[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >It's not a problem with buska. It's a problem with sisku (and djica,
> >nitcu, kalte), whose current x2 is wrong, given that they mean
> >"troci tu'o du'u co'e", encoding certain constraints on the interpretation
> >of co'e
>
> {sisku}, {djica} and {kalte} currently all have different types of x2
> {sisku} takes a property, {djica} an event and {kalte} an object. I
> don't think any of them is intrinsically maldefined, they are more
> or less conveniently defined.
It's not clear to me that djica means "want x2 to happen". If it
does, then it conforms to my preferred model.
> My preferred definition follows the
> {kalte} model, as you know
I didn't know that. How would it apply to djica?
> >Were the x2 optimally defined, the usual x2 would be
> >expressed as {tu'a lo} -- and here I savour the welcome but uncommon
> >experience of saying the same thing as pc
>
> Lets consider {djica}, which takes an event in x2. Now let me
> define a new predicate {po'edji} as:
>
> tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
> ko'a po'edji ko'e
> cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
> ko'a djica lo nu ko'a ponse ko'e zi'o kei zi'o
Okay...
> (The {zi'o}'s are for simplicity, we could just as well leave
> them there in the new predicate.)
>
> The new predicate takes an object in x2. Is this new predicate
> somehow ill-defined?
I can't work out (I can't think it through) whether your definition
perforce excludes ko'e from being quantified within the nu bridi.
If it does exclude it, then we exclude the very cases we're
interested in. If it doesn't exclude it, then the equation runs
into the problem of opacity/intensionality.
> I can say {mi po'edji ta} for "I want that"
sure
> and {mi po'edji lo'e karce} for "I want a car".
If this is the logical conclusion of a chain of reasoning, then
I don't yet see it.
> It is irrelevant to my need of {lo'e} how the gi'uste predicates
> are defined, because normal person-object relationships can always
> be defined as new predicates
Sorry, but I'm not following you. The key problem with the
definition of po'edji is that it loses the world-shifting/intensional/
irrealis element provided by the embedded bridi in the djica
version. So I don't see how the definition can work. I can see
how "if x po'edji y then x djica lo nu x ponse y" will work.
But I don't see how the reverse -- "if x djica lo nu x ponse y
then x po'edji y" can work.
> >Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn;t saying that {lo'ei} = {tu'a lo},
> >where {lo'ei} = the version of {lo'e} you've been striving to
> >define. I was saying that the definition of {lo'ei broda} on
> >the basis of {sisku} seems to make it equivalent to {tu'a lo},
> >in the sense that a properly-defined sisku -- call it skusi --
> >would be rephrased as {skusi tu'a lo broda}
>
> You could already say {sisku tu'a lo broda} since presumably
> {tu'a lo broda} can stand for {tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}
> But I want to use {lo'e} with normal predicates, not with
> predicates that have been "fixed".
But most predicates don't need fixing, since most predicates
don't have these intensional contexts.
I understand that you want to use lo'ei more generally, but
I don't see how to extrapolate from sisku to other ordinary
predicates.
I do know where you would use lo'ei, and I think it is the
case that
ko'a broda lo'ei brode
is variously equivalent to (I) or (II), (I) being the buska/
kalte-like case, and (II) being the more general case.
I. ko'a xxxx zei broda tu'o du'u co'e lo brode
II. ko'a co'e tu'o du'u ko'a broda lo broda
An example of (II) would be "man-eater", which, when not
meaning "citka lo remna", means "x has disposition such that
x citka lo remna", so wherever lo'ei can't be paraphrased by
lo there is some sort of intensional element lurking that
could be made explicit.
Would (II) not suffice as a definition of lo'ei?
> I don't think any gismu
> definition is improper in that it breaks some semantic rule
> Some definitions are better because they are more useful or
> correspond better to basic meanings. I think wanting/needing/
> seeking objects is more basic than wanting/needing/seeking
> an event (of having some object). But however the gi'uste
> defines it, we can always make a proper lujvo for the other
> meaning
Yes. Wanting/needing/seeking objects is experientially more
basic but logically less basic than wanting/needing/seeking
events. Whichever set get the gismu and whichever get the lujvo,
though, objects quantified within the intensional context
can only be rendered by means of the the version with the
event x2.
> >Maybe I'm
> >misconstruing your reasoning, but you rely on the fact t
> hat
> >we understand what sisku means
>
> I use that fact, yes. "Rely" seems to suggest that if sisku
> had not been so weirdly defined I could not define {lo'e}
> That's not the case. I only take advantage of {sisku} because
> pc can't argue that it is meaningless. If I offer {kairnitcu}
> or {kairdjica} he claims they are meaningless or impossible
> to understand or things like that
Okay.
> >I understand {sisku tu'o ka
> >ce'u broda} to mean {skusi tu'a lo broda} = {troci tu'o du'u
> >co'e lo broda}, with co'e understood as the usual sort of
> >goal of seeking. In the light of that, how am I to understand
> >{buska lo'e broda}?
>
> In terms of skusi:
>
> tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
> ko'a buska ko'e
> cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
> ko'a skusi tu'a ko'e
>
> In terms of {troci}:
>
> tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
> ko'a buska ko'e
> cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
> ko'a troci tu'o du'u co'e ko'e
>
> The important thing to notice is that there is no "intensional
> context" passed on to {buska}
I have certainly noticed this, and, as I say above, this is the
stumbling block in my understanding. How can
[troci [Ex [co'e x]]]
translate into
[buska x]
? -- The variable is unbound. Okay, we allow unbound variables
-- ce'u is such a one -- but since
[troci [Ex [co'e x]]]
[troci [Ax [co'e x]]]
mean different things, how can they each mean the same as
[buska x]?
--And.