WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless?? But, of course, we often want sumti in intensional contexts to refer to non-existents. So, even when {la meripapnz prenu} is false or even meaningless, {mi nitcu la meripapnz} may be true (well, at least {mi nitcu tu'a la meripapnz} is and your form is presented as meaning the same as that — or is unexplained). As for quantification, I am not suggesting that {lo broda} means the same as {su'o broda} — indeed I have suggested a range of differences — but only that the inference from {lo} to the fronted {su'o} is valid unless blocked, as it is not in the given cases.
G: Rabbit a is eating here and now, rabbit b is not here now and is not eating. But both rabbit a and rabbit b just ARE Mr. Rabbit, so Mr. Rabbit is both here now and not here now. Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences. If you want to change that now, then, of course, you have a metaphysically anomolous reading of the old {lo ractu} — "a part of Mr. Rabbit" rather than "a rabbit" (or "a natural chunk of rabbit goo" or "a manifestation of rabbithood" and so on) but the upshot will be the same in each of these cases, since each occurrence is of a different thing (chunk, part, manifestation, etc.). The talk of Mr.Rabbit then becomes merely useless fluff, since the same work can be done more economically by other means that fit in more naturally with the rest of the language. (The Trobrianders can get away with it since runs throughout their language, doing the work of quantification and abstraction which
appear in Lojban as separatesystems needed elsewhere.)
pc
Jorge LlambĂ­as <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:


> E: {lo nitcu la meripapnz} since Mary Poppins does not exist. {nitcu le
> xamoi archon} which archon also does not exist for all that it is specific
> in my need ("controls the sphere of Mars") Most anything else with
> references to nonexistents will do — unless we have made some unmentioned
> cirumvention.

F: But that is the same for the proposed {lo}. {mi nitcu lo kriptonite}
has the same kind of problem. That's different than the quantification
issues. When you can meaningfully say {la meripapnz cu prenu}, then you
can also say {mi nitcu la meripapnz}, when not, then not. Same for {le}
and same for {lo}.
G:
> F: Sorry, but Mr. Rabbit (i.e., rabbit b) is not eating grass here and now
> just as he is eating it here and now (as rabbit a).

John is raising his (right) hand here and now, just as he is not
raising his (left) hand here and now.

Rabbit a and rabbit b can't be on the exact same spot at the exact
same time, so Mr Rabbit is eating wherever rabbit a is and he is not
eating wherever rabbit b is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/