From pycyn@aol.com Sun Dec 23 18:23:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 24 Dec 2001 02:23:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 86283 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2001 02:23:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2001 02:23:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2001 02:23:16 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.8a.11772ee3 (3984) for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:23:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8a.11772ee3.2957eb91@aol.com> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:23:13 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Binary Language To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8a.11772ee3.2957eb91_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_8a.11772ee3.2957eb91_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/23/2001 7:46:51 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > > > (arg2) is the object given. A sentence tag defines the > recipient. > > Are there any really ternary verbs in English? You only get > things > > like "give me the object" because we are shortening from "give the > > object to me"> > > > > Well, no -- the "to" is added to show that the place of "me" has > been shifted > > from its usual (compare French). <> Example please. How, e.g., would the "me" of "Give me the book" be attached? > What concept (no better than "idea" -- maybe worse, since more overtly > abstract) would it be an argument to? Ok, as I see it, you want to say "Give the book to me". To be simpler, make it "The man gives the book to the dog." Concept/idea/widget "give" has arguments x1 gives x2. "Receive" has arguments x1 receives x2. This sentence is then op "give" arg1 "man" arg2 "book", with tag op "receive" arg1 "dog" arg2 unspecified (or you can reference the book).> OK, the usual dodge. And the usual response is that this is not "The man gives the book to the dog" (and especially not "the man gives the dog the book"). The man is said to give the book and and the dog is said to receive something , even the book, and perhaps the whole is indicated as being parts of the same action (perhaps what "tag modifies the whole sentence" means), but there is no indication that this is what the man intended to happen, which is crucial to giving. Suppose the man attempts to give the book to the cat, but the dog intervenes and takes the book. Now, either the present sentence describes this situation correctly -- in which case it does not describe giving or receiving when intended recipients are involved -- or it does not because the wrong critter ended up with the book -- in which case you need a ternary "give" and/or "receive" (which I would have thought were pretty much the same concept with varied focus -- throw in "gift" for completeness). Note, saying the dog took the book does not help, since that is going to involve -- in the relevant case -- a ternary notion of "take" involving alienated entitlement. And, of course, "give" does not apply, since it is a success word. So binary predicates are not enough (I have my doubts about there being decary but I am pretty convinced through six or so). Where is the truth table in all this? How are the man, the dog, and the book identified? Would the book as arg2 of "receive" just be "second arg back"? --part1_8a.11772ee3.2957eb91_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/23/2001 7:46:51 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:


> <Give is simple, the subject (arg1) is the giver, and the object
> (arg2) is the object given.  A sentence tag defines the
recipient. 
> Are there any really ternary verbs in English?  You only get
things
> like "give me the object" because we are shortening from "give the
> object to me">
>
> Well, no -- the "to" is added to show that the place of "me" has
been shifted
> from its usual (compare French).

<> Example please.  How, e.g., would the "me" of "Give me the book"
be attached?
>  What concept (no better than "idea" -- maybe worse, since more
overtly
> abstract) would it be an argument to?
Ok, as I see it, you want to say "Give the book to me".  To be
simpler, make it "The man gives the book to the dog." 
Concept/idea/widget "give" has arguments x1 gives x2.  "Receive" has
arguments x1 receives x2.  This sentence is then op "give"
arg1 "man" arg2 "book", with tag op "receive" arg1 "dog" arg2
unspecified (or you can reference the book).>

OK, the usual dodge.  And the usual response is that this is not "The man gives the book to the dog" (and especially not "the man gives the dog the book"). The man is said to give the book and and the dog is said to receive something , even the book, and perhaps the whole is indicated as being parts of the same action (perhaps what "tag modifies the whole sentence" means), but there is no indication that this is what the man intended to happen, which is crucial to giving.  Suppose the man attempts to give the book to the cat, but the dog intervenes and takes the book.  Now, either the present sentence describes this situation correctly -- in which case it does not describe giving or receiving when intended recipients are involved -- or it does not because the wrong critter ended up with the book -- in which case you need a ternary "give" and/or "receive" (which I would have thought were pretty much the same concept with varied focus -- throw in "gift" for completeness).  Note, saying the dog took the book does not help, since that is going to involve -- in the relevant case -- a ternary notion of "take" involving alienated entitlement.  And, of course, "give" does not apply, since it is a success word. So binary predicates are not enough (I have my doubts about there being decary but I am pretty convinced through six or so).

Where is the truth table in all this?  How are the man, the dog, and the book identified? Would the book as arg2 of "receive" just be "second arg back"?



 --part1_8a.11772ee3.2957eb91_boundary--