tech: harangue on le/lo (opaque)

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

x:
What does {mi djica lo plise} mean in your scheme?
pc:
Actually, on my full scheme, it means "there is an apple I want."
But that is ONLY because it contracts _mi djica tu'a xe'e lo plise_.
If that convention is not in force, it means "I want an apple" where
the apple I want need have no existence outside my ideational
realm, where the claim might be true even if no apples existed.

I see that you are, in effect trying to introduce the the same set of
distinctions by using different descriptors and that might be more
efficient, but we are shy on good descriptors (in l-, anyhow) and
none of the ones we have fits the case here.  _lo'e plise_ is an
average or typical or archetypal apple (take your pick or find a
compromise view) but that may not be what you want at all, maybe
just an ordinary apple is what you want (the "any-old apple will
do" reading).  And, of course, this does allow that there is
something you want, but it is usually not an apple but an abstract
something.  As witness the rather reasonable position that there is
an average unicorn but no unicorns (a view which solves a
different but related problem).   Also, _lo'e_ is singular; what do
you say if you want a dozen apples (not any particular ones -- any
dozen will do -- up to minimum standards anyhow -- and no claim
that there are a dozen apples to be had)?

x:
(4)     mi kalte da poi cinfo
        I hunt something that is a lion.
Is (4) different from (3)? In my opinion, no. If it is, then the rules
for prenexing are more complicated than I ever imagined, because they
would depend not only on syntax but also on the semantics of the
particular selbri being used.
 pc:
Without the convention 4 would be different from 3 and incorrect
(I would like it to be ungrammatical, but that seems to make too
much of a problem given the difficulty of changing rules).  We
know that, despite your best efforts in another thread, prenexing
just is more complicated than you imagine 8)3 but, in this case, the
correct form -- with _tu'a_ -- clearly marks the failure of prenexing
(that is one of _tu'a_s two main functions, in fact).

x:
> > I think that "he is hunting lions" in the opaque sense has the
> >same kind of feature as "he builds houses", in the sense of "he is a
> > house-builder". There need be no houses to instantiate that claim.
> > In those cases I use {lo'e zmadi} and {lo'e cinfo}.
>
> But the established logic and Lojban (even Loglan) is a tanru for these
> cases -- states rather than activities
According to some, every possible meaning of tanru can be expanded
into a non-ambiguous form. But whether that is true or not, it doesn't
matter. If you say that "house builder" is simply {zdani zbasu}, then
what goes in the x2 of that relationship? "x1 house-builds what?"
You could argue that it is a lujvo: {zdazbasu}. In that case, it
could have the meaning "x1 builds houses from material x2 for
inhabitants x3", but you would still be in trouble if asked to fill
the x2 and x3 places, unless we have {lo'e broda} available.
Is there really no established logic for "he builds houses" that
uses the predicate "x1 builds x2"? Is it really only possible
to use the predicate "x1 is a house builder" for that?
pc:
Well, as for an unambiguous translation of  _zdani zbasu_, I expect
that it is "professionally works to bring it about that he builds a
house (zbasu lo zdani)" or some such (I need to check which
intentional gismu have survived the various revolutions).  The
second place died as redundant and the the other two are omitted
as irrelevant or to be taken up in particular cases, but I have to
admit that that is a good objection, despite the "obvious" (aren't
they always?) answer.  Another approach might be to claim that
_zbasu_ has an intentional side and then put _tu'a_ on x2 to mark
that.  This is not crazy, since we can say that a man really is
building a house (indeed, my house or this house) before there is
even a hole in the ground -- processes are intentional for their
products. So maybe it has to be a lujvo, in which case I, the coiner
(actually you did, but I take it that it was at my instigation), have a
pretty free hand about the place structure.  And I, of course, opt to
make it one-place.   The problem with the established logic of "He
builds houses" is that either you end up asserting that there are or
were houses that he built, which need not be part of what he is
claiming (and may be false though his claim is true) or you end up
in another opaque context and that leads quickly to a claim close
to "every context is opaque at least some of the time" which (even
if true) is not where we want to be at this point.  There are also a
couple of other devices to try: a tag "professionally," of a type
related to "figuratively," that cuts off some moves like prenexing,
or professional lujvo that have appropriately different place
structures (and intentional deep structures).  I can also imagine
someone (indeed, I can image who that someone might be) arguing
for doing the work with some ideational marker -- _si'o_, is it?  or
_da'i_ or ... .

The fact that it is perfectly legal to say that he is on the verge of
building my house (inchoative aspect, yet! so no house anywhere)
means that process claims are often intentional -- or that
quantifiers can range over things that do not yet exist and may
never do so. (I expect that goes for achievement claims as well --
telic, generally).

For now, the convention allows you to write what you have always
written when you were sure that the thing mentioned in the opaque
context existed (that was why the convention was set up after all --
for you in particular).  When the things may not, I recommend
_tu'a_, since that is what it was created for and _lo'e_ doesn't work.
It is occasionally a word longer, but both clear and a good caution
against illegitimate prenexing and the like (mainly identity
interchanges), so worth the small cost -- in a logical language.  The
nonce cases, like house building,  need some reworking along the
lines sketched above -- and I think that almost any one that marks
or eliminates the opaque places will do.
pc>|83