[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
The talk about domain of discourse is mainly bogus: what occurs in a
domain of discourse depends upon the discourse, not some inherent
factor in the thing. "I went to the store this morning. That was
once that my going to the store occurred this week. Yesterday there
were two trips to the store. so this week there have been at least
three."
What is different is how you look at the nodes in the lattice. As
nodes in the lattice, they are single things (the l-set version,
perhaps). In themselves, they are some number of things each. In a
lattice one node lies above or below another along a single path (or
maybe several, actually). In themselves, one node is among another.
The lattice is based on this latter relation, but the relations on the
lattice can be viewed in themselves, without reference to their source
(which is why the lattice can be interpreted in a variety of ways -- I
am using this one because it has been spelled out and the other
possibilities have not). If you want to call the lattice version
"subsumption," I don't mind much; but that doesn't mean that it is
really anything different from "among." It may be unfortunate that we
use the same expression in Lojban for both the lattice and the
internal view of the nodes, but in fact, they all amount to the same
thing. To say that my going to the store occurred five times this
week is just another way of saying five my goings to the store
occurred this week. It is useful to have two ways of saying this and,
in fact, the domain of discourse is different for the two (one of the
peculiarities discourse analysis revealed is that logically equivalent
expressions may generate different domains of discourse -- it is not
clear what the significance of this is). What is less clearly OK is
using the same predicates at different levels -- or tryng to use them
in the same way. I admit I would prefer that there be a separate term
for the nodal view -- if it is going to be used a lot. I don't really
see it being used a lot, so I don't much care then. I think we will
just use {lo broda} for any node on the broda lattice (when we don't
specify the node at all). And attribute all manner of things --
especially being a broda -- to it distributively.
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> On 10/6/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@...> wrote:
> > --- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Or would you agree that "my going to the market" can
> > > count as one event in some context (maybe it's my favourite
activity)
> > > and that in some other context there may be many different "my going
> > > to the market"'s (maybe a different one happened each day this
week),
> > > such that each counts as one event?
> >
> > The situation with events is less clear than flags, but there are some
> > reasons for going with the notion that both can be called by the same
> > name. Afain, I think the same distinctions as in the dog case are
> > probably useful.
>
> The situation with events is what started the lattice discussion, so
let's
> revisit it. I could say:
>
> (1) lo nu mi klama le zarci cu rapli li mu ca le cabjeftu
> My going to the market was repeated 5 times this week.
>
> or:
>
> (2) mu lo nu mi klama le zarci cu fasnu ca le cabdei
> Five of "my going to the marlet"'s happened this week.
>
> (1) and (2) describe basically the same situation, from two
> different perspectives. In (1) {lo nu mi klama le zarci} refers to
> a single thing, which was instantiated 5 times this week. In (2),
> {lo nu mi klama le zarci} refers to many things, five of which
> happened this week.
>
> The domain of discourse for (1) contains a single referent for
> {lo nu mi klama le zarci}. The domain of discourse for (2) contains
> many referents for {lo nu mi klama le zarci}.
>
> In (2), each of the referents of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} is among
> all the referent of {lo nu mi klama le zarci}. (In the previous
> sentence I used the "among" relationship but I have not mentioned
> the referent of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} that appears in (1).)
>
> If we leave the object language and compare the two discourses from
> a metalinguistic perspective, we can say that there is some relationship
> between the many referents of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} in (2) and the
> single referent of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} in (1). This metalinguistic
> relationship is not the "among" relationship which holds between one
> thing and many things. This metalinguistic relationship I would like to
> call "subsumption", but I welcome other suggestions if that's not a
> good label. Notice that it is differnet from the "among"
relationship" that
> I used above and which holds between each of the referents of {lo nu mi
> klama le zarci} in (2) and all the referents of {lo nu mi klama le
zarci}
> in (2), so I would prefer not to use the same label "among" for this
> different relationship.
>
> The metalinguistic event lattice I'm interested in is the one that can
> be built out of this new relationship, not one that could be built out
> of the "among" relationship.
>
> I maintain that for dogs (or for flags, or for any broda) the same
> type of metalinguistic lattice can be construed. This lattice is
> independent of the object language "among" relationship, which
> certainly has its place in dealing with plural predication, but which
> is not what I'm concerned with here.
>
> The metalinguistic lattice I'm talking about is not built out of a
> relationship that holds between objects in the same domain of
> discourse. It is built out of a relationship that relates objects from
> different domains of discourse.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>