WikiDiscuss

1. To be sure, since your proposal was at least conservative enough to preserve the core cases of old {lo}. The differences would come only in the new uses, which I simply would not take to be cases of {lo} (I have fleshed out these suggestion a bit on a comment to the gadri page.)

2. What?

3: I blushingly confess that I have not studied the examples, but on a glance I saw at least one ("A young person respect an old person" or so) that I agree should be {lo} (given that {ei} generates an opaque context, or rather one tha delimits any quantification) but that others might want to put (with some justification) into the species class.

4: I think it did that in the note, something like "a (or several) thing(s) in the current domain that actually meet(s) the given property." which probably needs some tidying. I think your stuff about quantities can stand (thouggh, as I note, some of the more remote cases don't make sense).

5: Well, I still don't accept the analogy for the reasons rehearsed before, so this is not a convinving case. And it certainly does not override the problems with taking {lo} for Mr. Rabbit when his properties qua Mr. Rabbit are at issue.

6: Since I don't know what {me} is meaning this week, I can't be sure what to make of these sentences. Assuming that the wordlist is approximately right, then I think that saying John-now is specific to John will work only with the tag "in respect to time-stages" or some such. I suppose the corresponding case you want is {leva ractu me lo ractu} or so, which again may work with some tag. But that is not the case that is interesting (even if it does work with a nonvacuous respect (it looks a lot like "this rabbit is a rabbit" with some fluff thrown in). In any case, the identificatory predicates will not be same — only the {me} carries over, not the aspect.

7: Logic hjabits die hard, so I like the already permissible (I think) {la djan xi ca}. As I write this I notice that {xi} seems only defined for numerals and the like, so some tampering is required here as well (or with {la}, though that seems to me harder).

8: I would want to go back to the old system where {lo broda cu brode} does entail (indeed is equivalent to in this context?) {su'o mupli be le broda cu brode}. Of course, your replacing the proeprty in {mupli2} with a whatever pretty much prejudices the issue. But notice at what price simplification has been bought here: every place of every predicate has to be marked for whether {lo broda} in that place refers to some broda or to Mr. Broda. And yet there will be cases that are hard to pin down {lo broda cu zasti} is ambiguous; it doesn't make a difference since in your strange halfbreed Mr. Broda they are extensionally equivalent. And, of course, getting out of extensional case separates them: what am I thinking about when {mi pensi lo ractu} is true?
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o}
> 8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of
> times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque
> contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in
> the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a
> proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a
> different context.

1.That seems to result in something almost indistinguishable from my
proposal, leaving aside the meta-talk.

I removed the nitcu and djica examples from the page. Even though
I will keep using them in the sense "person x1 wants object x2" and
"person x1 needs object x2", the fact is that at least for djica
the gi'uste seems to restrict it to "perxon x1 wants event x2", so
I won't push an example that contradicts the gi'uste. (Also, Robin
wanted less examples from 2.L* P**** P****, so that's an additional
reason to remove them.)

3:Of the remaining examples in that page, would you say that any
of them conflicts with your understanding of the old {lo}?

4:How would you improve the wording of the definition of {lo}
to make it coherent?

> 13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same
> in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are
> used to make the resulting sentence true.

5:Right, just as in different contexts different John-stages are used
to make the resulting sentence true. (The John-stage that makes true
"John goes to the market on Saturday" is not the John-stage that makes
true "John stayed at home on Sunday".)

> There is no one rabbit that makes
> all true {lo ractu} sentences true.

No single instance of rabbits, right.

>lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is
> a John-stage.

Using {le ca me la djan} for now-John, and {le puza me la djan} for
a-while-ago-John, then I would say:

6:le ca me la djan cu me la djan
Now-John is John.

le puza me la djan cu me la djan
A-while-ago-John is John.

la djan cu me la djan
John is John.

So yes, the same identificatory predicate that is satisfied by the
stages is satisfied by the individual, and the same I would say
for kinds and instances.

7:(I would like to be able to talk of {la ca djan} and {la puza djan},
but the current grammar forbids it.)

8: That Mr. Rabbit is
> eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here.
> That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is
> correct?

Both are correct, because in general the truth of {lo broda cu brode}
does not hang on the truth of {su'o mupli be lo broda cu brode}. For
some predicates brode, it just happens that the second entails the first,
but that's due to the semantics of the predicate, not due to any logical
necessity.

Anyway, if you can check the list of examples and tell me which ones
look wrong to you (and how you would correct them) that would be
helpful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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