[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: le nu pilno (Was: coi...)
coi goran.
>> .i mi pacna lenu le mi bruna cu na merko kulnu catke kei li pa
>
>.i mi na jimpe .i catke ki'a? .i mi na kakne co zgana lenu zo catke .oi cu
>vanbi di'u .i le mi menri se jimte .ije'i? de'u klulacri
.i naje
.i mi pu srera lacri le glico kulnu
.i zoi gy "push" gy smuni lenu tu'a da bapli lenu de lebna di da
.i lu merko kulnu catke li'u trocytanru fo lenu bapli lenu lei la nePAL.
prenu cu lebna lei merko kulnu
.iki'ubo so'i le merko ke pacna jenmi cu djica lenu ctuca fo lei cmaci
.iku'i so'i le merko ke pacna jenmi cu djica lenu ctuca fo lei merko lijda
.a lei merko kulnu .a lei merko citka gi'e jinvi ledu'u lei drata kulnu cu
mleca lei merko kulnu leka xamgu
.i .u'u mi troci lenu jbosku lei nandu seni'i lenu mi binxygau lei nandu
sidbo lei traji frili vau .oi
co'o mi'e kris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Bogart
cbogart@quetzal.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Subject: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
la kris. bogart. cusku di'e
> Apparantly I was on vacation or simply not paying attention when this got
> resolved. .u'u Sorry.
No regrets necessary - I don't think we've got all the wrinkles out of
this yet.
la xorxes. cusku di'e
> On the other hand, it can be thought in a different way and it doesn't work.
> I'll change to {nitcu} instead of {djica} to avoid having to use {tu'a}.
Ummm... {nitcu} is one indication we haven't got all the answers yet.
Being _able_ to use {tu'a} gives us a way of making a distinction
which isn't easy otherwise.
> What is the meaning of: {mi nitcu lo tanxe}?
> Is it "I need something which is a box", or is it "there exists at least
> one box such that I need it"?
I believe it has to be the latter.
> > 9) "do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati lu'u"
> Well, I agree this is a solution, but I don't think it is the right general
> solution. In the case of {djica}, it would seem that {tu'a} has to be used
> anyway to avoid illegal sumti raising, so that the example is a bad one. When
> there is no sumti raising, e.g. {do nitcu lo tanxe ji lo dakli}, using {tu'a}
> seems wrong.
I look at it from the opposite point of view. I took examples like these
as indications that there is some sumti raising going on. But there's
a nagging suspicion at the back of my mind that this isn't the whole answer.
We have several gismu, one of whose places may need to be filled with
something of the form "any-old-<x>". Last I remember, there were three
different styles of place definition for these - {sisku} takes a property,
{djica} takes an event, and {nitcu} takes a concrete sumti. It could be
that all gismu of this type (and I'm not sure how you spot them all)
need to take an abstraction, at least as an option, in which case {tu'a}
works. And in that case any such gismu which didn't allow an abstraction
would not be usable to express the any-old-<x> case.
Or maybe there's something else going on. Natlangs seem to avoid the
issue, or use constructions like any-<x>-whatever to emphasise the point.
But I don't see how you carry that over into a logical language.
> {do nitcu lo tanxe ji'e dakli} may be all right, depending on
> what is the answer to my question above, but an appropriate sumti connective
> would be nice too.
> Since it would be very simple to allow BAIs to work like that (they're already
> allowed in forethought form, so why not in afterthought also?), I don't see
> any reason not to.
> At least {mau}, {me'a}, {du'i}, {li'e}, {pa'a}, {fa'e}, {ba'i} and {do'e} can
> be given good use in this function.
This appears to be off into hyperspace. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. :-)
mu'o mi'e .i,n.
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
mi cusku di'e
> > Since it would be very simple to allow BAIs to work like that (they're
> > already allowed in forethought form, so why not in afterthought also?),
> > I don't see any reason not to.
>
> > At least {mau}, {me'a}, {du'i}, {li'e}, {pa'a}, {fa'e}, {ba'i} and
> > {do'e} can be given good use in this function.
i di'e la'edi'u pinka la i,n
> This appears to be off into hyperspace. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. :-)
Let me explain. The problem is that the subject shifted a bit from the
original question.
I wanted to say "I need the box or the bag (I don't care which)".
(I'm changing from "a" to "the" so as not to confuse with the other issue.
This time it's about a specific box and a specific bag.)
{mi nitcu le tanxe .a le dakli} is wrong, because if I need the box, but
not the bag, the sentence is true. In fact, I'm not claiming anything
about "I need the box" or "I need the bag" separately, so I can't use
logical connectives that by definition can be split into two sentences.
My proposed solution was to say {mi nitcu du'igi le tanxe gi le dakli},
and I wanted to be able to say the same thing using afterthought mode
instead of forethought: *{mi nitcu le tanxe du'ibo le dakli}
The other BAIs that I listed too can be useful as connectives.
Jorge
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 00:23:46 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: bogus file processing for gismu list needed ASAP
The gismu list is in our directory along with the list of bogus entries that
you omitted the first time. Can you do the KWIC run for those entries now.
As I posted to the list, I am 85% done. Specifically, i have 1231 lines
left out of 8931 (hmm, guess that is 86%), and I have done more than 400
lines a day for the last couple of sessions. Thus I think I will be ready
for the bogus kwic file by Sunday or Monday. Nora is on vacation next week,
and will be at home, so I expect an especially productive week next week,
hence I may be able to get done or close to done with all gismu files by the
end of next week.
(I have already looked at the cmavo list files and they should go much
quicker. There is a limit to what we can do with E-order for the cmavo list,
but the KWIC-index seems to have maximized it. Lots of weeding to do,
but weeding is the fast part of the job, as it has turned out.)
lojbab
From: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Subject: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i
tcati)
Subject: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i
tcati)
cu'u la'o gy. Randall Holmes .gy.
> This seems only to go to you via my reply function, and I don't know
> how to e-mail the whole list; I'll try to do this in the cc: line at
> the end of this message.
It sounds from Mark's comment as if it got through.
> The same problem arises in TLI Loglan; the paradigmatic example which
> caused a lot of discussion was "I am waiting for a taxi". The
> difficulty seems to be that the logical form of the sentence is an
> illusion; there is no box referred to in "I need a box", and there is
> no taxi referred to in "I am waiting for a taxi" (there need not even
> exist any boxes or taxis meeting your requirements for the statement
> to be true). The context is "referentially opaque", in Quine's
> terminology, and the object of the sentence, if it has one, is some
> kind of "intensional" object (something on the order of a concept of a
> box or taxi).
> --Randall Holmes
> ("logician in residence", TLI)
Yes, but *what* sort of "intensional object"?
This attemps to identify the problem, but I'm not sure how much
it helps us find the solution.
cu'u la mark. clsn.
> I recall we went through this discussion once before; in fact it was
> spurred on by a similar discussion regarding TLI Loglan regarding taxis
> (mentioned by Randall Holmes here, I see). The answer there (our analogous
> version of JCB's I think, and I liked it) was "loi tanxe". This works. I
> need [some part of] the mass of things that are boxes. Possibly "lei
> tanxe" if you want to admit something that isn't a box but turns out to be
> what I meant anyway. I don't think we need a new quantifier for this one;
> massification works (unless massification was rethought and redefined since
> the last time this question came through and I missed it). I'll try to
> find quotes from the last time.
(I'm with Jorge on this one.)
Sorry, Mark, I didn't really buy this the last time round,
and I think I understand better why now.
mi nitcu loi tanxe
means
There is some part of the mass of things that are boxes
that I need.
In other words, it suffers from the same problem as the {lo} version.
It's more difficult to think of examples where you would actually
want to say this, but I firmly believe that it has to work this way.
Massification is irrelevant.
Jorge's {xe'e} = "any":
This strikes me as pretty dubious semantically (even more
problematical than {po'o} = only). "Any" is kind of ambiguous
between "all" and "one".
xe'eti ka'e se pilno
Any of these will do.
might as well be
roti ka'e se pilno
All of these are usable.
Each of these is capable of being used.
(I've previously on occasion advocated translating {ro} as
"each" rather than "all". It means the same in the simple cases,
and helps demonstrate problems similar to the one we're discussing
here in the more complicated ones.)
The most promising candidate for an answer seems to be that
there is some sort of abstraction which has been elided.
(This is presumably something like what Quine has in mind
as an "intensional" object. (Haven't read Quine - should get
to the top of the to-do list sometime in the next ten years.) :-) )
But is it a potentially different abstraction in each case,
or is there conceivably a single general purpose one which
would cover them all?
{tu'a} appears to serve in all the cases we've considered
(except perhaps {sisku}, and I seem to remember John Cowan
having second thoughts about the use of {ka} for that one),
although it's just about as vague as it could possibly be.
Or should it perhaps be a Lojban abstraction,
{su'u <gismu> kei beleka broda} for some suitable {broda}?
A single one, or individually chosen?
cu'u la'o gy. Chris Bogart .gy.
> Reading this over, I'm unsure whether I really want to claim "ka" is just
> the right word; suppose there were a new abstractor with the same grammar
> that filled this function -- I have no idea how you'd define it in English,
> though.
Quite.
> But we shouldn't *require* nitce to take an abstraction because it's still
> useful to be able to say "mi nitce lo tanxe" if it is in fact a specific box
> you are referring to, rather than just a box in general.
Well, yes and no.
In theory, even if {nitce} (etc.) takes an abstraction, you can always
adjust the quantification to achieve that effect, e.g.
da poi tanxe zo'u: mi nitce tu'a da
In practice, however, that's admittedly not very convenient.
Sorry, no answers today, just questions.
Yours,
Puzzled of Reading.
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 13 Sep 94 19:53:50 EDT.)
(A)
Jorge:
> Maybe what we need is a new quantifier "any" in selma'o PA.
> Let's call it {xe'e}.
>
> xe'eti ka'e se pilno
> Any of these will do.
>
> mi na vecnu fo xe'eda
> I won't sell at any price. (But I may sell at some price :)
>
> do ka'e cuxna paxe'e selska poi xekri
> You can choose any colour, as long as it is black.
[^^ - do we have an anglophile here?]
Wouldn't plain universal quantification suffice for these?
For every x, x is one of these, x will do
a price, I won't sell at x
a colour, you can choose x
(B)
My contribution to the needing a box, waiting for a taxi, seeking
a unicorn debate is to suggest use of a NU cmavo meaning 'hypothetical
event' - "xuhu", say. Then we could have:
I need it to be the case (though it might not be the case) that there
is x, x a box and I have x.
I wait for it to be the case (though it won't necessarily be the case)
that there is x, x a taxi.
Galadriel wants it to be the case (though it might not be) that there is x,
x a unicorn & Galadriel finds x
where "it to be the case (tho it might not be)" = "le xuhu"
I make this contribution having completely forgotten what John Cowan
& Iain Alexander ha d to say on the matter a fair while back.
----
And
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
je'i
la lojbab cusku di'e
> I don't see the problem. If you want exactly one box, you want
> 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'. That means 'any box' unless I have
> missed the point of this discussion.
{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".
la i,n cusku di'e
> Jorge's {xe'e} = "any":
>
> This strikes me as pretty dubious semantically (even more
> problematical than {po'o} = only). "Any" is kind of ambiguous
> between "all" and "one".
We can make it as unambiguous as we care to. "Any one of all" is
not the same as "each" and is not the same as "one".
(I would prefer that {xe'e} not be restricted to one, but this would
probably be the default. Then {paxe'e}, {rexe'e}, etc. for "any one",
"any two" etc.)
> xe'eti ka'e se pilno
> Any of these will do.
