* Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 17:54 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > In english, "I am actually hitting donkeys" seems to clearly mean that
> > there are actual donkeys (probably at least two) which you're in the
> > process of beating up; Carlson and followers would have this meaning
> > arrived to by going via the kind 'donkeys'.
> >
> > I'm asking whether you would analyse {mi ca ca'a darxi lo xasli}
> > similarly, when {lo xasli} is given referent the kind 'donkeys' (which
> > would be a perverse thing to do when you could directly give it
> > witness donkeys as referents, but would be less perverse in the case of
> > {mi ca ca'a na darxi lo xasli}.
>
> So you would analyse "I am actually hitting donkeys" differently from
> "I am actually hitting donkeys, even though they will soon be
> extinct", right?
In English? I don't know, but I don't see anything particularly wrong
with the Carlson/Chierchia analysis. I'm just not happy about building
it into lojban!
> > Anyway, the question was a formal one: in {broda ro da lo brode}, can
> > the referents of {lo brode} vary with da? Have you a definite opinion
> > either way?
>
> I would tentatively say no, if there is no explicit unbound variable
> in an expression, we shouldn't assume an implicit one. But I'm willing
> to be convinced otherwise.
OK. The only argument I see for it is that it allows more things to do
be done without kinds which otherwise would have to go via kinds; but
I don't expect that to convince you.
> >> > > > {su'o da poi te cange cu ponse lo xasli noi da darxi .i ri se
> >> > > > kecti mi}
> >
> > But {lo xasli} doesn't actually have a constant referent in this
> > sentence, does it? If it does, what is it?
>
> The referent you don't want to exist.
Oh, I see. So you don't have the first sentence explicitly having the
meaning that the farmers hit the donkeys which they own, just that they
own donkeys and hit donkeys.
Similarly, in {so'i da poi te cange cu darxi lo speni be da},
{lo speni be da} could have constant referent the kind 'humans'?
Given this, I'm now slightly surprised that you're willing to allow {lo}
to ever give a Skolem function rather than a constant!
Martin
Attachment:
pgp3XLXPfvBwR.pgp
Description: PGP signature