From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Sep 18 14:31:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 21:31:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 61720 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 21:31:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 21:31:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-3.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.103) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 21:31:00 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-213.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.213]) by mailbox-3.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CE30192C0 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:30:58 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:32:37 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >Something like {ta ckaji zei pixra tu'o du'u ce'u > >-diskette}, with {ckaji zei pixra} defined as "has visual aspects > >of property x2". This is much more like the case you've been > >talking about, but I am yet to be persuaded that it calls for > >{lo'e}. > > Well, I wouldn't mind saying that, using {kairpixra} defined as > above, {ta pixra lo'e cukcma} means {ta kairpixra tu'o du'u > ce'u cukcma}. But, since {kairpixra} is not well defined in > terms of {pixra}, this doesn't really help to define {lo'e}. My original line of thought was that the solution to saying the things that called for the use of {lo'e} lay in fact in defining new brivla like kairpixra -- I wasn't attempting to define {lo'e}. But I have now reverted to my old idea of {lo'e} as the nonquantifier appropriate to singleton categories (and le'e as its nonveridical counterpart. > But wait, we can at least define {pixra} in terms of {kairpixra} > as: > > {ko'a pixra ko'e} <=> {ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e} Actually, if {pixra} means the same as English "picture" then that won't work. Suppose you photograph me driving past in a speeding car, so that all the photo shows is a very blurry car -- I can still say "that's a picture of me". Or suppose you paint a Pollockian composition that is indended to capture my transcendental essence -- it looks nothing like me, but is still a picture of me. Well, now I come to think of it, this isn't so much an argument against your equation as a statement of how hard it is to define {kairpixra}. > Then we have: > > {ko'a pixra lo broda} = > {lo broda zo'u ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u ce'u du by} > > {ko'a pixra lo'e broda} = > {ko'a kairpixra tu'o du'u lo broda zo'u ce'u du by} > > Now we can do the same for {viska}: We introduce a new predicate > {kairviska} that means "x1 sees something that exhibits property > x2". Then we have that {ko'a viska ko'e} is defined as > {ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e}. > > Then: > > {ko'a viska lo broda} = > {lo broda zo'u ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u ce'u du by} > > {ko'a viska lo'e broda} = > {ko'a kairviska tu'o du'u lo broda zo'u ce'u du by} > > Can this be so simple and still be right, or am I forgetting > something? > > What happens with the lion? > > {kairselxabju} = x1 is inhabited by things with property x2" > > {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} = > {le friko cu se kairselxabju tu'o lo cinfo zo'u ce'u du cy} > > So, if we understand the kair- predicates, we understand {lo'e}. I don't think a general understanding of the kair- predicates is there to be had. > ({sisku} was turned by force into what would have been {kairsisku}, > but hopefully usage will bring it back to sanity.) tugni > Can it really be so simple? Maybe it is so simple, but it just passes the explanatory buck to kair-. I prefer the definition of {lo'e} as the gadri appropriate to singleton categories. When applied to a category ordinarily conceptualized as nonsingleton, it forces an appropriate reconceptualization. (Technically called "coercion" in cognitive linguistics.) --And.