>
> might as well be
>
> roti ka'e se pilno
> All of these are usable.
> Each of these is capable of being used.
Yes, because the English expression in this case is somewhat ambiguous,
but the meanings are different. In the first case I say that only one can
be used, but it can be any of these. The "innateness" of {ka'e} complicates
the issue, though. How about
mi ba dunda xe'eti do
I will give you any (one) of these.
It is different from
mi ba dunda roti do
I will give you each of these.
and different from
mi ba dunda pati do
I will give you one of these. (Guess which one.)
> (I've previously on occasion advocated translating {ro} as
> "each" rather than "all". It means the same in the simple cases,
> and helps demonstrate problems similar to the one we're discussing
> here in the more complicated ones.)
I agree. "Each" is much better, because "all" can suggest a massification
that is not there.
BTW, what is so problematic about {po'o}? I've seen this complaint a few
times, but never read any description of what the problem might be.
And now that you mention it, it may well be that an attitudinal of the
{po'o} type could be used instead of a PA, as I proposed.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
la and cusku di'e
> (A)
> Jorge:
> > Maybe what we need is a new quantifier "any" in selma'o PA.
> > Let's call it {xe'e}.
> >
> > xe'eti ka'e se pilno
> > Any of these will do.
> >
> > mi na vecnu fo xe'eda
> > I won't sell at any price. (But I may sell at some price :)
> >
> > do ka'e cuxna paxe'e selska poi xekri
> > You can choose any colour, as long as it is black.
> [^^ - do we have an anglophile here?]
>
> Wouldn't plain universal quantification suffice for these?
> For every x, x is one of these, x will do
> a price, I won't sell at x
> a colour, you can choose x
The {ka'e} ones are tricky, because of the "innateness", so I would change
to {kakne} for those examples.
The difference between
do kakne le nu cuxna ro selska
You can choose every colour.
and
do kakne le nu cuxna paxe'e selska
You can choose any one colour.
is that in the first one you allow to choose more than one colour,
while in the second one you don't. Of course,
do kakne le nu cuxna pa selska
You can choose one colour.
makes you ask "which one?". (In this case black, but that was only to
confuse the issue even more.)
The selling example is confusing because of the negative, let's start
with
mi vecnu fo xe'eda
I sell at any price.
which obviously is not the same as
mi vecnu fo roda
I sell at every price.
so the negation of each of them is different.
> (B)
> My contribution to the needing a box, waiting for a taxi, seeking
> a unicorn debate is to suggest use of a NU cmavo meaning 'hypothetical
> event' - "xuhu", say. Then we could have:
> I need it to be the case (though it might not be the case) that there
> is x, x a box and I have x.
You can do this with the existing abstractions:
mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe
I need the event that I possess a box.
in no way implies that "le nu mi ponse lo tanxe" should actually ever
be the case.
But I don't like solving it by kicking the problem into abstraction space.
We'd end up saying
mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe
I need some abstraction about a box.
instead of saying what we really mean. Why should we make it so difficult
to make a distinction that can be made clearly in other languages?
Jorge
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:10:49 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
JL>la lojbab cusku di'e
JL>
JL>> I don't see the problem. If you want exactly one box, you want
JL>> 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'. That means 'any box' unless I have
JL>> missed the point of this discussion.
JL>
JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
JL>I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".
No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly
one out of the set of things that 'box'. It is not specific as to which of
the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
and it veridically is a box. (I can't remeber what it means if there is
no such thing as a box, cf. "I need a unicorn", but it has been discussed.)
I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se nitcu mi"
"lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if
you select a specific number of them less than 'all'.
TLI Loglan does not have a "lo" - their closest equivalent "lea" is pretty
much equivalent to "rolo", but I do not believe there has been any discussion
of usage with a non-"ro" quantifier before the "lea" (it is probably permitted
by their grammar, but it is not necessarily defined in meaning). TLI
Loglan has only "le" for individuation, and "le" is indeed specific in both
versions of the language. Of course "le" is also intensional and thus a
speaker can claim that any useful occurance of a box that turns up just
happens to be 'the' box that he had in mind.
You might also be able to do something with "pa lu'a roda poi tanxe (or
ro lo tanxe, or ro tanxe).
But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
benefit of R Holmes).
lojbab
X-Sender: cbogart@teal.csn.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:07:22 -0600
From: cbogart@csn.org (Chris Bogart)
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4b17>
>I don't see the problem. If you want exactly one box, you want
>'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'. That means 'any box' unless I have
>missed the point of this discussion.
The discussion hinges on the fact that all lojban sumti can be quantified in
the prenex without any change in meaning. "mi nitce pa tanxe" means the
same as "da poi pa tanxe zo'u: mi nitce da". I.e. There's a box out there
somewhere, and I need it. It implies there is some box in existence, and
you're saying that you need that particular box.
But suppose I need a huge box to put my house in. No such box exists. I can
look disapprovingly at my big, unboxed, house, and say "I need a box", but
it would be wrong to say "da poi pa tanxe zo'u: mi nitce da", which claims
not only that I need a box, but that such a box already exists!
Or suppose I've got a bunch of materials for making boxes, and I say "I need
a box" with the intention of building my own. There does not exist some box
X, such that I need X. There may not even be a future box "le ba tanxe"
because I may fail in my attempts to build one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Bogart
cbogart@quetzal.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
>No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly
>one out of the set of things that 'box'.
So how do you make the distinction in Lojban between Quine's examples of "I
want a sloop" and "There is a sloop I want"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Bogart
cbogart@quetzal.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
je'i
la lojbab spusku di'e
> JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
> JL>I need it".
>
> No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly
> one out of the set of things that 'box'. It is not specific as to which of
> the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
> and it veridically is a box.
Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the biggest.
Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes
(the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three?
> I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se nitcu
mi"
Yes, but I thought that {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means exactly that.
Does {mi ponse pa tanxe} mean the same as {pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se ponse
mi}?
If so (as I think) then why should it work for {ponse} and not for {nitcu}?
> "lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if
> you select a specific number of them less than 'all'.
I agree that it is non-specific. The issue is whether it is "identifiable"
or "non-identifiable" (probably the wrong technical terms).
> But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
> and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
> benefit of R Holmes).
I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever".
mi nelci loi xruli
I like flowers
doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it?
Why should
mi nitcu loi xruli
I need flowers
mean that I need any flower whatsoever?
I don't think there's any problem with {lo} either. The only problem is
that we don't have any easy way to refer to that sense of "any". (Something
like "ajn" in Esperanto.) I think that either a PA with that sense, or an
attitudinal like {po'o} could be the answer.
Abstractions work too, in the sense that I can say:
mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe
I need that I have a box.
and I suppose this is the sort of problem that made {djica} unable to
take a simple object. But I don't like that solution, because it is either
too complicated, forcing you to use {ponse} or some other relationship
when you don't want to, or it is too ambiguous {mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe}.
There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
la djer cusku di'e
> I rather liked my first suggestion, as corrected by jorge:
>
> mi nitcu le su'u me le taxpu'i me'u da kei
> I want the in-mind abstracton about boxing things.
I think I muddled things more if this comes out of my comment.
{me le taxpu'i} is something specific to someone who puts thing in boxes.
I think {mi nitcu le su'u taxpu'i [da]} is approximately what you want
"I need the abstraction of boxing something"
But I would use simply {nu}: {mi nitcu le nu taxpu'i da} "I need to
box something".
This is sidestepping the issue, though. I still would like to say
"I need a box" without having to specify what I need it for.
> And now I am beginning to be haunted by a Beatles lyric:
> "Something in the way she walks.."
> How do you say that "something" in lojban when you don't really want it
> instantiated to anything known?
I like lojbab's {le su'u ko'a cadzu}.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
je'i tcati)
la lojbab cusku di'e
> A major reason why "loi tanxe" should work in Lojban is that in Lojban,
> singular plural is a marked distinction, AND that all nouns can be considered
> as mass nouns.
Nobody says {loi tanxe} doesn't work. What I'm saying is that it doesn't
mean "any box", it means "[part of] the mass of boxes".
So, I could say
mi pilno loi tanxe le nu vasru lei mi cukta
I use boxes to keep my books
there's no problem with {loi tanxe}, it works, as a mass of boxes.
> You do not, in English, typically say "I need *a* water", you say "I need
> water", and leave the quantity of the mass to be determinable from context.
Exactly. Just like in Lojban
mi nelci loi djacu
I like water (not "I like any water")
Now, how do we say "I need water"? It can't be {mi nitcu loi djacu}, because
that says that there is some part of the mass of water that I need, and
that's not what "I need water" means.
> If you need to be specific, you say something like "I need a glass of water",
> or "I need a liter of water". One way to do this in Lojban, for boxes is
> "mi nitcu pa selci poi tanxe" "I need one indivisible subunit of the mass
> of boxes."
It's the same problem. Is {pa selci} one (certain) selci, or is it any selci?
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
je'i
> Back to present, Mark Shoulson reporting.
>
> That said, it looks to me like there may be more than one thing at work
> here. On the one hand, things like "I like tennis"" or "I like women"
> should use "loi".
Agreed.
> But "I need a box" (and possibly tho not necessarily I need a taxi) may be
> different, since you're not referring in general... precisely because *NOT*
> "any of" the mass will do.
I think I may be changing my mind.
What confused me was the quantification of loi as "part of the mass of..."
{mi nitcu loi tanxe} could well mean that the _whole_ mass of boxes is
such that I need it, and since the properties of the individuals are
also the properties of the mass, then as long as I need one of them
I need the whole mass. Actually, there isn't one box such that I need it,
but the mass has more properties than each individual, so we'd still be ok.
> A full box won't help you. Ormaybe "lei" will
> help there. I dunno..
It doesn't matter. You're saying that the mass of boxes has the property
that you need it, not that the components of that mass have the property.
This makes me wonder what's the point of quantifying {loi} with anything
other than {piro}, since anything that is true for one quantification
should be true for any other.
So {mi nitcu piro loi tanxe} might make sense for "I need a box", but
is very counterintuitive.
The new problem is that "I need a box" doesn't mean that I need any box
whatsoever. Maybe I need a big box, in which case "I need a box" is true,
but "I need any box whatsoever" is not. And I don't think {lei} helps,
it's not a matter of specific boxes...
> For consideration...
Enough for today, I'm going home.
Jorge
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:41:07 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, pcliffje@crl.com
As I posted a little while ago, our "lo" does not claim existence of the set
(non-empty, that is) meeting the descrription. Thus statements about
"lo (unicorns)" can be made and be meaningful - the unqiuantified form
describes at least one of a hypothetical set that veridically meets the
description, is non-specific as to which of such a set is to be selected.
Does your "lea" claim that the referenced set exists? Or do claims
about "lea (unicorns)" become isomorphic to claims about "lea (pegasi)"
because both are descriptions of the empty set (at least in the real world)?
My recollection is that "lea" gives ALL members of such a set (whether it
exists or not). Our "lo" just has a different quantifier and gives "at least
one" of the set.
pc has said that "lo (preda)" is not exportable to the prenex of the sentence;
it is not the same as a restricted quantified variable in the prenex
da poi preda zo'u: mi nitcu da
ba jio preda goi: mi cnida ba in TLI vocabulary per L1
whether lea (default quantifier "ra" which is Lojban "ro")
id the same as "rolo" depends on whether the referent of the description can
be empty and yet meanuingful. We ttried to define it to meet the logical
as well as the linguistic requirements by separating it from the quantified
version.
