Response to Randall Holmes on Loglan/Lojban "me"

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

I posted a discussion between Randall Holmes of the Loglan Institute a
couple of weeks ago, which left some open questions.  The following
answers one of them.

Examples in the following are from TLI's version of Loglan, but "me",
"la", "le", and "ta" all have the approximate same meaning as in Lojban
(except as noted).  "ba" is Lojban "da" and "jio" is lojban "poi" or
"pe" (depending on the grammar situation) and "lea" is "ro lo" or "lo'i"
depending on whether we are talking about the members of the set or the
set itself as a unit.

Randall Holmes <holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu>:
>I have argued, and Bob McIvor supports me, that the meaning of ME
><designation> ought to be precisely "is one of the objects currently
>referred to by <designation>" In fact, I assumed from the outset that
>this was what it meant, because such a construction (_literal_
>conversion of a designator to a predicate) is so obviously needed.
>Thus, "Ta memi" actually means "That is me" (not an inspiring example,
>to be sure!).  "Ta meSai" means "the object currently referred to by the
>letter variable S" (NOT S-shaped!), and "Ta me le to mrenu" means "That
>is one (or more, I suppose!) of the three men we are talking about".
>The real use of this comes in more complex contexts.  The vague original
>meaning is still the meaning when ME <designator> is used as a modifier:
>
>Ta memi bekti  "That's me" in the idiomatic sense of L1
>
>Ta mela Ford, tcaro  "That's a Ford car"
>
>A complex example is the definition of a set (real logic!):
>
>let ...ba... stand in for some kind of sentence about ba which is
>the defining condition of our set:
>
>lea meba jio ...ba...
>
>"the set of all ba such that ...ba...
>
>The point is that lea constructs sets from predicates; it is easy to
>designate an indefinite object with the property specified by
>...ba..., but it is not so easy to come up with a coextensive predicate,
>without using ME in a precise sense.

Lojban "me" uses the vague place structure:
    x1 pertains to (ME argument) in property/aspect x2 (generally a LEPU
           [Lojban LE+KA] abstraction)

The question is whether we properly support the meaning above, which as
Randall later noted is useful for certain reflexives and other purposes,
especially as concerns formal logic.

John Cowan pointed out to me that when this issue came up before, we
determined that we did indeed have a solution.  The Lojban identity
predicate "du" (TLI Loglan "bi") has the full grammatical function of
any Lojban predicate and is defined such that all arguments (sumti)
refer to an identical referent.  (The last formal grammar I saw for
TLI's version used a restricted grammar for BI/bi that may not have
allowed this broad usage.)

As such, "du" may be used in a description which in turn may be
incorporated in an argument.  Loglan/Lojban description may be
"specified" using Lojban BE/BEhO (TLI Loglan jue, I believe).

Thus, the identity conversion function of TLI "me" is identical to the
Lojban "du be":

>Ta memi     bekti  "That's me" in the idiomatic sense of L1

 ta du be mi dacti

>Ta mela     Ford, tcaro  "That's a Ford car"

 ta du be la ford. karce

>A complex example is the definition of a set (real logic!):
>
>let ...ba... stand in for some kind of sentence about ba which is
>the defining condition of our set:
>
>lea  meba        jio ...ba...
>"the set of all ba such that ...ba...

 rolo me du be da poi ...da...


> Da   me    le to mrenu
  ko'a du be le re nanmu
>means "X is one of the three men I have in mind".

>ME <designator> is one-place.

du allows any number of places.  Additional ones would be added using
the linking word "bei".  Be/BEI constructs have an elidable terminator 
be'o/BEhO.

>The "difficulty" (if it is that) is that X itself may validly designate
>more than one object (not in the sense of designating a set or mass, but
>in the sense that a designator like Le mrenu indifferently means "the
>man" or "the men" I have in mind).
>
>By the way, here is a way to use ME in my sense:
>
>Le mrenu pa vizka le bakso (the man/men saw the box).
 le nanmu pu viska le tanxe

When you want to use "me + argument" as the main predicate, you don't need
the "be", though it is still legal.  I think the TLI version works using
"bi" in place of "me" in his example below.

>I te ba me      le mrenu.
 i ci da du [be] le nanmu
>(there were three of them that I had in mind that did this).

>Notice that I am not using a set or mass usage here; the "plural
>reference" of Le mrenu is expressed (as JCB would say) by there being a
>conjunction of three sentences expressed by the first sentence (one for
>each of the originally indeterminate class of men which the second
>sentence tells us has three elements).
>
>Now it would be easy in this case to say
>
>Le te mrenu pa vizka le bakso
 le ci nanmu pu viska le tanxe

>and reveal at the outset that we have three men in mind.  But it is not
>so easy to express the claim made by the second sentence once the first
>has gone without a precise predicator.

>Suppose we said

>Te mrenu pa vizka le bakso
 ci nanmu pu viska le tanxe

>instead; how do we know that the individuals we had in mind are not a
>proper subset of the three men mentioned (or not a subset at all; maybe
>one of the "men" we have in mind is about to be revealed to be a woman
>in disguise :-) ) Of course, we could actually _say_ "I had three men in
>mond in the last sentence", but that would be awfully long-winded.


My response to the latter (which I may not have posted to the List):
>I think that the way we would in afterthought indicate that "le mrenu"
>were three individuals would be by using our equivalent of "le mrenu,
>tera" (in Lojban:  "le nanmu cu cimei" for the non- TLI kibbitzers that
>I hope to eventually comment %^) Our cardinality predicate has places
>for the set, the mass, and the individuals comprising the set
>membership.
>
>Having said something like
>RH> Le mrenu pa vizka le bakso (the man/men saw the box)
>    le nanmu pu viska le tanxe [in Lojban]
>
>it would be inappropriate to say 
>
>RH> Te mrenu pa vizka le bakso
>    ci nanmu pu viska le tanxe
>
>to clarify the number, because for us "ci nanmu" not restricted is a)
>veridical rather than intensional like a "le" description and b) because
>it is non- restricted in the example, there is no way to tie it to the
>previous usage.  We do have a discursive operator ("bi'u", I think) that
>has grammar of UI and can attach to such an argument indicating "old
>information" vs.  "new information ("bi'unai"?), where "old information"
>explicitly means that we are referring to some previously discussed
>(three) men - thereby in this context making the usage clear.  But I
>think we would be more likely to use the cardinality predicate to
>specify the number in after thought, perhaps even as a relative clause:
>
>le nanmu noi cimei cu zvati ti
>?le mrenu jio tera, hijra ti
>The men, a threesome, are here (at place indicated).

From: Randall Holmes <holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu>
>I'm not sure how the set predicate is going to help you.  Sets defined
>by complex sentences where multiple occurrences of x cannot be
>eliminated by compounding are everywhere in mathematical discourse,
>certainly.  Here's an easy one, though (if Lojban lacks a reflexive, as
>Loglan does):
>
>The set of all x such that x loves x
>
>Lea  meba     jio ba cluva ba
>
>How would you propose to say this?

 lo'i du be da poi da prami da

I vaguely suspect that the TLI equivalent would work if TLI Loglan "bi"
is given the full grammatical power of Lojban "du" or any PREDA (Lojban
BRIVLA).
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Ask me about the artificial language Loglan/Lojban, or see the Lojban WWW Server
      <a href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";>The Lojban Archive</a>