Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:22:39 EDT

In a message dated 9/15/2002 3:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> >We are left with what I take to be true and also what xorxes is trying to 
> >say
> >regardless of how often he rejects it: {lo'e broda} for xorxes is like 
> >{lo'e
> >broda} in Lojban in that it signals a complex hypothetical claim that 
> >relies
> >on le du'u ce'u broda
> 
> I won't deny that until I see the complex hypothetical claim
> expressed in Lojban. Unless it is so hypothetical that it can't
> be expressed, in which case I have no problem with it. :)
>>
The difficulty in expressing it is Lojban is probably a major reason why we 
have {lo'e} at all. But I am not about to get kicked around again trying to 
work out Lojban hypotheticals and their kin. When someone else gets that 
right, I will be happy to do these in Lojban. In the meantime, I offer the 
English versions and a willingness to expand on any point that is unclear 
(well, I am not sure I can do much with "typically," but "everybody knows 
what that means" -- whichj is why it is so hard to expand). 

<<
>and says something about the members of lo'i broda.

I think a claim using {lo'e broda} does not claim anything about
any particular member of lo'i broda, and it would make sense even
in the extreme cases when there are no members.
I couldn't agree more, at least for unqualified {lo'e} in your sense. For 
Lojban {lo'e} and "the average" and the like (which I would now take as 
"tensed" {lo'e} -- using {na'o}, for example, for the current Lojban {lo'e}" 
{lo'e na'o broda}) the set is treated as a whole, not member by member; not, 
generally, even counted out: "brodas typically brode" is not {PA broda cu 
brode}. With {le'e}, of course, even this reliance on existence disappears 
-- there are stereotypical typical and average unicorns as well as generic 
ones.

<<
>In
>xorxes' case (barring the not yet forthcoming better story) it says what 
>the
>essential features are, in Lojban what the typical features are.

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Saying {mi nelci lo'e
cakla} does not claim that my liking chocolate is essential to
chocolate (nor that it is typical of chocolate, for that matter).
It does not preclude either that my liking of chocolate comes from
my liking of what some might consider some non-essential feature
of chocolate: maybe I like chocolate because it brings back
memories of something, but bringing memories of something would not
be an essential property of chocolate. So I don't understand what
essential properties have to do with my position. The only property
involved as I see it is {le ka ce'u cakla}.
Well, the double abstraction involved here makes it a little hard to follow. 
There are two outs, as usual: {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, were it legal, would say 
that my liking it is an essential property of chocolates, or I would like any 
chocolate whatsoever -- the generic chocolate, without further 
qualifications. Of course, {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, etc., says nothing about 
WHY I like chocolates (the standrd form is a little more precise here, but 
not much); these may be non-nuclear properties of chocolates like the 
memories they revive; but that has no effect on the claim.
It is precisely because the only property involved is le du'u ce'u cakla (and 
all that that entails). If other properties were involved, we would no 
longer be talking about the generic chocolate -- just as we are not when we 
shift over to "typical" or "average" or....

<<
<<
>It has the quantifier of {da} within the scope of the negation,
>so that I can't continue talking about the same "one" in the
>next sentence
> >>
>Well, CLL waffles on that, so, if you did it, no one would complain much, 
>and
>you can always use {ice} rather than just {i}.

I can do it grammatically, yes. It just doesn't make any sense
logically.
On the contrary, these are just the two ways that Logic has to deal with the 
problem. The run-on sentence approach is a little easier, but the anaphora 
move is slightly more flexible (it can run into someone else's contribution, 
for example).

<<
>You can also use anaphora (if
>it is possible to use Lojban anaphora reliably): {le go'i} or {ra} or ...Or
>you can tag even {da} with {goi}.

But referring back to a bound variable outside the binding
context returns nonsense.
Not obviously nonsense, jut uninterpreted. But the point is that as long as 
you are hooked up to that variable, you are not outside its scope: the 
anaphoric particle varies in reference with the original.

<<
Consider for example:

noda zo'u da klama
Nobody came.

What does {le go'i} refer to? What if we express it as:

roda zo'u da naku klama
{da} in both cases.