[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/26/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@...> wrote:
> > My point is that there is nothing in the the model containing only
> > John and elephabts to keep {la djan djica lo pavyseljirna} (though
> > that is not the way I would write it in this case) from being a truth
> > *of the model*
>
> It can be a truth *compatible with* the model, if that's what you mean,
> but it can't be a truth *of* the model if {lo pavyseljirna} has no
referent
> in the domain of discourse of the model. We can easily add the referent
> of {lo pavyseljirna} to the domain, and the sentence {la djan djica
> lo pavyseljirna} to the theory of the model, thus expanding our model,
> and the new model would be consistent with the original one. But the
> new model is not a model containing only John and elephants in its
> domain of discourse, the new model contains unicorns too.
OK, do it that way. But then notice that we go back to the old model
almost immediately, retaining the new sentence as justified. Every
model contains inherently other models to which it makes passing
reference in the course of dealing weith its situation. The word
"want" (or {djica}) calls up such a subordinate model, a wantworld.
Tha lasts for a short time in the course of a conversation and then
folds back out of the original model, but it leaves the expression
ofthe wish behind as a truth of the original model (just as a reductio
proof leaves ~p brehind after closing off the model built on p).
> > > If there are no unicorns in the domain of discourse of the
model, then
> > > {no da pavyseljirna} could be a true sentence of the model, I
agree, but
> > > {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} I would take as uninterpretable in
the model.
> >
> > OK. What does that do to sentences that contain that expression?
>
> They are uninterpretable in that model. The usual move will be to change
> the model (incorporating unicorns to its domain of discourse) so
that the
> sentence becomes interpretable.
But that is unnecessary in this case, since the expression is in a
secondary occurrence.
> > In discourse analysis, "want" marks a relation
> > between a person and a world (or two -- we can argue that), which
> > world(s) are subordinate to the original world, i.e., what is in or
> > happens in the outer world affects the subordinate world but the
> > opposite is not the case -- beyond the holding or failing of the want
> > condition.
>
> That would seem to work as the analysis of "... wants that ...", as well
> as any other propositional attitude. In this case the model will have a
> domain of discourse which includes a person and a proposition.
Nu? I have been pointing this out for some time. Every want is
propositional or eventual or some such thing. At the very least, {lo
pavyseljirna} is ExUx (and -- as you have made clear -- it is probably
something more).
> > So, the world with only John and an elephant, "John wants
> > a unicorn" is true if, among the wishworlds (subordinate models)
> > generated by John are some that involve having a unicorn and
> > satisfaction (and maybe none that involve one but not the other).
>
> If you are happy interpreting that sentence as involving hidden
> propositions, that might work. I prefer an analysis that does not
> make use of hidden things. For me all that the interpretation of
> {la djan djica lo pavyseljirna} requires is a domain of discourse
> with (at least) two members, John and unicorns. The sentence
> can then be added as a true sentence of the model. It does not
> entail that {lo pavyseljirna cu zasti} must also be a true sentence
> of the model, but then why should it? I do not accept that
> {ro da zasti} has to be a true sentence of every model.
We largely agree, except that I hold (with most other folk who do this
sort of thing) that {la djan djica lo pavyseljirna} can be true in a
model that has no unicorns in it, just John even. I am not a pro
enough to lay out all the arguments for this nor, indeed, to explain
all the details of how and why it works (even one version of it, let
alone the several that come to the same point along different paths),
I merely note the consensus -- which, I admit, agrees with my
intuitions and so ranks ahead of possible other approaches that have
different results. But, on the other hand, I don't know of any
professional approach that goes your way (of course, I stopped looking
when I found one I liked). The main line among the people I like has
been that doing it your way 1) ignored linguistic data -- like the
scope problems and 2) was clearly influenced by a surface sructure
which clearly had a more complex deep structure (from that data
again). As I have pointed out many times, I agree with that
assessment and, thus, think your proposal is merely a lsst-ditch
effort to save what is simply malglico in the context of a logical
language.