* Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 15:18 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > To reiterate the point: allowing cinfo to be ambiguous between levels
> > is, by the definition of 'level', effectively equivalent to allowing the
> > logical structure of sentences which involve quantifying over cinfo to
> > be ambiguous.
>
> No, that's not true.
Sorry, make that "effectively ambiguous", or "meta-ambiguous" or
somesuch.
I meant the "effectively" of "effectively equivalent" to carry over to
"ambiguous", but should have been clearer.
I think I've made clear by now the sense in which it is effectively
ambiguous; if not, I can try to be clearer.
> Just because "ro broda cu brode" can have different meanings in
> different contexts does not mean that there is anything ambiguous
> about its logical structure. Its logical structure has nothing to do
> with the meaning of "broda" or of "brode". All the logical structure
> tells us is that any thing from the domain of discourse that satisfies
> the predicate broda, also satisfies the predicate brode. It tells us
> nothing about what things are in the domain of discourse or about what
> things satisfy broda or about what things satisfy brode.
Sure. But if it isn't enough to stick to one domain when understanding
some lojban text, then it isn't enough to stick to one domain when
considering what counts as (effectively) ambiguous lojban text.
> > So where does this leave Blobularism? I fear it leaves it needing to
> > find a way to specify the levels its carving the Blob to. Sorry.
>
> There are some level-mixing predicates. The ones that come to mind are
> "klesi", "krefu" and "rapli". The x1 of klesi is at a lower level than
> the x2. The x1 of krefu is at a lower level than the x2. In the case
> of rapli, there is only one level for its arguments, but x2 counts
> things that are at a lower level than x1. I wonder how you handle
> these predicates in Ready-Made.
Assuming that is how {klesi} works (I find the gimste definition rather
unclear), we would have e.g. that a type of hat selkle su'o mapku gi'e
nai mapku.
> Presumably in Ready-Made there is only one level of events, so what
> does it mean for an event to rapli any number other than one?
With events, something like Blobularity might well be appropriate - the
crucial point being that we have the tense system to specify carvings.
So a nu broda is like a quantity of water - you can carve it up
however you like and still get a nu broda.
(By "carving" here, I mean taking the restriction of the event to
a subset of the set of space-time(-possibility) associated to the
original event - or if we shouldn't literally be talking about sets
(c.f. the "distribution-theoretic" approach in the other subthread),
whatever is the correct analogue of that.)
The only obvious alternative would be to say something like that an
atomic nu broda corresponds to a connected component of the subset of
space-time at which {broda} holds, and that events with multiple
connected components are bunches. But I feel that might be too
restrictive - any examples to show that it is?
Martin
Attachment:
pgppfjrRshERT.pgp
Description: PGP signature