[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
So sisku is the kind of predicate that causes us problem: it's intensional, but its x2 is supposed to be an entity, not a predication. So where's the prenex go?
http://www.tulane.edu/~forbes/pdf_files/ITV_Lims.pdf is a paper on such predicates in English, that I found when I googled for listings of intensional predicates.
The author wants to put prenexes anywhere the hell he pleases, including mid-sentence. He says even old man Montague ended up doing so. The Lojban grammar is fixed, though, so we can't do that.
So he's considering the alternative --- that underlyingly such preds do have clausal complements after all. Just as we have done for sisku. He terms this propositionalism, and dates it from Quine. He thinks propositionalism is crap.
He has a list of intensional transitives that maybe surprising; they surprised me:
prefer, require, has an urge for, longs for look for, seek, hunt, rummage about forsketch, caricature, picture, write about, imagine (because you can describe imaginary things)
hate, admire, idolize, worship (this one, I admit, I don't get)He accepts that "want X" is propositionalistic, in that it can be paraphrased as "want to have X", and that's why "Walter wants a bigger boat tomorrow" is ambiguous: {ca le bavlamdei} can attach to the inner clause or the outer:
la .ualter djica lenu su'o da poi bramau bloti zo'u: .ubu ponse da ca le bavlamdei
la .ualter djica ledu'u su'o da poi bramau bloti zo'u: .ubu ponse da kei ca le bavlamdei
He contends that seeking, depiction and evaluation are not discernably propositional in English.
His evidence is syntactic. I don't give a turd about syntax, as you know. In fact, his evidence seems singularly underwhelming to me applied to Lojban. And even inside English. e.g. he thinks it's odd to say "Walter is seeking a camera by noon", meaning that when he wants it by as opposed to that's when he's starting the search by (so you can't attach a separate time to the outer bridi and the inner bridi, "seek *to find a camera by noon*". Eh, bullshit; that makes perfect sense to me.
The imagining verbs are harder to me to work out, and I agree that even if "I imagine X" is "I imagine X to exist, "I write about X" isn't necessarily "I write about X existing". He then dismisses the prospect of imagining {lenu xy co'e}, though I think he's over-hasty.
With evaluation, propositionalists usually claim they're extensional, not intensional, rather than that they're propositional. The author claims they're intensional, and not propositional. He claims 'fear' must be intensional, since fearing Clark Kent and fearing Superman are distinct states; he dismisses as unmotivated the counterargument that there is a propositional claim here as well, "Lex Luthor believes that he fears Superman"; but I don't see why it's unmotivated, since we're relying on what Lex knows about the world (and has lack of awareness of Supe's identity) anyway. The example that, if Allah = Jehovah, and a Muslim never goes into a synagogue, then there's no extension and no proposition, is even more bogus: If Allah = Jehovah, then the Muslim *is* worshipping Jehovah; she just doesn't realise it --- and realising it is itself a proposition that's part of the story.
And in particular, and others as fancy strikes, what do you make of it? And can Lojban cope with all four classes of preds talking ce'u?
--Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian, Uni. Melb. nickn@hidden.email
http://www.opoudjis.net "Must I, then, be the only one to be beheaded now?" "Why, did you wanteverybody to be beheaded for your consolation?" Epictetus, Discourses 1.1.