[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >GADROWS
> >Ignoring collectives and Prototype, for the purposes of this
> >message, we can distinguish the following gadrows:
> >
> >1a
> >a countable (broda-shaped) amount of broda
> >a countable (broda-shaped) fraction of the jbomass of all broda
> >
> >1b
> >an uncountable amount of broda
> >an uncountable fraction of the jbomass of all broda
> >
> >1c
> >the countable (broda-shaped) jbomass of all broda
> >a countable (broda-shaped) 100%-fraction of the jbomass of all broda
> >
> >1d
> >the uncountable jbomass of all broda
> >an uncountable 100%-fraction of the jbomass of all broda
> >
> >1a is the meaning expressed by lo/le/la in Standard Lojban
> >1b is the meaning expressed by pisu'oloi in SL
> >1c is one of the meanings Unique was meant to capture
> >1d is the meaning expressed by (tu'o)lo(tu'o) in Excellent
> > Solution. According to some it is expressed by SL loi/lei/lai
>
> Why do you write "a 100%-fraction" rather than "the 100%-fraction"?
> It seems to me that 1c and 1d are singular terms, but the wording
> of the second gloss in each case tends to hide that.
You're right. (I was expressing myself englishly, thinking of the
value of broda as varying, so there being many 100% fractions,
one per value of broda.) Change to "the".
> Also, wouldn't
> 1d be {piroloi} in SL, in order to contrast with 1b, if we're
> ignoring collectives?
Agh, my head hurts. Ah, I remember. No, I don't think it would be
piroloi, because "I drank wine" can be seen as referring to the
totality of wine, but it doesn't mean "I drank all wine" in the
sense that is opposed to "I drank some wine".
Returning to an earlier discussion of ours, is there a distinction
between "I touched Nick" and "I touched the whole of Nick"? I'm
not sure, because you have shown me that the 'opposite' of
"I touched (some) part of Nick, I touched some of Nick" is "I
touched every bit of Nick". If it is generally the case that {piroX}
= {X}, then yes, 1d would be {piroloi}, assuming of course that SL
accepts that {piro X} = {X} and not "every portion of X". I think
I am persuaded by you that piroX=X, though I am still not persuaded
that piQ is not mabla.
> >GADCOLUMNS
> >Using 'referent' loosely,
> >
> >{lO broda} is nonspecific and claims the referent is in lo'i
> >broda
> >{lE broda} is specific and presupposes that the referent is in
> >lo'i broda
> >{lE du ku noi broda} is specific and claims the referent is in
> >lo'i broda
> >
> [...]
> >There is a gap here for a gadcolumn for "is nonspecific and
> >presupposes that the referent is in lo'i broda"
>
> Wouldn't that be {lO du ku voi broda}?
According to my description and definition of the gap in the
paradigm, yes. I think what I was trying to do was argue that
Intensionals 'fit' into the paradigm because they are nonspecific
and nonveridical, even though not everything nonspecific and
nonveridical. Perhaps I was equivocating on the meaning of
'nonspecific' -- I don't know. Anyway, I think my argument
was feeble, and I was bothered by my inability to get a clear
sense of what intensionals would really be or how they could
be expressed in logic. (I should return to textbook treatments
of intensional logic, because my problem is that by treating
things as functions they ignore the dogginess of dogs and
of intensional dogs; that is, I don't think they model folk
logic, and I find only folk logic satisfying, since I am
trying to understand the way we actually think.)
> >I think
> >we can see this gap as filled by an Intensional series
> >At the moment I cannot define or satisfactorily elucidate
> >or grock the underlying logic of 'Intensional', but it
> >is nonspecific and is imaginary. Xorxes and Adam have
> >advocated intensional gadri, so at least some of us grock
> >the basic idea to some degree
>
> Maybe
>
> >Now hitherto there had been an identification between Unique
> >in the sense of 1c above and Intensional. But I think
> >Intensional is a gadcolumn in its own right. The reason
> >for this is that all the gadrow distinctions that apply
> >to the other gadcolumns also apply to Intensional
> >
> >In all these examples the thing looked for is intensional,
> >but the difference parallel the gadrows:
>
> Very persuasive examples. Some of them might be kludged with
> {lo'ei}:
>
> >He's looking for a mermaid
>
> ko'a buska lo'ei fipni'u
>
> >He's looking for every Danish mermaid
>
> ko'a buska lo'ei danko fipni'u romei
I thought it was "danmo". Would it work if you added "so
he can photograph her"? I think not.
> >He's looking for a few mermaids who love each other
>
> ko'a buska lo'ei fipni'u so'umei poi simxu le ka prami
>
> >He's looking for a few mermaids who each have a tail
>
> ko'a buska lo'ei so'umei be lo'i fipni'u poi se rebla
>
> >For each of three mermaids who love each other he will write
> >a poem about her. = He will write a poem about three mermaids
> >who love each other, one poem per mermaid
>
> Even the transparent reading is hard to do for this mix of
> collective and distributive: "There are three mermaids who
> love each other, and such that he will write a poem about
> each of them." How do we say that? Something like:
>
> da poi cimei ku'o ci de poi fipni'u gi'e cmima da zo'u
> ge ko'a ba te pemci de gi da simxu le ka prami
>
> So it doesn't look like something easily handled by gadri
> in any case
Indeed not. Feel free to substitute a simpler example, but the
main point was to get "a poem" within the scope of "three".
And to show that putative intensionals are as complex as
nonintensionals.
> >He's looking for the mermaid who is the loveliest
>
> ko'a buska lo'e traji be le ka melbi bei lo'i fipni'u
I'm not sure which lo'e this is! I don't think it is
"the countable (broda-shaped) jbomass of the loveliest
mermaid", because that has existential import, pe'i.
> >He's looking for the first king of Ruritania
>
> ko'a buska lo'e pamoi be lo'i nolraitru be la ruritanias
Same comment re {lo'e}.
> >He's looking for xodium. [xodium = an undiscovered chemical element]
>
> ko'a buska lo'e marjrxodiumi
>
> >He's looking for some xodium
>
> ko'a buska lo'e marjrxodiumi za'usi'e
> =ko'a buska lo'e za'usi'e be (tu'o)lo(tu'o)marjrxodiumi
>
> (Similarly we could distinguish "looking for a memaid" from
> "looking for mermaids" with {lo'e fipni'u su'omei}.)
Did you intend all these {lo'e} to be {lo'ei}.
Personally, I am happier using propositionalist periphrasis
(described in a forthcoming message-in-progress) until I am
satisfied that I grock Intensionals.
--And.