* Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 14:10 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * Saturday, 2014-10-04 at 13:07 -0300 - Jorge Llambías
> > > Does it unwrap "li mo'e lo broda" in any way?
> > Only in that it parses the sumti, yielding
> > broda(c0); [Fragment: [c0]]
> > cy no broda .i li mo'e cy no te'u lo'o
>
> Shouldn't "li mo'e cy no te'u lo'o" reduce to "cy no"?
Probably - but I'm considering performing such reductions a separate
problem, one I'm ignoring for now.
> I guess "li mo'e sumti-6 te'u lo'o" has to be equivalent to "sumti-6",
> but I don't know what happens when a quantifier or a logical
> connective gets involved. Maybe "li mo'e ci ko'a" = "lo ci ko'a", and
> "li mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" = "ko'a jo'u ko'e".
I don't see how you get those. I get:
broda li mo'e ko'a e ko'e ->
(broda( ,[{ko'a}]) /\ broda( ,[{ko'e}]))
ge broda li mo'e ko'a te'u lo'o gi broda li mo'e ko'e te'u lo'o
broda li mo'e ko'a .e ko'e ->
EQ(3) x1:(({ko'a}) >= (_)). broda( ,[x1])
ci da poi ke'a me ko'a me'u ku'o zo'u broda li mo'e da te'u lo'o
> > Uhoh.
> > So if there are five contextually relevant apples, you would never
> > understand {lo plise goi ko'a} to be referring to just one of them?
>
> How would I know which one?
What if you could guess from context? e.g. only one is red, and I say
{lo plise cu xunre}. You seem to be saying that this must involve
a universe shift to exclude the other four?
> I may perhaps understand it as referring to them as if they were one, i.e.
> I could abstract away the different instances of Apple as I can abstract
> away the temporal dimension and consider all the different temporal
> instances as one, in cases where the different positions that Apple is
> taking are not relevant.
>
> No description will ever be enough to pick the referent out uniquely in an
> absolute sense. The universe of discourse is not something that we have as
> a given, it's something that we have to construct and negotiate as the
> discourse proceeds. If you tell me that we already know for sure that the
> universe of discourse contains five things that satisfy "plise", then I
> would say that "lo pise" can only be "lo mu plise".
So are you saying that {lo plise} *always* refers to Apple? Such that
it isn't really a matter of presuppositions after all, but rather of
ensuring our universes are equipped with kinds?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature