From pycyn@aol.com Sun May 06 06:31:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 6 May 2001 13:31:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 79323 invoked from network); 6 May 2001 13:31:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 May 2001 13:31:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 May 2001 13:31:36 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id r.51.b20f157 (4420) for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 09:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51.b20f157.2826ac33@aol.com> Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 09:31:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] imperatives & scope (was: RE: Predicate logic and childhood.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_51.b20f157.2826ac33_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_51.b20f157.2826ac33_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/6/2001 1:07:06 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > ko broda da > > > > means > > > > I hereby command that there be some da such that do broda da > > > > and not > > > > There is some da such that I hereby command that do broda da > > > > which cannot be expressed in Lojban satisfactorily. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > {da zo'u ko broda da} and probably {da se broda ko}. Structure words > > aside, extending scope requires anaphora of the scope determiner (here > > ko = do). > > Three responses. > > > 1. Your proposal is counter to current convention, which is that {ko} > means "make this sentence true if {ko} were replaced by {do}".> well, that depends upon how you interpret "this sentence" Since a aprenex is always "to a sentence," I take short scope in front, i.e., the beginning of a illocutionary scope is the beginning of the shortest sentence of which the illocutionary operator is part (with a variety of ways of expanding, of course). > > <2. Your proposal seems unable to cope with the contrast between (b) and > (c): > > a. "I command that you cause her to eat something." > ="I command that you cause that there be something that she eats." > b. "I command that there be something that you cause her to eat." > c. "There is something that I command you to cause her to eat."> > I assume that you mean these to be expansion of "Get her to eat something", not literally the problems sentences. But, in any case, the various positions around gasnu should work: prenex to the whole(c), lenu ko'e citka da (a). b is different, not being a command to do at all, but a fiat quid -- maybe e'ocai zasti fa da poi do gasnu lenu ko'e citka da <> 3. There are much more common and more serious problems with the scope > of imperative operators than ones like (a-c). Consider (d/d'): > > d. Make a note of my telephone number. > d'. Make a note of a telephone number of mine. > > This means (e/e'): > > e. For my telephone number, make it the case that you make a note of it. > e'. For a telephone number of mine, make it the case that you make a > note > of it. > > It does NOT mean (f): > > f. Make it the case that you make a note of my telephone number. > f'. Make it the case that you make a note of a telephone number of mine. > > -- for these would be satisfied if you wrote down any old number but then > took steps to make sure that the phone company assigned this number to me.> > Again, I would use prenex but I suspect that this is common enough that we need a new convention here, as we have already in various other world shiftings, about the referent of definite descriptions therein. since that problem is not completely worked out yet, ... --part1_51.b20f157.2826ac33_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/6/2001 1:07:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:

<pc:
> arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>    ko broda da
>
> means
>
>    I hereby command that there be some da such that do broda da
>
> and not
>
>    There is some da such that I hereby command that do broda da
>
> which cannot be expressed in Lojban satisfactorily.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> {da zo'u ko broda da} and probably {da se broda ko}. Structure words
> aside, extending scope requires anaphora of the scope determiner (here
> ko = do).

Three responses.

1. Your proposal is counter to current convention, which is that {ko}
means "make this sentence true if {ko} were replaced by {do}".>

well, that depends upon how you interpret "this sentence" Since a aprenex is
always "to a sentence," I take short scope in front, i.e., the beginning of a
illocutionary scope is the beginning of the shortest sentence of which the
illocutionary operator is part (with a variety of ways of expanding, of
course).

<2. Your proposal seems unable to cope with the contrast between (b) and
(c):

  a. "I command that you cause her to eat something."
    ="I command that you cause that there be something that she eats."
  b. "I command that there be something that you cause her to eat."
  c. "There is something that I command you to cause her to eat.">

I assume that you mean these to be expansion of "Get her to eat something",
not literally the problems sentences. But, in any case, the various
positions around gasnu should work: prenex to the whole(c), lenu ko'e citka
da (a). b is different, not being a command to do at all, but a fiat quid --
maybe e'ocai zasti fa da poi do gasnu lenu ko'e citka da

<

3. There are much more common and more serious problems with the scope
of imperative operators than ones like (a-c). Consider (d/d'):

  d. Make a note of my telephone number.
  d'. Make a note of a telephone number of mine.

This means (e/e'):

  e. For my telephone number, make it the case that you make a note of it.
  e'. For a telephone number of mine, make it the case that you make a
note
      of it.

It does NOT mean (f):

  f. Make it the case that you make a note of my telephone number.
  f'. Make it the case that you make a note of a telephone number of mine.

-- for these would be satisfied if you wrote down any old number but then
took steps to make sure that the phone company assigned this number to me.>

Again, I would use prenex but I suspect that this is common enough that we
need a new convention here, as we have already in various other world
shiftings, about the referent of definite descriptions therein. since that
problem is not completely worked out yet, ...
--part1_51.b20f157.2826ac33_boundary--