[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@...> wrote:
> > As for what a
> > sentence means that has a non-referring referring expression in it
> > means, you can handle it either way for simple sentences (Fa): they
> > are either false or meaningless (they are false on the standard
> > definitions -- except that the definitions are not quite standard) or
> > they are meaningless. In the latter case you then have all sorts of
> > options about very complex znd compound sentences. In the former
> > there are no problems (which is why I tend to stick with it).
>
> OK, to each his own, I guess. No sense arguing about preferences.
Well, each of these choices has some consequences,so, if you know how
you want things to work out, your choices are correspondingly
restricted. I am not quite sure how you want things to work out, so I
don't know what choices you would make. I foegot to mention the
approach whereby every description apparently based in an empty set
refers to the null entity. That opens up another set of
possibiliities: does the null entity have any properties, is it in the
range of variables, and so on. Again, different choices have
different upshots.
> > Of course, generally virtually all words are referring expressions,
> > you mean only those that refer to individuals, like sumti, not to
> > classes (or properties), like brivla.
>
> I do mean just sumti, yes. But then I also think we use sumti to refer
> to classes and properties: {lo klesi}, {lo se ckaji}, {lo ka ce'u
broda},
> etc.
But then classes, etc. are being taken as objects to fuirthr
properties, not properties t previous objects.
> > But notice that your claim that
> > every referring expression has a referent means that every predicate
> > has a non-null extension{da broda} is eqivalent to {da me lo broda)
> > and {da du lo broda}.
>
> Not every predicate need have a non-null extension in a given model.
> If {da broda} is in the model, then {broda} does have a non-null
> extension in the model, but if {da broda} is not in the model, then
> {broda} does not have a non-null extension there.
>
> > So, in the end you mean all content words refer
> > if they get used at all.
>
> I would say all content words have a potential to refer. The model
> under construction could always be expanded so that they refer. But we
> can always reject the proposed expansion too, that's the function (or
> one of the functions) of {na'i}.
>
>
> > I don't remember anything about types for several rounds nor about
> > generics at all, I certainly haven't seen any need for them and you
> > have neither shown a need for them nor shown how they would help (nor,
> > of course, what the Hell they are).
>
> Do you remember the subsumption tree you introduced for events?
> If you can generalize that idea to other objects besides events, I think
> you can get the gist of what I mean.
Well, I apologize for calling them trees when they are strictly
lattices -- each node my be under more than one other node where these
higher nodes are not placed relative to one another(we might say they
are all on the same level, but the notion of level doesn't make sense
in potentially infinite arrays (though I think all these matrices have
both a highest and a large number of lowest members)).
That said, I don't see how this fits into the present problem exactly.
I suppose you mean that {lo broda}in the "want" context stands for
some node or the nodes in some segment of some such lattice (the broda
one? the thing one? the Being one?)and that what we want is one of
these nodes (or, probably, the realization of one of these nodes,
since we usually really want (to have) brodas, not abstract nodes). I
suppose that this can be fleshed in such a way as to do the trick, but
I don't see the need for all the apparatus. Surely it is enough to
use the (already needed) sense of (the event of having)a unicorn. But
whatever it is we mean here, my point remains that we ought to say
what we are using to block misunderstanding. To be sure, if saying it
gets too complex, we might drop that suggestion, but it seems we can
find something short enough to be practicable. We would also like to
leave enough of the old English appearance to show just how we have
avoided the proble. In short, using {tu'a lo broda} for the narrow
scope version and {lo broda} for the broad scope version seems a very
efficient way to deal with the issue. We can worry about just what
{tu'a} means later (and, indeed, we already have a good deal of
latitude on that).