[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Carterian formula (was: Gricean formula?) 23 Feb 95 12:11:15 EST." <9502232349.AA23542@julia.math.ucla.edu>

> = John Cowan writes
> > = Jim Carter writes (quoted by Chris Bogart):

> ... "x1 has a heart" and "x1 has kidneys" have
> the same referent sets (neglecting partly dissected animals, etc.).  But we
> don't want to call them the same predicate.

As you said (in file cowan.msg), predicates with duplicate referent
sets are not logically inconsistent, though producing strange results
in normal discourse.

But for "x1 has a heart" the referent set (using unconverted place
order) equals { {John's heart, John}, {Jim's heart, Jim}, ... }  even if
the respective hearts are not specified by words.  That is, body parts
are defined as "x1 is the <body part> of creature x2", in -gua!spi just
as in Lojban.  If you've learned your referent sets properly you know
that each creature has its own body parts, excepting Siamese twins. Thus
"x1 has a heart" and "x1 has a lung/kidney/whatever" do have referent
sets that are completely nonoverlapping, even though the projections
onto the x2 place may be equal (or nearly so, neglecting IRS agents).

> The second half of this works all right for Lojban/Loglan, but the first half
> applies only to Loglan and -gua!spi, since the Lojban form for "A rat!" is
> not "lo ratcu"/"pa ratcu" but simply "ratcu".  (In Loglan, that's an
> imperative, and in -gua!spi I don't know what it is.)

An isolated "-tara" in -gua!spi works the same as an isolated "ratcu"
in Lojban: it's a selbri with all default arguments, and in -gua!spi
calls the listener's attention to sets of objects thus related, i.e.
events.  Pragmatically the listener should start his search nearby or
in threat exposures.

With an article a projection is done onto the first place after
conversion, and the listener's attention is called to the resulting
objects.  In -gua!spi I exploit the duality of objects and events, such
that the events coming out of a bare predicate (or one with explicit
arguments) can equally well be considered to be objects, the referents
of an abstraction.

James F. Carter        Voice 310 825 2897       FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet;  6221 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA  90024-1555
Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu            BITNET: jimc%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT
UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc