[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
No particular predicates involved, though disjunctive is more likely with some than others. That is, there is a mode (for a nonce word) that is upward distributive in any case. Remember, with the right set-up {lo re gerku cu citka lo ci nanmu'} only requires one bite.
{mi nelci lo ka cinfo} doesn't get at any meaning of "I like lions" as far as I can see; it's about liking something else, lionness. Now, I suppose that liking lioness might be one factor in liking lions, but surely not the whole of it. I might like their feet or the way they taste roasted or ..., none of which are lionness.
Actually, I have no problem with interpreting some occurrences of {lo} as kinds (as understand that notion). But, the nice thing about slipping into intensional contexts is that words now stand for their intensions, not their extensions. But, even if they did refer to their extensions, they would still be extensions in some idealized range of worlds. Of course, we can do without the {tu'a}, but it is less plausible, even with lion, let alone unicorns. How would an abstraction involving lionness be closer to liking lions than one involving lions?
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 17, 2011, at 13:32, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 09:08 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
>> Once you have a plurality, you can slice and dice any which way.
>
> Ah, you just mean that there are predicates like {ce'u nibli ko'a},
> which is probably "upwards distributive" - true of a plurality iff of
> some subplurality? That's harmless enough.
>
>> Well, let's see. I can like unicorns, even if there are not any (although, in
>> Lojban, if I say that in a natural way, I seem to guarantee that there are some,
>> albeit nonexistent), so maybe you are right and this is about properties. I
>> would be inclined, however, to think it was rather a more general intensional
>> notion, which might amount to a property, but maybe also an event, depending on
>> what one likes about them -- even a sensation.
>
> Yes, {mi nelci lo ka cinfo} is only getting at one of the meanings of "I
> like lions". It could also mean e.g. mi nelci lo ka nu citka lo cinfo.
>
>> So, I would probably write {mi nelci tu'a lo cinfo} (I am away from my
>> tables right now, so I may have the cmavo wrong, but it is around
>> there somewhere.
>
> {tu'a} is the right cmavo, but I don't think this works if we're
> (as I assume we are for the nonce) disallowing kind interpretations of
> {lo} - it would have to mean that I like some abstraction to do with
> some/the lions. Not much use for talking about lions in general; even
> less for talking about unicorns in general. I fear it would have to be
> {mi nelci tu'o lo ka cinfo}.
>
> Martin
>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 9:43:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
>> variable
>>
>> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 07:30 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> But "I like lions" has nothing to do with lionness, just lions.
>>
>> What does it have to do with any lions? You can like lions without
>> liking (even potentially) any lions.
>>
>>> As for getting rid of disjunctive predication, if you allow plural
>>> reference, you are stuck with all the consequences (you are stuck with
>>> them even if you use sets to cover up the problem in singular
>>> reference).
>>
>> Why would plural reference lead you to using disjunctive predication?
>>
>>> It seems to me ythat the problems arise when you get away from basics
>>> and try messing around with things like kinds or nesses (we have both,
>>> of course, but they come in overtly, not sub rosa).
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>>> Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 10:51:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
>>> variable
>>>
>>> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:09 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>> Ahah! "I ate disjunctively of something you like generally" or some such.
>>>
>>> Something along those lines, yes.
>>>
>>> The context here is that we're trying to see what happens if we throw
>>> kinds out of the window (and also disjunctive predication, in whatever
>>> sense it was there), and try to make do with normal things - including
>>> properties, which I hope can replace pure-kind predications of the "I
>>> like lions" kind (think of it as "I like lionness").
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>>>> Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 8:56:03 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
>>>> variable
>>>>
>>>> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:49 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>>>> (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.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
--
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.