[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 5:37:30 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
variable
* Monday, 2011-10-17 at 15:25 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> 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.
(I assume you mean {batci}, unless you're referring to the Land of
Giants set-up)
Thanks, I rely on memory way too much for these things.
Agreed. This is something I am happy leaving up to the lexicon.
> {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.
Maybe it isn't a very good translation of the english. But I don't see
why {mi nelci lo cinfo} with the kind (in xorxes' sense) 'lions' as the
referent of {lo cinfo} shoud be any different.
Nor do I; I hqave never -- except for a few periods when he was working around
to something that seemed to make sense -- been a fan of xorxes' kinds (or any of
the other names the same sort of thing has been called over the years). As
usual, I am unsure what exactly he means this time, so I can't say it is wrong,
but I certainly won't say it is right.
> 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.
Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds = maximal
bunches" idea. Let's see.
I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense inside the
description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca'a nelci
lo pavyseljirna} == {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyseljirna}, which is
false if there are no unicorns.
I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as everything else about
descriptions. The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in general, but may
be obviously wrong in other circumstances. For example, in generalities, the
tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, future and
possible.
Now I'm guessing that you want to exploit the fact that no tense is
actually specified in {lo pavyseljirna}, and hence it could very well be
{lo pavyseljirna be ca da bei ca'a de} - "things which are unicorns at
some time in some possible world". Liking that plurality, even if it be
in a situation in which none of its constituents zasti, could indeed
mean something. It could plausibly even mean whatever it is that it
means to "like unicorns".
Well, the use of a description in a primary context means that something
satisfying that description is in the domain, so, if I am going to say {mi nelci
lo pavyseljirna}, I am committed to there being unicorns (not necessarily
existing ones). And, of course, things mentioned in secondary places are going
to be in the domains associated with those secondary structures, without having
any necessary effect on the primary domain.
I note, by the way, that {nelci} has no place for what one likes a thing for,
which explains some of my problem with questions like whether I like lions: for
some things yes, for others not so much. Lacking this information makes it hard
to know what to put in the object place. The [tu'a} approach has the virtue of
covering a lot of cases, but not the one that is apparently central to {nelci},
eating, since that is very concrete.
Is this what you've been getting at? If so, sorry that I've been too
dense to see it before.
I'm not sure what to make of it as a solution to kinds issues... let me
ponder.
> 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?
Because the abstraction in question could be {lo nu citka lo ckaji be lo
ka cinfo ku ku joi lo xamgu ke xunre vanju}...
Even without taking the time to translate this, it is clear that this is going
to have very little to do with liking lions, except in the sense of providing a
recipe for lion ragout, which I might like. Ahah, maybe this is getting back to
the issue of what I like lions for and spelling it out in as part of what I
like. But, of course, this would work just as well as {lo nu citka lo cinfo ku
joi lo xamgu ke xunre vanju} (actually, isn't it white wine with cats?)
Martin
> 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.
>
--
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.