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:48:35 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Not having read Quine (and not being convoinced that I would understand
it if I did - if I had to be a logician to lead this project, I would
resign yesterday %^)
I beleive that the distinction is
mi djica lo bloti poi falnu se catke
I want a boat which is sail-pushed (I hope that will do for sloop in this
example)
which does not claim that such a boat exists
and
(pa) da poi bloti gi'e falnu se catke zo'u: mi djica da
There exists 1 thing that is a boat and sail-pushed such that: I want it.
which claims that such a boat exists AND that it is a specific boat.
(I left the "pa" out from before "lo bloti" in the firts example, if
singular is necessarily explicit in "a boat". Lojban does not require
singular/plural distinction if it is not important.
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:07:20 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: Updated gismu list
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net
Well, I sent you a cc of one message to Holmes that will give you some
of the ghist of the issue at hand. Traffic is running a little heavy on
the issue, but I am sticking my neck out as usual, in hopes that uyou
will eventually bail me out.
It is the same old issue of intensionality of "lo" - do all references to
veridical descriptions claim that the referent really exists, and if not,
can we avoid haviung the silliness that all claims about the empty set are
equivalent so that "I want a unicorn", "I want a balrog" and "I want the
Wizard of Oz" to all mean the same thing and have the same truth value.
I think we resolved things so that this is not the case - that "lo" is
intensional as to existence but veridical with respect to the description
applying to the referent, and that "lo" is non-specific (unless restriucted),
but I won't pretend to understand the magic that makes thinsg work.
Lots of references to Quine (Word and Object, I think - I have never read
Quine and don't think I have any of his books if I wanted to) in the
discussion.
If catching up on the old issues is going to be a long term problem, we need
to consider whether the priority should be to keep up on new issues over
catching up. Otherwise, you may sit there forever coasting along a year
behind our current issues, which probably won;t satisfy either of us.
I think that (when you have the computer to use) if you are reading and responding to stuff as it appears, or shortly thereafter, you will tend NOT to get
500K files to read. Even this very lively discussion going on is only a
half-dozen messages a day. (WE just got statistics that the 3 year average for
Lojban List is 4 messages per day).'
I think the main things that only you can provide are - for current issues
keeping us from getting ourselves up the logical creek without a paddle.
(Does that make you the paddle??? %^), and for old issues, 1) making sure
that if something really needs to be changed, we identify it befoire the
book is done and 2) eventually weed out what is right and wrong in the
discussions so that we can use them as answers when the topic inevitably
comes up again (at least 3 times in the last year in the case of ZAhO tenses).
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:28:13 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
JL>This is sidestepping the issue, though. I still would like to say
JL>"I need a box" without having to specify what I need it for.
Then you want to use "le
tanxe" and not "lo tanxe" or "pa tanxe" which is related to "lo tanxe"
(specifically "pa lo tanxe".
"pa le tanxe" means one of 'the' boxes I have in mind. I may not be able
or willing to specify all the relevanmt properties of "le tanxe", but at
least it is possible to ask me if it isn;t clear.
Whenever you use "lo" you are, at least logically, not constarining the set
any more than is indicated by restrcitions you provide.
JL>Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the
JL>biggest.
JL>
JL>Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes
JL>(the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three?
I think the latter. You want
mi nitcu le pa le ci tanxe
JL>> But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
JL>> and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
JL>> benefit of R Holmes).
JL>
JL>I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever".
JL> mi nelci loi xruli
JL> I like flowers
JL>
JL>doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it?
JL>
JL>Why should
JL>
JL> mi nitcu loi xruli
JL> I need flowers
JL>
JL>mean that I need any flower whatsoever?
Because you have massified the set "lo'i xrula", and any portion of that
mass will suffice. Now this is logic - when you say "I want water", you
will not be satisfied by poisoned water, or water embedded in the crystalline
structure of a hydrated rock, etc. So pragmatics may give SOME limits here.
But logically at least, "loi xrula" refers to ALL flowers.
"lei xrula" refers to a more specific set of flowers, like "le xrula" would.
(I think that when the Trobriand Islanders consider all rabbits to be an
instance of Mr Rabbit, they do have some pragmnatic restruictions as well -
I doubt that they consider a dead, cut-up rabbit in their stew as being
EXACTLY the samne thing as the one sitting in the field, but linguistically
they may not make the distinction - I wouldn't know for sure, though.
Similarly, there are pragmatic restrictions on "lo djacu" or "lo tanxe".
I suspect that this would best be dealt with by restricting the universe of
discourse intensionally, in which case 'all flowers' does not refer to
every flower that ever existed anywhere, and 'water' doesn;t refer to the
scattered molecules in interstellar space.)
Given these kind of pragmatic restrictions, "lo"
can serve the purpose needed. But "lo broda" still is NOT the
same as "da poi broda" in that it doesn;t claim that "broda" really exists.
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:39:34 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
JL>
JL>{mi nitcu loi tanxe} could well mean that the _whole_ mass of boxes is
JL>such that I need it, and since the properties of the individuals are
JL>also the properties of the mass, then as long as I need one of them
JL>I need the whole mass. Actually, there isn't one box such that I need it,
JL>but the mass has more properties than each individual, so we'd still be ok.
JL>
I THINK that the default quantifier "piso'u" on "loi" is needed BECAUSE
properties of different parts of the mass may not all be identical.
THus saying that "loi" has that quantifier means that the properties of
the individual are also the properties of PART of the mass. The mass as
a whole can have self-contradictory properties.
This may answer you other question - liking "loi xrula" does not necessarily
mean that you like ALL flowers, but that you like some unspecified portion
of all flowers. It is possible that you like ALL flowers and that you dislike
ALL flowers, if "ALL flowers" is piro loi xrula and you like at least one
flower and dislike at least one flower.
Statements about "piro loi ..." are just as universal as statements about
"ro da poi ...", but less useful because the opposite may also be true.
lojbab
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Jorge said this and a lot more:
There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."
Jorge
__________________________________________________________________________
I think the below sentences translate this accurately. The style is
another question. I would say too that the word "any" does give rise to
a number of problems of ambiguity in English and carrying it over to
lojban might be a problem there.
1. roda tanxe da inaja mi nitcu da
For all X: X is a box implies I need X.
If X is a box, I need it.
2.roda poi tanxe ku'o mi nitcu da
For all X which is a box, I need X
I hope inaja is the correct form for logical implication as usually
represented in logic texts by an arrow --->. The if... then... form.
It is said of plays that they are not written, they are wrought. I think
the same could be said of lojban.
djer jlk@netcom.com
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 02:14:15 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: G. Koenig on 'any'
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
GK>I think the below sentences translate this accurately. The style is
GK>another question. I would say too that the word "any" does give rise to
GK>a number of problems of ambiguity in English and carrying it over to
GK>lojban might be a problem there.
GK>
GK>1. roda tanxe da inaja mi nitcu da
GK>For all X: X is a box implies I need X.
GK>If X is a box, I need it.
I think I know what you were trying for, but that isn't what you got.
roda tanxe d
roda tanxe da (that is)
(Absolutely) Everything is a box for containing itself.
You wanted
roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe .inaja mi nitcu da
For all x: [x is a box => I need x]
GK>2.roda poi tanxe ku'o mi nitcu da
GK>For all X which is a box, I need X
Closer: just use zo'u - the prenex terminator, instead of "ku'o":
roda poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
As you wrote it
nitcu has
"roda poin tanxe ku'o" as x1
"mi" as x2
"da" as x3
Every box needs me for purpose 'itself' (sumti-raised!) !!! %^)
In spite of this correction, I want to complement you on the great improvements
you've made in Lojban capability since the era when you were part of the LA
Group.
lojbab
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 16 Sep 94 00:10:49 D.)
Lojbab:
> JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
> JL>I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".
>
> No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly
> one out of the set of things that 'box'. It is not specific as to which of
> the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
> and it veridically is a box. (I can't remeber what it means if there is
> no such thing as a box, cf. "I need a unicorn", but it has been discussed.)
"I need one out of the set of boxes" is false if every box is such that
I don't need it.
"I need a box (any box)" is false is there exists a box such that I
don't need it *AND* I don't have one yet.
"I need every box" is false if there exists a box such that I don't
need it.
The first two are easy to distinguish. But how to capture the difference
between the last pair is the problem.
---
And
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: needing books
How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
Yours in more than usual confusion,
And
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 15 Sep 94 15:01:46 EDT.)
Jorge:
> The difference between
> do kakne le nu cuxna ro selska
> You can choose every colour.
> and
> do kakne le nu cuxna paxe'e selska
> You can choose any one colour.
> is that in the first one you allow to choose more than one colour,
> while in the second one you don't.
Does this have something to do with the scope of quantifiers with
respect to modal operators?
You can choose every colour:
It is possible that for every x, x a colour, you choose x
You can choose any one colour
For every x, x a colour, it is possible that x is the one
colour you choose.
cf.
Everyone could marry me.
It is possible that everyone marries me
Anyone could marry me.
For everyone it is possible that they marry me/
For everyone it is possible that they be my one spouse
Or am I treeing up the wrong bark?
> The selling example is confusing because of the negative, let's start
> with
> mi vecnu fo xe'eda
> I sell at any price.
For every price it is possible that this is the (one) price I sell at
> which obviously is not the same as
>
> mi vecnu fo roda
> I sell at every price.
For every x, x a price, I sell at x
----
And
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 09:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@crl.com>
Subject:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
As usual, I do not yet know my way around here. Since generic passwords
do not seem to work at ftp.sc.yale.edu, what is the secret grip this time?
Golub may show up this afternoon -- or he may not, but i thought I'd get
a load of stuff anyhomw (M is away doing mothertending,so I have the
machine for a while).
pc>|83
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
la lojbab cusku di'e
> "lo tanxe" is NOT the same thing as "da poi tanxe";
This, I think, is to avoid problems in case no tanxe exists. But it doesn't
solve the "any" problem.
It seems to me that the problem with {nitcu} is different, and has little
to do with whether boxes exist or not.
> Now "mi nitcu pa tanxe", which is NOT restricted, does say that ANY member
> of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' will satisfy your
> need.
Using that same logic, you would conclude that "mi ponse pa tanxe" says
that ANY member of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' is
owned by you.
Let's say I have three boxes, one red, one blue, and one purple with
little pink flowers, and _any_ of them will serve for whatever purpose
they are needed.
Now you say {mi nitcu pa tanxe}
And I ask {xu do nitcu le xunre tanxe}
What should the answer be?
If {do nitcu le xunre tanxe} is true, and {do nitcu le blanu tanxe} is
also true, then it was false that {do nitcu pa tanxe}, because we've
shown that {do nitcu re tanxe} is true.
If {do nitcu le xunre tanxe} is false, and {do nitcu le blanu tanxe} is
also false, then we could go over the list for every existing box and
it would be false for all of them, then {do nitcu pa tanxe} would be
false, because we couldn't find any {pa tanxe} that made it true.
But there should be a true utterance to express that you need a (any) box,
without commiting to claiming that you need a (certain) box.
> I beleive that the distinction is
>
> mi djica lo bloti poi falnu se catke
> I want a boat which is sail-pushed (I hope that will do for sloop in this
> example)
> which does not claim that such a boat exists
Does {mi ponse lo bloti poi falnu se catke} claim that such a boat exist?
What's the difference?
Now for {loi}.
I think that {mi nitcu loi tanxe} might be at least part of the solution,
but I'm confused with the quantification of {loi}.
{piro loi tanxe}, the whole mass of boxes, has all the properties of its
members and then some more.
If I needed that red box over there, then it would be true that {mi nitcu
piro loi tanxe}, because since I need a member, I need the whole mass by
extension.
If I need any one box whatsoever, then the property of being needed by me
is not a property of any single one of the members, so it's not a property
that {piro loi tanxe} receives from them, but it well could be one of the
emergent mass properties. This makes some sense, if I need a box then I have
need of mass box, so {mi nitcu piro loi tanxe} is true.
