On Friday, January 11, 2013 9:37:48 PM UTC+4, Latro wrote:Here's an idea I just had. I don't actually like it, but the fact that it works seems to say something about the issue. If {sisku} were defined as "x1 is searching among x3 and x1 would be satisfied if they found x2", then {mi sisku lo ckiku} does what was originally wanted while {mi sisku ro crino} does what {mi sisku lo ka crino} is defined to do. So this definition basically solves the problem (I think using {joi} you can specify that you would only be satisfied if you found several different sumti, in that (rather common) case. {.e} frustratingly doesn't work.)This definition feels highly nonprimitive (though so does current {sisku}). In particular (in this regard unlike current {sisku}) it induces hidden quantifier/subjunctivity scope, which is rather important to what is actually meant. I'm pretty sure hiding such things is one of the major things we'd like to get away from with this language.Perhaps we should just derail this into a discussion of how best to handle subjunctivity?mi'e la latro'a mu'oFor me sisku2 parallels jimpe2 and djuno2.But djuno3 is often duplicated inside djuno2. So why doesnt sisku work like thisx1 searches for x2 being x3 (nu).{mi sisku lo ckiku lo ka zvati makau.}"I'm searching for the keys, where they are located to be precise."On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, standard (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation: A for universal quantifier, S fo particular (L for salient, ? for interrogative, but thosedon't turn up here). Quantifiers take two wffs and a variable, AxFxGx is AllFsareGs, that universality restricted to the (non-null) extension of F. or [x:Fx]Gx. I suppose one could avoid the problem here by using (x)(Green x => Seek I, x), but that doesn't really help.
I would be happy to have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, one that allowed for quantifiers to be placed properly without question, but I don't see it anywhere. Much of the problem is in how we deal with intensional phrases. Of the two usual approaches, having certain places specified as such in the lexicon or having all places transparent but some phrases labelled as intensional, Lojban has chosen a position in the middle. All places are transparent, but some have recommended or required intensional phrase structures for filling. Unfortunately, these cases don't cover all the intensional cases (and cover a number which are not intensional as well), so we are left with thing like thing {sisku} (which is not actually in Lojban, after all, but is popularly uses as though it were), where the transparent place yields unwanted results.Ultimately, of course, what we want is a particular quantifier in the scope of the subjunctive, which is my informal summary of the role of {tu'a}. So, for me, at least, {mi sisku tu'a da poi crino} means "I am looking for something green" with no hint that a particular one (or even one in the present UD) is required, since it expands to the more satisfying "I have a goal which would be satisfied just in case I were to have something green", with the quantifier tucked in the right place. The standard explanation of {tu'a} gets close to this but gets bogged down in technicalities.Your solution, as I understand it (if at all), is that {mi sisku da poi crino} is indeed transparent and the occurrence there of {da poi crino} may change the UD by adding an object to guarantee that the extension of {crino} is non-null. If the extension of {crino} is already non-null, however, this object is to be identified with some already present object, which one depending on which one I actually find (more or less). But that kind of anonymous object isn't allowed in the semantics game, nor does it help, since, as soon as its identity is revealed we fall back to the position of the external quantifier (which we never did really leave, if the slot was transparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, not just any old thing at all. Or, taking the broader view, I am really seeking every green thing individually. Not what is wanted.Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> Howsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English?
>
> It is a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context
> with scope over the whole in which the context is subordinate.
> So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x.
I already asked you two days ago to explain your notation, please.
Does this mean something like "forall x : Green(x).(seek(I, x))"
or "A(x) => Green(x) => seek(I, x)" or "forall x. Green(x) => seek(I, x)"
...
> Not, notice, {mi sisku ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense,
> not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled
> if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every
> green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would have").
I'm not sure I like that "goal driven" analysis of seek.
Especially, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather confusing.
What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I think, is the following.
There exists a goal G1 which I have in mind, such that for all green things
it is true that if I have such a green object, the goal G1 is fulfilled.
I very much prefer the analysis I described in my last mail,
because if you try to apply quantifiers here, you have to be explicit about
the existential goal quantification.
Else you could end up searching for _all_ green things:
forall x. there exists g. have(I, x) => satisfied(g)
(I just invented the "satisfied" for the lack of a better notation)
Again, I prefer to say that {mi sisku da poi crino} adds an
object to the universe of discourse which satisfies {crino} and can map
to a number of physical objects, therefore creating the feeling of
a restricted universal quantification.
We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looking for a shirt.",
"I'm searching for something green.", "Ich suche eine Kuh.",
"Je cherche une vache.", ...
Just to point this out again: This is an analysis which I proposed in
my last mail and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore,
I'm still waiting for criticism and comments.
> This still supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD,
> so the property sense is still better.
> Of course, spelling out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make
> the quantifier scope points clearer would be nice, too,
> but no one seems to like {tu'a}
> and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow.
I don't really get, what you try to point out here.
v4hn
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/r8er0cinPMYJ.
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.