Re: ago24 & replies

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> And:
> {lo bridi}
> > My gihuste says "x1 (du'u) is a predicate". Is this out of date?
> Mine says:
> x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among arguments
> I think I prefer your version, though.

These are clearly incompatible. My gihuste is older, I'm fairly
sure. I'm not sure I have preference between. What I do wish is
that a strict distinction be made between terms like "sumti" and
"bridi" when they refer to words, and when they refer to ideas.
They get used with systematic & deleterious ambiguity.

> > I don't agree that the properties of the archetype have to do with
> > the properties of the instances. To me, {lohe mlatu cu xekri} means
> > "typical instances of the cat archetype are black", but not "the
> > cat archetype is black". I don't know of any way to attribute properties
> > to the cat archetype rather than its instances.
> So according to you {lo'e mlatu} refers to the instances of the archetype?
> To extramental objects? Or are the instances mental objects?

I think {lohe mlatu cu broda} means

   Ax x is a typical instance of cat archetype -> x is broda

On a view whereby referents are usually things in the extramental world,
typical instances of cats are things in the real world.

> > > I suppose you couldn't say {mi pensi lo'e mlatu} with your definition.
> > It would mean "the typical instance of the cat archetype is thought
> > about by me". Indeed not the meaning you wished to express.
> "The" typical instance? Is there only one? Why were they many when they
> were black? And I wasn't thinking of many cats.

Sorry - read that as "every typical instance". I was using generic "the",
which is hardly a helpful thing to be doing in this discussion!

> > > > 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.
> > You don't look for or need the archetype. You look for a typical
> > instance of the archetype, which, as you say, needn't exist.
> But is a typical instance being looked for by me? Are more than one
> typical instances being looked for by me? I think that the relationship
> is with a single thing, not with a multitude of instances.
> When you say "you look for a typical instance of the archetype" you
> are falling back on English opaque usage.

I wasn't offering a translation of "I seek a cat". I meant that a
cat-archetype just isn't the sort of thing that you're likely to
seek - it's some kind of abstract entity located within the mind.
But typical instances of the archetype are things you might well
seek.

> Whether you call it "the archetype" or "the typical instance of
> the archetype", what I'm looking for is one thing

If you mean that what you wish to end up with is one thing, then
{lohe broda pamei}. But if you mean that there is some identifiable
(albeit abstract) individual that you seek, I don't see {lohe} as
filling that role.

I'm not reading your mind properly, but I wonder if your idea
might be something like the Mr Cat stuff brought up by Bob
Chassell last year vis a vis massifiers. The Mr Cat idea is that
you do not distinguish one cat from another - all cats count
as the same cat. It turned out that this is not what massifiers
do, but it sounds a bit like what you're saying about {lohe}.

> (or I would happily add a {re} in front if I was looking for two
> cats, but I know you don't like that).

No. But I'd be happy with {lohe mlatu remei}.

> > I suspect we agree after all, so long as you agree that we are
> > not now discussing lahe lu lohe mlatu lihu, but rather
> > le duhu kau du lihu lu lohe mlatu lihu. [NB placatory {kau}.]
>         ~ma
> Did you mean {le du'u makau du _la'e_ lu lo'e mlatu li'u}?

Yes.

> That's equivalent, I think, to {le du'u makau du lo'e mlatu}?
> But I don't see what distinction you are making.

It might be equivalent to {le duhu lohe mlatu ku du makau} (I'm a bit
worried about quantifier scope in your version.) I wanted to say
in effect "we are asking what is it that {lohe mlatu} means", as
opposed to "{lohe mlatu} means x, & we are discussing x".

> > I would still hold that {lohe} implies universal quantification:
> >  mi nitcu lohe mlatu
> >  Ax x is a typical instance of the cat archetype -> I need x
> How can you tell whether x is a typical instance?

If it has enough of the properties attributed to {lohe mlatu}.

> Suppose I need a box, and there's one fairly ordinary (even typical,
> one might say) box right beside me. Is it true that {mi nitcu le vi
> tanxe}? I say no, not necessarily this one, I need any box.
> But this one will do fine, even though I can't claim that it is
> needed by me.

Yes and no. {mi nitcu le vi tanxe} would not express your intended
meaning, but on the other hand, le vi tanxe would satisfy your need,
so in some sense it is needed, even if {nitcu} isn't quite the right
predicate for this sort of need.

Note that I'm not advocating {nitcu lohe tanxe} as a rendering of
"need a box". I think you can only get the opaque reading by having
an overt subordinate bridi..

> > Good point. This would be fixed if all or most gismu automatically
> > came with an event place fillable by zohe.
> > The tense of broda is the time at which le nu broda occurs.
> > If there were a sumti place (tersumti) for the event, then it
> > could be filled by a specific or non-specific (implicit) sumti.
> I must be missing something because I still have no idea what you are
> talking about. {klama} has no place for an event, while {zvati} does.

I propose {klama} gets an extra tersumti, for the activity of going.
If you go twice (along same path), then this tersumti could be filled
by {re da}. If you go in the present then this tersumti could be
filled by {lo cabna}. {Zvati} would similarly have an extra place, for
the occasions of zvatiing.

> How does that help, or otherwise, in determining the tense in
> {ko'a cusku le se du'u klama} or {ko'a cusku le se du'u zvati}.
> They seem totally analogous cases. And there are many (probably most)
> selbri without event places, I don't see why you would want most
> of them to have one.

At present no selbri have these "event places". I say I want most
rather than all to have one, because a few, like {du} and the
mathematical ones are hard to construe as events - {lo nu da du de}
is odd.
If klama, zvati have this "event place", then {le se duhu zvati/klama}
has an implicit {zohe} in that place. This {zohe} could be specific,
in which case {le se duhu klama} is true iff the going happened at
a specific in-mind time.

---
And