Re: How {lo} works

[John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>]

la bob. cusku di'e

> Next comes a proposal for one procedure that I don't think you will
> actively disagree with, although it may not a favored procedure:
>
>     One way (not the only way) for {lo} to act is as an operator that
>     returns true instances of the class, some number of them, one or
>     more.  Speaker and listener examine the instances and agree they
>     are `true' instances of the class referred to.
>
> Thus, if I were to say:
>
>     lo mlatu
>     one or more of all the things which really are cats.
>
> we could look at one or more cats and test the truth of the expression
> by seeing whether we agreed they are truly cats.

The trouble with this procedure is that "lo mlatu" does not
assert anything (it is a mere argument), so it does not have
a truth value.  So I reword your remark as:

        We can look at (one or more) cats and test whether
        "lo mlatu" could correctly refer to them by
        seeing whether we agree that they truly are cats.

I accept this procedure.

> Now, consider my statement that:
>
>     .i mi nelci lo mlatu
>
> This requires two tests.  Firstly, whether {lo mlatu} are truly cats
> and, secondly, whether I like them.  You can test whether I like
> {lo mlatu} by presenting me with some cats and seeing whether I like them.

I reject this procedure altogether.  Let us suppose that we have
already agreed that Zerbinetta and Jordie are cats.  Then the following
events may take place.

1)      You assert "mi nelci lo mlatu".

2)      I present you with Zerbinetta.  You do not like Zerbinetta.
        I claim you are lying.

3)      You disagree.  You present Jordie and state that you like him.

The only way for me to refute your statement "mi nelci lo mlatu"
is to present you with EVERY cat (presuming an agreement in advance
as to the catness or non-catness of every object) and having you reject
ALL of them.  A particular affirmative can be refuted only by
a universal negative.

> Now suppose I make the statement a second time, and you decide to
> test the predication a second time by presenting me with cats again
> to see whether I like them.
>
> Heer we come to the crunch:
>
> Are you going to present me with the same cats or with different cats?

Since to test you properly, I must present you with all the cats there
are, there are no "different cats" to test against.  If the cats
are to be divided, then the "lo" argument must be restricted in
some way in order to make sense.

> Incidentally, even with two groups of cats, it cannot that both
>
>     .i mi viska lo mlatu
> and
>     .i naku zo'u mi viska lo mlatu
>
> are true at the same time.  This is because {viska} is concerned with
> a different kind of property than {nelci}, with whether even one cat
> exists in the visual field rather than with whether a cat is liked by
> me.

I don't agree.  {nelci} has to do with which cats are "visible" in
the "affection field": cats you like are "visible", and those you
don't like are "invisible".

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban