[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
It's not clear to me that djica means "want x2 to happen". If it does, then it conforms to my preferred model.
The gi'uste says x2 is an event/state, it doesn't say x1 wants it to _happen_, but what else could one want an even for?
> My preferred definition follows the
> {kalte} model, as you know
I didn't know that. How would it apply to djica?
It would mean that you can want things as well as events.
> 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 > 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.
Yes, they are excluded. {po'edji} has no event to quantify within.
If it does exclude it, then we exclude the very cases we're interested in.
But they can be recovered through {lo'e}.
> 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.
{mi po'edji lo'e karce} is {mi kairpo'edji tu'o ka ce'u karce},
where {kairpo'edji} is parallel to {sisku}.
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.
That's where {lo'e} comes in.
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.
The reverse doesn't work with an individual argument. To get
precisely that meaning I use {lo'e}.
> 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.
My point is that those predicates are not broken in the first
place. Even if the gismu list is carefully purged of any
predicates like "x1 needs object x2", they can easily be
reintroduced as lujvo or fu'ivla and there is nothing at
all wrong with them. It is useful to be able to say "I want
a car" using the same lujvo that one would use for "I want
that". Making every potentially intentional predicate
of the gi'uste take an abstraction as argument still leaves
infinitely many other predicates not in the gi'uste that take
an object and that can make good use of {lo'e}. Predicates
like "x1 wants object x2", "x1 needs object x2", "x1 looks
for object x2", etc.
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.
Pick one, let's say {dunda}.
Then {dunda lo'e xrula} means {kairdunda tu'o ka ce'u xrula},
"giving flowers".
This will normally be true together with {dunda lo xrula}, but
not necessarily so. Logically they are different:
dunda lo'e xrula = kairdunda tu'o ka ce'u xrula
dunda lo xrula = da poi xrula zo'u kairdunda tu'o ka ce'u du da
And {dunda lo'e xrula} is orders of magnitude easier to
manipulate. For example {la djan dunda lo'e xrula ca ro nu
dy nelci lo ninmu}, "John gives flowers every time he likes
a woman". To say it with {lo} you have to change the order,
else he ends up giving always the same flowers. And it is
really pointless to have some flowers as part of the
relationship here, we are only interested in the predicate
"gives flowers", not in the fact that there are some flowers
that he gives. If we could use a brivla that means "x1 gives
flowers" wouldn't we prefer it, and forget about all the
quantifier issues?
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
I can't tell what difference you're trying to make.
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.
I would say that {citka lo'e remna} is {kaircitka tu'o ka
ce'u remna}, where {kaircitka} is parallel to {sisku}.
"eats things with property x2" without making a claim
that there is a given thing such that x1 eats it.
Would (II) not suffice as a definition of lo'ei?
I'm not sure what you mean by (II). How do you deal with another sumti in x3 for example. It is not the disposition of x1 in particular that is relevant. It is a relationship among several arguments, one of which is replaced by a property so that the original argument in that position enters only indirectly.
Yes. Wanting/needing/seeking objects is experientially more basic but logically less basic than wanting/needing/seeking events.
Even if it is logically less basic, the relationships are
just as valid, and {lo'e} is useful to deal with those
relationships.
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.
Or with my {lo'e} in the version with object x2.
> 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]
?
It doesn't. You need {buska lo'e ...} to get the first meaning.
-- 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]?
Neither of them means [buska x]. The Ex case is
{buska lo'e broda}. I hadn't thought before how to get
the Ax case. It seems difficult to get in terms of
buska.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp