From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 09 14:03:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 21:03:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 89586 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 21:03:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 21:03:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 21:03:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.25.2bdcd703 (4529) for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <25.2bdcd703.2a85881b@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:03:23 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_25.2bdcd703.2a85881b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_25.2bdcd703.2a85881b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/9/2002 10:47:31 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > So you would claim that: > > ko'a dasni le boxfo so'e kosta > He wears the blanket as most coats. > > You would claim that: > > There is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket as x. > > I don't think that's what "he wears the blanket as a coat" > means. I don't think {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta} > entails {ko'a dasni le boxfo da}. To me {lo'e kosta} is > similar to {zi'o} in this regard, it changes the predicate > reducing the number of places by one. > >> Filling any place with any sumti reduces the number of places on the predicate by one -- the one filled (see endless discussions of {ce'u} and {ka/du'u}). You can't -- as you seem to do here -- have it both ways: that the place is a null and that it is significant what go in that place. Clearly it is not like {zi'o}, since {dasni fi l* kosta} is different from {dasni fi l* sjkaci} (ko'd'd wear it in a different place, for one thing.) I don't claim that he wears it as most coats, although that is probably right -- and the usual meaning of {lo'e} (not the Lojban-free Spanish translation) would agree with that more or less. I also don't require that there is one particular coat that he wears it like: particular quantifiers do not distinguish -- even in logic -- between singular and plural. But your rhetoric relies on us finding exactly one -- which no one claimed (though it is implicit in some of your comments about finding it and so on). << I want to understand the claim. You say that there is a coat x (even if we don't care which one, and even if we can't find it) such that that coat x is in relationship {dasni} with ko'a and the blanket. I don't want to say there is any such coat. If you present any coat to me and ask whether he is wearing the blanket as that coat, I would tend to say no, he is not wearing it as that coat. >> It is a tautology that there is always a most probable thing to fill any slot, if anything at all does, so take that as the one (notice we are no nearer to finding which one it is here, except in some metaphysical sense). If ko'a is wearing something1 as a coat, then either there is something such that it is a coat and ko'a is wearing something1 as it, or else the whole is an intentional context out of which the referent is raised (and should be labelled {tu'a} or otherwise marked), in which case, what is involved is still a coat but not necessarily one in this world -- a possible coat, more or less. The latter is yucky (though probably ultimately right -- but we aren't clearly forced to it yet), so I'll stick with the former until a serious problem arises. << Yes, I go with the event too. I thought that the place where an event took place had to contain all the participants of the event. >> But it rarely does, except in the case of really physical punch-in-the-eye events. The event of founding a nation doesn't contain the nation (though it is usually -- not always -- contained in the nation). As noted, the event of interest here does not contain its third member, whatever it is (if it were a coat and around, ko'a would probably wear it rather than the blanket). cowan: << That is, for each coat, it is false that he is wearing the blanket as *that coat*. I think this is entirely correct. >> So dasni3 is intentional. Yuck! << Perhaps dasni3 ought to be a set; the gismu list calls it a "type", and types are sets of tokens (or values). So: ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'i kosta meaning that he1 wears the (specific) blanket as if it belonged to the set of coats. >> Worse and worse. I took "of type" to be a figger of speech, since Lojban has historically resisted any attempt to deal seriously with tokens and types, as witness the next clause: types are not sets of tokens (or, at least, people who try to make that work have a hell of time getting the easiest stuff out and never get to the interesting parts -- not to mention the incongruity of creating a new type by creating a new token *of that type*.) But happily it turns out you don't really mean that, but rather "as though it belonged to the set of coats" which amounts to "as though it were a coat." Intentional for sure now. << ". If I say that the Andromeda Galaxy is more massive than the Milky Way Galaxy, where does the event occur? >> Not a hard case, since the two of them are in space, so any superspace to the two will do. Where does John's dream of Mary take place? Or six being the product of two and three? Or, to return to the point, ko'a's wearing a blanket as though it were a coat? << Statements about space (or time) relationships don't themselves have a privileged location in space (or time). >> Yeah, and those too. << "x1 wears x2 as if it were an instance of type x3", in which case I would use {lo'e} for the type >> Well, if {lo'e} were an archetype, this would make sense (contrary-to-fact, of course) But now it is too late to avoid intentions. Pity! --part1_25.2bdcd703.2a85881b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/9/2002 10:47:31 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
So you would claim that:

   ko'a dasni le boxfo so'e kosta
   He wears the blanket as most coats.

