Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:11:05 EDT

In a message dated 10/11/2001 11:14:36 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> la pycyn cusku di'e
> 
> >I don't understand what bamboozlement you are talking about. 'a=b' tells us
> >that the thing called by the name 'a' is identical with the thing called 
> >by
> >the name 'b,' that is, that they are the same thing, despite their names.
> 
> I think that would have to be {zo ko'a dunli zo ko'e le ka ce'u
> sinxa makau}. It's a claim about the references more than about
> 

Well, that will do, too. But the first does this very nicely -- see Frege 
again, who, alas, did not write in Lojban, but the translations work just the 
same.

<Consider another relationship: {ko'a pendo ko'e}. In order to properly
understand and evaluate that claim it is first necessary to identify
the referents of {ko'a} and {ko'e}. Of course, the claim can also be
used to identify the referent of {ko'a} if we already know what
the referent of {ko'e} is and we know who are ko'e's friends. But
this second use is accidental, it's like getting to the meaning of
the sentence through a backdoor. Answering {ko'a ki'a} with
{ko'a pendo ko'e} will work pragmatically, but it gives me the
creeps logically. The same applies to using {ko'a du ko'e} for
that purpose.>

I don't get the point of this analogy: what is analogous to what? How does 
this say anything about identity? Using {ko'V}, which have no sense to speak 
of and out of context precious little in usable reference either makes it 
hard to see what you intend to have going on. Imagine staring a conversation 
wiht "It is the same as her" and expecting anyone to make sense of it (no 
gestures allowed, even). The point of {abu du by}, where it is assumed that 
both of these already have some significance to the speaker and hearer, is 
that the two things known separately are in fact one. Similarly, if we know 
who ko'a and ko'e are, finding out that the one is friend of the other is 
interesting new informatation. In neither case is it meant to help us 
identify those involved, if that is the point you are trying to make. This 
is logical identity, not computer variable assignment here. If I sorta 
understand what you are vaguely trying to say.

<I wish you would give Lojban examples. I know this can cause
ambiguity in English, but I thought Lojban was good precisely
at sorting these things out.>

Well, since I don't think the English is ambiguous (betweeen what and what, 
by the way?) and think that Lojban reads exactly the same (note thatI did 
not, in fact, use English but symbols), I don't see how Lojban provides a 
solution to whatever problem you have made here.

<

   su'o da poi grute ku'o su'o de poi pelxu zo'u da du de
   For some x which is a fruit and some y which is yellow, x=y.

Is that about reference?>

Yep; it says that the two approaches end up referring to the same thing.