It still doesn't tell me much, because it could be that what I need is that
red box there, so I didn't transmit the fact that any old box will do.
Now, other quantifications for masses confuse me. What do they really mean?
For example, can we say
pimu loi remna ka'e se jbena
Half of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth
Is it different from
piro loi remna ka'e se jbena
All of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth
The last one is true, because the mass inherits all properties of its
members, but then what does the other one say? And if it's true for
the whole mass, should it be true for 75% of the mass?
And supposing that {pimu loi remna} inherits only the properties of
half of all humans. Is it any arbitrary half, or is it certain half
(e.g. those humans that are female)?
And asks:
> If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say
> "we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this?
No, and that's an excellent question. (I think reloi gives you two masses
of taxis.)
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: any and all
la djer cusku di'e
> There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."
> __________________________________________________________________________
> I think the below sentences translate this accurately. The style is
> another question.
>
> 1. roda tanxe da inaja mi nitcu da
roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da tu'u
> For all X: X is a box implies I need X.
> If X is a box, I need it.
>
> 2.roda poi tanxe ku'o mi nitcu da
roda poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
> For all X which is a box, I need X
Those say "I need every box".
But I need only one, so they can't be equivalent to "I need any box".
> I would say too that the word "any" does give rise to
> a number of problems of ambiguity in English and carrying it over to
> lojban might be a problem there.
I agree we shouldn't just have a word that means "any". What we need is
something to translate some of the things that can be said in English
using the word "any", and that seemingly can't be said in Lojban.
(There might be a way to say it using the existing words. If so, I'd
like to know what it is.)
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: needing books
la and reisku di'e
> How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
>
> I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
mi nitcu le nu da poi cukta zo'u mi ponse da
Non-pedantic:
mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo cukta
> There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
da poi cukta zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da
As non-pedantic as I can:
lo cukta zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse ra
Or, (but lojbab disagrees):
mi nitcu lo cukta
> Jorge:
> > The difference between
> > do kakne le nu cuxna ro selska
> > You can choose every colour.
> > and
> > do kakne le nu cuxna paxe'e selska
> > You can choose any one colour.
> > is that in the first one you allow to choose more than one colour,
> > while in the second one you don't.
>
> Does this have something to do with the scope of quantifiers with
> respect to modal operators?
>
> You can choose every colour:
> It is possible that for every x, x a colour, you choose x
>
> You can choose any one colour
> For every x, x a colour, it is possible that x is the one
> colour you choose.
I think it does have a lot to do, but I can't write your second phrase
in Lojban using {kakne}.
> cf.
> Everyone could marry me.
> It is possible that everyone marries me
> Anyone could marry me.
> For everyone it is possible that they marry me/
> For everyone it is possible that they be my one spouse
>
> Or am I treeing up the wrong bark?
I think it's the right bark, keep treeing that it's helping a lot.
Jorge
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject: Re: any and all
la xorxes cusku di'e
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:04:17 EDT
> From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
> Subject: any and all
> I agree we shouldn't just have a word that means "any". What we need is
> something to translate some of the things that can be said in English
> using the word "any", and that seemingly can't be said in Lojban.
> (There might be a way to say it using the existing words. If so, I'd
> like to know what it is.)
>
> Jorge
I think a solution which Lojbab suggested would work. When I'm
saying 'I need a(ny) box' or 'I need (any) two boxes' what I'm
really saying is that I need a set with a certain number of
members having certain properties. That can be simply expressed
in Lojban using {mei}:
mi nitcu lo tanxe pamei/remei
I need what amounts to a single box/ a pair of boxes
In another context I might say
mi nitcu le vu tanxe remei
I need that pair of boxes over there
co'o mi'e veion
---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: any and all
la veion cusku di'e
> I think a solution which Lojbab suggested would work. When I'm
> saying 'I need a(ny) box' or 'I need (any) two boxes' what I'm
> really saying is that I need a set with a certain number of
> members having certain properties. That can be simply expressed
> in Lojban using {mei}:
>
> mi nitcu lo tanxe pamei/remei
> I need what amounts to a single box/ a pair of boxes
{mi nitcu lo tanxe pamei} means practically the same thing as {mi
nitcu pa tanxe}. Is there an object, call it {pa tanxe}, call it {lo
tanxe pamei}, that is related to {mi} by the relationship {nitcu}?
If there is exactly one such object, then the sentences are true,
but that is not what "I need any box" means.
Jorge
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject: Re: any and all
I came in late on this thread, but the examples I have seen, with nitcu,
do not look particularly "any" ish. In modal (intentional) and negative
contexts (both of which nitcu -- or at least "need" -- is) "any' behaves
like tight-scope "a"; "I need any box" amounts to just "I need a box",
provided that it is clear that it is not a particular box but any old one
will do. I suspect there is some infection in the example from the
notion of "all the boxes I can get" which might be expressed by "any
boxes you have" or so. I suspect that that is about some enough-ad of
boxes (drat, I wish I was remembering lexes again) or just "enough x such
that x is a box". "Any" is a pain: a context-leaper in some cases to
become a wide-scope universal (and that would be nice to have in Lojban,
if we do not have it already -- or is it the tight-scope one we need?)
and in other cases, as here, a tight-scope particular. Cf Vendler's
article in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (isthat where all this started?)
pc >|83
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 22:33:40 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: needing books
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
UC>How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
UC>
UC> I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
UC> There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
UC> I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
UC> There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
1) mi nitcu lenu da zo'u da cukta gi'e se ponse mi
2) da zo'u tu'e da cukta .ije mi nitcu lenu mi ponse da
In 1), the "da" in the prenex within the "lenu" clause is not exportable
outside of that clause.
I think this covers your distinction, if I understand it correctly (no bets %^)
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 22:41:50 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: needing 2 taxis
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
UC>If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say
UC>"we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this?
No. Since masses are intended not to be used where singular plural
distinction is important, then "waiting for two taxis" is ALSO
"waiting for loi taxi" in a sense. Thuink again about how you ask for
a mass noun in English "I am waiting for some water" is the mass
expression whether you are waiting for 1 glass or 2 glasses.
To make the distinction clear you could wait "loi taxi pamei" vs.
"loi taxi remei", or you could wait for "pa/re selci poi taxi" which is
more or less the same as "pa/re [lo] taxi"
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 22:50:02 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re:
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net
It is ftp.cs.yale.edu - not .sc. (the net is very unforgiving of typos
in addresses, and seldom tells you why)
You should be using anonymous ftp which has login name "anonymous"
and you email address as password.
You might see if your machine has a program called "ncftp" in addition to
"ftp". The former is a little smarter version - it automatically does
anonymous login, and remembers the last 20 ftp sites you have accessed as well
as the directories that you were last in - this is very useful, needless to
say. It also lets you 'page' short files or the beginnings of files so that
ypou can see what you are downloading or read them on-line if short enough.
BTW, just got our 3rd (of 3) Chinese person who is going staright to level 3.
Lojban seems to be attractive to such people. This person is an Esperantist,
so I am told, and is actually in PRC (the other two are in Taiwan, and both
have net access).
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:38:27 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
JL>> Now "mi nitcu pa tanxe", which is NOT restricted, does say that ANY member
JL>> of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' will satisfy your
JL>> need.
JL>
JL>Using that same logic, you would conclude that "mi ponse pa tanxe" says
JL>that ANY member of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' is
JL>owned by you.
No. It says that exactly ONE out of the unrestricted set are owned by
me,
but gives no clue as to which of that set it is (it could be 'any' of them).
JL>Let's say I have three boxes, one red, one blue, and one purple with
JL>little pink flowers, and _any_ of them will serve for whatever purpose
JL>they are needed.
JL>
JL>Now you say {mi nitcu pa tanxe}
JL>
JL>And I ask {xu do nitcu le xunre tanxe}
JL>
JL>What should the answer be?
not "go'i".
Most likely something like "ri banzu"
JL>If {do nitcu le xunre tanxe} is false, and {do nitcu le blanu tanxe} is
JL>also false, then we could go over the list for every existing box and
JL>it would be false for all of them, then {do nitcu pa tanxe} would be
JL>false, because we couldn't find any {pa tanxe} that made it true.
It is not the case that there is a sentence isomorphic to "mi nitcu pa tanxe"
that will answer the question, changing only the quantifier.
We do not in English answer "I need a box" with "Do you need the red box?"
and so forth for every box known to exist. If we did then the answer might
very well be "no" to each such question, because it is not necessarily the
case that the specific box being referred to is'the' box that is needed.
Iwould be unlike to respond to "I need a box" in English OR Lojban with a
question involving predicate "need"/"nitcu". If you insist, then the
question "xu do nitcu pa lu'a le xunre tanxe ce le blanu tanxe ce le zirpu
tanxe". The answer to this might STILL be "no", though, if it is not the case that pragmatically, the first person decides that indeed 1 of those 3 is THE
one s/he wanted originally, but did not restrict in his original statement.
A question involving "banzu" is far more appropraite in response. This is
because the origoinal speaker was being non-specific, and you are in effect
trying to make him a liar by forcing him to decide that there was indeed
a specific one that was needed.
Now, in reality, the first speaker should never say "mi nitcu pa tanxe",
because it is very unlikely that just 'any' box will do. Indeed, I wouyld
go so far as to say that one should not make truth-critical statements
using "lo" any more than with "da", because very rarely in real life do we
specify all relevant restrictions.
Nick and John came upo with the answer to this by coining "voi" - where
"pada voi tanxe" parallels "le" in semantics. But this is another bound
variable and (may) claim existence. On the other jhand, it is then possible
to say "mi nitcu lenu pada voi tanxe cu co'e" (the quantificatiojn of the
"da" cannot be exported outside of the lenu clause). I guess youi can
even use pada poi tanxe, come to think of it. Perhaps another solution to
the original problem (which I am already not certain I remember).
JL>Now, other quantifications for masses confuse me. What do they really mean?
Not much, if you are getting into truth functional statements.
loi cifno lives in Africa, but also on every other continent.
There is no quantifier that could go on that "loi" other than "pisu'o" or one
of the other non-specific fracxtional quantifiers that would be meaningful.
"pimu" only works if EXACTLY half, not 1 more or less than half, of lions
live in Africa. In real life we seldom know quantifiers that exactly when
dealing with masses. (Again, I ask you to think of mass nouns in English,
and Spanish assuming they exist in Spanish. If you use quantifiers with
mass nouns, it is at the very least probably a highly marked usage that
will practically beg people to look for some deeper hidden structure to
your statement (an elided sumti raising or restriction, most likely).
JL> piro loi remna ka'e se jbena
JL> All of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth
JL>
JL>The last one is true, because the mass inherits all properties of its
JL>members, but then what does the other one say? And if it's true for
JL>the whole mass, should it be true for 75% of the mass?
No it is not true. The mass inherits all properties of its members, but the
mass as a whole does not EXHIBIT those properties.
You can truthfully say
"Water is frozen" (water exists in a frozen state) or
"Water isn't always frozen" (water exists in a non-frozen state)
(Yeah, I'll admit the former is rather strange - how about "Roses are red"
even though some are other colors.)
You cannot say "All water is frozen" or "All roses are red".
JL>And asks:
JL>
JL>> If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say
JL>> "we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this?
JL>
JL>No, and that's an excellent question. (I think reloi gives you two masses
JL>of taxis.)
Consensus has been that any quantifier greater than "pa"/"piro" on "loi"
is nonsensical. I have propsoed some meanings in the past, but John C. has
not agreed with me, if I recall. If he has, he almost certainly has added it
to the appropriate paper (someone oughta check and see what his papers say
about this issue, BTW.)
