* Friday, 2014-10-10 at 22:03 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> The need for opaque contexts was the main reason for "tu'a" to exist, so
> you could say "mi nitcu tu'a su'o mikce" without claiming that there's a
> doctor such that you need them.
I see. Just to check - there's no corresponding special behaviour for
{jai}, right?
ro da jai broda
-> ro da zo'u tu'a da broda
?
> The usual expansion for "tu'a X" is actually "lo du'u X co'e" and so you
> would get "lo du'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e". So "tu'a(x,y)" doesn't really mean
> "x is an abstraction involving y" but "x is the (one and only) proposition
> that y satisfies the obvious-from-context predicate". Several issues with
> that, but maximality would presumably not be one of them. One complication
> is that sometimes "tu'a" is used to stand for other NUs, but even if it was
> just "du'u" this is not exactly a vanilla "lo broda be" as we were thinking
> for other LAhE, so maybe "tu'a" is something of an anomaly, like "fa'u" for
> the JOIs.
Argh. Then yes, it looks like {tu'a} is in LAhE only syntactically, not
semantically, and must be handled separately.
(So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
LAhE should get it...)
> > Example where both readings are actually plausible:
> > mi xebni na'e bo mi
> > could mean either "I hate everything other than me" or "I hate things
> > other than me".
>
> The problem you're having doesn't seem to be specifically about "na'e bo",
> it will happen with any "lo broda", which could be "all the brodas" or just
> the generic/kind "brodas".
Yes. That can't be right, can it?
> > So maybe {lo} == \iota == "the largest" isn't really right after
> > all?
>
> pc prefers "the most salient". I think how we describe it is mostly a
> matter of how much of the burden we want to put on this operator and how
> much on the determination of the universe of discourse.
I see. Currently I don't know what it means at all.
But a concrete test question to narrow things down:
is {lo broda ku du lo broda} always true for all broda, as long as we
ignore any possible issues about unfilled places and/or variable vague
tenses etc?
Similarly, is
lo bakni ku catlu gi'e damba
<=> lo bakni ku catlu i je lo bakni ku damba
legitimate (under the same assumptions)?
If it's iota, or Cherchia's down operator, or anything similarly
"definite", then the answer should be 'yes'.
(If the answer's still 'yes' once unfilled places etc are brought in,
that would be even nicer)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature