WikiDiscuss

H: xorxes said <<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}.>> It is unclear what this means if not what I tooik it to mean. We do agree, however, that the problems are exactly the same with {la} and {lo} and {le}, which is an improvement on the previous discussion.

I: But the inference from a particular object to the generalization "some object of that sort" holds generally. Thus I take it that you are now saying that {lo broda} refers not to an object but to a kind. I don't think that that position is sustainable without revising the semantics of every word in Lojban — including names and {le} descriptions. And, of course, what I need is not a kiind of thing but a thing of that kind, so the changes merely makes the claim false and leaves us with the problems of saying what we want all over again.

J: Kinds aren't anywhere, manifestations of kinds can each be in only one place at a given time. The two things — kinds and their manifestations — are not to be confused, as they seem to have been here. If predicates are to take kinds as objects then their semantics needs to be revised. But that revision will make them inapplicable to ordinary things, so either we have to double the vocabulary or make all names and {le} etc. sumti about kinds as well. Just learning to use Lojban as written seems a much easier and more natural approach.

K: Well, time does affect individuals differently from space, at least as far as language usually goes — we tend to say that the individual is the same whole over time, but has spatial parts. It is rather hard to build spatial analogs of the time situation for ordinary objects, but temporal analogs for spatial ones are relatively easy: the tomorrow slice of John is here, the today one is not, fits perfectly with John's left hand is raised but his right hand is not. So also, Mr. Rabbit's a manifestation is eating, his b is not. But — unlike the case of John — the references here to Mr.Rabbit play no significant role; the work is all done by the manifestations. It is they that fit in with the rest of the Lojban metaphysics of objects and properties, not of kinds and manifestations (though, of course, we can replicate the results — with a little strain — in that language).
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

---

> F: So sumti only apply to existing objects. When the referent does not
> exist, the bridi containing it is meaningless??

H:Of course not, that's not what I said. I said that lo, le and la
behave in the same way vis-a-vis fiction/non-existence. lo is
not special in this regard.

> 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.

I:The inference from "I need a box" to "there is some kind of thing
such that I need it" is valid. The inference to "there is some
instance of box such that I need it" is not. It is not in general
valid to infer from the kind to the instances.

> 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.

J:Mr. Rabbit is both here and other-than-here. Kinds can be in more
than one place at the same time. That's not contradictory.

> Note, {lo ractu} refers to Mr. Rabbit, not
> to some part of Mr. Rabbit; it has the same referent in all occurrences.

K:Right. The same happens with {la djan}. It has the same referent
when I say he is here today and he was not here yesterday. Space
acts for kinds in a similar way to the way time acts for ordinary
individuals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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