On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, John E. Clifford
<kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
Well, that does clarify things a bit: dz is a predicate that extends the scope of a previous binder into the next sentence. Note that it is strictly unnecessary for l (and practically unnecessary in any case).
Here's the way I view it: Predicates like dz and mb=mslf and other anaphoric/deictic predicates are predicates whose semantic value vary from sentence to sentence in the course of discourse. For example, the semantic value of "la'a mba'a" translated as E "I" or "me" depends on who is uttering the sentence. Likewise, the meaning of the predicate "dz" varies depending on what was said in previous sentences. That does not mean that "dz" changes the meaning of previous sentences; it'd be more accurate to say that sentences change the meaning of "dz" as discourse moves along.
The question is whether having predicates rather than terms or just conventions is necessary.
I think predicates for the deictics are desirable, but I want to think more about "dz" before I reply here.
But deictics are among the least likely things to have predicates for them in natural languages; they are regularly "pronouns". They are pragmatically defined (like personal pronouns -- at least first and second) and have no semantic content per se.
Li rlci dkseki is sorta ridiculous; it assumes an ordered class with our group off at one end. It would be more natural, it seems to me, to make the modification in the property rather than the class. If you are worried, as you seem to be, about using up letters, you would be better finding a way to talk about properties -- in both senses -- than this bit of frill.
I have not yet seen an good example in X in which argument places demanding L "ka" are demanding a distinction with an actual difference. Think of L "ka" as being built into the argument place if that seems more agreeable.
The idea of "building stuff into" argument places is really objectionable in a logical language. If there is significant stuff, it should be out in the open, not hidden away in an apparently innocuous gap.
I don't think that building L "ka" into an argument place builds significant stuff into it, because I don't think that "ka" signifies much at all. "Lo broda" and "lo ka broda" are essentially two interchangeable ways of looking at the same thing, and although Lojban has this distinction all over the place, it's trivial to switch back and forth: "lo ckaji be lo ka broda" = "lo broda" and "lo se ckaji be lo broda" = "lo ka broda", or am I mistaken?
The fact that one can shift expressions around in this was does not mean that something different is not involved. The sorts of things that characterize are not the same sorts of things that they characterize. Rats are concrete physical objects, ratness is not any of those things, and ratnessness is even less so. There are connections (and just what those are has driven philosophers to various kinds of madness for two and a half millennia). You can say pretty much anything you want to say about rats in terms of ratness, though it looks pretty strange. It is harder to say things about ratness (either kind) in terms of rats. A good case can almost be made for just doing without ratness (etc.), but, alas, in some intensional contexts, only ratness seems to do the sort of work needed. To be sure, we can find dodges around actually saying "ratness" or some equivalent term, but we end up using the notion all
the same -- just hiding the fact behind idioms of one sort or another -- which will have to be decoded in the semantics anyhow.
--
co ma'a mke
Xorban blog:
Xorban.wordpress.comMy LL blog:
Loglang.wordpress.com