[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > 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
>
> I think "the same snake" is not generic enough. They both look
> like Mr Snake, but maybe as seen from different angles
>
> >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
>
> Right. They both look like Mr Snake, one looks like Mr Long
> Thin Snake, and the other like Mr Short Fat Snake, both being
> avatars of Mr Snake
I think the solution we need involves the notion of 'kind' that
Nick introduced into discussion and which was not taken up at
the time.
I may write about this at greater length if necessary, but
essentially the idea is that all kinds exist, every kind is
a single individual, and kinds form a taxonomic tree related
by the 'is a kind of' relation.
Then, the idea that I had been groping for is that "Both
branches look like a snake" can mean "For each branch there
is a kind of snake such that it (branch) looks like it (snake)".
In English, "an X" can mean "a kind of X", as in "a fine
wine".
In Lojban, then, we need a way to say both "Mr Snake" and
"a kind of snake" (i.e. "a kind of Mr Snake"). As for ways to
do this, I'll leave it to another message.
> > > 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
>
> That sounds right. Two books about Nick both share the same
> subject generally, but each can be about different aspects of
> Nick so they have different subjects at another level. Same
> thing with snakes. One book can be about snakes in general,
> about a particular kind of snakes, about three snakes
>
> >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"
>
> Yes, saying that each book is about Mr Battle does not say
> whether they will be about the same or diffrent avatars of
> Mr Battle. I think we must appeal to {mintu nunda'a} and
> {frica nunda'a} to disambiguate (or expand the tanru and
> complete the x2 of mintu and frica, which is a pain but
> doable)
I, otoh, would use Lojban counterparts of:
For each of my books there is a kind of battle it will be about.
There is a kind of battle that each of my books will be about.
> >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
>
> Maybe something like:
>
> ta se tarmi da poi ke'a tarmi ta romu'ei le du'u ta since
> It has the shape that it would have if it were a snake
>
> though {ro} there might be too much
Yes. Ideally we could, as English does, find a way to avoid
repeating the "tarmi".
> [...]
> >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?
>
> I'm not convinced that fearing Superman is equivalent to
> fearing that Superman is to be feared. If Superman is my
> friend, I might not fear him but fear that he is fearsome
> to others (and so they may try to hurt him)
You're not interpreting me quite right. I'm saying that
fearing Superman is equivalent to, for some property tantamount
to fearsomeness (e.g. being dangerous, or ghastly), experiencing
fear as a result of believing that Superman has that property.
On a different point, the taxonomy of kinds provides a
different solution to these problems, since the kind Superman
Proper and the kind Clark Kent Proper are both kinds of
the kind Clark Superman Kent. That is, at the more general
taxonomic level they are the same kind, but at the more
specific taxonomic level they are different kinds. Lex
Luther fears (in the ordinary sense, not the special '-fears'
that I defined) Superman Proper.
--And.