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:49:12 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: any and all
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
I think part of the trouble we are having is that in English we DON'T say
"I need any box." I cannot fathom what someone wouyld mean by this without
context. "I need a box" sometimes, but but not always, could mean "pa tanxe".
I doubt that it would be said if there did not exist a box that would
satisfy (so using da poi or da voi with any particular scope would not
inherently cause probalems). And in MOST cases, the spoeaker has some
unstated restrictions in mind, in which case "pa le tanxe" is also accurate.
And le (probably) does not claim existence, only in-mindedness.
The real probalem is that, as we have generally found in Lojban, very few people
ever really make statements that go over into quantificational logic very
well, because the quantificational versions (claiming existence and exactness
of numbers and restriction, etc) rarely accurately state the contextual
intent. This is why almost no Lojbanist makes statements about "roda", or
"ro" ANYTHING - we KNOW that universal quantification doesn't often work.
And statements that most people make as generalizations are really mass
statements or stereotypes, and these are clearly distingiuished from the
"ro" type statements.
lojbab
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:54:52 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: needing books
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
JL>Or, (but lojbab disagrees):
JL>
JL> mi nitcu lo cukta
I only disagree in that if And attaches significance to 'specific'
(which I failed to notice in my own response to him), then it should
be "le" rather than "lo" because "lo" is inherently non-specific
Hmm. I'll amend that. If we are not being pedantic, then "lo" may
possibly be specific because pragmatics will indicate that there are
unstated restrictions.
Hmm. Do we have an attitudinal that says "pedantic - non-pedantic" %^)
lojbab
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 00:28:59 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Hi, pc
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net
Since he has finally joined Lojban List and contributed (thereby identifying
himself:
Let me welcome John Parks-Clifford (now John Clifford) aka "pc" to Lojban List.
pc is Vice President and co-founder of LLG.
He is former President of The Loglan Institute, Inc., former editor of
'The Loglanist', the journal of that organization, and the chief logician
of the Loglan Project from 1975 on (though understandably Randall Holmes
shares that claim now having 'stepped into the role' left after pc left TLI.
It is arguable that prior to Lojban, pc and James Cooke Brown WERE the Loglan
Project, and certainly were 'Loglan Central', although pc and I basically have
taken the position that the entire community was what made Loglan what it
was/is.
I would not have started the Lojban redesign without pc's technical expertise
in the language, and in logic (the current argument should show just how
lacking I am in the logical arena), and he has contributed to almost every
major technical and design decision in the project. In particular, he
is principally responsible for two of the most major enahncements Lojban
has over TLI Loglan - our detailed tense system and our handling of negation.
We owe pc a LOT of thanks.
(Now don't flood him with tons of new technical issues - he is still
plowing through the 500K of discussion of ZAhO from the past year, as well as
a couiple of other issues, and will probably be involved when we are ready to
take up Jorge/Veijo's proposals regarding center-embedding again. he is also
new to the net, and we can't count on him having the infinite time we wish
he had to deal with some of the open Lojban questions.
On the other hand, expect ME to go out on fewer limbs in the area of logical
expression in Lojban, like I have in the past few days. This is probbaly
for the better, since I don't always know what I am talking about, in spite
of having that mabla label of "Lojban Central", and because I really oughta
be spending more time on the dictionarya nd not trying to analyze unaanalyzable
logic questions %^)
lojbab
From: Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject: Massification and Boxes/Taxis
If you try using massification, you are still faced with the problem
that "I want a box" does not require as part of its truth conditions
that there be any boxes whatsoever; translating it as "I want a piece
of Mr. Box" doesn't work if there are no such pieces!!!
Consider as a test case "I want a unicorn"; this is a statement which
_can_ be true, and is clearly not about any piece of the mass of unicorns.
--Randall Holmes
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 94 09:25:00 -0600
From: Randall Holmes <holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
Cc: LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET, pcliffje@crl.com
The set of unicorns does exist; it happens to be empty. Similarly,
"lea preda" always exists, but may be empty.
I don't think that dodges about empty sets will save you. Here is why not:
"I need a box which will hold my house (when there are no such boxes)"
is FALSE if it is interpreted as referring to "some element of (a restricted
subset of) the set of boxes"; if the set is suitably restricted, there is
no element of the restricted subset, so a statement about "some"
element of that set is automatically false. But this statement is
true; thus, in spite of its surface form, it does not contain an
existential quantifier over any set of boxes whatsoever!!!
I think that what is really needed by the speaker is a certain state
of affairs: I need that (there be a box big enough to hold my house
and I have it). Notice that this statement is not about any
particular box, nor does it presuppose the existence of a suitable
box. The form of the sentence in Loglan or Lojban would be such that
it would be clear that it was unreasonable to ask "which box?", which
is not true if the surface form of the English is followed.
--Randall Holmes
From: Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject: Even worse!
Has it occurred to any of you that "I need a box" can be true while
"I need box A" may be false of each specific box A (because some other
box would do just as well?) There is really no quantification over
boxes going on in this sentence!!!
--Randall Holmes
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: needing books
GK> I am going to take a fling at these, I hope it doesn't add to the
confusion which I definitely share. I'm going to number them too.
------------------------
And>
How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
(1). I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
(2). There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
(3). I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
(4). There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
Yours in more than usual confusion,
And
----------------------
GK> For a specific book I want one of a kind. I hope that's what you
meant. I've never read it but it's a one word title. I choose the
original manuscript of Beowulf. I call it Beoualf. Another way of
talking about a specific book is to call it "the" book where "the"
is part of what is known as a definite description. Bertrand Russell is
the author of this version of things. I'll do this both ways.
"The crucial feature of Russell's account is that if a description 'the
P' is being correctly used-that is, if there exists a P and only
one-then it achieves the same effect as a proper name, in singling out a
unique thing in the world" ( courtesy of Richard Smith).
(1a). First try to put it in language that is closer to the language of
predicate logic and lojban:
I need the state of: both Beowulf is a book and I possess it.
mi cu nitcu lo za'i ge la zoi gy. beoualf gy. goi ko'e cukta gi me ponse
ko'e
I need the state: both [forethought and] the thing named [quote
nonlojban] beoualf, to which I assign the pronoun it2, is_a_book, and I
own it2.
Without the parser I would never have gotten this straight. It may not
be yet.
(1b). I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
I need the state: I have "the" book.
This is Russell's "the". It means there is just one such book [of its
kind].
It is equivalent to a name, here the manuscript Beowulf.
mi nitcu lo za'i mi ponse lo pa cukta
I need the state: I possess what really is the one and only book.[of its
kind]
What I am trying to say by [of its kind] is that there is some universe
of discourse. When Richard Nixon used to say "I am 'the' President", as
he was so fond of doing, he didn't mean he was the one and only
president in the world. He meant he was the only current one in the
United States. Likewise lo pa cukta means something like original book
about Beowulf. All this is just my idea of how it ought to work.
There is an explanation of "paboi sumti" where the pa is adjacent to the
sumti in the lessons. I don't think it has been used this way, again its
my idea of how it ought to work.
(2.) There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
I need to possess the specific book.
.i mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo pa cukta
I need to possess "the" book. Russell's "the" again. Our "lo" is close
to the logical "description operator", known as TAU, which is an
equivalent form of Russell's "the". lo pa [broda]= "the" [broda].
You will have to look these things up to see where I'm coming from.
This is definitely not consensus lojban, but I don't see how else to do
it.
(3). I need there to be an x, such that x is a book & I have x.
I need the state: x exists, and x is a book and I have x.
.i mi nitcu lo za'i su'o pa da zu'o ge da cukta gi mi ponse da
I need the state: at least one object x exists and both x is_a_book
and I possess it.
(4). There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
.i su'o da zu'o ije da cukta ije mi nitcu da
There exists some x [end prenex] and that x is_a_book and I need
it.
Maybe "need to have" should be nitcu ponse or some such.
If I have worked these examples correctly, and. you owe me something.
This has got to get easier. I am going on vacation for about two weeks
so I won't be able to respond for a while but I would appreciate
feedback.
djer jlk@netcom.com
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: any
la djer cusku di'e
> There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."
> __________________________________________________________________________
> I think the below sentences translate this accurately. The style is
> another question.
>
> 1. roda tanxe da inaja mi nitcu da
roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da tu'u
> For all X: X is a box implies I need X.
> If X is a box, I need it.
>
> 2.roda poi tanxe ku'o mi nitcu da
roda poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
> For all X which is a box, I need X
Those say "I need every box".
But I need only one, so they can't be equivalent to "I need any box".
GK> I beg to differ. "I need every box" would be:
mi nitcu ro lo tanxe.
This is quite different from the structures above.
I think you're going off course on the " roda"
quantifier. Here are some quotes from THE LANGUAGE OF FIRST
ORDER LOGIC by Barwise & Etchemendy:
"Universal quantifier (upside down A).
This symbol is used to express universal claims, those we
express in English using such terms as 'everything, each thing,
all things, and anything'. It is always used in connection with
one of the variables u,v,w,x,.., and so is said to be a variable
binding operator. The combination Ax is read, "for every object
x," or (somewhat misleadingly) "for all x". {Footnote}:We
encourage students to use the first locution when reading
formulas, at least for a few weeks, since we have seen many
students who have misunderstood the basic function of variables
as a result of reading them the second way." {End footnote}
roda is our notation for the universal quantifier used in
connection with the variable x. It is to be
read then as "for every object x".
roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da
says "for every object x such that x is a box, it is implied
that I want that object." That object is one box and I want
it. Which one is not specified. There is no implication that a
box search is underway so that there is a recursive collection
formed of all boxes. You wouldn't do this with your statement.
I think that my statement can fairly be said to express your
statement: " I want any box whatsoever."
> I would say too that the word "any" does give rise to
> a number of problems of ambiguity in English and carrying it over to
> lojban might be a problem there.
I agree we shouldn't just have a word that means "any". What we need is
something to translate some of the things that can be said in English
using the word "any", and that seemingly can't be said in Lojban.
(There might be a way to say it using the existing words. If so, I'd
like to know what it is.)
Jorge
GK> I am not categorically against "any" in the language.
I would need to see some indispensible uses of "any". Remember,
I am new at this too, and conclusions we reach could be at
serious odds with the logic community. Queremos una lengua pura,
no una lengua cualquiera. We want a pure language, not any
language whatsoever. Now how do you say that in lojban?
djer jlk@netcom.com
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 09:25:00 -0600
> From: Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
[...]
>"I need a box which will hold my house (when there are no such boxes)"
[...]
> I think that what is really needed by the speaker is a certain state
> of affairs: I need that (there be a box big enough to hold my house
> and I have it). Notice that this statement is not about any
> particular box, nor does it presuppose the existence of a suitable
> box. The form of the sentence in Loglan or Lojban would be such that
> it would be clear that it was unreasonable to ask "which box?", which
> is not true if the surface form of the English is followed.
>
> --Randall Holmes
mi nitcu le za'i mi ponse lo tanxe poi ka'e vasru le mi zdani
I need the state that I have a box which is capable of containing
my house
which might be simplified to
mi nitcu le za'i me lo tanxe poi ka'e vasru le mi zdani
Explicit quantification can be thrown in
mi nitcu le za'i me re tanxe
I need two boxes
{za'i} (state) could be replaced with {nu} (event)
mi nitcu le nu me re tanxe
In the case of 'I need a box' this might be simplified to
mi nitcu le nu tanxe
co'o mo'e veion
PS. just as I was writing this I received Gerald's posting with
similar structures.
---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
I think we are arguing in circles. I will state the problem and its
proposed solutions as I understand it, maybe to confuse things more.
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM or "I need a box"
====================================================
Do we all agree that "I need a box" can have (at least) two meanings
in English, which in Quine's nomenclature are:
transparent: There exists a real, flesh and blood box (as it were), that
can be seen and touched, and is needed by me. (This is not
necessarily a specific box in the sense that the speaker is
not identifying it in any other way than saying that it is
a box, so it doesn't necessarily have to be {le tanxe}.)
opaque: I need that there be a box such that I can have it/use it/whatever.
The "normal" meaning in English is the opaque one for that phrase. When we
want to emphasize the transparent case we would say "I need certain box" or
something of the sort. (Which can still be the opaque case, if by "certain
box" all I mean is "certain kind of box".)
I hold that in Lojban {mi nitcu lo tanxe} has the tranparent meaning. This
is because Lojban predicates state relationships between objects/events.
In this case, the relationship {nitcu} is between that referred to as {mi}
and that referred to as {lo tanxe}: the speaker and a box (at least one).
{lo tanxe} does not specify which box it is, that would be {le tanxe}, but
it still refers to one of all the thing that are boxes, and the relationship
{nitcu} is claimed to hold between {mi} and that {lo tanxe}. This is Quine's
transparent meaning as I understand it.
Lojbab, on the other hand, said that it has the opaque meaning, but when
I translate And's:
> > There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
> da poi cukta zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da
> Or, (but lojbab disagrees):
> mi nitcu lo cukta
lojbab responds:
> I only disagree in that if And attaches significance to 'specific'
> (which I failed to notice in my own response to him), then it should
> be "le" rather than "lo" because "lo" is inherently non-specific
I don't think And was attaching the le/lo significance to it, so you are
agreeing with me, but you were disagreeing with the same claim in other
posts.
Now, if {mi nitcu lo tanxe} has the transparent meaning, how do we get
the opaque meaning that is the one we usually want?
(If it has the opaque meaning, then the problem is how do we convey the
transparent meaning, but since I don't believe that to be the case, I only
deal with the problem of trying to express the opaque meaning.)
PART II: THE SOLUTIONS(?) or Paraphrases, Masses and Anys.
============================================================
1 - Being very clear on what we mean.
One way is to paraphrase:
mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe
I need to have a box.
or
mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe
I need some abstraction to do with a box.
The problem I have with those is that in the first case I'm saying
more than I want and in the second I'm saying less. This may be
unavoidable, I don't know.
In any case, I don't think anyone disagrees that this is a possibility.
The question is whether we are satisfied with the long-winded approach,
or do we want some elegant way of saying what we mean that is short and
to the point.
2 - Massification.
What does {mi nitcu loi tanxe} mean?
First we need to know what masses mean:
> JL>Now, other quantifications for masses confuse me. What do they really mean?
>
> Not much, if you are getting into truth functional statements.
> loi cifno lives in Africa, but also on every other continent.
Then I take it {loi cinfo} is NOT "ANY part of the mass of lions", since
it is false that any such part lives in Africa. It is rather "SOME (certain)
part of the mass of lions".
(That is what I understood originally, but lately I was confused.)
> "pimu" only works if EXACTLY half, not 1 more or less than half, of lions
> live in Africa.
Ok, but it would mean "certain half", not "any half".
> In real life we seldom know quantifiers that exactly when
> dealing with masses.
The "exactness" is totally irrelevant to my question. {ji'ipimu} would
have done just as well.
> JL> piro loi remna ka'e se jbena
> JL> All of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth
> JL>
> JL>The last one is true, because the mass inherits all properties of its
> JL>members, but then what does the other one say? And if it's true for
> JL>the whole mass, should it be true for 75% of the mass?
>
> No it is not true. The mass inherits all properties of its members, but the
> mass as a whole does not EXHIBIT those properties.
What does it mean that it inherits their properties, then?
What properties does the WHOLE mass exhibit? Only those exhibited by ALL of
its members?
In any case, if it is true that
ji'ipimu loi remna ka'e se jbena
Approx. half of humans can give birth.
then clearly {ji'ipimu loi remna} means "a certain half", and not "any half
whatsoever".
So {mi nitcu loi tanxe} = "Certain part of the mass of boxes is needed by me",
is not the solution to "I need a box".
I had changed my mind because in {mi nitcu piro loi tanxe}, the property of
beeing needed by me could be an emergent property of the mass of boxes. But for
this to make any sense, it should be true that {piro loi tanxe} exhibit the
properties of every single box. Since it doesn't, I go back to my previous
opinion that {mi nitcu loi tanxe} doesn't work for this.
[Marginal note:
> Consensus has been that any quantifier greater than "pa"/"piro" on "loi"
> is nonsensical.
I agree that {re loi tanxe} is nonsensical. I could argue for {le re loi tanxe}
though... {piro loi blanu tanxe} and {piro loi xenru tanxe} for instance.
end marginal note]
3 - Please say something, anything...
"I need any box" is not completely equivalent to the opaque "I need a box".
The former implies the latter, but not viceversa. "I need any big box" also
implies "I need a box", and so on. In fact, "I need a box" could be very
restricted, and still have the opaque meaning: If I need a blue box of
size 10cm x 10cm x 10cm made of gold, I could still say "I need a box
(opaque sense)", but not "I need any box".
Using the proposed {xe'e}, "I need any box" would be {mi nitcu xe'e tanxe},
while "I need a box", if it doesn't mean any whatsoever, would have to
be {mi nitcu xe'e le tanxe} or something else.
PART III: CONCLUSIONS or We Are Still Where We Started
========================================================
* The only thing that really works, as far as I can tell, is to use
abstractions. Hopefully a less wordy solution can be found.
* Massification is not related to this issue, in my opinion.
* I still think something is needed to translate the "any whatsoever"
of English, but that won't completely solve the "I need a box" problem.
Anyway...
co'o mi'e xorxes
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: needing 2 taxis
la lojbab di'e la and spusku
> UC>If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say
> UC>"we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this?
>
> No. [...]
>
> To make the distinction clear you could wait "loi taxi pamei" vs.
> "loi taxi remei",
A mass of taxi singlets vs. a mass of taxi pairs ?!
> or you could wait for "pa/re selci poi taxi" which is
> more or less the same as "pa/re [lo] taxi"
If you don't see any problem with "pa/re selci poi karce", I don't know
why you wouldn't just use "pa/re karce". Since the problem that the latter
has is shared by the former, why use such a convoluted expression at all?
The question whether it is any selci or certain selci is exactly the same
between any or certain taxi.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
(I would respond to all of lojbab's points, but I would be repeating
myself yet again, so I only reply to a few :)
> Now, in reality, the first speaker should never say "mi nitcu pa tanxe",
> because it is very unlikely that just 'any' box will do. Indeed, I wouyld
> go so far as to say that one should not make truth-critical statements
> using "lo" any more than with "da", because very rarely in real life do we
> specify all relevant restrictions.
So I should never say {lo remna cu mamta mi} because it is very unlikely,
(indeed outright false) that just 'any' remna will do. Is that really what
{lo} means?
Jorge
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
>"lo tanxe" is NOT the same thing as "da poi tanxe"; likewise
Ahhh. Now I see why I was confused.
>Not having read Quine (and not being convoinced that I would understand
>it if I did - if I had to be a logician to lead this project, I would
>resign yesterday %^)
I only read the excerpt from Quine that Gerald posted recently; and it's
pretty opaque. But the "sloop" sentence seemed like a clearer example than
the boxes...
Your translations of the "sloop" sentences cleared things up for me; I no
longer think we need an "any" word.
Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Bogart
cbogart@quetzal.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: any and all
lojbab:
> I think part of the trouble we are having is that in English we DON'T say
> "I need any box." I cannot fathom what someone wouyld mean by this without
> context.
The meaning we're trying to say in Lojban is:
"Of all the things that are boxes, I have the need to use or own or have at
my disposal one of them. I don't at all care which one it is, just any of
them all."
We could translate the whole phrase, but the question is, does {mi nitcu
pa tanxe} mean that? You say it does (at least some of the time you say that)
but I'm trying to convince you that it doesn't.
What I think {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means is:
"Of all the things that are boxes, there is one in particular that I need.
I'm not being specific about which one it is, but there is only one that
will do, even though I'm telling you nothing about which one it is. Only
one is in the {nitcu} relationship with {mi}"
So, it also makes sense to say {pa remna cu mamta mi} = "Of all the humans
that there are, one of them, and only one of them, is my mother. I'm not
telling you which one, just that it is one of all humans. Not just anyone."
> The real probalem is that, as we have generally found in Lojban, very
> few people
> ever really make statements that go over into quantificational logic very
> well, because the quantificational versions (claiming existence and exactness
> of numbers and restriction, etc) rarely accurately state the contextual
> intent.
Are you saying that since we'll get it wrong anyway, we should forget about
logic and use the language like we would any other?
I know that we will do that, in any case, but it's fun to make the effort
to try to use it logically.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
> I think that what is really needed by the speaker is a certain state
> of affairs: I need that (there be a box big enough to hold my house
> and I have it). Notice that this statement is not about any
> particular box, nor does it presuppose the existence of a suitable
> box. The form of the sentence in Loglan or Lojban would be such that
> it would be clear that it was unreasonable to ask "which box?", which
> is not true if the surface form of the English is followed.
>
> --Randall Holmes
Totally agree. I would also like to say it in Lojban as simply as I can
in English.
Of course I can make the long claim: {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe}
Is there some way to make it shorter? e.g. {mi nitcu xe'e tanxe}
(BTW, it is hard to ask "which box?" in Lojban.)
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Even worse!
> Has it occurred to any of you that "I need a box" can be true while
> "I need box A" may be false of each specific box A (because some other
> box would do just as well?) There is really no quantification over
> boxes going on in this sentence!!!
>
> --Randall Holmes
Exactly!
That's precisely the difference I propose between {mi nitcu xe'e tanxe}
and {mi nitcu lo tanxe}.
For the latter to be true, "I need box A" has to be true for at least one A.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: any
la djer cusku di'e
> > > roda poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
> > > For all X which is a box, I need X
> > Those say "I need every box".
> I beg to differ. "I need every box" would be:
> mi nitcu ro lo tanxe.
That's the same as
mi nitcu roda poi tanxe.
(Since in this case non-existence is not a problem, I hope lojbab agrees.)
> GK> I am not categorically against "any" in the language.
> I would need to see some indispensible uses of "any".
Indispensibility is hard to determine... :)
> Remember,
> I am new at this too, and conclusions we reach could be at
> serious odds with the logic community. Queremos una lengua pura,
> no una lengua cualquiera. We want a pure language, not any
> language whatsoever. Now how do you say that in lojban?
Let's see:
ma'a djica lo curve bangu enai xe'e bangu
Anybody wants to try without {xe'e}?
mi'e xorxes
From: Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject: Chief logician?
Someone seemed to think that I might claim some such title with
respect to the Loglan project because of my relation to TLI. I
disclaim any such role. My job over here is mostly critical; since
the language is "ready for use", I can't do major engineering
modifications on it
From: Desmond Fearnley-Sander <dfs@HILBERT.MATHS.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: any
Hello. I am new to lojban and this list. I had intended to be a passive
observer, but feel constrained to contribute to the 'any' debate. My
interest in lojban springs from the fact that at the level of grammar its
aspirations are very much in sympathy with those of a programming language
we are implementing. The language is called dr.
