[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")



On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I tried something like that yesterday and it doesn't work formally:
>> >
>> > Assume def: li Ri Pi <=> jo si Ri Pi ri Ri Pi <=> jo ri Ri Pi si Ri Pi
>>
>> I think you need: li Ri Pi <=> je jo si Ri Pi ri Ri Pi jo si Pi Ri ri Pi
>> Ri
>>
>> i.e. there's only one thing that Ri, and it's the only thing that Pi.
>
> That's a bit puzzling.  Semantically, I don't see how "la mlta xkra" has
> anything to do with a claim that the only thing black is a cat.

Delete what I said there, it doesn't make that much sense.

>  Formally, I
> don't see how that expansion can help demonstrate the curious "l-" identity
> "na li Ri Pi <=> li Ri na Pi", an identity which appears to be a complete
> nose-thumbing at FOL.  (By the way, if *any* FOL expansion exists such that
> that identity holds, I'd like to see it, whether it matches the semantics of
> "l-" or not.)

What happens is that l- invokes a universe of discourse where la Pa Ra
<=> sa Pa Ra <=> ra Pa Ra, (a universe where Pa is satisfied by a
single value, i.e. where "ra sma re sme ja na je Pa Pe dnlake" holds)
and then, in that universe of discourse, you have:

na li Pi Ri = na si Pi Ri = ri Pi na Ri = li Pi na Ri

"na li Pi Ri" does not negate the presupposition. The presupposition
is not a claim you make when using l-, it's something you use to build
the universe of discourse.

This also adresses the difference between "la Pa Ra" and "la Ra Pa".
The former has a presupposition on P only, the latter on R only.
That's why I think the first dependant of l- sets up the topic, i.e.
what it is that you are making a claim about, rather than itself
making any claims.

If what you want is an equivalence between "li Pi Ri" and some
expansion in terms or r/s that will hold in every universe of
discourse, then I agree it can't be done, because l- requires a
universe where Pi is only satisfied by one value (possibly a plural
one).

ma'a xrxe