[lojban] Re: xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- And Rosta wrote:
> But let me reask my question, because it hasn't been
> answered yet. "PA broda" can apply to PA subkinds of Brodakind
> or to PA things that are classified as having the property of
> being broda. 

Right, but {lo} does not make that distinction. A subkind
of brodakind is nothing but a thing classified as having the property
of being broda. We don't impose a selected set of objective things,
real things, or whatever, valid for all contexts. In other words, we 
can say that {lo broda} always refers to subkinds, but in some cases 
it could be the very specialized subkind that apparently can't be 
further specialized. (I say apparently because what we ordinarily 
take as an instance of a dog for example could in a given context 
be seen to consist of many instances, like time slices, or different 
perspective instances.) What counts as a referent of {lo broda} can
vary with context and is left to ontology.   

> -- Xorlo generalizes over that dichotomy, which is
> fair enough, but since it is a distinction that underlies the
> two nonspecific readings of "I need a doctor", it would be
> nice to have a way of making the distinction if one wanted to.

I'm not sure it is a pure dichotomy. {mi nitcu su'o lo mikce} 
can't have the "I need any doctor" reading. Neither of two 
"I need any doctor" possible readings in fact: "I need any individual
who is a doctor", or "I need any kind of doctor".

> That is, given "mi nitcu re mikce", it would be nice to 
> have a way of signalling whether the truth-conditions of
> the sentence are to involve checking through the subkinds of
> Mr Doctor (& seeing whether I need exactly two of them) 

That's exactly what it always involves. The tricky part is 
figuring out what counts as a subkind in the given context. 
Perhaps in the case of doctors there are usually only two 
obvious choices: either specialists of a given speciality, or 
individuals. But for other brivla there may be other options.

> or,
> on the other hand, checking through the things in the material
> world that are classified as having the property of doctorhood
> (& seeing whether I need exactly two of them).

The (present?) material world is not especially favoured by the 
_grammar_ as the universe of discourse, although it is a very 
frequent obvious choice in many contexts. 

> I'm not saying that this is something the BPFK gadri proposals
> should have covered; but I find it hard to imagine how
> the distinction could be marked other than by gadri and,
> obviously, the matter occurs to me because in ancestral
> versions of xorlo the distinction was made.

I think that unless the grammar is to impose an ontology,
that distinction can't be made with gadri. One way to make 
it is through prediacates: "is a subkind of", "is an instance 
of", but usually this is not necessary, and what counts as
an instance or subkind can vary with context anyway. For
some propertiesd it may be more obvious than for others.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com