Re: Binary Language

["thinkit41" <thinkit8@lycos.com>]

--- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/23/2001 7:46:51 PM Central Standard Time, 
> thinkit8@l... writes:
> 
> 
> > > <Give is simple, the subject (arg1) is the giver, and the 
object 
> > > (arg2) is the object given.  A sentence tag defines the 
> > recipient.  
> > > Are there any really ternary verbs in English?  You only get 
> > things 
> > > like "give me the object" because we are shortening from "give 
the 
> > > object to me">
> > > 
> > > Well, no -- the "to" is added to show that the place of "me" 
has 
> > been shifted 
> > > from its usual (compare French).
> <> Example please.  How, e.g., would the "me" of "Give me the 
book" 
> be attached? 
> >  What concept (no better than "idea" -- maybe worse, since more 
> overtly 
> > abstract) would it be an argument to?
> Ok, as I see it, you want to say "Give the book to me".  To be 
> simpler, make it "The man gives the book to the dog."  
> Concept/idea/widget "give" has arguments x1 gives x2.  "Receive" 
has 
> arguments x1 receives x2.  This sentence is then op "give" 
> arg1 "man" arg2 "book", with tag op "receive" arg1 "dog" arg2 
> unspecified (or you can reference the book).>
> 
> OK, the usual dodge.  And the usual response is that this is 
not "The man 
> gives the book to the dog" (and especially not "the man gives the 
dog the 
> book"). The man is said to give the book and and the dog is said 
to receive 
> something , even the book, and perhaps the whole is indicated as 
being parts 
> of the same action (perhaps what "tag modifies the whole sentence" 
means), 
> but there is no indication that this is what the man intended to 
happen, 
> which is crucial to giving.  Suppose the man attempts to give the 
book to the 
> cat, but the dog intervenes and takes the book.  Now, either the 
present 
> sentence describes this situation correctly -- in which case it 
does not 
> describe giving or receiving when intended recipients are 
involved -- or it 
> does not because the wrong critter ended up with the book -- in 
which case 
> you need a ternary "give" and/or "receive" (which I would have 
thought were 
> pretty much the same concept with varied focus -- throw in "gift" 
for 
> completeness).  Note, saying the dog took the book does not help, 
since that 
> is going to involve -- in the relevant case -- a ternary notion 
of "take" 
> involving alienated entitlement.  And, of course, "give" does not 
apply, 
> since it is a success word. So binary predicates are not enough (I 
have my 
> doubts about there being decary but I am pretty convinced through 
six or so).

It's just a matter of saying it differently.  In this case, one way 
is, man attempts to (sentence) man give book to cat (end sentence) 
(tag) thwarted by (sentence) dog take book from man.  The sentence I 
gave could have no other reasonable meaning than the man giving a 
book to a dog (assuming no other tags are given).  The second 
mention of the book (in the tag) isn't even necessary.

Decary?  10 arguments?  I'm pretty unconvinced after 2, although 
there may be a true ternary operator (none have given an example).
> Where is the truth table in all this?  How are the man, the dog, 
and the book 
> identified? Would the book as arg2 of "receive" just be "second 
arg back"?

It would just be a single true sentence.  Man, dog, and book are 
identified as objects.  Yeah, this is the general idea of a 
reference.