Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:49 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >> The drawback of that approach is that you cannot combine predications
>> >> that "resolve" differently.
>> [...]
>> > In any case, this drawback seems a rather small one to me.
>>
>> It's impotant though. For example, compare:
>>
>> (1) ca lo prulamnicte mi tavla su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
>> "Last night I talked to someone you like."
>>
>> (2) ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
>> "Last night I ate something you like."
>>
>> You want to accept (1) but reject (2), even though to me they have the
>> exact same logical structure.
>
> More precisely, I'd give the lojban in (2) the less likely (without
> context) of the meanings of the english - the one for which a reasonable
> response would be "you bastard!".

But shouldn't "you bastard!" be a response to "last night I ate
something you liked"? I think the one you call less likely is even
less likely than you suggest, and the reasonable response would be "I
most certainly don't anymore".

> You, meanwhile, would copy to lojban this ambiguity in the english.
>
> (You wouldn't call it an ambiguity, I know; but consider that in english
> we can (mostly) disambiguate to the obvious option by making it "I ate
> of something you like" (although this construction is rare in modern
> english))

There are ways to change the level of abstraction in Lojban too,
usually by being more wordy. The inconvenience is being forced to do
it even when you don't need to. You are essentially forbidding a
certain level of abstraction.

>> You would need to say something like "ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o
>> da poi ckaji su'o de poi do nelci ke'a" instead of (2).
>
> That's abbreviable to
> {ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o ckaji be su'o se nelci be do},
> which isn't all that verbose.

But I bet nobody will talk like that.

> Alternatively, how about
> {ca lo prulamnicte mi ckaji citka su'o se nelci be do}
> "I exemplar-ate a foodstuff you like" -> "I ate an exemplar of
> a foodstuff you like" -> "I ate of a foodstuff you like"?

Where presumably "ckaji citka" is not a kind of "citka"? i.e. "ko'a
ckaji citka ko'e" does not entail "ko'a citka ko'e"?

>> Or consider:
>>
>> (3) mi zukte lo se zukte be do
>> "I'm doing what you are doing."
>>
>> You have to say: "mi zukte lo ckaji be lo se ckaji be lo se zukte be do."
>
> To copy the kinds approach, yes. It could be abbreviated to
> {da se ckaji lo se zukte be mi .e do}, of course.

I think you will need "da se ckaji lo se zukte be mi be'o .e lo se zukte be do"

"lo se zukte be mi .e do" is "zo'e noi ke'a se zukte mi .e do", and
presumably there's no such thing in your universe.

> Neither this nor the kinds version really gets across the meaning of the
> english, though, since there's no indication of the level of generality
> of the property/kind involved. Maybe something like {mi zukte lo panra
> be lo se zukte be do} is clearer.

In any case, wouldn't you agree this is more than a small drawback?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.