[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
[This is a reply without any solutions.]
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > OK. And you're saying that two pictures of three snakes
> > > can be pictures of different things, but two branches that
> > > each looks like three snakes must look like the same thing?
> >
> >When you put it that way, it sounds wrong, doesn't it. "The branch
> >is shaped as if it were three snakes." How do we say that?
>
> Actually, I meant to conclude the opposite. The two branches
> do look like the same thing. They are similar to the extent
> that they both look like three snakes. In the same way, the
> two pictures are similar in that they are both pictures of
> three snakes, so they do depict "the same thing"
Idiomatically, they look like the same kind of thing, rather than
the same thing.
Since each branch looks like a snake (ignore the 'three' for a
bit), if they look like the same thing, then presumably they
look like the same snake. But it seems to me to be perfectly
normal to say "The two branches each look like a snake, but
not the same snake", "The two bracnhes look like different
snakes" (maybe one is short & fat & the other long & thin).
This branch looks like a long thin snake.
That branch looks like a short fat snake.
Both branches look like a snake.
> >I also wonder what "se ckaji LEka ce'u broda ci since" means,
> >given that "ko'a se ckaji LEka broda" normally means "ko'a
> >broda", but the ci broda is quantified in the subordinate bridi
>
> ("ckaji", not "se ckaji". It means "has property" despite its gloss.)
>
> I can't see the quantification being in the subordinate bridi
> making any difference here
Nor me.
> >Anyway, yes, two poems about three snakes can be poems about
> >different snakes
>
> I agree, if there are three snakes (real or imaginary) such that
> the poem is about them. But in the opaque sense, two poems about
> three snakes do have the same subject. If the teacher sets the
> assignment: "write a composition about three snakes", won't
> every composition have the same subject?
Yes, and at the very same time they may have different subjects,
depending on how abstractly/generally or specifically the subject
is defined. But they do each have the same prescribed-subject and not
different prescribed-subjects.
For any two books, at some level of sufficient generality they
have the same subject and at some level of sufficient specificity
they have different subjects.
I don't have a solution, but any solution must reflect that fact,
and also the fact that I can say:
Each of my books will be about the same battle.
Each of my books will be about a different battle.
(without knowing which battles). So I conclude that
Each of my books will be about a battle.
is as ambiguous as a nonintensional example like "Each boy will
kiss a girl".
> >(I want to avoid talk about pictures because
> >of their ambiguity.) But to say that two branches that each
> >look look three snakes must look like the same thing is
> >somehow wrong. They each have the same property, but "looking
> >like the same thing" fails to capture that -- it is too strong
>
> I agree it is too strong because "the same thing" tends to suggest
> a transparent reading, which is the wrong reading
>
> > > But don't we want every picture of a snake (opaque sense)
> > > to have the same subject matter?
> >
> >Only in the sense that if we each eat fish and chips then we
> >have had the same meal
>
> Right. We both ate Mr Fish-and-Chips
>
> >To be specific, I think the story about subject-matter is okay
(You have now dissuaded me from that opinion....)
> >But I still am not happy with the way of doing "banana-shaped",
> >"shape of three snakes", "taste of a ripe fig", "smell like a
> >couple of Turkish wrestlers". It's not good enough to just
> >define a cmavo and say "Lo! This meaning is to be expressed
> >by this cmavo". I/we need to actually understand the underlying
> >logic. Surely there is an answer that, once found, will seem
> >obvious
>
> Did you abandon Unique for this just because we can't very well
> do "three snakes" as Unique? I don't have a problem with
> {<Unique> since cimei} other than it is a bit clumsy in form,
> but the meaning I think is correct
No, not because of "three snakes". I don't have a problem with
a Unique threesome of snakes.
I have abandoned Unique for this because currently Unique seems
like a way of approximating the meaning, rather than really
getting to the heart of it. It's undeniable that English can
also say "It is shaped as if it were a snake", and although
I haven't sat down and worked out exactly how to lojban that,
it is obvious that it involves an abstraction and not a Unique.
> > > {kairterpa}'s x2 can be any property. I'm not sure I can
> > > clearly see the difference between {le ka ce'u du la superman}
> > > and {le ka ro me la superman cu me ce'u}, but if there is a
> > > difference then one can fear things with one of the properties
> > > or with the other. Both can be used with {kairterpa}. We could
> > > also use {le ka ce'u prenrsupermanu}
> >
> >The idea is that -fears would bind ce'u in {LEka me ce'u} with
> >a value along the lines of "is to be feared". -reveres would
> >bind with a value like "is to be revered"
>
> That's the same for {kairterpa}. The x2 is the property such
> that things having that property cause fear in x1 by virtue
> of having that property
But for -fears, the x2 is a belief, such that having the belief
causes fear in x1.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're not the
same.
One virtue of -fears, though, is that it does transparent and
opaque equally well -- using the method we use with jinvi.
> >In underlying logic
> >this would translate as:
> >
> > is-to-be-feared cei broda zo'u -fears LEdu'u ro me LA
> > superman broda
> >
> >So I think it's fundamentally different from kairterpa
>
> I'm not sure I follow that
We don't know exactly what properties Lex Luther believes
Superman has, such that the belief causes Lex to fear Superman.
But extensionally they amount to "to be feared". So to get
the extensional reading, the selbri is moved outside the
belief bridi.
If we didn't bother about the intensional/extensional
distinction on selbri, then we can simplify to:
-fears LEdu'u ro me LA superman -is-to-be-feared
-- -fears is a kind of 'fearful believing', a believing that
causes the believer to feel afraid.
Is it still unclear?
--And.