You would claim that:

   There is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket as x.

I don't think that's what "he wears the blanket as a coat"
means. I don't think {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta}
entails {ko'a dasni le boxfo da}. To me {lo'e kosta} is
similar to {zi'o} in this regard, it changes the predicate
reducing the number of places by one.

>>
Filling any place with any sumti reduces the number of places on the predicate by one -- the one filled (see endless discussions of {ce'u} and {ka/du'u}).  You can't -- as you seem to do here -- have it both ways: that the place is a null and that it is significant what go in that place.  Clearly it is not like {zi'o}, since {dasni fi l* kosta} is different from {dasni fi l* sjkaci} (ko'd'd wear it in a different place, for one thing.)

I don't claim that he wears it as most coats, although that is probably right -- and the usual meaning of {lo'e} (not the Lojban-free Spanish translation) would agree with that more or less.  I also don't require that there is one particular coat that he wears it like: particular quantifiers do not distinguish -- even in logic -- between singular and plural.  But your rhetoric relies on us finding exactly one -- which no one claimed (though it is implicit in some of your comments about finding it and so on).

<<
I want to understand the claim.
You say that there is a coat x (even if we don't care which one,
and even if we can't find it) such that that coat x is in
relationship {dasni} with ko'a and the blanket. I don't want
to say there is any such coat. If you present any coat to me
and ask whether he is wearing the blanket as that coat, I would
tend to say no, he is not wearing it as that coat.
>>

It is a tautology that there is always a most probable thing to fill any slot, if anything at all does, so take that as the one (notice we are no nearer to finding which one it is here, except in some metaphysical sense).  If ko'a is wearing something1 as a coat, then either there is something such that it is a coat and ko'a is wearing something1 as it, or else the whole is an intentional context out of which the referent is raised (and should be labelled {tu'a} or otherwise marked), in which case, what is involved is still a coat but not necessarily one in this world -- a possible coat, more or less.  The latter is yucky (though probably ultimately right -- but we aren't clearly forced to it yet), so I'll stick with the former until a serious problem arises.

<<
Yes, I go with the event too. I thought that the place where an
event took place had to contain all the participants of the event.
>>
But it rarely does, except in the case of really physical punch-in-the-eye events. The event of founding a nation doesn't contain the nation (though it is usually -- not always -- contained in the nation).  As noted, the event of interest here does not contain its third member, whatever it is (if it were a coat and around, ko'a would probably wear it rather than the blanket). 

cowan:
<<
That is, for each coat, it is false that he is wearing the blanket as
*that coat*.  I think this is entirely correct.
>>
So dasni3 is intentional.  Yuck! 

<<
Perhaps dasni3 ought to be a set; the gismu list calls it a "type", and types
are sets of tokens (or values).  So:

    ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'i kosta

meaning that he1 wears the (specific) blanket as if it belonged to the
set of coats.
>>

Worse and worse.  I took "of type" to be a figger of speech, since Lojban has historically resisted any attempt to deal seriously with tokens and types, as witness the next clause: types are not sets of tokens (or, at least, people who try to make that work have a hell of time getting the easiest stuff out and never get to the interesting parts  -- not to mention the incongruity of creating a new type by creating a new token *of that type*.)
But happily it turns out you don't really mean that, but rather "as though it belonged to the set of coats"  which amounts to "as though it were a coat."  Intentional for sure now.

<<
".  If I say that the Andromeda Galaxy is
more massive than the Milky Way Galaxy, where does the event occur?
>>

Not a hard case, since the two of them are in space, so any superspace to the two will do.  Where does John's dream of Mary take place? Or six being the product of two and three?  Or, to return to the point, ko'a's wearing a blanket as though it were a coat?

<<
Statements about space (or time) relationships don't
themselves have a privileged location in space (or time).
>>
Yeah, and those too.

<<
"x1 wears x2 as if it were an instance
of type x3", in which case I would use {lo'e} for the type
>>

Well, if {lo'e} were an archetype, this would make sense (contrary-to-fact, of course)  But now it is too late to avoid intentions.  Pity!
 --part1_25.2bdcd703.2a85881b_boundary--