[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Thu, 29 May 2003, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > John:
> > > And Rosta scripsit:
> > >
> > > > But in brief, the "FOR" creates
> > > > a logical abstraction such that the quantifier on the x2 is
> > > > *within* the abstraction. (For example, "This is a knife for
> > > > cutting a coconut" should not entail "There is a coconut that
> > > > this a knife for cutting".)
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I believe this. Let's talk about breadknives rather
> > > than mythical coconut knives (you need something more like an ax than
> > > a knife!), and let's look at the contingent falsity of the negated
> > > version of the implicature rather than the necessary truth of a positive
> > > implicature. I take it that this procedure is licit; if not, let's
> > > discuss it
> > >
> > > I then rewrite your claim as saying: "This is a knife for cutting bread"
> > > is consistent with the falsity of "There is some bread that this is a
> > > knife for cutting". Now I admit that "There is some bread that this
> > > knife cuts" might be false, but if there is no bread whatsoever that
> > > this knife is suited to cut, then I deny that it is a breadknife. So as
> > > long as the "for" appears in both the original and the rewritten forms,
> > > I conclude there is no scoping problem
> >
> > Unless I am missing something, this is just a recapitulation of the
> > "I need a doctor" discussion
> >
> > Consider:
> >
> > This is a scheme for turning lead into gold
> > This is a knife for cutting the foreskins off snails
> > This is a spoon for ladling out any leftovers
> >
> > None of these entail that there is an event of lead turning into gold,
> > that there is a snail's foreskin, or that there are any leftovers
>
> In Lojban, events can "exist" without them ever having to have occurred
> (yet).
As discussed 6 months ago, I think this is an odious & egregious
inconsistency in Lojban. However, if I pretend you were talking
about du'u rather than nu, then we can let this issue go unrediscussed
for the time being.
> So it is definitely a leftover spoon if it's intended to be used in
> case there are any leftovers, regardless of there being any leftovers
> right now. However, in "need a doctor", the Doctor isn't wrapped in a NU
> clause, and worse yet, might be tagged with an o-gadri
Yeah, but x2 of knife/spoon/taxi isn't wrapped in a nu clause either.
That's really the essence of the problem.
Remembering back to 6 months ago, we found two solutions. One
('propositionalism') was to change the place structure so that x2
is an abstraction. The other was to introduce a new Kind gadri.
--And.