Re: general response on needing books

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> > What do they mean, under your proposal?
>
> {paxe'e lo cukta}  Any one book. Examining whether a relationship holds
> for individual cukta does not help to decide whether the relationship
> holds for {paxe'e cukta}.
>
> {paxe'e le cukta} The same, but any of "the books", rather than any book
> whatsoever.

Very very similar to my "xuhu". Good!

> > > I agree that {nitcu} is like {djica}, so if one is illicit sumti raising,
> > > the other is as well. I don't think either of them should be.
> >
> > I think they should both be. Needing and wanting both involve a
> > comparison of the existence/nonexistence of a state of affairs.
> > For you to persuade me that there isn't illicit raising you need
> > to givve me a definition of 'needing' & 'wanting' to back up
> > your view.
> ca'e ko'a nitcu ko'e
>      ijo tu'e ko'a claxu ko'e
>               i le nu go'i cu to'e mansa ko'a tu'u
> ni'o
> ca'e ko'a djica ko'e
>      ijo tu'e ko'a claxu ko'e
>               i ko'a gleki le nu la'e di'u cu sisti tu'u
> Maybe my definitions are not very good, but they mainly say that {nitcu}
> and {djica} are forms of {claxu} with more properties for x1.
> Does {claxu} suffer from illicit raising as well?

Claxu doesn't suffer from illicit raising, but it does lead to scope
ambiguities.
   mi claxu lo cukta
perhaps can mean either:
   Ex book(x) & not have(me,x) "There's a book that I lack"
   not Ex book(x) & have(me,x) "I don't have any books"
Hopefully this second is not a possible meaning of the Lojban
sentence. However, it is what we usually mean by "I lack (any) books".

Given your not unreasonable interpretation of nitcu and djica as
being kinds of claxu, you are quite right that they don't involve
sumti raising. However I strongly urge that your interpretations
should be rejected. First, in English I can say "I want/need this
book" even if I already have it - I mean that I prefer having the
book over not having it, & am not asserting that I don't have it.
So for English, wanting/needing doesn't entail lacking.
Second, if the x2 of nitcu/djica is an event, we can translate
"I want/need you to go", which mean, roughly, I prefer your going
over your not going. Third, "want/need to have" can then be
rendered "ponse zei djica/nitcu". Fourth, wanting/needing +
lacking can be rendered "djica/nitcu zei claxu".

> > > I disagree. {mi nitcu le vi cukta} = "I need this book" is as precise
> > > as {mi nelci le vi cukta} = "I like this book".
> > No. For 'like' we could paraphrase 'contemplate with pleasure' (roughly),
> > & one can contemplate an object as well as a book. But a needee can
> > only be an event.
> If 'like' is 'contemplate with pleasure', then 'want' is 'contemplate with
> desire' and 'need' is 'contemplate with hunger'.

No. Like X = 'contemplate X & experience pleasure'. 'Contemplate with
desire' = 'contemplate X & experience desire for x'. This is indeed
djica, but it doesn't decompose analogously to nelci.

> > > The fact that "I need a book" usually has the opaque meaning is no reason
> > > to prohibit {mi nitcu lo cukta} in its transparent meaning.
> >
> > Right, but it should be abjured as sumti raising, & as gobbledygook.
>
> I agree that if {djica}, {sisku}, etc have been so treated, so should
> {nitcu}. Unfortunately, we lose the capability to say simple things
> like "I'm looking for my umbrella".

I sent off another posting covering this. My answer would be that
lujvo can be adopted to give briefer locutions. E.g. ponse zei
nitcu, with x2 being the thing possessed.

> > > I think you can't have specific/opaque.)
> >
> > To evaluate the truth of "Lo cukta cu blanu" you examine every book,
> > and only if every book turns out not to be blue is the statement
> > false.
>
> Yes. I wish lojbab would agree that to evaluate the truth of
> "lo cukta cu se nitcu" (ignoring raising for the moment) one should
> follow exactly the same procedure.
>
> > To evaluate the truth of "Le cukta cu blanu" you identify
> > the referent of "le cukta" and then check whether it's blue.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > "There is a certain book that I need to have": to evaluate the
> > truth of this you identify the referent of "a certain book"
> > (le cukta) & check whether I need to have it.
>
> That "a certain book" sounds non-specific to me. How come this
> doesn't work with "that book" or "the book" or "my book"? I think
> that we are confusing the specificity of the reference ("le cukta"
> is a specific reference) with that of the referent (very likely
> that I'm using the wrong words). In "a certain book", the referent
> is specific, but the reference is non-specific.

I am not trying to translate the English sentence; the English
sentence is merely an attempt to indicate the meaning I'm trying
to describe. I can't use 'that/this/my', because reference of
these is assigned at sentence level, not only in an inner bridi.
There is no way I can think of to say in English what I want to say.

If you will agree to define specificity as I did above (you do
say "exactly"), then would you agree that there is a difference
in meaning according to whether you have to identify the referent
in the local bridi or in the outermost bridi. My point is precisely
that there is a difference, & one worth making expressible in
Lojban.

> > "I need there to be a certain book that I have": to evaluate the
> > truth of this you don't have to identify the referent of "a certain
> > book", but if you wanted to test whether my need had been satisfied
> > you would have to identify the referent of "a certain book".
>
> The satisfaction of the need is irrelevant to the claim anyway.

Right. Yes.

> > This latter case is what I meant by 'specific & opaque': i.e. the
> > specific referent is established only within the local predication.
>
> Could you give an example with a clearly specific reference "the book",
> "this book", "my book", or something like that? Your example seems
> non-specific to me.

I can't, for the reasons given above.

> > Finally, I reiterate my cmavo proposals:
> >  "xihi" - modifies LO/LE & indicates for LO that quantification
> >           takes place in local abstraction & for LE that reference
> >           is assigned in local abstraction. I assume that in the
> >           absence of "xihi" quantification/ref.assignment takes
> >           place at sentence level.
>
> You mean that for {lo} the xihi-less quantification would be outside
> the abstraction? I think that goes against current usage.

This is what I mean. I suppose it could be the other way around,
but this would be needed less often. Alternatively there could
be 2 cmavo, one for 'outermost' and one for 'local', with it
understood that if neither is used there is a potential
ambiguity.

> And what would local quantification for {le} mean?
> {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse le vi cukta} is "I need to have this book".
> What would {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse xi'i le vi cukta} mean?

Local reference assignment, not local quantification - I don't
think 'le' involves quantification. Your first example is
translated okay. Your second means, very roughly, "I need to
book-have", & in order to decide whether my need is satisfied
you have to ask "which book?". I agree that you can evaluate the
sentence without deciding whether my need is satisfied.

> >  "xuhu" - "xuhu PA X cu blanu" indicates that PA things selected randomly
> >           from the set containing only every X are blue, but no claim
> >           is made about whether any additional X is blue.
>
> This is one of the many meanings of "any". Do you think it is the most
> useful? I think that if you change it to "only PA things" then you can
> recover your meaning with {xu'u su'oPA}, and it would be close to what
> I meant by {xe'e} (I think).

Ok, if you promise that "xehe suhore le cukta cu blanu" means
"at least (any) two of the books are blue" then I'll go along
with you. OK: Forget 'xuhu'. I now wholeheartedly accept 'xehe',
and continue to argue for 'xihi'.

---
And