* Thursday, 2014-10-09 at 18:17 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > ko kargau lo vorme ta'i lo nu batke me'o ci ce'o me'o pa ce'o me'o
> > xa .a me'o bi to mi na morji
> > (here I'm not sure what the opaque meaning would be - some superposition
> > of the two sequences?)
>
> batke or catke? Both kind of make sense, but not quite.
>
> Also, you probably didn't mean ((me'o ci ce'o me'o pa) ce'o me'o xa) .a
> me'o bi, which is the default grouping, and which would be transparent
> either way. So you'd want a "ke" there.
Yes, I meant {catke} and {a bo}, sorry.
> > > lu'a A ku'a B du lu'a A e B
> > > A member of the intersection of A and B is a member of A and of B.
> > That seems to require a transparent {lu'a}.
>
> I'd say the opposite. The opaque reading is correct:
Yes, sorry, not sure what I was thinking there.
Anyway. Regarding whether sumti qualifiers and non-logical connectives
should be transparent or opaque: there doesn't seem to be a clear
argument either way based on utility. The transparent option is simpler
and results in clear meanings in all cases, so doesn't it make sense to
go for that?
> I think it would be healthier for mekso to be as integrated as possible
> into the normal language. That's what happens in natlangs, and we don't
> want it to happen in a language which is supposed to be so much more
> precise? Don't we trust ordinary Lojban to be able to handle mekso?
The conflict with anaphoric uses of lerfu strings is all that worries
me; no natlang has that in the same way, to my knowledge.
But as pc says, it probably isn't worth worrying about mathematical uses
of mekso too much for now.
Meanwhile, regarding the "maximality presupposition" of {lo}, I wanted
to bring up again Cherchia's version of the Frege-Russel iota. Quoting
from Chiercha "Reference to kinds across languages" 1998:
\iota X = the largest member of X if there is one (else, undefined).
(where "largest" is with respect to AMONG).
So {lo broda} refers to \iota of the extension of broda(_), with the
presupposition that this is defined?
So rather than representing {lo broda cu brode} as
Presupposition: broda(c1)
brode(c1)
could we then just represent it as
brode(\iota broda(_))?
That would make me happy.
We'd also have
ro da lo broda be da cu brode
-> FA x. brode(\iota broda(_,x))
with no need to skolemise.
I'm confused about getting, kinds, though. Is it the intention that
kinds are maximal, even when there are instances also in the domain?
That doesn't actually agree with the ontology sketched in that paper,
which has kinds being atoms, but perhaps we shouldn't read too much into
that.
Or is the idea that {lo} often accompanies a shift to a domain which
only has the kind?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature