ce'u du ko'e, since the existence of the Lojban phrase is all that is called for here.  I don't see any gain in doing this -- other than longwindedness and obscurity.
I tend, by the way, to ve VERY suspicious of any maneuver that involves burying a quantifier inside a predicate.  This is a favorite trick of philosophical snake-oil salesmen to get you to treat the predicate as a normal one and then they pull the "something" out, to the amazement of all (and the confounding of the actual situation).  I don't suppose you are doing this deliberately with that intent, but be aware that there is a danger here that can get even snake-oil men occasionally to buy their own 'panacea.'

<<
Now if we introduce quantifiers:

da zo'u ko'a broda da = da zo'u ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du da

The same for {da poi brode}, which is {lo brode}, and
which can be moved away from the prenex, but only in the
first expression:

ko'a broda lo brode = da poi brode zo'u ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u
                      ce'u du da
>>
Yeah, but this is getting more and more complicated without gaining anything.  Given the definition of {kairbroda}, all of these follow from -- and mean the same as -- the natural Lojban expressions they *explicate*  How will this help?

<<
It is clear that we cannot remove {da poi brode} from the
prenex in the right hand side expression, because that would
put it inside of du'u, and the sense of the whole expression
would change.
>>
This is not obvious and I am inclined at first glance to think it false.  Quantifying in -- moving a quantifier from outside an intensional context to inside -- is rarely a problem, though some information information may be lost.  In this case, a thing such that there is a brode to which it is identical will also be a thing that has the property of there being a brode to which it is identical.  They look to be materially equivalent, though I suppose the meanings ar slightly different -- just not enough to make a practical difference.There may be a catch somewhere, but I don't see it now.

<<
Now, what about the expression {ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u
ce'u du lo brode}? Is there no way to express it with
broda as the selbri? Let's define {lo'e brode} such that:

ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du lo brode

But {ce'u du lo brode} is just {ce'u brode}, so we can
simplify a bit more:

ko'a broda lo'e brode = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode
>>
I smells snake.  To the first question, the answer is yes: {ko'a broda lo brode}.  So, not to my complete surprise (but to my considerable disappointment) {lo'e broda} turns out to be a messy way of saying {lo broda}, so far as I can see.

<<
This can be repeated for {lo'e brode} in x1 or any other
place just by defining the appropriate corresponding selbri.
>>
With {selkairbroda} : "something with property x1 bears the relation broda to x2"  Looks like the same problem.

<<
I think this analysis works for all the "intensional context"
selbri (indeed the redefinition of {sisku} was an attempt to do
something like this, the gi'uste {sisku} corresponds to the
{kairsisku} that one has to define in order to give the
expansion of {sisku lo'e brode} with original {sisku}.
>>
I don't see the intensional predicates in here at all.  If {broda} is intensional, then x2 will be a property of intensions {... du'u ce'u du le/lo/tu'o nu/du'u ... brode} and, since all intensions always exist there will be even less problem with the collapse.  I don't see how -- as you clearlly intend -- this move even looks like it gets rid of or inside an intension, unless ther is another predicate here that buries the intension along with the quantifier, an even riskier procedure. 
Your move is somewhat like the one in getting to the present {sisku} (I knew there was an objective reason for disliking that move), but not enough to get any advantage from it -- {sisku} needs the property and cannot shift back to the object at all, while this {lo'e} never gets off the object level for all its locutions to the contrary.

<<
But the same expansion applies to every selbri, not just the
"intensional context" ones. For example:

ko'a viska lo'e broda = ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u broda
                        He sees-something-with-the-property-of
                        being broda

(No claim that there is something such that it is seen, the
"something" of the English gloss is part of the predicate.
Normally of course there will be something that is seen,
but this is not part of what is claimed.)
>>
The salesman's hook.  It is exactly what is claimed, wherever the quantifer is buried (and we did not even look at what negation does here) and burying the quantifier is correspondingly uninformative, misleading, or just a plain cheat.
How is {ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u broda} going to be true if there is not something there to have the property of being a broda.  {sisku} is not a good model here, because it always took an intensional place -- and {viska} never does (you can't see what ain't there) 

<<
I don't think I could give a canonical list. The examples
we've been using are things like {nelci lo'e cakla},
{nitcu lo'e tanxe}, {pixra lo'e sincrboa}, {simsa lo'e sfofa},
{claxu lo'e rebla}, etc. those are useful, but {lo'e} makes
sense in any position where {lo} does.

What do you think of the explanation of {broda lo'e brode}
in terms of {kairbroda}?
>>

Since {lo'e broda} apparently is just {lo broda} in all practical situations, the same list will do for both.


 --part1_177.ebd0c23.2ab90fca_boundary--