From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 20 06:39:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 20 Aug 2002 13:39:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 17335 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2002 13:39:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2002 13:39:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 13:39:04 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.7e.2c626b85 (4312); Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:38:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7e.2c626b85.2a93a071@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:38:57 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Cc: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7e.2c626b85.2a93a071_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_7e.2c626b85.2a93a071_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/20/2002 2:51:36 AM Central Daylight Time, Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de writes: > But then I'm saying "I like chocolate", aren't I? But I don't necessarily > like looking at it, or its colour; it's not an abstract appreciation the > way > one might like a picture in an art gallery. Eating it is what I like about > chocolate. > Well, it is not clear just what you are saying with xorxes {lo'e}, but it does not seem to be what you have in mind. << How do you get the "several quantities at once"? I took the {loi} from a half-remembered notion (I think it was from the lessons) which uses {loi vanju}, with an explanation something like "one only drinks part of the mass of all that is wine", or something like that. >From which I generalised that {loi} is used for things which are not discrete -- after all, I don't eat one or two chocolates in English; I eat (some) chocolate (mass noun, not count noun). I figured it would be similar in Lojban. >> Good reasoning, but it doesn't apply to Lojban. There are no mass nouns in Lojban; every gismu that might be one specifies " a quantity of" (though some cases are harder to be sure you have a quantity of -- rather than several quantities of -- than others). And "mass" in Lojban ({loi} and the like) are not masses in that sense (well, some people sometimes think they are, but that view is not the usual one), but rather something more like treams: several individuals cooperating to do/be something that (perhaps) they could not individually do/be. Clearly, there is an overlap here in that the chocolate you like to eat is a mass even in this sense, several quantities coperating. But it is -- on each occasion -- also an individual, one quantity of chocolate (see the comment above). In neither case need it -- though in the first it might -- refer to chocolates, individual pieces made up as such. xorxes' problem with this is that, if you say, {mi nelci le/lo/loi cakla), then you are asserting that there is some specific bit of chocolate that you like {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci da} and it then makes sense to ask you which one -- or, at least, go looking for it. And this is not what you want to claim (more in a minute) << So would it be {mi nelci lo'ezu'o citka loi cakla}, then? And can {nelci} even be used like this? The gi'uste says x2 is (object/state), not (activity) or (event), so I'm not sure whether {zu'o} is appropriate here. ("(state)" sounds as if {za'i} is called for -- but I don't like the state of eating chocolate, but rather the activity.) >> No, it almost certainly shouldn't be {lo'e zu'o}, though perhaps it is {lo zu'o} rather than {le}. It is arguable that there is, in the abstract even, more than one event of you eating chocolate and not all of them occur or are liked when they do or even would be if they did. So, you like some but not all events of your eating chocolate. If you say {le} at this point, the fair question is "which ones are those?" since you have some particular ones in mind. So, it is safer to say {lo}, some but unspecified. I take "state" in the explanations usually to mean {nu} or one of its subdivisions, not just {za'i}. That is a point to be clarified in some future edition. << > On the whole, moving off into the intensional seems the right > thing to do I do not understand what you mean here; what does "intensional" mean? > (and what xorxes would have {lo'e} do, usually). >> For right now, the crucial thing about intensional contexts (inside the scope of abstractions and a few other places) is that you can't quantify out of them. {mi nelci lo nu mi citka lo/loi cakla} does NOT entail {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci lo nu citka da}. Similarly, {mi nelci tu'a lo cakla} does not entail either {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci tu'a da} or {... nelci da}. Thus xorxes problem is avoided without resorting to {lo'e} (whose chief function often is just to avoid this problem -- in xorxes' usage). --part1_7e.2c626b85.2a93a071_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/20/2002 2:51:36 AM Central Daylight Time, Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de writes:


But then I'm saying "I like chocolate", aren't I? But I don't necessarily
like looking at it, or its colour; it's not an abstract appreciation the way
one might like a picture in an art gallery. Eating it is what I like about
chocolate.


Well, it is not clear just what you are saying with xorxes {lo'e}, but it does not seem to be what you have in mind.

<<
How do you get the "several quantities at once"?

I took the {loi} from a half-remembered notion (I think it was from the
lessons) which uses {loi vanju}, with an explanation something like "one
only drinks part of the mass of all that is wine", or something like that.

>From which I generalised that {loi} is used for things which are not
discrete -- after all, I don't eat one or two chocolates in English; I eat
(some) chocolate (mass noun, not count noun). I figured it would be similar
in Lojban.
>>

Good reasoning, but it doesn't apply to Lojban.  There are no mass nouns in Lojban; every gismu that might be one specifies " a quantity of" (though some cases are harder to be sure you have a quantity of -- rather than several quantities of -- than others).  And "mass" in Lojban ({loi} and the like) are not masses in that sense (well, some people sometimes think they are, but that view is not the usual one), but rather something more like treams: several individuals cooperating to do/be something that (perhaps) they could not individually do/be.  Clearly, there is an overlap here in that the chocolate you like to eat is a mass even in this sense, several quantities coperating.  But it is -- on each occasion -- also an individual, one quantity of chocolate (see the comment above).  In neither case need it -- though in the first it might -- refer to chocolates, individual pieces made up as such.  xorxes' problem with this is that, if you say, {mi nelci le/lo/loi cakla), then you are asserting that there is some specific bit of chocolate that you like {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci da} and it then makes sense to ask you which one -- or, at least, go looking for it.  And this is not what you want to claim (more in a minute)

<<
So would it be {mi nelci lo'ezu'o citka loi cakla}, then?

And can {nelci} even be used like this? The gi'uste says x2 is
(object/state), not (activity) or (event), so I'm not sure whether {zu'o} is
appropriate here. ("(state)" sounds as if {za'i} is called for -- but I
don't like the state of eating chocolate, but rather the activity.)
>>
No, it almost certainly shouldn't be {lo'e zu'o}, though perhaps it is {lo zu'o} rather than {le}.  It is arguable that there is, in the abstract even, more than one event of you eating chocolate and not all of them occur or are liked when they do or even would be if they did.  So, you like some but not all events of your eating chocolate.  If you say {le} at this point, the fair question is "which ones are those?" since you have some particular ones in mind.  So, it is safer to say {lo}, some but unspecified. 
I take "state" in the explanations usually to mean {nu} or one of its subdivisions, not just {za'i}.  That is a point to be clarified in some future edition.

<<
> On the whole, moving off into the intensional seems the right
> thing to do

I do not understand what you mean here; what does "intensional" mean?

> (and what xorxes would have {lo'e} do, usually). 
>>

For right now, the crucial thing about intensional contexts (inside the scope of abstractions and a few other places) is that you can't quantify out of them.  {mi nelci lo nu mi citka lo/loi cakla} does NOT entail {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci lo nu citka da}.  Similarly, {mi nelci tu'a lo cakla} does not entail either {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci tu'a da} or {... nelci da}.  Thus xorxes problem is avoided without resorting to {lo'e} (whose chief function often is just to avoid this problem -- in xorxes' usage).  --part1_7e.2c626b85.2a93a071_boundary--