Re: ago24 & replies

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > > I think there should be certain tersumti that accept exclusively
> > > irrealis sumti: i.e. le+anything,
> > I hope you are not saying that irrealissness and nonveridicality are
> > the same thing!
> No, I'm saying that nonveridicality allows the sumti to refer to anything
> at all, including nonreal things not found in this world.

Well, that may be the case, but I will tend to assume that {le broda
cu broda} unless context heavily implies otherwise. I don't think it
is fair to say that le+anything can be an irrealis event. It may be true,
but it doesn't say much. You could just as well have mentioned {ko'a}
as a possible irrealis sumti.

> > > or {lo bridi}
> > Isn't that an object?
> I'm not clear what an object is. At any rate, surely {lo bridi} refers
> to a bridi, just as {lo duhu} does.

The gi'uste seems to say that {lo bridi} is a selcusku, a sedu'u rather
than a du'u. That's what I meant by an object.

> I see generics as analogous to (intensionally defined) sets: the
> set has properties and the members have common properties.

But the properties of the set have nothing to do with the properties
of the members (common or otherwise). The set of white objects is not
white, even though all its members are.

On the other hand, the properties of the archetype do have to do with
the properties of the instances, even if they are not always the same
ones.

> It simply
> has to be stipulated whether {lohe broda cu brode} means the "set"
> is a brode (your preference), or whether it means the "members" are
> brode (my preference, and the present norm).

I don't know why you say it's my preference. {lo'e brode} is not a set.
It's not true that {lo'i mlatu cu mlatu} = "the set of cats is a cat".
I don't see the analogy.

On the other hand, it is true that {lo'e mlatu cu mlatu} = "the typical
cat is a cat", a property that the archetype shares with all the
instances. But it is also true that {mi pensi lo'e mlatu} = "I think
about the typical cat", a property that the archetype doesn't share
with any of the instances, since now I am not thinking of any (what
was the word?) extramental cats (it sounds so close to excremental).

I suppose you couldn't say {mi pensi lo'e mlatu} with your definition.
What does your definition allow us to say that can't be conveyed by
{so'e mlatu}, even if they are not truth-conditionally equivalent?

> > To me {mi djica lo'e nu mi klama} means that {mi} and {lo'e nu mi klama}
> > are in relationship {djica}, so I am in relationship {djica} with the
> > archetype of events of I go. There is no claim about any particular event
> > of me going.
> That's okay under the way you use {lohe}. But it's not clear to me that
> it means "I want to go". It's analogous to saying "I want a set of
> goings" - what would that mean?

I've no idea what it means, nor do I see why they are analogous. I find
sets mostly useless for normal conversation.

> What sort of properties does an archetype
> (as opposed to its instances) have?

I can think about {lo'e mlatu}, I can need {lo'e mlatu}, I can want
{lo'e mlatu}, I can look for {lo'e mlatu}, all without there being
a single {lo mlatu} with those properties.

> > > So if {lohe mlatu cu xekri} then a white cat is an exceptional, atypical
> > > cat.
> > Why wouldn't you just say {so'e mlatu cu xekri} for that?
>
> One reason is that this is a statement of objective fact: you can test
> it by inspecting the extramental world.

I think {so'e} is subjective. You can't test it only by inspecting the
extramental world.

> > > In fact, I rather fear that might not work. Consider {troci}:
> > > {koha pu troci le duhu koha klama} (koha tried to make it the case
> > > that koha goes). If koha had previously gone, then {koha klama}
> > > would already be true. So we need a tense on klama meaning
> > > "after the trying", "thereafter", {ba *tense of superordinate bridi*}.
> > I'm not sure I see the problem. What if koha had previously gone but
> > somewhere else than zohe, or by some other route, why is the tense more
> > important than these implicits?
> The implicit sumti are present in the duhu/proposition if not in the
> seduhu/sentence. If the tense is not in the seduhu then it's not in
> the duhu.

Is that true? I always thought that the tenses could be understood
from context. In any case, even if the tense is given, that doesn't
fix the exact time, so I don't see much difference. If I say
{ko'a cusku le sedu'u ko'a ba klama} = "she said she will come",
I am talking about a particular time in the future, not about any
time in the future, so saying the {ba} explicitly or not doesn't
really change much.

> This would not be so if, as I would advocate, every or
> at least most selbri had event sumti.

I really don't see the relationship of this with the tenses.
(And what do you mean by having event sumti? You mean event
tersumti? At least one, or all the tersumti? I would expect
most tersumti to be for objects!)

Jorge