Sent from my iPad
* Saturday, 2011-10-08 at 19:56 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:Lying on abed of pain, I have been thinking about this a bit and want
to revise my position somewhat.
Sorry to hear about the circumstances; I trust {zo'e} issues distractrather than contribute
Very nicely, thanksAbout {zi'o}, there are two possible ways of reading, say, {zi'o
klama}. One as a relation among places, paths and modes of
transportation that hold of a quartet of such just in case some
traveler take the path from the second place to the first along the
path using the transportation mode. The second is much the same except
that the traveller does not enter in, we just have a relation among
the quartets with no further indication of why they are in that
relation. The second view, while formally possible, is surely not
what is intended; why would we use {klama} if the things related were
never part of a trip? But, as a result, {zi'o} becomes equivalent to
your friend, the short-scope particular quantifier.
That may be the case with {klama}, but e.g. in {zi'o kancu}, theintention really is that no counter need be involved; similarly with{zi'o darlu}. Of course you could say that there are *potential*counters and arguers... but that's still different from the likelymeaning of e.g. {zo'e darlu ko'a ko'e}.
Nice one! Yes, {zi'o kancu b c d} does make a sort of sense somewhat independent of the full form. But it falls short of saying that b actually is c ds, since the original allows for miscounts. Or maybe it is the correct count even if no one actually makes it, in which case it does become a new relation altogether. The case of {darlu} is trickier: it becomes a relation between two position, apparently that they could be taken as opposing even if no one tried to make the case. Anyhow, {zi'o} doesn't become just a variable. So drop that thought. So, I drop that suggestion. Which brings us back to {zo'e} and
unfilled places. I take it as a given that {zo'e} is a constant ( at
each use -- not an ideal situation)and never a variable. The
appearance that it is sometimes a variable comes from the fact that
unfilled places clearly are variables sometimes, combined with the
claim that every unfilled space is a covert occurrence of {zo'e}.
This last now seems to me to just be flat wrong, as the examples
bandied about here seem clearly to prove.
So by an unfilled place being a variable, you mean acting as I wassuggesting {zo'e} does?
Maybe. I am still not clear just exactly what you intend ( see problem later). Minimally, I mean it behaves like a particularly quantified variable under negation an around other quantifiers.
On the other hand, some
unfilled spaces are clearly covert {zo'e} or some constant, at least.
The constant seems to be subsumable under the "thing I have in mind"
reading, whether obvious anaphora, obvious deixis, or less obvious
personal whim (cf. the definitions of descriptors). This leaves
a totally unacceptable situation, at least for a logical language,
whose transformations are supposed to be on the surface: an unfilled
space is four ways ambiguous.
Well... absorbing anaphora and deixis into the "things I have in mind"category seems harmless.
Maybe, but since the language is set to be as precise as possible in these area, it does seem to be a falling away from standards. It seems the only logically sensible
out is to allow unfilled spaces only for variables (the general case)
and require something more specific for the rest,preferably the
appropriate pronouns in those case and {zo'e} on the last, though
I suppose that in most cases {zo'e} could do for all three.
But unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by variables, the otherthree cases (which are arguably really just one case) are just specialcases of the variable case - namely, where the glorked domain of theexistential quantification is a singleton (whose single element might bea plurality, of course).
Here is the problem, then. In standard semantics, the universe or domain of discourse is a given and all variables range over the items in that domain. There is no case of a special domain to be used for just one variable, separate from the domain that applies to all the others (there are complications here but none that bear on this point). I suppose some mechanism could be worked out to do something like this, but it seems a lot of work for no apparent gain. So I'm understanding you as having {zo'e} force the domain to be
a singleton, but otherwise to work like an unfilled place
No. Domains don't change like that. {zo'e} is simply a constant. Is this strange ad hoc domain what you mean by "close-scope"? Rather than its effect in the structure of the sentence? It seems reasonable to want a word for that. Maybe it should be {zo'e},I'm not sure. If it were, we'd need to find another word with themeaning of an unfilled place, say {zo'e'e} - if only because {lo broda}would then be {zo'e'e noi broda} rather than {zo'e noi broda} (towhatever extent that equivalence ever works).So, back to the question case: the appropriate negative responses to
the question { xu do klama le zarci} are {na}(or should that
be{naku}?), {na go'i}, {mi na klama zy} ( or some more official
pronoun), and the basic {mi na klama le zarci}, with {mi na klama
zo'e} as a marginal possibility.
And {mi na klama} as a definite possibility, yes?
I would say, no, because that would have me going nowhere, not merely not to the store. On Oct 6, 2011, at 20:32, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Thursday, 2011-10-06 at 17:21 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
Which is why I added "or would have I intended if he had thought of
it". So you are saying he might have intended a variable.
Ah, I was reading your "something" in "something I have in mind (or
would have, if I thought about it)" as being an ordinary something (or
somethings, presumably), i.e. just some element (possibly plural) of thee.
universe.
Having it be a variable is roughly right, yes. This can't be dealt with
at a textual level - simply substituting {da xi ci ze} for {zo'e} -
because {zo'e ro da broda} should be the same as {ro da zo'u zo'e da
broda}. Hence the "close-scoping (plural) existential with glorked
domain" suggestion made in this thread.
Do you still think that suggestion is wrong/bad in some way?
I personally think it is {zi'o}, but that probably has problems
too--though I can't think of one.
My main problem with that is just the icky ambiguity it would introduce.
In principle, {zi'o klama} is an entirely new 4-place predicate, whose
semantics are related to those of {klama} but not in any very
predictable way. So if an omitted place can be {zi'o}, understanding the
possible meanings of any _expression_ would, in principle, involve
understanding many such zi'o-derived selbri.
Martin
On Oct 6, 2011, at 15:35, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Thursday, 2011-10-06 at 11:10 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
Well, I am not sure just what the all the complications that MB and
xorxes have stirred up are, but, so far as I can follow it, the
position seems to be that {zo'e} stands for something I have in mind
(or would have, if I thought about it). It is a constant (a different
one at each occurrence -- an ongoing problem in Lojban), not
a variable and not under any quantifier. Then {lo broda} is that with
the additional information that the something is in some way, broda.
So, it can refer to anything from a single broda to all brodas, past,
present, future, and possible but not actualized. This referent can
then be said to have a further property in a variety of ways, mainly
to be grokked from context, since the ways to specify them are not ywr
well-established. My understanding is that MB disagrees with this
specification of {zo'e} and xorxes with the extrapolation to the
referent, but juast why is hard to see.
Because it doesn't seem to explain the behaviour of {zo'e} with respect
to negation and quantifiers - at least if we accept that an unfilled
place is implicitly filled with a {zo'e}, and if we don't use kinds.
To dig out the old example, in
A: xu do pu klama lo zarci
B: mi na klama
, and assuming that there's only one market in question, B probably
intends to refer to that market by the implicit {zo'e} in {klama}'s x2.
But B is unlikely to mean only to mean that for some specific route,
B didn't go to the market by that route. B probably means that B didn't
go to the market via *any* route, or means of transport.
Your explanation of {zo'e} seems not to deal with that.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
|