short intemperate response to Lojbab on opacity

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> >I contend that you describe "hunting" correctly, but that your
> >description does not apply to "kalteing".  {mi ba kalte lo mirli} means
> >only "There is a deer I will hunt".
> The latter would be "mi ba kalte (pa)da poi mirli".

Correct.

> I would translate your lojban sentence "I am hunting some deer" and it
> would have the same degree of opacity/transparency as the English, so
> far as I know (not that I can keep straight what an opaque or
> transparent sumti reading might be).

You want Lojban to be thus ambiguous, then, and deny the rule that
variables notionally export to the prenex of the localmost bridi.
On what basis do you deny that rule?

> >> I don't know of a use for it, except those special cases (already
> >> covered by other means) when we want external reference in opaque slots,
> >> when there is a specific deer I am hunting (Ol' Snagglehorn) or I have
> >> a guarantee of success (past tense references to successful hunts, for
> >> example -- but how did we talk of even those hunts before we went out?).
> >> And this applies to all the old opaque words other than those that take
> >> full bridi arguments?  We can only paint pictures of real scenes? We can
> >> only look for things we are sure to find ( Jesus' assurance seems less
> >> inspiring in Lojban)? Even are dream girl must be the one down the
> >> block?  Well, not quite, of course, because we can say the right thing
> >> eventually, but to get there we have to mow through a mass of things we
> >> never use except at the bottom of heaped _lenu_ clauses. Hawk (I omit
> >> the correct spelling here since it is the vilest insult in Klingon and
> >> I do not want to embarrass Nick) ptui!
> >Basically yes to all these, except for the picture painting.  For the
> >picture painting, the scene can be non real if it is selected from an
> >expanded domain of the not-necessarily-real.  The way I had thought to
> >do this is with {dahi}, as in {skicu lo dahi gerku} - where the dog
> >comes into existence in drawn form - but this can't be right, for {dahi}
> >is in UI and therefore metalinguistic, whereas the purpose for which I
> >had been attempting to put it to use very much changes truth conditions.
> >So something in - I suppose - NAhE is called for, to expand the domain
> >from the real to the not-necessarily-real.
> I disagree violently - maybe I need that Klingon epithet myself.  (Isn't
> the vilest Klingon insult to call him a nice guy???)  This gets to the
> core of whether lo {unicorn} claims existence.

No it doesn't. Nothing to do with that.

> All of the above questions SHOULD be answerable "no".

Fortunately they aren't. It's rather irresponsible of you to say this,
because your voice carries weight, because you're LLG president. If
you got your way on this matter it wouldn't be you who'd rebuild the
rules for translating lexical form into logical form that you're
trying to demolish.

> I would not like to use "da'i" for an opaque/transparent distinction
> (another case of loading up meanings of a cmavo such that one has no
> idea what is intended by it),

We agree on this.

> but I would favor/welcome a solution that uses a single discursive to
> distinguish opaque/transparent (with the unmarked case being
> indeterminate except from context, as is normal for Lojban).

Pc proposed something in LAhE to label opaque sumti. It is not normal
for Lojban in logical matters to let the unmarked case be indeterminate
except from context. I can't think of any such cases where the unmarked
case is indeterminate.

> >Sisku should really go back to behaving like kalte & co.
> Agreed (for once!)

Hurray...

coo, mie and