Re: On {lo} and existence

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

Jorge:
> > > > >     true(proposition346,universe-of-discourse,1)
> > >        true(proposition347,every world,1)
> > > But in what world do we evaluate this one? It has to be a world that
> > > contains every world for the predication to make sense.
> > Irrespective of which world you normally inhabit, to evaluate
> > true(p346,...) you hop over to universe-of-discourse & check that
> > p346 is true. To evaluate true(p347,....) you go to each world
> > & check p347 is true of it.
> Yes, but the question is in which world do we evaluate p348, that is the
> proposition "Ax, world(x), true(p347, x, 1)"
In any or every world. It makes no difference. The result is the
same.

> I don't think that every claim has a true() claim associated with it.

Certainly we can entertain a proposition without claiming it to be
true.

> > I don't know how to cope with primitives, though I do think having
> > them is better than not having them. Say we go for your extension-
> > listing method. Then we have a definition like this:
> >  {<world1, {a,b}>,<world2, {c,d,e}>,<world3, {f}>}
> > - one world-independent definition.
> Only if every world knows about every other one.

The Magic Truth Evaluation Engine knows about every world.

> You seem to be saying that the meaning of a predicate depends on context,
> which is very true for natlangs. I suppose it will be true for Lojban as
> well.

I don't think I'm saying this. At least not if we're using a
truth-conditional rather than psychological model of semantics.

> > > But there we know what the design is already. What is the design's
> > > intention with respect to pictures of goats? Can {lo kanba} be only
> > > a figment of someone's imagination? Probably not according to the
> > > design. If fluent speakers use it as such, then obviously the design
> > > is not a good description of the real language.
> > Or, as I would put it, those fluent speakers are speaking a different
> > language/dialect.
> Fine. But it is better to have a grammar that describes the language
> that is used. Grammars of languages that are not used don't seem all
> that necessary.

This is a difference between invented grammar and discovered grammar.
I am interested in Lojban grammar partly because it is designed (i.e.
invented). Its necessity doesn't matter to me. One may take a different
view, and study the grammar as if Lojban were a natural language (which
is how artificial lgs without invented grammar, such as Esperanto, must
be studied), but I wouldn't have much interest in doing that until it
becomes a native language.

> > > I don't think I've used {lo nu} very much. Usually with events I have a
> > > particular one in mind, and there's no need to use non-specificity.
> > I don't have a particular one in mind when I'm trying to do something.
> Then you run into the oppacity problem, which is even worse. You are
> saying that it is not the case that:
>  There is some event (imaginary or not) such that you try that _it_ happens.
> But rather that:
>  You try that there be some event of a certain class that happens.

That's right, & I wd prefer to use a lujvo whose x2 is {le duhu} or
{lo siho} in this context. But that said, we can define {troci}, or
some lujvo of it, so that the x2 is dementalized:

   There is a possibly imaginary event the occurrence of which would
   constitute a successful outcome (by x1's standards) to x1's exertions.

In this case {mi troci lo dahi nu klama} would not run into an opacity
problem.

At any rate, it remains clear that {nitcu}, {troci} et al. continue
to lack adequate definitions.

---
And