A feature of dr is the fundamental role in it of what I call
*indeterminates*. For example, if a and b are indeterminates of the sort
number, then the *unquantified* sentence
a^2 - b^2 = (a-b)(a+b)
is true. a and b are *potential entities* of the sort number. This may be
the only information we have about them, or we may have total information
about them (such as that a=5 and b=3) or we may have partial information
about them (such as that a is positive). In each case our sentence remains
true: it is true by virtue solely of the fact that a and b are numbers. On
the other hand, in the absence of specific information about a and b, the
sentence
a^2 - b^2 = (a-b)^2
(though a perfectly acceptable sentence) is neither true nor false. It
becomes true in the presence of the information that b=0, and it becomes
false in the presence of the information that a=5 and b=3.
I believe that indeterminates in this sense play a fundamental role in
everyday reasoning as well as in mathematical reasoning. Ordinary language
accomodates indeterminates nicely. The use of 'a box' in the sentence "I
need a box." is an example. It is a way of referring to something whose
type is known, but about which we have no other information. Additional
information that may be given serves to pin down what is meant:
"I need a box."
"You mean a cardboard box?"
"Yes."
"Here's one from the attic."
"Great."
"What are you going to do with the box?"
>
The dialogue starts with a total indeterminate (a potential entity of the
sort box) and concludes with an entity that instantiates it.
I do not think that classical logic accomodates or is even compatible with
this notion --- I am going out on a limb here, and might be persuaded
otherwise. Indeterminates are not constants, and they are not variables,
they require a *typed* language and they do away with the need for
universal quantification.
It would be disappointing to me if lojban did not admit indeterminates in a
simple way, but that's what the debate seems to suggest. Am I wrong about
this?
I did not catch the beginning of the 'any' debate, so bear with me please
if I'm covering old ground.
Desmond FS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desmond Fearnley-Sander
Department of Mathematics, University of Tasmania
GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, AUSTRALIA
EMAIL: dfs@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au
PHONE: (002) 202445 (from in Australia)
+61 02 202445 (from outside Australia)
FAX: (002) 202867 (from in Australia)
+61 02 202867 (from outside Australia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Desmond Fearnley-Sander <dfs@HILBERT.MATHS.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: any --- second thought
Please delete the phrase 'or is even compatible with' from my note. I
don't want to spark an irrelevant debate.
Desmond
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: needing books
Please substitute zo'u, the logical end prenex word; for zu'o the
activity abstractor, in my translations of .and's sentences. Then add a
tu'e right after. Sometimes perfection seems farther away than ever.
jlk@netcom.com
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: any answer
>From my previous post:
roda is our notation for the universal quantifier used in
connection with the variable x. It is to be
read then as "for every object x".
roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da
says "for every object x such that x is a box, it is implied
that I want that object." That object is one box and I want
it. Which one is not specified. There is no implication that a
box search is underway so that there is a recursive collection
formed of all boxes. You wouldn't do this with your statement.
I think that my statement can fairly be said to express your
statement: " I want any box whatsoever."
Jorge;
I do need to know whether or not you agree with the above. Have I
expressed the idea of "I want any box whatsoever" to your satisfaction
with my statement "roda zo'u..etc." or not? I'm beginning to feel like
we are caught in a Wharfian warp.
I'm off for vacation now.
djer jlk@netcom.com
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 06:00:55 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
JL>So I should never say {lo remna cu mamta mi} because it is very unlikely,
JL>(indeed outright false) that just 'any' remna will do. Is that really what
JL>{lo} means?
No. I was just discussing this with Nora. Since the default quantification
of "lo" is "su'o" outside, then statements about "lo remna" are true if at
least one of the members (non-specific) will make the sentence true. HOWEVER,
you can't pick which one (other than by restrictions), so "lo tanxe ka'e
vasru le zdani dinju is true if there is some box somewhere that is capable
of doing so. I suspect that the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space
Center qualifies as such a box. Hence it is a true statement. Probably not
a useful statement.
The problem comes with statements about "lo unicorn", which doesn't exist.
1) They actually do exist - there have been photos published of 1-horned
goats ..., but these don't fit the definition of "ba'e le unikorn" that
most people refer to
2) In MOST statements about unicorns, the universe of discourse is not the
'real world', but aworld where unicorns DO exist. In a fantasy world, I need
a unicorn is a perfectly acxcetpable statement.
3) The logical content of "lo unicorn" is clearly tied to "if unicorns exist
then at least one of the set". But it is less clear what it means if there are
no unicorns. My inclination would be to say that such a statement immediately
throws the universe of discourse into a subjunctive 'fantasy' one, where there
IS at least one unicorn - the description is veridical in referring to a set of
properties that such a unicorn MUST have (unlike le unikorn, which needn't have
anything to do with unicorns), though it is somewhat intensional as the set of
properties being ascribed is a set that describes no such creature. Thus
you are saying: I need a se ckaji rolo ka unikorn, but do not claim that such
a se ckaji really exists.
lojbab
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 06:22:32 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Subject: Re: any
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
A quick skim of your article suggests that your new category of 'objects' may
match our intended usage for "lo", but I will have to look at it further, and
maybe ask more questions. Lojban "lo" permits quantification, but the extent
to which it is analyzable by traditional predicate logic is not complete.
lojbab
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: any answer
la djer cusku di'e
> >From my previous post:
>
> roda is our notation for the universal quantifier used in
> connection with the variable x. It is to be
> read then as "for every object x".
>
> roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da
>
> says "for every object x such that x is a box, it is implied
> that I want that object." That object is one box and I want
> it. Which one is not specified. There is no implication that a
> box search is underway so that there is a recursive collection
> formed of all boxes. You wouldn't do this with your statement.
> I think that my statement can fairly be said to express your
> statement: " I want any box whatsoever."
>
> Jorge;
> I do need to know whether or not you agree with the above. Have I
> expressed the idea of "I want any box whatsoever" to your satisfaction
> with my statement "roda zo'u..etc." or not?
No. To my understanding, what you have expressed is "I need every box
there is".
You are saying that the relationship {nitcu} holds between {mi} and every
{da} which is a {tanxe}.
> I'm beginning to feel like we are caught in a Wharfian warp.
My feeling precisely.
> I'm off for vacation now.
Have a good time!
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: any
lojbab:
> A quick skim of your article suggests that your new category of 'objects' may
> match our intended usage for "lo", but I will have to look at it further, and
> maybe ask more questions.
I think it doesn't. It certainly doesn't match the _actual_ usage.
Desmond:
> A feature of dr is the fundamental role in it of what I call
> *indeterminates*. For example, if a and b are indeterminates of the sort
> number, then the *unquantified* sentence
> a^2 - b^2 = (a-b)(a+b)
> is true. a and b are *potential entities* of the sort number. This may be
> the only information we have about them, or we may have total information
> about them (such as that a=5 and b=3) or we may have partial information
> about them (such as that a is positive). In each case our sentence remains
> true: it is true by virtue solely of the fact that a and b are numbers.
This is not the case for Lojban {lo}.
For example:
lo remna cu mamta mi
A human being is mother to me
is true. Not by virtue of the fact that {lo remna} is a human being, but because
of the fact that there is one human being that is in relationship {mamta}
with {mi}.
> On
> the other hand, in the absence of specific information about a and b, the
> sentence
> a^2 - b^2 = (a-b)^2
> (though a perfectly acceptable sentence) is neither true nor false.
Sentences with {lo} in Lojban are usually true or false.
For example:
lo remna cu kalte lo remna
A human hunts a human
is true only if there really is at least one human that hunts at least one
human. It's not a matter of giving values to each {lo remna}.
If "a" and "b" were replaced by {lo namcu} = "a number" in your sentence,
it would be a true sentence in Lojban, because there indeed exists at least
one "a" and at least one "b" that make it true.
> It
> becomes true in the presence of the information that b=0, and it becomes
> false in the presence of the information that a=5 and b=3.
That sounds like it might be more or less equivalent (at least for some
purposes) to Lojban {le}
le remna cu mamta mi
The human is mother to me.
is true if by {le remna} I mean the human who is my mother. In that sense,
you can say that it's neither true nor false in the absence of information
of what {le remna} is referring to, but that information is at least in
principle always obtainable (by asking the speaker who they meant by it).
>From what I understand, your "a" need not have a value obtainable even in
principle.
> I believe that indeterminates in this sense play a fundamental role in
> everyday reasoning as well as in mathematical reasoning. Ordinary language
> accomodates indeterminates nicely. The use of 'a box' in the sentence "I
> need a box." is an example. It is a way of referring to something whose
> type is known, but about which we have no other information.
I think something like that is what I meant by my proposal of {xe'e},
although I don't have it that clear in my mind.
> Additional
> information that may be given serves to pin down what is meant:
>
> "I need a box."
> "You mean a cardboard box?"
> "Yes."
> "Here's one from the attic."
> "Great."
> "What are you going to do with the box?"
> >
> The dialogue starts with a total indeterminate (a potential entity of the
> sort box) and concludes with an entity that instantiates it.
The first two mentions of "box" are indeterminate (one of the sort "box",
the other of the sort "cardboard box"). The last one is an actual box.
In my opinion, as things stand now, we can only refer to the first type
in Lojban within abstractions.
> I do not think that classical logic accomodates or is even compatible with
> this notion --- I am going out on a limb here, and might be persuaded
> otherwise. Indeterminates are not constants, and they are not variables,
> they require a *typed* language and they do away with the need for
> universal quantification.
I wouldn't know if they do away with it, but it would be nice to have them.
> It would be disappointing to me if lojban did not admit indeterminates in a
> simple way, but that's what the debate seems to suggest. Am I wrong about
> this?
I think you're right. But maybe it's just me :)
> I did not catch the beginning of the 'any' debate, so bear with me please
> if I'm covering old ground.
I don't think it is, but even if it were, we need to cover the same ground
many times before we, if ever, become familiar with it.
Jorge
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@quetzal.com>
Subject: TECH: "any" & quantification
I've been following the "any" discussion avidly, but everytime I try to
participate I notice myself flip-flopping on the issue. It's very
confusing, and the only thing I've convinced myself of is that there's
something lojbab is saying that Jorge is missing and vice-versa.
Suppose (only for the sake of discussion!) we had a manditory particle
before every sumti in lojban, a choice of either "xe'e" meaning
referentially opaque, or "xa'a" meaning referentially clear. That makes the
"box" example easy to analyze: "xa'a mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe" means "I need
a box" and "xa'a mi nitcu xa'a lo tanxe" means "There is a box I need".
Maybe it would help to make that assumption for a while just for the purpose
of exploring what the implications would be on other sentences.
xa'a pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - One person is my mother
xe'e pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - Only one person can be my mother (??)
xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???
Am I correct in thinking that the current disagreement between Jorge and
Lojbab is whether unmarked sumti in real lojban are equivalent to sumti
marked with "xe'e" or "xa'a"? If so, let's do more translations with these
two markings and see which one comes out more like the way we think lojban
is currently defined.
Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place
structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"?
By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence?
(if "xa'a" isn't an unassigned cmavo and actually means something already,
the my apologies and could someone clued in on the "experimental list" pick
a better one?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Bogart
cbogart@quetzal.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: general response on needing books
Thanks to Jorge, Lojbab, Djer & Randall for their replies
to my query, which I repeat here:
> How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
> (1a). I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
> (1b). There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
> (2a). I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
> (2b). There exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
None of the replies wholly answered my intended query (because
my intention was not in the least apparent from my wording).
Let me explain, with an altered example: "I need you to have
a book", instead of "I need to have a book". My idea was that
the +/- specific distinction (LE v. LO) cuts across the transparent/
opaque distinction. (1a-b) are +specific, (2a-b) are -specific, (1a,2a)
are opaque, (1b,2b) are transparent.
One of (1a-b) (or maybe, ambiguously, both) is, in Lojban:
(1a/b) Mi nitcu le/lo nu do ponse le cukta
One of (2a-b) (or maybe, ambiguously, both) is, in Lojban:
(2a/b) Mi nitcu le/lo nu do ponse lo cukta
I should clarify what I mean by (1a) (specific & opaque): I don't
necessarily have the referent of 'le cukta' in mind, but were it to
come to evaluating the truth of the lenu clause I would have a
specific referent of 'le cukta' in mind. "I need there to be a specific
book such that you have it" - in order to decide whether my need has
been satisfied, you have first to find out which specific book this is;
but I think it should be possible for me to say "X needs there to be
a specific book such that Y has it" without me having decided which
specific book this is.
Further remarks.
(i) My impression so far is that (1a/b) and (2a/b) really are ambiguous
in Lojban. (This is currently being disputed on the List.)
(ii) (2a/b) can be disambiguated by using "da (zohu)" either inside or
outside the lenu clause. BUT this is pedantic & not normal usage.
(iii) (1a/b) cannot be disambiguated.
A new suggested solution: LE & LO are transparent (wide scope, with
quantification/reference assignment outside their clause). But when
combined with a certain cmavo (e.g. Jorge's xehe) they are opaque
(narrow scope, with quantification/reference assignment outside their
clause). Note that under my proposal "xehe" is used in tandem with
LE/LO, not instead of them.
Incidentally, contra Jorge, I think "mi nitcu lo tanxe" is illicit sumti
raising: what you really need is some state of affairs to be the case,
such that its not being the case would be disadvantageous. A "less
wordy" locution would require us to not say what we mean.
I agree with Jorge (& others) that massification is not relevant.
My proposals don't solve the "any whatsoever" problem. Some but not
all of these problems are solved by using wide scope universal quantification:
You may read all of the books.
It is permitted that for all x such that x is one of the books
you read x.
You may read any of the books.
For all x such that x is one of the books it is permitted
that you read x.
But this, I feel, doesn't handle "You may read any three of the books"
(i.e. a total of three books, selected freely from the set of all of
the books). So maybe here a new quantifier is needed, as Jorge has been
arguing.
-----
And
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Chief logician?
Randall asks:
> Does anyone in the
> Lojban community realize that logical connectives applied to arguments
> produce problems of scope (usually handled implicitly in NL's)
> precisely analogous to those connected with quantification?
Logical connectives are never applied to arguments in Lojban. (In the sense
that all forms of logical connection are contractions of full bridi
connections.)
And yes, the debate on "any" was sparkled by a logical connection question:
mi nitcu le tanxe a le dakli
I need (the box OR the bag)
means:
(I need the box) OR (I need the bag)
It does not mean what we usually mean in English by "I need either of the
box or the bag".
> Consider
>
> John and James love Mary or Sally
>
> versus
>
> Mary or Sally is loved by John and James
>
> In the second sentence, but not in the first, it is clear that John
> and James love the same unspecified element of {Mary, Sally}; in the
> first sentence, they may love different elements of the set.
If you have two logical connectives in a Lojban sentence, I think the
first one binds tighter, so
la djan e la djeimyz prami la meris a la salis
expands to:
la djan e la djeimyz prami la meris
ija la djan e la djeimyz prami la salis
(John loves Mary AND James loves Mary)
OR (John loves Sally AND James loves Sally)
while:
la meris a la salis se prami la djan e la djeimyz
goes to:
la meris a la salis se prami la djan
ije la meris a la salis se prami la djeimyz
(Mary is loved by John OR Sally is loved by John)
AND (Mary is loved by James OR Sally is loved by James)
This is in reverse of the meaning you give for the English sentences,
but there is no ambiguity.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
> JL>So I should never say {lo remna cu mamta mi} because it is very unlikely,
> JL>(indeed outright false) that just 'any' remna will do. Is that really what
> JL>{lo} means?
>
> No. I was just discussing this with Nora. Since the default quantification
> of "lo" is "su'o" outside, then statements about "lo remna" are true if at
> least one of the members (non-specific) will make the sentence true.
Ok, we agree here. At least one member has to make the sentence true.
Then you contradict what you just said:
> HOWEVER,
> you can't pick which one (other than by restrictions),
If I can't pick which one, then {lo remna cu mamta mi} is false.
> so "lo tanxe ka'e
> vasru le zdani dinju is true if there is some box somewhere that is capable
> of doing so.
I agree.
> I suspect that the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space
> Center qualifies as such a box. Hence it is a true statement.
Agreed. The point about "you can't pick which one" is inconsistent with
the rest of what you say.
> The problem comes with statements about "lo unicorn", which doesn't exist.
But this is a different problem. The "any" problem applies to boxes as much
as to unicorns.
> 2) In MOST statements about unicorns, the universe of discourse is not the
> 'real world', but aworld where unicorns DO exist. In a fantasy world, I need
> a unicorn is a perfectly acxcetpable statement.
Yes, but {mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna} doesn't mean the same that "I need a
unicorn"
usually does in English.
{mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna} means something like:
da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da
while "I need a unicorn" normally means:
mi nitcu le nu da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi ponse da
Do you agree that those two sentences say something different from the other?
Jorge
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TECH: "any" & quantification
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 19 Sep 94 13:56:28 CST.)
Chris:
> xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
> xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???
I reckon the 2nd example shd mean: Let x be any n [default: 1],
but no more than n, of us, and let y be any n [default: 1]
of you, & it is asserted that x likes y.
> Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place
> structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"?
I don't think it's meaningless, but 'irrealis' contexts (descriptions
of things not, or not necessarily, the case) are more likely to
call for "xehe".
---
And
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: any
> >{mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna} means something like:
> >
> > da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da
> >
> >while "I need a unicorn" normally means:
> >
> > mi nitcu le nu da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi ponse da
> >
> >Do you agree that those two sentences say something different from the other?
>
> Yes.
Alleluyah!
> But I think that "mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna" is more likely to mean
> the second expansion than the first.
By "more likely" which do you mean:
(1) In most contexts where that Lojban sentence appears, it means something
like the second expansion, but in some contexts it may mean something
like the first.
(2) It always means the same one of them, but you are not sure which, and
you suspect it is the second, that's why you say "more likely".
If (1) then you are throwing logic out the window, and saying that just
like in English "I need a box" can have two meanings (Quine's transparent/
opaque), the same happens in Lojban, and which meaning it is is determined
by context.
If (2) then the way we've been interpreting most other predicates is wrong.
(Unless you say that {nitcu} should be interpreted in a different way than
other predicates.)
> The first claims that unicorns
> exist, which "lo" does not.
But we're in that fantasy world where they do exist. Change it to boxes,
the problem remains.
> I'm not sure about truth-fucntional value
> of the second expansion - what the value is of "le nu [false statement]"
> is not clear.
Because there is no truth value for it. It is a sumti, and sumti don't have
truth values. I would even question that in "le nu [statement]", there is
any truth value for that [statement], since it is not being claimed.
> However your clarification may point to the fact that se nitcu should be an
> abstraction regardless about how we resolve the "lo"/"any" question.
This is what was done to {djica}, which is analogous to {nitcu}. But I don't
see why the transparent meaning should be forbidden. {mi nitcu le vi tanxe}
= "I need this box", makes perfect sense. And so does {mi djica le vi tanxe}.
> If so,
> then PLEASE separate the place structure issue and let's get it resolved -
> you have only a few days before I finsih the e-order gismu list. (I presume
> that the issue affects "nitcu" and "djica". Any others?
{cpedu} comes to mind, but there probably are others. I disagree that they
should be made to accept abstractions only.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Chief logician?
Randall says:
> There is a good reason for the precedence to go the other way,
> unless you also reverse the usual convention for implicit quantification:
>
> the point is that P[John and James] means roughly the same thing as
> "For all x in {John,James}, P[x]", and, similarly, P[Mary and Sally]
^^^
or, I think
> means roughly the same thing as "For some x in {Mary,Sally}, P[x]";
> where two of these connected arguments appear in a sentence, one has
> essentially the same problem one has with the usual form of implicit
> quantification as in
>
> Someone loves everyone
>
> versus
>
> Everyone is loved by someone
Yes, I see your point. In fact, the paper on connectives doesn't really
mention that case. It says that
broda ije brode ija brodi
is grouped from left to right:
(broda ije brode) ija brodi
and from there I generalized to assume that the first connective is
bound tighter.
Maybe it should be the other way around when the connectives are in
different terms.
There is still going to be counterintuitive cases, though:
da prami la djan e la djeimyz
Someone loves John and James
means the same as:
la djan e la djeimyz se prami da
John and James are loved by someone
in both cases, the quantification is: For some da; for all x in {John; James}.
> Of course, I know that the underlying "expanded" form of the sentence
> does not involve application of logical connectives to arguments;
> I'm a logician, remember?
Of course :)
But you did mention something about negation of arguments being allowed
in Loglan...
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Chief logician?
[I still haven't received the post by lojbab to which Randall
is responding here]
> On your comments about negation, I have problems with terminology, but
> as far as I understand you I probably disagree flatly. There is one
> concept of negation (the propositional connective) and then there are
> various other notions which NL's confuse with negation;
I agree.
> I would hate
> to think that you are importing NL confusions (more likely you are
> defining these other notions precisely and using them correctly and
> the only confusion is that you call them "negation" :-) ).
In fact, I think that's exactly what's going on.
For example, does Loglan have {na'e} = non-/other than ?
We can easily distinguish
ta na blanu tanxe
It is false that: that is a blue box.
ta na'e blanu tanxe
That is a non-blue box
and things like that.
I don't like calling {na'e} negation, and even less calling {to'e} negation
(to'e=opposite). But they are very useful.
> Explain by
> example what you mean by "metalinguistic" negation.
It's the answer to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Strictly logically, I think that {na} suffices, but that leaves the
wrong impression in some people.
> Of course I understand how logical connectives applied to arguments
> are eliminated! The difficulty arises in expanding sentences when
> there is more than one such "argument" in it, and an answer I received
> seems to indicate that you have an official solution to this (good! --
> so far as I know, TLI Loglan does not) but that it goes contrary to
> the natural analogy with implicit quantification (not so good --
> explained fully in another post)
I'm not sure if there really was an official solution, since that
particular case is not explicitly mentioned in the connectives paper.
I agree that the opposite order to the one I suggested may be better.
Jorge
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: TECH: "any" & quantification
la kris cusku di'e
> Suppose (only for the sake of discussion!) we had a manditory particle
> before every sumti in lojban, a choice of either "xe'e" meaning
> referentially opaque, or "xa'a" meaning referentially clear. That makes the
> "box" example easy to analyze: "xa'a mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe" means "I need
> a box" and "xa'a mi nitcu xa'a lo tanxe" means "There is a box I need".
Excellent idea.
> Maybe it would help to make that assumption for a while just for the purpose
> of exploring what the implications would be on other sentences.
>
> xa'a pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - One person is my mother
> xe'e pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - Only one person can be my mother (??)
The second one is "Any one person is my mother".
Pretty meaningless, but consider a more contrived situation;
Say there are three women in front of us, and I tell you
xa'a pa le ci ninmu cu mamta xa'a mi
One of the three women is my mother.
That's clear. Now the other case is
xe'e pa le ci ninmu cu mamta xa'a mi
Any one of the three women is my mother.
(Because we are actors, and in a play we're doing, the role of
mother is played by any of them, so only one is my mother, but
any one.)
> xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
> xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???
Any (one) of us likes any (one) of youse.
Which doesn't say much. (It doesn't mean that every one likes everyone,
even though the English version could be read like that.)
> Am I correct in thinking that the current disagreement between Jorge and
> Lojbab is whether unmarked sumti in real lojban are equivalent to sumti
> marked with